council packet 02-07-11

8/7/2019 Council Packet 02-07-11

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/council-packet-02-07-11 1/76

Agenda

C I T Y C O U N C I L

February 7, 2011

1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. - City Hall Council Chambers

2. Recitation - Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America

3. Roll Call - Recording of City Council attendance and confirmation of a quorum

4. Consent Agenda - Adoption of a proposed resolution that would confirm approval of thefollowing consent agenda items:

(a) January 17, 2011 regular session City Council meeting minutes

(b) Acknowledge receipt of the City Manager's report concerning certainadministrative transactions since January 17, 2011

(c) Authorization to contract with Porcelain Control Services, Traverse City,to provide janitorial services for the Department of Public Works and WastewaterTreatment Plant facilities for a two-year contract period at a cost of $44,535

5. Miscellaneous Public Comments

6. City Manager Updates

7. Old Business:

(a) Second reading and consideration of a proposed ordinance that wouldrepeal and replace section 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the Sign Ordinance

(b) Second reading and consideration of a proposed ordinance that wouldrepeal and replace Section 401(6) of Article IV and Section 1907 of Article XIX of theZoning Ordinance

8. New Business:

(a) Adoption of a resolution that would confirm that Northern Michigan

Regional Health System Foundation is a local not-for-profit organization andadministrator of raffle drives for local Health System affiliates

(b) Discussion of a Request for Proposals for the Bear River ValleyRecreation Area Whitewater Kayak Concession

9. Appointments – Consideration of appointments to the Petoskey District Library Board 10. City Council Comments

11. Adjournment



My documents-council-consent memos-consent memo 04-19-10

Agenda Memo

BOARD: City Council

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2011 PREPARED: February 3, 2011

AGENDA SUBJECT: Consent Agenda Resolution

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve this proposed resolution

The City Council will be asked to adopt a resolution that would approve the following consentagenda items:

(1) Draft minutes of the January 17, 2011, regular-session City Council meeting;

(2) Acknowledge receipt of a report from the City Manager concerning all checks thathave been issued since January 17 for contract and vendor claims at $2,552,175.72,intergovernmental claims at $195,413.30, and the January 20 and February 3payrolls at $328,304.58, for a total of $3,075,893.60; and

(3) Authorize contracting with Porcelain Patrol Services, Traverse City, to provide janitorial services for the Department of Public Works and Wastewater TreatmentPlant buildings for a two-year contract period at a cost of $44,535.

sb

Enclosures



M I N U T E S



Minutes

C I T Y C O U N C I L

January 17, 2011

A regular meeting of the City of Petoskey City Council was held in the City Hall City CouncilChambers at Petoskey, Michigan, on Monday, January 17, 2011. The meeting was calledto order at 7:30 P.M.; then, after a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of theUnited States of America, a roll call then determined that the following were

Present: H. Ted Pall, Jr., M.D., MayorWilliam Atkins, City CouncilmemberThomas Postelnick, City CouncilmemberRobert Johnson, City CouncilmemberRonald C. Marshall, Ph.D., City Councilmember

Absent: None

Also in attendance were City Manager Dan Ralley, City Clerk-Treasurer Alan Terry, CityPlanner Amy Tweeten, and City Attorney James Murray.

Following the introduction of the consentResolution No. 18477 agenda for this meeting of January 17, 2011,

Approve Consent Agenda Items City Councilmember Johnson moved that,seconded by Councilmember Marshall,

adoption of the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does and hereby confirms that the draftminutes of the January 3, 2011, regular-session City Council be and are herebyapproved; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that receipt by the City Council of a report concerningall checks that had been issued since January 3, 2011, for contract and vendorclaims at $1,581,364.12, intergovernmental claims at $31,203.23, and the January 6payroll at $180,176.01, for a total of $1,792,743.38, be and is hereby acknowledged.

Said resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Atkins, Postelnick, Johnson, Marshall, Pall (5)NAYS: None (0)

The City Manager reported that the DowntownHear City Manager Updates Management Board was considering a recom-

mendation to the City Council concerning theestablishment of its Downtown Development Authority District as a Project Area underPublic Act 501 of 2006 for purposes of making liquor permits available to downtownrestaurants who make qualifying capital investments in their business; that at its January 20,2011, regular meeting, the Planning Commission would be discussing, with possible action,the reconfiguration of Elizabeth Street between West Mitchell and Michigan Streets; andfollowing City Council inquiries, reported that the City was reviewing a draft lease agreement



-2-

with the Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers Association for use of City-owned property tolocate a replica lighthouse prior to the Association beginning its solicitation for donations tofund construction and maintenance of the lighthouse, and that no deadline for receivingsuch funds has been set; and that the Department of Public Safety was finalizing its annual

report that would include IPMC statistics.

The City Manager next reported that the CityResolution No. 18478 Council was being asked to approve a proposed

Approve Easement Agreements resolution that would authorize the Mayor and560-566 West Lake Street City Clerk to sign utility and ingress and egress

easements for property owners at 560-566West Lake Streets; that these easements were necessary to permit ingress and egress fromtheir properties to West Lake Street, and to ensure that property owners were legally able toinstall utilities to their property across the former rail corridor.

The City Manager also reported that, in 1992, the City of Petoskey acquired the

railroad right-of-way in front of 560-566 West Lake Streets, as well as other West LakeStreet properties, from the State of Michigan; and that acquisition of the property ensuredcommon ownership of the rail corridor and helped secure needed right-of-way along WestLake Street in order to construct a sidewalk.

The City Manager further reported that one single-family home previously stood onthe property that now comprised 560-566 West Lake Street; that that property owneraccessed their home by crossing property at 558 West Lake Street; and that, with thesubdivision of the property at 560-566 West Lake Street into four separate lots, it was nownecessary for each parcel to have ingress and egress and utility access to West LakeStreet.

No public comments were received, and City Councilmember Atkins moved that,seconded by City Councilmember Johnson, the following resolution be approved:

WHEREAS, in 1992, the City of Petoskey acquired an abandoned railroad right-of-way in front of 560, 562, 564 and 566 West Lake Street; and

WHEREAS, the City’s purchase of the former railroad right-of-way ensured commonownership of the property, and that adequate right-of-way space on West LakeStreet was available for the construction of sidewalks; and

WHEREAS, properties along the north side of West Lake Street have no directaccess to a public street without an easement across the former railroad right-of-way; and

WHEREAS, the City has routinely granted easements to property owners along thenorth side of West Lake Street so that they can have ingress and egress from theirproperties, and so they can connect to City utility services; and

WHEREAS, the property owners at 560, 562, 564, and 566 West Lake Street nowwish to develop their properties and require access across the former railroad right-of-way owned by the City of Petoskey for both utilities and ingress and egress:



-3-

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are herebyauthorized to sign documents prepared by the City Attorney granting the propertyowners at 560, 562, 564 and 566 West Lake Street both a utility easement and aneasement for ingress and egress from their properties.



The City Manager and City Planner reportedConduct First Reading of that the City Council was being asked to

Sign Ordinance Amendment- approve a proposed ordinance that wouldSign Approval Process streamline the sign approval process, granting

the City staff administrative authority to approveadditional types of sign applications, eliminating what was often a two-week wait forapproval by the Planning Commission Sign Committee.

The City Manager also reported that, at the suggestion of the Planning CommissionSign Committee, in September, 2010, the City staff initiated a discussion with the PlanningCommission about the possibility of allowing additional administrative approval of signpermit applications; and that currently, although there is very little discretion permitted in thesign regulations, the Sign Committee reviews the majority of proposed sign applications.

The City Manager also reported that, in most cases, the Sign Ordinance clearlyspelled out permitted sign types, sizes and illumination; and that, as a standard practice, theCity staff analyzes sign applications and reports its findings to the Sign Committee, whichmeets twice a month to review new sign applications.

The City Manager also reported that the proposed amendments would change theprimary responsibility for review and approval of wall-mounted, free-standing, directional andsandwich-board signs to City staff; and that, currently, only projecting nameplates,overhanging signs and promotional signs were approved by the City staff; and that adetailed list of the changes being proposed were as follows:

1. The exact text of Section 8.1 has been moved to Section 7.1 (labeled as Sections7.1(4-7) in the proposed ordinance) in order for wall-mounted, on-premise, free-standing, directional, and sandwich-board signs to be reviewed and administrativelyapproved by City staff.

2. Section 8.1 is formally listed as repealed to eliminate duplications in the City’sCodified Ordinances.

3. §10.1(1) has been changed to clearly define City staff that are authorized toadminister and enforce the sign code.

