Historic Preservation Committee — Minutes

1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM HISTORIC PRESERV ATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2026 – 6:30 PM 9996 WATER STREET ACTION ITEMS: Schreck moved, Ellis seconded to approve the March 31, 2026 Historic Preservation Committee minutes as presented, all ayes with Thorp and Russell abstaining. Motion carried. Shreck moved, Ellis seconded to approve the May 26, 2026 Historic Preservation Committee minutes as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Schreck moved, Russell seconded to approve the landscape/land disturbance plan for Julia Uihlein at 10235 STH 42, all ayes. Motion carried. Russell moved, Schreck seconded to approve the Accessory Structure Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for Pea Properties, all ayes. Motion carried. Schreck moved, Russell seconded to approve the Addition Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for Pea Properties, all ayes, with Pentler nay. Motion carried. Schreck moved, Ellis seconded to adjourn at 7:03 PM, all ayes. Motion carried. Present: Marcia Ellis, Kathy Pentler (online), Amy Russell, Cody Schreck, and BD Thorp – Chair. Absent: None. Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests in person: Steve and Mary Homa (Pea Properties, LLC), Nick Meissner (Meissner Landscape, Inc.), Andy Bartelt, Ken Nelson, Monique McClean, Laird Hart, Rick Hoyerman, Ruann Larson, and Susie Samson. Guests online: Doug Evans. 1. Call to order: Thorp called the meeting to order at 6:15 PM. 2. Quorum: A quorum of the Historic Preservation Committee was present. 3. Changes in agenda: There were no changes to the agenda. 4. Visitors’ Comments: There were no visitors’ comments. 5. Approval of previous minutes: Schreck moved, Ellis seconded to approve the March 31, 2026 Historic Preservation Committee minutes as presented, all ayes with Thorp and Russell abstaining. Motion carried. Shreck moved, Ellis seconded to approve the May 26, 2026 Historic Preservation Committee minutes as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 6. Julia Uihlein – 10235 STH 42 – Landscape/Land Disturbance Plan: Bristol provided background, noting that this is a nearly completed new home within the Historic District. He explained that final landscape design had not been finalized during the original design review process, which is common for large waterfront projects. Given the complexity of the landscape plan, he invited Nick Meissner of Meissner Landscape, Inc. to present the materials and design details in person. 2 Meissner walked the Committee through the overall site plan, describing the general design philosophy as one of naturalism — blending as seamlessly as possible with the surrounding landscape. Key elements of the plan included the following: The driveway will be asphalt for most of its length, transitioning approximately two-thirds of the way down to a permeable cobblestone paver. The owners had selected a specific cobblestone option that day, described as predominantly gray in a herringbone pattern, including a soldier course. A turf stone application will differentiate where the driveway starts and stops near the garage. The entry walk will be dry-set flagstone leading to the main entry, with a stepper path through a garden connecting to the building between the house and garage. Stormwater management was a central focus. All driveway water will be directed north along the property line into a dry creek bed filled with clear gravel beneath to promote infiltration. A catch basin with piping to the wetlands serves as a backup for heavy rain events. On the north side of the house, a stone stepper pathway will run through a planting area and open to a sodded lawn area with an 18” retaining wall to tuck the space into the landscape. An upper retaining wall, approximately 21’’–22’’ above grade, will serve as a knee wall to border the lawn and provide safety. Stone "seat stones" will protrude from the retaining wall as gathering spots. Steps on both the north and south sides allow for circulation around the property. A boardwalk — similar in character to a prior project at the same property — will traverse the wetland using galvanized steel pads that float on the surface, leading to a waterside patio and dock. On the south side of the house, stone stepper paths lead through a planting bed to a fenced dog run, which will be primarily turf with foundation plantings. Meissner noted that the fence design for the dog run had not yet been finalized, but he was exploring rustic options and planned to screen the generator with trees or solid fencing, and the air conditioning units with a lower wood fence. He noted that these portions of the project would be separate applications, once decisions were made. Meissner also presented photographic samples of the materials proposed, including dry-set irregular flagstone, split-face limestone retaining walls in an irregular bond pattern, "lily pad" steps with hand- dressed edges meant to evoke a natural bedrock ledge, weathered stone steps near the shoreline, dry creek bed materials referencing a neighboring property completed previously, and the chosen cobblestone paver. Bristol noted that impervious surface calculations had been submitted and that the project is approaching approximately 20% impervious coverage, with the permeable paver options helping to address this. He described the property as a large parcel being pushed close to its limits. Committee members were broadly positive regarding the project. Ellis expressed support for the plan and inquired about the boardwalk, asking about its length and construction method. Meissner estimated approximately 40’-50’ across the existing wetland and clarified that the galvanized steel pads float on the surface rather than being driven into the wetland. Russell praised the lily pad steps and the overall hardscape design. Pentler asked whether the dog run fence extended to the property line (it does not) and inquired about fence height, which Meissner indicated would comply with code and would be sufficient to contain both small and large dogs. She also asked about the steep driveway grade, and Meissner acknowledged it was very steep, noting there was limited ability to modify the slope without encroaching on wetlands. Schreck had no negative notes and expressed appreciation for the level of thought put into the design. Schreck moved, Russell seconded to approve the landscape/land disturbance plan for Julia Uihlein at 10235 STH 42, all ayes. Motion carried. 7. PEA Properties LLC -9751 STH 42 – Accessory Structure – Design Review: Bristol introduced this item, noting that the footprint of the existing accessory structure, described by the owner as a historic bunkhouse or "sugar shack," would not change, and that the enclosed space would be 3 slightly reduced. There were no setback issues identified. Property owners Steve and Mary Homa were present for Pea Properties, LLC. Steve Homa explained that the lower sloped roof section of the structure was in poor condition and would be removed. He intends to extend the roof to the north to create covered space for wood storage and a wood splitter, with a concrete slab poured underneath. The materials discussed included stained cedar siding and a black standing seam metal roof. Steve indicated the 1:12 pitch section of the roof requires a metal roof due to the low pitch being unsuitable for shingles, while the 4:12 pitch section faces the road but is set well up the hill from it. A discussion was held regarding the Accessory Structure Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42. Pentler noted she had visited the property but could not locate the building. Homa confirmed it is situated up the hill and to the right of the main house, well over 100’ from the road and not readily visible. Pentler stated she did not prefer the black metal roof but acknowledged it was unlikely to be seen by anyone. She also asked about the foundation, and Homa explained the structure currently sits on block and wood framing. He explained that he has plans to lift it, pour a concrete slab beneath it, and add posts with gravel or pavers around the perimeter. Schreck stated he was in favor of the white or cedar siding treatment but not the black metal roof. Pentler did not like the black metal roof as well. Russell moved, Schreck seconded to approve the Accessory Structure Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for Pea Properties, LLC, all ayes. Motion carried. 8. PEA Properties LLC -9751 STH 42 – Addition – Design Review: Bristol explained that the proposed addition would be built over the northernmost portion of the existing building, which currently serves as a garage. He noted that the elevation drawings may appear unusual on first glance because the structure is built back into the hillside — appearing two stories from the front and single story from the rear. He confirmed there were no dimensional or setback issues with the project. Steve Homa explained that the existing asphalt shingle roof is approximately twenty (20) or more years old and would likely be replaced entirely in conjunction with the addition, using dimensional black shingles throughout. A discussion was held regarding the Addition Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42. Pentler said she had visited the property and appreciated that the existing structure was being retained with a modest modification. She approved of the black dimensional shingle roof over the metal option. Schreck noted that the addition maintained a simple, rectilinear design, the windows matched the existing structure, and the rear porch railing matched the existing railing already on the building. He expressed no concerns. Thorp noted that a rendering appeared to show a blue or charcoal-colored foundation. Homa confirmed the foundation was painted charcoal when purchased and was not proposed to change. Thorp acknowledged the Plan Committee would make the final determination on that detail. A concern was raised by Pentler regarding the black metal railing on the rear deck, noting that the Committee had previously been strict about prohibiting black metal railings on other projects. Schreck acknowledged the difficulty, pointing out that requiring a different railing on the addition would effectively be asking the owners to change what already exists on the front of the home. Bristol clarified that there is no formal prohibition on black metal railings in the code, noting it is more a matter of preference. Schreck moved, Russell seconded to approve the Addition Design Review Application for 9751 STH 42 for Pea Properties, LLC, all ayes with Pentler nay. Motion carried. 9. Doug Evans – 9807 Brookside Lane – Additions –Concept Review: Bristol introduced this item as a concept review, noting that the property off Brookside Lane consists of three small historic cottages — all under 550 ft 2, with the smallest at approximately 260 ft2 that were likely once part of a larger vacation rental complex. He noted the project may ultimately require variances 4 due to setback and other dimensional issues, and that the owner, Doug Evans, had requested a concept review before HPC and the Planning Committee to gauge initial reaction before investing in full plans. Doug Evans, participating remotely, explained that the primary driver of the project is overdue maintenance. All three cottage roofs need replacement. He described his intent to raise the roofline on the cottages by increasing the pitch from 4:12 to 7:12, which would allow him to add vaulted ceilings, create loft spaces for bedroom use, and free up floor space in the very compact interiors, which currently have 7- foot ceilings that feel cramped. He also noted that the steeper pitch and proposed steel roofing would help shed tree debris, reducing the need for frequent roof maintenance given the heavily treed site. He emphasized he was not looking to dramatically change the overall appearance of the cottages and sought feedback before proceeding further. A discussion was held about the concept review for 9807 Brookside Lane. Pentler said she had driven to the property and found it interesting. She expressed appreciation for Evan's intent to maintain the existing design character and raise the structures to improve functionality, and said she had no issues with the concept. Ellis agreed it looked like a great improvement. Schreck raised a design concern, stating that the renderings felt "a little too modern" to him. He observed that the proposed exterior treatment appeared to switch from horizontal siding to a board-and-batten style, and that a more elaborate entrance featured in one of the renderings had a "grand lodge" quality reminiscent of contemporary spec homes being built elsewhere. He encouraged efforts to bring the design closer to the original cottage character. Thorp echoed this sentiment, agreeing the design could look "a little bit more Ephraim-like." Evans asked for clarification on whether the concern was with the exterior material choices rather than the architectural lines, and Schreck confirmed that the rectilinear massing was being handled well, but that some of the stylistic choices in the renderings leaned too contemporary. Thorp noted that as this was a concept review, no formal recommendation to the Plan Committee would be made. 10. New Business for next meeting / next meeting date: No new business was noted. The next meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee is August 25, 2026. 11. Adjournment: Schreck moved, Ellis seconded to adjourn at 7:03 PM, all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by, Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk