Plan Committee — Agenda packet

VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM FOUNDED 1853 PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, July 28, 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. Brian Attar – 9817 Norwegian Wood Dr – New SFR – Design Review 7. Julia Uihlein – 10235 Hwy 42 – Landscape/Land Disturbance Plan 8. PEA Properties – 9751 Hwy 42 – Accessory Structure – Design Review 9. PEA Properties – 9751 Hwy 42 – Addition – Design Review 10. Cora Elquist – Townline Dr. – 121-01-24312714B3 – New SFR – Concept Review 11. John Van Der Vaart – 10329 Hwy 42 – Addition – Concept Review 12. Ephraim Village Cottages – Larson Ln/Water St – Mixed Use/Multi Family – Concept Review 13. Doug Evans – 9807 Brookside Ln –Additions – Concept Review 14. Discussion and Consideration regarding PW Ordinance Amendment 15. New business for next meeting/next meeting date 16. Adjournment Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://meet.goto.com/984086469 You can also dial in using your phone. Access Code: 984-086-469 United States: +1 (571) 317-3122 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: 7/24/2026 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, JUNE 23, 2026 - 12:00 PM 9996 WATER STREET Present: Andy Bartelt, Grace Held, Laird Hart, Rick Hoyerman, BD Thorp, and Ken Nelson – Chair. Absent: Monique McClean Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests: John Cox (online) and Stuart Chomeau. Call to Order: K. Nelson called the working session to order at 12:00 PM. K. Nelson explained to the Committee that he had worked with Bristol and Roberts on his suggested updates to the ordinance so that they could be implemented into the current draft. The Plan Committee reviewed the current working draft of the Protected Waterfront District Ordinance. Starting with the intent statement §17.20(1), the Committee noted that, in error, the intent statement drafted by Hoyerman had been omitted except for the last s entence. They asked for the full intent statement drafted by Hoyerman to be included in the next draft, along with the new last sentence that was included in the current draft. The Committee discussed replacing the word “leeway” within the intent statement. However, the Committee decided to keep the word “leeway” after considering alternative synonyms. The Committee reviewed permitted uses § 17.20(2), with the Committee requesting that conditional uses listed in §17.20(3)(b)(2) and §17.20(3)(b)(3) be simplified and moved into the permitted use section §17.20(2). Bristol raised the organizational point that when listing permitted and conditional uses, it is atypical to go into the finer points of what those uses mean, and that detail belongs in the body of the document. He noted that in the draft, the full reproduction definition appeared both in §17.20(3)(b)(3) and in Section 8, creating redundancy. He suggested that §17.20(3)(b)(3) be struck and the definition remain in §17.20(8). The Committee worked on the definition of “house reproduction” in § 17.20(8)(a). Hart added a minor editorial note: the definition of reproduction should begin "means creating" rather than "is creating," and Hoyerman agreed. As drafted, it described creating an exact replica of an existing house, including all unique features, materials, and architectural details, with materials to be sourced or recreated to ensure authenticity. Several refinements were discussed: • The word "exact" before "replica" was proposed for removal to avoid an unachievably strict standard, given that original materials such as specific moldings, siding profiles, or rafter dimensions may no longer be available or permitted under current building code. • Bristol noted that from the most restrictive reading, a true exact replica may be functionally impossible — for example, modern construction requires trusses rather than the rafter systems used 75 years ago, and insulation R-values have changed. The Committee agreed that size and volume should remain exact, while architectural and material details should allow for faithful reproduction using available or recreated equivalents. • Bartelt suggested adding language explicitly permitting substitution of materials no longer available, subject to design review, to give property owners clarity. K. Nelson expressed caution about creating a slippery slope, but acknowledged that modern equivalents of historic materials are often available at specialty sources. The Committee discussed §17.20(6)(a)(i) – Footprints. The Committee considered two alternatives for addressing footprints in the PW district. The first, more restrictive option held that footprints cannot be modified at all — no combining, no increasing. The second option allowed for footprint increases under limi ted circumstances: If an existing accessory building is removed, its footprint square footage could be reclaimed and incorporated into the principal structure, provided the width of the principal structure as measured parallel to State Highway 42 is not increased, and no upper level is added over the reclaimed area. 2 Hoyerman raised a concern that making the ordinance more restrictive than what was presented to the board, which had been framed as a cleanup of existing language , could be difficult to defend. K. Nelson acknowledged the concern but noted the original intent was always to achieve a certain character of development, and that tightening the dimensional details was necessary to achieve that. The Committee agreed to eliminate the first restrictive option related to footprints and proceed with the second, more nuanced alternative, which incentivizes the consolidation of structures and removal of accessory buildings to improve shoreline views. Bristol noted that "structure" should be replaced with "building" throughout, as accessory structures such as freestanding fireplaces or carports are not the same as enclosed buildings in §17.20(6)(a)(i)(a). Hart raised a concern about the use of the word "width," noting that depending on a building's orientation, "length" and "width" could be ambiguous. The Committee agreed to clarify by adding “as measured parallel to STH 42” in section §17.20(6)(a)(i)(b). Design Criteria K. Nelson reintroduced language stating that projects in the PW district should generally have the design characteristics of a single-story or one-and-a-half-story house and shall meet the design criteria in §17.26 Historic District Ordinance. The Committee agreed to retain this language as a reference point, though it was noted that "a half story house" appeared as a typographical error and would be corrected to "a one-and-a-half-story house." Hoyerman suggested replacing the word "new residence" with "projects within this district" to avoid confusion, as the section covers additions, modifications, and replacements — not only entirely new construction. The Committee agreed to add language stating that the number and “varying pitches” of rooflines should be minimized, as a reaction to past projects that featured multiple intersecting rooflines and varying pitches that created a visually busy appearance. The overall guiding principle was articulated as a correction to add "design simplicity and avoidance of bulk," combining a phrase from the historic district ordinance with the Committee's stated concern about overly boxy structures in §17.20(6)(b)(iii). Regarding visual impact, the Committee agreed that any landscape plan submitted in connection with a building project should not reduce water views between buildings. K. Nelson noted this topic would require additional refinement and suggested setting it aside for further work, as it extends into broader landscaping policy. House Attachments K. Nelson introduced the concept of "house attachments" — a newly defined term covering elements such as decks, porches, screened porches, and windowed porches in §17.20(6)(b)(iv). The proposed provision would allow existing attachments to be replaced on a one-for-one basis — a porch replaced by a porch of equal or lesser size, but not upgraded to a screened or windowed enclosure. The Committee noted there is a new definition for "house attachment" in the definitions section §17.09, and members were asked to review it before the next meeting. Dimensional Standards The Committee briefly touched on dimensional standards, including a discussion of height limits. The current ordinance sets a maximum height of 23 feet for the principal structure, with a 25-foot allowance for chimneys and other elements. K. Nelson raised the question whether a structure built to only 21 feet should receive the same 25- foot allowance for chimneys, or whether the allowance should be capped at 2 feet above the actual ridge height. No final decision was reached, and the Committee agreed to take up dimensional standards in full at the next meeting. Bristol reminded the Committee that the State Building Code would also need to be contemplated in the final decision. Held moved, Hoyerman seconded to adjourn at 1:38 PM, all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2026 – 7:00 PM 9996 WATER STREET ACTION ITEMS: Thorp moved, Held seconded to approve the May 26, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Held seconded to approve the May 26, 2026, Plan Committee minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the June 9, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Bartelt seconded to approve the New SFR Design Review Application for Michael Wegner parcel 121-01-13312744B2 for color and material selections as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Hart seconded to approve the New SFR Design Review Application for Uselding/ Brandemuehl for parcel 121-56-0007, conditioned upon the project not contributing additional runoff to neighboring properties, all ayes. Motion carried. Held moved, Thorp seconded to recommend to the Village Board that they approve the intergovernmental agreement and lease with the County of Door for the Emergency Radio Communications Tower and lease, and to waive all requirements of the Zoning O rdinance that are inconsistent with the arrangement as reflected in those documents, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Hart seconded to adjourn at 8:30 PM, all ayes. Motion carried. Present: Andy Bartelt, Laird Hart, Grace Held, Rick Hoyerman, BD Thorp, Ken Nelson – Chair. Absent: Monique McClean Staff: Brent Bristol - Village Administrator, Justin MacDonald - Fire Chief, and Kim Roberts - Deputy Clerk. Guests in person: Ken Pabich – County Administrator and Kathy Pentler. Guests online: Michael Wegner, Gary Houchin-Miller, “John C”, and “Paul”. 