Plan Commission — Minutes

VILLAGE OF SISTER BAY 1 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 2 TUESDAY , JUNE 23, 2026 3 APPROVED AS AMENDED 4 5 1. Call To Order & Roll Call 6 Chairperson Nate Bell called the Plan Commission meeting to order on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, at 5:30 7 P.M., and roll call was taken. 8 9 Present: Commission members Nate Bell, Jerry Ahrens, Laurel Harff, Skip Heidler, Brigid White. 10 11 Staff Member(s): Village Zoning Administrator Benjamin Andrews, Administrative Assistant Sarah 12 Bertges and Marina Manager Dave Lienau via Zoom. 13 14 Others: Kurt Harff, Katelyn Jerard, Chris Schmeltz, Amedee Savard, Marc Savard, Mary Pat Carlson. 15 VIA ZOOM: Erin’s IPhone, Paul Grossman. 16 17 2. Approve Of Agenda 18 Motion to approve the agenda as presented was made by Ahrens, second by Heidler, Motion carried -19 all ayes. 20 21 3. Approve Meeting Minutes 22 a. May 26, 2026; Regular Meeting 23 Two spelling errors noted. 24 Motion by Heidler, second by Harff to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried- all 25 ayes. 26 27 4. Comments, Correspondence, And Concerns From The Public 28 Bell invited public comment. No members of the public or online attendees offered comment at this 29 time. 30 31 5. Discussion/Action Items 32 33 a. Site Plan Review; Marina Building; 10733 Bay Shore Drive 34 Andrews presented the site plan for the proposed marina building, located within a P -1 district. The 35 building's proposed height does not exceed the 35 -foot limit. Andrews noted that while the front 36 setback does not meet the current 50 -foot standard, the proposed building does not extend beyond 37 the footprint of the existing structure, and no concerns were identified regarding side or rear setbacks. 38 The Commission raised the question of compliance with the ordinary high watermark setback. Marina 39 Manager Dave Lienau, attending remotely, confirmed that the DNR had been consulted and did not 40 anticipate an issue, and that engineering firm Stantec was in the process of formally delineating the 41 ordinary high watermark, with results expected within a week. Heidler emphasized that the specific 42 footage had not yet appeared on any submitted drawings and that formal verification was needed. 43 White noted that the updated architectural drawings showing revised wide -lap siding had 44 inadvertently not been included in the packet. Lienau confirmed that the most recent version, 45 reflecting changes requested at a prior courtesy review on May 14th, was available through the 46 marina. The Commission discussed concerns regarding blank wall areas, particularly on the east 47 elevation, and Lienau confirmed that the architectural team had addressed those concerns in the 48 updated drawings. 49 Heidler raised questions regarding ventilation adequacy in the shower facilities, suggesting that the 50 placement of exhaust returns may be insufficient during peak usage hours, and recommended a closer 51 review during the bidding phase. Bell inquired about solar readiness, and Lienau confirmed that 52 provisions for future solar installation —including a dedicated electrical and networking closet —had 53 been incorporated into the second-floor design. 54 June 23, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting- Approved as amended 2 The Commission also discussed parking impacts, noting that the proposed trash enclosure would 1 eliminate one or two spaces from the existing lot. It was confirmed that the marina's secondary 2 parking lot, located approximately half a block away with over 100 spaces, would continue to serve 3 additional demand. Heidler raised the question of whether both lots could be counted collectively to 4 satisfy code parking requirements. The Commission reached general consensus that this had been the 5 long-standing practice, and that the use was not substantially changing. 6 The Commission agreed that conditional approval was appropriate at this stage to allow the project 7 to proceed to procurement and bidding, with specific conditions to be satisfied prior to final permit 8 issuance. 9 Motion to approve the site plan for the marina building at 10733 N Bay Shore Drive, on the condition 10 that the ordinary high watermark setback distance be formally identified and called out on the 11 drawings, and that final siding materials and color selections be returned to the Plan Commission for 12 review, was made by White and second by Heidler. The motion carried-all ayes. 13 14 b. Site Plan Review; Pergola Addition; CHOP – 2345 Mill Road 15 Andrews presented an application from CHOP restaurant for the addition of pergola structures at the 16 front of the principal building. He explained that the application had initially been interpreted as 17 requiring a conditional use permit for an accessory structure in the front yard, but that upon review 18 of prior Plan Commission precedent —specifically the vestibule project —staff concluded that a 19 structure permanently attached to the principal building may instead be treated as an addition, 20 requiring only site plan review. 