Laserfiche WebLink
problem, e$[~!eci$lly when people find out their actual lot size is something less than it was <br />advertised gt, as ~any regulations are based on lot size. For example, the threshold for having a <br />metal accesit~}ry $tructure is 2.5 acres. More often than not, lot sizes are something less that 2.5 <br />acres in a sat idi~sion marketed as having 2.5 acre lots. The amount of accessory building space <br />allowed on~;.[~ol~rties is on a graduated scale based on lot size. For example, the amount of <br />accessory g~ictlJre space allowed on a 2.4 acre lot is 400 square feet less than that which is <br />allowed on! t lotr measuring 2.5 acres. Ms. Frolik recommended that the definition of "Lot, <br />minimum ar~ og' be amended to delete the option to include road fight-of-way in the rural areas. <br />Many areasiO'f tl~ Code also refer to "parcel" but "parcel" is not defined. She stated she would <br />recommenditl)at I~e defintt~ons also be amended to include 'parcel" as a lot of record w~th the area <br />of same being mdasured from property line to property line. <br /> <br />Motion by ~mm~ss~oner Holland and seconded by Comrmss~oner Terry to d~rect C~ty Staff to <br />draft an ordi~n~ to amend City Code to eliminate the option to include road fight-of-way when <br />determininglbt area in the rural areas and to add a definition of "parcel". <br /> <br />Motion cargi.~'.cd. !Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Holland, Terry, Deemer, <br />Hendriksen/gaDUe and Thorud. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case ge'/: Discussion Regarding Setbacks for Fences <br /> <br />Zoning Admi~ 'laist~ator Frolik stated that City Code reads that fences shall be located entirely on the <br />owner's proi~irty~and placement of the fence is the responsibility of the owner. She added that <br />from time tO tim~. the City get calls from residents expressing dissatisfaction with an adjoining <br />neighbor's fe~ ce .$nd comments that the City should consider adopting setbacks for fences. She <br />recommend~ noi establishing setbacks for fences because it obligates the City to an unreasonable <br />amount of eli(or~ment and sites the City up for involvement in issues that should be handled as a <br />civil matter. <br /> <br />Motion by Co~nmissioner Holland and seconded by Commissioner Terry to direct City Staff not to <br />pursue an ord{nani:e that would take action to establish setbacks for fences. <br /> <br />Motion card~{~l. ;Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Holland, Terry, Deemer, <br />Hendriksen,,I~aD~ie and Thorud. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #8: R~appointment of Commissioners <br />Motion by C.o~nmissioner LaDue and seconded by Commissioner Deemer to recommend that City <br />Council rea~I~oi~ Terry Hendriksen, Paul Holland and Michael Terry to another term on the <br />Planning and ~Zo~ng Commission. <br />Motion carri~t.. ~Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners LaDue, Deemer, Thorud, <br />Hendriksen,~,Holl~nd and Terry. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case g9: ' D~$cussmn Regarding Commissioner Expenditures <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik explained that the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that payment for <br />expenses notisub~tantiated with expense accounts is considered earnings and are subject to <br />F.I.C.A. and~ed~are employer costs, possible federal and state income tax withholding and W-2 <br />annual earning reporting. <br /> <br />Motion by Corn .~?sioner Hendriksen and seconded by Commissioner Thorud to be paid expenses <br />at the flat rate ~subject to payroll taxes and withholdings; said payments will be reported to the IRS <br /> <br />Planning & Zoning Commission/October 6, 1992 <br /> Page 7 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />