Loading...
2019-05-07 Council MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 7, 2019 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, and Petschel were also present. Councilor Miller was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling items g.) Approve Resolution 2019-34 Approving Cooperative Agreement for Valley Park Pollinator Corridor Project, h.) Approve Saint Paul Regional Water Invoice for Watermain Offset on Dodd Road, and j.) Approval of Claims List. a. Approve the April 16, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the March 26, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes c. Acknowledge the April 15, 2019 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes d. Acknowledge the March 12, 2019 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes e. Approve Resolution 2019-32 Updating 2019 City Depositories of Funds f. Approve Resolution 2019-33 Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the 2019 Cleaning & Televising Project g. Approve Resolution 2019-34 Approving Cooperative Agreement for the Valley Corridor Project h. Approve the Saint Paul Regional Water Invoice for Watermain Offset on Dodd Road i. Authorize City Hall to be Closed for Business on Friday, July 5, 2019 Sanitary Sewer Park Pollinator j. Approval of Claims List Mayor Garlock seconded the motion Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2019-34 APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE VALLEY PARK POLLINATOR CORRIDOR PROJECT Councilor Duggan questioned the payment for the Valley Park pollinator planting project. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that this would be an annual payment for three years, totaling approximately $1,150 per year. The 10 -year maintenance period, after completion, would be paid for by the city, and is estimated to be $1,000 - $2,000 per year; the maintenance should be minimal unless they have to replace a number of plants due to wildlife damage. Councilor Duggan asked if this would be completed in other areas of the city. Mr. Ruzek replied that this was completed at Rogers Lake a couple of years ago and Copperfield Pond is proposed for this year. Councilor Duggan moved adoption of RESOLUTION 2019-34 APPROVE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH GREAT RIVER GREENING AND XCEL ENERGY FOR THE VALLEY PARK POLLINATOR CORRIDOR PROJECT. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) H) APPROVE THE SAINT PAUL REGIONAL WATER INVOICE FOR WATERMAIN OFFSET ON DODD ROAD Councilor Petschel explained that the city had a Memo of Understanding with St. Paul Regional Water in December 2018 that the city would not receive a bill in regards to the watermain offset on Dodd Road. Public Works Director Ruzek noted that there were a couple of representatives from St. Paul Regional Water in attendance to discuss the project. This was in relation to storm sewer improvements that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) was completing. St. Paul Water, as they were doing the work, decided that this was considered an offset due to the street project and was not considered a main replacement. Councilor Petschel asked when the city was made aware of this. Mr. Ruzek replied that the city received a bill at the end of February 2019. Councilor Petschel asked if the city had any recourse. Mr. Ruzek replied that, according to the agreement, the city would be responsible for these charges. However, it does not outline the process of how the City and St. Paul Water should be working together when these types of improvements are identified. Mr. Graeme Chaple, Damage Prevention Supervisor and Mr. Richard Roland, Assistant Division Manager for the Distribution Division from St. Paul Water came forward. Mr. Chaple stated that there were four May 7, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 12 offsets identified on the Dodd Road project; two at Emerson Avenue and two at Coleshire Lane. They had a number of watermain breaks at the Coleshire Lane intersection and it was decided that they would replace the watermain at St. Paul Water's expense because it would be an improvement to their system. At Emerson Avenue, the work was completed for offsetting around the large storm structures. That had been planned to be billable back to the City of Mendota Heights. Mr. Chaple stated he failed in his communications with Mr. Ruzek to make it clear that the Coleshire mains were completed separate from the Emerson mains. The Coleshire mains did not get billed to Mendota Heights. Councilor Duggan stated that he remembered the December memo and feels the city should not be paying for the Emerson watermain. He suggested that the city pay the portion of the bill they are comfortable with, and hold payment on the part that has been addressed until it can be discussed further with St. Paul Regional Water. Councilor Petschel stated that this is a large expense that has not been budgeted for. She said that the city discuss with St. Paul Regional Water Services how to prevent this in the future. She suggested that MnDOT should be part of the discussion. Mr. Ruzek explained why he did not think that MnDOT would be part of that discussion. He also suggested that the city look at having a representative serve on the St. Paul Water Board. Mr. Roland pointed out that the bill presented was significantly lower than the original bill because St. Paul Regional Water did an internal audit and discovered certain charges that should not have been passed along. If the city would like a second review, that certainly would be acceptable. Councilor Duggan moved that payment is withheld until the City staff can discuss this with St. Paul Regional Water. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) J) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST Councilor Duggan questioned the payment for a Parks mower at $16,800 and asked if that was a new mower or repairs for a current mower. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the city had a smaller zero -turn mower that was originally planned to be replaced last year but it was moved to 2019. Councilor Duggan asked if the payment to US Bank was higher than usual. Finance Director Schabacker explained that this payment is for charges employees have made using the city's credit card, so the amount varies from month-to-month. She explained that it depends what the need is in a particular month. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the Claims List. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) May 7, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 12 PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments were heard. PUBLIC HEARINGS No items were scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) ORDINANCE NO. 538 TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF -STORAGE USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE I -INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-01) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a continuation of consideration of a zoning code amendment from Metro Storage. They were asking for approval to amend City Code Title 12-1G-1 to allow "Personal Self -Storage Facility" as a conditional use in the I -Industrial District. Metro Storage desires to build an 80,000 square foot facility in the Industrial Park. Currently, the code does not allow for any self -storage facilities anywhere in the city. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed Ordinance No. 538 by a vote of 6-1. The City Council tabled this item at their March 19, 2019 meeting and conducted a site visit of similar facilities on April 23, 2019. Councilor Duggan suggested the following edits: • Section l: Title 12-1G-2: Conditional Uses is hereby amended as follows: "Personal self -storage facility", provided that:... should be changed to "Personal property storage facility" • Item D: 300 feet between the facility and any residential use and/or zone is too low • Item E: Add "and must be kept clear" to the end of that item • Item H: Common parking spaces — he questioned how many would be handicap accessible and if some should be larger in size to accommodate the moving in and out of personal property Councilor Paper asked how they would prevent someone from living in a storage room. Mr. Benetti replied that they have on-site management policing the site, along with cameras. Councilor Paper asked how far away the Industrial District is from the nearest residential zone. Mr. Benetti replied that the nearest residential development would be Lemay Shores. After discussion, it was suggested that the number of feet from a residential use be increased to 1,000 feet. Councilor Petschel explained that when the Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed uses in the Industrial Park, there was a thought that possibly the city's permitted and non -permitted uses were not up-to-date with recent technology. There was an idea that the list had been in existence for a long time and needed to be refreshed. At that time, there was no discussion about storage facilities because it was thought to be a "no-brainer" because it did not fit with the long term comprehensive plan or with the architecture in the park, which has the feel of a campus. May 7, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 12 Councilor Duggan stated that when the city agreed to Bituminous Roadways locating in the Industrial Park, they specifically excluded the manufacturing of asphalt. Mayor Garlock noted that he went on the tour of similar facilities. There were two sizes of units available. He stated that the facility had multiple surveillance cameras on each floor. The water suppression is open but zone activated. He pointed out that the place was in immaculate condition. Councilor Petschel asked if this facility was still proposed to be three stories in height. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Under the Industrial District, a building can be up to 45 feet in height. Councilor Duggan noted that he drove by a self -storage facility and noticed a number of bright lights that were not shielded. He suggested that any lights installed should be shielded. He also suggested that there should be an appropriate amount of landscaping for screening. Councilor Petschel stated that this discussion is about changing the approved uses in the Industrial park. She helped draft the current uses and everything was done for a reason. She has not heard anything that could make this a palatable plan and does not think this is the kind of building that should be approved for the business or industrial park. She believes that three stories is too high, and particularly with something that architecturally has little to commend it. Residents can go five minutes in any direction from the city to find personal storage. She said that this is not something the residents want. Mr. Dave Carland, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC, introduced his team members who were with him. He pointed out that approximately 1 in 10 households use self -storage. This facility would have an extremely low demand for city services, generate very low traffic, and generate property taxes estimated to be in the range of $22,000 to $26,000. Metro Storage understands that the building would need to be suitable and gateway quality. He pointed out that there are a lot of uses already in the Industrial Park that do not add a large number of jobs. He noted recommendations from the 2016 Industrial District Study which included exploring potential revisions or additions to the uses allowed in the Industrial Park, staying current on changes in the requirements of industrial and office uses by adjusting the city's policies and regulations as needed to respond to new developments, and to continue to work cooperatively with Industrial Park owners, managers, and tenants to keep the park successful. Mr. Carland stated that just about every suburban city now has self -storage units as a conditional or permitted use within their industrial or business parks. He mentioned the