Advertisement

The Elk Rapids Village Council agreed during its regular Monday meeting to send the ordinance back to the planning commission to consider adding phrasing that would add a certain amount of flexibility for developers.

The planning commission sent the revised ordinance -- No. 375, which amends Elk Rapids Zoning and Unified Development Code, sections 153.008 and 153.059(H) -- to council after considering the request at a public hearing and voting 7-0 on the recommended changes.

Zoning administrator Steve Ravezzani, who led into the public hearing at Monday's village council meeting, said the revisions stemmed from a feeling that a decision made by one individual was not in the best interest for that person, the village or developers.

The revisions suggested by the planning commission would force developers who desire changes to special use permits to return to the planning commission for amendments.

In addition, the changes would force developers who want to change planned unit development permits to return to the village council for those amendments.

The planning commission has the authority to approve special use permits, and the village council approves planned unit development permits.

Village President Dan Reszka said he thinks it's a good idea that the group that grants a permit should grant changes as well.

Village manager Bob Peterson said he's given the issue much thought and though he agrees with the intent, he thinks the process could become complicated if developers aren't allowed to make irrelevant to minor changes.

He suggested that the council consider adding phrasing to the amendments that would allow some flexibility for developers by allowing them options that would be detailed when either the planning commission or village council approves their permit.

Village Trustee Steve Francis proposed additional language that would further clarify the idea.

Ravezzani explained the idea by providing an example: A developer may think he needs to remove 12 trees for a project but could ask for the leeway to remove 10 or 14 instead.

Peterson said the options would have to be accepted during the permitting process, and the approving body would have the ultimate decision on what options it would find acceptable.

"I think that'll save a lot of problems out in the field," he said.

Village Trustee Bob Orschel said that because the planning commission had spent so much time and voted unanimously to approve the ordinance amendment he would suggest sending the new wording back to the commission.