May 15th Planning Commission: Summary

## The Brief - We have summarized the entirety of the 3-hour May 15th meeting below.

- If you own property in Harbor Springs attend these meetings in person or by zoom. They are important. They impact your property value.

- **Planning Commission:** Meets June 5 and June 19 at 5:30 PM. Zoom YouTube. These sessions will focus on Article 2 which is the key definition of zoning districts. The discussion on June 5th and 19th will concentrate on zones like the Bluff, Agricultural District, Glenn Drive and other remaining residential areas.

- **City Council: **Meets Monday, May 19 at 7:00 PM. Zoom YouTube

Agenda

## Zoning Documents *Article 2 Current Zoning 2005 1.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download Download

Article 2 Becket & Raeder New Format 1.44MB ∙ PDF file

Download Download

## A Guide to Public Meetings We thought a quick tutorial in public meetings might calm nerves for those new to public meetings.

- Meetings open by reviewing minutes and changes to the agenda

- Citizens are offered an opportunity to comment on items unrelated to the night’s agenda

- The planning commission then discusses an agenda item, among themselves. This is the only time they are really allowed to discuss things since all discussions need to be public. It may last a few minutes or 30 mins. They may interact with the audience.

- Then the community is offered an opportunity to speak and ask questions

- Public comment is closed. Final discussion or motion is made. Vote occurs.

- They move to the next agenda item.

For each agenda item, there is always an opportunity for public comment in person or via zoom.

## Summary of the May 15th Meeting Note: To help people better understand activity, we have moved to a combination of AI tools and edits to recast the transcript in a more readable form. Please let us know of any errors*

### Collaborative Spirit Guides Deliberations on Zoning Districts Harbor Springs, MI – The City of Harbor Springs Planning Commission continued its detailed review and update of the city's zoning code on May 15, engaging actively with citizens present and on Zoom to discuss the foundational structure of zoning districts. Characterized by a commitment to incorporating community input, the meeting highlighted both diverse perspectives on the future of Harbor Springs and a shared goal of crafting a more transparent, usable, and effective code.

The meeting began with procedural matters, including the approval of minutes from previous sessions, notably addressing a correction regarding attendance and voting from the April 17 meeting. The agenda order was then adjusted to prioritize a learning segment on zoning districts and public comment, demonstrating responsiveness to public interest.

### Citizen Voices Share Diverse Views The public comment portion for items not on the agenda featured several residents sharing their thoughts on zoning and the direction of the city.

- Mark Rondell referenced Nolan Gray's book "Arbitrary Lines," suggesting that zoning, historically, has served as a mechanism for exclusion, designed to inflate property values, slow development, segregate communities by race and class, and prioritize detached single-family homes. He noted that the ongoing effort to restructure the Harbor Springs zoning code seemed to be moving in a direction that sacrifices personal property freedoms for arbitrary standards, urging clarity if the goal is to become an "exclusive elite private club".

- Robert Hall expressed gratitude to the planning commission members and volunteers. He addressed the controversy surrounding the adopted Ordinance 439, which many saw as a push toward urbanization driven by outside influence from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) and its Redevelopment Ready Communities (RRC) program. Hall thanked the city council for suspending the RRC requirements and removing outside influence, though he noted anxiety still exists. He advocated for keeping the 2005 zoning districts with only minor, property owner-driven adjustments, specifically supporting existing residential districts, opposing "by-right" development of duplexes and ADUs in single-family neighborhoods due to the lack of protest rights for existing owners, and supporting keeping existing lot sizes while increasing setbacks to avoid congestion and parking problems. He also requested preservation of the agricultural district west of Bluff Gardens and allowing property owners between Arbor and Ottowa to decide their own zoning preferences.

- Garon Gopigian announced the formation of a new organization, Preservation49740, aimed at influencing the preservation of historic structures, iconic sites, and streetscapes in and around Harbor Springs. The group is seeking 501c3 status and volunteers, with a goal to help the Planning Commission shape the new zoning code and foster a relationship between historic preservation and development. Email: Preservation49740@gmail.com

- Chris (garbled last name) shared excitement about the possibility of increasing housing in town, seeing it as a boost rather than something to fear. He noted that most lots are already developed, but opportunities exist on larger lots on side streets. He supported multi-unit dwellings (condos, triplexes) on appropriate larger lots to provide housing for young people and families close to jobs and school, recognizing the national housing shortage.

- Matt (Garbled last name) commented on the close vote on Ordinance 439 and suggested that with the removal of the "RRC boogeyman," fear about increased density should lessen. He described Harbor Springs as a "ghost town" nine months a year and questioned the concern over density, pointing out the historic charm of the tight building below the bluff before zoning regulations. He supported incremental, small-scale development like duplexes and triplexes, noting they are often owned by small entrepreneurs, not large corporations.

### Understanding Zoning: A Historical Perspective Following public comment, a learning segment led by Becket & Raeder planning consultant John Iacoangeli offered historical context on zoning. Zoning originated in response to nuisance lawsuits in the early 1900s, as property owners sought legal recourse against incompatible neighboring uses like slaughterhouses. Early regulations included New York City's 1916 law requiring skyscrapers to step back to allow daylight. The 1922 Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, promoted by Herbert Hoover, provided a model code widely adopted by communities, often leading to uniform standards regardless of local history. The constitutionality of zoning was solidified by the Supreme Court in *Euclid v. Ambler Realty* in 1926, which established the concept of "Euclidean" zoning based on segregated uses. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Housing Act of 1954, aided by Section 701 grants, further accelerated the adoption of model codes and encouraged the development of large, single-family suburban communities, moving away from the diverse housing types found in older urban areas. This historical context helps explain why current zoning codes, like Harbor Springs', may not reflect historical development patterns, often resulting in site nonconformities and frequent variance appeals.