4. §10.1(2b) was changed to reflect sign review by staff, with the Planning Commissionserving as the appeals body.

5. §10.1(5c) was removed, which required most applicants to submit ten copies of theirsign permit application, a requirement that the Sign Committee felt was onerous andunnecessary.



-4-

The City Manager further reported that all signs that now fell under §8.2 SpecialCondition Sign provisions would continue to be reviewed by the Sign Committee.

The City Planner also reported that this proposed amendment would change signreview from the Sign Committee to City staff approval with an appeals process; and in

response to City Council inquiries, reported that the Sign Ordinance was specific as far asapproval without discretion so it was not subjective, and that there was no fee required torequest an appeal.

No public comment was received and, according to City Charter provisions, the CityCouncil then tabled this matter until its regular February 7, 2011, meeting to conduct asecond reading and take possible action on the proposed ordinance.

The City Manager and City Planner reportedConduct First Reading of that beginning, in August, 2010, the Planning

Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Commission began discussions about twoResidential Events/Backyard Chickens issues that had been brought to their attention:

residential events and backyard chickens.

The City Manager also reported that residential events such as garage, yard, orporch sales were typically regulated activities as they could become quasi-commercialoperations, but that they were not currently addressed in the Zoning Ordinance; that, due tothe lack of definition and restrictions in the ordinance, it was very difficult to address thesituations that came up when the events go on for an extended period of time; and that, inthe past five years, the City has had these very situations on Kalamazoo Avenue, WaterStreet, East Mitchell Street, and State Street, frustrating the neighbors who believe suchoperations to be a detriment to their neighborhood.

The City Manager also reported that, in determining how such activities should beregulated, the Planning Commission considered the purpose of a residential event sale,which was to allow residents to get rid of excess, unwanted items; that what someone couldnot sell, was generally donated to a non-profit organization; that a sale that goes onperpetually was likely having outside items brought in, making it more of a commercialactivity; and that, therefore, putting restrictions on the number of days of an event andnumber of times such events could be carried out and still be considered a residential useseemed appropriate.

The City Manager also reported that there was also discussion of whether suchevents should have permits required, as some communities do, but the PlanningCommission decided that the first step should be to simply define the acceptableparameters of such events as this should eliminate any extreme abuses; and that,ultimately, the decision was to allow these events for up to three days in a 90-day period,which meant that an event could be held four times a year.

The City Manager also reported that the issue of urban agriculture had beendiscussed by the Planning Commission on and off for over a year as it related to the State’sRight to Farm Act; that the impetus to address allowance of chickens by households for non-commercial purposes was the desire of the non-profit organization Farming For Our Futurewho wanted to begin a “rent-a-hen” program to families through the school system; that theissue of urban agriculture was not unique to Petoskey and was being addressed by



-5-

communities throughout Emmet County; that, in Michigan alone, the issue was beingaddressed in East Lansing, Flint, Traverse City, Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids; and thatthere were several reasons for this increased interest, including:

• Issues of food safety and environmental impacts of large-scale agricultural

production (i.e., food contamination and community self-sufficiency);

• Economic circumstances- both as a personal cost savings and as a way tosupport local agricultural production; and

• Creating a sense of community (e.g., involvement with a community garden).

The City Manager also reported that the Planning Commission discussed severaltopics related to urban agriculture, but at this time was only recommending regulationspertaining to the keeping of chickens within the City; that the proposed language wasdeveloped after review of ordinances from several other communities and input from theTraverse City Planning Director; and that, again, the Planning Commission considered a

permitting process, but determined that it would impose additional administrative work thatwould likely not improve the potential enforcement of any problem situations.

The City Planner also reported that the first regulation of the proposed ordinancewas to limit garage sales to a three-day period every 90 days for a total of four times peryear; that the second regulation was to allow four hens per parcel as part of urbanagriculture and did not permit housing roosters, and that the hens must be in an enclosureat least three feet from the property line and 25 feet from dwellings; that the cons associatedwith these proposed amendments were possible odors from chickens, noise, and storage offood; that other cities had approved such residential chicken legislation; and that thePlanning Commission had approved the amendment with no opposition from Commissionmembers or the general public.

The City Council discussed the proposed ordinance including enforcement as a civilinfraction and experiences in other cities that have dealt with this issue.

The following public comments were heard:

Jim Hempstead, 512 Woodland Avenue, asked if other feathered creatures would beincluded in this proposed amendment and that he did not favor seeing this use allowedwithin the City.

Robert Howse, 719 Michigan Street, asked how chickens would be contained andwhere and the City Manager responded that they would be required to be enclosed within a

small fenced-in area in rear yards.

Gerald Ramsey, address unknown, reported that he believed that limiting garagesales to every three-months was an issue for him; that he believed garage sales should bepermitted more frequently in summer months; and reported that four hens would produce upto three dozen eggs weekly and would be better than store-bought eggs.

Mark Tarquini, 801 Kalamazoo Avenue, reported that he believed a permit would bea good way to track public interest and that he would wish to know that his neighbor wasplanning such a use.



-6-

Toril Fisher, Bear Creek Township, reported that he had involvement with the City'scommunity garden project on Sheridan Street and reported about the positives of raisingchickens.

Cynthia Mom, 506 Elizabeth Street, reported that she favored permitting chickens in

residential backyards within Petoskey and that she had a plot within the Community Garden.

Councilmember Postelnick reported that he would like to further discuss this matterat the next City Council meeting; and Mayor Pall reported that he would like clarifications onthe Act and being able to commercially sell eggs from private residences. Some discussionfollowed and the City Attorney reported that he would make a presentation concerning theRight to Farm Act at the next meeting of the City Council.

Following inquiries by Councilmember Johnson, the City Attorney reported that therewere noise limitations that could be enforced if such noise violated the nuisance ordinance.

Then, according to City Charter provisions, the City Council tabled this matter until its

regular February 7, 2011, meeting to conduct a second reading and take possible action onthe proposed ordinance.

The City Manager then reported that the CityResolution No. 18479 Council was being asked to approve a proposed

Approve MDOT Permit Signatories resolution that would authorize four Departmentof Public Works employees to enter Michigan

Department of Transportation applications to perform routine and emergency repairs withinthe State right-of-way as part of the State's new online system, on behalf of the City and itscontractors.

No public comment was received and City Councilmember Johnson moved that,seconded by City Councilmember Marshall, the following resolution be approved:

WHEREAS, the City of Petoskey, hereinafter referred to as the ''GOVERNMENTALAGENCY,'' periodically applies to the Michigan Department of Transportation, hereinafterreferred to as the "DEPARTMENT," for permits, referred to as ''PERMIT,'' to construct,operate, use and/or maintain utility or other facilities, or to conduct other activities, on,over, and under State Highway right-ofway at various locations within and adjacent toits corporate limits:

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the DEPARTMENT granting such PERMIT, theGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY agrees that:

1. Each party to this Agreement shall remain responsible for any claims arising

out of their own acts and/or omissions during the performance of this Agreement, asprovided by law. This Agreement is not intended to increase either party's liability for, orimmunity from, tort claims, nor shall it be interpreted, as giving either party hereto a rightof indemnification, either by Agreement or at law, for claims arising out of theperformance of this Agreement.



-7-

2. Any work performed for the GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY by a contractor orsubcontractor will be solely as a contractor for the GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY and notas a contractor or agent of the DEPARTMENT. The DEPARTMENT shall not be subjectto any obligations or liabilities by vendors and contractors of the GOVERNMENTALAGENCY, or their subcontractors or any other person not a party to the PERMIT withoutits specific prior written consent and notwithstanding the issuance of the PERMIT. Any

claims by any contractor or subcontractor will be the sole responsibility of theGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.

3. The GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY shall take no unlawful action or conduct,which arises either directly or indirectly out of its obligations, responsibilities, and dutiesunder the PERMIT which results in claims being asserted against or judgment beingimposed against the State of Michigan, the Michigan Transportation Commission, theDEPARTMENT, and all officers, agents and employees thereof and those contractinggovernmental bodies performing permit activities for the DEPARTMENT and all officers,agents, and employees thereof, pursuant to a maintenance contract. In the event that thesame occurs, for the purposes of the PERMIT, it will be considered as a breach of thePERMIT thereby giving the State of Michigan, the DEPARTMENT, and/or the Michigan

Transportation Commission a right to seek and obtain any necessary relief or remedy,including, but not by way of limitation, a judgment for money damages.

