VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM FOUNDED 1983

Transcription

1 VILLAGE OF EPHRAIM FOUNDED 1983 Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 26, :00 P.M. Village of Ephraim Administration Office, Norway Present: Grace Held, Jim Stollenwerk, Ken Nelson, Walt Fisher, Matt Meacham Absent: Michael McCutcheon-Chair, Susie Samson Staff: Brent Bristol-Administrator, Andrea Collak-Clerk/Treasurer Guests: Mike Reince, Hugh Mulliken, Marilyn Cushing, Marianne Roppuld, Diane Taillon, Brad Russell, Jim Peterman, Maggie Peterman, Paul Burton, Lisa Carlson, Elfie Johnson 1. Call to Order Meeting called to order by Andrea Collak Clerk/Treasurer at 7:00 PM. Collak asked the committee members to appoint a temporary chair for this meeting. Motion per Fisher to appoint Nelson as temporary chair for this meeting, seconded by Stollenwerk, and motion carried. 2. Quorum Quorum is present for this meeting. 3. Changes in Agenda None 4. Visitors Comments Marianne Roppuld addressed her concern about bright colors used in the Village that are totally out of character of Ephraim. The committee should closely consider color proposed for door on the building in the Shorewood Village complex, added Roppuld. Elfie Johnson agreed with Roppuld comment and stated that she would like the Village to stay with colors that worked for so many years. 5. Approve 7/25/2017 Plan Committee Minutes Motion per Fisher to approve 7/25/2017 Plan Committee Minutes as submitted, seconded by Held, and motion carried. 6. Lucy Hodkiewicz 9922 Water Street Faceprint Change Design Review Bristol introduced this item. Hodkiewicz, new owner of the former Pet Expressions building in the Shorewood Village complex, would like to open screen printing business. Hodkiewicz would like to paint the building white with yellow door, sunburst color. Bristol has no issue with the application. Bristol provided the committee with color sample. This item did go before HPC Committee and it was approved, added Bristol. Stollenwerk believes that owners should have a little say about the colors they use unless they are totally obnoxious. There have been different colors of doors downtown that were approved. However, white and black combination is characteristic of Ephraim downtown, added Stollenwerk. Meacham likes the visitor s comments but believes that the committee should be consistent with previous color approvals. Held is not opposed to the color due to property being off STH 42 and not seen from the road. Motion per Meacham to accept the application for Faceprint Change, Design Review for Lucy Hodkiewicz at 9922 Water Street, seconded by Stollenwerk, and motion carried.

2 Page 2 of 5 7. Ephraim Condos 3132 Larson Lane Accessory Structure Design Review Bristol explained the Ephraim Condominium is a 36-unit residential development that is currently served by a private well and water system. Based on current DNR criteria, the water system has been reclassified as an Other-than-Municipal (OTM) Public Water System. As part of reclassification, the requirement is to drill a new well that will meet NR 811 construction guidelines. The well has to have over the top discharge and thus must be housed in a heated structure that necessitates accessory building permit. The accessory structure would be approximately 7 6 x 7 6 in size with 2x4 wood structure on a concrete slab, vinyl siding and asphalt shingles. The building will be insulated and provided with interior lighting and base board electric heat and located approximately 250 feet from STH 42 and will be located somewhat behind the existing garage. Bristol has no issues with this application. The committee members had no issues with this application. Motion per Held to accept the application for Accessory Structure, Design Review for Ephraim Condos at 3132 Larson Lane as presented, seconded by Meacham, and motion carried. 8. Diane Taillon 3038 Spruce Lane 10 Unit Garage Structure Design Review: Bristol introduced this item. A group of investors from Ephraim Yacht Harbor Condos are buying the property from current owner Diane Taillon under the entity called Ephraim Clubhouse LLC and applying for the permit to build a 10 unit commercial garage structure in the commercial district to service owners of Ephraim Yacht Harbor Condominium. A commercial garage/parking structure is not specifically listed as having a permitted use in commercial district but parking facilities are listed as a conditional use in the commercial district when they exists as the principal use. The committee should review and determine if this project is accessory use, principal use or commercial use. Under the assumption that this is a principal structure dimensional standpoints and impervious surface are met, concluded Bristol. Fisher stated that as an owner of property adjacent to the property in question he would like to address this application so he recused himself from this issue. Mulliken presented a model of the proposed structure and explained that it would be a single story, 66 foot long and 48 foot deep. The height at the peak is 22 feet. The parking and roads will be constructed with concrete paving blocks that will reduce the impervious surface by 50%. Additionally these pavers would provide a surface to slow and absorb the runoff from the structure. It is intended that there will be little or no increase in volume of water reaching the existing drainage ditch that terminates into a culvert that is connected to the storm water drainage system provided by the Village along Spruce Street, added Mulliken. The majority of the garage doors will not be visible from either Spruce or Moravia Streets. Material and color of the roof and color of siding will match those found on the existing buildings. The primary purpose of these units is to store cars when owners go away for the winter or park fairly expensive cars away instead of parking on the streets. Each unit will have 5/8 inch Type X gypsum board applied to all interior walls and ceilings to provide one hour fire protection. Units will have minimal lighting, but each unit will receive a 40 amp circuit to allow for the charging of electrical vehicles. All exterior lighting will be downcast, said Mulliken. Nelson questioned the drainage being the same as required by replacing 2,880 square feet of green space with impervious area. Held questioned having two primary structures on a lot and too much exterior lighting. There certainly is a precedence for multiple principals on a lot, stated Bristol. Mulliken clarified that the lights would not be on at all times but will be activated by