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, Held seconded to approve the May 26, 2026, Plan Committee Working Session minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Held seconded to approve the May 26, 2026, Plan Committee minutes, as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. Thorp moved, Hoyerman seconded to approve the June 9, 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. 6. Michael Wegner – County Q- 121-01-13312744B2 – New SFR – Design Review: 2 Bristol noted that this project received design approval during the May Plan Committee meeting, but final decisions regarding materials, colors, and finishes remained outstanding. Michael Wegner participated remotely and presented the material and color selections. For the primary siding, Wegner selected LP Smartside Diamond Coat in an aged cedar/medium brown tone, chosen for its ability to mimic the appearance of real wood. He noted the product appears somewhat lighter in direct sunlight and that individual pieces vary slightly. For the fireplace, Wegner chose Door County Cobbles, describing them as lighter and more uniform than fieldstone, yet still in keeping with the kind of stone traditionally found throughout Ephraim. He referenced the fieldstone aesthetic of local barns and the Ephraim Clay Works as design inspirations. The roof will be a standing- seam, matte black metal with ribbed detailing but no exposed screws. Wegner also clarified that the siding orientation had been updated to vertical to better reflect traditional Wisconsin barn architecture, such as the Anderson Barn Museum, a change from the horizontal orientation shown in earlier drawings. The fireplace will be propane -fueled but will feature real stone on both the interior and exterior as a design element. Material samples were passed among Committee members for review. The Committee expressed general approval of the selections, finding them attractive and appropriate. Thorp moved, Bartelt seconded to approve the New SFR Design Review Application for parcel 121- 01-13312744B2 for color and material selections as presented, all ayes. Motion carried. 7. Uselding/Brandemuehl – 121-56-0007 – New SFR – Design Review: Bristol noted that no representative for the project appeared to be present online or in person. This is the first home to be constructed in the Everett Acres subdivision, which was approved previously for a two- acre minimum lot as a rural residential (RR) district subdivision. Br istol confirmed that all dimensional standards fall within what is allowable in the district and that no significant areas of concern were identified. Material samples were distributed to the Committee for review, including CertainTeed Series shingles in driftwood, Drexel Blue Door siding in snow white, a white metal finish attributed to the garage door, window cladding, door trim, soffit, and fascia, stone veneer called “Fond du Lac County Squire”, and an iron-colored front door. Bristol confirmed that the CertainTeed Series shingle products are approved for use even within the Historic District. A discussion was held regarding the design review application for parcel 121-56-0007. K. Nelson noted it was somewhat unusual to see a full basement rather than a walkout given Door County's rocky terrain. Bristol explained that the egress window wells appeared compliant with state code requirements, with approximately three egress points corresponding to the number of bedrooms. K. Nelson raised a concern regarding the scale of land disturbance noted on the plans — approximately forty-five thousand two hundred thirty square feet (45,230 ft 2), or over one (1) acre of a two (2) acre lot — and asked whether the grading plan had been reviewed to ensure no additional runoff would be directed onto neighboring properties. Bristol acknowledged the concern, noting that the subdivision's stormwater design includes detention basins and swales that may already account for this. He indicated he could follow up when construction begins and silt fencing is installed. The C ommittee agreed it was prudent to include a condition in the motion requiring that grading not result in additional runoff onto adjoining properties. Thorp moved, Hart seconded to approve the New SFR Design Review Application for Uselding/ Brandemuehl for parcel 121 -56-0007, conditioned upon the project not contributing additional runoff to neighboring properties, all ayes. Motion carried. 8. County of Door – 121-02-19312831A- Communications tower, shelter, and generator: Bristol provided background, noting that the Plan Committee, the Community Protection Committee (CPC), and the Village Board had been engaged with the County of Door on this project for several months. The county's representative, Ken Pabich, was present to speak about the project details. 3 Pabich described the proposed installation, which includes a lattice -style communications tower, an equipment shelter, a generator pad, and an optional pad for future cellular carriers. The tower will be 180 feet tall, including the antennas, bringing the total height to just under the two -hundred-foot (200’) FAA lighting threshold, thereby avoiding the need for tower lighting — a deliberate design choice to respect the county's dark sky values. Pabich noted that Vertical Bridge would be constructing the tower and that Nsight may co-locate on the structure to improve cellular coverage in the Village, though this is not yet confirmed. The equipment shelter is a pre- specified concrete or composite structure, earth -toned in color, housing radio and communications equipment that runs continuously and requires active cooling. The site would be enclosed with a clear chain-link fence, approximately eight feet (8’) tall, with transparency maintained intentionally so that activity behind the fence remains visible. Thorp asked about the FAA requirements relative to the nearby airport; Pabich confirmed that the project will undergo full FAA licensing and permitting review, including geotechnical and archaeological assessments, and that initial flight pattern analysis suggested the site should be acceptable. Discussion arose regarding access to the site. K. Nelson noted the desire to discourage public access to the area near the old village dump. Pabich indicated the rear of the site would be gated and secured, and expressed openness to adding a gate near the front entrance as well. MacDonald suggested a simple chain between posts near the front would be sufficient. K. Nelson referenced the site selection process, noting that the current location had been chosen in part to be farther from neighboring residences and to avoid disturbing the old dump site. He suggested the county consider shifting the tower slightly — approximately twenty feet (20’) to the northwest — to preserve an existing tree line around the installation as a visual buffer. Pabich expressed flexibility on this, noting the lease agreement could be adjusted accordingly and brought back to the Village Board for approval. Thorp asked whether trees needed to be cleared to a minimum distance from the equipment; Pabich suggested that approximately a ten-foot (10’) clearance around the fence line would be sufficient. Hoyerman addressed the procedural and zoning implications, referencing section §17.18 of the zoning code and the public property provisions. Bristol clarified that the primary zoning inconsistency being waived is the requirement that private towers be monopole or alternate-design structures rather than lattice-style — a requirement written with private development in mind, but technically applicable across the board, with the specific provision allowing the village to waive it for projects on village-involved land. Bristol noted that the Committee's role at this stage is to recommend to the Village Board that it approve the Intergovernmental Agreement and lease and waive any zoning ordinance requirements inconsistent with the arrangement. He emphasized that the finer points of the agreement are being handled by the county's legal counsel and the Village attorney. Held moved, Thorp seconded to recommend to the Village Board that they approve the Intergovernmental Agreement and lease with the County of Door for the Emergency Radio Communications Tower and lease, and to waive all requirements of the zoning ordinance that are inconsistent with the arrangement as reflected in those documents, all ayes. Motion carried. 