Planning Commission Minutes

Present: T. Byle, T. Korfhage, J. Hickey; Chairman; C. Rypma, A. Parent, C. Gornowich. Absent: D. Brown, T. Schweitzer, and M. Huizenga. Also Present: F. Wash, Planning Director, S. Conners, City Engineer; and P. Dlouhy, CDD-Planning Assistant.

Member Rypma opened the meeting and Member Parent gave the invocation.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Byle, to approve the minutes of September 2, 2009, as printed. Motion carried.

There were no comments at this time.

Vice-Chairman Rypma read the application requesting a second one-year extension of the Orchard Park Preliminary Area Site Plan.

Planner Wash related that this is a procedural item we dealt with last year at this time. Wash stated that Zach Bossenbroek is asking for an extension of the Orchard Park Preliminary Area Site Plan approval for one additional year. The existing Preliminary Area Site Plan was approved on October 4, 2006, was extended for one year about this same time last year, and without further action would lapse this month.

Planner Wash stated it is a discretionary decision of the planning commission to grant another one-year extension. He has provided a model motion to link any extension to the original approval in 2006.

Planner Wash informed the planning commission that there are two outstanding items to discuss. Two houses on Bristol that have been ordered to be demolished with a deadline date of October 9, 2009. Also there is a $290.00 outstanding bill for infrastructure review that needs to be paid by the developer.

Member Gornowich asked if we could include these two items as a condition of approval? Wash stated that the ordinance doesn’t specifically allow conditional approval of the one-year extension. However, these issues should be entered into the record, along with the developer’s responses.

Commissioner Parent stated that it would be helpful to make a condition or a deadline when these issues would be resolved. Member Rypma added that we could make it a condition. The ordinance doesn’t specifically allow or disallow conditional extensions. He felt that the demolition order is enforceable and the bill should be paid.

Zach Bossenbroek stated that the economy and lack of financing have stalled the project. He continues to keep potential users/new users in weekly/monthly discussions. He has been in discussion with retailers who find the site interesting and would like to locate on the site. Zach stated that he just got the bill today.

Member Rypma asked who the LLC partners are? Zach Bossenbroek stated there are two joint partners, a silent partner, Northgate Holdings, several business investors, and he is a very small partner.

Wash related that the Walker Building Official has issued demolition orders for two vacant houses on Bristol Avenue. They have been judged uninhabitable.　 The Planning Commission asked Mr. Bossenbroek if he planned on complying with the demolition orders, which have an Oct. 9^th deadline?　 Mr. Bossenbroek suggested that Walker Orchard Land Partners plans to let the City remove the homes and place a lien on the properties.　 The Planning Commission expressed significant displeasure with Mr. Bossenbroek’s response, noting that the City would potentially spend $20,000 - $30,000 to demolish the structures with no guarantee of future reimbursement.　 Staff will raise this issue with the City Manager.

Planner Wash stated that this is not an official public hearing, but the city sent courtesy notices to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project’s borders.

Vice-Chairman Rypma asked if there were any public comments. There were no comments at this time.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Korfhage, to receive and file a letter from Grand Rapids Ophthalmology in support of the one-year extension. Motion carried.

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by T. Byle, to approve a one-year extension to the Orchard Park Preliminary Area Site Plan as originally approved, subject to all of the conditions, standards and findings of fact noted in the planning commission’s resolution of October 4^th, 2006, which is hereby incorporated with this motion. Motion carried 6-0.

Vice-Chairman Rypma read the request for a Final Area Site Plan amendment to eliminate the need for roof downspout connections to the project’s storm sewer system along the project’s westerly borner.

Planner Wash related since this is an engineering-drainage issue, he will turn it over to Scott Conners and Pete Buurstra (Huntington Ridge Engineer) for discussion of what is feasible and what is not feasible and progress made since the item was tabled.

Motion by C. Gornwich, supported by T. Byle, to remove this item from the table. Motion carried.

Scott Conners reviewed his staff report. He stated that he met with engineer Pete Buurstra on September 23^rd. Walker staff’s suggestions for the outlet for the 12 most northerly units included a review of:

Scott Conners related that Mr. Buurstra explored all of these options and determined them to be inapplicable as solutions. Mr. Buurstra felt that the solution presented is the only way to address the original conditions of approval while minimizing the impact on all parties involved.

Pete Buurstra reviewed his letter in response to Scott Conners’ report. With regard to Item #1 in Scott Conners’ report, Buurstra explained that due to site constraints (existing buildings and wooded area to the west), this option was not considered. A trencher wouldl need to be utilized for installation of this pipe given these constraints. 6" diameter flex pipe is typical for this type of installation. With regard to Item # 2, Mr. Buurstra stated the inverts to the storm sewer system have elevations equal to approximately 752.00, which does not allow for a connection for the roof drains. The grade along the backs of the buildings peaks at 752.00 from Station 16+00 to 17+50. There is not sufficient fall to make a physical connection to the storm sewer system. With regard to Item # 3, this type of system does work well with the on-site soils. The heavy soils that were discussed at previous meetings have low infiltration rates. This type of system would fill up and overflow to the west as it currently does.