amendment proposed by Planning Commissioner Mazzitello requiring self -storage units to be placed adjacent to a state highway or within 1,500 feet of an interstate, essentially making this the only site within the Industrial District that would suffice. In terms of a proliferation of these buildings, they are market driven and Mendota Heights could probably only support two of these facilities. Councilor Duggan suggested that with the influx of traffic from the Vikings Stadium, the city needs to pay attention to the traffic impact. Councilor Paper noted that Costco will be locating just east of this location. He asked what kind of economic development that might spur in this area. Mr. Carland replied that in terms of numbers, Costco May 7, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 12 stores do not really spin off a lot of economic benefit for other retailers. Councilor Paper questioned if another use might be better suited in this location to attract those customers. Mr. Ted Carlson, with Carlson Partners, representing the property owner, stated that this proposed lot was originally designed to provide expansion room for General Pump. Approximately three years ago they began to look for a developer for this site. As they fielded calls for the property, they thought that self -storage would be a great fit because the types of buildings they construct are known for their high quality. Also, Metro Sales has a sterling reputation and this use would generate significantly more value for the city. Councilor Duggan asked if the owners would have an issue with the proposed 1,000 foot separation from a residentially zoned property. Mr. Carlson could not provide an unequivocal answer because he could not measure the distance; however, from his expertise and considering what is already in the area, he could not image that 1,000 feet would be a problem. Councilor Duggan noted that shielded security lighting should be required, along with recreational vehicles to be included in the list of prohibited outdoor storage items. Councilor Paper asked if smaller motorized vehicles, like snowmobiles, would be allowed to be stored in the units. Mr. Heilman replied that since this would be an interior only facility, it would be unlikely. Maybe an ATV or motorcycle possibly, but no larger vehicles with the way the facility is designed. Councilor Paper asked how they would regulate people from living in a storage unit. Mr. Carland replied that they train their managers and the site is monitored. They know who visits the facility. The number of daily trips would be low. He explained that two trips equal one visit from a customer. Councilor Duggan asked if there would be adequate access by emergency vehicles. Mr. Carland replied that they have not gotten to the design features yet; however, without any exterior doors to access the building they most likely would not have exterior fencing to secure the lot. All multi -story buildings of this type must have 100% fire suppressant capabilities. Councilor Paper asked if there was a way to know the distance to the nearest residential zone. Using Dakota County's GIS map, Mr. Ruzek showed that the Dakota County CDA property and the Lemay Shores property were approximately 1,800 feet away. The Bourne Lane property was approximately 1,440 feet away. Councilor Petschel reiterated her opposition to this use in the Industrial Park. She urged the Council to consider, if they allow this building to be built, how they are going to compel what the exterior and the landscaping would look like. She asked for the City Attorney's opinion on how to compel landscaping and an acceptable building. City Attorney Andrew Pratt replied that a CUP approval process allows for this. He believed it was to the Council's benefit to have a little bit of flexibility in what they want to see with CUP use. It is always a risk to amend the zoning code to allow something as a permitted use because they would have lost control of it. Councilor Petschel asked if this should be handled through a draft ordinance or through a Conditional Use. Mr. Pratt replied that there was only one city [Cottage Grove] that had conditions in the actual May 7, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 12 ordinance. Every other city has a CUP mechanism but they do not list specific conditions like this in the ordinance. The city would still have the flexibility later on to impose conditions on each individual project. The benefit of having this in the code is that the applicants would know what is expected of them. Mr. Benetti noted that the Industrial District category currently has standards for building elements and architectural elements. Under the Conditional Use Permit process, the city could ask for more as part of the conditions. Councilor Duggan asked if there would be park dedication funds contributed in this case. Mr. Benetti replied that since this would not be a re -platting of land, there would not be any park dedication fee. Councilor Duggan suggested the 300 foot distance from a residentially zoned property be changed to 1,400 feet. Councilor Paper asked how the city could limit the number of these facilities. Mr. Benetti replied that the reason they built all of these standards in was to limit this use to a certain area. However, as the city attorney indicated, if the Council makes the standards too restrictive and the ordinance could get challenged in court. This is not what the code amendment should be about. The code should allow for other users to come in or have a fair chance. Councilor Paper and Petschel suggested this be tabled and discussed at an upcoming workshop meeting. Councilor Duggan moved to table ORDINANCE 538 TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF -STORAGE USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE I -INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-01) to the May 21, 2109 City Council Meeting, subject to having a council work session prior. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) There was then a discussion of variances. City Attorney Andrew Pratt advised the Council that each applicant for a variance stands on its own through the practical difficulties test. Variances exist because they sanction a use that is not allowed in the zoning ordinance. He reminded the Council of the three touchstones of the variance process: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties Once the Council undertakes all of those analyses, and they also consider the effects of the variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community; traffic conditions; effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety; effect on the value of surrounding properties and upon May 7, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 12 the Comprehensive Plan; and the granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty, they typically do not have residential expansions with issues. If the Council took no action, the request would get approved by the fact of not doing anything. Typically, the Council would apply an extension or do something. B) RESOLUTION 2019-29 DENY [OR APPROVE] A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1751 JAMES ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-05) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Nick and Liz Banovetz have requested a variance to build an addition onto the side of their home. The property is just under 3.5 acres and includes a two-story, 3,600 square foot house built in 1958. The front yard setback is off of James Road at 35.4 feet, the west line setback is 37.8 feet, 52 feet from the rear, and 19.2 feet from the east line. The proposed addition would be a single story 11.4' x 14.8' (165 square feet) on the east side of the home. The addition would encroach, at its closest point, 2.13' into the 10 -foot setback. The applicant stated that this is the best area for the addition. Mr. Benetti shared the practical difficulties tests that must be met to grant a variance and explained how this request met those tests. All of the immediate neighbors indicated their support. Mr. Nick Banovetz and Ms. Liz Banovetz, 1751 James Road, stated they have put in a lot of work to update the house. One of the limitations of the house is that the main level only amounts to 15% of the total square footage; it is tight and has an awkward layout. There are a number of practical difficulties with the current layout. They want to have a seating area that is attached to their kitchen to allow them to have a table and chairs. They have been working with an architect and have reviewed all of their options. This addition would allow an open concept between the eating area, the kitchen, and the living room. This would bring the home up to modern-day standards Councilor Duggan noted that he visited the property. He noticed that the backyard is narrow but is a continuous open space. He could not see this addition being placed anywhere else, other than where it was being proposed. It is placed in a way that it would enhance the property. Councilor Petschel said that she had also visited the property. She believed that if the city were going to approve a variance, it needs to be founded in fact and be consistent. She is supportive of the variance. The issue with this house is that it is not centered on the lot. They would have no need for a variance if the builder had centered the house in the middle of the lot. That is hardship that was not generated by the current homeowner. Councilor Paper also reported meeting with the family. He questioned the practical difficulty since the patio was installed by the homeowner in the back of the home, it was not pre-existing. Mr. Banovetz replied that what they were trying to avoid is the elongated dining room. Without this addition as proposed, they would not have an eating area for their family. Councilor Petschel asked for clarification that the patio has both old and new aspects. Mr. Banovetz confirmed. It was not completely new. May 7, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 12 Councilor Paper asked if the new addition would be wide open or would it have pocket doors or French doors. Mr. Banovetz replied that it would be completely open. Mayor Garlock stated that he stopped by the property. The house is not centered on the lot and this request is practical and, in his opinion, is their only option. He would be supportive of the variance. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-29 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1751 JAMES ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-05) based on the practical difficulty that the house was not centered on the lot when built. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) C) RESOLUTION 2019-30 APPROVE [OR DENY] A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 916 ADELINE COURT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-08) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Breanna Zarmbinski and Paul Shrewsbury were requesting a variance for an encroachment of 8.8 feet into the 30 foot front yard setback standard to construct a new 16' x 8' fully enclosed foyer, which would include a 4' x 16' partially covered deck. The property is a trapezoidal shaped and just under 0.36 acres. There is currently an open covered entryway in the front. The property is currently 30.8' off of the front property line and meets all of the required setbacks. Councilor Petschel asked how far the neighbor's front porch extends from the front of the house. Mr. Benetti replied that the neighbor did receive a variance in 2013 for that front porch extension. It had the same set of criteria that was recognized by the Planning Commission this time. Councilor Duggan questioned if the curvature of the lot on a cul-de-sac would necessarily meet the criteria of a practical difficulty. City Attorney Andrew Pratt stated that the most challenging part of the practical difficulties test is the uniqueness of the property not created by the landowner. Obviously the curve of this street was not created by the landowner. But the point is also well made that just because there is a curve in the street doesn't mean that they cannot apply setback measurements. It seemed to him that it would be a challenge to the homeowner to do anything as far as an expansion or even a small bump out without violating some of setback. Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-30 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 916 ADELINE COURT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-08). Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) May 7, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 12 D) RESOLUTION 2019-31 APPROVE A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2458 BRIDGEVIEW COURT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-09) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Philip and Margaret Johnson are requesting a wetland permit to remove an old deck and replace it with a new style deck in the same area. Any new construction related improvements, grading, or removals near a wetland or water resource body requires a wetland permit review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The home sits approximately 50 feet off of the wetland. The new deck would be located in the same footprint as the old deck. Councilor Paper asked for confirmation that the new deck would not be any closer to the pond than the original deck. Mr. Benetti confirmed and noted that the new would be placed on the old pilings and there would be very minimal disturbance. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-31 APPROVE A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2458 BRIDGEVIEW COURT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-09). Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) E) AUTHORIZE LEGAL SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that City Attorney Anthony Pratt has accepted a job with a different law firm, and said that has been several years since the city requested proposals for municipal law services. Staff has drafted a proposed RFP for general municipal services, which spells out the requirements. Staff also suggested that Council appoint two of their members to serve on the selection committee. City Attorney Andrew Pratt has agreed to serve as city attorney until such time as the RFP process has been completed. He would continue to bill his hours at the same rate, which is approximately $150 per hour and a $200 flat rate for City Council meetings. Staff views this as important for continuity. Councilor Petschel and Councilor Duggan volunteered to be members of the selection committee. Councilor Duggan suggested a change in the RFP. Under Scope of Work, a. it reads "... whereby a developer or applicant requests the court that the action be overturned". He suggested that the word `overturned' be replaced with `changed' or reduced'. Staff agreed to this edit. Councilor Duggan requested an inclusion of the Comprehensive Plan under Scope of Work, d. Staff agreed. Councilor Paper, referenced VII. City Information, 7, which claims that the city generates approximately 245 hours of general legal services per year. Based on that, he asked if any of that time was spent on Police Department issues. Mr. McNeill replied that those would be from a different account. May Z 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 12 Councilor Duggan suggested, and Councilor Petschel agreed, that they should appoint an alternate to the selection committee. Councilor Paper volunteered to be the alternate. Councilor Petschel moved to direct staff to advertise the RFP for General Municipal Legal Services, and to appoint Councilors Duggan and Petschel to serve on a preliminary selection committee, with Councilor Paper as the alternate, and to designate Andrew Pratt to be Interim City Attorney until otherwise designated. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) F) SET CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATES City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that after seven public hearings, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the City Council. Because there may likely be additional comments, staff recommended that the Council hold a work session. The Council agreed to hold the work session on Thursday, May 16 at 5:00 p.m. It was noted that, as usual, the work session would be open to the public. Mr. McNeill reminded the Council that they needed to set a work session date and time to receive an update on the escrow account for the ABC Building at The Village, and for discussion of personal self - storage. The Council agreed to set this work session meeting for Tuesday, May 14 at 1:00 p.m. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that May 9 at 6:00 p.m., is the rescheduled parks cleanup. This will be held at three parks and residents are encouraged to visit the city's website for details. The 5K and Park Celebration is on June 1St. Check the city's website for details. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel recognized the local winners of the Athena Award. They are Tori Nelson from Henry Sibley High School and Sophie Kishish from Visitation High School. She also wanted to say a sad farewell to Minnehaha Academy as they leave their temporary home in Mendota Heights and move home. Their Athena Award winner was Terra Rhoades. Councilor Paper noted that he had the pleasure of attending two ground breakings last week. One at Henry Sibley High School and the other at Friendly Hills Middle School. These are transformative projects for the entire community and are very exciting for District 197 residents. Next week is the 30th anniversary of the D.A.R.E. program at Visitation. Councilor Paper wished a very happy 10th birthday to his son, Levi. Councilor Duggan wished everyone a Happy Mother's Day. May 7, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 12 ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST, c, Lorri Smith City Clerk May 7, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 12