Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Phase Approval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission tables Meadow Springs Phase 4 amid drainage concerns; seeks engineer review
Summary
The Planning Commission voted to table final approval of Meadow Springs phase 4 (2600 Kinney Ave) after staff flagged drainage and contour data gaps and Grandmark Property Management presented a report alleging ongoing drainage problems in earlier phases; commissioners asked the city engineer to review complaint records before returning the item on June 17.
The Walker Planning Commission on May 20 tabled final action on Meadow Springs phase 4 (case 26-008) after staff read concerns from the city engineer and a property-management representative reported unresolved drainage problems in earlier phases.
Paula Priebe, the city planner, summarized the city engineer Scott Connors’ memo, saying the final phase is proposed over the O'Neil Drain (under Kent County’s jurisdiction), the plans do not show the proposed maintenance easement recording, sheet 5 of 7 is missing existing contour data needed for drainage review, and the engineer asked for an updated stormwater report that includes all phases. "It is important that this ... is a new easement dedicated over this route," Priebe said, and she emphasized that the final phase is the commission’s last chance to review the project in detail.
Grandmark Property Management submitted an independent report and a representative identified herself in the hearing as Remi Bozardam. She told the commission the developer had not responded to that report and said, "There is a lot of drainage issues," citing sump-pump discharge not running far enough from houses and pooling between phases as concerns. She urged the commission to make sure problems from earlier phases are resolved so they are not passed on to the condominium association.
Developer Dave Visser disputed that the development has systemic drainage failures and described alterations he said the builder made in later phases (grading adjustments, added yard drains and extended sump pump discharge) to mitigate earlier complaints. "In my opinion, there is no concern about drainage, and we don't have drainage problems," Visser said, while his project engineer agreed that sheet 5 is missing some contour labels and that lot-grading sheets will be needed for permit review.
Commissioners split on whether to conditionally approve the final phase or to table the item until the city engineer could review complaint documentation. Several commissioners said most complaints appear to come from earlier phases and that staff now requires lot-level grading sheets and an updated stormwater report as part of final approval, but others wanted Scott Connors to be present to analyze complaint records. A motion to table carried; the tabling was conditioned on submitting the complaint records in time for the city engineer's review and on the applicant providing lot-grading sheets consistent with the approved grading plan and MBO table. Staff said the matter will be placed on the June 17, 2026 agenda if materials arrive in time.
