Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-23 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Planning Commission was duly held at City Hall, 7516 – 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on the 23rd day of January 23, 2006, in the Council Chambers and telecast on local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chairperson Reese called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Shane Bauer, Ken Brittain, Rod Hale, Rebecca Kronlund, Chris Reese, Alberto Ricart, David Thiede Members Absent: Shannon Nitsch Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner Mark Grossklaus, City Council Liaison Approval of Agenda Motion by Brittain, seconded by Ricart to approve the agenda. Motion approved unani- mously (7-0 vote). Open Forum Chairperson Reese asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non- agenda item. No one appeared to address the Commission. Chair’s Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Chairperson Reese explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and the City Council makes all final decisions. In addi- tion, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should come to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings 6.1 Quittem Lot Split – Case RS06-001 Scott and Eileen Quittem have applied for a simple lot division to subdivide a one-acre parcel of land at 7010 Iverson Court South into two lots. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 2 of 13 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Hale asked if the certificate of appropriateness placed any restrictions on Parcel B, such as erection of a fence. McCool responded that currently property owners can install fences with- out permits, but he was not sure if that applied to properties on the city’s historic register. Reese opened the public hearing. Jerry and Shirley Dougherty, 7030 Iverson Avenue South, stated that they own the property to the west, and they were deceived by their realtor when they built their house. It was explained to them that the house was on the National Register of Historic Places and could not be split or modified in any way. They like having a park-like lot and open space next to them. Kronlund asked if the property was on the National Register. McCool responded that the resi- dence at 7010 Iverson Court is on the City’s Register of Historic Sites and Landmarks. The property itself is not on the register. The property was much larger in acreage prior to being developed for Kingsborough Woods subdivision. Through that process, the former owner chose to keep a larger lot for the house. Since that time, he has passed away and the estate is looking at splitting the parcel. Brittain noted that due to the placement of the sewer stub and fire hydrant, it looks like some forethought was put in the original layout of the subdivision. He asked if there is any record on that. McCool responded that the engineers would have considered that but he does not be- lieve there is any physical documentation. Dougherty asked if the builder’s intention was to keep the existing trees or is the total lot going to change. McCool responded that it is the city’s understanding that the property owners are looking to sell the land. He stated that he believes anyone buying the vacant parcel would probably preserve the tree mass on the property, because the center of the property is open. Hale asked if Parcel B is currently served by city sewer and water. McCool responded yes. Hale stated that one of the reasons he is supporting the application is because the parcel is almost an acre in size and the R-3 zoning district calls for a minimum of 10,000 square foot lots. The proposed lot split would result in two lots larger than 10,000 square feet, and he be- lieves an appropriate use of land in that zoning district would be to have two houses. Brittain asked when the city allows five-foot and ten-foot easements. McCool responded that five feet is the minimum for interior lot lines, 10 feet when there are utility lines. In this particu- lar case, the water main that runs from the cul-de-sac to 70th Street runs along the west prop- erty boundary. Scott Quittem, 6232 Bolland Court, Inver Grove Heights, commented that the intent is to put the entire parcel for sale in hopes that whoever buys 7010 Iverson Court would also want the vacant lot. They wanted to do the lot split prior to marketing the property. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 3 of 13 Kronlund asked what the most probable plan for relocation of the utility lines would be, if some type of easement required, and who would pay for that. McCool responded that the city is re- quiring the easements shown on the survey to be deeded to the city. There will be no utility relocation with the exception of the private overhead utility line and pole. No one else spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Hale made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below. Brittain seconded. 1. The property owner is responsible for all the costs to construct sanitary sewer and water services to the vacant parcel of land. 2. The property owner must petition the city for the construction of a new sanitary sewer and water service line. The city will construct these utility service lines from the city’s existing utility systems in Iverson Court and extend these services to the front property boundary line. The property owner is responsible for all the costs to construct these utility service lines from the city’s utility stubs to the proposed single-family dwelling. 