May 6th, 2024 

Specific Concerns

Overall message/goal: Preserve the character and charm of Harbor Springs.

Our goal is to protect the integrity and character of Harbor Springs. Since the 1850’s our unique identity has enjoyed many generations of families and visitors regularly returning in search of repose, peace and quiet, and a restoration of health offered by Lake Michigan and Little Traverse Bay. Harbor Springs character is a promise for a safe community, with natural beauty, historic charm and peacefulness. We must protect it for now and into the future. 

We ask, why is the Planning Commission’s vision different from the rest of the community?

What we Like

Positive points that have been raised about the process to date. 

1. Simplifying the zoning code
2. Reducing the number of zones
3. Recognizing the trend in the aging population while promoting a family-oriented community
4. Recognizes the importance of having height restrictions on buildings in Downtown District
5. Allowing housing for second floor residential in the Central Business District without sacrificing downtown height, style and character
6. No ACUs (no businesses in residential districts)
7. Acknowledgement that all who have invested and lived in this community – year-round, snow-birds, seasonal residents and business people – want what is best for Harbor Springs.

What is Missing?

Issues that have not been addressed by the planning commission but are being raised.

1. Historical protections in the Central Business District (CBD) – Preserving the character and history of Harbor Springs is crucial. It is unclear if this was considered as the plan does not speak to historical preservation. Additionally, the historical society has a lot of perspective on the character of the city and should be involved in the planning process.
2. Affordable Housing – No plans for affordable housing for single aging adults, professionals and workforce families. The city could take the lead on this and develop one of various properties they own that could be appropriate for affordable housing.
3. Economic and Infrastructure Impact – Analysis of the impact of zoning changes and increased demand on infrastructure, schools, sewer, electric, etc. need to assess impact before approving zoning changes.  Moreover, how many more homes are anticipated to be built? How many new residents are expected to move to HS as a result of new housing? Is there a goal?
4. Redevelopment – We appeared poised to seek development dollars.  If so, how much? Where? What is the process?  ? Have building sites been selected for redevelopment?
5. Define Height Protections – There is a certain varying undulating height in the city that is a basis of the city character.  Clearly defined height protections in the CBD may be limited due to the structural carry capacity of historic/original structures.
6. Unified Bay Street Overlay – The homes on Bay Street collectively fall under multiple zoning districts and overlays. It should be considered as one overlay.
7. Parking – What are the implications on city parking and traffic if the downtown and population are increased?
8. Failure to Enforce – Better enforcement of existing regulations is needed of unkempt properties, perhaps through more actionable protocol.
9. Noise – If there is to be a lot more development, protections for noise, vibration and disruption for existing homeowners are necessary.
10. Future Vision – The PC outlined a future vision of the city, which is not the same as the Master Plan.  The CC has said “We need to prepare for the future” but has not outlined what the “future” is.  It would help to understand what the CC wants for the future.
11. Architectural Style – Other municipalities typically outline the character it seeks to achieve.  The zoning plan gives no guidance or future vision to what building style we want any new structures to take.  We ask our Planning Commissioners what new development look should like more rectangular, flat roofed (or parapeted), 1900’s commercial buildings (such as those which Cottage Company has completed over the years downtown) or should they take a more residential form such as an old home that has been converted to a commercial use.  Or does it even matter?  Both exist in the Third Street area today. None of the recent public presentations have discussed architectural style.
12. Protection of green space: Promoting development risks the replacement of open green spaces with houses and buildings, thereby threatening a defining characteristic of Harbor Springs: its natural beauty. This beauty is epitomized by the lake and surrounding green spaces, which are vital for the community’s identity. The master plan explicitly underscores the importance of green spaces, advising that preserving them should remain a top priority for community leaders. As such, promoting development could undermine the very essence of Harbor Springs, contradicting the guidelines set forth in the master plan and compromising the area’s natural charm.
13. Consideration of unintended consequences – By removing and simplifying protective zoning barriers, new and outside developers may be attracted to bid on properties that allow the types of housing and character not in keeping with Harbor Springs’ historical nature.

What Needs to Change

The Planning Commission approved the zoning draft on March 12th, 2024, it now is available for public comment.  These are the issues we have heard from the 600+ who have signed the petition.

