Council Packet 02-07-11

Agenda
CITY COUNCIL
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 the
following consent agenda items:
(a) January 17, 2011 regular session City Council meeting minutes
(b) Acknowledge receipt of the City Manager's report concerning certain

administrative 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 Wastewater
Treatment 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 would

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

repeal and replace Section 401(6) of Article IV and Section 1907 of Article XIX of the
Zoning 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 and
administrator of raffle drives for local Health System affiliates
(b) Discussion of a Request for Proposals for the Bear River Valley
Recreation Area Whitewater Kayak Concession
9. Appointments – Consideration of appointments to the Petoskey District Library Board
10. City Council Comments
11. Adjournment
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 consent
agenda 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 that
have 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 3
payrolls 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 Treatment
Plant buildings for a two-year contract period at a cost of $44,535.
sb
Enclosures
My documents-council-consent memos-consent memo 04-19-10

MINUTES
Minutes
CITY COUNCIL
January 17, 2011
A regular meeting of the City of Petoskey City Council was held in the City Hall City Council
Chambers at Petoskey, Michigan, on Monday, January 17, 2011. The meeting was called
to order at 7:30 P.M.; then, after a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America, a roll call then determined that the following were
Present: H. Ted Pall, Jr., M.D., Mayor

William Atkins, City Councilmember
Thomas Postelnick, City Councilmember
Robert Johnson, City Councilmember
Ronald C. Marshall, Ph.D., City Councilmember
Absent: None
Also in attendance were City Manager Dan Ralley, City Clerk-Treasurer Alan Terry, City
Planner Amy Tweeten, and City Attorney James Murray.
Following the introduction of the consent

Resolution 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 draft
minutes of the January 3, 2011, regular-session City Council be and are hereby
approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that receipt by the City Council of a report concerning

all checks that had been issued since January 3, 2011, for contract and vendor
claims at $1,581,364.12, intergovernmental claims at $31,203.23, and the January 6
payroll 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 Downtown

Hear City Manager Updates Management Board was considering a recom-
mendation to the City Council concerning the
establishment of its Downtown Development Authority District as a Project Area under
Public Act 501 of 2006 for purposes of making liquor permits available to downtown
restaurants 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; and
following 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 to
locate a replica lighthouse prior to the Association beginning its solicitation for donations to
fund construction and maintenance of the lighthouse, and that no deadline for receiving
such 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 City

Resolution No. 18478 Council was being asked to approve a proposed
Approve Easement Agreements resolution that would authorize the Mayor and
560-566 West Lake Street City Clerk to sign utility and ingress and egress
easements for property owners at 560-566
West Lake Streets; that these easements were necessary to permit ingress and egress from
their properties to West Lake Street, and to ensure that property owners were legally able to
install 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 Lake
Street properties, from the State of Michigan; and that acquisition of the property ensured
common ownership of the rail corridor and helped secure needed right-of-way along West
Lake Street in order to construct a sidewalk.
The City Manager further reported that one single-family home previously stood on
the property that now comprised 560-566 West Lake Street; that that property owner
accessed their home by crossing property at 558 West Lake Street; and that, with the
subdivision of the property at 560-566 West Lake Street into four separate lots, it was now
necessary for each parcel to have ingress and egress and utility access to West Lake
Street.
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 common
ownership of the property, and that adequate right-of-way space on West Lake
Street was available for the construction of sidewalks; and
WHEREAS, properties along the north side of West Lake Street have no direct
access 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 the
north side of West Lake Street so that they can have ingress and egress from their
properties, and so they can connect to City utility services; and
WHEREAS, the property owners at 560, 562, 564, and 566 West Lake Street now
wish 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 hereby
authorized to sign documents prepared by the City Attorney granting the property
owners at 560, 562, 564 and 566 West Lake Street both a utility easement and an
easement for ingress and egress from their properties.

NAYS: None (0)
The City Manager and City Planner reported

Conduct First Reading of that the City Council was being asked to
Sign Ordinance Amendment- approve a proposed ordinance that would
Sign Approval Process streamline the sign approval process, granting
the City staff administrative authority to approve
additional types of sign applications, eliminating what was often a two-week wait for
approval by the Planning Commission Sign Committee.
The City Manager also reported that, at the suggestion of the Planning Commission
Sign Committee, in September, 2010, the City staff initiated a discussion with the Planning
Commission about the possibility of allowing additional administrative approval of sign
permit applications; and that currently, although there is very little discretion permitted in the
sign regulations, the Sign Committee reviews the majority of proposed sign applications.
The City Manager also reported that, in most cases, the Sign Ordinance clearly
spelled out permitted sign types, sizes and illumination; and that, as a standard practice, the
City staff analyzes sign applications and reports its findings to the Sign Committee, which
meets twice a month to review new sign applications.
The City Manager also reported that the proposed amendments would change the
primary responsibility for review and approval of wall-mounted, free-standing, directional and
sandwich-board signs to City staff; and that, currently, only projecting nameplates,
overhanging signs and promotional signs were approved by the City staff; and that a
detailed 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 Sections
7.1(4-7) in the proposed ordinance) in order for wall-mounted, on-premise, free-
standing, directional, and sandwich-board signs to be reviewed and administratively
approved by City staff.
2. Section 8.1 is formally listed as repealed to eliminate duplications in the City’s

