05/11/1970 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

1 1 1 1 2 1 Mr. Summers stated that since there didn't appear to be any generally accepted information on the tax impact of mobile homes versus single homes (he personally feels that, value for value, both mobile homes and regular homes pay about the same, but neither pays their own way; municipalities lose money on any housing) and since there is talk of the 1971 Legislature receiving requests for clarification on tax problems, they would accept a limitation on the conditional use permit for Phase 1 only not allowing any school age children in those 100 units. This would eliminate the bulk of the tax concern and would lessen the need for municipal services such as recreation facilities, fire and police protection. Mr. Summers stated that he had Bill Jensen of Suburban Engineering to answer questions also. He mentioned that they felt they could easily hook up to municipal sewer at the Southeast corner of the tract as well as originally planned at the Southwest corner (to NSSSD). The natural topography showing 20' to 25' difference in elevation would easily allow this. Mr. L'Allier asked Mr. Jensen if there would be any problem with snow removal on the numerous cul -de -sacs. Mr. Jensen replied that it was their intent that the manager remove the snow on the cul -de -sacs. Perhaps they might need some special snow equip- ment to handle this. Mr. Jaworski asked if they didn't feel that a variance allowing the units to be only 12' apart would create a fire hazard. Mr. Summers answered that trailer fires are not too frequent; that he never considered them to be particularly inflammable with an outside metal sheathing; that he didn't feel that their interiors would be affected by closeness to another burning unit. Mr. Bohjanen asked that since they mentioned they would be willing to go along with no school age children in Phase 1, if they would be willing to hold down the percentage of school age children in Phase 2 if the 1971 Legislature should fail to make an adjustment in the tax situation. Mr. Summers stated that they could not now bind themselves on this point for the rest of the development. It was expected that a certain portion of any mobile home park would be built for those who don't care to be around children- - in this case it is being built first. In view of the economic feasibility, they didn't care to commit themselves for the other phases. He mentioned that the park plan does not accomodate double wides, only the standard widths; this in itself would cut out one area of school -age children. There ensued a discussion on the legality of disc°iminating against children such as is done in many apartments and other trailer parks, action taken by the Human Rights Commission, leases and such. Mr. Rosengren asked if they had determined the approximate finished valuation of the park. Mr. Jensen stated that it would cost some $2,500 to $3,000 for site preparation per unit. Mr. Summers offered some statistics from a study done in Hastings, Minnesota prepared by Midwest Planning, Inc. in contract with the municipality on a 325 unit court; the land is valued at $130,000. This study showed that the total of State and local taxes for the school district revenue met their needs when the population of children reached .47 children per unit. This need was met with single- family dwellings when the figure reached 1.3 children per unit. Mobile homes cost for the average $8,500 and single family homes at $21,580. These figures supported Mr. Summers' previous remarks. Mr. L'Allier asked the Clerk to read the letter received from Mr. Hankerson showing the total number of children in school from mobile home courts is 284 for 1969 -70.