Laserfiche WebLink
MAY <br />7 <br />1986 <br />BOOK <br />64 Fa;E 360 <br />The Chairman felt the main concern <br />is due process <br />so we are <br />sure these people have all their questions answered. He asked if <br />staff has had any negative response, and Planner Boling reported <br />that one person located directly behind the subject property was <br />concerned about whether they would be renting the mobile home <br />that would be placed there. <br />Commissioner Wodtke asked if there is any entitlement for <br />this or is it just an option if someone meets all the require- <br />ments, and Attorney Vitunac stated that this is not an <br />entitlement; it is up to the discretion of the Board whether to <br />decide to reduce the size of the lots in the whole subdivision <br />but once one is granted, he felt the Board probably would have to <br />grant any others requested in the same subdivision. <br />Commissioner Lyons believed if you buy in a particular <br />subdivision, you expect the lots to stay the size they were when <br />you bought there. <br />Commissioner Wodtke noted the lots are quite large for a <br />mobile home and felt perhaps we need to look at the entire area. <br />The Chairman pointed out that the Motion is just to refer <br />this back. -to the Planning & Zoning Commission; we are not taking <br />any action on the split today. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. <br />It was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />ESCROW DEPOSITS TOWARDS IMPACT FEES _ UTILITY FRANCHISE HOLDERS <br />Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following memo: <br />74 <br />W <br />