Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Gotwald asked what the dimensions of the back lots on the 12 -unit modules were <br />and was told that they were the same as on the regular 8 unit modules, down to 62' <br />by 108'. Mr. Gotwald asked if the trailers would be limited to 14' by 68' size and <br />was told that this was the largest size allowed; they felt that the 14' by 65' was <br />the most common being sold. Mr. Gotwald asked if many various sizes would be allowed, <br />this causing problems for the park and the municipality. Mr. Jensen stated that <br />they had designed out the double wides which they don't feel belong in a park like <br />this; they felt that most of the trailers would be 14' by 60' or 65'. They would <br />have room on some of the lots for trailers with tip -out living rooms. <br />Mr. Gotwald summed up that it seemed feasible to serve this area with utilities owned <br />by the private owner. He felt that the only problem was with the drainage -- that a <br />pipe might be needed under the freeway. However, this was no problem with just Phase 1, <br />but the entire development, but they should have an answer now. He noted that before <br />a permit was issued for construction, we would need a letter of approval on the <br />internal utilities from the State. Mr. Summers stated that a State permit was necessary. <br />Mr. L'Allier, in recapping these statements by Mr. Gotwald, asked then if the Imhoff <br />tank system was adequate and would not create any problems for the Village. Mr. Gotwald <br />stated that this system must be approved by the PCA and would have to be designed to <br />fit the project similar to the designing work for Chamonix. He still wondered if <br />they wouldn't have to go to the Metro Sewer Board. In other words, besides Village <br />approval, they still need other approvals. He noted that most trailer courts in the <br />Cities use this method. <br />Mr. Jaworski inquired what effect 500 trailers would do to our capacity allotted in <br />the future sewer. Mr. Gotwald replied that it would be virtually none since the <br />sewer system was designed for the ultimate level of use for all the acreage it drains. <br />Mr. L'Allier asked Mr. Gotwald if he were familiar with the request of our representative <br />on the Metro Council to ascertain cost estimates to run the planned sewer line on <br />Hwy. 61 down Hwy. 8 instead? He didn't know, but Mr. Summers stated that it seems <br />hey wish to serve some planned development north of Forest Lake and would bypass Hugo, <br />Oneka and Forest Lake Township on the planned line. Mr. Gotwald stated that as <br />Forest Lake and Hugo have made formal requests for capacity in that line, that they <br />wouldn't be bypassed; this was just a smokescreen. He mentioned that he had stated <br />at the P&Z hearing that it would be a problem for the developer to try to connect with <br />NSSSD <br />Mr. L'Allier asked if the applicant had any expected rate of development. Mr. Summers <br />stated no, that this Phase 1 was of small size, that if it goes well they will <br />probably apply for Phase 2 in a minimum of 1 year after they start construction on <br />Phase 1. <br />Mr. Summers stated that they don't intend to run a sales office. Mr. L'Allier asked <br />Mr. Locher if they could require them to allow only new units. Mr. Locher stated that <br />by contract we could. Mr. Rosengren noted that taxwise this was the best idea because <br />of the depreciation factor. Mr. Bohjanen wondered if this wouldn't force the owner <br />to put in a sales office, but was told not necessarily since he would require the <br />trailer tag to be shown. <br />Mr. Jaworski asked if the developer had considered what effect the airport would <br />have and was told that they were not in the restricted zone, that there was no <br />regulation on land use in their area, that housing was required for an industrial <br />