4. The GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY It will, by its own volition and/or request bythe DEPARTMENT, promptly restore and/or correct physical or operating damages toany State Highway Right of Way resulting from the installation construction, operationand/or maintenance of the GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY'S facilities according to aPERMIT issued by the DEPARTMENT.

5. With respect to any activities authorized by PERMIT, when theGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY requires insurance on its own or its contractor's behalfit shall also require that such policy include as named insured the State of Michigan,the Transportation Commission, the DEPARTMENT, and all officers, agents, and

employees thereof and those governmental bodies performing permit activities forthe DEPARTMENT and all officers, agents, and employees thereof, pursuant to amaintenance contract.

6. The incorporation by the DEPARTMENT of this resolution as part of aPERMIT does not prevent the DEPARTMENT from requiring additional performancesecurity or insurance before issuance of a PERMIT.

7. This resolution shall continue in force from this date until cancelled by theGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY or the DEPARTMENT with no less than thirty (30) daysprior written notice to the other party. It will not be cancelled or otherwise terminatedby the GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY with regard to any PERMIT which has already

been issued or activity which has already been undertaken; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following position(s) are authorized to applyto the DEPARTMENT for the necessary permit to work within State Highway Right ofWay on behalf of the GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.

Michael Robbins Director of Public WorksAndrew Altman Public Works Supervisor - StreetsJeffrey Davis Public Works Supervisor - ElectricSherrie Elliott Public Works Supervisor - Water/WWTP



-8-



Mayor Pall asked that the City Council approveResolution No. 18480 the following reappointments of City AssessorAppointment Recommendations John Gehres (by title) to the Building Authority

Board of Commissioners for a three-year termending July, 2012 (his term had expired in 2009); and the reappointments of David Farley,816 Spruce Street, John E. Hoffman, 1040 Hoffman Street, and Pete Wooters, 808 HowardStreet, all for two-year terms ending January, 2013.

City Councilmember Marshall moved that, seconded by City CouncilmemberPostelnick, the following resolution be approved:

BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does and hereby approves the

reappointments of the following:

BUILDING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - Reappointment of CityAssessor John Gehres - who is appointed by title - for a three-year term ending July,2012; and

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - Reappointments of David Farley, 816Spruce Street, John E. Hoffman, 1040 Hoffman Street, and Pete Wooters, 808Howard Street, all for two-year terms ending January, 2013.



City Councilmember Marshall reported thatHear Council Comments the City was on target with water inspections;

City Councilmember Johnson complimentedCity staff on snow removal operations; City Councilmember Postelnick concurred that snowremoval operations had been great; and Mayor Pall reported about the January 20, 2011,Planning Commission meeting that would discuss and possibly act on the reconfiguration ofElizabeth Street.

There being no further business to come before the City Council, this January 17, 2011,meeting of the City Council adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

H. Ted Pall, Jr., M.D., Mayor Alan Terry, City Clerk-Treasurer



A D M I N I S T R A T I V E T R A N S A C T I O N S



C O N T R A C T A U T H O R I Z A T I O N



Agenda Memo

BOARD: City Council

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2011 PREPARED: January 27, 2011

AGENDA SUBJECT: Janitorial Service Contract

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize contracting with Porcelain Control Services, Traverse City, for janitorial services.

Background. The City contracts janitorial cleaning services for the Department of PublicWorks building on Sheridan Street and the Wastewater Treatment Plant on West Lake Street.The contract is for a two-year period, with the City having the option to extend the contract foran additional two-year period upon mutual agreement between the City and the contractor.

Bids. Performance specifications were prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreationstaff which oversees building-and-grounds operations that call for cleaning the SheridanStreet facility five days per week and the Wastewater Treatment Plant facility three days perweek. Bid packets were made available and publicly advertised on December 21, 2010.Thirteen area janitorial service firms were notified, seven firms requested bid documents, andon January 25, 2011, five firms submitted bids of which two were not accepted due to pricingerrors and non-compliance with bid specifications.

Bidder Amount

Porcelain Patrol Services $44,535

Traverse City, Michigan

Grand Traverse Industries $63,522Petoskey, Michigan

R.J. Foth Company $75,438Harbor Springs, Michigan

Review. After reviewing bid documents, conducting reference checks, and speaking with firmrepresentatives, staff has asked the City Manager to recommend to City Council to approvecontracting with Porcelain Patrol Services, Traverse City, to provide janitorial services for a

two-year contract period at a cost of $44,535. This price represents a 20% reduction in costfor these services from the previous contract.

ld



Sup - ord - Sign Ordinance Amendments 01-17-11

Agenda Memo

BOARD: City Council

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2011 DATE PREPARED: January 31, 2011

AGENDA SUBJECT: Sign Ordinance Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a second reading and consider the PlanningCommission's recommendation

Background - The City Council conducted a first reading of a proposed ordinance that would repealand replace Section 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the Sign Ordinance.

Action. The City Council will be asked to conduct a second reading of this proposed ordinancerecommended by the Planning Commission and provided to the City Council as part of January 17meeting agenda materials, and, as provided for in City Charter provisions, could now act on itsadoption.

dd



ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 7.1 AND 10.1, AND REPEAL SECTION 8.1OF THE CITY OF PETOSKEY SIGN ORDINANCE

The City of Petoskey ordains:

1. The text of Article VII, Section 7.1 of the Sign Ordinance of the City of Petoskeyentitled “Signs Requiring a Permit;” “On Premise Signs,” shall be amended, inpart, to read as follows: The figures included in Section 7.1 shall remain and arehereby incorporated in their entirety by this reference.

(4) Wall-Mounted Signs. Wall-Mounted signs shall be permitted in all districts, subject to the following restrictions:

(a) Such signs shall be mounted such that no part of the sign is higher than the height of the facade of the building upon which it is

mounted. (Figure 42)

(b) Mansards may have only one sign per business, not exceeding one-fourth (1/4) of the total wall-mounted, signable area and permitted only on the front of the building mansard. (Figure 43)

(c) Dwelling-unit structures or home occupations shall be limited to one sign and three (3)-square feet. (Figure 44)

(d) The wall-mounted sign area for non-profit institutional uses located in residential zones shall be limited to ten percent (10%) of the front facade and five percent (5%) of the side or rear facades.

(Figure 45)

(e) The total area of all wall-mounted signs in commercial districts shall be restricted according to the following schedule:

RR

Tab

The size, location, design, and number of any such signs are subject to review. After final facade approval, no additional signs shall be added to such facades, unless approved.

(f) Changeable-message-area signs (where permitted) are permitted only on those facades that front directly on a public right-of-way or parking area. Changeable-message signs shall not exceed the maximum height of windows or doors on the first-floor facade.(Figure 42)

AREA OF WALL MOUNTED SIGNS

% Of Ground % Of Ground % of Ground Zoning Floor Wall Area Floor Wall Area Floor Wall Area District On Front Façade On Rear Façade On Side Facades B-1, O-S 15 10 5_______ B-2 15 10 10_______

B-3, B-3a, B-3b, I-1, I-2 20 10 10_______

Table 5



(g) Changeable-message-area signs shall be restricted according to

the following schedule:

RR

Tab

(h) In the B-1, O-S, and B-2 Zoning Districts, buildings are permitted a maximum of one six (6)-square foot, changeable-message-area sign per building entrance to provide upper floor directories,

restaurant menus, and the like.

(i) Awning signs shall be limited to signage on the valance only, or if there is no valance signage shall be within the bottom twelve (12)inches of the awning, and shall count toward the allowable maximum wall-mounted sign area.

(5) On-premise, Free-standing Signs. On-premise, free-standing signs, where the building has a front-yard setback of at least ten (10) feet, shall be limited to one such sign per lot in the front-yard area of the lot. (Figure 46 – see page 33).

Placement and setback of such signs shall be determined in accordance with the standards in Article X(5).

