Plan Committee — Agenda packet

VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM FOUNDED 1853 PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, August 25, 2026 – 7:00 p.m. Village Hall - 9996 Water Street NOTE: This Meeting will be simultaneously held via teleconferencing. Staff, committee members, and the public are welcome to participate in this manner. Teleconferencing will be available by computer, phone, tablet, or dial-in. Connection information below: 1. Call to Order 2. Quorum 3. Approval of previous minutes 4. Changes in Agenda 5. Visitors’ Comments 6. Cora Elquist – Townline Dr. – 121-01-24312714B3 – New SFR – Design Review 7. Smart Custom Homes –10471 Valvere Way – New SFR – Design Review 8. Smart Custom Homes –10467 Valvere Way – New SFR – Design Review 9. Discussion and Consideration regarding PW Ordinance Amendment 10. New business for next meeting/next meeting date 11. Adjournment Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://meet.goto.com/225260781 You can also dial in using your phone. Access Code: 225-260-781 United States: +1 (646) 749-3122 A quorum of the Village Board will be present at the meeting. It is possible that a quorum of the Village Historic Preservation Committee or other Village Committees may be present at the meeting. However, no action will be taken by the Board or any other committee unless specifically noticed. Date: 8/21/2026 Andrea Collak, Clerk X Village Administrative Office X Visitors’ Center X Post Office Kim Roberts, Deputy Clerk X Website www.ephraim-wisconsin.com X Emailed to WDOR Radio X Emailed to Peninsula Pulse Administrative Office 10005 Norway Road PO Box 138 Ephraim WI 54211 Phone: (920) 854-5501 Fax: (920) 854-2072 E-Mail: office@ephraim.wi.gov 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM PLAN COMMITTEE WORKING SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2026 - 12:00 PM 9996 WATER STREET Present: Andy Bartelt, Grace Held, Laird Hart, Rick Hoyerman, Monique McClean, BD Thorp, and Ken Nelson – Chair. Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests: John Cox and Kathy Pentler. Call to Order: K. Nelson called the working session to order at 12:00 PM. The Committee reviewed the intent statement of §17.20. Two (2) versions of the intent language were discussed with Hart and Hoyerman, explaining that they had worked on a version on their own. After brief discussion, the Committee agreed that both drafts conveyed the same ideas and that the substantive difference was minor wordsmithing. The Committee agreed to retain the current version and to strike the word "also" from its opening line. The Committee reviewed the Permitted Uses section without changes. In the Conditional Uses Section §17.20(3)(b)(1), Bristol suggested adding the reference to §17.20(7) at the end of the sentence. The Committee reviewed the Prohibited Uses and Special Exception Review sections without changes. Section 6 — Additions, Modifications, and Replacements The Committee discussed the addition of "accessory buildings" to the heading of the section, alongside residences, explaining that this would allow applicants proposing changes to structures such as sheds — including adding a hip roof or rebuilding for reduced exposure — to come before the Committee. It was noted that retaining walls, fences, and stone walls are addressed elsewhere in Chapter 17. Section 8 — Reproduction of Existing Structures The Committee jumped ahead to review Section 8 and identified a drafting inconsistency: the word "house" appeared in a sentence within this section that should read "structure," consistent with the broader language change. The Committee agreed to amend "of the original house" to "of the original structure." Regarding materials, the Committee discussed a potential conflict between paragraph (a), which states materials "must be sourced" to ensure authenticity, and paragraph (b), which allows modern material substitution. Members debated whether the word "ensure" was too strong given the exception. The Committee ultimately opted to leave the language as-is, accepting that authenticity in this context is meant to address appearance rather than requiring use of identical historical materials, and that the two (2) paragraphs together provide a workable road map prioritizing original sourcing while permitting suitable substitution. Section 6(a) — General Requirements (Footprints) In §17.20(6)(a)(i)(a), the Committee decided to add, “Footprint of finished interior space” at the beginning of the sentence. Section 6(b) — Design Criteria 1.5 Story Definition: The Committee reviewed the definition of a 1.5 story house, which had been restored to its fuller form including references to knee walls, steeply pitched roofs, gables, dormers, and sloped ceilings. The Committee discussed whether to impose a hard numerical limit on the ratio of upper floor area to first floor area to address bulk concerns. Members examined square footage data from recently approved projects. The Committee debated whether this ratio was acceptable or whether it indicated insufficient restriction. Members discussed whether defining a hard percentage was workable given the difficulty of determining where to measure floor area relative to knee wall height. Several members expressed concern that a percentage could be disadvantageous to owners of small structures. The Committee ultimately concluded that requiring a minimum 2 6:12 roof pitch — already agreed upon — would be the more effective control on bulk, and that imposing a hard upper-floor area cap was unnecessary. The Committee agreed not to include a maximum percentage for upper floor area. The Committee also agreed to change "nominally" to "typically" in the definition of a 1.5-story house for consistency with the word "normally" used elsewhere in the same definition. The Committee reviewed design criteria section §17.20 (6)(b)(iv) and the associated definition of "house attachment," which had been drafted to address porches and decks as non-conditioned structures attached to the principal building. There was discussion that using the term "house attachment" was confusing because it implied attached garages, which are a separate issue. The Committee reviewed an inventory of existing structures in the PW district. The underlying policy goal was discussed: to grandfather existing attachments so that owners who modify or tear down their structures can replace what they had — on a like-for-like basis — without new additions being allowed. For example, a porch could be replaced by a porch, but not upgraded to a screened or windowed porch if it was not previously one. After extended discussion, the Committee agreed to eliminate the term "house attachment" from both the definition section and the body of the ordinance. The Committee agreed that "house attachment" could be struck from 17.20(6)(b)(iv) and be replaced with “decks and porches”. The Committee identified that attached garages present a distinct issue from porches and decks, as they are enclosed structures that fall within the footprint definition. Two (2) properties in the PW district currently have attached garages predating recent construction. The Committee discussed whether owners of attached garages should be permitted to convert garage space to finished living space. Members agreed that such conversion should be permissible — as it would not increase the footprint or the width of the structure as seen from the highway, but that no upper level (second story) should be permitted over the repurposed garage space. Members suggested inserting a new sub-paragraph that specifically addresses attached garages, stating attached garages may be converted to finished living space, provided that no upper level is added above the converted space, and there is no increase in width. The Committee agreed to add language in a new §17.20(6)(a)(i)(b) to address attached garages becoming living space. The current §17.20(6)(a)(i)(b) would become §17.20(6)(a)(i)(c). Section 6(c) -Dimensional Standards The Committee discussed whether new or replacement construction should be limited