3. The property owner must contact all private utility companies to install all private utilities (e.g. natural gas, phone, electricity, cable, etc.) and relocate the existing overhead utility line that currently services the existing home at 7010 Iverson Court. 4. All drainage and utility easements shown on the Certificate of Survey (prepared by Pioneer Engineering and dated December 14, 2005) must be granted to the city be- fore a building permit can be issued for the vacant parcel. 5. Motor vehicle access to Parcel A is only permitted from Iverson Court South. Ac- cessing this parcel from 70th Street (CSAH 22) is prohibited. 6. Only a detached single-family dwelling is allowed on either parcel. 7. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, etc.) must be applied for and issued by the City prior to any work or construction taking place. 8. Prior to the release of the real-estate deeds, a park fee in-lieu-of parkland dedication must be paid to the City. The amount of this park fee will be the amount cited in the City’s Fees Resolution at the time the deeds are presented to the city. 9. All existing private utilities currently crossing the proposed vacant parcel must be removed or relocated to a public utility easement in order to continue private utility service to the existing dwelling at 7010 Iverson Court. 10. All private wells located on Lot 14, Block 1, Kingsborough Woods 2nd Addition must be abandoned, sealed and capped. A licensed contractor must perform this work. A copy of the documentation prepared by the licensed contractor must be Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 4 of 13 submitted to the Public Works Department. A building permit will not be issued for the vacant parcel until this documentation has been filed with the city. 11. The City Council must approve a “Certificate of Appropriateness” before the City Council can adopt a resolution approving the simple lot division application. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.2 Bonngard’s Family Meats – Case CUP06-003 Bonngard-Broin, LLC has applied for a site plan review of a retail building to be located at Almar Village, 70th Street and Keats Avenue (County Road 19). Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Hale asked how the dumpster is accessed. Blin responded that on the north side of the build- ing there is an access drive leading to the dumpster. Thiede noted that dumpster area for the gas station is located near the meat shop and asked if the two dumpsters could be grouped in the same area. Russ Rosa, Rosa Architectural Group, 1084 Sterling Street, St. Paul, explained that when he did the original plan for Almar Village, the dumpsters for the gas station were proposed for that location, but he does not know where the gas station’s dumpsters will ultimately be placed be- cause he has not seen their plan. Blin stated that staff would look at the possibly of one trash enclosure for the two uses prior to Council review. Brittain noted that the contents of the trash from the gas station is going to be significantly different from the meat market. Greg Bonngard, 8350 – 77th Street Court, explained that types of trash his business would generate include the packaging the meat comes in and some blood and bone. Other than that it would probably be pretty much the same as what the gas station would generate. Brittain asked if the trash would be sealed prior to being placed in the dumpster. Bonngard responded that it would be sealed in a bag to prevent leakage and odor. Brittain then expressed concern about the windows facing the gas station noting that they abut the area of the business where they are going to be cutting up the meat. Bonngard stated that they felt the building would look more uniform with those windows added, and that the blinds could be installed to prevent views into the area. Hale asked if this would be Bonngard’s first market. Bonngard responded yes. Bauer asked if there is enough space for the meat market parking with traffic entering/ exiting the gas station. Blin responded that the drive lane would be 25 feet wide, which is the stan- dard width. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 5 of 13 Reese asked if the refueling area for the gas station would interfere with traffic patterns for the two businesses. Blin responded no. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Hale asked if the layout for the gas station could be put on a template with the meat market so the city could look at traffic patterns. Blin responded that traffic circulation through site should work. Staff will look at the dumpster location. Reese asked if the meat market would fall into the overall center for temporary signage. Blin explained that the temporary sign proposal would allow each business to have temporary signs for no more than 15 days per year. Hale asked if the trash enclosure was moved to be shared with the gas station, would that al- ter the footprint or design of the building. Bonngard responded that the structure would not change; they are using the side door for deliveries. Brittain stated that he prefers the proposal for the trash enclosure where it is because it would be screened from view by landscaping and the wall required to screen the utilities. In addition, the enclosure would be larger if it was shared with the gas station. Ricart agreed with Brittain. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff would look at the location of the trash en- closures for the meat market and the gas station prior to the Council meeting and not put any restrictions on this proposal. Thiede made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below and for staff to look at options for the location of the trash enclosure. Bauer seconded. Hale stated that if a proposal meets the city’s planning considerations, codes, and specifica- tions, the city should not redesign the operations of the business to suit our preferences. The business owner could make the appropriate adjustments if something was objectionable to the public. 1. The original conditions of approval identified in Ordinance No. 698 and Resolution Nos. 01-173 and 01-174 shall be complied with. 2. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 3. Final exterior construction materials and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The grading and erosion control plan for the site must comply with NPDES II Permit requirements. Erosion control devices must be installed prior to commencement of any grading activity. Erosion control must be performed in accordance with the rec- ommended practices of the “Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 6 of 13 Control Planning Handbook” and the conditions stipulated in Title 10-5-8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. 5. All curbing for the project must be consistent with the existing curbing in the project. 6. The applicant must provide the City with an as-built survey of all private utilities prior to certificate of occupancy. 7. The applicant must be responsible for ensuring that all appropriate stormwater and access cross easement documentation is completed prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a comprehen- sive sign package to the City for review and approval. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a comprehen- sive lighting package consistent with the city redevelopment plan to the City for re- view and approval. All outdoor lighting must be directed downward and away from residential property and public streets, and must not exceed one footcandle at the property lines. 10. The landscaping plan must be revised to address the items identified in the staff re- port. Said plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. A bona fide cost estimate of the landscaping improvements must be submitted in conjunction with a letter of credit approved by the City in the amount of 150 percent of such estimate. Upon completion of the landscaping requirements, the applicant must in writing inform the City that said improvements have been completed. The City must retain the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of no- tice to insure the survival of the plantings, and until the as-built utility survey has been submitted. No building permit will be issued until the required financial guar- antee has been received and accepted by the City. 12. Outdoor speaker systems (e.g. paging, intercom, etc.) are prohibited. 13. The block enclosure proposed to enclose the mechanical equipment and trash en- closure shall be modified to include a combination of block and brick, consistent with the Principal building. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.3 Glengrove Industrial Park 3rd Addition – Case SP05-062 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a preliminary plat for Glengrove Industrial Park 3rd Addition, which would create one industrial lot and two outlots located in the Industrial Park north of 100th Street. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 7 of 13 McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Thiede asked why there was a rounded corner on Hemingway instead of a “T” intersection. McCool responded that staff did not see the purpose of a “T” intersection and the proposal would allow for a free flow of industrial vehicles. Thiede then asked if the outlots were pur- chased, could they be further subdivided. McCool responded that Outlots A and B could be replatted into separate parcels, but staff does not foresee that there would be user who would need the entire acreage from those outlots for development. Hale asked when the city approved the Graphic Resources project what part of the roadway was approved. McCool responded that the actual roadway was not part of that approval but it is part of the preliminary plat. Brittain asked what access would be proposed for the northwest corner of Outlot A. McCool responded that topographically that area slopes down to the waterway located on the north- west of the property, so not all the property is buildable but would remain as open space. Thiede asked if there would be greater flexibility if that road was T’ed and extended into a cul- de-sac, which could allow for smaller businesses. McCool responded that would work for smaller businesses but the city is marketing the property to a larger tract user. Hale asked if the roadway design was reviewed by the Economic Development Authority. McCool responded that there were some alignment alternatives shared at a neighborhood meeting and with the city’s advisory commissions. Hale asked why the roadway has to be in the plat at this time and suggested waiting for marketing opportunities. Blin responded that the city is installing utilities in that right-of-way, which will fix the location of that roadway. Blin then reported that the Graphic Resources project may not happen, and so would this street improvement project. He stated that the city would know within a week if the project would continue. Bauer asked if the Planning Commission could table this application until the city knows whether the project would be built. Blin responded that he does not believe that there would be any problem with tabling the application. The Commission continued discussion on the design of the roadway. Staff stated that more information could be developed and brought back to the Commission at the next meeting. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to continue the public hearing. Ricart seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 8 of 13 6.4 Capital Improvement Program – Case CP05-061 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to amend the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2006-2011. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Thiede asked if the increases to the annual debt service levy would be noticeable for individ- ual property owners. Blin responded that the goal is to keep it fairly constant so an individual taxpayer does not experience big spikes. Hale asked why the concrete pads for bleachers is coming out of the general fund and not the park trust fund. Blin responded that the park trust fund was set up for land acquisition or larger development projects. Hale believes that the trust fund should pay for the bleacher pads. He then asked about the 103rd Street railroad bridge, which has been in the CIP for years. He expressed concern that the bridge belongs to Burlington Northern, not the city. Blin explained that Burlington Northern plans to replace that bridge in 2007. They would reconstruct the bridge and pay for most of the cost. Hale asked what the million dollar levy would be for. Blin responded that that was the worst case scenario for city participation. If the city determines that the bridge needs to be extended, then we would incur that cost. Hale then asked what impact an overpass at 95th Street would have on this project. Blin responded that because no one knows when that overpass would be constructed and because BN needs to replace this bridge fairly soon, it is prudent to allow this to be reconstructed. Eventually there would be two access points to Grey Cloud Trail and Grey Cloud Island, which gives a measure of safety. Reese opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Reese closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion that the Planning Commission finds that the CIP is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Ricart seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0). Applications and Requests 7.1 Aggregate Industries – Case MP06-002 Aggregate Industries has applied for their 2006 mining permit to continue mining opera- tions on Lower Grey Cloud Island. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Patty Christensen, Aggregate Industries, stated that she would answer any questions the Commission may have. Brittain asked if the 120 trees that died last year would be replanted. McCool responded that those trees would be re-inventoried this spring. He stated that that was not part of their pro- posal but could be discussed. Christensen stated that the arborist recommended planting 120 trees with protective measures taken so that there would be a better survival rate for the trees. She explained that the arborist recommended that they hire a nursery to plant the trees and Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 9 of 13 do the aftercare. The nursery will evaluate the 2005 tree plantings this spring and make rec- ommendations for the 2006 tree plantings. She stated that they would work with the city on the number of trees planted, but if they plant 500 trees, they can’t devote the aftercare to those trees that they could to a smaller number. They would like to base the number of trees planted on the recommendation of the arborist, with city approval. Brittain stated that plan sounds reasonable, but at some point they need to do some catch up. Christensen agreed. Brittain asked if there was way of tracking year to year the number of trees planted and their survival rates. Blin stated that in future years there may be a proposal to plant more smaller trees that would have a better survival rate. Reese asked if the trees are being planted in the same areas where other trees have died. McCool responded that the reclamation areas on the island have been in different areas. Thiede asked what the changes are in the 2006 proposal. McCool responded that Aggregate Industries had proposed planting 250 trees; as part of staff’s recommendation, it is the 250 plus the 130 they did not plant last year for a total of 380. Thiede asked about the variance for hours of operation. McCool explained that the variance is renewed annually so that if one year there were a significant number of complaints about the operation, the city would address those issues when the annual mining permit was applied for the following year. Hale asked if the arborist could meet with the city to talk about the conditions on the Island and understand our concern about the survival rate of the trees. Blin stated that the city is planning to work with Aggregate Industries to come up with the best approach. Reese asked if anyone wanted to comment on this application. No one did. Hale asked if condition #10 could be worded so it does not speak to number of trees but rather to maturity. He also suggested adding wording such as the applicant’s arborist and the city will meet to talk about the conditions under which… Brittain asked if there could be a staged plan to replace the trees that died in 2004. Reese wants to look at the survivability of the seedlings that they have planted in the past years, so that next year there would be an overall layout of the tree planting efforts. Brittain made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions listed below with the recommendations discussed by the Commission. Thiede seconded. 1. The provisions as stipulated in Title 3, Chapter 10 of the City’s Codes (Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operation) shall be complied with, except as modified below. 2. The applicant is responsible for removing any materials that may have spilled onto any public roadway. This material shall be cleaned up immediately. 3. The outer edge of mining limits abutting public right-of-way or private property must not be closer than 100 feet to any right-of-way or property line. 4. The “future mining” designation on the 2006 Operations Plan is only an illustration of the applicant’s future desire to mine in those areas. City approval of the 2006 Op- Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 10 of 13 erations Plan does not guarantee mining permit approval for areas shown as “future mining.” Approval of the 2006 Mining Permit does not imply approval to mine within the required 200-foot setback from the Mississippi River or within the Mississippi River itself. 5. Bituminous/asphalt materials are prohibited from being buried on the premises. Bitu- minous/asphalt, concrete, and street sweepings originating within the geographical boundaries of Cottage Grove may be temporarily stockpiled on the site for processing (e.g. crushing, screening, etc.) and/or reuse. 6. The applicant may operate the mining operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Upon notification by neighboring residents that the night-time operations (i.e. between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.) are disturbing, the applicant agrees to voluntarily cease operation during night-time hours until such time the noise source is identified and appropriate corrections are made. 7. All existing trees within the area shown on the 2006 Operations Plan as “Future Mining” must remain undisturbed. 8. Aggregate Industries must install erosion control devices at the base of any slope where erosion is evident. A drainage swale must be constructed at the base of any eroding slope to control run-off and divert it to a sedimentation basin before entering any natural drainage system. Erosion control measures must be implemented within a reasonable amount of time. 9. Archeological and landmark sites on Lower Grey Cloud must be protected and undisturbed. A minimum of 100 feet must be maintained between all mining opera- tions and historic/landmark sites. 10. A minimum of 380 trees must be planted. The plant sizes will be based on the recommendations of the arborist to improve their survivability. The applicant must hire a certified arborist meeting city approval to create a revised planting plan and to monitor the survival of all newly planted trees. The arborist must file a report with the city twice a year documenting the survivability of tree plantings and recommen- dations for future planting plans. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 7.2 Concept Plan Review – Solid Ground Development Blin summarized the proposal and asked for comments from the Commission. Nick Forshetti, Solid Ground Development, 4756 Banning Avenue, White Bear Lake, stated that the site consists of approximately 13 acres and is located next to the petroleum storage tanks owned by Minnesota Pipeline. He asked for the Planning Commission’s input on developing the land. Staff has recommended 75 to 85 foot lots; however that may not be possible on this parcel of land. He displayed a map showing the location of the proposed development and the petro- leum tanks on the neighboring parcel, which presents a major hurdle in the development proc- Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 11 of 13 ess. Lot sizes drive the price of the homes. He stated that homes on 85-foot lots would cost more than what they would be able to sell on property located next to storage tanks. He then displayed a layout of a development with 60-foot lots and photographs of an existing neighborhood with quality homes on those smaller lots with quality homes. The long-term quality of the neighbor- hood was expressed as a concern by staff and he suggested the possibility of a PUD with a homeowners association or a zero lot line layout. He asked for the Planning Commission’s sup- port for their proposal. Hale asked if are there any lots on 85th Street. Blin displayed the site plan and pointed out that there is a row of houses along 85th Street served by city water and sewer and a house facing Geneva Avenue. There is a major pipeline easement that runs behind these lots. Hale asked if that is an easement or does the pipeline company own it. Blin stated that it is an