(a) Free-standing signs identifying a multi-family residential complex or sub-division in any district shall be restricted to a maximum area of twelve (12)-square feet and a maximum height of six (6) feet.(Figure 47)

(b) The area and height of free-standing signs identifying a business or service are restricted according to the following schedule:

RR

CHANGEABLE MESSAGE AREA

Zoning % Of Signable District Wall Area Other__________ See PermittedR-1, R-2, R-3, RM-1, RM-2 Not Permitted Temporary Signs

See InteriorB-1, O-S, B-2 See item (h) below Business Signs _ B-3, B-3a, B-3b 30%

Table 6

FREESTANDING SIGNS

Zoning Maximum Height Maximum Sign Area District In Feet In Square Feet*____ O-S, B-1, B-2 8 12_________ B-3a, B-3b 8 30_________ B-3, I-1, I-2 15 40_________ *See Article iii, page 18, freestanding signs over a right-of-way

Table 7



(c) All free-standing signs may have up to 100% of the sign face in fixed-message area. Such free-standing signs shall have a maximum changeable-message area in accordance with the following schedule: (Figure 48)

Tab

(6) Directional Signs. Directional signs , each not exceeding three (3)- square feet in surface area and no more than four signs per lot, displayed strictly for the direction, safety, or convenience of the public, including signs that identify restrooms, parking-area entrances or exits, visitor parking, restricted parking, clearance, freight entrances or the like. Any

additional directional sign, not exceeding three (3) square feet in surface area, may be permitted subject to the approval of the sign committee upon showing sufficient need. The maximum height of entrance and exit signs for driveways and/or parking areas shall be five (5) feet. (Figure 49)

(7) Sandwich Boards. Sandwich-board signs shall be permitted in the Central Business District Zone (B-2), on private or public property, subject to the following conditions:

(a) One sandwich board sign is permitted per each ground-floor business. All such signs shall be subject to review and approval,prior to placement, in accordance with these standards.

(b) A business shall be permitted to display a sandwich-board sign year round, during the business hours of the business displaying the sign.

(c) Sandwich-board signs shall display a permit, as issued by the City, that is visible from the street.

(d) Sandwich-board signs shall not exceed six (6)-square feet in area and four (4) feet in height.

(e) Sandwich-board signs on private property shall not obstruct

doorways.

(f) Sandwich-board signs on a public right-of-way/sidewalk shall be kept within twenty-four (24) inches of the building face and within six (6) feet of the building entrance for the business to which the sign pertains and shall not obstruct pedestrian traffic or impede maintenance and/or snow and ice removal.

2. Article VIII, Section 8.1 of the Sign Ordinance of the City of Petoskey entitled“On-premise signs” is hereby repealed in its entirety.

FREESTANDING SIGNS

Zoning Maximum % Sign Face District In Changeable message_________________ O-S, B-1, I-1, I-2 25 _________________________ B-3, B-3a, B-3b 40_________________________

Table 8



3. Article IX, Section 10.1 of the Sign Ordinance of the City of Petoskey entitled“Authority; permit requirements and procedures” is hereby amended to read asfollows:

Section 10. 1

(1) Authority for Administration and Enforcement. The City Manager,City Planner, or the Department of Public Safety shall administer andenforce the provisions of this Ordinance.

(2) Procedures for Review and Permitting. No sign identified in ArticlesVII or VIII shall be erected, altered, or relocated unless approved by theCity, pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance and the following:

(a) Permits Required. Signs identified in Articles VII and VIII shallrequire permits for installation.

(b) Sign Review. All signs subject to review shall be reviewed by staff

except as otherwise required by this Ordinance. Where apetitioner is not satisfied with a decision of staff , it may beappealed to the Planning Commission.

(3) Permits Not Required. All other signs permitted in this Ordinance shallnot require permits, but shall be regulated as provided in this Ordinance.

(4) Servicing and Repair. No permit shall be required for ordinary servicing,repainting of existing sign message, or cleaning of a sign. No permit isrequired for periodic message changes for changeable-message signs,but not including changes to a sign which requires a new permanent face.

(5) Application for Sign Permit.

A completed application for a sign permit shall contain or be accompaniedby the following:

(a) Sign-Location Drawing. Distance measured in feet and inchesfrom the sign in relation to nearby buildings, sidewalks, streetcurbs, structures, other on-site signs, and property lines shall beshown.

(b) Sign-Elevation Drawing.

(1) Height of the sign above the ground and supportstructure(s).

(2) Area and dimensions of sign surface.

(3) Lettering of the sign shall be graphically shown to scale asit will appear on the erected sign, shall be in the style ofthe finished sign, and shall be illustrated to approximatethe size and weight of the lettering of the final constructedsign.



(4) Materials and colors to be used on the sign face andsupport structures shall be labeled.

(5) Method of illumination, if any, shall be shown. In the caseof internally-illuminated signs, the drawing shall identifywhich part of the sign is translucent and which part is

opaque.

(c) Load Calculations. If deemed necessary by the City Manager, or theCity Manager's designee, structural calculations must certify that asign is designed to withstand snow load, dead load, and wind load inaccordance with applicable City, State, and Federal regulations.

(d) Registered Seal. At the discretion of the City Manager, or the CityManager's designee, for public-safety concerns, the application shallbear the certificate or seal of a registered architect or engineer as acondition precedent to the issuance of the permit.

(e) Certificate of Insurance. The City Manager, or the City Manager'sdesignee, may require an applicant to obtain a certificate of insurancefor installation of free-standing or overhanging signs.

(f) Location Staking. With two stakes erected to designate the verticalheight and located at the horizontal limits of the sign structure, theproposed location of free-standing signs shall be identified by anapplicant prior to review by the City.

(g) Graphic Illustration. Photographs, markings on buildings, mockups,spec sheets, catalogs, or other necessary illustrations may berequired in order to evaluate a proposed sign and its impacts.

(h) Other Information. The City may require additional information toshow full compliance with this and all other applicable laws.

(i) Permit Fee. A fee must be paid for signs requiring permits, inaccordance with the City's schedule of fees.

(j) Expiration of Permit. All permits issued for the erection of a signshall expire, unless authorized work commenced within six (6)months after issuance of the permit.

(6) Planning Commission Authority.

Where the City Planning Commission is empowered to approve certainsigns under the provisions of this Ordinance, the applicant shall furnishsuch surveys, plans, or other information as may be reasonably requiredby said Commission for the proper consideration and investigation of thematter.

The Planning Commission may impose such conditions or limitations ingranting approval in its judgment as may be necessary to fulfill the intentand purposes of this Ordinance.



The Petoskey Planning Commission may delegate decisions inaccordance with this Ordinance to a committee, herein called the SignCommittee, consisting of no fewer than three (3) members, of which atleast one (1) shall be a Planning Commission member. A quorum shallbe two (2) members of the Committee.

4. The various parts, sections and clauses of this Ordinance are hereby declared tobe severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause is adjudgedunconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder ofthe Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.

5. This Ordinance shall take effect fourteen (14) days following its enactment andshall be published once within seven (7) days after its enactment as provided byCharter.

Adopted, enacted and ordained by the City of Petoskey City Council thisday of ____________2011.

H. Ted Pall, Jr.Its Mayor

Alan TerryIts Clerk

Open.18288.52780.10629548-1



Sup - ord - zoning ord amendment - chickens 01-17-11

Agenda Memo

BOARD: City Council

MEETING DATE: February 7, 2011 DATE PREPARED: January 31, 2011

AGENDA SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider the Planning Commission's recommendation

Background - The City Council conducted a first reading of the enclosed proposed ordinancerecommended by the Planning Commission that would repeal and replace Section 401(6) of Article IVand Section 1907 of Article XIX of the Zoning Ordinance. Also enclosed is a memorandum from theCity Attorney as requested by the City Council concerning the Michigan Right to Farm Act, and

Planning Commission minutes concerning these discussions.

Action. The City Council will be asked to conduct a second reading of this proposed ordinance that hadbeen provided to the City Council as part of January 17 meeting agenda materials, and, as provided forin City Charter provisions, could now act on its adoption.

ddEnclosures



P R O P O S E D O R D I N A N C E



ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AND REPLACE SECTION 401(6) OF ARTICLE IV ANDSECTION 1907 OF ARTICLE XIX OF THE CITY OF PETOSKEY

ZONING ORDINANCE

The City of Petoskey ordains:

1. Section 401(6) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petoskey shall be repealedand replaced by the following:

Sec. 401. Principal uses permitted.

6. Accessory building and uses customarily incident to any of the above-permitted uses, including:a. The keeping of up to four (4) hens per parcel, provided that:

i. No person shall keep any rooster;

ii. No person shall slaughter or dress any chickens outdoors;iii. Chickens shall be provided with a covered enclosure and must be

kept in the covered enclosure or a fenced enclosure in the rearyard at all times;

iv. All enclosures shall be kept a minimum of three (3) feet from therear or rear-side property line and at least twenty-five (25) feetfrom any dwelling on a neighboring parcel;

v. Covered enclosures shall be so constructed or repaired as toprevent rats, mice, or other rodents from being harboredunderneath, within, or within the walls of the enclosure.

vi. All feed and other items associated with the keeping of chickensthat are likely to attract or to become infested with or infected by

rats, mice, or other rodents shall be protected so as to preventrats, mice, or other rodents from gaining access to or coming intocontact with them.

b. Sales of personal items from a private residence, such as garage oryard sales, are allowed for no more than three (3) days in any ninety(90) day period.

