Laserfiche WebLink
then my position would be that I <br />would support the annexation. But, <br />if we're going to get ourselves into <br />a position, where by virtue of <br />having the annexation that would <br />then allow them to, a month from, <br />now sell it to someone and, then, <br />have that someone come in and say <br />they have a right to two dwelling <br />units. Then, I think we've really <br />created the very thing we don't want <br />to create. Is there a way we can <br />set up an agreement whereby the <br />Scriffiny's would agree in absence <br />of the zoning that we have that <br />there would only be one home? Or, <br />can we do it by agricultural, where <br />they have a use-by-right that they <br />already have a home there anyway, <br />and that they would have a right to <br />a replacement home? <br /> <br />Wood stated that they have turned to the annexation agreement in <br />the past to incorporate specific conditions pertinent to those <br />properties. They could either go to an agricultural and provide <br />them with a use-by-right as one single family, or go to RR and be <br />more restrictive than the zone designation. <br /> <br />Sisk didn't like doing that, because five years from now it's <br />usually forgotten. He wanted the concern addressed at this meeting <br />with a more restrictive zoning, anticipating what the Scriffinys <br />want to do, only have the one home, and what the city wants to do, <br />which is have one home on the property. <br /> <br />Hornbostel stated that at the upcoming work session on growth they <br />were going to be bringing in some suggestions on new zonings to <br />fill in the gap between RR and Agricultural zonings, because of the <br />need for a fill-in zoning. <br /> <br />Mayer recalled a situation with the Matterns, where they wanted to <br />replace a mobile home and Council went with a Rural Residential <br />restricted zoning with a special notation that this property could <br />replace the mobile home. He felt that something similar could be <br />done in this case. Once a wider range of zonings came into place <br />before this time, then Council could use that designation. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Scriffiny's presentation. <br /> <br />James L. Scriffiny, 1913 South 88th Street, Louisville, Colorado, <br />stated that, if the city would like a letter of intent, as far as <br />one home, they're willing to do that. He stated that unless the <br /> <br /> <br />