Skip to main content
This site is in Beta Stage. Check data with an alternate resource before taking any action.
We Love Harbor Springs
Donate
ArticlesA Visceral Reaction to 3 Story Buildings
4 min read

A Visceral Reaction to 3 Story Buildings

In response to our article yesterday on 3 story buildings, we received a lot of sharp responses.

CW
By Carter Williams

The Planning Commission is meeting on Thursday at 5:30 PM, at City Hall to discuss 3 story buildings.

We sent out an email about this yesterday. We received feedback from many people, much more than normal, the bulk of which are saying in no uncertain terms “Why don’t they get it…. No 3 story buildings”

We have never seen such a strong stanch. And it should be no surprise. A few points of view we have received on this discussion…..

  1. As near as we can tell, since the City first established zoning, 70+ years ago, the down town has been effectively limited to two story construction.

  2. Bob Thoma personally asked hundreds of residents for their opinion. All were against the notion, but 2 or 3 people.

  3. A major motivation for the referendum was opposition to 3 story construction in down town.

  4. There are no citizens massed with pitch forks advocating for 3 stories. As near as we can tell, the only advocates are our planning consultant, Beckett & Raeder. And a few planning commission members.

  5. A few citizens have suggested we allow 3 stories, but create code that limits “Massing”. If we were students in an architecture seminar, perhaps this is a worthy discussion. But this is not an abstraction. The new simple “Zoning Code” is already so complex, only the City Attorney can reconcile the differences. What would two pages of “Massing” code look like? And who, but a tiny group of people, want it?

  6. The Planning Commission may change the code to allow 3 story as a special land use. That means if the Planning Commission votes yes, a project can be 3 stories. That is the worse answer - it basically means the protection of 2 vs 3 stories is a matter of who happens to be on the Planning Commission 5, 10, 15 years from now. It invites cronyism and accusations of self dealing. Pick one or the other, special land use is a weak solution.

  7. Once you change the height limits it is nearly impossible to be reversed. And even if reversed in the future, the City can never remove the 3 story buildings built.

  8. For decades this town has rejected the proposal of 3 story buildings in downtown. If the Planning Commission continues to push this agenda, they have to explain why. Not a simple explanation, but an explanation with the same depth and force of will as the referendum. While their authority is statutory, their moral authority is ephemeral.

Several reading this will say “But you did not include this or that opposing views”. We did not. The place for the debate is really in the Planning Commission session. If you want to make an opposing argument, write it and we will publish it. The go slow contingent so far outweighs other viewpoints, the salient point remains…. why do we ignore the weight of the protect/go slow view? What is the counter position urgency?

Attend Thursday’s meeting at 5:30 pm to make your point known. That is where the decision is made.

In other news

We are not in love with reporting rumor. But will in this instance because the issue of who should be our planning consultant has gone unresolved for more than 6 months with little action by the City or elected bodies.

Word on the street is our planning consultant has resigned. The City has decided to replace him with another consultant from Beckett & Raeder. Our read of the community is they see Beckett & Raeder as removing preservation guardrails and streamline development.

There is a strong contingent in the community, perhaps well into the majority, that see Beckett & Raeder steering the zoning objectives, rather than advising.

Given more than 3 years of turmoil and rejection of the planning consultants’ advice, and the referendum it triggered, there is an expectation of something more than swapping out the firm’s consultant.

Our sense is the expectation is for the City Manager and City Council to issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) and assure we have a Planning Consultant who fits the communities objectives and who helps achieve the interests of the community.

An RFP in this instance seems like a pretty clear and proper governance step.