Codified Ordinances.
3. §10.1(1) has been changed to clearly define City staff that are authorized to
administer and enforce the sign code.
4. §10.1(2b) was changed to reflect sign review by staff, with the Planning Commission
serving as the appeals body.
5. §10.1(5c) was removed, which required most applicants to submit ten copies of their
sign permit application, a requirement that the Sign Committee felt was onerous and
unnecessary.
-4-
The City Manager further reported that all signs that now fell under §8.2 Special
Condition Sign provisions would continue to be reviewed by the Sign Committee.
The City Planner also reported that this proposed amendment would change sign
review 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 as
approval without discretion so it was not subjective, and that there was no fee required to
request an appeal.
No public comment was received and, according to City Charter provisions, the City
Council then tabled this matter until its regular February 7, 2011, meeting to conduct a
second reading and take possible action on the proposed ordinance.
The City Manager and City Planner reported

Conduct First Reading of that beginning, in August, 2010, the Planning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Commission began discussions about two
Residential 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, or
porch sales were typically regulated activities as they could become quasi-commercial
operations, but that they were not currently addressed in the Zoning Ordinance; that, due to
the lack of definition and restrictions in the ordinance, it was very difficult to address the
situations that came up when the events go on for an extended period of time; and that, in
the past five years, the City has had these very situations on Kalamazoo Avenue, Water
Street, East Mitchell Street, and State Street, frustrating the neighbors who believe such
operations to be a detriment to their neighborhood.
The City Manager also reported that, in determining how such activities should be
regulated, 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 could
not sell, was generally donated to a non-profit organization; that a sale that goes on
perpetually was likely having outside items brought in, making it more of a commercial
activity; and that, therefore, putting restrictions on the number of days of an event and
number of times such events could be carried out and still be considered a residential use
seemed appropriate.
The City Manager also reported that there was also discussion of whether such
events should have permits required, as some communities do, but the Planning
Commission decided that the first step should be to simply define the acceptable
parameters 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 been
discussed by the Planning Commission on and off for over a year as it related to the State’s
Right 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 Future
who wanted to begin a “rent-a-hen” program to families through the school system; that the
issue 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 being
addressed in East Lansing, Flint, Traverse City, Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids; and that
there 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 to

support 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 several
topics related to urban agriculture, but at this time was only recommending regulations
pertaining to the keeping of chickens within the City; that the proposed language was
developed after review of ordinances from several other communities and input from the
Traverse City Planning Director; and that, again, the Planning Commission considered a
permitting process, but determined that it would impose additional administrative work that
would likely not improve the potential enforcement of any problem situations.
The City Planner also reported that the first regulation of the proposed ordinance
was to limit garage sales to a three-day period every 90 days for a total of four times per
year; that the second regulation was to allow four hens per parcel as part of urban
agriculture and did not permit housing roosters, and that the hens must be in an enclosure
at least three feet from the property line and 25 feet from dwellings; that the cons associated
with these proposed amendments were possible odors from chickens, noise, and storage of
food; that other cities had approved such residential chicken legislation; and that the
Planning Commission had approved the amendment with no opposition from Commission
members or the general public.
The City Council discussed the proposed ordinance including enforcement as a civil
infraction 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 be
included in this proposed amendment and that he did not favor seeing this use allowed
within the City.
Robert Howse, 719 Michigan Street, asked how chickens would be contained and
where 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 garage
sales to every three-months was an issue for him; that he believed garage sales should be
permitted more frequently in summer months; and reported that four hens would produce up
to three dozen eggs weekly and would be better than store-bought eggs.
Mark Tarquini, 801 Kalamazoo Avenue, reported that he believed a permit would be
a good way to track public interest and that he would wish to know that his neighbor was
planning such a use.
-6-
Toril Fisher, Bear Creek Township, reported that he had involvement with the City's
community garden project on Sheridan Street and reported about the positives of raising
chickens.
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 matter
at the next City Council meeting; and Mayor Pall reported that he would like clarifications on
the Act and being able to commercially sell eggs from private residences. Some discussion
followed and the City Attorney reported that he would make a presentation concerning the
Right to Farm Act at the next meeting of the City Council.
Following inquiries by Councilmember Johnson, the City Attorney reported that there
were 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 on
the proposed ordinance.
The City Manager then reported that the City

Resolution No. 18479 Council was being asked to approve a proposed
Approve MDOT Permit Signatories resolution that would authorize four Department
of Public Works employees to enter Michigan
Department of Transportation applications to perform routine and emergency repairs within
the State right-of-way as part of the State's new online system, on behalf of the City and its
contractors.
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 ''GOVERNMENTAL

AGENCY,'' periodically applies to the Michigan Department of Transportation, hereinafter
referred 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-of- way at various locations within and adjacent to
its corporate limits:
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the DEPARTMENT granting such PERMIT, the

GOVERNMENTAL 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, as
provided by law. This Agreement is not intended to increase either party's liability for, or
immunity from, tort claims, nor shall it be interpreted, as giving either party hereto a right
of indemnification, either by Agreement or at law, for claims arising out of the
performance of this Agreement.
-7-
2. Any work performed for the GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY by a contractor or

subcontractor will be solely as a contractor for the GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY and not
as a contractor or agent of the DEPARTMENT. The DEPARTMENT shall not be subject
to any obligations or liabilities by vendors and contractors of the GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY, or their subcontractors or any other person not a party to the PERMIT without
its specific prior written consent and notwithstanding the issuance of the PERMIT. Any
claims by any contractor or subcontractor will be the sole responsibility of the
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.
3. The GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY shall take no unlawful action or conduct,

which arises either directly or indirectly out of its obligations, responsibilities, and duties
under the PERMIT which results in claims being asserted against or judgment being
imposed against the State of Michigan, the Michigan Transportation Commission, the
DEPARTMENT, and all officers, agents and employees thereof and those contracting
governmental bodies performing permit activities for the DEPARTMENT and all officers,
agents, and employees thereof, pursuant to a maintenance contract. In the event that the
same occurs, for the purposes of the PERMIT, it will be considered as a breach of the
PERMIT 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 by

the DEPARTMENT, promptly restore and/or correct physical or operating damages to
any State Highway Right of Way resulting from the installation construction, operation
and/or maintenance of the GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY'S facilities according to a
PERMIT issued by the DEPARTMENT.
5. With respect to any activities authorized by PERMIT, when the

GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY requires insurance on its own or its contractor's behalf
it 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 for
the DEPARTMENT and all officers, agents, and employees thereof, pursuant to a
maintenance contract.
6. The incorporation by the DEPARTMENT of this resolution as part of a

PERMIT does not prevent the DEPARTMENT from requiring additional performance
security or insurance before issuance of a PERMIT.
7. This resolution shall continue in force from this date until cancelled by the
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY or the DEPARTMENT with no less than thirty (30) days
prior written notice to the other party. It will not be cancelled or otherwise terminated
by 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 apply

to the DEPARTMENT for the necessary permit to work within State Highway Right of
Way on behalf of the GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.
Michael Robbins Director of Public Works

Andrew Altman Public Works Supervisor - Streets
Jeffrey Davis Public Works Supervisor - Electric
Sherrie Elliott Public Works Supervisor - Water/WWTP
-8-

NAYS: None (0)
Mayor Pall asked that the City Council approve

Resolution No. 18480 the following reappointments of City Assessor
Appointment Recommendations John Gehres (by title) to the Building Authority
Board of Commissioners for a three-year term
ending 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 Howard
Street, all for two-year terms ending January, 2013.
City Councilmember Marshall moved that, seconded by City Councilmember

Postelnick, 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 City

Assessor John Gehres - who is appointed by title - for a three-year term ending July,
2012; and
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - Reappointments of David Farley, 816

Spruce Street, John E. Hoffman, 1040 Hoffman Street, and Pete Wooters, 808
Howard Street, all for two-year terms ending January, 2013.

NAYS: None (0)
City Councilmember Marshall reported that

Hear Council Comments the City was on target with water inspections;
City Councilmember Johnson complimented
City staff on snow removal operations; City Councilmember Postelnick concurred that snow
removal 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 of
Elizabeth 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

ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS
CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION
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 Public
Works 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 for
an additional two-year period upon mutual agreement between the City and the contractor.
Bids. Performance specifications were prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation
staff which oversees building-and-grounds operations that call for cleaning the Sheridan
Street facility five days per week and the Wastewater Treatment Plant facility three days per
week. Bid packets were made available and publicly advertised on December 21, 2010.
Thirteen area janitorial service firms were notified, seven firms requested bid documents, and
on January 25, 2011, five firms submitted bids of which two were not accepted due to pricing
errors and non-compliance with bid specifications.
Bidder Amount
Porcelain Patrol Services $44,535

Traverse City, Michigan
Grand Traverse Industries $63,522

Petoskey, Michigan
R.J. Foth Company $75,438

Harbor Springs, Michigan
Review. After reviewing bid documents, conducting reference checks, and speaking with firm
representatives, staff has asked the City Manager to recommend to City Council to approve
contracting 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 cost
for these services from the previous contract.
ld
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 Planning
Commission's recommendation
Background - The City Council conducted a first reading of a proposed ordinance that would repeal
and 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 ordinance
recommended by the Planning Commission and provided to the City Council as part of January 17
meeting agenda materials, and, as provided for in City Charter provisions, could now act on its
adoption.
dd
Sup - ord - Sign Ordinance Amendments 01-17-11

ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 7.1 AND 10.1, AND REPEAL SECTION 8.1
OF 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 Petoskey
entitled “Signs Requiring a Permit;” “On Premise Signs,” shall be amended, in
part, to read as follows: The figures included in Section 7.1 shall remain and are
hereby 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
Table 5 AREA OF WALL MOUNTED SIGNS
% Of Ground % Of Ground % of Ground

Zoning Tab
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_______
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)
(g) Changeable-message-area signs shall be restricted according to
the following schedule:
Table 6 CHANGEABLE MESSAGE AREA

RR
Zoning % Of Signable
District Wall Area Other__________
See Permitted Tab
R-1, R-2, R-3, RM-1, RM-2 Not Permitted Temporary Signs
See Interior
B-1, O-S, B-2 See item (h) below Business Signs _
B-3, B-3a, B-3b 30%
(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:
Table 7 FREESTANDING SIGNS
Zoning Maximum Height Maximum Sign Area

District In Feet In Square Feet*____
O-S, B-1, B-2 8 RR 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
(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)
Table 8 FREESTANDING SIGNS

Tab
Zoning Maximum % Sign Face
District In Changeable message_________________
O-S, B-1, I-1, I-2 25_________________________
B-3, B-3a, B-3b 40_________________________
(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.
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 as
follows:
Section 10. 1
(1) Authority for Administration and Enforcement. The City Manager,

City Planner, or the Department of Public Safety shall administer and
enforce the provisions of this Ordinance.
(2) Procedures for Review and Permitting. No sign identified in Articles

