Planned Development – Strong enough for Harbor Springs?
In a meeting in early May 2025, when the Planning Commissioners discussed standards and property rights, Mark Rondel spoke regarding a variance request for a garage, noting that while the proposal met technical criteria, neighbor objections influenced the Commission. He argued that the current code is “arbitrary and ambiguous” and that “subjective decisions to satisfy multiple parties” make fairness difficult. He warned against allowing “neighborhood outcry” (subjective) to override zoning rights (objective). The entire summer was mostly “Straw Man” discussions like these which allowed the Planning Commissioners to learn about the zoning pieces, without making any hard decisions.
Much later at another meeting in October – 5 months later, Planned Development was again discussed and Carter Williams presented a draft PD ordinance written by planner Lynee Wells, explicitly stating its purpose was to insert “objective measures” because the current draft lacked them. What is the status now ? A meeting with the hired Beckett & Raeder and community members was cancelled by the City Manager and since the meeting would not be open to the public, we agreed. Unfortunately. At the October meeting, Andrew Von Maur (licensed architect & land planner) supported this meeting, stating that without objective measures, the Planning Commission relies on “subjective judgment,” which makes applications “acrimonious” and susceptible to political pressure. Phillip Allore (U of M Graduate, City of Harbor Springs graduate, architect) noted that the new draft did include some objective standards.
In November – in another Planning Commissioners meeting when the Lynee Wells critique was discussed – there were two opposing sides raised…one emphasizing that the code is a “living document” that could be amended later, and another Commissioner expressed concern about ignoring the controversial items now (the subjective nature of the PDs and ARC) but was outvoted. The discussion further focused on whether to accept the Lynee Well’s memo’s changes rather than debating the philosophy of the language itself.
We will attempt to explain: Explain that a PD is an optional tool. It allows a developer to deviate from strict zoning rules (like setbacks or lot sizes) only if they provide a specific benefit to the community and meet strict qualifying standards. It is not a right; it is a negotiated agreement
Based on the provided sources—specifically the 2005 Zoning Code, Lynee Wells’ December 2025 Memorandum, Draft PUD Proposal, and Planning Commission transcripts—here are 20 examples distinguishing between subjective terminology (open to interpretation/litigation) and objective terminology (measurable/defensible).
Dimensional & Density Standards
|
Subjective Terminology (Vague/Discretionary)
|
Objective Terminology (Measurable/Metrics)
|
|
1. “Compatible with the scale of the neighborhood”
|
“Maximum height shall not exceed 49 feet nor 3 stories“
|
|
2. “Large enough to accommodate the proposed use”
|
“Minimum lot size for Planned Development: 10 acres (AR district) or 0.5 acres (CBD)”
|
|
3. “Not materially add service loads” or “excessive… requirements”
|
“Does not exceed 1.5 times the underlying district density”
|
|
4. “Appropriate setbacks” determined by the Commission
|
“Front yard setback: 25 feet; Side yard: 10 feet“
|
|
5. “Minimize obstruction of views”
|
“For every 1 foot of height above 25 feet, buildings shall step back 5 feet“
|
|
6. “Minor” or “insignificant” project
|
“Projects resulting in 5,000 sq. ft. or less of new development”
|
|
7. “Sufficient space” for parking
|
“One (1) parking space per 200 sq. ft. of usable floor area”
|
|
8. “Short duration” stay
|
“Stays of 30 days or less“
|
|
9. “Tall” or “High” fence
|
“Maximum height shall not exceed 6.5 feet“
|
|
10. “Open space” for passive enjoyment
|
“Minimum of 20% of the gross site acreage as open space”
|
Aesthetics & Design
|
Subjective Terminology (Vague/Discretionary)
|
Objective Terminology (Measurable/Metrics)
|
|
11. “Harmonious” with neighboring use
|
“Exterior materials shall be masonry, brick, or stone“
|
|
12. “Traditional town atmosphere”
|
“All storefronts shall be at least 50% transparent glass”
|
|
13. “Grossly dissimilar” to exterior design of other homes
|
“Roof pitch shall have a minimum vertical rise of 1 foot for each 4 feet of horizontal run”
|
|
14. “Objectionable” levels of noise
|
“Noise shall not exceed 70 decibels“
|
|
15. “Similar architectural details”
|
“Windows… shall be the same quality and appearance of those in the principal building”
|
Operational & Use Standards
|
Subjective Terminology (Vague/Discretionary)
|
Objective Terminology (Measurable/Metrics)
|
|
16. “Primarily” or “Solely” for avoiding zoning,
|
“Non-residential uses shall not exceed 10% of the first floor gross square footage”
|
|
17. “Limited” commercial use
|
“Retail establishment not exceeding 1,300 square feet“
|
|
18. “Family” defined as a “domestic character
|
“Family” defined as “an individual plus two non-related individuals”
|
|
19. “Substantial construction”
|
“Foundations poured and inspected within 12 months“
|
|
20. “Significant” historic structure
|
“Structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places“
|
Conclusion:
Planning Commissioners’ claim that their Planned Development (PD) standards are the “toughest in the business” can be refuted by pointing to the prevalence of subjective language over objective metrics, the removal of “gatekeeper” requirements found in previous codes, and the specific critiques leveled by professional planner Lynee Wells.
1. The primary findings from our research is that the draft code relies on “feelings” (subjective) rather than “math” (objective).
• The Critique: Lynee Wells, a professional planner hired by We Love Harbor Springs, explicitly challenged the draft on Zoom and in Memos Oct. Nov. & December 2025, stating, “the PD process remains subjective, with very little objective standards.
• Specific Examples: The draft code relies on discretionary terms such as whether a project is “desirable,” “harmonious,” or “compatible.
• The Findings: A “tough” code uses objective standards (e.g., “must be set back 50 feet”) that cannot be argued in court. A subjective code (e.g., “must be harmonious”) allows a Planning Commission to approve a project based on opinion. Wells warns that “subjectivity in review and approval opens the City to costly legal challenges” because developers can claim a denial was arbitrary if the rules weren’t clear.
2. The “Faulty” Density Cap
The Commissioners might argue the code is “tough” because it limits density to 1.5 times the underlying district. However, this standard is refuted by the lack of baseline density in commercial zones.
• The Critique: Wells points out this standard is “faulty because there are no density standards in the commercial, office or CBD districts as there is no minimum lot area.
• The Findings: If the underlying district has no density limit (no minimum lot area), then “1.5 times” that limit is mathematically meaningless. A developer could propose a massive project in a commercial zone, and the “tough” density cap would not actually restrict them
3. Removal of “Gatekeeper” Standards (The 10-Acre Rule)
You can refute the “toughest” claim by comparing the proposal to the city’s own 2005 Zoning Code.
• The Old Standard (Tougher): The 2005 zoning code required a minimum of 10 acres to apply for a PUD outside the CBD. This acted as a “gatekeeper,” ensuring PUDs were only used for large, master-planned projects.
• The Proposed Standard (Weaker): The draft discussed in 2025 removed the minimum acreage requirement entirely, potentially allowing PUDs on small, single lots.
• The Findings: By removing the acreage minimum, the new proposed 10.21.25 code actually made it easier, not tougher, for developers to use the PD process to bypass standard zoning on small lots. It took community intervention (the “Wells Memo”) to force the re-introduction of the 10-acre requirement into the draft
4. Comparison to “By-Right” Plans
A “tough” standard would force a developer to prove their project is better than what is allowed by standard zoning.
• The Critique: Carter Williams and Lynee Wells argued for a mandatory “test plan” or “comparison table”. This would force a developer to draw a plan showing what they could build under normal rules versus what they want to build.
• The Commission’s Resistance: Planning Consultant John Iacoangeli argued against this requirement, stating it was “costly” for developers to spend money drawing a base plan when the ordinance already allowed density increases.
• The Findings: If the standards were truly the “toughest,” the Commission would mandate this comparison to prove the public benefit. By resisting it to save developers money they prioritized developer efficiency over rigorous objective proof of benefit.
5. Staff’s Defense vs. Reality
The Planning Consultant defended the new draft by arguing it was tougher than the existing PD overlay in the CBD.
• The Defense: Harbor Springs hired City Planner Beckett & Raeder’s, John Iacoangeli stated that the existing (2005) PD ordinance was “a hell of a lot more flexible” than the draft because it allowed 49 feet in height, whereas the draft was more restrictive.
• The Findings: While the draft might be tougher on height than the 2005 code, it was looser on eligibility (removing the 10-acre minimum). Furthermore, resident Mark Rondel pointed out that “zoning is a mechanism of exclusion” and that arbitrary standards (subjectivity) actually threaten property rights by allowing the Commission to pick winners and losers based on “neighborhood outcry” rather than law.
Summary for Readers Discussion – From our Library
While the draft may restrict building height more than the 2005 code, it is structurally weaker because it relies on subjective terms like ‘compatibility’ rather than objective metrics. As Lynee Wells noted, the ‘1.5x density’ cap is mathematically unenforceable in commercial districts with no base density. Furthermore, true ‘tough’ standards would mandate a 10-acre minimum to prevent spot-zoning—a standard that existed in 2005.
Instead of letting the Planning Commission approve projects based on feelings about “harmony,” this proposal requires the project to meet measurable, objective criteria. This protects the city from lawsuits by developers who might claim a denial was “arbitrary'”. Objective standards are legally defensible and protect the city’s resources from costly litigation.
The work that still needs to be done will ensure that even “creative” projects remain consistent with the scale of the surrounding town. These tools that Lynee Wells is saying are NOT in the October 21, 2025 Code are safety locks that protect the town’s character immediately upon passage and ensures that any deviation from the code is a calculated trade-off for a community benefit, not just a developer’s preference.
Also, the Planned Developers projects must be consistent with the City’s Master Plan and Future Land Use Map. This is a mandatory standard, not just a suggestion. If you attended the meetings you were able to view the progress two ways: Justification for Change: Consultants and staff frequently cited the Master Plan to justify density increases and zoning district consolidations (e.g., combining R1B and R1C. and Argument Against Change: Residents frequently cited the Master Plan’s goals regarding “small-town character” and “preservation” to argue against those same changes.
Zoning is hard, but we are almost there! Thank you everyone for your attention.
