[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6639601,"mediaKeyId","3537791-e4700e3653ca6fc52dce8a69d7445156","parentId",3537791,"title","Commission debates accessory dwelling unit height and other zoning updates; sends ADU language to zoning committee","audioSeconds",557,"startMs",4336000,"endMs",4893000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3537791-e4700e3653ca6fc52dce8a69d7445156&start=4336&end=4893","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3537791-e4700e3653ca6fc52dce8a69d7445156/thumbnail_4336000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6639601/Petoskey-City/Emmet-County/Michigan/Commission-debates-accessory-dwelling-unit-height-and-other-zoning-updates-sends-ADU-language-to-zoning-committee","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6639601-ceed652cfc2707e29f1e1aa6cd6cc628/orig.mp4?Expires=1776923220&Signature=f7~h0M0R9NNZcdkZLJ0TZ0WAMPyO6wALCbflRKzcIFFGYaey4~kyvHoDRqbdO~2hfiuPiWhxwV9Damveg0lfev7WyQjvFy4B5tmd1PsMzVs1fO35g2pEtN3-2g~uJ~Beo0eidiGAduuUVsM-7R99uEV0IXlyTNQrQpjCEQUXG9CFVGGZ80UnWdUNOBsosNhEDhKPqYh-YPpRtSlbG9ydCgENW3eBmUfFn6vmcb4xTqCHBYL5wRVevH-SvNdj6F9y6wtkNw70UDzUBJ15rBoXSGqzVRuyK~jUgBM2v8NKDLtZ8MuJGAOIHs4eZCh7eUmJ3WXhhMgsQvCWV8toVKg8UA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-22T21:16:36Z","article","The Petoskey Planning Commission conducted an extended discussion of proposed zoning code updates in Articles 7 and 9, focusing substantial time on accessory dwelling unit (ADU) height, definitions and related policy choices. No ordinance was adopted; commissioners asked the zoning committee to redraft ADU language and bring the changes back for attorney review before advancing the package to City Council.

Staff presented the supplemental regulations and noted the current code language for ADUs: an ADU \"cannot exceed 1½ stories and 16 feet or the height of the principal structure, whichever is less.\" Commissioners and attending architects debated whether the 16‑foot midpoint limit should remain, whether an ADU built above a new or existing garage should be treated differently, and whether height should instead be a percentage (for example, 75%) of the primary structure or tied to the allowable height in the zoning district. Several commissioners argued for keeping clear, objective limits; others urged flexibility to enable functional living space above garages.

Commissioners proposed several draft approaches: keep the existing 1½‑story / 16‑foot rule; allow ADUs up to 75% of the principal structure height (with caveats for single‑story primary homes); or retain a numerical cap tied to district maximums. Architect and commission comments emphasized neighborhood character, potential for ADUs to be built as new accessory structures versus conversions, and concerns about owners building detached structures that then become short‑term rentals. One commissioner recommended ADUs on lots with a single‑story primary house should not exceed the primary house's height; another argued for defining different rules for ADUs above garages.

Commission consensus: the matter needs more work. Staff will revise two ADU height provisions discussed at the meeting — one for lots with single‑story primary houses and one for lots with multi‑story primary houses — and return the redrafted language to the zoning committee. The committee will refine wording and then forward the article to the city attorney; the full code package will be held until supporting articles are complete before any transmittal to City Council.

Public comment reflected similar concerns. Allison Patton (public commenter) urged the commission to publish redline drafts that show deleted existing language, warned that deleting some current provisions (for example, references to limits on accessory buildings, trailer‑coach rules and the '10 ADUs per year' licensing provision) could have unintended consequences, and said she wanted commissioners to proceed cautiously before allowing triplexes or fourplexes in traditional single‑family districts. \"I continue to have concerns about the fact that you're working from non red line proposals,\" Patton said, and asked the commission to preserve cross‑references so readers can see where existing rules move.