VII or VIII shall be erected, altered, or relocated unless approved by the
City, pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance and the following:
(a) Permits Required. Signs identified in Articles VII and VIII shall
require permits for installation.
(b) Sign Review. All signs subject to review shall be reviewed by staff
except as otherwise required by this Ordinance. Where a
petitioner is not satisfied with a decision of staff, it may be
appealed to the Planning Commission.
(3) Permits Not Required. All other signs permitted in this Ordinance shall
not 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 is
required 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 accompanied

by the following:
(a) Sign-Location Drawing. Distance measured in feet and inches

from the sign in relation to nearby buildings, sidewalks, street
curbs, structures, other on-site signs, and property lines shall be
shown.
(b) Sign-Elevation Drawing.
(1) Height of the sign above the ground and support

structure(s).
(2) Area and dimensions of sign surface.
(3) Lettering of the sign shall be graphically shown to scale as

it will appear on the erected sign, shall be in the style of
the finished sign, and shall be illustrated to approximate
the size and weight of the lettering of the final constructed
sign.
(4) Materials and colors to be used on the sign face and
support structures shall be labeled.
(5) Method of illumination, if any, shall be shown. In the case

of internally-illuminated signs, the drawing shall identify
which part of the sign is translucent and which part is
opaque.
(c) Load Calculations. If deemed necessary by the City Manager, or the

City Manager's designee, structural calculations must certify that a
sign is designed to withstand snow load, dead load, and wind load in
accordance with applicable City, State, and Federal regulations.
(d) Registered Seal. At the discretion of the City Manager, or the City
Manager's designee, for public-safety concerns, the application shall
bear the certificate or seal of a registered architect or engineer as a
condition precedent to the issuance of the permit.
(e) Certificate of Insurance. The City Manager, or the City Manager's

designee, may require an applicant to obtain a certificate of insurance
for installation of free-standing or overhanging signs.
(f) Location Staking. With two stakes erected to designate the vertical
height and located at the horizontal limits of the sign structure, the
proposed location of free-standing signs shall be identified by an
applicant prior to review by the City.
(g) Graphic Illustration. Photographs, markings on buildings, mockups,

spec sheets, catalogs, or other necessary illustrations may be
required in order to evaluate a proposed sign and its impacts.
(h) Other Information. The City may require additional information to

show full compliance with this and all other applicable laws.
(i) Permit Fee. A fee must be paid for signs requiring permits, in
accordance with the City's schedule of fees.
(j) Expiration of Permit. All permits issued for the erection of a sign
shall 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 certain

signs under the provisions of this Ordinance, the applicant shall furnish
such surveys, plans, or other information as may be reasonably required
by said Commission for the proper consideration and investigation of the
matter.
The Planning Commission may impose such conditions or limitations in

granting approval in its judgment as may be necessary to fulfill the intent
and purposes of this Ordinance.
The Petoskey Planning Commission may delegate decisions in
accordance with this Ordinance to a committee, herein called the Sign
Committee, consisting of no fewer than three (3) members, of which at
least one (1) shall be a Planning Commission member. A quorum shall
be two (2) members of the Committee.
4. The various parts, sections and clauses of this Ordinance are hereby declared to
be severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause is adjudged
unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of
the Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
5. This Ordinance shall take effect fourteen (14) days following its enactment and
shall be published once within seven (7) days after its enactment as provided by
Charter.
Adopted, enacted and ordained by the City of Petoskey City Council this
day of ____________2011.
H. Ted Pall, Jr.

Its Mayor
Alan Terry
Its Clerk
Open.18288.52780.10629548-1
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 ordinance
recommended by the Planning Commission that would repeal and replace Section 401(6) of Article IV
and Section 1907 of Article XIX of the Zoning Ordinance. Also enclosed is a memorandum from the
City 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 had
been provided to the City Council as part of January 17 meeting agenda materials, and, as provided for
in City Charter provisions, could now act on its adoption.
dd
Enclosures
Sup - ord - zoning ord amendment - chickens 01-17-11

PROPOSED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AND REPLACE SECTION 401(6) OF ARTICLE IV AND

SECTION 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 repealed
and 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 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 dwelling on 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 the walls 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 other rodents shall be protected so as to prevent
rats, mice, or other rodents from gaining access to or coming into
contact with them.
b. Sales of personal items from a private residence, such as garage or
yard 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 repealed
and replaced by the following:
Sec. 1907. Interpretation, purpose and conflict.
In the interpretation and application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be

held to be minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health,
morals, safety, comfort, convenience, or general welfare. All use of land within
the City shall be in compliance with all 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 ordinance other than the above described
Zoning Ordinance, or with any rules, regulations or permits previously adopted or
issued or which shall be adopted or issued pursuant to the law relating to the use
of buildings or premises; provided, however, that where this Ordinance imposes
-2-
a greater restriction than is required by existing ordinance or by rules, regulations

or 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 adjudged
unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of
the Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its enactment and
shall be published once within seven (7) days after its enactment as provided by
Charter.
Adopted, enacted and ordained by the City of Petoskey City Council this day of
____________2011.
H. Ted Pall, Jr.

Its Mayor
Alan Terry
Its Clerk
CITY ATTORNEY MEMO
MINUTES
Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 19, 2010
A regular meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City Hall Community
Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, August 19, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00 P.M. and the
following were:
Present: Dean Burns

Jeff Grantham
Gary Greenwell, Chairperson
Judy Hills
James Holmes
Elizabeth Looze
John Murphy
Absent: Cynthia Robson
Staff: Amy Tweeten, City Planner

Lisa Denoyer, Administrative Assistant
Others: Bruce Byl, 7727 East Shore Road, Traverse City, MI

Bob Cornwell, 401 East Front Street. Traverse City, MI
Toril Fisher, Farming for Our Future
Jim Malewitz, Performance Engineers, Inc.
Bob White, Petoskey News Review
A correction was made in reference to the rescheduled date of the August Special Session
Planning Commission meeting. The correct date would be Thursday, September 9, 2010, not
Tuesday, September 9, 2010. Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the July 15, 2010,
meeting were approved.
At its July meeting the Planning Commission