to the existing height of the structure being replaced, rather than the 23-foot maximum. The Committee discussed this but concluded that the 23-foot cap, combined with the 6:12 minimum roof pitch, would serve as an effective practical constraint, particularly on narrow lots, and that maintaining a uniform standard was preferable to tying height to prior structure dimensions. The Committee engaged in extended discussion regarding the permitted width of shed dormers, which may be considered with a roof pitch as low as 3:12 and a maximum of 6:12. Members discussed whether a percentage of the roofline width would be a more proportional cap than a fixed footage. A suggestion was 50% as a reasonable starting point; Bartelt suggested 75%, also acknowledged as somewhat arbitrary. There was discussion about whether the shed dormer provision applies to one or more sides of the building, with concern that allowing shed dormers on multiple sides — particularly all four (4) sides of a square footprint — could effectively create a full second floor. In §17.20(6)(c)(5), “except for the following circumstances” was added to the end of the sentence. In §17.20(6)(c)(5)(a), language was amended to, “A roof pitch for a limited amount of shed dormer of less than 6/12 and a minimum of 3/12 may be considered. In §17.20(6)(c)(5)(b), “Roof pitches for porches less than 6/12 may be considered.” In §17.20(10)(a), the word “house attachments” was replaced with “decks and porches”. 3 The committee did not complete a full pass through the ordinance during this session. K. Nelson acknowledged that a further working session would be needed before the draft is ready for the regular Plan Committee meeting. Held moved, Hoyerman seconded to adjourn at 2:08 PM. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2026 – 7:00 PM 9996 WATER STREET ACTION ITEMS: Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the June 23, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the June 23, 2026, Plan Committee minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the June 14, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the New SFR – Design Review for Brian Attar at 9817 Norwegian Wood Drive as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. McClean moved, Bartelt seconded to approve the Landscape/Land Disturbance Plan for 10235 STH 42 for Julia Uihlein, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the Accessory Structure Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for PEA Properties as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Hoyerman moved, Bartelt seconded to adjourn at 8:47 PM, all ayes. Motion carried. Present: Andy Bartelt, Laird Hart, Rick Hoyerman, Monique McClean, BD Thorp, and Ken Nelson – Chair. Absent: Grace Held. Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests in person: Cora Elquist, Steve and Mary Ohm, Susie Samson, Nick Meissner, Ruann Larson, Sara Glenn, and Brian Reinhardt. Guests online: Brent (John Joseph Company), John Van Der Vaart, Kathy Pentler, John Cox, John Cultra, “Matt”, “Paul”, and Tim and Nancy Christofferson. 1. Call to order: K. Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2. Quorum: A quorum of the Plan Committee was present. 3. Approval of previous minutes: Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the June 23, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the June 23, 2026, Plan Committee minutes , as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the June 14, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 4. Changes in agenda: There were no changes. 5. Visitors’ Comments: There were no Visitors’ Comments. 2 6. Brian Attar– 9817 Norwegian Wood Drive- New SFR – Design Review: Bristol introduced the application for a new single -family residence (SFR) on Norwegian Wood Drive. He noted the project complies with the Village's 28-foot over-the-counter building height limit, meets all other dimensional standards, and that the Design Review Checklist had been completed. Representatives from Portside Construction were present and presented material samples, including asphalt shingles, LP Smart Side dark gray siding, black trim board, and natural stone elements. Committee members expressed no concerns with the application. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the New SFR – Design Review for Brian Attar at 9817 Norwegian Wood Drive as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 7. Julia Uihlein – 10235 STH 42– Landscape/Land Disturbance Plan: Bristol provided background, explaining this is a landscaping plan for a single-family residence previously approved by the Committee. He noted that for waterfront properties, landscape design is often not finalized at the time of the original building approval. Nick Meissner of Meissner Landscaping had presented the plan in detail at the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting held earlier the same evening, and all Plan Committee members had been present for that presentation. Thorp summarized the HPC discussion, noting members were impressed with the quality of the plan, the natural stone materials fitting within the V illage's palette, and that the only outstanding questions were regarding the dog walk and railing heights, which were to come back before HPC and Plan Committee at a future date. Bristol added that the plan includes detailed impervious surface calculations and complies with the Village's impervious surface limits, utilizing some permeable options. He confirmed that fencing and the dog run detail are not yet finalized and will return for future review. A discussion was held regarding the landscape and land disturbance plan for 10235 STH 42. K. Nelson asked Meissner about the project timeline. Meissner indicated a fall start was planned. Hoyerman inquired about the lot size, which was confirmed at approximately 49,000 square feet — just over one acre. K. Nelson asked how the impervious surface calculation was handled for elements such as steppers with grass between them. Meissner explained that steppers are counted at their full surface area, and that floa ting walkways and similar elements with gaps are treated differently. He noted that retaining walls and steps are not counted into the permeable calculation, consistent with past practice. Bristol added that the intent and construction of the permeable elements is to direct and manage stormwater appropriately. K. Nelson also raised the question of whether drainage improvements could impact adjacent properties. Meissner described the drainage system, including dry creek beds along the north property line functioning as reservoirs and a catch basin that pipes water to a low -lying area on the other side of the pond for larger storm events. McClean moved, Bartelt seconded to approve the Landscape/Land Disturbance Plan for 10235 STH 42 for Julia Uihlein, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 8. PEA Properties – 9751 STH 42 -Accessory Structure – Design Review: Bristol presented the application for an Accessory Structure Design Review on the north side of the property, noting it is located approximately 120–125 feet from the edge of the road right-of-way with no setback issues. The applicant, Steve Homa, was present. The project involves modifications and repairs to an existing accessory structure, including a new slab-on- grade foundation to replace the deteriorated existing one. Thorp summarized the HPC recommendation, noting the Committee felt the plan was an improvement for the property. A discussion was held regarding the Accessory Structure Design Review Application. H art asked about 3 the chimney visible in photographs. Homa explained there is an evaporator for maple syrup in the accessory structure with a small stainless steel stack, and a separate chimney on the house. Discussion arose regarding the proposed black metal roof, as the existing structure has a mossy shingle roof that appears green. Homa noted the pitch to the back requires a metal roof. K. Nelson expressed some hesitation about black roofs in the Historic District, though acknowledged the structure is near the south end of the district. Homa indicated the cedar siding would be stained in a natural cedar tone to blend with the surrounding woods. Thorp moved, McClean seconded to approve the Accessory Structure Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for PEA Properties as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 9. PEA Properties – 9751 STH 42 -Addition – Design Review: Bristol presented the Addition Design Review application for 9751 STH 42, which involves a second- story addition over the existing garage, resulting in a two-story front and single-story rear configuration. He confirmed there are no dimensional, setback, or height issues. Bristol reiterated that a rendering had given the false impression of a blue retaining wall, which is in fact the existing, gray concrete color. Thorp relayed HPC's recommendation, noting the vote was 4–1 in favor of approval, with the dissenting vote stemming from concern about the proposed black metal deck railing on the rear, which is intended to match the existing grandfathered railing on the front. Thorp also confirmed that the addition will use shingle roofing, while the accessory structure (sugar shack) will receive the metal roof discussed under agenda item 8. Homa noted that the addition will use LP Smart Side white siding, and that he would prefer a pewter or landmark gray shingle color. Bristol noted that the color would fall within the village's approved shingle palette. Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the Addition Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for Pea Properties as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 10. Cora Elquist – Town Line Drive – 121-01-24312714B3 – New SFR – Concept Review: Bristol introduced the concept review for a new single-family residence (SFR) on a parcel split from a larger parent parcel off Town Line Drive. He noted the project is not adjacent to Town Line Drive but is accessed via an access easement, making it unlikely to be visible from the road. The building height is anticipated to be between 28 and 35 feet, though it has not yet been finalized and will require a special exception. Contractor Brent Heim participated online. Heim explained that the height is driven primarily by the natural contours of the property. On the main entry side, the building will read as approximately 1.5 stories, while the southeast-facing side, which overlooks an adjacent field, will be the tallest face due to a walkout basement in a natural low pocket of the site. He indicated the maximum height at the southeast face is approximately 32 feet, while the northeast face would be in the low-twenties range, suggesting an average across all four sides could potentially fall under the 28-foot threshold. A discussion was held on the concept review for parcel 121-01-24312714B3. Bristol confirmed that height is measured from pre-construction grade and that he and Heim would work through the averaging calculations together. K. Nelson noted this is an unusual situation; most Village lots are flat, but this property has significant natural grade changes. Hart commented that the block model drawings appear very busy, with what looked like nine different roof structures. Heim clarified there are really only three main peaks — the garage, the main house body, and a connector link with a fourth shed dormer bump- out on one side to provide height for an upstairs bathroom and walk-in closet. Hart asked whether the bump-out was intended to allow windows; Heim confirmed windows would be included to make it look appropriate. McClean asked about the architectural style. Cora Elquist, the owner, explained the design 4 is inspired by Swedish and Nordic farmhouse aesthetics with a dark stained wood exterior, dark roof, and that adding the garage connector had made the design somewhat more complex compared to the original, simpler concept. K. Nelson offered guidance that the Committee would prefer the building to come in at or under the 28- foot average if at all possible, noting that the site's natural topography may allow for that outcome. 11. John Van Der Vaart – 10329 STH 42 – Addition – Concept Review: Bristol introduced this concept review for a property on the north end of Ephraim, noting the applicant intends to add a second story to an existing commercial structure without expanding beyond its current footprint. New foundation work would be required as the existing foundation is inadequate. The proposed use is commercial on the ground floor and residential above. John Van Der Vaart participated online. Bristol explained that a variance from the Board of Appeals would be required because the 75-foot front setback, measured from the edge of the road right-of-way, bisects the building. Any new work to a nonconforming structure must comply with current setbacks, hence the need for variance relief. Van Der Vaart confirmed there would be no footprint expansions to the existing structure, but a new foundation would be needed. A discussion was held regarding the concept review for 10329 STH 42. Hoyerman noted that the Plan Committee's role at this stage is purely advisory on design, as it cannot grant variances. Bristol agreed, adding that having a conceptual design discussion is still useful so that if strong design concerns exist, the applicant can address them before going to the Board of Appeals, and then the project would return for full Design Review if a variance is granted. Hoyerman observed that the design is stylistically reminiscent of old Door County schoolhouses. Van Der Vaart confirmed the intent was to draw on elements of downtown Ephraim's character and tie them to the northern end of the village. The Committee responded positively to the design overall. Thorp and McClean both indicated the design looks fine and would be an improvement over the existing structure. K. Nelson asked about Van Der Vaart's plans for the other buildings on the property; Van Der Vaart explained that the immediate priority is the front building to serve his architecture/design-build occupation, while the other structures would be cleaned up, landscaping updated, painting, windows and siding replaced over the next three to five years, with future uses to be determined based on market demand. 12. Ephraim Village Cottages – Larson Lane/Water Street – Mixed Use/Multi-Family - Concept Review: Bristol provided an extensive background on this complex property. The site, historically operated as a cottage rental complex with a manager's residence, was condominiumized in the recent past, a process that does not require Village oversight, so long as the use does not change. One unit, a duplex closest to Highway 42 (the Bayview building), has already been sold under the condominium structure. Bristol outlined three general paths forward as the property is being brought to market: Option 1: Sell the entire property as-is to a single buyer who continues operating it as a cottage rental business with an on-site manager. This would require no Village involvement. Option 2: Sell units individually as single-family condominium homes, which would constitute a change of use to multifamily. This is a conditional use under the Village's multifamily ordinance, requiring four units per acre. The property is approximately 2.23 acres, which rounds down to nine allowable units under the ordinance, while the property currently has 12–13 units. This discrepancy would require a variance from the Board of Appeals before the conditional use could come before the Plan Committee. One duplex unit (units 3 and 4) at 432 square feet per side also falls below the 600-square-foot minimum for individual units and would need to be combined or receive an additional variance. 