2. Section 1907 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petoskey shall be repealedand replaced by the following:

Sec. 1907. Interpretation, purpose and conflict.

In the interpretation and application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall beheld to be minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health,morals, safety, comfort, convenience, or general welfare. All use of land withinthe City shall be in compliance with all state and federal laws. It is not intendedby this Ordinance to repeal, abrogate, annul, or in any way to impair or interferewith any existing provision of law or ordinance other than the above describedZoning Ordinance, or with any rules, regulations or permits previously adopted orissued or which shall be adopted or issued pursuant to the law relating to the useof buildings or premises; provided, however, that where this Ordinance imposes



-2-

a greater restriction than is required by existing ordinance or by rules, regulationsor permits, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control.

3. The various parts, sections and clauses of this Ordinance are hereby declared to

be severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause is adjudgedunconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder ofthe Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.

4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its enactment andshall be published once within seven (7) days after its enactment as provided byCharter.

Adopted, enacted and ordained by the City of Petoskey City Council this day of ____________2011.

H. Ted Pall, Jr.Its Mayor

Alan TerryIts Clerk



C I T Y A T T O R N E Y M E M O



M I N U T E S



Minutes

P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O NP L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N

August 19, 2010August 19, 2010

A regular meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City Hall CommunityRoom, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, August 19, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00 P.M. and thefollowing were:

A regular meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City Hall CommunityRoom, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, August 19, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00 P.M. and thefollowing were:

Present: Dean BurnsPresent: Dean BurnsJeff GranthamJeff GranthamGary Greenwell, ChairpersonGary Greenwell, ChairpersonJudy HillsJudy HillsJames HolmesJames HolmesElizabeth LoozeElizabeth LoozeJohn MurphyJohn Murphy

Absent: Cynthia RobsonAbsent: Cynthia Robson

Staff: Amy Tweeten, City PlannerStaff: Amy Tweeten, City PlannerLisa Denoyer, Administrative AssistantLisa Denoyer, Administrative Assistant

Others: Bruce Byl, 7727 East Shore Road, Traverse City, MIOthers: Bruce Byl, 7727 East Shore Road, Traverse City, MIBob Cornwell, 401 East Front Street. Traverse City, MIBob Cornwell, 401 East Front Street. Traverse City, MIToril Fisher, Farming for Our FutureToril Fisher, Farming for Our FutureJim Malewitz, Performance Engineers, Inc.Jim Malewitz, Performance Engineers, Inc.Bob White, Petoskey News ReviewBob White, Petoskey News Review

A correction was made in reference to the rescheduled date of the August Special SessionPlanning Commission meeting. The correct date would be Thursday, September 9, 2010, notTuesday, September 9, 2010. Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the July 15, 2010,meeting were approved.

A correction was made in reference to the rescheduled date of the August Special SessionPlanning Commission meeting. The correct date would be Thursday, September 9, 2010, notTuesday, September 9, 2010. Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the July 15, 2010,meeting were approved.

At its July meeting the Planning CommissionAt its July meeting the Planning CommissionParking PlanParking Plan postponed action on a parking plan for 919 Spring

919 Spring Street Street pending additional information on the need formore parking and possible alternatives to pavement if

the parking areas were for occasional overflow needs.

Bruce Byl, a representative of Northwestern Bank, stated that four years ago the Spring Streetbranch had six employees and currently has nine. Along with the addition of staff the branch nowoffers additional services that bring more customers to this location, causing inadequate andunsafe parking for customers and therefore creating a need for additional parking.

Commissioner Murphy commented that at its July meeting the Commission had requested thatthe bank provide a time schedule or data that showed the demand for parking and the number ofcars that were typically parked in the right-of-way at any time for this Planning Commissionmeeting, but that no such information had been provided. Mr. Byl stated that he was unaware ofthe request.



-2-

Jim Malewitz, Performance Engineering, Inc., stated that the Spring Street branch has nineemployees and only 10 parking spaces, therefore proving that there was inadequate parkingavailable for customers. Mr. Malewitz also stated that he did not believe that there were currentlyany cars being parked in the right-of-way but believes that would be the case in the future with theadditional services being offered.

Commissioners discussed an overflow parking area to the north, which could be used for

employee parking, using permeable pavers, gravel, etc., the required 10-foot width of parkingspaces and the need for a pedestrian path through the island to allow easier access forcustomers. Mr. Malewitz responded that while permeable pavers are a good option they can bedifficult to plow over and maintain, that the bank would be willing to adjust the width of the parkingspaces to meet the required measurement and that a sidewalk could be put in through the islandto allow easier access for customers.

Bob Cornwell, Architect for Northwestern Bank, stated that placing a parking area to the northwould cause cars to have to back out into the drive-thru lane, therefore making it unsafe.

Commissioner Burns stated that he did not feel that a valid case was made for the additionalparking and that he would like the bank to show the Commission a business plan to support their

need as well as what the future numbers may be.

Mr. Byl stated that they would provide Emmet County closings at their local branches to show theincrease in business and reiterated that due to the tremendous growth there was a need foradditional parking and without approval it could prove detrimental to their business.

Commissioner Grantham made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hills, to accept theamended site plan as submitted with the following conditions:

1. All spaces to be stripped at 10’ x 20’;2. Approval of Storm Water Management Plan by the Department of Public Works; and3. A landscape screening plan to be submitted and approved by staff that incorporates

additional screening along Hillcrest Avenue.

AYES: Grantham, Greenwell, Hills, Holmes (4)NAYS: Burns, Murphy (2)ABSTAINED: Looze (1)

Farming for Our Future at Pond Hill is looking to beginFarming for Our Future a new “Rent-A-Hen” program in the Petoskey Area to

to provide educational opportunities in animalhusbandry. The current Zoning Ordinance only addresses farms and the raising of livestock orpoultry on parcels of land that are five acres or greater. The program is not necessarily promotingcommercial egg production, so the Right-to-Farm Act may not be applicable.

Toril Fisher, Executive Director, Farming for Our Future Pond Hill, explained that with the “Rent-A-Hen” program, hens would be used for educational purposes in teaching people about animalhusbandry, proper care and handling, as well as the anatomy of a chicken and the egg producingprocess. Hens would only be used during their egg laying phases, approximately April 1st throughNovember 1st and would be kept in portable, predator proof coops.

Commissioners inquired as to how the rental fee would be established, who else has this kind ofprogram already established and whether or not a permit would be required.

Ms. Fisher responded that the rental fee would be used to cover the cost of feed and themaintenance of the portable coop and that Traverse City has currently established this program.



-3-

Commissioner Looze encouraged Commissioners to look at the global picture of what could beand focus on the current ordinance and how it can be improved.

Commissioner Looze made a motion, seconded by Mr. Grantham, to ask staff for additionallanguage for the Commission to review at its Special Session meeting on Thursday, September 9,2010.

AYES: Burns, Grantham, Greenwell, Hills, Holmes, Looze, Murphy (7)NAYS: (0)

The Planning Commission was given the 2011-20152011-2015 Capital Improvement Program to review, pursuant to

Capital Improvement Program the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Article IV. Thepurpose of Planning Commission review was to

ensure that the projects included were consistent with the goals, objectives and strategies of theCity of Petoskey Master Plan.

Staff reviewed the Atkins Road Extension Project, West Mitchell Street Project, DowntownGreenway Corridor Improvements/Arlington Avenue, the Sidewalk Plan Implementation and the

Capital Improvement Plan Available Revenue Summary.

Commissioners discussed various future projects and their effects on the City’s budget, as well asgrants and other forms of funding.

Commissioner Murphy made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Hills, to accept the plan and forward itto City Council for final adoption.

AYES: Burns, Grantham, Greenwell, Hills, Holmes, Looze, Murphy (7)NAYS: (0)

Staff informed Commissioners that the second publicUpdates meeting for the Access Management Plan willbe held on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 at Bear

Creek Township Hall. Discussion will be held regarding recommended tools.

Given the number of new Planning Commission members, staff will be looking at bringing in atrainer in place of having commissioners attend training separately.

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting wasadjourned at 9:13 P.M.

