A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Alexandria Township was held on the 22nd day of February, 2016 at the Alexandria Township Conference Room, 324 Broadway.
Roll Call: Commission members present were Shad Steinbrecher, Larry Steidl, Bill Dropik, Jr. and Linda Dokken-McFann. Also present were Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk, and Ben Oleson, Township Zoning Administrator. As said members formed a quorum and the meeting was called to order by Chairman Steidl at 6:00 p.m.
Agenda: Dokken-McFann, seconded by Steinbrecher, made a motion to approve the agenda as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Minutes: Steinbrecher, seconded by Dropik, made a motion to approve the minutes of the 1/25/2016 meeting as written. Motion carried. Dokken-McFann abstained.
Chairman Steidl recessed the meeting to open the public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section L. (2.) Specific Standards which would allow up to 100% credit against impervious coverage for areas covered by pervious paver systems in non-shoreland areas as a conditional use.
Public Hearing: Zoning Administrator Oleson stated that the township has, over the years, discussed whether to grant a credit against impervious coverage for the use of pervious paver systems. Both the City of Alexandria and Douglas County give credit in certain circumstances. Presently the town gives no credit for paver systems in either shoreland or non-shoreland areas, based in part upon the DNR’s policy of not allowing pervious pavement to exceed the 25% impervious surface limit in the shoreland district without a variance. He also noted the town’s concern over a system’s viability without sufficient maintenance. Oleson reported that the town board had directed the planning commission to study the issue back in June 2015. The town recently received a request from a landscaper inquiring if the town would consider giving credit for paver systems in non-shoreland areas.
Oleson introduced David Rush, Douglas County Land and Resource Management Director. Mr. Rush stated that the county has issued approximately 26 conditional use permits for pervious paver systems over the last ten years. The county’s ordinance was amended in 2006 to allow some flexibility in impervious surface replacement. The ordinance restricts the amount of impervious surface coverage in two ways: first, the amount of coverage is dictated by the DNR’s shoreland rules and secondly, the county chose to limit the coverage on any lot to better control the amount of runoff. The amendment was intended to benefit those residents who were replacing existing systems and/or who were already over-impervious. Certain circumstances require the removal (1.5:1 ratio) of existing impervious; i.e. you would need to remove 1.5 square feet of impervious if creating one square foot of impervious unless you had a stormwater plan for your property, which would then entitle you to a 1:1 ratio. The county’s ordinance allows for 25% credit if installed by a landscaper with all procedures followed by the manufacturer and 100% credit with an engineered stormwater plan which includes the pervious pavement system. A condition of the CUP is to have the homeowner turn in a report annually on the condition of the installed pavers. At present, there is no standardized reporting form.
Chairman Steidl opened the hearing to the public for comment. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing and resumed the meeting.
Items for consideration are allowing 50% credit for sidewalks and patios and requiring engineered plans for driveways; how much flexibility should be allowed and setting upper limits on total impervious coverage.
Dokken-McFann, seconded by Steinbrecher, made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment for pervious paver systems as presented in the staff report and to include a change to set an upper limit on total impervious coverage without the credit, said credit to be determined by the zoning administrator. Roll: Dropik, Dokken-McFann, Steinbrecher, Steidl – yes. Opposed: none. Motion carried unanimously.
Zoning Administrator’s Report: none
New Business: none
Old Business: none
Adjournment: Being no further business Dropik, seconded by Steinbrecher, made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk
Approved this ____ day of ___________, 2016
Larry Steidl, Chairman