easement. Hale expressed concern about spot zoning these 13 acres and wants to look at what the surrounding properties in Cottage Grove could be zoned. Blin stated that the comprehensive plan designates this whole area as low density residential, which is 0 to 5 units per acre. Forshetti stated that based on recent conversations, with DR Horton, they were told that adjoin- ing area in St. Paul Park would be one of the first developed. Hale stated that his concern is not where they buy the utilities but the zoning of the property so it is compatible with existing zoning in the City of Cottage Grove. He believes that the rezoning should be contingent on the whole area. Blin stated that what makes this property unique is that it is an island of residential zoning within mostly undeveloped industrial land. The larger question is should the surrounding area remain industrial. Marathon Oil owns the land to the east and south, which is currently vacant, but a pipeline runs through the property. Brittain stated that it would be helpful to know what would be developed in St. Paul Park. Blin re- sponded that they are proposing a single-family detached development with 75-foot lot widths. Hale requested further study on the city’s plans for that general area rather than spot zone 13 acres of it. Blin stated that the city could do a small area planning study of that area including contacting the surrounding property owners to find out what their plans are before moving ahead with this particular proposal. Forshetti stated that they have a purchase agreement for that property and they are working within a time limit. They are asking for the Commission’s support to consider a unique in for that property. It was the consensus of the Commission that the city would commence a study of the larger area and present a progress report to the Commission within a few months. 7.3 East Ravine Master Plan Blin reported that the Metropolitan Council Community Development Commission will review the plan amendment on January 24 and the full Met Council is tentatively scheduled to vote on it on February 1. Final action on the land use plan and AUAR by the Cottage Grove City Council could occur either February 15 or March 1. He stated that staff would present the zoning standards to the Commission for discussion at their February 27 meeting. The public hearing on the standards is tentatively scheduled for the March 27 Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 12 of 13 7.4 Comprehensive Plan Update Blin stated that staff talked with the Council about commencing the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, which is required by the end of 2008. The Council’s direction on the up- date process is that the Planning Commission will be the core and will be augmented by one member from each of the other Commissions. There would be approximately six or seven meetings away from this regularly scheduled meeting to review and make recommendations on the various elements of the plan. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2005 Motion by Brittain, seconded by Hale to approve the minutes from the Planning Com- mission meeting on December 12, 2005. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0). Reports 9.1 Recap of December and January City Council Meetings Blin reviewed the items discussed by the City Council at their meetings in December 2005 and January 2006. Brittain asked if about the lighting at CP Rail, which does not meet city standards, could be addressed as part of the I-5 zoning district discussion. Blin responded that CP Rail has hired a consultant to look at their lighting and they would like to have a citizens group to help them with that. They are doing an analysis of their current lighting and what they can do to fix that. Reese presented to former Planning Commissioner Bob Severson a plaque recognizing his work on the Commission and thanking him for his years of service. 9.2 Committee Reports None. 9.3 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Blin displayed the Gateway park plan prepared about six months ago by Close & Associates. He explained that the city has applied for state bonding in the amount of $2.5 million, which would be matched by the city’s $2.5 million. This project would create a greener entrance into the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Thiede expressed concern about traffic through the Timber Ridge neighborhood accessing the Camel’s Hump area. He also stated that the commercial areas would like to see increased traffic and asked if there was any way to bring access to that park from down below. He sug- gested possibly having a lift that would bring people up the hill and wants the city to look into those costs. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 13 of 13 9.4 Planning Commission Requests Hale stated that the MnDOT made the city move the monument entrance into Cottage Grove that was situated at Highway 61 and 80th Street just before the commercial area. He asked if a monument could be placed on the west side of the bridge as development occurs in that area. He also asked that the city look at having Geneva Avenue extend through to 95th Street when staff does the planning study of that area. Adjournment Motion by Thiede, seconded by Bauer, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously (7-to-0). The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.