Plan Committee Ordinance Working Session — Minutes

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