9. Beart Family Cottage – 10439 N. Shore Road – Addition – Concept Review: Bristol introduced this item as a concept review, non-binding, for the property located at 10439 N. Shore Road. He noted he had been working with the contractors on the project for approximately two (2) months, and that the owners chose to seek concept review before committing to a final design. Bristol explained that the standard ordinary high water mark setback is seventy-five feet (75’). However, the Village zoning ordinance permits the Plan Committee, at its discretion, to allow setback averaging 4 based on adjacent properties. The neighbor to the north has a setback from the ordinary high water mark of twenty-eight feet (28’) and the neighbor to the south has a setback from the ordinary high water mark of sixty-one feet (61’), producing an average of forty -five feet (45’). The proposed bedroom addition to the east side of the home falls behind the 45- foot average setback line but within the 75- foot standard setback, making it non- compliant under the standard rule but potentially approvable through se tback averaging. Bristol confirmed that setback averaging has been allowed in the past for projects of similar and even greater scope, including new construction, and that it applies on a case-by-case basis. Bristol reviewed the existing structure referred to in the plans as a "screen porch," which the owners propose to convert into conditioned living space (labeled as a bedroom/flex room). Bristol clarified that this structure, while called a screen porch, is built with a knee wall beneath the windows and screens, is covered by the full roof system of the house above, and includes an attic hatch within its ceiling. It is not a typical open or shed- roofed porch. This portion of the structure falls closer to the water than even the 45-foot average setback line, meaning it sits within the most restricted zone. The Committee sought clarification on the purpose of the seventy -five-foot (75’) setback, and Bristol explained that it likely serves multiple goals, including ecological protection, limiting sedimentation and runoff, and establishing general spatial buffers. K. Nelson asked whether the entire existing house carries grandfathered status. Brent confirmed that any existing nonconforming structure retains its grandfather rights in perpetuity for maintenance, repair, and replacement, but that any new work or expansion is subject to current code. Therefore, the bedroom addition requires setback averaging approval, while the conditioning of the screen porch raises a separate question about intensification of nonconformity. Brent noted that even though the screen porch would not become dimensionally larger, converting it to conditioned space could arguably intensify the nonconformity. Hart raised a broader procedural concern: it struck him as unusual that the Plan Committee could exercise discretionary approval on setback averaging without it being a conditional use or special exception proceeding, which would require neighbor notification. Bristol suggested it could be discussed in future ordinance refinements, potentially by making setback averaging a conditional use, and perhaps distinguishing between modest additions to existing structures versus full teardown-and-rebuild scenarios. Committee members expressed a range of views. Bartelt indicated he had no significant concerns with the project, noting that closing in the screen porch would not change the overall external dimensions of the structure and that the roofline already envelops that space. He argued that adding a larger addition to the east in lieu of closing in the porch would actually add more overall mass to the home. Held agreed there were no issues with either the addition or the screen porch, noting the continuous roofline. Hart expressed comfort with the project and noted he would need to review the ordinance provision allowing setback averaging. Thorp expressed comfort with the addition but raised concern about closing in the screen porch, stating that doing so would open precedents the C ommittee is actively trying to address through the ongoing Protective Waterfront (PW) work. Hoyerman questioned whether it might actually be simpler for the applicant to forgo the screen porch conversion and instead make a somewhat larger addition to the east, though Bartelt and K. Nelson noted this could result in greater overall bulk. K. Nelson noted that his discomfort with the screen porch conversion stemmed primarily from its location within the most restricted zone — had it been anywhere else on the property, he would have no objection to a homeowner enclosing a porch. The Committee also briefly discussed the conversion of a "sleeping porch" into a kitchen as shown on the interior plans, with Bristol noting this raised no red flags, as it involves only interior reconfiguration, not expansion of the footprint. 5 The concept review resulted in a consensus of feedback for the applicants. The bedroom addition to the east was broadly supported; the enclosure of the screen porch was more contested, with a majority leaning toward approval but with reservations. Some Committee members suggested enlarging the proposed addition to the east and leaving the screened porch as is. K. Nelson noted the Committee would be willing to entertain another concept review if the applicants wished to further refine their approach, or they could proceed to design review. 10. New business for next meeting / next meeting date: The next meeting date of the Plan Committee is July 28, 2026, at 7:00 PM. 11. Adjournment: Thorp moved, Hart seconded to adjourn at 8:30 PM, all ayes. Motion carried. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk 1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM PLAN COMMITTEE WORKING SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 14, 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. K. Nelson walked the Committee through changes to the permitted uses section, specifically the addition of a section for "reproduction" as §17.20(2)(c). The Committee reviewed and refined the definition of "house reproduction" under Section §17.20(8). Bartelt suggested adding "and appearance" to the phrase "size and volume" to ensure the look of the structure was captured, not just its dimensions. The Committee agreed. Hoyerman suggested breaking up the lengthy sentence and proposed: "The materials must be sourced to ensure authenticity," to which the Committee agreed. Current Section Language for §17.20(8)(a), “House Reproduction: A house reproduction means creating a replica of the existing residence in terms of size and volume. Unique features, materials, and architectural details of the original house must match the project within this district, including design and materials, which must be sourced to be replicated or recreated to ensure authenticity. Intricate elements such as moldings, windows, and other unique characteristics are essential to the reproduction.” Proposed Section language for §17.20(8)(a), “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 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.” Under 17.20(8)(b), the Committee debated the intent of the provision allowing modern materials to be substituted for original materials. The original language restricted substitution to cases where original materials were "not available." Bristol raised the question of whether the carve-out was strictly for unavailability or also permitted for reasons of cost and modernity. The Committee discussed whether a product such as LP SmartSide—engineered siding molded to look like cedar—should qualify. After considerable discussion, the Committee agreed that substitution should be permitted more broadly, provided it remained consistent with the intent of paragraph (a). Current Section Language for §17.20(8)(b), “ Design Criteria: Original materials not available for reproduction may be recreated with modern materials, subject to design review and design criteria in §17.26, Historic District.” Proposed Section Language for §17.20(8)(b), “Design Criteria: Modern materials may only be substituted for original materials insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of §17.20(8)(a) and subject to design review. The Committee reviewed §17.20(3) Conditional Uses. They noted the need to replace the word “residences” with “structures” in §17.20(3)(b) and §17.20(3)(b)(1). After further discussion, the Committee concluded that for reproduction (Section 2, Permitted Uses), the word "structures" was more appropriate, as it would encompass not just residences but also accessory buildings, stone walls, flagpoles, and similar features that exist on protected waterfront properties and could be destroyed and reproduced. Further, the Committee suggested amending §17.20(3)(b)(1) to read, “Additions/modifications to or replacement of existing structures, subject to §17.20(6). In §17.20(8), the Committee agreed to replace the word “residences” with the word “structures” in the section heading as well as throughout the definition of reproduction in §8(a). 