21 The Commission discussed this interpretation and reached consensus that, given the permanent and 22 attached nature of the proposed pergolas, the application was appropriately treated as a site plan 23 review rather than a conditional use permit. 24 The applicant clarified that the existing second-floor pergola covering had been damaged by wind and 25 would be replaced with a louvered system in a light gray color to match the existing awning and 26 vestibule. The applicant indicated a preference to address only the second-floor structure at this time, 27 with the option to add similar structures at the ground level in the future. Andrews noted that ground-28 floor pergolas had been included in the original approved site plan and therefore would not require 29 additional Commission approval. 30 The Commission confirmed that the motion would encompass both the second-floor replacement and 31 the previously approved first-floor pergolas, providing clarity for future permit issuance. 32 Motion to approve the CHOP site plan with the addition of the pergolas on the second floor, as well as 33 the first-floor pergolas in the future, was made by White and second by Bell. Motion carried, 4-1 with 34 Heidler opposed on the basis that insufficient formal documentation had been provided to fully satisfy 35 the review process. 36 37 c. Text Amendment Revisions Discussions 38 Andrews introduced three areas of proposed text amendment for Commission workshopping: (1) 39 adding automotive body and mechanical repair as a permitted use in the B-1 General Business District; 40 (2) revising the fee -in-lieu of parking framework; and (3) establishing regulations for Accessory 41 Dwelling Units (ADUs). 42 43 Automotive Body and Mechanical Repair – B-1 District 44 The Commission discussed the proposed addition of automotive body and mechanical repair as a 45 permitted use in the B -1 district. Heidler expressed concern about compatibility with adjacent 46 residential properties, citing potential noise, storage of vehicles awaiting repair, dust, and volatile 47 chemicals. He noted that Liberty Grove restricts such uses to parcels of at least 10 acres. 48 Other commissioners noted that similar concerns could be raised about existing permitted uses in the 49 B-1 district, such as gas stations and commercial laundries, and that Sister Bay had previously hosted 50 an automotive service business without generating complaints. A representative of the prospective 51 business was present and stated that the operation would be conducted indoors, with full awareness 52 June 23, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting- Approved as amended 3 of buffering and compliance requirements, and that the business intends to be a good community 1 partner. 2 The Commission reached general consensus in favor of allowing the use in the B- 1 district, provided 3 that appropriate performance standards are developed. Andrews was directed to prepare draft 4 language addressing specific standards such as screening, outdoor vehicle storage, and operational 5 compatibility. The Commission also indicated that the use should not be added to the B-3 district, and 6 White raised the question of whether it should be removed from B -3 if it currently appears there, to 7 be considered on a future agenda. 8 9 Fee-in-Lieu of Parking 10 Bell introduced a proposed revision to the fee-in-lieu of parking framework. He noted that the current 11 fee of $1,000 per space has been static for approximately 19 years, and that replacing it with a codified 12 formula tied to a CPI adjustment would provide predictability for both the village and participating 13 businesses. 14 The Commission discussed the geographic scope of the program, with consensus that it should apply 15 to the B -2 and B -3 districts rather than using a distance -based buffer. The Commission also agreed 16 that the revenue generated should remain dedicated to parking-related expenditures. 17 Discussion addressed the treatment of existing participants in the program, with Andrews noting that 18 a legal review with Village Attorney Randy would be appropriate to determine how current approvals 19 interact with the proposed new framework. The Commission agreed that any new agreement should 20 include a projected schedule so that participants can anticipate future costs. 21 The Commission expressed broad support for the formula-based approach, including a CPI escalator, 22 and discussed the possibility of establishing an administrative threshold —approximately four to five 23 spaces—below which a business could participate in the program without Plan Commission review. 24 Andrews was directed to populate the formula with verified real- world data, including recent local 25 land transaction values and construction costs, and return with a refined proposal. 26 27 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 28 Bell noted that the Plan Commission last addressed ADUs in 2019, at which time the concept had 29 broad support until a concern arose regarding a state statute that grants any residential unit an 30 inherent right to rent as a short-term rental. He indicated that while this concern remains, there may 31 be ways to mitigate it through incentive-based approaches rather than direct prohibition. 