CC 03-14-1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Min~tes of Regular Council Meeting Page three The mast6r plen for Bethel Campus was presented by Lissner which he d~scribed as very similar.to master plan presented In 1972; substantively no change proposed. llssner reviewed proposed construction _ additions to buildings E and F and libraries, plus three additional dormitories; explal~ed that they are experiencing a higher percentage of commuters; therefore, need larger on-campus facll ities I.e. lounges, I ibrarles, etc. Lissn~r described the campus as about 214 acres; 220 acres Including the lake; the lake Is meandered and controlled by DNR and the State of Minnesota. lissner said 1800 FTE Is considered to be the 5-year goal for campus; governed by the Board of Regents. (Does not Include. 310 FTE Seminary Students). March 14,1977 Co~ncil reviewed the grading plan, parking provisions; noted need for prov!slon of a walking path connection from dormitories to parking lot, routIng of which Lissner said has not been decided. In review of the grading pian, Cottle explained that 12% slope has been reduced to 6%, and retaining walls are provIded to prevent erosion. Cottle noted that access drive distances were discussed with the Fire Marshal. Lissner noted that five hydrants will be required for the two buildings. After discussion re drainage, Woodburn moved that Councl I approve Case No. 77-8 as a PUD, granting a Special Use Permit for Institutional housing on the 2i acre parcel for two dormitories, with the following provisos: . I. Approval of drainage by Rice Creek Watershed District. 2. Approval of plans by the Fire Chief. Motion was seconded by Wingert. in discussion, the following Impact of utilities to serve the proposed dormitories was discussed. Lissner said that water system has been designed to be looped; wi I I be completed when next two buildings are built; sanitary sewer Is now spilt - half to Grey Fox Road and half to Old Highway 10. Park dedication was discussed. Lissner reported that he had discussed possible park dedication with the Administration; will be pleased to work with the City; no money Is budgeted this year, could possibly be defe'rred for a yea r. Li ssner sa I d that Co II ege students do use the Village parks, and City residents use the College tennis an~ handball courts and the pathway system through the campus; Bethel did not oppose the County acquisition of lands now in open space, which Bethel paid taxes on for many years - will be wil ling to make up any differences which are lacking; would be extremely reluctant to convey land, but amenable to off~set with something. suggested that the motion be amended to add the following pro- Crichton vlsos: 3. 4. Satisfactory resolutIon of park dedication. Adequate parking lot be provided on adjacent parcel, as per drawing submitted. Amendments to motion were accepted by Woodburn and Wingert. Motion did not carry (Woodburn voting In favor of the motion; Wingert, Crichton, Hanson, Crepeau voting In opposition). . Wingert moved that a PUD for the entire. site, as per plan submitted, recognizing at I as-bui Its, plus the two dormitories. Motion was seconded by Woodburn. Mo~lon did not carry (Wingert voting in favor; Woodburn, Crichton, Crepeau, Hanson voting In opposition). Crichton moved to reconsider the proposed Zoning Ordinance at the next Council Meeting, as amended to date. Motion was seconded by Wingert. Hanson noted that an amendment to a Zoning Ordinance, not initiated by the Planning Agency, may not be acted on ~ithout the recommendation of the Planning Agency; must, therefore, refer the amended Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Agency before taking action. (Attorney Lynden advised that Council can move to reconsider the new Zoning Ordinance; should be placed on the Agenda of a future Council meeting.) Motion did not carry (Crichton, Wingert, Woodburn the motion; Crepeau, Hanson voting In opposition. required for passage.) voting In favor of (2/3 of majority -3-