“Redevelopment is a Trigger Word”

A few comments concerning the most recent changes to the zoning code discussion.

Collapsing zoning districts from 17 to 9 makes good sense as does the elimination of accessory commercial units. Keeping the chickens in the Ag/Res zone is also appreciated.

I am still hearing negative comments about Redevelopment Ready Communities. I have a copy of their mission which, in my view is not applicable to Harbor Springs. For example, why would we want to even suggest that we need “compelling sites for developers to locate their projects” and “making Harbor Springs more attractive for investments that “create places where talent wants to live work and visit”. Their agenda, interestingly, calls for “broad community support”, which, respectfully, the planning commission has not yet achieved.

Additionally, for a city resident who is convinced that Harbor Springs is just fine the way it is, any reference to “redevelopment” is disturbing. It’s a trigger word.

With respect to zoning changes that will permit smaller lots smaller homes, multiple family dwellings to include duplexes and triplexes, there is no support from numerous individuals with whom I’ve spoken. Audience pushback, during the course of two zoom meetings reinforces this lack of support.

Why is this? The problem is the unavoidable conclusion that the commission and city Council (?) are determined to (1) increase the number of residential sites and (2) provide more affordable housing. There is no evidence to support either objective. If a survey exists that was targeted to residents of Harbor Springs, you should bring its findings forward otherwise this plan is anecdotal & unacceptable.

Accessory dwelling units are also envisioned. In your response you indicate that the city only receives three or four new guest quarter building requests each year. So the demand for ADU’s is apparently not great. Why wouldn’t we leave the current review process in place rather than constructing more ADUs? What we ought to do is to modify the regulations that restricts family and friends from staying in one of these buildings for only 21 days.

Construction of ADU’s for the purpose of long-term rentals could become problematic. (Parking would require more asphalt and less green space and/or additional parking streetside).

How would the city restrict these units from becoming short-term rentals? Does the planning commission expect Harbor Springs law enforcement to police the use of these ADUs? And how would HS assure that the architectural style would be similar to that of the main dwelling? This will also be seen as an effort by the commission to provide lower priced real estate and more residents.

Lastly, the Planning commission appears to be trying to wrap this thing up before significant numbers of residents return to town. I know how hard you and Council have work on this and while I respect your sentiments that there’s been plenty of time, meetings, emails, zoom calls etc. But the fact remains that lots of folks believe that they are being left out of the approval process.

Respectfully submitted,
Frank Raine