Parking Plan postponed action on a parking plan for 919 Spring
919 Spring Street Street pending additional information on the need for
more 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 Street
branch had six employees and currently has nine. Along with the addition of staff the branch now
offers additional services that bring more customers to this location, causing inadequate and
unsafe parking for customers and therefore creating a need for additional parking.
Commissioner Murphy commented that at its July meeting the Commission had requested that
the bank provide a time schedule or data that showed the demand for parking and the number of
cars that were typically parked in the right-of-way at any time for this Planning Commission
meeting, but that no such information had been provided. Mr. Byl stated that he was unaware of
the request.
-2-
Jim Malewitz, Performance Engineering, Inc., stated that the Spring Street branch has nine
employees and only 10 parking spaces, therefore proving that there was inadequate parking
available for customers. Mr. Malewitz also stated that he did not believe that there were currently
any cars being parked in the right-of-way but believes that would be the case in the future with the
additional 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 parking
spaces and the need for a pedestrian path through the island to allow easier access for
customers. Mr. Malewitz responded that while permeable pavers are a good option they can be
difficult to plow over and maintain, that the bank would be willing to adjust the width of the parking
spaces to meet the required measurement and that a sidewalk could be put in through the island
to allow easier access for customers.
Bob Cornwell, Architect for Northwestern Bank, stated that placing a parking area to the north
would 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 additional
parking 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 the
increase in business and reiterated that due to the tremendous growth there was a need for
additional parking and without approval it could prove detrimental to their business.
Commissioner Grantham made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hills, to accept the

amended 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; and
3. 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 begin

Farming for Our Future a new “Rent-A-Hen” program in the Petoskey Area to
to provide educational opportunities in animal
husbandry. The current Zoning Ordinance only addresses farms and the raising of livestock or
poultry on parcels of land that are five acres or greater. The program is not necessarily promoting
commercial 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 animal
husbandry, proper care and handling, as well as the anatomy of a chicken and the egg producing
process. Hens would only be used during their egg laying phases, approximately April 1st through
November 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 of
program 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 the
maintenance 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 be
and focus on the current ordinance and how it can be improved.
Commissioner Looze made a motion, seconded by Mr. Grantham, to ask staff for additional
language 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 2011-2015

2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program to review, pursuant to
Capital Improvement Program the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Article IV. The
purpose of Planning Commission review was to
ensure that the projects included were consistent with the goals, objectives and strategies of the
City of Petoskey Master Plan.
Staff reviewed the Atkins Road Extension Project, West Mitchell Street Project, Downtown
Greenway 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 as
grants and other forms of funding.
Commissioner Murphy made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Hills, to accept the plan and forward it
to City Council for final adoption.
AYES: Burns, Grantham, Greenwell, Hills, Holmes, Looze, Murphy (7)

NAYS: (0)
Staff informed Commissioners that the second public

Updates meeting for the Access Management Plan will
be 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 a
trainer in place of having commissioners attend training separately.
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:13 P.M.
Reviewed by Gary Greenwell, Chairperson

Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 9, 2010
A special meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City Hall
Community Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, September 9, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00
P.M. and the following were:
Present: Gary Greenwell, Chairperson

Jeff Grantham
James Holmes
Elizabeth Looze
Emily Meyerson
John Murphy
Rick Neumann
Cynthia Linn Robson
Absent: Dean D. Burns
Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the May 13, 2010 special meeting were approved.
At its August meeting, Commissioners directed staff to

Urban Agriculture develop possible language to allow a restricted number
of chickens. Staff presented the possible language in
addition to some other language pertaining to urban agriculture for discussion. Four ordinances
from 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. When
queried, staff noted she was not sure there was a need or real benefit to having permits if the
restrictions were in zoning as the impacts of chickens versus other allowed pets on neighbors are
what needs to be considered. Discussion followed on need or method of notifying neighbors, the
need for language on keeping coops and feed in a manner that would not attract rodents and the
appropriate setbacks from property lines and adjacent residential dwellings.
Consensus was reached that there should be language on keeping coops and feed in a manner that
would not attract rodents. There was initial consensus on requiring coops to meet current accessory
building setbacks (3 feet) with an additional setback from residential dwellings, however, the
Commission wanted additional input from the communities that had adopted ordinances on why the
specific setbacks had been established and whether they believed permitting to be beneficial.
Staff explained that each year there is at least one

Residential 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, the
only remedy would be to issue a citation for operating a business in a residential district. Staff
therefore 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 of
events in a year, there was consensus that permits should not be required and the following
language would best protect neighborhoods:
Private garage sales, yard sales or estate sales: Sales of personal items from a
private 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 upcoming

Updates meeting on the US 31 Access Management Plan
For the US 31 and M119 Corridors to be held
Wednesday, September 15 at 6:00 p.m., Bear Creek Township Hall.
The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.

Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 14, 2010
Community Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, October 14, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00

Dean D. Burns
Jeff Grantham
James Holmes
Elizabeth Looze
Emily Meyerson
John Murphy
Rick Neumann
Cynthia Linn Robson
Also present: Donna and Michael Wiklanski, 309 Grove Street