1. Regionalize the Master Plan: There are distinct areas of residential lakefront, downtown, below the bluff, above the bluff between Bluff and Lake St. and beyond. Lake Street.  The business district on the bluff and beyond includes State Street. It would be better to have an engaged town hall discussion around these regions to establish a plan for the future.
2. Modify the Planning Commission: To improve the administrative process and quality of zoning decisions: Reduce the planning commission from 9, to 7 or 5.  Delay the major new property rights (Flag Lots, ADU) until there is a more direct conversation with owners.  Review the list of frequent planning changes and selectively move their approval process to a zoning administrative function within the city administration function.  Review those approvals regularly at the planning commission for quality and fairness.  Systematically review historic variances with quantitative analysis to determine the need for other zoning changes.  This should also reduce the ability of developers to sue the city for inconsistent zoning.
3. Notify Property Owners of Planning Commission Proposed Changes: Now that the Planning Commission has proposed its update of zoning, property owners should be notified of specific changes before the City Council completes its review of the zoning. Under the current zoning, rezoning property begins with notifying the property owners to understand the benefit of standardizing the zoning code. The majority of the community letters indicate a misunderstanding of the sizes, intents and plans by the Planning Commission.
4. THIS WAS REMOVED BY CITY COUNCIL. Flag Lots – Based on the survey, the zoning should not include flag lots. 80% of respondents in the MP survey asked to keep current density, and flag lots increase population by building density, driving down some property owner values, and increasing the property values of others.  Once implemented this new option of flag lots has the potential to create unpredictable conflicts between homeowners. The city has said they have no idea if there are 10, 100, or 500 locations that can flag. In other cities, adding flag lots appears to be a good way to “repair” an area with big lots,  as it urbanizes, but they can really complicate things when it comes to ROW connectivity and further urbanization after that. Also, flag lots often have problems with setbacks (it’s sometimes confusing to determine where the “front” is and long-term driveway maintenance). The zoning should outright ban flag lots.
5. Don’t Expand the Central Business District –  The Master Plan, other than one legacy zoning map, made no mention of the need to expand CBD. But the proposal is that the CBD District will be expanded by adding the current B-1 and B-2 zones (the area between 3rd and the Bluff from State to Gardner) and the TR district, along Bay Street.  Some of these areas being expanded are residential and being kept essentially residential via overlay. Making the zoning more confusing.  The most significant fact is that the CBD zoning increase in geographic size will significantly expand the current number of houses and buildings in this new footprint.  The city skyline and the water views will diminish. Additionally, the current businesses in Downtown are having difficulty staying open, leading to yearly vacancies. Given that there is no “Open for Business” apparent plan for how to improve businesses, we should first work to fix the CBD before expanding it. Consider this change for future zoning.
6. Height of CBD District raised:  In addition to enlarging the CBD District, the new zoning allows every single building to have an increase in height to 42 ft, consistent with a three story building. This includes rooftop decks, stair enclosures and mechanical equipment. When built out, the changes may dramatically limit views of the water, the iconic view from the Bluff, allowing a canyon of buildings on Third Street, Main Street and Bay Street. The prominence of the Holy Childhood church as well as other historic churches will be minimized. This zoning change puts at risk current historical buildings that could be demolished in order to monetize property values. Not right away but soon enough, the charm and character of our Main St and CBD will be diminished. The Harbor Springs Streetscape and water views are essential to our town. Keep the current height restrictions.
7. Front Setbacks: The undulating setbacks along Bay and Main Street are a form of city character.  The proposed zoning normalizes and reduces the front setback.This disrupts the character in unexpected ways.  We should avoid a uniform line of sightlines. We need to comprehend setbacks and their role in the city’s character and charm.
8. Keep the Current Agricultural District: One of two current Agricultural Districts in HS runs between Arbor and Ottawa Street. The other in the west side of HS is the location of Bluff Gardens. The PC told us in February that the zoning changes were to allow HS to be ready for the future.  By putting in AG as a last minute “overlay” and allowing the firm of Beckett & Raeder to make this district residential, we stand with those property owners that believe removing the agricultural rights of those properties is ‘taking’.  This is an obvious location for future housing developments. One property owner, a farmer and his family stated: “None of these changes are appropriate for my Agricultural Residential Zone and I would not recommend them for the rest of the City of Harbor Springs either. I have asked the Harbor Springs Planning Commission and Harbor Springs City Council to retain the Agricultural Residential District as written in the current code.”
9. Removal of the approval process for ADUs: The plan should return to the original special land use approvals that require further scrutiny and review and notification of neighboring property owners.  We agree it’s a good idea that homeowners can build Carriage House apartments for caretakers and family members and long-term renters. It’s also a good safe idea if the parking remains in front of the property, and the rear lot does not become a parking lot beside a neighboring property. Lack of oversight, governance and regulations that ADU’s can be rented, but not advertised have been raised. In some places the owner must live on the property. In other towns, there is no requirement. A possible scenario is a developer that bought two homes, built two ADUs, created a condominium and sold all four to separate buyers.
10. Do not reduce lot widths: The proposed zoning code reduces the minimum lot width from today’s 65 feet to 52 feet. Long, narrow lots are not consistent with the character of Harbor Springs and the outdoor spaces get smaller and have less trees. Leave the minimum lot width at 64 feet. Houses can be built as large as the setbacks allow.
11. Overlay Districts – Do not create overlays within a district.  Overlays integrate across districts. Districts overlaid over the base zoning classification alter some of the underlying district regulations. Overlays are the tools to deal with special situations or accomplish special zoning goals. Property owners in the overlay districts need to be educated.
12. THIS WAS REMOVED BY CITY COUNCIL Tiny houses – Tiny homes are 400 sq.ft. or less. For perspective, the average American home spans approximately 2,300 square feet, which positions the proposed 560-square-foot tiny houses on the end of an odd spectrum—akin to an urban studio or a compact one-bedroom apartment. The smallest home size allowed now is 864 ft today. This was selected many years ago for consistency with the county zoning ordinance.