32 A member of the public, Mary Pat Carlson, addressed the Commission and described her family's 33 personal need for an ADU solution, explaining that she and her husband —long-time Sister Bay 34 residents and business operators—wish to accommodate their daughter's family on their property but 35 cannot expand their two -bedroom home to do so. Her comments illustrated the broader 36 multigenerational and workforce housing benefits of allowing ADUs. 37 The Commission discussed the short -term rental concern at length. White noted that Wisconsin law 38 does not automatically grant ADUs the right to be used as short-term rentals, and that local ordinances 39 govern the question, though she cautioned that an adverse legal challenge could render any 40 restrictions unenforceable. Harff observed that the STR market inflates property values and that deed 41 restrictions in residential neighborhoods had previously been overridden by the state. 42 The Commission reached consensus that ADUs are a desirable tool for addressing the village's housing 43 needs—including multigenerational living, workforce housing, and aging -in-place scenarios —and 44 expressed a preference for long -term rental use over short- term rental. The Co mmission discussed 45 incentive mechanisms such as reduced setbacks or waived parking requirements for owner-occupied 46 situations, while acknowledging that such incentives may not survive a change of property ownership. 47 Regarding parameters, the Commission generally supported allowing both attached and detached 48 ADUs, a maximum of two bedrooms, a size cap in the range of 800–1,200 square feet, a height not to 49 exceed the principal structure, and at least one additional parking space per unit following existing 50 residential parking formulas. Heidler noted that ADUs should be limited to parcels with a single-family 51 June 23, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting- Approved as amended 4 detached principal dwelling, and that the R -4 district should likely be excluded given its density 1 constraints. 2 Andrews was directed to consult with Village Attorney Randy on what restrictions are legally 3 permissible under current state law, what incentive mechanisms have been upheld elsewhere, and to 4 return with proposed draft language at a future meeting. 5 6 6. Annual Permit Log 7 Andrews noted that the working permit log had been distributed via email the prior Friday. Heidler 8 clarified that the intent of this agenda item is to make the log available for Commission reference, not 9 to review each permit in detail at every meeting. 10 11 7. Executive Session 12 a. Wisc. Stats. 19.85(1)(g) To Confer With Legal Counsel For The Governmental Body 13 Motion to convene into executive session pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes §19.85(1)(g) to confer with 14 legal counsel regarding strategy with respect to a zoning permit application for an accessory building 15 was made by Bell and second by Heidler . Roll call vote: Harff – yes; Heidler – yes; Bell – yes; White – 16 yes; Ahrens – yes. The Commission convened into closed session at 7:38 P.M. 17 The Commission reconvened into open session following the executive session at 8:08 P.M. 18 Motion to reconvene into open session by Ahrens second by Bell. Roll call vote: Harff – yes; Heidler – 19 yes; Bell – yes; White – yes; Ahrens – yes. Bell announced that the Commission would direct staff as 20 discussed in closed session. 21 22 8. Matters To Be Placed On A Future Agenda Or Referred To A Committee, Official Or Employee 23 • Marina ordinary high watermark setback distance be formally identified and called out on the 24 drawings, and that final siding materials and color selections be returned to the Plan Commission 25 for review 26 • The text amendment items discussed under Agenda Item 5c: 27 o Fee in Lieu of parking- Staff directed to populate the formula with verified real-world 28 data, including recent local land transaction values and construction costs, and return 29 with a refined proposal. 30 o ADU- Staff directed to consult with Village Attorney Randy on what restrictions are 31 legally permissible under current state law, what incentive mechanisms have been 32 upheld elsewhere, and to return with proposed draft language at a future meeting. 33 o Auto Body/Mech Repair- Staff directed to prepare draft language addressing specific 34 standards such as screening, outdoor vehicle storage, and operational compatibility. 35 • Zoning administrator report added to future agendas. 36 37 9. Next Meeting 38 The next regular monthly meeting of the Plan Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, July 28, 2026, at 39 5:30 P.M., in the Large Meeting Room of the Sister Bay-Liberty Grove Fire Station. 40 41 10. Adjournment 42 Motion to adjourn at 8:09 PM. 43 Motion by Heidler second by Harff. Motion carried -all ayes. 44 45 Respectfully submitted by Sarah Bertges, Administrative Assistant 46