Bill Atkins, 904 Michigan Street
Samuel A. Milstein, 5 Belle Avenue
Ted Pall, 603 E. Lake Street
Ryan Bentley, Petoskey News Review
Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the September 9, 2010 special meeting were
approved, with Commissioner Burns abstaining. Discussion of the proposed language for garage
sales and other residential events will be placed on the next special meeting agenda.
The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to

review the language Council is proposing for an
Sign Ordinance Discussion amendment to the sign ordinance pertaining to
Sandwich Boards sandwich boards. Staff showed the Commission the
power point presentation given to Council that illustrates
the 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 Design
Committee and Downtown Management Board (DMB) actions. Staff also clarified for commissioners
the boards and committees that had been involved in the process and that getting input from the
DMB had been the idea of the Sign Committee because ordinance issues relating to downtown
seemed to come up frequently.
Ms. Looze then noted her concerns with a one-year sunset provision because some businesses
would likely wait until after the one-year timeframe to use a sandwich board; therefore, the real
impact would not be shown during the trial period.
Commissioner Burns then stated that historically, sandwich board signs were not allowed. A couple
of 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-term
impact 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 a
further 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 it
illustrates how un-pedestrian friendly these signs are. He also noted that these are signs on public
property 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 the
sidewalks 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 also
create an obstacle to car doors and people getting into and out of cars. Smaller signs kept behind
the first pavement section line was also suggested, however, wind does become an issue if signs
are 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 friendly
community and that the proposed ordinance change –even for a one-year trial period – was contrary
to these goals. The issue of consistency was raised and if it were a concern, perhaps restaurants
should be limited as other businesses or the ordinance return to prohibiting altogether. The question
of allowing on private property was raised.
Staff was asked whether other communities had been contacted and staff summarized her
discussion with Russ Soyring, Traverse City Planning Director that the signs are only allowed on
private 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, that
based on community plans that promote a walkable community, the proposed ordinance not be
approved and that the existing regulations for sandwich boards remain.
Commissioner Looze asked whether the commission should be more direct with its recommendation
to 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 directed

Urban 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 East
Lansing and Ann Arbor were provided.
Commissioner Looze stated she believed the Traverse City ordinance sufficiently addressed most of
the possible issues if the goal is to encourage family food production. She believed the ordinance
should allow 4-6 chickens, have the coop at the accessory building setback and have a 25 foot
setback from adjacent dwellings. Discussion followed.
-3-
Commissioner Robson questioned the 25 foot setback and was concerned that this would make it
difficult for many properties. The consensus of the commission was that 25 feet from adjacent
dwellings 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 outdoor
slaughtering, and fencing.
Discussion followed on community gardens and the need for additional regulations. The consensus
of the Commission was that neighbors working together on a vacant lot would be positive and did
not see that regulations need to be developed at this time but that a policy statement about the
encouragement of urban agriculture activities may need to be added to the master plan.
As noted in the agenda memo, most signs are

Sign Ordinance Administration currently required to be reviewed by the Committee,
although the ordinance is straight forward on what is
allowed. The Committee does have more flexibility with special condition signs and spends a
significant 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 be
approved administratively, which may provide a faster response as well as reduce the number of
meetings 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 and
is 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 has
clear parameters that have to be met and reduce the number of signs that went to the Committee as
any that fall under special condition sign provisions or if the petitioner questions staff analysis or
interpretation. The Committee will still be the body to develop ordinance amendment language for
review by the Commission.
Staff noted that a copy of the 2010 Citizen Survey

Updates results and the agenda packet for the October 21st
meeting had been placed on the tables. Staff also
reported that the first section of sidewalk at Lockwood MacDonald had been installed and that
Commissioners Greenwell and Murphy and staff had attended the asset mapping training and would
be working to develop a croquet event as an outcome of the session.
Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 11, 2010
Community Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, November 11, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00

Dean D. Burns
Jeff Grantham
John Murphy
Rick Neumann
Cynthia Linn Robson
Absent: James Holmes

Elizabeth Looze
Emily Meyerson
Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the October 14, 2010 special meeting were
approved.
Staff reviewed the ordinance language drafted to allow

Zoning Ordinance backyard chickens. Questions were raised whether
Amendments the language adequately addressed the dressing and
processing of chickens and whether this should also be
prohibited. The consensus was that this should be added, which resulted in the proposed text
amendment under accessory uses in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts (Section 401(6)) to read:

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) feet
from any dwelling on 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 the walls 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
other rodents shall be protected so as to prevent rats, mice, or other
rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them.
-2-
Discussion then turned to the proposed language restricting residential events such as garage and
yard sales. The number of allowable days of these types of events was discussed and the
consensus was that the last line “or occur more than once in any ninety (90) day period” could be
removed. Discussion then followed on the need to regulate fundraising events at schools and
churches, which staff noted would need to be incorporated into a separate section of the code; the
Commission 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 items
from 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 schedule
a public hearing on the proposed text amendments to Section 401 of the Zoning Ordinance at the
regular meeting in December; motion carried.
Staff summarized the proposed changes to the Sign

Sign Ordinance Administration Ordinance Administration Section that would reduce the
number of signs that would be required to be reviewed
by the Committee, however, staff would have the option of requesting review by the Committee
if clarification was needed. The Committee would continue to review those signs in the
special condition sign category. The changes would be to move those signs listed in Section 8.1 of
the ordinance into Section 7.1 and add the text: “Staff may require review by the Sign Committee or
Planning Commission.” Special Condition Signs, which are currently listed in Section 8.2, would be
moved to section 8.1.
Commissioner Murphy noted that the Sign Committee members – current and past – supported the
change and that it would improve efficiency of sign application administration. Commission Burns
then made a motion, supported by Commissioner Murphy, to schedule the proposed Sign Ordinance
text amendment for a public hearing at the regular December commission meeting. Motion carried.
Staff had no updates but Commissioner Grantham

Updates asked whether the Commission had looked into
regulating the location of television satellite dishes
as they detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhoods and noted their location is regulated
in 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 as
part of the alternative energy issues including wind and solar facilities and would be coming back for
additional discussion. Commissioner Neumann asked about the current regulations on duplexes
and noted they were inconsistent with the goal of creating a mix of housing and that this needed to
be looked at.
Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 16, 2010
A regular meeting of the City of Petoskey Planning Commission was held in the City Hall Community
Room, Petoskey, Michigan, on Thursday, December 16, 2010. Roll was called at 7:00 P.M. and the
following were:
Present: Dean Burns