3 Page 3 of 5 motion. Mike Reince, one of the investors, added, that this structure is not associated with Ephraim Yacht Harbor Condominiums. The entity called Ephraim Clubhouse LLC is buying the property from Diane Taillon and consists of owners of Ephraim Yacht Harbor Condos and the property in question is adjacent to the Ephraim Yacht Harbor Condominium property. Their desire is to have their classic cars in enclosed building and store them there over the winter time. Reince believes that the new structure will complement existing condominiums and will make it not only safe but also convenient to store and use the vehicles. They would like to cut a nice little archway through the trees that separate the properties to be able to walk back and forth. Walt Fisher inquired if this application, as presented, should be tabled or even completely denied. There was no notification of the proposed project to neighboring properties from the Village. Bristol clarified that notifications to neighboring properties go out only for Special Exceptions, Conditional Uses and Board of Appeal Cases. Fisher went on saying that the drainage ditch is clearly on his property with a constant flow in the spring and sometimes even in the summer. Fisher does not believe that there would be no increase in volume of water reaching the existing ditch as the present site has two large cedar trees and a lawn area that absorb moisture that will be replaced by paving and roof structures causing more runoff. The applicant should have to provide his/her own connect to the storm water drainage system along Spruce Street just like 3 unit building across the street. Fisher does not see any plan that would show pedestrian connection between the Ephraim Yacht Harbor Condos and the property in question. There is an elevation and cut through the trees would not be enough, added Fisher. Fisher thinks that these garages are not going to be actively used but will just be used as storage units. Fisher believes that the Ephraim Yacht Harbor Condominium property is large enough to accommodate some garages. Fisher further pointed out that there are two primary, habitable structures used as transient lodging on the property in question. However, this application does not enhance the principal use of this property, concluded Fisher. Mulliken has no problem in presenting the committee with a PE drainage plan that would be contingent upon approval. Elfie Johnson would like to keep Ephraim the way it is and not change it for the sake of five people. There are cheap storage units located in Ellison Bay they can use, added Johnson. Roppuld asked what ordinance would prevent one of the owners from selling one of the units in the future so it just becomes another storage unit. Stollenwerk thinks that the whole concept does not represent the Village of Ephraim. Lisa Carlson noted that people who buy property in Ephraim should know what they are buying before they purchase a property. Nelson wanted to clarify where this particular application falls within the ordinance. Bristol pointed out again that use needs to be determined by the Planning Committee. If it is an accessory use it would require conditional uses, special exceptions and notification to adjacent properties. If it is determined to be principle use requiring conditional use where the parking is the principal use of the lot, stated in 17.25(3)h, and thus unless the other buildings are torn down, the parking would not be the principal use of the lot, added Bristol. Bristol further stressed that the Planning Committee is bound to make determination on any of the applications based on

4 Page 4 of 5 the ordinance as it is written the day application was submitted. Fisher questioned if accessory use could be used and quoted 17.25(3); The following residential accessory structures are allowable.parking structures; but he believes these are not garages for existing units thus it is not residential accessory structure. Held read the ordinance 17.25(3)b stating; Regulations established for the commercial areas are intended to accomplish a balance between accommodation of development and change to allow the Village to share the economic growth of Door County and to provide visitors with facilities and services desired by them while not, in the process, destroying the distinctive atmosphere and character of the Village as a small Village emphasizing unique historic traditions; and she believes this project in not intended to preserve unique historic traditions. Motion per Meacham to table this application for Accessory Structure, Design Review for Ephraim Condos at 3132 Larson Lane based on drainage issue, seconded by Held, and motion carried. 9. Brad Russell 3055 Spruce Lane Concept and Use Review Bristol introduced this item. The Russell s are proposing the construction of a new building on the property located at 3055 Spruce Lane. Currently and uninhabitable cottage exists on the lot that is non-conforming as it does not meet the 1 acre minimum. The structure itself is nonconforming to several setbacks. Additionally the lot is by ordinance unbuildable as it is less than 10,000 square feet in size. The applicant is looking for a general feeling from the committee on the design in case the variances needed to pursue this project would be granted by Board of Appeals and this project will come before the HPC and Planning Committee for formal design review. The Russell s are proposing a single standalone commercial transient rental unit. Per 17.16(2)b, a commercial transient lodging facility must have an on-premises central office reception area and storage areas for linens and cleaning supplies. As a standalone unit, not a facility, the committee needs to consider if this standard needs to be met and if so they will require a variance from this standard, said Bristol. If not because it is a unit and not a facility it could simply be considered for conditional use approval by the Planning Committee down the road. Bristol pointed out that in his 11 years of zoning with the Village this will be the largest variance request. a (2)b Variance from requirement of office/reception area b (2)d Variance for construction on lot of less than 10,000 square feet c (3)s Conditional use for the establishment of a commercial transient lodging facility on lot less than 1 acre in size d (4) Variance needed from all 4 setbacks e (7)f Variance from requirement that commercial transient rental parking not be located within front setback area Bristol in his notes explained the application process stating that when a typical permit application is turned into zoning administrator office, the application is checked against the Village code of ordinances for compliance. If the use and dimensional standards are met, determined by zoning administrator, the project, if requiring conditional use, special exception, or design review is put on the HPC and Planning Committee agendas for consideration. From time to time there can be a gray area on an aspect of a project, such as the one in question, where additional sets of eyes and interpretation on the unclear is needed. Projects do not and cannot go before the committee for an ultimate consideration until either full compliance with ordinance has been determined or required variances have been granted by Board of Appeals.

5 Page 5 of 5 The place of the committee is to pass judgement as to compliance with an ordinance based on an application, not the proposed relief from it. These are our ordinances that someone is looking to essentially break and thus we have to be careful when it comes to any discussion, recommendation, or decision concerning variances. The committee can recommend changes to an ordinance that is then applied across the board but cannot and should not offer an opinion to the applicant or to the Board of Appeals as to whether or not a variance should or should not be granted, concluded Bristol. Brad Russell explained the project. The Russell s would like to tear down old, non-livable, unsafe cottage and rebuild an aesthetically appropriate, three-level cottage to match Ephraim Visitor Center and nearby stone barn that were once part of the same property. Fisher added that it is important to know that some years ago the Village bought the majority of the parcel that was for sale at the time; stone building is used by the wastewater department, Ephraim Business Center and rest of the lot became a Village parking lot; thus causing the remainder of the parcel unbuildable by our present ordinance, said Fisher. Fisher believes that existing cottage needs to be removed. Fisher and Nelson commended Russell on presented plans. The potential owners came as close as they could to meet the current ordinance, added Fisher. Meacham inquired if the property being transient rental would have to be ADA compliant. Russell will find out. Bristol noted that the Village cannot prohibit someone from putting in a handicap ramp; if there is a room for it; because it does not meet a Village ordinance. Nelson would like to see landscaping plan if they get approved by Board of Appeal and will come before the Planning Committee for Design Review. After short discussion the committee agreed that potential rental unit does not require office/reception area and storage area. 10. Discussion and recommendation regarding the Village Streetscape Plan Nelson explained that two months ago it was his idea to put this item on the agenda to make a motion to support Village Streetscape Plan. Since then the project moved forward and important issues are being addressed, concluded Nelson. Bristol updated the committee on the Village Streetscape Plan. 11. New Business for next meeting Fisher would like the committee to look into incorporating the district, within the historic district that deals with non-conforming lot sizes and still retain the character of the Village. 12. Adjournment Motion per Meacham to adjourn the Planning Committee Meeting at 8:40P.M., seconded by Held, and motion carried. Recorded by, Andrea Collak-Clerk/Treasurer