IRONWOOD, MI - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - A special meeting of the Ironwood Planning Commission was held on yesterday evening at 5:30 PM CST in the Community Development Conference Room on the second floor of the Ironwood Memorial Building. The purpose of the meeting was to examine the proposed Zoning Ordinance and make any necessary changes before sending it to the City Commission for final approval.

Commission members attending last night''s meeting included: (1) Marge Rayner; (2) Jackie Powers; (3) Sam Davey; (4) Mark Fitting; (5) John Kasieta; and (6) Debbie Bowles. The following members were absent: (1) Chairman John Wyssling; (2) Vice-Chairman Bob Schonberg; and Eric Lytwyniuk. Also in attendance were City Staffers Dan Petersen, Community Development Director, and Jane Bowman, Planning Commission Secretary. Representing the press were Chronicle Photographer Steve Frank and yours truly.

At 5:30 PM, since neither the Chairman or Vice-Chairman were present for the meeting, Debbie Bowles made a motion to appoint Marge Rayner as acting Chairperson. John Kasieta seconded the motion and the Commission unanimously approved.

Ms. Rayner called the meeting to order and asked Ms. Bowman to record the roll. The Commission unanimously approved the docket, and the meeting was underway. Ms. Rayner opened the floor to any citizens wishing to address the Commission on Agenda items. Since there were no members of the general public in attendance, there was no one wishing to address the Commission.

Rayner then turned the floor over to Dan Petersen so that he could highlight his proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Petersen addressed the Commission and told them that he had received a letter from Commissioner Jackie Powers. Ms. Powers addressed the following issues relative to the Ordinance in her letter:

1. The fact that "Zoning Variance" was twice defined in the document, and that the definitions were different.
2. A suggestion that the City''s Master Plan be revised and re-written every five years.
3. A question regarding the prohibition of "tent type buildings" and the intent of that Ordinance.
4. A suggestion that sandwich board signs be regulated and not prohibited.
5. A question regarding temporary event signs and possible regulation regarding them.

Petersen told the Commission that he wished to address Ms. Powers'' concerns, and that his central focus in examining the Zoning Ordinance was not necessarily to add new items, but rather to tweak those items that are in the draft as it is currently written.

According to the current draft of the Ordinance, a "Zoning Variance" is first defined on page 2195 as:

"...a modification of the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance granted by the Board of Appeals when in its judgment the strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique to the individual property on which the variance is granted."

And on page 2196, it is defined as:

"...a variation from the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter with as strict as possible adherence to the intent and purpose of the equal application of the law principle as is possible and additionally those variations specified in this Chapter which can be granted by the zoning board of appeals due to the unnecessary hardship (a variation of permitted use) or practical difficulties (a variation from a required dimensional or performance standard) due to unusual lot shape or size, or on-site natural characteristics as compared with other similarly zoned parcels in the district in which it is located. (Ord. No. 366, §§ 3, 11-12-90)"

Rayner explained to the current Commission that a company called Tri-Media originally assisted the previous Commission with revisions to the document. She told the Commissioners that this company had also done Marquette''s revisions as well as others from other communities. She said she believed the second definition was more accurate and more current. The Commission agreed, and it was decided that the first definition would be omitted from the ordinance.

A discussion regarding tents and accessory buildings ensued. Rayner explained to Powers that the intent of the "tent type" prohibition was to prevent people from placing temporary structures in their yards to house and hide blight. The intent was not to ban gazebos or tents, but to prevent the erection of pole buildings and temporary "car-port" type structures.

Dan Petersen proposed making a change to Sec. 34-53b. Accessory buildings. The current Ordinance reads:

"(a) Accessory buildings are permitted in the R-1 single-family residential district but not prior to erection of the principal buildings.

(b) Accessory buildings shall not occupy more than forty (40) percent of the rear yard, nor shall they be closer to the side lot line than:

1. Three (3) feet on lots under seventy (70) feet in width;
2. Five (5) feet on lots over seventy (70) feet in width;
3. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in building height and, if detached, shall be at least five feet from principal buildings and not closer than five feet from the rear lot line.
4. The maximum square footage of a principal garage in the R-1 District is 576 square feet (24 x 24).
5. The use of temporary tent type buildings is strictly prohibited in the R-1 District. All accessory buildings shall be of wood frame construction, and shall meet all applicable building codes.

(c) One accessory building, in addition to the principal garage, is permitted, but may not exceed 200 square feet.

(d) No part of any front yard shall be used for any attached or detached accessory building or garage nor for the permanent parking of vehicles. (Ord. No. 366, §§ 10, 11-12-90)"

Petersen wants to change part "b" of the ordinance to read:

"(b) Accessory buildings shall be permitted within the R-1, R-2, R-3 Districts or with any residential use provided that the following restrictions are met:

1. The total area of all detached accessory building shall not exceed the following:

A. For lots of ten-thousand (10, 000) square feel in area or less; six hundred and seventy-four (674) square feet

B. For lots greater than ten-thousand (10,000) square feet in area, up to one (1) acre; nine hundred (900) square feet.

C. For lots greater than one (1) acre; one thousand two hundred ninety-six (1,296) square feet.

2. An accessory building located in the rear yard shall not occupy more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the required rear yard area.

3. Accessory buildings in excess of two hundred (200) square feet must be designed, constructed, and finished such that the exterior appearance is compatible in terms of materials, color, and general construction with that of the main building.

4. Detached accessory building shall be located according to the following:

For Lots Less Than 70 Feet In Width	For Lots Greater Than or Equal to 70 Feet
Accessory building wall shall not be closer than 3 feet from any point along adjoining property lines, and the drip edge shall not be closer than 2 feet from any point along the adjoining property line.	Accessory building wall shall not be closer than 5 feet from any point along adjoining property lines, and the drip edge shall not be closer than 3 feet from any point along the adjoining property line.

Originally, Petersen suggested that no accessory building exceed 15 feet in height, but Mark Fitting suggested changing that restriction to 18 feet. He reasoned that many people like to use storage trusses, and 15 may be too limiting. After a brief discussion, it was agreed to keep "A" at 15 feet and allow "B" and "C" to be up to 18 feet.

Debbie Bowles pointed out that many people have several cars permanently parked in front of their houses. The Commission generally agreed that the term "permanent" was vague and too wide open for interpretation. It was decided that the language would be written as follows:

"(d) No part of any front yard shall be used for any attached or detached accessory building or garage nor for the permanent parking of unlicenced or inoperable vehicles."

Petersen told the Commission that a new article would be added to the Ordinance, "Article XIV Sexually Orientated Businesses." He said the document would be attached, but it would not include a specific location for the proposed Sexually Orientated Business District. He explained that the City Commission wanted to allow the public an opportunity to voice their concerns on the matter, and that a location for such a district would established at a later date.

Petersen informed the Commission that Section 34-3, by State Law would no longer be valid after September of this year. The Section reads:

"The provisions of this Chapter shall be administered by the City Planning Commission in accordance with the Municipal Planning Commission Act, Act No. 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931 (MCL 125.31 et seq., MSA 5.2991 et seq.) as amended, and the provisions of Act No. 207 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1921 (MCL 125.581 et seq., MSA 5.2931 et seq.,), as amended, where and if possible is also relied upon as statutory authority. (Ord. No. 366, §§ 4, 11-12-90)"

Rayner suggested that the new law be adopted and added after September, and the Commission agreed.

Petersen proposed a change to the sandwich board ordinance. The current proposed Ordinance reads:

"5. Temporary, sandwich board type signs, are strictly prohibited in this zoning district."

Petersen handed out copies of his recommended change to the Ordinance. It reads:

"5. One sandwich board sign shall be permitted per establishment in the C-2 Downtown Commercial District, providing that the operations of each establishment adhere to the following:

· The sign shall be located on the sidewalk, in the public right-of-way, directly in front of the establishment advertising, or from an attached patio area utilized by the establishment advertising;

· The sign shall not be any longer than three (3) feet in width at the base and not longer than five (5) feet in height at any point.

· The sign shall de displayed only during the operating hours of the establishment advertising.

· Signs shall not be lit or illuminated.

· Any signs which are, or may hereafter become rotted, unsafe, or in a state which is not properly maintained, has loose materials (including peeling paint, paper, wires, braces or other material), shall be repaired or removed by the licensee or owner of the sign, or owner of the property upon which the sign stands upon notice of the Zoning Administrator."

The Commission had concern about lit, flashing signs in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commerical). They did, however, express concerns that all businesses within the City should be free to advertise with appropriate signage. Originally, sandwich board signs were to be outlawed everywhere in the City. Then the DIDA convinced the Planning Commission to allow them, but restrict them. There was discussion about banning them on the highway. Mark Fitting told the Commission that he uses sandwichboard signs to attract business to his store. He said his signs are professionally made, and he can't understand why anyone would want to restrict business unless there was a safety issue.

The Commission agreed that sandwich board signs would be allowed in all Commercial Districts, but lighted temporary signs would not be permitted. Sandwich board signs placed near highway businesses will not automatically be restricted in size, however, they must be approved by the Zoning Administrator (Dan Petersen).

Petersen then asked the Commission for a clarification of Section 34-153(b) which reads:

"(b) Outdoor advertising which does not exclusively advertise the retail or service business on the premises shall be limited to no more than 200 square feet of advertising space on either of two permitted sides.(Ord. No. 366, §§ 32, 11-12-90)"

He didn't understand what the Ordinance is trying to say, and none of the Commissioners could offer a complete explanation. Rayner conjectured that the Ordinance prohibited leasing or renting billboard space on the side of buildings. The Commission agreed to leave the Ordinance in tact, as is.

Petersen told Commission that he would like to see a change in the fence ordinance. He would like to add language that would establish the height of a fence "from existing grade." Currently, that language is not included, Petersen said, and it is open for abuse. He said many times people place the fence at the height they want, and then build up the "grade" to comply with the Ordinance.

Petersen then questioned the change in the ordinance in front yards. He said previously the height for a front yard fence was 3 feet. Now, in the revised version of the Ordinances it is 4 feet. He wondered why. Mark Fitting explained to him that a 4 foot fence is less wasteful because most fence materials come in 4 foot pieces (or multiples of 4). It was agreed to leave the height at 4 feet.

There was some discussion about fencing in pools. It was agreed that any pool, must be either fenced in or taken down after each use. The State of Michigan views pools as an attractive hazard to little children.

Finally, before the meeting adjourned a discussion took place regarding outdoor wood furnaces. The Commission agreed to address the issue, in detail, at their next regular meeting -- which, because of the 4th of July holiday, will be in August.

AUDIO

Jim Albert