2 For conditional uses under Section 3(b), the Committee debated whether to replace "residences" with "buildings" or "structures." The Committee agreed to leave Section 6 -“Additions/Modifications to or Replacement of Existing Residences “PW Design Review” referencing residences for now, with Bristol noting he would consult the Village Attorney regarding “residence” as a use in Section 6. The Committee decided to reverse the order of §17.20(6)(a)(i)(a) and §17.20(6)(a)(i)(b), with subsection (b) being listed first. Further, in the new §17.20(6)(a)(i)(a), it should read, “Footprints 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.” K. Nelson reviewed the Design Criteria subsection §17.20(6)(b), which references the Historic District Ordinance §17.26 for style and includes a provision that the design characteristics of a project must reflect, at maximum, a single-story or one-and-one-half-story house. The Committee reviewed the definition of "one and a half story house" in §17.09 - Definitions, which describes a full first floor with full-height interior walls of nominally eight feet (8’) and an upper level with less full-height floor area than the first floor. A discussion was held regarding the definition of a one and one-half story house. Bartelt expressed concern that the phrase "less full height floor area" still permits a near-full second story if pressed to the maximum by a creative architect. Bristol noted that the definition itself is not intended to establish the limitations — those would be set elsewhere — and that the definition simply characterizes what qualifies as a one-and-a-half-story building. The Committee reviewed the version from the June 23 meeting, a more detailed definition that described deeply pitched roofs, gables, dormers, and knee walls, and generally preferred it for its greater clarity. K. Nelson indicated the Committee should return to the original definition and also examine how the Village Assessor defines story-and-a-half. The Committee agreed to revisit this definition. The Committee reviewed the provision on visual impact in §17.20(6)(b)(ii), which states that the width of individual structures as measured parallel to STH 42 cannot be increased, and that when existing landscaping is to be modified or replaced, a landscape plan is required. The Landscape Plan should not reduce water views between buildings. Bartelt proposed that the visual impact paragraph simply reference Section 10(b) for landscape plan requirements, rather than duplicating the discussion. It should read, “When the existing landscape is to be modified or replaced, it should not reduce the water view between buildings. (See §10 Permit Application; in such cases, a Landscape Permit is required.)” Cox raised a philosophical concern about restricting private landowners' ability to landscape their own property in the interest of public view corridors. K. Nelson acknowledged this tension, and stressed the intent of the ordinance was to maintain views. The Committee agreed to keep the provision focused on situations where a building project triggers new landscaping, and not to extend it to standalone landscaping changes. The Committee discussed the growing prevalence of permeable pavers and how they are currently counted — or not counted — as impervious surface. Bristol noted the risk of allowing unlimited permeable pavers between structures and the waterfront, potentially resulting in what would look like a fully paved yard. The Committee acknowledged this needed further thought, with Bristol noting it would be preferable to address it before, rather than after, passing the new ordinance. The Committee spent significant time discussing the definition and treatment of "house attachments," in §17.20(6)(b)(iv). The Committee reviewed the definition in §17.09 – definitions. A House Attachment is defined as elements not part of the conditioned living interior space but attached to the house — such as decks, porches, screened porches, and windowed porches. The Committee discussed that any existing attachment may be replaced on a one-for-one basis (same size, same type), giving the example that a porch must be replaced by a porch, not a screened or windowed porch. A discussion on house attachments was held. The term "conditioned space" was flagged as problematic. Cox and others noted that many older cottages have no central conditioning at all, making the term inapplicable as a dividing line between interior and attachment space. K. Nelson proposed striking the conditioned space language 3 and replacing it with "finished interior space," referencing the footprint definition, which describes space with walls, floors, and ceilings of materials generally accepted for interior construction, with a ceiling height of at least seven feet (7’). The Committee agreed to remove “conditioned living space” from the definition of house attachment and replace it with “finished interior space” to tie to the definition of footprint. Bristol questioned whether "finished" was the right word, noting that a windowed porch could have carpeting and electrical outlets and still arguably be "finished." Regarding the definition of footprint, §17.09 definitions, the Committee agreed to strike “dimensions” and replace it with the word “area”. Further, the Committee decided to strike the sentence, “This is a conditioned space where temperature and humidity are controlled in the space.” The larger policy question of whether attachments such as screened or windowed porches should be included in the footprint was debated at length. K. Nelson described the situation with a prior application where a windowed porch was significantly enlarged because the ordinance lacked clear controls. The one-for-one replacement rule was described as the primary mechanism to prevent this kind of expansion. The Committee discussed whether decks should be treated differently from porches. K. Nelson suggested decks might be less of a concern from a bulk and visual standpoint than roofed porches, though second-story decks were noted as potentially more impactful. No final decision was made on this distinction. Cox raised the specific situation of his own cottages, which have covered, unenclosed porches and fall below the six hundred square foot (600 ft 2) residential minimum. He asked whether a conditional use process could be created to allow PW property owners in such situations to enclose an existing porch. By doing so, they would be able to meet minimum residential square footage requirements, subject to conditions imposed by the Committee to become more conforming with the ordinance. Bartelt questioned whether the Committee’s goal was to bring non-conforming structures to conforming. K. Nelson expressed caution about opening this door, noting it could result in structures being substantially enlarged under a conditioned living space scenario combined with a twenty-three-foot (23’) height allowance. Further, the minimum requirements were established after the nonconforming properties were built. Additionally, he stressed that many of the properties in the PW district will never be conforming due to setbacks. Hoyerman suggested that the right framing for a conditional use in such cases would be that the applicant is asking for something but potentially giving something up in exchange, and that this quid pro quo logic could be better codified in Section 7. Bristol cautioned against trying to enumerate every possible scenario; the section is intentionally broad. The Committee agreed that Section 7 provides the necessary latitude and guidance for such situations without requiring exhaustive specification, and that these cases would still be subject to Plan Committee discretion. The Committee discussed the broader goal of encouraging property owners to retain and work with their existing structures rather than demolish and rebuild, noting this was the original purpose of the reproduction provision. Bartelt revisited a fundamental question: whether the concern about attachments was specifically about preventing them from being incorporated into a rearrangeable footprint and built up to a story and a half, or whether there was a different concern. K. Nelson affirmed that a porch-as-porch replacement was the intent — the porch footprint should remain one story, while the main house footprint could go up to the one-and-a-half-story maximum. Thorp moved, Bartelt seconded to adjourn at 2:05 PM. Recorded by Kim Roberts – Deputy Clerk PERMEABLE PAVER/COBBLE PAVING 591.5 FFE 587.4 FFE SPR SPR CDR CDR CDR ASH CDR FLLN CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR MPL LCST CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR LCST MPL MPLASHLCST ASH MPL MPL MPLCDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR MPL ELM CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR ELM ELM CDR LRCH LRCH LRCH LRCH LRCH MPL CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR HEM CDR CDR CDR CDR SPR SPR CDRCDR CDR CEDAR STONE COTTAGE 601.1 FFE 600.85 PFE 600.8 GFE CDR CDR CDR MPL MPL MPL MPL MPL ASH/DEAD ASH/DEAD BSWD MPL CDR MPL CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR BSWD CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR MPL MPL CDR LOW/MOIST AREA 7-1-13 ELC TRNS PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED ASPHALT DRIVE PLANTING BED FENCED DOG RUN SODDED LAWN PLANTING BED PLANTING BED SODDED LAWN SODDED LAWN SODDED LAWN S T A T E H W Y '42' GRAY LOGS COTTAGE RENOVATED ASPHALT DRIVE ASPHALT MOTORCOURT EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE ASPHALT DRIVE EXISTING LITTLE DRAGONFLY COTTAGE EXISTING BIG DRAGONFLY COTTAGE GARAGE ASH/DEAD CDR SODDED CDR CDR A/CA/C GEN SODDED LAWN RENOVATED ASPHALT DRIVE GEN 12' 2" X 3' 4" A/C 31" A/C 31" A/C 31" A/C 31" A/C 31" PLANTING BED CBL VT (3) WF/SMP/VT VTVT EO VT EO/VT VT VT (3) WTR EM VT (2) GS EO(2) WF/DS EO EO GSEO/VTVT VTVTVT EO EO EO DS DS DS DS DS STMP STMP STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM PLANTING BED PLANTING BED BUNKHOUSE CABIN 592.5 FFE SODDED LAWN WASH CABIN 1"- 3" BEACH STONE OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC. EXPOSED BED ROCK OR WEATHERED LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING AT DRIVE EDGES. BEGIN CUT FOR DRIVE SLOPE AT THIS POINT TERRACED LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALLS LOWER WELL HEAD ~2' & TOP WITH A HOLLOW BOULDER 1"- 12" BEACH STONE DRY CREEK BED OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC. CHARACTER BOULDERS PLACED AT EDGES. WATER TO BE CONVEYED TO WETLAND VIA AN 18" CATCH BASIN 6" SOLID PIPE15" HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING 18"-24" HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING 2.5' HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALL 3.5' HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALL 3.5' HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALLS. WALLS TO EXTEND ABOVE GRADE ~ 21" EFFLUENT TANK W/ MANHOLES LIMESTONE STEPPERS DRY SET FLAGSTONE PAVING. JOINTS TO BE TIGHT & EDGES TO BE IRREGULAR. LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP TO CONNECT BEDROCK TO FOUNDATION 12"-36" HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALL 5' WIDE LIMESTONE STEPPER PATHWAY 3'-4' WIDE IRREGULAR "LILY PAD" LIMESTONE SLAB STEPS 3' HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING5.5'-7' WIDE IRREGULAR "LILY PAD" LIMESTONE SLAB STEPS; 7" RISERS IRREGULAR "LILY PAD" LIMESTONE SLAB STEPS; 7.5" RISERS 3' HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING CHARACTER/SEAT BOULDERS AT LAWN EDGE GRADE TO BEGIN ROLLING & SLOPING DOWN AT THE LAWN EDGE 36" WIDE CEDAR MULCH PATHWAY WITH WEATHERED STONE STEPS CHARACTER/SEAT BOULDERS AT PERIMETER OF PATIO LEVEL EXISTING GRAVEL RIDGE & TOP WITH DRY SET FLAGSTONE PAVING. JOINTS TO BE TIGHT & EDGES TO BE IRREGULAR. FIRE RING WITH WEATHERED STONE SURROUND. TO HAVE A LOG LIGHTING SYSTEM WITHIN RING. 5' WIDE ELEVATED & FLOATING BOARDWALK. EDGES TO BE CUT EVEN WITH EACH OTHER. EXISTING UTILITY POLE EXISTING GENERATOR EXISTING ELECTRICAL PANELS EXISTING CHARTER & ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER EXISTING WELL HOUSE EXISTING SANITARY LIFT STATION EXISTING RIP RAP EXISTING NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE EXISTING IRON PIPE EXISTING IRON PIPE EXISTING SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE LOCATION OF BURIED PROPANE TANKS 16' WIDE TURFSTONE DRIVE; CORES TO BE CHIPPED STONE. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED DOCK 18"-24" HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALL 2 SEAT STONES PROTRUDING FROM WALL LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING IRREGULAR "LILY PAD" LIMESTONE SLAB STEPS; 7.0" RISERS 3.5' WIDE LIMESTONE STEPPER PATHWAY 42" HIGH FENCE SURROUNDING UTILITIES & DOG RUN WITH 3' & 4' GATES BURIED 4" DRAIN TILE 6' HIGH RED CEDAR FENCE WITH 4' GATE 3.5' WIDE LIMESTONE STEPPER PATHWAY BURIED 4" DRAIN TILE 18" HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING 6"-24" HIGH LIMESTONE RETAINING WALL MIXED CHARACTER BOULDERS & LIMESTONE OUTCROPPING 3' WIDE LIMESTONE STEPPER PATHWAY BURIED 4"& 6" DRAIN TILE MULCHED PARKING AREA LOCATION OF PROPANE TANK REGULATORS N DESIGN.PLANT.BUILD.MAINTAIN Phone: 920. 743.1011 Fax: 920.743.8878 www.meissnerlandscape.com PERMEABLE PAVER/COBBLE PAVING 591.5 FFE 587.4 FFE SPR SPR CDR CDR CDR ASH CDR FLLN CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR ELM CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR ELM ELM CDR LRCH LRCH LRCH LRCH LRCH MPL CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR HEM CDR CDR CDR CDR SPR SPR CDRCDR CDR CEDAR STONE COTTAGE 601.1 FFE 600.85 PFE 600.8 GFE MPL CDR BSWD CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR ELC TRNS PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED PLANTING BED FENCED DOG RUN SODDED LAWN PLANTING BED PLANTING BED SODDED LAWN SODDED LAWN SODDED LAWN GRAY LOGS COTTAGE RENOVATED ASPHALT DRIVE EXISTING LITTLE DRAGONFLY COTTAGE GARAGE ASH/DEAD GEN 12' 2" X 3' 4" A/C 31" A/C 31" A/C 31" A/C 31" A/C 31" PLANTING BED CBL VT (3) WF/SMP/VT VTVT EO VT EO/VT VT VT (3) WTR EM VT (2) GS EO(2) WF/DS EO EO VTVTVT EO EO EO DS DS DS DS DS STMP STMP STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM PLANTING BED PLANTING BED BUNKHOUSE CABIN 592.5 FFE SODDED LAWN WASH CABIN 1"- 3" BEACH STONE OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC. BEGIN CUT FOR DRIVE SLOPE AT THIS POINT TERRACED LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALLS LOWER WELL HEAD ~2' & TOP WITH A HOLLOW BOULDER 1"- 12" BEACH STONE DRY CREEK BED OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC. CHARACTER BOULDERS PLACED AT EDGES. WATER TO BE CONVEYED TO WETLAND VIA AN 18" CATCH BASIN 6" SOLID PIPE15" HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING 18"-24" HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING 2.5' HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALL 3.5' HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALL 3.5' HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALLS. WALLS TO EXTEND ABOVE GRADE ~ 21" EFFLUENT TANK W/ MANHOLES LIMESTONE STEPPERS DRY SET FLAGSTONE PAVING. JOINTS TO BE TIGHT & EDGES TO BE IRREGULAR. LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP TO CONNECT BEDROCK TO FOUNDATION 12"-36" HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALL 5' WIDE LIMESTONE STEPPER PATHWAY 3'-4' WIDE IRREGULAR "LILY PAD" LIMESTONE SLAB STEPS 3' HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING5.5'-7' WIDE IRREGULAR "LILY PAD" LIMESTONE SLAB STEPS; 7" RISERS IRREGULAR "LILY PAD" LIMESTONE SLAB STEPS; 7.5" RISERS 3' HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING CHARACTER/SEAT BOULDERS AT LAWN EDGE GRADE TO BEGIN ROLLING & SLOPING DOWN AT THE LAWN EDGE 36" WIDE CEDAR MULCH PATHWAY WITH WEATHERED STONE STEPS CHARACTER/SEAT BOULDERS AT PERIMETER OF PATIO LEVEL EXISTING GRAVEL RIDGE & TOP WITH DRY SET FLAGSTONE PAVING. JOINTS TO BE TIGHT & EDGES TO BE IRREGULAR. FIRE RING WITH WEATHERED STONE SURROUND. TO HAVE A LOG LIGHTING SYSTEM WITHIN RING. 5' WIDE ELEVATED & FLOATING BOARDWALK. EDGES TO BE CUT EVEN WITH EACH OTHER. EXISTING GENERATOR EXISTING ELECTRICAL PANELS EXISTING CHARTER & ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER EXISTING WELL HOUSE EXISTING RIP RAP EXISTING NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE EXISTING SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE 16' WIDE TURFSTONE DRIVE; CORES TO BE CHIPPED STONE. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED DOCK 18"-24" HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER RETAINING WALL 2 SEAT STONES PROTRUDING FROM WALL LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING IRREGULAR "LILY PAD" LIMESTONE SLAB STEPS; 7.0" RISERS 3.5' WIDE LIMESTONE STEPPER PATHWAY 42" HIGH FENCE SURROUNDING UTILITIES & DOG RUN WITH 3' & 4' GATES BURIED 4" DRAIN TILE 6' HIGH RED CEDAR FENCE WITH 4' GATE 3.5' WIDE LIMESTONE STEPPER PATHWAY BURIED 4" DRAIN TILE 18" HIGH LIMESTONE BOULDER OUTCROP RETAINING 6"-24" HIGH LIMESTONE RETAINING WALL MIXED CHARACTER BOULDERS & LIMESTONE OUTCROPPING 3' WIDE LIMESTONE STEPPER PATHWAY BURIED 4"& 6" DRAIN TILE N DESIGN.PLANT.BUILD.MAINTAIN Phone: 920. 743.1011 Fax: 920.743.8878 www.meissnerlandscape.com PERMEABLE PAVER/COBBLE PAVING 591.5 FFE 587.4 FFE SPR SPR CDR CDR CDR ASH CDR FLLN CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR MPL LCST CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR LCST MPL MPLASHLCST ASH MPL MPL MPLCDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR MPL ELM CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR ELM ELM CDR LRCH LRCH LRCH LRCH LRCH MPL CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR HEM CDR CDR CDR CDR SPR SPR CDRCDR CDR CEDAR STONE COTTAGE 601.1 FFE 600.85 PFE 600.8 GFE CDR CDR CDR MPL MPL MPL MPL MPL ASH/DEAD ASH/DEAD BSWD MPL CDR MPL CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR BSWD CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR CDR ELC TRNS PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BED PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED RESHAPED DRIVE PLANTING BED FENCED DOG RUN SODDED LAWN PLANTING BED PLANTING BED SODDED LAWN SODDED LAWN SODDED LAWN S T A T E H W Y '42' GRAY LOGS COTTAGE RENOVATED ASPHALT DRIVE ASPHALT MOTORCOURT RESHAPED DRIVE EXISTING LITTLE DRAGONFLY COTTAGE EXISTING BIG DRAGONFLY COTTAGE GARAGE ASH/DEAD SODDED LAWN SODDED LAWN GEN 12' 2" X 3' 4" A/C 31" A/C 31" A/C 31" A/C 31" A/C 31" PLANTING BED CBL VT (3) WF/SMP/VT VTVT EO VT EO/VT VT VT (3) WTR EM VT (2) GS EO(2) WF/DS EO EO GSEO/VTVT VTVTVT EO EO EO DS DS DS DS DS STMP STMP STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM STRM PLANTING BED PLANTING BED BUNKHOUSE CABIN 592.5 FFE SODDED LAWN WASH CABIN N DESIGN.PLANT.BUILD.MAINTAIN Phone: 920. 