05/11/1970 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

122 This letter also gave figures showing the differential in taxes received for each pupil from trailers and homes. Mr. Hankerson felt that a moratorium on new trailer courts would be appropriate at this time. Mr. Summers noted that these figures did not tell the whole story since the under- lying real estate for each court contributed taxes also. He presented copies of a study done in Anoka - Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 showing that the tax received for each pupil from a mobile home court is $235.00, which did not entirely cover the need after real estate taxes were deducted. Mayor L'Allier asked Attorney Locher when do we pass from reasonable to unreasonable on the limiting of children; would the courts uphold such a restriction. Mr. Locher stated that a contractural agreement would have to be made between the Village and the mobile home court owner. He couldn't say whether such an agreement would be legal until a Supreme Court decision was made on a similar case. He had been unable to find an Attorney General's opinion on this either. There was more discussion on this with Mr. Summers stating that a lease agreement with the trailer owners would contain a clause stating that they would have to move when a child reaches school age. Mr. Summers also stated that they would prefer to accept anyone in the court, but will agree to the school -age limitation. Mr. Bill Houle thought a feasibility study of the economics should be made. He also inquired whether the Pollution Control Agency bad given approval yet. Mr. Summers stated that the State refuses to process their application until they have the approval of the Village. However, he knew of other mobile home parks using the Imhoff tank system and sees no reason why they shouldn't get approval. Mr. Gotwald was asked for his opinion on the sewage disposal. Mr. Gotwald stated, that it was impossible to know what the PCA will do; he didn't feel that this project would have to go to the Metro Sewer Board, mentioning that that body had just turned down similar court proposals in Washington County and Forest Lake. This was disputed by Mr. Summers who stated that a referral committee of the Metro Council had voted to suspend the permits. Mr. Summers stated that they didn't have to make a positive application to the Metro Council today. Mr. Gotwald had checked the pre- liminary sewage plan for the proposal and could see no problem in the development as long as they were willing to go to the East to hook up with future municipal sewer. It was necessary to have such a private system in the park now. Mr. Gotwald stated that if the petitioner can get away with the Imhoff tank, he could see no problem in hooking up the proposed court to our lines in the future. Also, the private water system is no problem. It can be designed for municipal hookup if desired. However, Mr. Gotwald questioned a problem of runoff for a 500 plus development. He felt that the developer should check with the Highway Department to see if a large concrete culvert under I -35W would be needed to take care of the runoff created by heavy rains. 1 Mr. Gotwald stated that the streets in the park would be a private system, commenting that the project will still look like a trailer park regardless of the new concept plans. He noted that in a no- school age children project, it is likely that both people in each trailer will be working and that the amount of traffic in the cul -de -sacs and interior streets may be higher than expected. Mr. Gotwald felt that the proposed 74th Street should extend out to Sunset to help alleviate the traffic congestion. He felt that even in Phase 1, the road should be extended to 74th St. and out past the Youth Center. Mr. Rosengren asked if the developer had discussed the outlet on 74th; they don't know if easements can be gotten to the West but they have to the East. Mr. Gotwald also noted that they have provided for a service road along the III freeway.