Jeff Grantham
Gary Greenwell, Chairperson
James Holmes
Elizabeth Looze
Emily Meyerson
Absent: John Murphy

Richard Neumann
Cynthia Linn Robson

Lisa Denoyer, Administrative Assistant
Others: Drew Fisher, 3501 Shanley Road

Julia Fisher, 3501 Shanley Road
Toril Fisher, 3501 Shanley Road
Ian Morrison, 740 Lockwood Avenue
Bob White, Petoskey News Review
Upon motion made and supported, minutes of the November 18, 2010 meeting were approved.
After discussion at several meetings on proposed

Public Hearing proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance, the
Changes to the Zoning Ordinance Commission scheduled a public hearing to receive
Sections 401 and 1907 public comment on these proposed amendments.
The topic of backyard chickens was brought to the forefront by the nonprofit group Farming for
Our Future, who is looking to rent chicken coops through the Petoskey school system. The
Commission 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 other
community ordinances.
The second amendment deals with residential events (i.e., garage or yard sales), which was not
addressed by the current ordinance. There have been several situations in the community where
perpetual sales have occurred, which are disruptive to residential neighborhoods. The proposed
language 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 that
the zoning regulations must be in compliance with state and federal laws.
-2-
Staff informed the Commission of two errors in the agenda memo that needed to be corrected and
reviewed the proposed changes. Staff then read aloud Section 401(6a), 401(6b) and Section
1907, and pointed out the text that had been added to the ordinance. She noted that the
proposed changes were consistent with the master plan goal of protecting and enhancing
residential 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 that
the topic of backyard chickens was moving forward and thanked the Commission for their
consideration.
With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Staff informed the Commission that two calls were received in opposition of the ordinance change
regarding the restriction of residential events.
Commissioner Meyerson asked about the 90 day period and how it would be calculated and
enforced. 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 then
made 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 fenced
enclosure for chickens. Commissioners reviewed the proposed text amendments and made
changes to the text to clarify the requirements.
Mr. Burns and Mr. Holmes accepted the changes and a motion was made to recommend to City
Council the following amendments to Section 401 (6) and 1907 of the Zoning Ordinance:
Section 401
6. Accessory building and uses customarily incident to any of the above-permitted
uses, including:
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 dwelling
on 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 the
walls 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 other
rodents shall be protected so as to prevent rats, mice, or other rodents from
gaining access to or coming into contact with them.
b. Sales of personal items from a private residence, such as garage or yard
sales, 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 be
minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, morals, safety,
comfort, convenience, or general welfare. All zoning regulations shall be in compliance
with 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 ordinance
other than the above described Zoning Ordinance, or with any rules, regulations or permits
previously adopted or issued or which shall be adopted or issued pursuant to the law
relating to the use of buildings or premises; provided, however, that where this Ordinance
imposes a greater restriction than is required by existing ordinance or by rules, regulations
or permits, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control.
AYES: Burns, Grantham, Greenwell, Holmes, Looze, Meyerson (6)

NAYS: (0)
Under the current ordinance, the calculation for

Public Hearing allowable signs is clearly spelled out. Sign sizes are
Sign Ordinance either based on a percent of ground floor wall area or
Sections 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 the
Sign Committee is for signs that fall under the special condition sign provisions, which are also
specified.
Given the clarity of the Sign Ordinance allowances, the proposed changes would increase the
number of signs that could be administratively approved instead of being reviewed by the Sign
Committee. The Committee would continue to review special condition signs, develop ordinance
amendment language and hear any challenge or question to staff’s administration of the
ordinance. 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 would
be administratively reviewed and which would have to be reviewed by the Sign Committee and
the 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 public
hearing was then closed.
Mr. Burns made a motion, seconded by Ms. Meyerson, to recommend the proposed text
amendments to City Council for approval.
AYES: Burns, Grantham, Greenwell, Holmes, Looze, Meyerson (6)

NAYS: (0)
At its December, 2009 regular meeting, the Planning

Downtown Petoskey Design Guidelines Commission received a draft of the Downtown
Petoskey Design Guidelines. Staff noted that at that
time the Downtown Management Board Design Committee had further work to do, which was
completed in early 2010. The guidelines were then approved by the Downtown Management
Board in February of 2010.
As recommended in the Petoskey Downtown Blueprint, the document is used with the façade
grant program to ensure that funded projects make improvements consistent with the guidelines.
-4-
The document provides detailed information on existing building architecture and placement, and
reviews information on appropriate maintenance of historic structures.
Completing the guidelines was envisioned as an important first step in adding form components to
the Zoning Ordinance and possibly architectural standards in the downtown district. Many
downtown business and property owners were involved in development of the document, so there
is 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 document
were clear, illustrative and informational for residents. Staff also commented that while the
document is currently advisory only, it does provide important information that could be
incorporated into ordinance form and the illustrations are similar to those that would be included in
a form-based zoning ordinance.
Commissioners asked staff if the guidelines had to be adopted in order to hand them out to
residents and if they were adopted would residents be required to follow them, to which staff
replied that adoption was not required to hand them out and that adopting them would not require
them to be followed as they are guidelines, not code, but would acknowledge the importance of
the architecture downtown.
Commissioner Grantham stated that he did not have enough time to review the entire document
and 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 after

Updates pictures of the Bear River Valley Improvement
Project.
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was
adjourned 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 gaming
licenses receive from the legislative boards of local units of government in communities
where they are located certifications that such organizations do in fact operate locally.
Northern Michigan Regional Health System Foundation, Petoskey, as administrator of raffle
drives for local health system affiliates such as Hospice of Little Traverse Bay, etc., has
requested the City Council's verification as part of future fundraising events.
Resolution. Enclosed is a proposed resolution that would confirm that Northern Michigan
Regional Health System Foundation is a local not-for-profit organization that is known by the
City. This resolution would be submitted to the Michigan Bureau of the Lottery, Charitable
Gaming Division, Lansing, with future applications for gaming licenses that would permit
these health system affiliates to conduct future fundraising raffles.
sb
Enclosure
Resolution
WHEREAS, local governmental units are required to certify status of local non-profit
organizations that seek permission of the Michigan Bureau of the Lottery, Charitable
Gaming Division, to conduct certain types of fundraising campaigns that require issuing of
gaming licenses; and
WHEREAS, Northern Michigan Regional Health System Foundation, Petoskey, has

requested that the City recognize it as a non-profit organization that operates within the
community for the purpose of administrating gaming licenses for its Health System affiliates
that would permit future fundraising events, the proceeds from which would benefit the
individual affiliate conducting the event:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Petoskey City Council does and
hereby certifies that Northern Michigan Regional Health System Foundation, Petoskey, is a
recognized 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 this
matter
Summary. Prior to consideration of specific proposals for a kayak concession within the Bear
River Valley, Councilmember Atkins requested a discussion of whether the City of Petoskey
should 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 within
the Bear River Valley, a significant component of which were whitewater improvements. The
whitewater improvements include limestone structures that create a safer area for kayakers by
creating eddies and safe take-out locations along the river between Sheridan Street and Lake
Street.
In November, 2010, the Parks and Recreation Commission accepted the recommendation of
City staff to solicit proposals from equipment outfitters interested in renting kayaks within the
Bear River Valley. The Request for Proposals (RFP) document used to solicit these proposals
is enclosed.
Request for Proposals. The RFP was designed to encourage the managed use of the Bear
River whitewater area. It is unlikely that the City could prevent outfitters from utilizing the River
Valley for commercial purposes. However, the RFP aims to make kayak rentals available, on a
seasonal basis, for a minimum number of hours per week to community members and visitors
to Petoskey, at a location within the River Valley.
In exchange for a percentage of gross revenues - which will vary based on the specific
proposals - the concessionaire would receive space within the Bear River Valley from which to
stage equipment, and disseminate safety information. The concessionaire would be required
to list the City as a named insured on their liability insurance, thereby protecting the City from
potential liability.
Other Commercial Activities. The City currently operates a variety of quasi-commercial

facilities on public property throughout the City. These activities include a campground at
Magnus Park, the City-owned marina which includes gasoline sales, a concession stand in
Bayfront Park, picnic shelter rentals, and skate rental and concession area at the Winter Sports
Park. In addition, recreational programming regularly includes the hiring of contractors for
certain classes on public property where specialized training and certifications are required.
dr
Enclosure
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 applications
to serve are enclosed):
• PETOSKEY DISTRICT LIBRARY BOARD - Reappointments of Nancy Dwan, 1004

Waukazoo Avenue, and Dale Hull, 1180 Winnell Court, for four-year terms ending
January, 2015.
sb
Enclosures

Council Packet 02-07-11

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Council Packet 02-07-11

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Agenda

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

(b) Acknowledge receipt of the City Manager's report concerning certain

(c) Authorization to contract with Porcelain Control Services, Traverse City,

5. Miscellaneous Public Comments

6. City Manager Updates

(a) Second reading and consideration of a proposed ordinance that would

(b) Second reading and consideration of a proposed ordinance that would

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

9. Appointments – Consideration of appointments to the Petoskey District Library Board

10. City Council Comments

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

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

January 17, 2011

Present: H. Ted Pall, Jr., M.D., Mayor

Following the introduction of the consent

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that receipt by the City Council of a report concerning

Said resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Atkins, Postelnick, Johnson, Marshall, Pall (5)

The City Manager reported that the Downtown

The City Manager next reported that the City

WHEREAS, in 1992, the City of Petoskey acquired an abandoned railroad right-of-

Said resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Atkins, Postelnick, Johnson, Marshall, Pall (5)

The City Manager and City Planner reported

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

The City Manager and City Planner reported

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

• Economic circumstances- both as a personal cost savings and as a way to

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

The following public comments were heard:

The City Manager then reported that the City

WHEREAS, the City of Petoskey, hereinafter referred to as the ''GOVERNMENTAL

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the DEPARTMENT granting such PERMIT, the

2. Any work performed for the GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY by a contractor or

3. The GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY shall take no unlawful action or conduct,

4. The GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY It will, by its own volition and/or request by

5. With respect to any activities authorized by PERMIT, when the

6. The incorporation by the DEPARTMENT of this resolution as part of a

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following position(s) are authorized to apply

Michael Robbins Director of Public Works

Said resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Atkins, Postelnick, Johnson, Marshall, Pall (5)

Mayor Pall asked that the City Council approve

City Councilmember Marshall moved that, seconded by City Councilmember

BUILDING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - Reappointment of City

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - Reappointments of David Farley, 816

Said resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Atkins, Postelnick, Johnson, Marshall, Pall (5)

City Councilmember Marshall reported that

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

BOARD: City Council

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

AGENDA SUBJECT: Janitorial Service Contract

Porcelain Patrol Services $44,535

Grand Traverse Industries $63,522

R.J. Foth Company $75,438

BOARD: City Council