After heated hearing, Harbor Springs council adopts updated zoning code with amendments

Harbor Springs city council voted 3–2 to adopt a comprehensive update to the city’s zoning code after a public hearing in which planners, residents and commissioners debated key provisions including planned developments (PUDs), administrative-review authority, parking in the central business district and building heights.

John Iander, the city’s planning consultant, summarized the 15 articles of the proposed code, which range from intent and zoning districts to dimensional standards, overlays (floodplain, shoreline protection and downtown overlay), site plan review, administrative and enforcement procedures, and planned development standards. Iander emphasized the draft’s use of tables for regulated uses and dimensional standards and noted that no land uses in the regulated-use table are eligible for administrative-only review; planning commission review remains required for those uses.

A central area of public debate was the planned development (PUD) standard. The draft allows PUDs in select districts and sets a high qualifying bar: five mandatory qualifying standards plus five of seven objectives. Some residents urged adding a minimum acreage (a 10‑acre minimum was discussed) to reduce the likelihood of single-property or small-site PUDs; planners said a strict acre minimum could preclude many infill opportunities in a compact city. The council and planning consultant also discussed parking requirements and a proposed exemption from minimum parking in the central business district to ease redevelopment.

Staff offered two written memos (a November peer-review and a same-day administrative-review clarification) and committed to incorporate language clarifying that the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) would review minor amendments referred by the zoning administrator and shoreline preservation items, but not regulated land uses that require planning commission review. Councilors debated whether to send the draft back to the planning commission for more work or to adopt it immediately with those edits.

A motion to adopt the ordinance as presented—incorporating the November memo and the updated ARC language discussed that night—passed on a 3–2 roll call (yes: Jamie Milky, Kathy Machel, Jeannie Benjamin; no: Tom Graham, Wendy Ree). The council directed staff and the planning consultant to prepare a revised ordinance reflecting the clarified ARC language and the agreed editorial changes for posting and implementation.

Councilors and many public commenters emphasized that the code is not immutable and can be amended over time; the city reiterated that site-specific approvals (special uses, PUDs, variances) will continue to be reviewed through public hearings.