Pete Buurstra and Randy Smith then presented an alternative "pipe" plan to manage downspout stormwater along the westerly edge of Huntington Ridge. These plans included showing two – 6" flex pipes to drain Units 1019 to 1133. The first drains the roofs of Units 1019 to 1051 and routes the runoff to the existing Huntington Ridge detention pond. The second drains Units 1065 to 1133 and routes the runoff through the yard drain west of Station 22+00 on the Ironwood Estates property. This yard drain routes runoff to the regional detention pond located on the Ironwood Estates property. The Units in Phase I drain towards Leonard Street and are therefore not picked up.

Member Gornowich asked who had authority for requiring maintenance of those ponds? Scott Conners stated that the City does not have authority because the Ironwood pond is private. Now the City has more authority to require maintenance, but it is a gray area. Scott stated if determined that maintenance poses a danger to public health or welfare, we could probably require maintenance. Member Gornowich asked if the developer put money into the Ironwood pond? Scott stated that the owners of Ironwood also owned the Huntington Ridge property at that time. Member Gornowich asked if maintenance of the Ironwood pond could alleviate problems with the Ironwood Condominiums? Scott stated it might help but an engineering study should first be completed.

Member Gornowich stated that this application’s request was to waive downspout connections along the westerly Huntington Ridge lot line. Those units were developed and created this problem.

Member Gornowich asked if there were concerns to the south as well?

Scott Conners stated that yes, there were concerns from Thornwyk, Kingsrow, and Ironwood condominium residents regarding drainage.

Member Rypma asked if the drainage from Huntington Ridge is really much of an impact on Ironwood condominiums now? Scott Conners stated yes, because the storm "flash" water that is piped moves quicker.

Pete Buurstra reviewed a handout with the planning commission. He related that in the first picture, the existing rooflines make it nearly impossible to divert runoff via gutter to the front lawns. This alternative would be an unsightly solution for the Huntington Ridge residents. The second picture shows that the clearance between the existing decks and forested area to the west is minimal. Running a larger header pipe through here would be impossible without removing large amounts of trees and ruining the natural beauty of the area. Steep slopes add to constructability concerns.

Joe Jost, resident of Huntington Ridge condominiums, former resident of Ironwood Condominiums, and former resident of Imperial Drive, gave a historical perspective, including extensive review of his sketch map, showing how the property currently drains, and some ideas for how it should drain to help alleviate some of the drainage issues in the area. Jost related that the southeast corner of the Ironwood property, where the fill dirt and extension to that drain is can be two-thirds full all of the time. Jost proposed possible solutions to the drainage problems and suggested that he could work together with Ironwood owners and Huntington Ridge owners in an effort to get these problems solved.

Member Gornowich stated that the Huntington Ridge developer would keep the roof water on his site for the southerly units. She questioned the center units and asked if Mr. Jost was suggesting to collect that water and send it through a 12" pipe to the Ironwood pond? Mr. Jost stated yes. Member Gornowich stated that more of the property is draining to the pipe to the south, which is two-thirds full. Joe Jost stated that pipe has to be brought up to the grade of the Ironwood Pond.

Chairman Hickey asked by Ironwood backfilling a section of that pond at the southeast corner, it took out 35-40% of the capture of that pond? Joe Jost stated yes.

Member Byle stated that Mr. Jost has done a good job of summarizing the drainage of the area. It appears the Huntington Ridge north pipe system downspouts might better drain across vegetated areas and infiltrate into a natural detention area on the property line. It will slow the water down. Piping it will put it into the Ironwood pond immediately. That would be a detriment to the Ironwood situation. The south pipe goes into the Huntington Ridge pond and the flow is slowed that way. Eliminating this pipe would aggravate the Ironwood situation by also putting the water in the Ironwood pond immediately. It is in the best interest of all to eliminate the northerly pipe and construct the south collection system in the Huntington Ridge pond.

Scott Conners suggested that professional engineering representation is necessary so that the Ironwood Condos residents can vouch for any adjustments to their pond.

Randy Smith stated that he will do the best he can to get the associations together within the next 30 days. He feels this is a win-win solution.

Motion by T. Byle, supported by T. Korfhage, to require that Huntington Ridge Units 1019 – 1051 will have their downspouts connected to a backyard drain pipe and conveyed to the Huntington Ridge stormwater basin.　 Huntington Ridge Units 1065 – 1133 will be allowed to discharge their downspouts over land to allow the grass, woods and trail to disperse the stormwater prior to entering the Ironwood Condos property.　 A direct pipe from units 1065 – 1133 into the Ironwood Condos detention basin was seen as adding to an existing problem, due to concentrated flows of more stormwater coming out of　a pipe.　 Motion carried unanimously 6-0.

Wash related that the next schedule planning commission meeting on October 21^st is cancelled. The next regularly scheduled meeting is on November 4^th. Wash related that Ridgeview Tech Park (on 3 Mile north of Pohens and east of the church) is requesting a site condo for the property to create additional office lots.

Motion by A. Parent, supported by T. Korfhage, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried.

_____________________________ _______________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission