City of Harbor Springs Planning Commission Meeting Summary: June 19, 2025

Pushing the building heights!

The Brief

• We have summarized the entirety of the 3.15 hour Planning Commission meeting below so that you do not need to watch the replay video. Even the summary is long. We offer it as a tool for you to scan what may impact you. We avoid any major edits or commentary. Please let us know if we should continue publishing these.

• Planning Commission: Meets July 17 and at a Special Meeting on July 31, at 5:30 PM. Zoom YouTube. These sessions will focus on Articles 3, 4, Redline of Article 10, and City of Harbor Springs zoning applications. The discussion on July 17th will concentrate on dimensions in residential zones like the Bluff, Agricultural District, Uptown, Lake Street, Glenn Drive and all other remaining areas.

• City Council: Meets Wednesday, July 2, at noon; and Monday, July 21 at 7:00 PM. Zoom YouTube

Summary of the June 19th Planning Commission Meeting

Note: To help people better understand activity, we have moved to a combination of AI tools and edits to recast the meeting transcript in a more readable form. Please let us know of any errors. Email us at weloveharborsprings.com

The Planning Commission convened for a productive and lengthy session on June 19, 2025, to continue critical discussions on building the city's new zoning code and address other important community matters.

This summary aims to provide a clear and concise overview for residents who could not attend, highlighting the key discussions and outcomes that will shape Harbor Springs' future development.

The primary purpose of the Planning Commission's ongoing meetings is to undertake a comprehensive update of the zoning code. This involves aligning the code with the city’s Master Plan goals, improving clarity and usability, reducing bureaucratic processes and costs, providing more options for property owners, addressing undesirable outcomes from the current code, and anticipating future needs of Harbor Springs residents. A key newly recognized principle, discussed but not yet approved for inclusion in this list of goals, is to maintain Harbor Springs' special charm and character, and to protect and preserve the rights and interests of current property owners.

Key Topics Discussed

• Meeting Authorization: A procedural issue arose due to the City Council not yet naming a new representative to the Planning Commission following Michael Behrmann's resignation. The City Attorney provided an opinion that the Planning Commission was authorized to meet as long as a quorum was met and procedures followed. The Commission was comfortable proceeding.

• Public Comment Highlights:

  • Linda Rachwitz expressed happiness at the public turnout and recalled the repeal of Ordinance #439, emphasizing the consensus from previous town halls that the archaic 2005 code needed updating. She urged everyone to move forward together to create a zoning code most can support, emphasizing that "this little town is too important to be divided".

  • Karin Offield echoed the need for a collective pledge from all community members and City Hall boards and commissions and staffs to ensure all residents and property owners matter equally. A campaign advocating for honoring the town's history of generosity and the shared responsibility of the two groups, property owners and full time residents, in upcoming zoning conversations.

  • Reed Romain requested Planning Commission members to visit his property regarding an open special use request for an ADU, noting that Bob Buckner's visit was helpful. He also highlighted the challenge of defining and legislating "charm and character" when discussing ADU appearance due to varying architectural styles in Harbor Springs.

  • Matt Gulseth from the "above the bluff" neighborhood noted the difficulty in differentiating R1 and R2 districts on Main Street and pointed out many charming, compact duplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) "below the bluff" (e.g., on Third and Fourth Streets). He encouraged considering similar setbacks for "above the bluff" areas to foster that same charm.

  • Gordon Andrews raised an issue regarding side setbacks, stating that the current 12% of total width rule (if greater than a flat number) prevents combining his two adjacent properties due to the resulting 12-foot setback requirement on a 104-foot combined width, making it an "unnecessary burden".

  • Garon Gopigian (Preservation 49740) stressed the importance of historic preservation and maintaining the city's character. He suggested a historic commission for guidance on demolitions, reconfigurations, and new construction. He also provided input on ADUs (thoughtful placement, proper setbacks), living arrangements for single persons/aging (not necessarily a zoning problem), and commercial agriculture (some deference, but avoid subdivision). He presented U.S. Census data showing a population drop and increases and questioned, given the city's resort nature and "Norman Rockwell small town atmosphere," if fluctuating population should be questioned.

• Special Land Use Request (Walstrom Dock and Dredge): The request was for a shop building on Hoyt Street next to Walstrom Marine Storage Yard, serving as the permanent home base for Walstrom Dock and Dredge. The main reason for the special land use review was the proposed exterior storage of completed dock sections, which would involve some overflow from their rented downtown field. The applicants clarified that the development is south of the guardrail at the bottom of the hill and confirmed the building height at 24 feet 3 inches (within the 35-foot limit). An initial concern about parking in the front setback was resolved, with the applicants agreeing to relocate parking to the side or rear. The project received a letter of support from Walstrom Marine.

• Pre-application Meeting Process: Jeff Grimm, the Zoning Administrator, explained these informal meetings where developers discuss project steps, documentation, and processes without seeking formal approval. He conducts 5-10 such meetings monthly. A concern was raised about transparency if these meetings aren't publicly reported, particularly given past issues (e.g., Rob Cummings's and the Bluff Gardens property, and another citizen's lawsuit over lack of neighbor notification). Arguments against reporting included potential disincentives for early discussions (developers fearing public knowledge of initial ideas that might change) and redundancy. Arguments for reporting included transparency and allowing neighbors to engage early, thereby avoiding later conflicts and lawsuits. Transparency was emphasized, not denying a meeting took place for advancing trust in the community,

• Zoning Code Update Goals: The Commission reviewed its standing goals. Two additional principles were proposed by the public and Bill Mulder asked the Planning Commissioners if they generally accepted these two goals as guiding principles for decision-making:

  • "Maintain Harbor Springs' special charm and character". This sparked discussion on defining "charm" and avoiding legislating aesthetics, but was seen as an overarching principle, noting that charm is in the eye of the beholder. Harbor Springs exudes charm.

  • "Protect and preserve the rights and interests of current property owners". Some members felt this was already inherent in the committee's work, while others emphasized its importance as a stated principle, especially in light of balancing community-wide best interests with individual property rights.

  • No decisions were made, but these two new goals would be considered.

• Article 10 (Land Development Options) Redlines: The Commission reviewed proposed changes to Article 10, including a City Attorney recommendation that the City Council, not the Planning Commission, is responsible for preparing a "finding of fact" for Planned Developments (PDs). A citizen (Jon Wayman) expressed concerns about potential "holes" that could allow developers to circumvent the Master Plan and requested and confirmed a meeting with the consultant, suggesting tabling the article. The consistency of PD applications with the Master Plan was noted as a qualifying standard. A significant discussion focused on Article 10.5, "Condo-Hotel Development." Some members argued it was unnecessary, overlapping with other code elements and creating overly onerous administrative burdens for the city (e.g., managing key card changes, daily maid service, owner designations). It was noted this article might have been a "preemptive" measure for a specific past project.

• Zoning District Dimensions (Articles 2 & 3): The Commission began reviewing dimensional standards for various districts, focusing on simplifying and removing "stories" (e.g., 2.5 stories) in favor of a single maximum height.

  • Industrial (M1) District: Previously Manufacturing, it was discussed to standardize max height to 35 feet. Mechanical equipment (HVAC, chimneys) can exceed this height as per general provisions.

  • Community (C) District: Max height was discussed to be standardized to 35 feet, down from 40 feet, removing "stories". Schools are generally not subject to local zoning, but often cooperate.

  • Waterfront (WF) District: This commercial waterfront district has specific rules for preserving views, including lot coverage limits. The current code allows 30 ft average building height with portions up to 33 ft if "stepped". The "stepping" rule was considered clunky and difficult to define. A suggestion was made to simplify to a straight 30-foot maximum height, regardless of stepping, to preserve views. This would make some existing buildings, like Irish Boat Shop, non-conforming but grandfathered. The definition of "Max. Lot Coverage" as "perpendicular to the right-of-way" was clarified to be corrected to "parallel".

  • Waterfront One (WF1) District: It was noted this district, which includes a few boathouses and day houses, will be eliminated, and properties moved to an appropriate residential district or remain as existing non-conformities.

  • Mobile Home Park (MHP) District: The name was discussed for consistency with state law, deciding to stay with "Mobile Home Park." Dimensions from the current code were largely seen as acceptable to carry forward.

  • R2 (Two-Family) Side Setbacks: The current code has a side setback of "12 ft or 12% of lot width, whichever is greater". Gordon Andrews' earlier comment (preventing combining lots) was referenced. It was broadly agreed to eliminate the "12% of lot width" rule, simplifying it to a fixed side setback (e.g., 12 feet).

  • Front Yard Setbacks (Averaging): The idea of allowing property owners the option to use either a standard fixed setback (e.g., 25ft or 15ft) or an average of nearby homes (if those homes are closer to the street) was discussed. This would provide flexibility and reduce the need for variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which has historically granted such variances. Concerns were raised about "creep" (averages gradually moving forward over time). A suggestion was to add a "never less than X feet" clause (e.g., 5 feet).

  • RM (Residential Multiple) District: There are few vacant RM properties. Discussion included reducing setbacks further for greater density and flexibility for larger multi-family projects (like Hillside Apartments). The 15ft front setback and the averaging concept for RM were also discussed.

