Zoning Takes Effect January 26th: Here is What is Still Being Debated

The City of Harbor Springs has its own YouTube channel: City of Harbor Springs YouTube Channel. When we view the Channel, the meetings/Videos are not in any chronological order, so use the SEARCH bar to find the meeting of your choice.

## Brief - City Council meets on Monday, February 2nd, Monday, February 16th, and Monday, March 1st, at 6 p.m. Check here for the **agendas, or **when available: at City Website, Zoom Meeting, YouTube

- Planning Commission meets on Thursday, February 19th at 5:30 pm, check here for the agenda when available: City Website, Zoom Meeting, YouTube

- Parks and Recreation Committee meets on Tuesday, February 10th at 5:30 PM. On Wednesday, February 11th, DDA meets at 8 am and ZBA at 5:30 pm. The Tree Board meets at 8:30 am on February 20th. The schedules, agenda packets, and more information are available here: Meeting Calendar. Click on the meeting of your choice for the agendas and the Zoom/YouTube links.

- We would like to make a suggestion to sign up for meeting notices to stay aware of city activity. Be aware of meeting schedules

- Apologies went out from City Hall for some Zoom difficulties recently.

- The NEW Zoning code can be found here: New 2025 Harbor Springs Zoning Code (Tentative effective date of January 26, 2026)

## Questions from the Community **1. What is the status of the City Council revisiting and possibly modifying the zoning issues with Planned Development and downtown building heights? ***These subjects plus parking and the Administrative Review Committee language, will be coming up at the February and March Planning Commissioners meetings. See the story below. *

**2. What is the process for modifying these issues if the Zoning Code has already been approved by City Council? ** *The approval of the Zoning Code is tentatively scheduled on January 26th, 2026 according to Harbor Lights’ Public Notice. From what we can research and discover: The Legal Requirement for a Final Ordinance: Michigan law, particularly under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA), requires that a zoning ordinance be based on a completed and finalized document. Approval of the new zoning code draft, accompanied by a memorandum outlining changes, may not fulfill this legal requirement, as a memorandum is not considered a complete ordinance. The final document must be fully vetted through the appropriate public processes (e.g., hearings, notices, etc.) and available for public review prior to Council approval.*

**3. We heard that the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) language and the approvals for 5000sq. ft additions and use of ARC will be removed from the October 21, 2025 Zoning Code. We looked last night, and the language is still in the online January 2026 Code City Hall version. What can you tell us? ***The continued presence of the 5,000 sq. ft. threshold language in Article 8 appears to create a conflict between this stated intent and the written text. We have asked the Planning Commissioner Chairman, Bob Buckner, to clarify. *

**4. Where is the City in the process of reviewing candidates for City Manager, and when can we give community input on these choices?** *A survey has been distributed to 22 members of the boards/staff at City Hall. They were asked questions, and once their answers are reviewed, and the candidates are selected, Chief Knight said then the community would be able to ask questions or become involved - You can find more about this subject on our website under NEWS. *

## Better Process = Better Outcomes ‘We would love it if we could work together to build a better process, as what is in place has many flaws.’ At the final 2025 Planning Commission meeting on December 18th, a constructive conversation emerged about how the community engages in the planning process. Commissioner Barry Lusgarten raised the “subject of community openness” when outgoing Chair Bill Mulder asked, “What can the Planning Commission do better?"

Commissioners discussed flexibility within existing meeting rules, including the three-minute speaking limit, and asked practical questions about discretion, time limits, and meeting format—how these factors can either support or hinder clarity, trust, and meaningful participation.

Planning Director Jeff Grimm provided helpful context, noting that while full agendas require meetings to stay on track, there is discretion to invite clarification and dialogue when time allows. He also clarified that the three-minute limit applies specifically to Public Hearings, not to all Planning Commission discussions.

**One idea raised was to use the closing minutes of meetings to identify recurring themes from public comment and note how those issues will be tracked or addressed. Commissioners acknowledged that allowing public comment without visible acknowledgment can undermine trust, especially when concerns go unanswered.

This approach would improve continuity between meetings, reduce repetition, and help the public better understand how their input fits into the process—encouraging clearer communication, efficiency, and more constructive participation.

## PD’s and Heights’ Discussions are added to the next PC agendas. At the first 2026 Planning Commission meeting on January 15th, a constructive conversation emerged when Commissioner Chip Everest asked that, in light of recent public comments, particularly those raised by Planning Consultant Lynee Wells, retained by We Love Harbor Springs, the Planning Commission place these topics on a future agendas for deeper discussion.

Commissioner Everest noted that if, after further review, the Planning Commission determined that modifications were warranted, those changes would take the form of amendments to the zoning code. Newly elected Chair Bob Buckner agreed with this approach.

## Parking: How & What This Zoning Change Means for Harbor Springs History:** On March 20, 2025, Beckett & Raeder planning consultant John Iacoangeli introduced what he described as a “radical idea”: eliminating parking requirements in the Central Business District. He argued that downtown is largely built out and that minimum parking standards are land-consumptive and tax-inefficient, an approach aligned with Redevelopment Ready Communities (RRC) best practices.

Zoning Administrator Jeff Grimm noted that historically high parking minimums in the CBD have prevented new businesses from opening. Commissioners considered fundamental changes to parking policy, including whether minimum parking requirements were necessary at all.

This discussion took place during the straw-man exercises, and no further substantive discussion of parking followed. The Commission ultimately reached consensus to remove minimum parking requirements in the CBD, allowing the market to determine parking supply, while establishing parking maximums to prevent excessive paving. Minimum parking requirements were retained in residential areas to prevent street congestion.

**The community is not asking to reinstate former parking formulas overnight. What we are asking for are predictable guardrails—basic tools that allow staff and elected officials to respond when real-world parking impacts occur.

Removing parking minimums does not require removing oversight.

One workable guardrail is the use of Jeff Grimm’s Administrative Review triggers tied to parking impacts. Why this approach would work is because this does not reinstate parking ratios or formulas. Instead, it applies a simple principle—impact warrants review**. That approach fits within standard zoning administration practices and allows the City to evaluate site-specific conditions, neighborhood context, and cumulative effects as they arise.

Planning consultant Lynee Wells expressed agreement with the parking-related changes in the code and did not identify parking as an area requiring further review. When the issue of direct notification to affected business owners was later raised, she agreed that the process could be improved.

### On the ‘Public Notice’ Process Many in the community were unaware that the new zoning code would substantially change parking requirements. Under the 2005 code, business owners were required to provide—and often pay for—off-street parking as a condition of development. Had it been clearly communicated that these requirements were being reconsidered or eliminated, affected business owners and property owners could have engaged earlier and more meaningfully.

Instead, some are only learning of these changes after adoption, leading to understandable surprise and concern. When notice is insufficient, the focus too easily shifts to blaming the community for “not paying attention,” rather than examining whether the process adequately reached those most impacted. If the zoning code is, as Planning Commissioners have said, a “living document,” then significant policy shifts like this warrant clearer, targeted notice—such as mailed summaries, bill inserts, or direct outreach—so participation is informed, timely, and fair.

## Truth + Better Process = Better Outcomes An interesting conversation. Why this matters now: when people stop standing up and telling the truth, outcomes drift, not from bad intent, but because silence replaces clarity. A better process does not guarantee better outcomes, but without it, better outcomes are unlikely.

After years of paying attention—attending meetings and listening closely—it has become clear that some of the outcomes now emerging reflect not a lack of expertise, but a lack of honest, timely input. When truth is withheld, even well-designed processes can lead us somewhere we did not intend to go.

Thank you to everyone for reading….We Are Harbor Springs.