One more look at the proposed zoning code for the community and by the Planning Commission before approval?
Here is the proposed code. We will add to this post, as elements become available.
Harbor Springs Planning Commission met twice in the last two weeks– on October 16 and October 21– to discuss potential updates to the zoning ordinance following a public hearing on the proposed changes that took place in September. Several hours of conversation and one closed session conversation later, and another public hearing was set for November 13 at 5:30 p.m.
The motion to add another public hearing to discuss the whole of the proposed zoning code to the docket was made by Planning Commission member Vanessa Warren, was seconded by chair Bill Mulder and unanimously approved.
Potential updates to the City of Harbor Springs zoning code have been an ongoing discussion for several years; the first iteration of the code updates were repealed by voters in November, 2024. The repeal passed with 478 votes for it, and 404 votes against it.
Since then, the Planning Commission has held dozens of meetings, open houses, and feedback sessions on a new round of revisions to the code. However, an underlying current against updates has persisted.
In the October 21 meeting, a handful of revision recommendations were made in writing by the City’s planner, based on conversations from the October 16 meeting. Several revolved around the definition of “family” and “employee housing” and included changes to the regulated uses table to add employee housing and boarding/ room housing as a Special Land Use (SLU’s require approval).
Other recommended updates included capping the non-residential uses of a Planned Development based on 10-percent of the first floor’s gross square footage; a section was added to give Planning Commission the discretion to ask for plans that compare the proposed Planned Development with a base plan allowed under the by-right zoning district; and a few updates to tables and language.
In addition, Planning Commission’s packet also included the Commission chair Bill Mulder’s written responses to 60 questions brought forth by Karin Offield at the October 16 meeting; she frequently serves as a spokesperson for the “We Love Harbor Springs” group that has been opposing the zoning code updates for over a year.
“We addressed a few questions real time, but I thought it would be helpful for the Planning Commission if I answered all that I could in writing,” Mulder said in his memo to Commissioners. “The challenge is that I can’t speak for the whole Planning Commission, so these are my own answers. Any mistakes of fact are also my own.”
The questions ranged from lot sizes in different zoning districts to accessory dwelling units, building heights, zoning districts and more. The full list of questions and responses can be reviewed on the City’s website, by clicking the October 21 Planning Commission packet.
During the October 21 meeting, Planning Commission chair Bill Mulder asked City Attorney Jim Ramer for language around making a motion to go into closed session relating to a written opinion he penned at the request of the City.
“If you want to do this it would be entirely at your discretion,” Ramer said, reviewing exact language that is in line with the Open Meetings Act for meeting with the city attorney to discuss a written opinion as to the procedure for recommending the adoption of a zoning ordinance.
One Planning Commission member asked for clarification around why the discussion should be in closed session.
“This actually came about based on some communications that were sent to the Planning Commission chairman by…I’m not sure if they came from the ‘We Love Harbor Springs’ group or not, contending that the Planning Commission, before it decided whether to recommend this last draft to the Council for approval, should hold another public hearing, on the ground that there were substantial changes made to the draft code since the last public hearing, and the public has not had an opportunity to comment on those…That was the issue I was asked to render an opinion,” Ramer said.
The opinion was provided to the city manager, who requested it also be shared with the City’s zoning administrator, planner, and Planning Commission chair.
“There was thought that perhaps this would be, the discussion of the advisability or necessity of holding that public hearing should be something that was discussed in closed session,” Ramer explained, adding “it does not have to be, and I’m ready to proceed whichever way the Planning Commission chooses.”
Planning Commission member Mark Buday made the motion to close the meeting, which was seconded by Vanessa Warren, who noted it is common to hear an attorney’s opinion in closed session. The Commission unanimously approved going into closed session.
When they returned, they approved the addition of another public hearing.