Reviewed by Gary Greenwell, Chairperson



Minutes


September 9, 2010September 9, 2010

A special meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City HallCommunity Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, September 9, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00P.M. and the following were:

A special meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City HallCommunity Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, September 9, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00P.M. and the following were:

Present: Gary Greenwell, ChairpersonPresent: Gary Greenwell, ChairpersonJeff GranthamJeff GranthamJames HolmesJames HolmesElizabeth LoozeElizabeth LoozeEmily MeyersonEmily MeyersonJohn MurphyJohn Murphy

Rick NeumannRick NeumannCynthia Linn RobsonCynthia Linn Robson

Absent: Dean D. BurnsAbsent: Dean D. Burns

Staff: Amy Tweeten, City PlannerStaff: Amy Tweeten, City Planner

Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the May 13, 2010 special meeting were approved.Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the May 13, 2010 special meeting were approved.

At its August meeting, Commissioners directed staff toUrban Agriculture

At its August meeting, Commissioners directed staff toUrban Agriculture develop possible language to allow a restricted number

of chickens. Staff presented the possible language inaddition to some other language pertaining to urban agriculture for discussion. Four ordinancesfrom other communities were presented: East Lansing, Ann Arbor, Traverse City, and Madison, WI.

There was a lengthy discussion on whether permits should be required to allow chickens. Whenqueried, staff noted she was not sure there was a need or real benefit to having permits if therestrictions were in zoning as the impacts of chickens versus other allowed pets on neighbors arewhat needs to be considered. Discussion followed on need or method of notifying neighbors, theneed for language on keeping coops and feed in a manner that would not attract rodents and theappropriate setbacks from property lines and adjacent residential dwellings.

Consensus was reached that there should be language on keeping coops and feed in a manner thatwould not attract rodents. There was initial consensus on requiring coops to meet current accessorybuilding setbacks (3 feet) with an additional setback from residential dwellings, however, theCommission wanted additional input from the communities that had adopted ordinances on why thespecific setbacks had been established and whether they believed permitting to be beneficial.

Staff explained that each year there is at least oneResidential Events perpetual garage or yard sale that becomes more of a

commercial operation in a residential neighborhood.There are currently no clear regulations on these sorts of operations, so in the extreme cases, theonly remedy would be to issue a citation for operating a business in a residential district. Stafftherefore came up with some possible language to regulate these types of events. After much



-2-

discussion on whether permits should be required and the appropriate number of days or number ofevents in a year, there was consensus that permits should not be required and the followinglanguage would best protect neighborhoods:

Private garage sales, yard sales or estate sales : Sales of personal items from aprivate residence or church through a garage, porch or yard sale is allowed for no

more than three (3) days in any ninety (90) day period and only once in any ninety(90) day period.

The Commission was reminded of the upcomingUpdates meeting on the US 31 Access Management Plan

For the US 31 and M119 Corridors to be heldWednesday, September 15 at 6:00 p.m., Bear Creek Township Hall.

The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.



Minutes


October 14, 2010October 14, 2010

A special meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City HallCommunity Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, October 14, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00P.M. and the following were:

A special meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City HallCommunity Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, October 14, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00P.M. and the following were:

Present: Gary Greenwell, ChairpersonPresent: Gary Greenwell, ChairpersonDean D. BurnsDean D. BurnsJeff GranthamJeff GranthamJames HolmesJames HolmesElizabeth LoozeElizabeth LoozeEmily MeyersonEmily Meyerson

John MurphyJohn MurphyRick NeumannRick NeumannCynthia Linn RobsonCynthia Linn Robson


Also present: Donna and Michael Wiklanski, 309 Grove StreetAlso present: Donna and Michael Wiklanski, 309 Grove StreetBill Atkins, 904 Michigan StreetBill Atkins, 904 Michigan StreetSamuel A. Milstein, 5 Belle AvenueSamuel A. Milstein, 5 Belle AvenueTed Pall, 603 E. Lake StreetTed Pall, 603 E. Lake StreetRyan Bentley, Petoskey News ReviewRyan Bentley, Petoskey News Review

Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the September 9, 2010 special meeting wereapproved, with Commissioner Burns abstaining. Discussion of the proposed language for garagesales and other residential events will be placed on the next special meeting agenda.

Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the September 9, 2010 special meeting wereapproved, with Commissioner Burns abstaining. Discussion of the proposed language for garagesales and other residential events will be placed on the next special meeting agenda.

The City Council has asked the Planning Commission toreview the language Council is proposing for anThe City Council has asked the Planning Commission toreview the language Council is proposing for an

Sign Ordinance DiscussionSign Ordinance Discussion amendment to the sign ordinance pertaining toSandwich Boards sandwich boards. Staff showed the Commission the

power point presentation given to Council that illustratesthe use of downtown sidewalks and issues to consider if sandwich board signs are to be allowed.

Commissioner Looze asked Commissioner Neumann for background information on the DesignCommittee and Downtown Management Board (DMB) actions. Staff also clarified for commissionersthe boards and committees that had been involved in the process and that getting input from theDMB had been the idea of the Sign Committee because ordinance issues relating to downtownseemed to come up frequently.

Ms. Looze then noted her concerns with a one-year sunset provision because some businesseswould likely wait until after the one-year timeframe to use a sandwich board; therefore, the realimpact would not be shown during the trial period.

Commissioner Burns then stated that historically, sandwich board signs were not allowed. A coupleof restaurants had lobbied for the change for restaurants due to their changing menus and now retail



-2-

businesses want this allowance expanded. He believes the Commission has to look at the long-termimpact and that the sidewalks should be for pedestrians and amenities. If they had to be allowed,they should be required to be immediately adjacent to the building, not out a foot where it becomes afurther obstruction.

Commissioner Greenwell noted that it becomes an enforcement issue – making sure signs are

placed tight against the building.

Commissioner Murphy asked whether Council had seen the slide with the family, and how itillustrates how un-pedestrian friendly these signs are. He also noted that these are signs on publicproperty and maybe replacing parking meters with pay stations would also help pedestrians.

Discussion continued, with commissioners noting that existing signs are a trip hazard, that thesidewalks are too narrow to accommodate them and that the goal is to have a walkable downtown.Possible alternative locations and sizes were discussed, but placement in the brick area would alsocreate an obstacle to car doors and people getting into and out of cars. Smaller signs kept behindthe first pavement section line was also suggested, however, wind does become an issue if signsare not substantial enough. The issue of liability to the city was also raised.

Further discussion followed on the stated goals of the community plans to have a pedestrian friendlycommunity and that the proposed ordinance change –even for a one-year trial period – was contraryto these goals. The issue of consistency was raised and if it were a concern, perhaps restaurantsshould be limited as other businesses or the ordinance return to prohibiting altogether. The questionof allowing on private property was raised.

Staff was asked whether other communities had been contacted and staff summarized herdiscussion with Russ Soyring, Traverse City Planning Director that the signs are only allowed onprivate property, but not on heavily used pedestrian streets such as Front Street.

At this time, Commissioner Meyerson made a motion, with support by Commissioner Murphy, thatbased on community plans that promote a walkable community, the proposed ordinance not beapproved and that the existing regulations for sandwich boards remain.

Commissioner Looze asked whether the commission should be more direct with its recommendationto address the issue of fairness.

Commissioner Burns then made an amendment to the motion, accepted by Meyerson and Murphy,to recommend to Council that the allowed use of sandwich board signs be eliminated altogether;motion carried 9-0.

At the September meeting, the Commission directedUrban Agriculture staff to get more information from other communities on

any issues that had risen with their ordinances on

backyard chickens. Information had been received from Traverse City and the permits from EastLansing and Ann Arbor were provided.

Commissioner Looze stated she believed the Traverse City ordinance sufficiently addressed most ofthe possible issues if the goal is to encourage family food production. She believed the ordinanceshould allow 4-6 chickens, have the coop at the accessory building setback and have a 25 footsetback from adjacent dwellings. Discussion followed.



-3-

Commissioner Robson questioned the 25 foot setback and was concerned that this would make itdifficult for many properties. The consensus of the commission was that 25 feet from adjacentdwellings was reasonable.

Staff was then directed to develop an ordinance amendment that would allow hens but not roosters,require a clean, safe environment and rodent secure coop and food storage area, a 3 foot setback

from property lines for structures and 25 foot setback from adjacent dwellings, prohibit outdoorslaughtering, and fencing.

Discussion followed on community gardens and the need for additional regulations. The consensusof the Commission was that neighbors working together on a vacant lot would be positive and didnot see that regulations need to be developed at this time but that a policy statement about theencouragement of urban agriculture activities may need to be added to the master plan.

As noted in the agenda memo, most signs areSign Ordinance Administration currently required to be reviewed by the Committee,

although the ordinance is straight forward on what isallowed. The Committee does have more flexibility with special condition signs and spends asignificant amount of time discussing issues that arise in the ordinance and possible amendments.