  • Business Districts (B1, B2, ROS, CBD):

    • B1 (Convenience Business) and B2 (General Business): A major topic was combining B1 and B2 districts, particularly "below the bluff" where they are currently mixed. Mark Buday initially expressed difficulty seeing them combine due to distinct differences, especially on Third Street which feels more residential. However, the height difference is only 30ft (B2) vs 35ft (B1). The idea was floated to combine B1 and B2 below the bluff, potentially with a 35ft max height, and keep B2 above the bluff separate. The compatibility of uses will be a key factor in future discussions.

    • ROS (Residential Office Services): Bob Buckner suggested combining ROS with B1 due to their similar uses and residential character. However, the "lot coverage and setbacks are very different" (ROS 90% lot coverage vs. B1/B2 unspecified but implied lower), indicating a difference in scale and intensity. The planning consultant noted that ROS districts elsewhere can lead to "commercial-looking additions" to homes, changing neighborhood character, and suggested reducing the number of allowed uses or considering it a "tier of home occupation" needing special approval. The current 90% lot coverage in ROS was highlighted as potentially too high, leading to too much impervious surface, similar to downtown.

    • CBD (Central Business District): The current code lists 30 ft and 2 stories. However, it was noted that a specific block (from the bank to Cottage Company) is a Planned Development (PD) allowing up to 40 feet. The discussion centered on establishing a uniform height for the entire CBD (e.g., 35ft or 40ft) to eliminate the need for PDs solely for height. A previous proposal was discussed: 40ft/3 stories if the 3rd story is set back 8 feet from the property line to prevent a "canyon effect". Concerns were raised about the massing of new buildings like the Cottage Company (49ft including rooftop access) being "too big for our town". The historical presence of three-story buildings (some with higher facades or fake cornices) in downtown was noted, suggesting 3-story buildings are not historically out of character. An architect explained that 35ft for a 3-story commercial building would require "squished" floor-to-ceiling heights, making 40ft more architecturally desirable for a "true 3-story option" that could also allow roof decks. The idea of tiered height (35ft for 2 stories, 40ft for 3 stories with setbacks) was discussed. The "canyon effect" prevention relies on a ratio of street width to building height, which John Iacoangeli offered to research. Also discussed were elevator roof heights versus building roof heights. A final comment from the audience expressed surprise that three-story heights were being discussed, while the Vision documents, surveys, and the “listening sessions” this past winter were in favor of a two-story downtown. Decisions were tabled.

Building Heights Downtown

A survey of the downtown buildings in the Central Business District provides the following building heights.

Other Notes

• The presence of Jeff Grimm and John Iacoangeli provided the Planning Commissioners and the audience with anecdotal insights when dimensions were insufficient.

Next Scheduled Meetings and Agenda for those Meetings

• Next Regular Meeting: Thursday, July 17, 2025, at 5:30 p.m...

• Special Meeting: Thursday, July 31, 2025: This additional meeting was scheduled to build momentum and ideally finalize the discussion on zoning district dimensions before proceeding to regulated uses.

• The next regular meeting after July 31 will occur on August 21, 2025. The overall goal for these upcoming meetings is to finalize the definition of dimensions for all districts and then transition into discussions on permitted uses.

---

LETTERS

Good evening, friends and neighbors,

I am taking an informal poll to get the pulse on a particular situation. I’m sending this to each person, so whatever their response is, no one will know. I just need to get the general information/opinion.

This pertains to those of us who live across Harbor Springs, right downtown or up on the bluff, on the waterfront, throughout our 3.1 square miles town.

Someone asked me what my opinion would be if my neighbor were to sell his home and the buyer wanted to tear it down and put in a duplex.

The current suggestions, for most districts zoning ( and so far in the newly structured, but not yet passed zoning ) would require a SLU (Special Land Use) designation that would notify all neighbors within 300 ft of the proposed building.

We could meet with the city and the new owner to discuss our neighborhood concerns. Often, the result is a compromise and a meeting of the minds. All that would be agreed upon, and the landowner could proceed to build the duplex.

My thoughts on duplexes… Two attached homes, two families move in and if the residents are just two couples… four people total. Great. Four more parking places taken…parking spaces would be needed on the property.

Or, instead, let’s say two families of four or more buy the duplex….How is parking handled? What if each duplex needs four parking spaces? What about noise?…. the drain on our infrastructure?….a building and it’s concrete that covers mostly the entire lot?…..would some of the automobile owners forgo their property parking spaces for the convenience of street parking in front of all the neighbors’ houses?

I thought this question was very thought-provoking so I’m sending it out to y’all to get your take on how you would feel about this. I promise your names will NOT be passed on….only your feelings and opinions about this situation. Please get back to me asap.

Thanks so very much. Nan Mautz at weloveharborsprings@gmail.com