Additionally, introducing more small homes could make housing more accessible for some, but it also risks lowering property values in affected neighborhoods.

1. Multi-unit dwellings – The introduction of multi-unit dwellings could significantly alter the town’s character, moving away from single family homes.  Introducing a variety of housing types can be accommodated with a variety of income levels. There is concern that the introduction of multi-unit dwellings could potentially lower property values in the surrounding areas. Single-family homes in close proximity to higher-density housing might not retain their value as well while also experiencing increased traffic, and parking issues due to higher density. Urbanization is a change that must be thoughtfully discussed and evaluated with the property owners in their district neighborhoods.
2. Incorporation of MEDC Best Practices – Regardless of PC claims, the proposed zoning changes seem to correlate with the MEDC assessment of Harbor Springs. The property owners in Harbor Springs prefer that the Harbor Springs Planning Commission follow the community vision, stated in the outcomes of the surveys and Master Plans, which do not coincide with the RRC Best Practices. The local residents have a better understanding of the community. By applying the Best Practices, the PC and city are endorsing and promoting a “cookie cutter” mentality not in line with the unique character of Harbor Springs. Harbor Springs is not a one size fits all town.
3. Elimination of Administrative Review Committee – the Planning Commission needs to remain involved at all levels of city zoning to maintain adherence to code, uniformity and quality building.  If volume increases with new development beyond current levels, revisit.  In all cases, neighbors should be notified of pending planning commission activity.

These suggestions mentioned above are taken from the engaged community of Petition Signers, Letters to the Editor, Letters to Council from the Property Owners within the City of Harbor Springs city limits. We have attempted to contact as many individuals as we could, in this time frame, yet we wanted to bring this document to you tonight to demonstrate that the entire community has not been contacted, nor are they finished writing their suggestions, because of the lack of time learning the changes you are proposing and offering their advice or approval  eventually to the Planning Commission.

We are asking for City Council to not vote on the proposed zoning until all property owners have been contacted by mail, and educational meetings scheduled throughout the summer, giving the community time to gain consensus. This is a property rights issue, a voter issue and an ethical issue. Trust us, we are not suggesting this proposed zoning is wrong, it’s that it is being proposed for a vote into law, without the community’s support.

The community was asked to give the suggestions to the City Council. This is our list.

Thank you, WeLoveHarborSprings.org