743.1011 Fax: 920.743.8878 www.meissnerlandscape.com SHEET: SCALE: DATE DRAWN: TITLE PAGE 6/16/26 PEA Builders Inc. W195 S7548 Woodland Pl., Muskego, WI 53150 Ph: (414) 324-6123 SStteevvee && MMaarryy HHoommaa 99775511 WWaatteerr SStt.. EEpphhrraaiimm,, WWII 5544221111 PPhh ((441144)) 332244--66112233 #/#" = 1'-0" DATE REVISED: DRAWN BY: - A-1.1 PAGE TABLE Label Ti tle Comments A-1.1 TITLE PAGE A-1.2 EXISTING & PROPOSED PLANS A-1.3 ELEVATIONS & SCHEDULES A-1.4 ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN A-2.1 SECTION & PROPOSED ELECTRICAL PLAN BID SET 1st Floor Living 758 S/F Bedroom Suite Addition 356 S/F Deck Addition 190 S/F EPHRAIM COTTAGE UP UP S1 A-2.1 S1 A-2.1 S1 A-2.1 S1 A-2.1 E4 A-1.4 E4 A-1.4 E1 A-1.3 E1 A-1.3 E3 A-1.3 E3 A-1.3 E2 A-1.4 E2 A-1.4 10'-0 11/16" 20'-2 1/4" 8'-0 5/8" 15' 7'-11 3/4" 13'-11 1/16" 14'-1 3/4" CL 7'-10 1/16"7'-10 1/16" 4'-3 1/2" 17'-2 9/16" 12'-1 3/16" 15'-8 5/8" 22'-7 9/16" 11'-11 1/2" 13'-6" X 9'-8" 14'-5" X 21'-8" 4'-6" X 9'-9" 5'-8" X 4'-6" 7'-8" X 5'-3" 7'-2" X 11'-6" 19'-5" X 11'-8" 5'-6" X 9'-8" 9'-7" X 11'-0" EX. GARAGE EX. BEDROOM PROP. GREAT RM EX. BATH EX. BEDROOM PROP. FOYER PROP. KITCHEN DOUBLE 11 7/8" MICROLAM EX. PATIO EX. PATIO TRIPLE 2X8 BEAM 2x8 JOISTS 16" OC. 11 7/8" OPEN JOISTS 16" OC PROPOSED UPDATED FIRST FLOOR SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT PROPOSED UPDATED FIRST FLOOR SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT 2436RS 2436RS2436RS286828682436RS2436RS 28682436RS 2868 2436RS 2436RS 2436RS 2468 2436RS 2436RS 2868 2868 2468 4068 80703068 2468 2068 10'-0 5/8" 20'-2 1/4" 7'-11 5/8" 38'-2 1/2" 12'-2" 9'-11 1/2" 34'-1 1/2" 14'-1 3/4" 12' 15'-7"7'-11 3/4"13'-10 3/4" 38'-2 1/2" 19'-5" X 11'-4" 13'-6" X 9'-8" 7'-6" X 5'-2" 5'-7" X 9'-8" 9'-8" X 11'-0" 7'-2" X 11'-7" 14'-2" X 21'-8" GARAGE KITCHEN LIVING BEDROOM BEDROOM FOYER BATH EXISTING PLAN SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT EXISTING PLAN SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT D13D13 W04W04 W04W04 W01W01 D17D17 W01W01 W04W04 W04W04 W02W02W02W02 D11D11 D12D12 D05D05 22'-9" 3'-11 7/8" 15'-9 1/16" 22'-9" 12' 15'-8 1/8" 3'-8" 11'-1 5/8" 1'-3" 4' 2'-1" 15'-5 1/8" 15'-1 1/8"6'-4 1/2" 20'-6 5/8" 15'-9" X 12'-0" 15'-0" X 15'-4" 11'-1" X 6'-4" DECK PROP. BEDROOM PROP. BATH PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR ADDITION SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR ADDITION SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT SHEET: SCALE: DATE DRAWN: EXISTING & PROPOSED PLANS 6/16/26 PEA Builders Inc. W195 S7548 Woodland Pl., Muskego, WI 53150 Ph: (414) 324-6123 SStteevvee && MMaarryy HHoommaa 99775511 WWaatteerr SStt.. EEpphhrraaiimm,, WWII 5544221111 PPhh ((441144)) 332244--66112233 #/#" = 1'-0" DATE REVISED: DRAWN BY: - A-1.2 BID SET PROPOSED BUILDING NOTES NO CHANGE TO THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT ADDITION CONSISTS OF -GARAGE SECOND LEVEL BEDROOM SUITE -DECK ADDITION TO BEDROOM SUITE - KITCHEN EXPANSION REMOVAL OF WALL 2X4 EXTERIOR WALLS SIDING OF ADDITION TO MATCH EXISTING BOTTOM OF FOOTING -7.8' TOP OF FOOTING -7.2' 8" TOP OF SUBFLOOR - FOUNDATION -2.8' 4'-4" TOP OF SUBFLOOR - 2ND FLOOR 5.8' 8'-7" TOP OF PLATE 14.3' 8'-7" HIGHEST RIDGE 18.8' 4'-5 5/8" E1 ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FTE1 ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT BOTTOM OF FOOTING -7.8' TOP OF SUBFLOOR - FOUNDATION -2.8' 5' TOP OF SUBFLOOR - 1ST FLOOR 0' 2'-10" TOP OF SUBFLOOR - 2ND FLOOR 5.8' 5'-9" TOP OF PLATE 14.3' 8'-7" HIGHEST RIDGE 18.8' 4'-5 5/8" E3 ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FTE3 ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT WINDOW SCHEDULE 3D EXTERIOR ELEVATION QTY SIZE R/O COMMENTS 2 2668 EX 32"X83" 2 2436DH 29"X43" 4 3020AW 37"X25" WINDOW SCHEDULE SCALE: 1 IN = 1 FT WINDOW SCHEDULE SCALE: 1 IN = 1 FT DOOR SCHEDULE 3D EXTERIOR ELEVATION QTY SIZE R/O 1 2668 L/R IN 32"X82 1/2" 1 2868 L IN 34"X82 1/2" 1 2868 R 34"X82 1/2" 1 2868 R EX 34"X83" 1 5568 L/R EX 67"X83" DOOR SCHEDULE SCALE: 1 IN = 1 FT DOOR SCHEDULE SCALE: 1 IN = 1 FT SHEET: SCALE: DATE DRAWN: ELEVATIONS & SCHEDULES 6/16/26 PEA Builders Inc. W195 S7548 Woodland Pl., Muskego, WI 53150 Ph: (414) 324-6123 SStteevvee && MMaarryy HHoommaa 99775511 WWaatteerr SStt.. EEpphhrraaiimm,, WWII 5544221111 PPhh ((441144)) 332244--66112233 #/#" = 1'-0" DATE REVISED: DRAWN BY: - A-1.3 BID SET WINDOWS & DOORS NOTES NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS TO ADDITION ONLY BOTTOM OF FOOTING -7.8' TOP OF SUBFLOOR - FOUNDATION -2.8' 5' TOP OF SUBFLOOR - 1ST FLOOR 0' 2'-10" TOP OF SUBFLOOR - 2ND FLOOR 5.8' 5'-9" TOP OF PLATE 9.1' 3'-4" TOP OF PLATE 14.3' 5'-3" HIGHEST RIDGE 18.8' 4'-5 5/8" GRADE LINE E2 ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FTE2 ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT TOP OF SUBFLOOR - FOUNDATION -2.8' TOP OF SUBFLOOR - 1ST FLOOR 0' 2'-10" TOP OF SUBFLOOR - 2ND FLOOR 5.8' 5'-9" TOP OF PLATE 14.3' 8'-7" HIGHEST RIDGE 18.8' 4'-5 5/8" GRADE LINE E4 ELEVATION 4 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FTE4 ELEVATION 4 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT 6 3/4 : 12 6 3/4 : 12 6 3/4 : 12 6 3/4 : 12 7 : 12 6 3/4 : 12 2 11/16 : 12 10'-0 11/16" 20'-2 1/4" 8'-0 5/8" 12'-3 1/2" 11'-5 3/4" 7'-5 7/8"7'-5 7/8" 4'-5 3/8" 4'-5 3/8" 10'-11 3/4" 13'-5 9/16" 7'-7 1/2" 7'-11 3/4" ROOF DEMO PROPOSED ADDITION ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT PROPOSED ADDITION ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT 7 1/2 : 12 7 1/2 : 12 7 : 12 16'-8" 23'-9" 15' 17'-4 7/8"6'-4 1/8" 2' PROPOSED ADDITION ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT PROPOSED ADDITION ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT SHEET: SCALE: DATE DRAWN: ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN 6/16/26 PEA Builders Inc. W195 S7548 Woodland Pl., Muskego, WI 53150 Ph: (414) 324-6123 SStteevvee && MMaarryy HHoommaa 99775511 WWaatteerr SStt.. EEpphhrraaiimm,, WWII 5544221111 PPhh ((441144)) 332244--66112233 #/#" = 1'-0" DATE REVISED: DRAWN BY: - A-1.4 BID SET 8'-5 1/2" 7'-10 11/16" 1'-10 7/8" BOTTOM OF FOOTING -7.8' TOP OF FOOTING -3.2' 4'-8" EXISTING SUBFLOOR - 1ST FLOOR 0' 3'-2" PROPOSED SUBFLOOR - 2ND FLOOR 5.8' 5'-9" TOP OF PLATE 14.3' 8'-7" HIGHEST RIDGE 18.8' 4'-5 5/8" 7'-2 5/16" 7'-5" S1 SECTION 1 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FTS1 SECTION 1 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT R R RR R R R R PROPOSED ELECTRICAL ADDITION SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT PROPOSED ELECTRICAL ADDITION SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT SHEET: SCALE: DATE DRAWN: SECTION & PROPOSED ELECTRICAL PLAN 6/16/26 PEA Builders Inc. W195 S7548 Woodland Pl., Muskego, WI 53150 Ph: (414) 324-6123 SStteevvee && MMaarryy HHoommaa 99775511 WWaatteerr SStt.. EEpphhrraaiimm,, WWII 5544221111 PPhh ((441144)) 332244--66112233 #/#" = 1'-0" DATE REVISED: DRAWN BY: - A-2.1 BID SET AS BUILT B4232B4232 B4232B4232 2636FA 5468 2636FA 2636FA 31026RS31026RS 2636FA 2868 4X4 POST 4X4 POST 4X4 POST 4X4 POST 4X4 POST 4X4 POST E7 A-1.1 E7 A-1.1 E9 A-1.1 E9 A-1.1 S1 A-1.1 S1 A-1.1 S1 A-1.1 S1 A-1.1 E6 A-1.1 E6 A-1.1 E8 A-1.1 E8 A-1.1 20'-2 1/2" 7'-9" 14'-2 1/2" 12'-4" 11'-8" 8' CL3'-3 1/4" 20'-2" 20'-2 1/2" 6' 173 SQ FT WORK AREA 1ST FLOOR SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT 1ST FLOOR SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT TOP OF SUBFLOOR - FOUNDATION 0' TOP OF PLATE 7' 7' RIDGE 9.8' 2'-9 3/16" 1" 12" 4" 12" E6 ELEVATION 5 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FTE6 ELEVATION 5 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT B.O. FOOTING -5' T.O. FOOTING -1' 4' TOP OF SLAB 0' 1' EXTERIOR CASING TOP 7' 6'-11 1/2" E7 ELEVATION 6 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FTE7 ELEVATION 6 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT E8 ELEVATION 7 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FTE8 ELEVATION 7 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT E9 ELEVATION 8 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FTE9 ELEVATION 8 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT 12'-4" 14'-2 1/2" THICKENED SLAB FOUNDATION SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT FOUNDATION SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT TOP OF SUBFLOOR - FOUNDATION 0' TOP OF PLATE 7' 7' S1 SECTION 1 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FTS1 SECTION 1 SCALE: 1/4 IN = 1 FT SHEET: SCALE: DATE DRAWN: SUGAR SHACK 7/17/26 PEA Builders Inc. W195 S7548 Woodland Pl., Muskego, WI 53150 Ph: (414) 324-6123 SStteevvee && MMaarryy HHoommaa 99775511 WWaatteerr SStt.. EEpphhrraaiimm,, WWII 5544221111 PPhh ((441144)) 332244--66112233 #/#" = 1'-0" DATE REVISED: DRAWN BY: SH & LK A-1.1 CONCEPTUAL DWGS 7.17.26 Cora Elquist & Ben Karrow Single Family Residential John Joseph Const (Brent Heim) PO Box 5634 DePere WI 54115 920 619-2982 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 (206) 963-2742 coraelquist@yahoo.com Townline Drive HWY Q Rural Residential **FOR CONCEPT REVIEW** Mound system is anticipated 32' +/- 1.5 9:12 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 7/20/26 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 dark gray/black siding. Roof is planned to be green w/ copper flashings and accents. Windows and door frames are planned to be black. Woodgrain Vinyl siding or LP Smartside 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 9:12. FOR JULY 2026 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 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 POWTS Well Driveway 12' typ. > 20' > 50' > 20' 454.48' 200.02' 200.02' 329.50' 125.00' Basement Exposure Retaining Wall LP Tank Anticipated Elec Feed 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 FOYER FAMILY RM KITCHEN SUITE #1 PANTRY DW HEARTH RM GARAGE W.I.C. PATIO POWDER RM WALL OVEN DINING 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 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FIRST FLOOR PLAN 04/30/2026 MECHANICAL BEDROOM BATHROOM OPTIONAL BEDROOM STORAGE LAUNDRY REC. ROOM LOFT SUITE #2 OPEN TO BELOW BATHROOM W.I.C. STORAGE OPEN TO BELOW 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 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN FOYER FAMILY RM KITCHEN SUITE #1 PANTRY DW HEARTH RM GARAGE W.I.C. PATIO POWDER RM WALL OVEN DINING 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 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FIRST FLOOR PLAN 04/30/2026 1,820 sf 676 sf View from South, Southwest View from South East View from Northeast View from Northwest CONCEPTUAL BLOCK MODELS S:\EPHRAIM\Office Forms\Zoning\Forms\Building\BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.doc 1 Please Print 1. Owner/Property Tax Parcel. No. __________-___________-_____________ Owner_____________________________________________ Mailing Address ___________________________ City ______________ State ___________________________________________ Zip __________________________ Phone(s) _ __________________________ Email_ _____________ Location of Project ______________________________ Nearest Cross Street _____________________ Property Use: ______________________________________________________________________ Zoning Area: ______________________ Historic District? Yes No Contractor/Contact: ____________________________Address_ _______ Phone(s) _ _________________________ Cell Phone (______) _______________________ 2. Type of Improvement ___ New Building Accessory Structures ___ Addition ___ Garage ___ Exterior Alteration ___ Storage Building ___ Foundation Work Only ___ Repair/Replacement ___ Other ___________________ ___Other__________________ 3. Describe Proposed Construction: __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Cost Total cost of improvements as applied for in permit: $________________ Structural Improvement Cost (if new building or addition, entire amount of structure; if alteration, renovation or repair, structural portions only): $________________ Include with Application: Certified Survey Building plans, including all elevations, floor plans (if commercial, State-approved plans must be given to the office prior to obtaining your permit) Site plan showing lot dimensions, setbacks from all lot lines for structures For commercial structures, parking plans Parking plan for construction vehicles during construction phase Permit Fee/Impact Fee Land Disturbance Application Drainage Plan Landscape Plan VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM BUILDING/ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION 1 of 2 Application Date ______________ S:\EPHRAIM\Office Forms\Zoning\Forms\Building\BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.doc 2 Dimensions: Number of Stories: ____________ Height at Peak: _______________________ Roof Pitch(es): _____________________ Total Footprint, Exterior: _______________ Total Square Footage, All Floors Exterior: ________________ Total Square Footage, Parking/Drives/Walkways: ______________________________ Type: Wood Frame Structural Steel Reinforced Concrete Other___________________ Principal Heating: ___ Propane ___ Oil ___ Electric ___ Other (Explain)_____________________________________________ Plant Manager Signature__________________________Date__________ Sewage Disposal: Current: Proposed : None Current System Continued Demolition/Moving ? Sewered Connect to Available Sewer Septic Extend Sewer to Property Mound/In-Ground On-Site System Other ___________________ Type: ____________________________________________ (copy of permit to be on file with Village) Year Installed: ____________ If On-Site System, Year Last Pumped/I nspected: _________ For sewage disposal planning, your contact is the Ephraim Treatment Plant Manager, 920/854-4991. Please contact him as soon as possible to allow proper planning and discussion of any necessary sewer connection permits or fees involved. Fire Chief Signature _________________________Date____________ Fire Department: Sprinklers needed?  Yes  No Driveway width/tree clearance (width/height): _______________________ Clearance around structures for truck access: ________________________ Fire # Assigned __________ Fire Department requires driveways at least 12’ wide and clearance 12’ high; Fire Chief may be in contact with you during construction to check truck access and, if commercial structure, any sprinklering, water sources, or other safety considerations Application and materials must be in the Village offices one week prior to Plan Committee meeting date to allow for proper processing and notification of Committee members. When permits are issued, work must start within 6 months and be completed within one year. The owner of this property and the undersigned agree to conform to all applicable laws of the State of Wisconsin and the Village of Ephraim. Signature of Applicant___________________________ Print Name _____________________________ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY For New Buildings or Additions, Complete this Section Also: Permit #_____________________________ Permit Fee: $_________________________________ Date Permit Issued ___________ Zoning Administrator Signature:_________________________________ Restrictions: _____________________________________________________________________________ 2 of 2 JOHN VAN DER VAART PROJECT DATE CONTRACTOR JUNE 28TH, 2026 DOOR COUNTY - DESIGN CENTER REMODEL 10239 WATER ST. EPHRAIM, WI 54211 EXTERIOR RENDERING NOTES: REPRESENTATION OF REMODELED EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 10239 WATER ST. EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTHEAST WALL NOTES: ENTRY WALL FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE ON LOWER LEVEL. EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTHEAST WALL NOTES: WHITE HORIZONTAL SHIP LAP SIDING WITH DARK NAVY TRIM. CORBELS MATCHING TRIM COLOR & HIP ROOF AT 8/12 PITCH. EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTHWEST WALL NOTES: FENCED AREA & BACK ENTRY FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE ON LOWER LEVEL. STAIR ENTRY TO SECOND FLOOR FOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING. EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTHWEST WALL NOTES: ENTRY DOOR ON SECOND FLOOR TO RESIDENTIAL LIVING. EXISTING FLOOR PLAN NOTES: SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING LAYOUT. N RENOVATED FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL NOTES: REMODELED LAYOUT OF LOWER LEVEL COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN EXISTING FOOTPRINT. N RENOVATED FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL NOTES: REMODELED LAYOUT OF SECOND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING WITHIN EXISTING FOOTPRINT. N SURVEY - FULL LOT NOTES: MOST RECENT CERTIFIED SURVEY OF ENTIRE PROPERTY. SURVEY - W/ SETBACKS NOTES: MOST RECENT SURVEY OF ENTIRE PROPERTY INDICATING NEW SETBACKS SPECIFICATIONS. 40’ REAR SETBACK 25’ OFF BUILDING 75’ SIDE SETBACK 75’ FRONT SETBACK 108’ SETBACK FROM ROAD CENTER 25’ SIDE SETBACK PARKING PLAN - COMMERCIAL NOTES: PARKING PLAN TO REMAIN UNCHANGED IN FRONT ON ASPHALT. GRAVEL PARKING TO GET MORE DEFINED STALLS AND EXPANDED FOR EGRESS. REMODEL OF EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING ENTRY/EXIT NEW 9’ WIDE STALLS EXISTING ENTRY/EXIT EXISTING 9’ WIDE STALLS PARKING PLAN - CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES NOTES: PARKING PLAN TO REMAIN UNCHANGED IN FRONT ON ASPHALT. BACK HALF OF GRAVEL PARKING PLUS GLASS AREA UTILIZED DURING CONSTRUCTION. REMODEL OF EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING ENTRY/EXIT NEW 9’ WIDE STALLS EXISTING ENTRY/EXIT EXISTING 9’ WIDE STALLS CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING AREA LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES: GENERAL PLAN IS TO CLEAN UP & REMOVE OVERGROWTH & REPLANT. N FRONT: REMOVAL OF OVERSIZED SHRUBS/TREES REPLACED W/ SMALLER TO SCALE BUSHES & FLOWERS GRAVEL PARKING SIDE: REMOVAL OF OVERSIZED SHRUBS/TREES REPLACED W/ SMALLER TO SCALE BUSHES & FLOWERS UNDER STAIRS BACK: REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING GROUND COVER ADJACENT BUILDING SIDE: REMOVAL OF DIEING BIRCH TREE REPLACED W/ BUSHES, FLOWERS, & GROUND COVER 1 Brent Bristol From: Sara Glenn Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 3:49 PM To: Brent Bristol Cc: Brian Reinhardt Subject: Fwd: Concept Review Request Attachments: CottagePlat.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Brent, Thanks for your time last week. The days fly by so fast - sorry we didn't get this email to you sooner! Brian and I would like to request, on behalf of our client Ruann Larson, a concept review for the future use of the property known as Ephraim Village Cottages. As you know, this property is legally described as a condominium, The Ephraim Village Cottages Condominium, consisting of 13 units. The property is run as a resort with the owner/operator living in the main residence/office at 3082 Larson Ln (unit 13). Units 3-12 are rental properties. In 2023, units 1 and 2 (9890 Water St) were sold to another party and appear to be used as a single residence. The property that the seller has retained us to market and sell consists of the remaining 11 units with the following addresses: 3095 Birch St, Units 3 and 4 (Cozy Brook North and South) - duplex 3093 Birch St, Units 5 and 6 (Fireside North and South) - duplex 3085 Birch St, Unit 7 (Birchwood) 9849 Hidden Spring Rd, Unit 8 (Cedars) 9847 Hidden Spring Rd, Unit 9 (Sunnyview) 3092 Larson Ln, Unit 10 (Meadow View I) 3088 Larson Ln, Unit 11 (Meadow View II) 3084 Larson Ln, Unit 12 (Meadow View III) 3082 Larson Ln, Unit 13 (Main house/office) As we discussed last week, our initial plan is to look for a buyer for the entire property (minus the one sold building). If this approach is unsuccessful, we would like the option to sell all of the units individually for personal use. We anticipate new owners either using their cottage seasonally, making it a Short Term Rental (with the proper permits), or a combination of both. The current number of units on the property (pre-dating zoning) exceeds the allowed density for a Multifamily Development. However, allowing this arrangement would effectively reduce the impact on the residential neighborhood by cutting back significantly on turnover and number of rentals. It would also likely result in the physical improvement and updating of each cottage, increasing the overall property values on the tax rolls. Lastly, it would preserve a historic property in the village and preclude a 2 developer from razing all the cottages and building a multifamily condominium (as permitted in the zoning code). While we realize the above scenario will require a variance, we would like to ask the Plan Committee to consider the concept, present questions, ideas, and concerns, and let us and the seller know if they would support the concept should the Board of Appeals grant a variance. Alternatively, as a third option and last resort, which we discussed would not require a variance, we would like the Plan Committee to consider the concept of selling the main residence/office with three other units to the same owner under the continued existing use. That owner would live in the residence and continue to rent out the three units as a resort. The remaining 7 units would then meet the density requirements for a Conditional Use of a Multifamily Development and could be sold individually for residential use. The main house plus three units would be counted as one dwelling, the previously sold duplex which has become a residence would be counted as the second dwelling, and the remaining seven units could then be sold as residential cottages - maintaining the allowable density of nine (9) units on a 2.39-acre parcel. Attached is the plat map from the condo declaration. Please let us know if you need additional information to present this request to the Plan Committee. Best regards, Sara Glenn and Brian Reinhardt True North Real Estate LLC CLICK HERE TO SEARCH FOR DOOR COUNTY REAL ESTATE Unsubscribe: If you unsubscribe, you are directing Sara Glenn to discontinue all email to your email address. You will not receive any further correspondence from Sara via email (including, but not limited to, property updates and contractual reminders, official communications such as calls to action, Door County planning information, market research, etc.), and your email address will be removed from all email lists. To unsubscribe, reply to this email with the word “UNSUBSCRIBE” drafted in the subject line. This email message is intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this email message in error, but are affiliated with the person to whom it is addressed, please no tify the addressee that the email has been received (otherwise delete it). Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use of this email message by persons other than the addressee is prohibited. 1 Brent Bristol From: Doug Evans Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2026 1:56 PM To: Brent Bristol Subject: Brookside Lane - Cottage #1 - Studio Hi Brent, all my cottages need to have their roofs replaced as soon as possible, so I’d like to approach my renovation project differently than we discussed. I’m good with keeping all the cottages closer to their current design and size, but I would like to make some improvements while completing the roof repairs if possible. Otherwise, I may have to rip off a brand new roof if I go back to make improvements later. I’ve attached a new narrative, a current picture, a concept picture, and building plans that have my adjustments. This is the smallest cottage which has no variance concerns due to proximity to boundary or water. Current Picture: SCALE1"•30' PLAT OF SURVEY BElNG A PA'll' OF GOV£RNMEt<T LOT 2, SECTION 23, TOWNSlilP 31 NORTli, RA.�GE 27 EAST, VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM, DOOR COUNTY, WISCONSIN ........... EAST 2'!,0.7'+/- 210.10' � • I • w ,.. t:..... .,,. r----------- �//�� I / • /I/ / is I I / / I / / / I I / I I II I I ,' t l 1 I _ _., 11 I / I I I I '"""' I f I 1 I I I I \....,-\ I I I / I I I ',,,.. pGrCel conta.ns o-<1o.l:,� I / I I I I I I I I I I I '€, I ·�\ I -.. t.(,(h·/-OCr"U I / / ', I/ I ' - .,..,.-1 I ', --- I I , I I \ I I' _..... J / \ I I \ I I \ , El I I .,. \ __ 1-'· --, I I --- i I '"'"" I I I . ntt.11Jlt \ , I I I I I I I I II I I I • 1!12.6 3' v,m 172.6'+/- ,,. I l,WBS k ROBIN LINDSLOOJ.1400 'l:ut RANDOLPH UNtr ui3 CRCCACO, lL 80601 ...,...,, PE.'f!NSUU L\NI> co=TANTS. I.LC. 824D EGG KARBOR ROAD SnlRGEON' UAY. WI $423S "'0 � - !!:!> � I I i! I I "' l IC, I5 0 I§ 0 M I r I :,, Iz � I I tc,i 1/4 ccrn.,r$0�. 2.r:11-21 iII.J m 0 I + • OOOR ecuwrr MOHUWtm8' ♦ • CXIST�O 1/2.' IRON PFE�1 � t NI �lo-�, 1kt to the �tb-1 CO!"'!III' .,,, O:'ld tt.t cer.t�lfll• liocctbll ot SIOOlit'c"t l.cl'• .... 1. ulcbllthtd o• per p,-o'4c,..1t reittr •KV•.,,. .I \i\'ttr�f!d rno ello""' •-u!ob� l:ly -, �. Ccn �fldtr le"I.. Vo�d� Lwrl �• Teen,9, "II " ii [ = J • 11,ll.Dff> Zet.t """' . 'f ' 8vJ:leO •-doPlol..d -t,o-.., "'""i -� .if+ct .;t llmt <ff ,_r,n-.0 0"'1 tr,o,;1,1 l'll)l t,. telt4 •"" d!',o,Jt lll'fl. «tlo,.-.,1lrfl\'\fll Wllfk:,S,'0,t ll't--1 �"' �-v.llop, �l Of Qli't'd"', .,., L ______ �t,\ ______ J O�t eoi.:;; N e.'759"J7• W ors:,�PTiON: A i:on:d ef fond btl19 o r:<1rt cf Co1'tl'l'lmt11t Lot 2, Section 23. 10•11.shl,, J1 �•,orth,Ao11agc 21 Ectt. "11!1119, of t,)11rorn. Co�r CCunty, 'ftl,con,l'I more pO"U::11lory u.orbt4 ot,011¢ .. 1: Comme.r.ch9 ct U·.o Ec,t 1/4 coen,r of sold St<:Ucn 23. tht11e. S OO'CO'S9'" W --1316.tC> f�l, thcnu H eg-,,i•3t• W --13",59 f .. t to the SC COMtr cf ,old Go ... cmmtnlLot 2, thcnc• Nortl\ -.. 513.15 , .. t cloflg th• &3tt i:n, or ,cid CO">�mmcnt Lot 2, ,aid llnt o:»:i being ttlc ctl\lcrtlt10 of Srcol<.ticl♦ Lot!&. U'!etiee •.-·ut -- 2� fttl to th• ;iohtof W;!nt1lt19 of lon<lt t:, 3t �--¢'bed; ll\e,,c. !x,uU, -- 300,00 feet. thcr.ce 'lli'nt -­l52.60 ful too t,c,'1'1l btlr.g Ectt .. _ 20+/-fo11t from '.h1 ee.,t1.· of [phroffl C1uk, t.;.,c11,:c N 10-5'1'� W --�5.57 tut CIO"IQ o n,ecnccr lhe lo o pMt being £est --20•/-fN:t ft'Ot'I\ 11',1 eentor of [pllroin Crec'I. thenee Eo,t -210.70 feet to l'I• ;olrltor 11eglnnl19. Seid �orctl <tl'ltO:-rs l,68t/ ... o::rn, Including o.1 lo11ds l)fa9 llchottn ofore,<11.l r.'lt<l�cftt line o�d th, c:1nttor ot [p?lro!m Creek bcto,un ,Ide lot ihu oJCtffldM o, �(!:1:rU:1e-:I, lot;ctn« •I� O'I eostmen� ow•tfl'l•nt ot CS.tcttltcl I� �him, IC<:8, R�ord,._pot;o 71-78, 9JWKO attAC«S (CS}"°''SlTt..ot: -IOn:n S.US'ftl-1fl'ltt ¢IGlc f"'I'\ ,t<;t-, TS IUl 'NOV, 1 .5 20"6 /'J/• D/-')'j)f)J (-J,.fvJ ,. 9807 Brookside Lane, Ephraim • Repair Cottage #1 – Studio o Square footage (16’ x 16’) • Remove existing roof and replace with a new steel 7-12 pitch gable roof. • Remove existing porch and replace with a 16’ wide x 6’ deep covered deck. o Deck roof will be extension from newly installed roof. • Increase height of all existing walls from current 7’ height to 9’ height. • Add loft to back portion of the cottage using engineered truss system. o Access to loft will be a permanently installed ladder. Contact Info: Doug Evans Cell: gmail.com 1 Brent Bristol From: Doug Evans < Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 9:20 AM To: Brent Bristol Subject: Re: Brookside Lane - Cottage #1 - Studio Attachments: IMG_1461.jpeg; IMG_1457.jpeg Here are a couple additional pictures of what I would have in mind for the other two cottages. I would provide blueprint/plans for all 3 cottages prior to submitting permit. The work on each cottage would be similar to cottage #1. 1) Remove exiting roofing structure 2) Extend walls up from 7 foot to 9 foot 3) Install new floor truss system 4) Install new roof with higher pitch than existing 5) Replace porch No increase in primary foundation footprint Increase in porch size in front portion of cottages only. Thanks again, Doug On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 8:52 AM Brent Bristol < wrote: Ok, great! So, on the new plans and submittals the plans for cottage 1 are clear. On the other two you speak to making some improvements in making the roof repairs/changes. Do you have any concepts of what those changes/improvements would be? Sincerely, Brent Bristol