[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-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],{"_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",6503833,"mediaKeyId","5440274-a4d06d89a59fbb38b22ced3381b1b264","parentId",5440274,"title","Council pauses on sidewalk bike ban after wide public comment; city staff told to try signage and convene more stakeholders","audioSeconds",18,"startMs",5670000,"endMs",5688000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5440274-a4d06d89a59fbb38b22ced3381b1b264&start=5670&end=5688","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5440274-a4d06d89a59fbb38b22ced3381b1b264/thumbnail_5670000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6503833/Petoskey-City/Emmet-County/Michigan/Council-pauses-on-sidewalk-bike-ban-after-wide-public-comment-city-staff-told-to-try-signage-and-convene-more-stakeholders","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6503833-d04445998772cce6907af0454cf70725/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138149&Signature=hC3kZNfottTkFIDFhx-s3Va2KY6oYi~YbGBhhnCZaYvFPCKd~z4CDJ7UAgpfwSSq1RMujolQH73X28gYTeHQHkAgfPSQ7k8tkhfeb2lK0VIA6ePDV29QpruDhpuJcNl-NuqMmYCQfnCJzGczOuOORpHGKwS~aW4eBe9WuFt1l5FWDmnFC9MOVa28Hgp09dMvnJaoh8vXn9iAKrFTsFzh4l~MLGWrxMjXPa1~n-RSdlMw0XrG-AbucZHkDzVt3aW~zJsWy0ng7yoMp5vZDoE6pHLgGpc6IR3lUn6fTO7vRDFDD-Lj9kicqsQauwaEsi1JyIEV4ChdN7fCe-ZJ8pR2IA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-22T19:37:04.703Z","article","Petoskey City Council held a first reading on a proposed amendment to Chapter 21 of the city code that would prohibit riding bicycles (including e‑bikes and push bikes) and a range of wheeled devices on sidewalks in the downtown Central Business District, and heard extensive public comment and input from city staff.

City planner Amy Tweeden, who introduced the draft, said the proposal was prompted by recurring pedestrian‑bicyclist conflicts in the downtown shopping and park areas. \"The policy really for downtown since the 90s when the streetscape went in, was that...the sidewalks are for pedestrians,\" Tweeden said, explaining that the city added movable “please walk your bike” signs after installation of the Downtown Greenway corridor and widened sidewalks.

Tweeden and public‑safety staff told council they had seen frequent close calls, particularly during busy summer weekends, and that many bike riders use sidewalks where they create hazards near restaurants, park entrances and high‑foot‑traffic intersections. Director Carr of Public Safety said enforcement is challenging in congested areas but agreed that allowing repeated, fast riding on sidewalks is a safety concern: \"I think for safety reasons, the bikes, people riding bikes on the sidewalk is dangerous,\" Carr said.

Council members and residents raised competing points. Several downtown business owners and residents supported stronger rules to protect pedestrians and storefronts; others, including frequent bicyclists and local advocates for active transportation, warned that an outright ban could push riders into dangerous vehicle traffic and disproportionately affect young riders and workers who rely on bikes for short commutes.

Public commenters described practical conflicts and urged clearer routing: some urged signage and better wayfinding to direct cyclists to the official bike route that skirts downtown (Bay Street → Petoskey Street → Greenway), while others said that Greenway signage is not sufficiently visible and that a safe, obvious bike route through or around Pennsylvania Park is lacking.

Council discussed enforcement options. Public safety noted the department can issue small “yellow” warning tickets or pursue municipal civil infractions; the city’s current civil‑infraction schedule sets typical first‑offense amounts at $50. Several council members asked staff to make explicit in any future ordinance that officers may use discretion and educational tickets rather than immediate fines for first‑time or minor infractions.

After hearing roughly an hour of public comment and considerable council discussion, members concluded more work was needed. Council did not advance the ordinance to adoption. Instead staff were asked to take these next steps: increase and re‑deploy movable “please walk your bike” signage during the summer; study and improve wayfinding on Bay and Petoskey streets that connect the Greenway around downtown; refine proposed ordinance language (including clear map of restricted area) and enforcement language that explicitly allows officer discretion; and return with a plan that includes stakeholder input and data on bike/pedestrian flows.

The meeting illustrated the policy tradeoffs between pedestrian safety and active‑transportation access. Several residents urged the council to avoid a blunt prohibition that could push children and casual riders into streets without protected bike lanes. Council members said a follow‑up work session or draft that narrows restricted areas, clarifies enforcement discretion, and expands low‑cost signage and education would be a preferable next step.

No vote on the ordinance took place; staff will return with revised language, improved signage plans and stakeholder feedback.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting - 07.21.25","oneSentenceSummary","After a first reading of an ordinance to prohibit riding bicycles and similar devices on downtown sidewalks, council heard extended public comment and public‑safety input and decided not to advance to a vote. Council asked staff to prioritize stronger signage, targeted enforcement guidance and stakeholder outreach before returning.","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},6503838,"Petoskey council debates vacant‑building registration rules; first reading yields changes on timing and inspections",2603,1499000,4102000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5440274-a4d06d89a59fbb38b22ced3381b1b264&start=1499&end=4102","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5440274-a4d06d89a59fbb38b22ced3381b1b264/thumbnail_1499000.jpg","/articles/6503838/Petoskey-City/Emmet-County/Michigan/Petoskey-council-debates-vacantbuilding-registration-rules-first-reading-yields-changes-on-timing-and-inspections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6503838-620bc8db958f122d7c4bf9a0a763d559/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138149&Signature=PLKJNxxwl0ovgGbcULK6jloO7tzeojnfex9BsPTrkXR6dj~vZCzMADuxnQlTo7Nao83172KzKAFGiunQcmVCqAUsMQyk0xZbXFD60UHpDSe6nwKM3g-pXNVZnbE2cDlR7Iep7ysfw-WKXqoFNMcRsthSJZ4sKRoRux2poU-pJE8dPv5aLRGGyhKNDrYWUrBdZr34rjD1j30AYo8PHxXNi-5gTZuEsM4BRnLU-ngRcbKk4mQIapOxzdvoOcD9UhaDpwztQdbWxJX4mU0t54h9esUYZ32DdqT91qHCkmb-ZHFvb~ujiJumsxDUfIht3lYeIHbNb88FTusYRulJupr7wg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Petoskey City Council opened a first reading on a proposed ordinance to register and regulate vacant buildings, focusing debate on when a building becomes “vacant,” inspection timelines, exemptions and enforcement pathways.

The draft ordinance would require the owner of a building vacant for a designated consecutive period to register the property with the city’s code enforcement officer. \"It won't be voluntary,\" the city manager said during the discussion, describing registration as a tool to allow the city to monitor and address vacant properties.

Council members pressed staff and legal counsel on several key points: the number of consecutive days that should trigger registration, how long owners would have to file a registration, what counts as an exemption, and how quickly the city could require a vacant property to be secured.

Councilmember Moore asked whether 90 days in the draft was too long and proposed shortening it; several members agreed. By council consensus during the session the panel asked staff to revise the draft to require registration after 60 consecutive days of vacancy and to retain a 14‑day window for owners to submit a registration after that trigger. Council also asked that staff propose a uniform renewal period; the draft currently starts the renewal clock from the date of registration and sets the registration to be valid for 365 days.

The council also discussed inspection and enforcement timing. Staff and public‑safety representatives recommended that a building be inspected within a defined period after registration; code enforcement asked for realistic time to schedule an inspection, and council directed staff to use 30 days as a target window for the initial inspection after registration. On emergency securing of open doors or broken windows, the council reached consensus that the ordinance should require prompt action and set 24 hours as the operational standard for securing an at‑risk vacancy (with discretion for code enforcement in complex cases).

Exemptions drew lengthy discussion. The draft includes exemptions for units temporarily unoccupied, properties actively under construction, buildings listed for sale and multi‑tenant buildings with active operations. Several council members and staff warned that a broadly written temporary‑absence exemption could be used to avoid registration—producing a long list of seasonal vacation homes and routine vacancies that are not the council’s enforcement target. Council directed legal staff to craft narrower exemption language (for example, tying some exemptions to demonstrable ongoing maintenance, significant continuous construction progress, or defined occupancy thresholds for multi‑tenant properties) so the ordinance targets properties that harm community welfare.

Council and staff discussed fees, exemptions procedure and the administrative burden of tracking registrations and renewals; staff noted the city currently manages several registration programs and is exploring software assistance to track renewals and inspection schedules.

The ordinance discussion was framed as a first reading and policy cleanup; no adoption or formal vote on the ordinance occurred. City staff and the city attorney will return with revised ordinance language reflecting the council’s direction—notably: change the registration trigger to 60 consecutive days; keep a 14‑day registration deadline after the trigger; target an initial inspection within 30 days of registration; and add clearer, narrower exemption criteria and a defined upkeep/maintenance standard for active construction work and multi‑tenant properties.

The council emphasized it wants the ordinance to focus on properties that create public‑safety, health or blight risks rather than require routine registration for seasonal or well‑maintained second homes. Staff said they will bring revised draft language and suggested administrative procedures back to the council for further review.","Council held a substantive first reading of a proposed vacant‑building ordinance, discussing registration triggers, exemptions and enforcement. Members agreed by consensus to shorten the registration trigger from 90 to 60 days and keep a 14‑day window to register; staff will return with refined language and thresholds.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council pauses on sidewalk bike ban after wide public comment; city staff told to try signage and convene more stakeholders

Petoskey council debates vacant‑building registration rules; first reading yields changes on timing and inspections