Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Clayton Westin requested the Board's feelings on dividing a lot at Gladstone end <br />Lakeview. It is Lot 10, Block 4 of Lexington Park Lakeview Addition. Mr. Locher <br />stated that there is a local covenant which denies subdividing until a certain date. <br />• John Juleen thought this date might be 1970. If the large lot were divided, each smal <br />lot would still meet the Village lot requirements. W. McLean instructed Mr. Westin <br />to make his request in writing and to submit a survey of the split. <br />At 9:00 p.m. the public hearing regarding a trailer park on Elm Street near the <br />Catholic Church was opened. Mr. Al Stein, applicant, was not present. About 50 <br />people were in the audience. <br />W. Locher showed that all the legal requirements had been met. The hearing had been <br />called because the Council felt the matter should be aired and of the 13 letters sent <br />out, 10 recipients were in the audience. The land involved is Auditor's Subdivision <br />121, Lots 24 and 25. <br />The audience was requested to state their objections to the trailer court. <br />1. James Hill and others stated that it would over -load the school system and re- <br />quire building more classrooms which we cannot afford. Mr. Hill felt we should <br />try to raise the value of our homes rather than take in lower-class homes. <br />2. Father Wirth feared a trailer court world lower the value of the property owned <br />by the Church. Other adjoining land owners also felt this way about their land. <br />3. Father Wirth also stated that the playground at the Catholic School was private <br />and feared it would become public if used by the trailer court children. <br />4. John Juleen stated that on a similar previous request a real estate developer had <br />feared he would be unatie to sell his land if a trailer court was nearby. <br />5. Bob Raymond asked about the sewer situation and Mr. Locher answered that the PCA <br />frowns an anything except hookups to municipal systems. If this type of sewer <br />were installed all the 'benefited' property owners would be assessed for the sewer. <br />6. Mr. Raymond stated he had a petition with 164 signatures opposing the trailer <br />court and he would present this to the Council at their next meeting. <br />7. Someone questioned where the added police and fire protection would come from. <br />8. W. Juleen stated that when the Baldwin Lake court was let into the Village they <br />made a lot of promises which were never kept. <br />9. Mr. Hill stated that if Lino Lakes cannot handle a trailer court at this time, <br />they should not be let in until such time as they can be handled. <br />Mr. Kelling answered some of the objections, stating that from the information the <br />Board has been given most trailer parks do not overload the school system, they are <br />separated by buffer zones, they would not harm the Village in that they maintain <br />their own facilities such as streets, and that a well -regulated court would not <br />harm the Village. Also the pressure is getting greater for trailer courts. <br />Mr. Rehbein stated that there can be no trailer court in Lino Lakes until we have <br />city sewer and it is not practical to talk about a trailer court until such time. <br />Mr, Kelling moved to recommend to the Council not to grant the petition for rezoning <br />and a special use permit to Mr. Al Stein for a trailer court on Elm Street. Seconded <br />by W. Karth. Carried unanimously. <br />Mr. Van Housen requested Mr. McLean to survey the audience as to their opinion of a <br />trailer court in Lino Lakes. Mr. McLean asked "How many present are in favor of a <br />trailer court any where in Lino Lakes?" Not one hand was raised in response to the <br />question. <br />The public hearing adjourned at 9:50 p.m. <br />The meeting was adjourned. <br />