Discussion followed on whether some of the signs currently going to the Committee could beapproved administratively, which may provide a faster response as well as reduce the number ofmeetings that committee members are required to attend.

Sign Committee members did see a benefit of the discussion that occurred at the committee level,but agreed that half the signs are a simple review of the staff analysis – it either meets the code andis approved or it does not and it is denied.

Staff was directed to develop language that allows staff review and approval of any sign that hasclear parameters that have to be met and reduce the number of signs that went to the Committee asany that fall under special condition sign provisions or if the petitioner questions staff analysis orinterpretation. The Committee will still be the body to develop ordinance amendment language forreview by the Commission.

Staff noted that a copy of the 2010 Citizen SurveyUpdates results and the agenda packet for the October 21st

meeting had been placed on the tables. Staff alsoreported that the first section of sidewalk at Lockwood MacDonald had been installed and thatCommissioners Greenwell and Murphy and staff had attended the asset mapping training and wouldbe working to develop a croquet event as an outcome of the session.



Minutes


November 11, 2010November 11, 2010

A special meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City HallCommunity Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, November 11, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00P.M. and the following were:

A special meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City HallCommunity Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, November 11, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00P.M. and the following were:

Present: Gary Greenwell, ChairpersonPresent: Gary Greenwell, ChairpersonDean D. BurnsDean D. BurnsJeff GranthamJeff GranthamJohn MurphyJohn MurphyRick NeumannRick NeumannCynthia Linn RobsonCynthia Linn Robson

Absent: James HolmesAbsent: James HolmesElizabeth LoozeElizabeth LoozeEmily MeyersonEmily Meyerson


Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the October 14, 2010 special meeting wereapproved.Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the October 14, 2010 special meeting wereapproved.

Staff reviewed the ordinance language drafted to allowStaff reviewed the ordinance language drafted to allowZoning OrdinanceZoning Ordinance backyard chickens. Questions were raised whether

Amendments the language adequately addressed the dressing andprocessing of chickens and whether this should also be

prohibited. The consensus was that this should be added, which resulted in the proposed textamendment under accessory uses in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts (Section 401(6)) to read:

a. The keeping of up to four (4) hens per parcel, provided that:i. No person shall keep any rooster;ii. No person shall slaughter, dress, pluck, or otherwise process any

chickens outdoors;iii. Chickens shall be provided with a covered enclosure and must be kept in

the covered enclosure or a fenced enclosure in the rear yard at all times;iv. Covered enclosures or coops shall be kept a minimum of three (3) feet

from the rear or rear-side property line and at least twenty-five (25) feetfrom any dwelling on a neighboring parcel;

v. Covered enclosures shall be so constructed or repaired as to preventrats, mice, or other rodents from being harbored underneath, within, orwithin the walls of the enclosure;

vi. All feed and other items associated with the keeping of chickens that arelikely to attract or to become infested with or infected by rats, mice, orother rodents shall be protected so as to prevent rats, mice, or otherrodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them.



-2-

Discussion then turned to the proposed language restricting residential events such as garage andyard sales. The number of allowable days of these types of events was discussed and theconsensus was that the last line “or occur more than once in any ninety (90) day period” could beremoved. Discussion then followed on the need to regulate fundraising events at schools andchurches, which staff noted would need to be incorporated into a separate section of the code; theCommission will discuss this issue further at a later date. The approved language would also be

incorporated into Section 401, accessory uses and would read:

401(6)(b) Private garage sales, yard sales, porch, or estate sales . Sales of personal itemsfrom a private residence, such as garage or yard sales, are allowed for no more than three(3) days in any ninety (90) day period.

At this time, Commissioner Burns made a motion, supported by Commissioner Murphy, to schedulea public hearing on the proposed text amendments to Section 401 of the Zoning Ordinance at theregular meeting in December; motion carried.

Staff summarized the proposed changes to the SignSign Ordinance Administration Ordinance Administration Section that would reduce the

number of signs that would be required to be reviewedby the Committee, however, staff would have the option of requesting review by the Committeeif clarification was needed. The Committee would continue to review those signs in thespecial condition sign category. The changes would be to move those signs listed in Section 8.1 ofthe ordinance into Section 7.1 and add the text: “Staff may require review by the Sign Committee orPlanning Commission.” Special Condition Signs, which are currently listed in Section 8.2, would bemoved to section 8.1.

Commissioner Murphy noted that the Sign Committee members – current and past – supported thechange and that it would improve efficiency of sign application administration. Commission Burnsthen made a motion, supported by Commissioner Murphy, to schedule the proposed Sign Ordinancetext amendment for a public hearing at the regular December commission meeting. Motion carried.

Staff had no updates but Commissioner GranthamUpdates asked whether the Commission had looked into

regulating the location of television satellite dishesas they detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhoods and noted their location is regulatedin Bay Harbor; staff did not believe that had been included in the language that was under review.Mr. Grantham also asked about regulating wood boilers, which staff noted had been discussed aspart of the alternative energy issues including wind and solar facilities and would be coming back foradditional discussion. Commissioner Neumann asked about the current regulations on duplexesand noted they were inconsistent with the goal of creating a mix of housing and that this needed tobe looked at.

Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.



P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N

December 16, 2010

A regular meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City Hall CommunityRoom, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, December 16, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00 P.M. and thefollowing were:

Present: Dean BurnsJeff GranthamGary Greenwell, ChairpersonJames HolmesElizabeth LoozeEmily Meyerson

Absent: John MurphyRichard NeumannCynthia Linn Robson

Staff: Amy Tweeten, City PlannerLisa Denoyer, Administrative Assistant

Others: Drew Fisher, 3501 Shanley RoadJulia Fisher, 3501 Shanley RoadToril Fisher, 3501 Shanley RoadIan Morrison, 740 Lockwood AvenueBob White, Petoskey News Review

Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the November 18, 2010 meeting were approved.

After discussion at several meetings on proposedPublic Hearing proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance, the

Changes to the Zoning Ordinance Commission scheduled a public hearing to receiveSections 401 and 1907 public comment on these proposed amendments.

The topic of backyard chickens was brought to the forefront by the nonprofit group Farming forOur Future, who is looking to rent chicken coops through the Petoskey school system. TheCommission had previously discussed the issue as it relates to the .Michigan Right to Farm Act,however, there is currently no language to address the raising of chickens as pets or for family

consumption. Therefore, in order to establish parameters for the allowance of this use,regulations were developed after review and discussion by the Commission of several othercommunity ordinances.

The second amendment deals with residential events (i.e., garage or yard sales), which was notaddressed by the current ordinance. There have been several situations in the community whereperpetual sales have occurred, which are disruptive to residential neighborhoods. The proposedlanguage is intended to allow residents to have a limited number of events (up to four) in a twelve-month period.

The final amendment to section 1907 was recommended by the City Attorney to simply clarify thatthe zoning regulations must be in compliance with state and federal laws.

Minutes



-2-

Staff informed the Commission of two errors in the agenda memo that needed to be corrected andreviewed the proposed changes. Staff then read aloud Section 401(6a), 401(6b) and Section1907, and pointed out the text that had been added to the ordinance. She noted that theproposed changes were consistent with the master plan goal of protecting and enhancingresidential neighborhoods.

At this time the meeting was opened for public comment.

Toril Fisher, Executive Director of Farming for Our Future, commented that she was excited thatthe topic of backyard chickens was moving forward and thanked the Commission for theirconsideration.

With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.

Staff informed the Commission that two calls were received in opposition of the ordinance changeregarding the restriction of residential events.

Commissioner Meyerson asked about the 90 day period and how it would be calculated andenforced. Consensus was that the timeline starts at the end of one event and that the ordinance

would be primarily complaint driven since event permits are not to be required.

Commissioners discussed the proper wording regarding the keeping of chickens. Mr. Burns thenmade a motion, seconded by Mr. Holmes, to approve the proposed text amendments.

Mr. Grantham asked for clarification as to whether a fenced backyard could act as a fencedenclosure for chickens. Commissioners reviewed the proposed text amendments and madechanges to the text to clarify the requirements.

