Zoning info

1. Regionalize the Master Plan – There are distinct areas of residential lakefront, downtown, below the bluff, above the bluff, between the Bluff and Lake Streets, and beyond. The business district on the bluff and beyond includes State Street. It would be better to have an engaged town hall discussion regarding these regions to establish a plan for the future.
2. Modify the Planning Commission – To improve the administrative process and quality of zoning decisions:

   a. Reduce the number of commissioners on the Planning Commission from 9, to 7 or 5.

    

   b. Delay the major new property rights (Flag Lots, ADU) until there is a more direct conversation with owners.

    

   c. Review the list of frequent planning changes and selectively move their approval process to a zoning administrative function within the city administration function.

    

   d. Review those approvals regularly at the planning commission for quality and fairness.

    

   e. Systematically review historic variances with quantitative analysis to determine the need for other zoning changes. This should reduce the ability of developers to sue the city for inconsistent zoning.

3. Notify Property Owners of the Planning Commission’s Proposed Changes – Now that the Planning Commission has proposed its zoning update, property owners should be notified of specific changes before the City Council completes its review. 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 made by the Planning Commission.
4. 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 density, driving down property values for some, and increasing 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 lots.
   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 complicate things when it comes to ROW connectivity and further urbanization.
   Additionally, flag lots often face setbacks because it is sometimes difficult to determine where the “front” is and ensure long-term driveway maintenance.
   The new zoning should ban flag lots outright.
5. Don’t Expand the Central Business District – Other than one legacy zoning map, the Master Plan made no mention of the need to expand CBD. But the proposal expands the CBD District 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 are kept as essentially residential via overlay. This makes 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. That will cause the city skyline and water views to diminish.
   Additionally, the current businesses in downtown are having difficulty staying open, leading to yearly vacancies. Given that there is apparently no “Open for Business” plan to help our downtown flourish, we should first work to fix the CBD before expanding it and consider this change later.
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 feet, 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 and 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 minimize.This zoning change puts at risk historical buildings that could be demolished in order to exploit property values. Soon the charm and character of our Main Street and CBD will be diminished. The Harbor Springs streetscape and water views are essential to our city.
   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 city’s character in unexpected ways. We should avoid a uniform set of sightlines. We need to comprehend setbacks and their role in the city’s character and charm.
8. Do Not Eliminate the Agricultural District – One of two current Agricultural Districts in Harbor Springs runs between Arbor and Ottawa Streets. The other, on the west side of Harbor Springs, is the location of Bluff Gardens.
   The Planning Commission told us in February that the zoning changes were to allow Harbor Springs to be ready for the future. By putting in Agricultural Districts 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, 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 ADU’s – The plan should return to the original special land use approvals that require further scrutiny, review, and notification of neighboring property owners.
   We agree it’s a good idea that homeowners can build garage apartments for caretakers, 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.
   Concerns about 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 such requirement. A possible, concerning scenario is that a developer could buy two homes, build two ADU’s, create a condominium, and sell all four to separate buyers.
10. Do Not Reduce Lot Widths – The proposed zoning code reduces the minimum lot width from 65 feet to 52 feet. Long, narrow lots are not consistent with the character of Harbor Springs and the outdoor spaces will 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 across 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. REMOVED BY CITY COUNCIL Tiny Houses – Tiny homes are residential buildings with less than 400 square feet of space. For perspective, the average American home spans approximately 2,300 square feet. The proposed 560-square-foot tiny houses are a little bigger than the typical definition of the term, more akin to urban studios or compact one-bedroom apartments.
    The smallest home size allowed now is 864 square feet. This was selected many years ago for consistency with the county zoning ordinance. Introducing more small homes could make housing more accessible for some, but it also risks lowering property values in affected neighborhoods.
13. Multi-unit dwellings – The introduction of multi-unit dwellings could significantly alter the city’s character, moving us 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.
14. Incorporation of MEDC Best Practices – Regardless of the Planning Commission’s 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.
    Local residents have a better understanding of the community. By applying the Best Practices, the Planning Commission 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.
15. 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, they must revisit it.
    In all cases, neighbors should be notified of pending Planning Commission activity.

These suggestions and requests for revisions mentioned above are taken from the suggestions and understanding of an engaged community of Petition Signers, Letters to the Editor, and Letters to Council from the Property Owners.  

We all asked for City Council to not vote on the proposed zoning until all property owners have been contacted by mail, arrived in town 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, that it is being proposed by your planning committee for a vote into law, without the community’s support. These changes in the proposed zoning were a surprise.  

The Mayor had asked the public to submit their suggestions for the May 6th meeting for review.  We asked the Mayor and the City Council to please work with the community on behalf of Harbor Springs consensus. We would be proud to be a part of making changes to the zoning codes.  

After March 8th, before May 20th we went back to the Planning Commission and asked the Planning Commission that now that you have released the proposed zoning code on and received back from the City Council on May 6th, 3-5 zoning revisions, that you use this document we provided you to further review and respond to the communities questions, time for discussion and engagement with the community, before the City Council votes. That next Planning Commission meeting, after this document was submitted, was cancelled. It was during this time period that a Change . Org Petition garnered 1000 signatures, and a Protest Petition of Harbor Springs property owners submitted with almost 400 signatures. The city did not pause or listen to the community speaking.  

Thank you, WeLoveHarborSpring.org