5 Option 3: A hybrid approach, where a portion of the units (e.g., the manager's residence plus a few adjacent cottages) are sold together under the existing rental use, and the remainder seek a change of use to individual single-family ownership, potentially meeting the density threshold without a variance. Sarah Glenn and Brian Reinhardt of True North Real Estate, representing owner Ruanne Larson, appeared before the Committee. Glenn explained that the property was listed for sale as of that day. She acknowledged the preferred outcome is to find a single buyer to continue the existing use, but that given today's property values and market conditions, that may not be realistic. The appraiser's opinion of highest and best use is to sell the units individually as single-family homes. Glenn noted the opportunity to provide more attainable housing in Ephraim, potentially under $500,000 per unit. She emphasized that no one wants to see the historic cottages demolished, with the oldest dating to 1951. She discussed that if a developer were to acquire the property and tear down the structures, construction of a new multifamily building may be permitted in the district, an outcome less desirable than preserving the existing cottages. Glenn asked the Committee whether, if a variance were granted for the density issue, the change of use to multifamily could be applied to the entire property at once rather than requiring each individual buyer to return for separate approvals. Bristol confirmed this would be handled as a single conditional use review before the Plan Committee, so individual buyers would not need to appear separately. McClean inquired about year-round occupancy. Glenn indicated that while some units have historically been used year-round, it has been a long time, and the buildings could be made suitable for year-round use with improvements. She also confirmed that as single-family homes within the historic district, all the protections and restrictions of that district would apply, and a homeowners association with governing documents would provide additional controls. Hart expressed interest in Option 3, asking whether specific units had been identified for the hybrid cluster. Glenn said that had not yet been determined and would depend on market demand and buyer interest. Hoyerman asked about the fire-damaged cottage and whether it would be rebuilt. Glenn confirmed the intent is to market that lot with the ability to rebuild a cottage of the same size on the existing foundation, at a lower price point to reflect the need for reconstruction. Hoyerman also asked about the two remaining duplex structures. Reinhardt clarified that only units three and four are below 600 square feet, while the other duplex — a two-story structure — has units that each exceed 600 square feet. Hoyerman expressed that he had heard the Committee discuss the value of preserving existing structures frequently and believed the applicants could take that sentiment into account with reasonable confidence, while noting he was speaking only for himself. Bristol emphasized that regardless of use, physical expansion of the existing structures will be extremely constrained due to multiple road frontages on Larson Lane, Hidden Spring, and Birch — each carrying its own front setback — plus a 25-foot commercial building separation requirement, effectively limiting any significant enlargement without individual variances. Bartelt raised the question of building separation requirements; Bristol confirmed that for the existing structures as-is, building separation is moot, but would become relevant for any new construction. Thorp asked how the property is currently being marketed. 6 Glenn confirmed it is listed as one property with the caveat that any change of use requires Village approval, noting that eleven (11) units remain available as the two Bayview units have already been sold. Bristol explained that the sale of the Bayview units had already set a precedent for the individual sale concept under the existing condominium structure, making the continuation of that path a logical next step. Bristol noted the process going forward would likely involve a Board of Appeals hearing for the variance, followed by a conditional use review before the Plan Committee. 13. Doug Evans – 9807 Brookside Lane – Additions – Concept Review: Bristol introduced this concept review for three existing cottages on a property along Brookside Lane near Ephraim Creek. Bristol noted the item also went before HPC earlier in the evening. Thorp summarized the HPC discussion: The Committee agreed the proposed improvements to Cottage 1 would be an improvement over the existing conditions, but a couple of members felt the darker wood exterior treatment proposed would look better in white to maintain the Ephraim aesthetic. Thorp summarized his own guidance as "keep it looking like Ephraim." HPC recommended that the design be refined accordingly. Bristol explained the broader context: Cottage 1 has the cleanest path forward from a setback standpoint, being more centrally located on the property. However, the other two cottages are in proximity to a potential wetland delineation and Ephraim Creek, which is likely a navigable waterway carrying additional setback requirements. Any physical improvements to those structures beyond routine repair - and-replace would require a variance from the Board of Appeals, as they appear to be nonconforming relative to those setbacks. Bristol noted that Evans is interested in re-roofing all three structures at the same time, since the roofs are in significant need of repair, but does not want to invest in new roofs on Cottages 2 and 3 before understanding whether the larger improvement plans have viability. He is using the concept review to gather as much C ommittee feedback as possible before investing in full construction drawings for the board of appeals. A discussion was held regarding the concept review for 9807 Brookside Lane. McClean commented that she strongly supports the renovations in concept but encouraged the applicant to keep the exterior character of the cottages as close as possible to their current appearance while achieving the height and livability improvements. She acknowledged the appeal of metal roofing for practical reasons, but noted it should still read as a traditional Ephraim cottage. K. Nelson echoed that sentiment, noting the proposed design had a somewhat modern or "mountain" aesthetic and suggesting the applicant look more closely at the historic district design guidelines. Bartelt expressed concern about the variance prospects for Cottages 2 and 3 given their apparent location relative to the creek setback, suggesting it would be a significant stretch. He asked whether the proposed renovations could be characterized as repair rather than expansion. Bristol confirmed that given the extent of the proposed work — including loft additions — the projects clearly exceed what could be classified as routine maintenance and would require variances as currently proposed. Bartelt acknowledged that while he would not have a problem with Cottage 1 subject to the HPC caveats, it would make more practical sense to address all three roofs simultaneously. Hoyerman and others noted this is ultimately the applicant's decision and t hat the Committee can only review items as they are brought forward. K. Nelson asked whether the two noncompliant cottages could be relocated within the compliant portion of the property to avoid the variance need. Bristol indicated that he did not believe Evans was strongly interested in relocating structures, and noted that Evans's design approach for the additions had already been modified to direct expansion toward the more inland, meadow side of the property rather than toward the creek. 7 K. Nelson also asked whether there was any way to avoid the Board of Appeals for the other two cottages. Bristol confirmed that given the scope of proposed improvements, there is no path that avoids a variance application for those structures. The Committee's collective guidance was that it supports the concept of improving the cottages, encourages Cottage 1 to move toward a formal Design Review Application with refinements to better align with the Ephraim Historic District aesthetic, and acknowledged that Cottages 2 and 3 will need to navigate the Board of Appeals process before Design Review can proceed. 