The presentation clarified that zoning districts are areas with sets of permitted and special land uses, but they don't necessarily reflect historical development patterns. While some regulations like landscaping requirements or promoting walkability can be positive, critics point to negatives like sprawl, large lots, and reduced innovation. The concept of "pyramid" or "stacking" allows uses from more restrictive districts in less restrictive ones, weaving uses through various zones in complex ways. Residential districts, particularly R1A, R1B, R1C, and R1E, often differ primarily in lot size and setbacks rather than permitted uses, as single-family homes are allowed in all. Guest quarters were noted as one use difference, being permitted by right in R1A/E but requiring special land use approval in R1B/C under the existing code. Given that Harbor Springs is largely built out, the discussion highlighted that the number of potential buildable lots is limited.

**Building a "Straw Man" for Zoning Districts**

The core task for the evening was to begin building a conceptual "straw man" for the organization of future zoning districts, focusing on the structure rather than the detailed uses or dimensions, which would be addressed in later meetings. The planning commission agreed to use the existing zoning districts as a baseline and explore opportunities for consolidation or modification, emphasizing that this is a preliminary step open to refinement.

Discussions led to tentative agreement on several fronts:

- **Community District:** There was consensus to retain a distinct Community district for properties owned by local, county, state, or federal government, including parks and schools, to clearly define these areas.

- **Manufacturing District:** The commission generally favored keeping a district for manufacturing, storage, and related uses. A suggestion was made to change the name to "Industrial" to be more generic, which received favorable nods. It was noted that this area is currently primarily used for boat storage in Harbor Springs.

- **Waterfront Districts:** Examining the existing Waterfront (WF) and Waterfront One (WF1) districts, along with residential waterfront properties (R1A, R1E), the commission discussed the rationale for multiple similar districts. There was strong consensus not to combine the residential WF1 with the commercial WF district. Instead, the properties currently zoned WF1 would be explored for inclusion in some form of residential district. The residential waterfront areas (R1A, R1E) were also discussed as potentially forming a "residential waterfront" category.

- **Transitional Residential (TR) District:** The TR district was described as a mix of uses (residential, light commercial, parking) that doesn't have a clear common thread. The planning commission favored approaching this district by considering each individual parcel currently zoned TR and assigning it to a more appropriate district based on its context and desired future. Examples discussed included placing parking areas with adjacent commercial zones (like the IGA parking lot potentially with the IG zone), placing Walstrom storage areas into a Waterfront zone, and notably, placing the several residential properties along Bay Street and the Main/Alley area (including duplexes) into some form of residential district. This approach aims to eliminate the need for a standalone TR district by finding more suitable "homes" for its varied parcels, addressing concerns about protecting existing homes and maintaining the city's character.

- **Business Districts (B1, B2, CBD) Below the Bluff:** The existence of two separate business districts, B1 and B2, adjacent to the Central Business District (CBD), with similar characteristics but differing permitted uses and setbacks (CBD has no setbacks, B1/B2 do), was discussed. Concerns were raised by property owners about setbacks limiting development potential on the north side of Third Street compared to the south side (zoned CBD). While the master plan had previously suggested these areas become CBD, concerns about the impact on existing homes, character, and setbacks led the commission to favor collapsing B1 and B2 into a single business district for now, in theory, deferring the decision on whether to eventually merge it with the CBD until uses and setbacks are defined. This approach seeks a balance between encouraging business activity and preserving aspects of the existing character and residential mix.

- **Business/Office Districts Above the Bluff (B2, ROS):** Similar to below the bluff, the commission acknowledged the potential for consolidation between the B2 and Residential Office Service (ROS) districts above the bluff, noting similarities in uses but potential differences in architectural style and setbacks. This was identified as an area for future exploration.

- **Mobile Home Park District:** The commission expressed a desire to keep a distinct zoning district for the mobile home park.

The discussion on residential districts, the largest category and containing the most diverse properties and sensitive issues like density (duplexes, triplexes) and setbacks, was deferred to the next meeting to allow for a focused and in-depth review.

### Administrative Updates and Future Steps Updates were provided on other articles of the zoning code under review. Article 5 (General Provisions) had only minor redline edits. Article 10 (Planned Development) is currently under review by the city attorney regarding specific language related to vulnerability, with further research pending.

A clarification was provided on the Outdoor Display of Goods regulations. The language allowing outdoor display was temporarily removed in the 2024 code but restored when the city reverted to the 2015 code. Businesses can currently operate under the 2015 regulations. The planning commission plans to review the language at a later point for potential inclusion in the zoning code, considering aspects like allowance on private property beyond the current 10 sq ft limit on the sidewalk, and potentially the quality or type of displays permitted.

The planning commission scheduled its next meetings for June 5th (special meeting) and June 19th (regular meeting), with the primary focus of the next session being the detailed discussion and definition of the residential zoning districts.

The evening demonstrated a productive effort by the planning commission to navigate the complexities of updating the zoning code while actively listening to and incorporating feedback from the community. The "straw man" approach allows for conceptual progress while keeping decisions flexible as detailed regulations are developed in subsequent meetings. Citizens are encouraged to remain engaged as the commission tackles the critical details that will shape the future of development and preservation in Harbor Springs.

*If you found this summary helpful or have suggestions, please comment below.*