Why it matters: ADU rules are a key tool in many cities' housing strategies. The commission's decision to refine language reflects competing priorities — increasing housing supply, preserving neighborhood character, and preventing unintended conversions to short‑term rental markets.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - 05.21.25","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners spent extensive time debating accessory dwelling unit (ADU) height limits, definitions and whether licensing should be required. The commission directed the zoning committee to refine ADU language and return proposed edits to the full commission and city attorney.","taxTitle","Petoskey City, Emmet County, Michigan","taxId",53868,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6639605,"Planning commission approves Spring Street restaurant site plan with eight conditions to address parking, lighting and drainage",2828,1466000,4294000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3537791-e4700e3653ca6fc52dce8a69d7445156&start=1466&end=4294","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3537791-e4700e3653ca6fc52dce8a69d7445156/thumbnail_1466000.jpg","/articles/6639605/Petoskey-City/Emmet-County/Michigan/Planning-commission-approves-Spring-Street-restaurant-site-plan-with-eight-conditions-to-address-parking-lighting-and-drainage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6639605-c03ec9f80ea517de03796cde46211d64/orig.mp4?Expires=1776923220&Signature=Wgo58xSdqOFwL1IXMKm2JqJ8pZw2OlOn734bh9uIhDiSEhOl-n8xtK5O~NEj72W~pfkp8n1S5ri-29K5ohyGzwH2MP36Y4Wr5bq6KtRS617ztRVXXeNDmlI6EpAOTvGp39jdH9xFooKRcntslz9~TX9e4ejGgQ1y8d~90ksrFUvjw03mPV~XxD7ztzNofHynO-aZU5xE~pBYuZcwZtbgE~4IHj89ORSvP~6NoDUVJnfj2NgWjOgFPpE7txJgsoVLyL8vsbNZSVH8JEwqMJd5hEIZTwxNUQHz6H65hbMXp0zrSQO2QsGE6KKGp1Q3NCcyE5mYgfbF4E94k4kjFwBkeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Petoskey Planning Commission approved a site plan and parking plan review for a proposed outdoor dining patio at 887 Spring Street (case number 250‑25) after a lengthy discussion about parking calculations and shared parking rules.

The applicant, identified in the packet as Restaurant Properties LLC (Spring & Quarter restaurant), sought approval for an outdoor patio area on the south side of the restaurant that reduces on‑site parking requirement calculations. Staff and the applicant disagreed over which parking baseline to use when applying the ordinance's shared‑parking maximum (25% of required parking). Lisa, the zoning administrator, reported that current code constrains shared parking to 25% of the required parking and that, by staff calculation, the proposal left a deficit without additional measures. Jason Fape, director of the Department of Public Works, recommended a drainage structure near the building and oversized perforated pipe backfill in a geotextile‑lined trench to allow infiltration and added detention storage; staff included that as a condition.

Key points of debate included the number of seats and the resulting required parking: staff used a seating basis that led to a 42‑space requirement (based on 103 seats at the 2 spaces per 5 seats standard), and later discussion recalculated requirements around 90 seats and 36 spaces depending on assumptions. The applicant argued the code does not explicitly set the laundromat's required parking and asked the commission to apply discretion in determining a defensible required number rather than using the existing on‑site count.

Commissioners and staff examined how many on‑site spaces the revised plan provided (26 on the plan, with a potential reconfigure to 27 or 28), how many shared spaces the adjacent laundromat could effectively make available, and whether on‑street spaces within the 300‑foot radius could be counted. Lisa explained that the shared‑parking allowance is calculated as a percentage of the required parking and not the actual existing count on the adjacent lot; that interpretation gives applicants less shared‑parking credit than if the actual existing count were used. Several commissioners expressed frustration that the current code offers limited discretion for seasonal outdoor seating.

The commission approved the project with eight conditions including: provide a curb‑cut width notation on the site plan; submit a landscaping plan (matching plant materials used on a nearby project to create corridor continuity); provide an outdoor lighting plan with specified cutoff time for patio lighting if used; identify snow‑storage location; screen the dumpster; implement DPW's drainage recommendations; improve the alley to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular access between lots; and reduce total indoor/outdoor seating to meet the ordinance parking requirement (the staff motion language recorded in the meeting specified a reduction to 100 total seats as the condition).

A motion to approve was seconded and passed on roll call: Moss — yes; Newman — yes; Robson — yes; Wilmot — yes; Debmar — yes; Reid — yes; Crombert/Cromberg — yes.

Why it matters: The approval allows the restaurant to add outdoor dining while addressing neighborhood impacts and public‑infrastructure concerns through specific conditions. The item highlighted constraints in the current zoning code for shared parking and seasonal outdoor seating; staff and commissioners noted the city's upcoming zoning rewrite may add greater flexibility.","The commission approved a site plan and parking arrangement for Restaurant Properties LLC (Spring & Quarter) at 887 Spring Street, subject to eight conditions covering parking, lighting cutoff times, landscaping, drainage and alley improvements.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6639610,"Planning commission recommends ordinance allowing residential and limited hotel use below average grade downtown",1082,363000,1445000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3537791-e4700e3653ca6fc52dce8a69d7445156&start=363&end=1445","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3537791-e4700e3653ca6fc52dce8a69d7445156/thumbnail_363000.jpg","/articles/6639610/Petoskey-City/Emmet-County/Michigan/Planning-commission-recommends-ordinance-allowing-residential-and-limited-hotel-use-below-average-grade-downtown","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6639610-ef50a859c5114b0bbc296474e5cc68f7/orig.mp4?Expires=1776923220&Signature=Tlv9mXSdV-yOSwFukAV6~X5MTF6kg-WplmyumMeESBefXWqiqft7MgVzviqqGrodjiU-xGFV5~xKX~GhkPOep65AP-2Tp4oiSZwgw8Ae2Sxg2KaynjPrT3sIt~YhdJ8wtj-5NO0zJyfj52T0sfWJM3KhqRMA2TQgKyCE3hkRm2zRjG0dCLhs5Iutp1luM2BMmm7C-E6-OQTgO-xZYvZ88cOBHeg~bHXKgsNVTOPAuwzkdm2fW7izuhKG2ri2rhCdVrRwfbknZPyhjtI45eoUm2qbsqAZb7lJB346b02mpeIXcy1QVJnGQn-y3QIaAjxDk73uLv0zBDl3sZ-yFCCZLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Petoskey Planning Commission voted to recommend a zoning ordinance amendment to the City Council that would clarify code language about lower‑level spaces and permit certain residential and hotel uses below average grade in the downtown central business district.

The change substitutes the phrase \"below average grade\" for the existing term \"below grade\" or \"lower level\" in the downtown use table and would list hotel rooms below average grade as allowable by special‑condition use (SCU) after commission and public hearing review. The commission moved the recommendation after a public hearing and a staff overview.

Staff member Dan (staff) told the commission the draft ordinance would bring existing downtown uses into clearer compliance with the zoning code, and would explicitly allow, with conditions, residential uses in spaces below the average grade of a building. Dan said the amendment also responds to a request from the Downtown Management Board to add hotels to the lower‑level column as a special‑condition use. Amy Tweeden, executive director of the Downtown Management Board, submitted an email supporting the change and asking that hotels be added; Dan said the request had been incorporated.

Architect Mike Petal of Shoreline Architecture spoke during public comment in support, describing projects that have converted lower levels to worker housing elsewhere and urging the commission not to assume safety concerns are unaddressed. \"The Michigan building code addresses the life safety concerns ... the building code does define that,\" Petal said, noting egress, daylight and fire‑suppression requirements addressed by the code and giving a Charlevoix conversion as an example.

Commission members discussed the technical definition of \"average grade\" — the average between the highest and lowest points of grade on a building — and used downtown examples including McLean and Aiken (streets cited by staff) to illustrate how some established first‑floor/lower‑level relationships would be classified under the clarified language. Commissioners urged replacing ambiguous wording such as \"lower level\" with the code‑defined \"below average grade\" and adding a specific SCU entry for hotels in the table for the Central Business District.

After discussion the commission voted unanimously to forward the amended zoning language to the City Council with a recommendation. Roll call was recorded as: Denver — yes; Reid — yes; Kronberg — yes; Moss — yes; Newman — yes; Robson — yes; Wilmot — yes.

Why it matters: the change codifies how lower‑level commercial or residential spaces are treated downtown and creates a pathway (special‑condition review) for hotels and residential uses below average grade to be considered, balancing existing downtown building patterns against safety and compatibility review requirements.","The Petoskey Planning Commission voted to recommend a zoning ordinance amendment clarifying 'lower level' uses as 'below average grade,' and adding hotels as a special‑condition use for lower‑level spaces in the downtown central business district.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission debates accessory dwelling unit height and other zoning updates; sends ADU language to zoning committee

Planning commission approves Spring Street restaurant site plan with eight conditions to address parking, lighting and drainage

Planning commission recommends ordinance allowing residential and limited hotel use below average grade downtown