14. Discussion and Consideration Regarding PW Ordinance Amendment Chair Nelson noted this item was placed on the agenda in the event the Committee was ready to discuss it, and determined that further preparation was needed before the discussion could proceed. The item was passed over. 15. New business for next meeting / next meeting date: The next meeting date of the Plan Committee is July 28, 2026, at 7:00 PM. 16. Adjournment: Hoyerman moved, Bartelt seconded to adjourn at 8:47 PM; all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM PLAN COMMITTEE WORKING SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2026 - 12:00 PM 9996 WATER STREET Present: Andy Bartelt, Laird Hart, Rick Hoyerman, Monique McClean, BD Thorp, and Ken Nelson – Chair. Absent: Grace Held. Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests: John Cox and Kathy Pentler. Call to Order: K. Nelson called the working session to order at 12:00 PM. K. Nelson reviewed the changes that Committee members agreed to at the July 14, 2026 meeting. Thorp inquired regarding Section 7 – Exceptions. He expressed concern that the section seemed very vague and open-ended, while in comparison, Section 8- Reproduction, specifically outlines size, volume, and appearance. A brief discussion was held regarding Section 7. K. Nelson explained that the goal of Section 7 was to encourage the retention of existing homes rather than tearing them down. It leaves the Committee discretion, but he asked the Committee if they felt the section was too vague. Thorp felt it was vague and feared the Committee would be swamped with Special Exception requests. Bartlet added that keeping an original residence is vague, but it would be hard to be more specific. Hoyerman explained that if the Committee wanted to be more specific and define Section 7, it would take two (2) more pages of ordinance. He felt it best to leave it in the Committee’s hands to make judgment calls on a case-by-case basis, allowing for discretion. A summary of the changes to §17.20 - August 4, 2026 Ordinance Working Session: • Section 1- Intent o Line 8 of the intent section, replace the word “said” with “such” to read, “such modifications”. o Strike and relocate to Section 4(a), “New construction on vacant lots is prohibited in the PW District, as structures are limited to those existing on or before January 1, 1988.” • Section 3 – Conditional Uses o Section 3(b): Combine 3(b) with 3(b)(1) so that the sentence reads for 3(b), “On parcels where there is a structure, additions/modifications to or replacement of existing structures, subject to §17.20(6) and §17.20(8). (Note: At the end of the meeting, sections of the ordinance were reordered; these cite references reflect the updated section order of the ordinance.) • Section 4 – Prohibited Uses o Take the last line from the intent statement in Section 1, and create 4(a), “New construction on vacant lots is prohibited in the PW District, as structures are limited to those existing on or before January 1, 1988” o Create 4(b), “Home occupations are not permitted in the PW District.” • Section 7 – Reproduction (Note: At the end of the meeting, sections of the ordinance were reordered; Section references reflect the updated section order of the ordinance.) o §17.20(7)(a) - The first sentence was amended to read, “Structure Reproduction: A structure reproduction means creating a replica of the existing structure in terms of footprint, size, volume, and appearance. • Section 8 – Additions/Modifications (Note: At the end of the meeting, sections of the ordinance were reordered; Section references reflect the updated section order of the ordinance.) 2 o §17.20(8)(b)(ii) amended to read, “Visual impact from the street is to be minimized on all projects occurring in the PW District. The width of any individual structure as measured parallel to State Highway 42 cannot be increased. When the existing landscape is to be modified or replaced, a Landscape Permit is required (See §10 Permit Application.) o §17.20(8)(b)(iv) amended to read, “Any existing deck or porch (see definitions in §17.09) may be replaced on a project within this district, assuming the size is no more than the existing deck or porch, and the deck or porch is a one-for-one replacement. For example, an open porch may be replaced by an open porch, but not by a screened or windowed porch. • Ordinance Section reordering: o Section 6 Additions and Modifications became Section 8 Additions and Modifications o Section 7 Exceptions became Section 6 Exceptions o Section 8 Reproduction became Section 7 Reproduction K. Nelson explained that a draft would go to the Village Board for review on August 11, 2026, to obtain feedback as a discussion-only agenda item. The Plan Committee would also review the ordinance at its August regular meeting. In September, the Village Board could set the ordinance for Public Hearing in October, and in October the Public Hearing could be held. K. Nelson asked the Committee to consider if they wanted to make a concept review a requirement for applications submitted for the Protected Waterfront for the next meeting. He noted it was currently encouraged but not required. He further explained in response to Kathy Pentler’s remarks that the Committee was charged by the Village Board to clarify the ordinance, not make it more strict. Hoyerman moved, Hart seconded to adjourn at 1:16 PM. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk Cora Elquist & Ben Karrow Single Family Residential John Joseph Const (Brent Heim) PO Box 5634 DePere WI 54115 New single family residence on approx 2 acre parcel with easement driveway to Townline Drive. Installation of new well and POWTS. 650,000 650,000 1210124312714B3 PO Box 234 WI Ephraim 54211 Townline Drive HWY Q Rural Residential Mound system is anticipated 32' +/- 1.5 6:12 2,500 sf 4,450 11,000 sf 12' / 15' min Brent Heim (JJ Cpnst) Cora Elquist & Ben Karrow John Joseph Construction Towline Drive (Parcel #: 1210124312714B3 8/18/26 Wooded lot will be preserved with the exception of a reasonable proximity surrounding the new building structure. A few retaining walls may be required to transition steps in elevation around the house and blend to current topograpy. Simple gable roof lines. The garage and main house are parallel roof lines w/ a foyer and stair area connecting the house and garage w/ a perpendicular roofline. Building colors are proposed to be black siding. Roof is planned to be green w/ copper flashings and roof edgings. Windows and door frames are planned to be black. LP Smartside Lap Siding w/ asphalt shingles. Architectural details on the building will be completed with standard construction methods, gable rooflines etc. This structure is planned to have minimal roof overhangs. Anticipated to be fed along new driveway from Townline Dr to east side of home Main roof pitch is planned to be 6:12. Cora Elquist & Ben Karrow Townline Drive (fire number = TBD). Parcel: 1210124312714B3 20,000 SF +/- New residence, driveway, POWTS, well, utilities etc. John Cox, Roy Elquist, Mooney Living Trust, Donald Nelson Fall 2026 Spring 2027 08/18/2026 FOYER FAMILY RM KITCHEN SUITE #1 PANTRY DWGARAGE W.I.C. PATIO POWDER RM WALL OVEN DINING 2868 2868 2868 2868 2868 3068 3668 12-0/6-8 3068 18'-0" X 8'-0" OH DOOR H-6 HOUSE FOUNDATION POURED CONCRETE GARAGE FOUNDATION POURED CONCRETE FLOOR SYSTEM 11-7/8" I-JOIST ROOF SYSTEM MANUFACTURED TRUSS 24" O.C. DESIGNED FOR DOOR COUNTY WALL HEIGHT 1ST FLOOR = VARIES 2ND FLOOR = 8' 1-1/8" WINDOWS WINDOW SUPPLIER TO PROVIDE PROPER R.O. SIZING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD NOTES: FIRST FLOOR FINISHED =1,800 SECOND FLOOR =690 GARAGE = 676 SQUARE FOOTAGE: SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS NOTES WALL BRACING: H-1: (2) 2X8 SPF H-2: (2) 2X10 SPF H-3: (3) 2X10 SPF H-4: (2) 1-3/4" x 11-7/8" LVL H-5: (3) 1-3/4" x 11-7/8" LVL H-6: (3) 1-3/4" x 14" LVL HEADER SCHEDULE: TYPICAL BUILDING SECTION H-4 H-2 H-2 H-2 H-2 H-4 H-4 20611 4066 6068 2040 H-2 3056-2 H-2 3056-2H-2 4020 AWNING H-2 5036 51056 30563056 51056 DRAWN BY: JD REVISION DATE PROJECT #: ISSUE DATE:3/12/26 PROJECT NAME: DOOR COUNTY NEW RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2026 JOHN JOSEPH CO. 04/28/2026 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 04/30/2026 08/10/2026 LOFT SUITE #2 OPEN TO BELOW BATHROOM W.I.C. OPEN TO BELOW H-2 H-2 H-4 3050 3050H-25050 2868 2868 2868 5028 5028 DRAWN BY: JD REVISION DATE PROJECT #: ISSUE DATE:3/12/26 PROJECT NAME: DOOR COUNTY NEW RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2026 JOHN JOSEPH CO. 04/28/2026 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 04/30/2026 08/10/2026 DRAWN BY: JD REVISION DATE PROJECT #: ISSUE DATE:3/12/26 PROJECT NAME: DOOR COUNTY NEW RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2026 JOHN JOSEPH CO. 04/28/2026 ELEVATIONS 04/30/2026 08/10/2026 REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION DRAWN BY: JD REVISION DATE PROJECT #: ISSUE DATE:3/12/26 PROJECT NAME: DOOR COUNTY NEW RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2026 JOHN JOSEPH CO. 04/28/2026 ELEVATIONS 04/30/2026 08/10/2026 SIDE ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION FOYER FAMILY RM KITCHEN SUITE #1 PANTRY DWGARAGE W.I.C. PATIO POWDER RM WALL OVEN DINING 2868 2868 2868 2868 2868 3068 4068 12-0/6-8 3068 18'-0" X 8'-0" OH DOOR H-6 HOUSE FOUNDATION POURED CONCRETE GARAGE FOUNDATION POURED CONCRETE FLOOR SYSTEM 11-7/8" I-JOIST ROOF SYSTEM MANUFACTURED TRUSS 24" O.C. DESIGNED FOR DOOR COUNTY WALL HEIGHT 1ST FLOOR = VARIES 2ND FLOOR = 8' 1-1/8" WINDOWS WINDOW SUPPLIER TO PROVIDE PROPER R.O. SIZING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD NOTES: FIRST FLOOR FINISHED =1,800 SECOND FLOOR =690 GARAGE = 676 SQUARE FOOTAGE: SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS NOTES WALL BRACING: H-1: (2) 2X8 SPF H-2: (2) 2X10 SPF H-3: (3) 2X10 SPF H-4: (2) 1-3/4" x 11-7/8" LVL H-5: (3) 1-3/4" x 11-7/8" LVL H-6: (3) 1-3/4" x 14" LVL HEADER SCHEDULE: TYPICAL BUILDING SECTION H-4 H-2 H-2 H-2 H-2 H-4 H-4 DRAWN BY: JD REVISION DATE PROJECT #: ISSUE DATE:3/12/26 PROJECT NAME: DOOR COUNTY NEW RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2026 JOHN JOSEPH CO. 04/28/2026 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 04/30/2026 08/10/2026 LOFT SUITE #2 OPEN TO BELOW BATHROOM W.I.C. OPEN TO BELOW H-2 H-2 H-4 DRAWN BY: JD REVISION DATE PROJECT #: ISSUE DATE:3/12/26 PROJECT NAME: DOOR COUNTY NEW RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2026 JOHN JOSEPH CO. 04/28/2026 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 04/30/2026 08/10/2026 DRAWN BY: JD REVISION DATE PROJECT #: ISSUE DATE:3/12/26 PROJECT NAME: DOOR COUNTY NEW RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2026 JOHN JOSEPH CO. 04/28/2026 ELEVATIONS 04/30/2026 08/10/2026 REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION DRAWN BY: JD REVISION DATE PROJECT #: ISSUE DATE:3/12/26 PROJECT NAME: DOOR COUNTY NEW RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2026 JOHN JOSEPH CO. 04/28/2026 ELEVATIONS 04/30/2026 08/10/2026 SIDE ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION MECHANICAL BEDROOM BATHROOM LAUNDRY REC. ROOM UNEXCAVATED STORAGE SAUNA POUR DOWN 8" DRAWN BY: JD REVISION DATE PROJECT #: ISSUE DATE:3/12/26 PROJECT NAME: DOOR COUNTY NEW RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2026 JOHN JOSEPH CO. 04/28/2026 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 04/30/2026 08/10/2026 6:126:12 4:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 2:12 6:126:12 DRAWN BY: JD REVISION DATE PROJECT #: ISSUE DATE:3/12/26 PROJECT NAME: DOOR COUNTY NEW RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2026 JOHN JOSEPH CO. 04/28/2026 ROOF PLAN 04/30/2026 08/10/2026 Address Easements Easement Parcel Parcel Boundaries 7/20/2026 0 0.01 0.020.01 mi 0 0.01 0.030.01 km 1:731 Address 2 Foot Contours (2002) 5 Foot Contours (2018) Roads Town ROW Easements Easement Parcel Parcel Boundaries 7/20/2026 0 0.01 0.030.01 mi 0 0.03 0.050.01 km 1:998 General Home Location Unit 5 17318 s.f. 0.40 ac. Ve lva ere Court VELVAERE WAY A B C 12345 12345 Project No.: Drawing No.: X- Client: File: Drafted By: Tax Parcel: Fieldwork Completed:Data File: 250945 2328 n/a 250945SitePlan Unit 5.dwg NDK/BAB 121550005 L-22021.txt Smart Custom Homes 400 Security Blvd Ste 1, Green Bay, WI, (920) 434-9670 Sheet One of One REVISION 8/17/26: new house plan, update impervious surface calculation SITE PLAN All of Unit 5 of recorded condominium plat "Velvaere - a Land Only Condominium", (Hanger 344, Condo Plats, Document No. 864125, Door County Records); located in part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, T31N-R27E, in the Village of Ephraim, Door County, Wisconsin. - 10471 Velvaere Way - Bearings referenced to the North Line of "Velvaere, a County Plat, assumed to be S88°14'16"W. 020 40 60 Graphic Scale: 1" = 20' North NOTES Proposed Impervious Surfaces on Unit 5 is 16.0% IMPERVIOUS AREA DRIVEWAY & SIDEWALK 592 SQ. FT. --Pavers 1/4 = 148 SQ. FT. HOUSE2623 SQ. FT. TOTAL 2771 SQ. FT. LEGEND EXISTING SITE: COVERED WITH BRUSH AND TREES PROPOSED SITE: LAWN WITH GENERAL LANDSCAPING INFIL TRA TIO N BASIN VELVAERE WAY Unit 6 18775 s.f. 0.43 ac. A B C 12345 12345 Project No.: Drawing No.: X- Client: File: Drafted By: Tax Parcel: Fieldwork Completed:Data File: 250945 2683 n/a 250945SitePlan Unit 6.dwg BAB 121550006 L-22021.txt Smart Custom Homes 400 Security Blvd Ste 1, Green Bay, WI, (920) 434-9670 Sheet One of One SITE PLAN All of Unit 6 of recorded condominium plat "Velvaere - a Land Only Condominium", (Hanger 344, Condo Plats, Document No. 864125, Door County Records); located in part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, T31N-R27E, in the Village of Ephraim, Door County, Wisconsin. - 10467 Velvaere Way - Bearings referenced to the West Line of "Velvaere, a County Plat" assumed to be N2°05'48"W. 020 40 60 Graphic Scale: 1" = 20' North NOTES Proposed Impervious Surfaces on Unit 6 is 14.9% IMPERVIOUS AREA DRIVEWAY & SIDEWALK 691 SQ. FT. --Pavers 1/4 = 173 SQ. FT. HOUSE2623 SQ. FT. TOTAL 2796 SQ. FT. LEGEND EXISTING SITE: COVERED WITH BRUSH AND TREES PROPOSED SITE: LAWN WITH GENERAL LANDSCAPING Comparison of Proposed & Original Protected Waterfront Ordinance §17.20 What hasn’t changed: • Intent: Still focuses on preserving open viewing and encouraging property owners to use and maintain their existing residences. • No structure shall exceed 23’ with certain features allowed up to 25’ Clarification: • Define a 1 1/2 story house. Added several other definitions. • Define decks and porches. What has become more restrictive: • Proposed footprint alterations can be no wider than existing as measured parallel to STH 42. • Previously allowed up to 50% of roof to be less than 6/12 but greater than 3/12. Changed to allowing down to 3/12 for only a limited number of shed dormers, porches, and front entrance roofs. • Only allow replacement of existing deck or porch. • Minimize outdoor lighting to entrance points. What has become less restrictive: • Under permitted uses, now include the reproduction of an existing structure. • Allow for 3 methods for Additions/Modification (Sections 6, 7, & 8). These encourage the preservation of original structures, including Reproduction. o Section 6 is new language that allows exceptions for applicants who retain the original building to preserve the character of the PW District. • Allow an attached garage to be part of the footprint, with restrictions on overall width (as measured parallel to STH 42) and no upper level on reclaimed garage area (no wider than original footprint). • Allow a combination of accessory building into principal building, with restrictions on overall width (as measured parallel to STH 42) and no upper level on accessory building area (no wider than original footprint). 26-8-4 17.20 PROTECTED WATERFRONT (PW) DISTRICT. 