Mr. Burns and Mr. Holmes accepted the changes and a motion was made to recommend to CityCouncil the following amendments to Section 401 (6) and 1907 of the Zoning Ordinance:

Section 4016. Accessory building and uses customarily incident to any of the above-permitted

uses, including:a. The keeping of up to four (4) hens per parcel, provided that:

i. No person shall keep any rooster;ii. No person shall slaughter or dress any chickens outdoors;iii. Chickens shall be provided with a covered enclosure and must be kept in

the covered enclosure or a fenced enclosure in the rear yard at all times;iv. All enclosures shall be kept a minimum of three (3) feet from the rear or

rear-side property line and at least twenty-five (25) feet from any dwellingon a neighboring parcel;

v. Covered enclosures shall be so constructed or repaired as to prevent rats,

mice, or other rodents from being harbored underneath, within, or within thewalls of the enclosure.vi. All feed and other items associated with the keeping of chickens that are

likely to attract or to become infested with or infected by rats, mice, or otherrodents shall be protected so as to prevent rats, mice, or other rodents fromgaining access to or coming into contact with them.

b. Sales of personal items from a private residence, such as garage or yardsales, are allowed for no more than three (3) days in any ninety (90) day period.



-3-

Section 1907 Interpretation, purpose and conflict

In the interpretation and application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to beminimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, morals, safety,comfort, convenience, or general welfare. All zoning regulations shall be in compliancewith State and Federal laws. It is not intended by this Ordinance to repeal, abrogate,

annul, or in any way to impair or interfere with any existing provision of law or ordinanceother than the above described Zoning Ordinance, or with any rules, regulations or permitspreviously adopted or issued or which shall be adopted or issued pursuant to the lawrelating to the use of buildings or premises; provided, however, that where this Ordinanceimposes a greater restriction than is required by existing ordinance or by rules, regulationsor permits, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control.

AYES: Burns, Grantham, Greenwell, Holmes, Looze, Meyerson (6)NAYS: (0)

Under the current ordinance, the calculation forPublic Hearing allowable signs is clearly spelled out. Sign sizes are

Sign Ordinance either based on a percent of ground floor wall area orSections 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 on maximum size for free-standing signs. If a sign

does not meet the ordinance, it cannot be approved;if it meets the ordinance, it must be approved. The only area where there is any discretion by theSign Committee is for signs that fall under the special condition sign provisions, which are alsospecified.

Given the clarity of the Sign Ordinance allowances, the proposed changes would increase thenumber of signs that could be administratively approved instead of being reviewed by the SignCommittee. The Committee would continue to review special condition signs, develop ordinanceamendment language and hear any challenge or question to staff’s administration of theordinance. The main benefit of the proposed change would be to streamline the process for

applicants, while still allowing for Committee oversight.

Staff reviewed proposed text amendments which included the specification of which signs wouldbe administratively reviewed and which would have to be reviewed by the Sign Committee andthe addition and subtraction of wording to clarify the review process.

At this time the meeting was opened for public comment. With no comments made, the publichearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns made a motion, seconded by Ms. Meyerson, to recommend the proposed textamendments to City Council for approval.

AYES: Burns, Grantham, Greenwell, Holmes, Looze, Meyerson (6)NAYS: (0)

At its December, 2009 regular meeting, the PlanningDowntown Petoskey Design Guidelines Commission received a draft of the Downtown

Petoskey Design Guidelines. Staff noted that at thattime the Downtown Management Board Design Committee had further work to do, which wascompleted in early 2010. The guidelines were then approved by the Downtown ManagementBoard in February of 2010.

As recommended in the Petoskey Downtown Blueprint, the document is used with the façadegrant program to ensure that funded projects make improvements consistent with the guidelines.



-4-

The document provides detailed information on existing building architecture and placement, andreviews information on appropriate maintenance of historic structures.

Completing the guidelines was envisioned as an important first step in adding form components tothe Zoning Ordinance and possibly architectural standards in the downtown district. Manydowntown business and property owners were involved in development of the document, so thereis a greater awareness of the existing architectural and form base of downtown.

Staff reviewed lot line coverage and guidelines and stated that the guidelines within the documentwere clear, illustrative and informational for residents. Staff also commented that while thedocument is currently advisory only, it does provide important information that could beincorporated into ordinance form and the illustrations are similar to those that would be included ina form-based zoning ordinance.

Commissioners asked staff if the guidelines had to be adopted in order to hand them out toresidents and if they were adopted would residents be required to follow them, to which staffreplied that adoption was not required to hand them out and that adopting them would not requirethem to be followed as they are guidelines, not code, but would acknowledge the importance ofthe architecture downtown.

Commissioner Grantham stated that he did not have enough time to review the entire documentand Commissioner Meyerson agreed stating that she would like more time to review as well.

At this time the Commission agreed to postpone action for further review.

Staff provided a slide show of before and afterUpdates pictures of the Bear River Valley Improvement

Project.

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting wasadjourned at 8:04 P.M.

Reviewed by Gary Greenwell, Chairperson



Agenda Memo

BOARD:City Council


AGENDA SUBJECT: Non-Profit Organization Confirmation Resolution

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt this proposed resolution

Background. State statutes require that not-for-profit organizations that seek gaminglicenses receive from the legislative boards of local units of government in communitieswhere they are located certifications that such organizations do in fact operate locally.Northern Michigan Regional Health System Foundation, Petoskey, as administrator of raffledrives for local health system affiliates such as Hospice of Little Traverse Bay, etc., hasrequested the City Council's verification as part of future fundraising events.

Resolution. Enclosed is a proposed resolution that would confirm that Northern MichiganRegional Health System Foundation is a local not-for-profit organization that is known by theCity. This resolution would be submitted to the Michigan Bureau of the Lottery, CharitableGaming Division, Lansing, with future applications for gaming licenses that would permitthese health system affiliates to conduct future fundraising raffles.

sbEnclosure



Resolution

WHEREAS, local governmental units are required to certify status of local non-profitorganizations that seek permission of the Michigan Bureau of the Lottery, CharitableGaming Division, to conduct certain types of fundraising campaigns that require issuing ofgaming licenses; and

WHEREAS, Northern Michigan Regional Health System Foundation, Petoskey, hasrequested that the City recognize it as a non-profit organization that operates within thecommunity for the purpose of administrating gaming licenses for its Health System affiliatesthat would permit future fundraising events, the proceeds from which would benefit theindividual affiliate conducting the event:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Petoskey City Council does andhereby certifies that Northern Michigan Regional Health System Foundation, Petoskey, is arecognized non-profit organization that operates within the Petoskey community.



Agenda Memo

BOARD:City Council


AGENDA SUBJECT: Whitewater Kayak Concession RFP Discussion

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hear the City Manager report concerning thismatter

Summary. Prior to consideration of specific proposals for a kayak concession within the BearRiver Valley, Councilmember Atkins requested a discussion of whether the City of Petoskeyshould be engaged in the promotion of commercial activity within the Bear River Valley.

Background. In 2010, the City of Petoskey contracted for $2.4 million of improvements withinthe Bear River Valley, a significant component of which were whitewater improvements. Thewhitewater improvements include limestone structures that create a safer area for kayakers bycreating eddies and safe take-out locations along the river between Sheridan Street and LakeStreet.

In November, 2010, the Parks and Recreation Commission accepted the recommendation ofCity staff to solicit proposals from equipment outfitters interested in renting kayaks within theBear River Valley. The Request for Proposals (RFP) document used to solicit these proposalsis enclosed.

Request for Proposals. The RFP was designed to encourage the managed use of the BearRiver whitewater area. It is unlikely that the City could prevent outfitters from utilizing the RiverValley for commercial purposes. However, the RFP aims to make kayak rentals available, on aseasonal basis, for a minimum number of hours per week to community members and visitorsto Petoskey, at a location within the River Valley.

In exchange for a percentage of gross revenues - which will vary based on the specificproposals - the concessionaire would receive space within the Bear River Valley from which tostage equipment, and disseminate safety information. The concessionaire would be requiredto list the City as a named insured on their liability insurance, thereby protecting the City frompotential liability.

Other Commercial Activities. The City currently operates a variety of quasi-commercialfacilities on public property throughout the City. These activities include a campground atMagnus Park, the City-owned marina which includes gasoline sales, a concession stand inBayfront Park, picnic shelter rentals, and skate rental and concession area at the Winter SportsPark. In addition, recreational programming regularly includes the hiring of contractors forcertain classes on public property where specialized training and certifications are required.

drEnclosure



Agenda Memo

BOARD:City Council


AGENDA SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider these appointments

The City Council will be asked to consider the following appointments (individual applicationsto serve are enclosed):

•

PETOSKEY DISTRICT LIBRARY BOARD - Reappointments of Nancy Dwan, 1004Waukazoo Avenue, and Dale Hull, 1180 Winnell Court, for four-year terms endingJanuary, 2015.

sbEnclosures

council packet 02-07-11

Documents