1) INTENT. The open shoreline is one of Ephraim’s most distinctive features and is characterized by buildings sited on mostly small non-conforming lots. This ordinance is intended to preserve the open views of the shoreline as well as the historic appearance of Ephraim’s built environment while also allowing for some leeway for Protected Waterfront (PW) District property owners to modify or replace their residences. Consistent with the intent and provisions of the Ephraim Historic District Ordinance (§17.26), property owners are encouraged to use and maintain their existing residences. However, if residential modification or replacement is desired, s uch modification or replacement must strictly conform to the provisions of §17.20 and §17.26. 2) PERMITTED USES. a) Park and open spaces , provided that any proposed structural elements are given conditional use approval. b) Beaches provided that any proposed structural elements are given conditional use approval. c) Reproduction: i) Structures destroyed by natural disaster or fires in this district may be reproduced using the former dimensions and location, subject to design review and §17.20(7). ii) Reproduction of the existing structures, subject to design review and §17.20(7). 3) CONDITIONAL USES. a) On parcels where there is not a residence: i) Dockage and launching; ii) Boat and related rentals; iii) Sale of marine fuel and accessories for marine use only; iv) New structures necessary for permitted uses in the district, including bathrooms. v) Non-profit organizations on village- owned property. Sales within such shall be subject to any existing lease or other agreements with the village. In the event that no such agreement speaking to sales exists, the Village of Ephraim Planning Committee, through Conditional Use review, shall oversee and have final approval over any such sales area. This review will include, but is not limited to, the type of merchandise sold and the total amount of display area the merchandise will envelop. b) On parcels where there is a structure , additions/modifications to or replacement of existing structures, subject to §17.20(6) and §17.20(8). 4) PROHIBITED USES. a) New construction on vacant lots is prohibited in the PW District, as structures are limited to those existing on or before January 1, 1998. b) Home occupations are not permitted in the PW District. 26-8-4 5) SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEW. The provisions of this section, including the setback and lot coverage requirements from §17.24, shall be mandated except in the case of buildings, structures, or public projects along the shoreline that are deemed to be in the greatest interest to the public by a majority of the Plan Committee and a majority of the Village Board, and this exception can occur only through special exception review. 6) EXCEPTIONS FOR ADDITIONS OR MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING RESIDENCES AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE PROTECTED WATERFRONT DISTRICT (PW). When working with a goal to retain the original residence, exceptions for additions or modifications may be considered by the Plan Committee, so long as the additions or modifications match the original architecture to preserve the special character of the PW District. 7) REPRODUCTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE PROTECTED WATERFRONT DISTRICT. a) Structure Reproduction: A structure reproduction means creating a replica of the existing structure in terms of footprint, size, volume, and appearance. Unique features, materials, and architectural details of the original structure must be replicated, including design and materials. The materials must be sourced to ensure authenticity. Intricate elements such as moldings, windows, and other unique characteristics are essential to the reproduction. b) Design Criteria: Modern materials may only be substituted for original materials insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of §17.20(7)(a) and subject to design review and design criteria in §17.26, Historic District. 8) ADDITIONS/MODIFICATIONS TO OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENCES AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS . “PW DESIGN REVIEW”. (Completed by Historic Preservation Committee and Plan Committee.) a) General Requirements: i) Footprints in the PW District can be modified, subject to the following provisions: a. Footprints of finished interior space ( see definition in §17.09) in the PW District can be modified so long as there is no increase in the width, as measured parallel to STH 42, of the residence or accessory buildings, and no increase in the total footprint. b. Footprints of attached garages can be modified so long as there is no increase in the width, as measured parallel to STH 42, and no increase in the total footprint. No upper level will be allowed over the reclaimed square footage of the attached garage. c. Footprints in the PW District cannot be increased with the following exception: Consideration given to principal building footprint increases when existing accessory buildings are to be removed. The footprint of the accessory building may be reclaimed and combined with the principal building, provided there is no increase in the width of the footprint , as measured parallel to STH 42, of the principal building. No upper level will be allowed over the reclaimed square footage of the accessory building. 26-8-4 ii) All projects are subject to applicable floodplain ordinances of the Village and State. b) Design Criteria. i) The style of a project within this district shall meet the design criteria in §17.26, Historic District, and generally, as a maximum, have the design characteristics of a single-story or one and one-half-story house (see definition in §17.09). ii) Visual impact from the street is to be minimized on all projects occurring in the PW District. The width of any individual structure as measured parallel to State Highway 42 cannot be increased. When the existing landscape is to be modified or replaced, a Landscape Permit is required (See §10 Permit Application.) iii) From the view of any side of the residence, the number and varying pitches of the rooflines should be minimized. The overall guiding principle of design is simplicity and avoidance of bulk. iv) Any existing deck or porch ( see definitions in §17.09) may be replaced on a project within this district, assuming the size is no more than the existing deck or porch, and the deck or porch is a one-for-one replacement. For example, an open porch may be replaced by an open porch, but not by a screened or windowed porch. v) Outdoor lighting shall be minimized, generally limited to entrance points on all elevations. vi) Covered front entrances: A minimal roof over a front entrance will be considered. c) Dimensional Standards. i. All projects are subject to the applicable dimensional standards of §17.24 of the ordinance unless otherwise noted or provided in this section. PW Minimum Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 100' Front Setback Minimum 30' Side Setback Minimum 15' Rear Setback Minimum 40' Maximum Lot Coverage 20% Min. Building Separation ii. Addition/modification or replacement projects , including existing dimensionally nonconforming buildings considered under this section , may apply the existing grandfathered setbacks of the existing buildings as the required setback for new work, so long as the new work increases or , at a minimum, does not further encroach on the setbacks in question. 26-8-4 iii. No residences shall exceed twenty -three feet (23’) in height , and accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet (15’) in height as measured from the crown grade of State Highway 42. iv. Other rooftop accessories on residences, which include but are not limited to: a. S pires, belfries, parapet walls, domes, and all other projections shall not exceed the peak roof height of the building. b. Cupolas, flues, vent pipes, chimneys , and communication devices are allowed to a maximum of twenty-five feet (25’). v. Roof pitches less than 6/12 and greater than 12/12 are prohibited, except for the following circumstances: a. A roof pitch for a limited amount of shed dormer of less than 6/12 and a minimum of 3/12 may be considered. b. Roof pitches for porches less than 6/12 may be considered. c. Covered front entrances less than 6/12 may be considered. 9) OTHER REQUIREMENTS. a. Special Plan Committee approval shall determine the number of required parking spaces on a case- by-case basis unless the use has a number established under ordinance §17.15(9); parking requirements may be met through a combination of off-street, on-site, and/or dedicated parking spaces within common ways. Pervious surfaces for parking are preferred in this district. b. Consideration given to allow for ten percent (10%) additional lot coverage when that area will be used for adding off-street parking. 10) PERMIT APPLICATION. a. Beyond the normal requirements as outlined in § 17.40, an overlay is required showing the footprints of all existing buildings , including decks and porches , if any, with the footprint of all proposed buildings and attachments. The measurement in square feet (SF) should be provided for all footprints and attachments, both existing and proposed. b. A Landscape Plan is also required when the existing landscape is to be modified or replaced. The Landscape Plan should not reduce the water view between the buildings . The plan shall show all new plantings along with all proposed hardscape and impervious surfaces. Samples of all hardscape (pervious a nd impervious) are required, showing material and color. c. A Construction Parking Plan is required showing the location of construction and worker vehicles as outlined in §17.40(1). d. No Occupancy Permit will be issued until the Village Administrator has inspected all elements of the project for compliance with the approved plans. 26-8-4 17.09 DEFINITIONS. Except where specifically defined herein, all words used in this chapter shall carry the meanings as defined in Webster’s Unabridged 3rd New International Dictionary or a dictionary based upon it. Words used in the plural include the singular. The word “shall” is mandatory. DECK: A deck on a house is a flat outdoor surface, typically made of wood or composite materials, that is elevated from the ground and often connected to the main building. FOOTPRINT: The area of a single horizontal plane bounded by the exterior walls of the building , expressed in square feet. See §17.24 for attached garage exemptions to this definition. ONE AND ONE-HALF STORY HOUSE: A one and one-half story house has a full first floor with full- height interior walls [typically eight feet (8’) high] and an upper level that has less full-height floor area than the first floor. The upper level has steeply pitched roofs with gables and dormers (normally with windows). The upper level typically has sloped ceilings with knee walls (normally five to seven feet high (5’ - 7’)] that define the floor area. These features reduce the floor area on the upper level. PORCH: A porch on a house is a covered area adjoining an entrance to a house, usually with a separate roof. A porch can be open or enclosed by screens or windows. STRUCTURE REPRODUCTION: Structure Reproduction: A structure reproduction means creating a replica of the existing structure in terms of size, volume, and appearance. Unique features, materials, and architectural details of the original house must match the project, including design. Materials must be sourced to ensure authenticity. Intricate elements such as moldings, windows, and other unique characteristics are essential to the reproduction. 17.20 PROTECTED WATERFRONT (PW) DISTRICT. 1) INTENT. Recognizing that the open shoreline is one of Ephraim’s most distinctive features, the intent of this ordinance is to provide for as much open viewing space along our shoreline as possible. As an important contributing component of the Ephraim Historic District Ordinance §17.26, owners of residences in the Protected Waterfront “PW” District are encouraged to use and maintain their existing residences. Since most of the residential buildings in this area are sited on small non-conforming lots that would otherwise prohibit the erection of such structures under the existing ordinance unless otherwise noted or provided for in this section, structures shall be restricted to those in existence as of January 1, 1998. 2) PERMITTED USES. a) Park and open spaces, provided that any proposed structural elements are given conditional use approval. b) Beaches provided that any proposed structural elements are given conditional use approval. 3) CONDITIONAL USES. a) On parcels where there is not a residence: 1) Dockage and launching; 2) Boat and related rentals; 3) Sale of marine fuel and accessories for marine use only; 4) New structures necessary for permitted uses in the district, including bathrooms. 5) Non-profit organizations on village-owned property. Sales within such shall be subject to any existing lease or other agreements with the village. In the event, that no such agreement speaking to sales exists, the Village of Ephraim Planning Committee, through Conditional Use review, shall oversee and have final approval over any such sales area. This review will include, but is not limited to, the type of merchandise sold, and the total amount of display area the merchandise will envelop. b) On parcels where there is a residence: 1) Additions/modifications to or replacement of existing residences. Subject to §17.20(5). 2) Residences destroyed by natural disasters or fires in this district may be replaced using the former dimensions and location. 4) SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEW. The provisions of this section including the setback and lot coverage requirements from §17.24 shall be mandated except in the case of buildings, structures, or public projects along the shoreline that are deemed to be in the greatest interest to the public by a majority of the Plan Committee and a majority of the Village Board, and this exception can occur only through special exception review. 5) ADDITIONS/MODIFICATIONS TO OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENCES. “PW DESIGN REVIEW”. (Completed by HPC and Plan Committee.) a) General requirements: Current Language 1) Addition/modification or replacement projects including existing dimensionally nonconforming structures considered under this section may apply the existing grandfathered setbacks of the existing structures as the required setback for new work so long as the new work increases or at minimum does not further encroach on the setbacks in question. 2) Footprints in the PW District can be modified, but increases to the total footprint of individual structures within the district are prohibited. 3) All projects are subject to the applicable dimensional standards of §17.24 of the ordinance unless otherwise noted or provided in this section. 4) All projects are subject to applicable floodplain ordinances of the Village and State. b) Design Criteria: 1) All projects shall incorporate a design that is in keeping with the character of the Village Historic District and the language of the Historic District Ordinance §17.26. 2) Visual impact from the street is to be minimized on all projects occurring in the PW District. 3) No structures shall exceed twenty-three feet (23’) in height as measured from the crown grade of State Highway 42. 4) Only chimneys shall be allowed up to two feet (2’) above the approved peak roof line. 5) Primary roof pitches less than 6/12 or more than 12/12 are prohibited. 6) OTHER REQUIREMENTS. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the total roof pitch square footage can be made up of dormers that may be less than 6/12, but in no case may be less than 3/12. a) Special Plan Committee approval shall determine the number of required parking spaces on a case-by-case basis unless the use has a number established under ordinance §17.15(9); parking requirements may be met through a combination of off- street, on-site, and/or dedicated parking spaces within common ways. Pervious surfaces for parking are preferred in this district. b) Consideration given to allow for ten percent (10%) additional lot coverage when that area will be used for adding off-street parking. 7) DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS. See ordinance §17.24 8) PROHIBITED USES. Home occupations are not permitted in the PW District. Current Language