Home : Committee Minutes > Planning Committee

Selected Planning Committee
Apr 25, 2011
PDF Version: 9571_2011-Apr-25_Planning .pdf

Monday, April 25, 2011
7:00 p.m.
Village Offices at Norway and Q

Members Present:  Chair John Cox, Paul Flottman, Walt Fisher, Tim Nelson, Fred Bridenhagen, Brent
Bristol – Zoning Administrator, and Charity Buhr – Administrator/Clerk.
Members Absent:  Roy Elquist and Jim Stollenwerk
Also Present:  Hugh Mulliken, Kathy Kirkland, Steve Thomas, Glenn and Joyce Gerdmann, Shelly Cox,
Diane Jacobson, Rachel Willems, and Jane Olson
1. Call to Order
Chair Cox called meeting to order at 7:00 PM
2. Quorum
There is a quorum of Plan Committee members present.
3. Changes in Agenda
None at this time.
4. Visitors’ Comments
Hugh Mulliken commented that he thought the houses with item 9 were nice looking.  What are the
guidelines that the HPC has to go by?   There are guidelines that are set to be followed per the
committee’s opinion.
5. Approve 3/28/11 Plan Committee Minutes
Corrected the adjournment time and added Angela Sherman as a guest.
Fisher moved, seconded by Bridenhagen to approve the March 28, 2011 Plan Committee meeting
minutes as amended.  Motion passed, Flottman abstained.
6. K&M Investment Prop – 3049 Church – Faceprint Change - Decks
K&M Investment Properties would like to add on to the deck at 3049 Church Street.  They would like
to add on to each end of the existing deck 8 feet.  This is for design review.  These would be placed on
the “Weborg House”.  Bristol has no issues from a dimensional or zoning point.  There will be a second
portion of this project that will be addressed next month.  The walk paths will be removed and
reclaimed for impervious surface.  HPC did recommend approval of this application.
Bridenhagen has no issue and thinks it will look better than it does now.
Fisher questioned the building materials?  Mulliken explained that it is the same as currently at the
property. Flottman thinks it will look better as well.
Bridenhagen moved, seconded by Flottman to approve the Faceprint change for K&M
Investment Properties at 3049 Church Street as presented.  Motion passed unanimously.
Monday, April 25, 2011 7:00 p.m.
Village Offices at Norway and Q
April 25, 2011 Plan Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 7
7. EBC – Event – Evenings in Ephraim
Bristol explained that this is the annual event permit for the Ephraim Business Council for the Evenings
in Ephraim concerts on Monday evenings, signage same as last year just different wording, still within
dimensional standards.  They are adding a vendor to the event, otherwise similar to previous.  Bristol
has no issues with the application.   
Rachel Willems explained that there will be a Girl Scout troop from Gibraltar selling bottled
refreshments and snacks at the concerts and they will make sure the grass is clean at the end of the
night. Fisher thinks the concerts are great; however, he has concern over what the vendor portion will
grow into.   
Bridenhagen stated that the idea is to bring in business and not bring in competing businesses.
Willems stated that the Girls Scout troop approached the Business Council not the other way around.  
Thought they would try it for a year and see what happens. Flottman asked that if this was a for-profit
vendor could they do this?  No, if it was competing with an existing business. Kathy Kirkland
questioned if Wilson’s was sponsoring would they have an issue with it and will the Girl Scout Troop
have a sign and why hasn’t it gone to the HPC?  Bristol explained that temporary signage doesn’t go to
Willems stated that Wilson’s is a sponsor and Sarah Martin hasn’t raised an issue with this idea.  She
also stated that she doesn’t think the Girl Scouts have any signage.  Fisher asked if the snacks will be
packaged or home made?  Willems stated that they will be packaged items.   
Kirkland questioned the lack of signage.   
Willems stated that she will let everyone know why the stand is in the park and who they are.
Bridenhagen stated that anytime there is a non-profit allowed to operate it takes away from the for-
profit business to make money.  He opposes if everyone wasn’t in agreement on the issue.
Nelson questioned whether or not the presence of the non-profit was an issue for Plan or the Board.  
Nelson stated that there have been discussions in the past about whether or not a non-profit was in
direct competition with an Ephraim business.  He has issue with the competition aspect of the issue.  If
the Girl Scouts could sell items that didn’t compete this wouldn’t be an issue.   
Cox stated that he doesn’t have a problem with this, but he does understand the point being raised.   
Fisher questioned the intent of Evenings in Ephraim – to stay open later and encourage business
downtown.  He thinks the EBC should focus on the original intent. Willems stated that the original
intent is definitely the focus of the event.
Cox would like to take this to the May Board meeting. Bridenhagen would like the opportunity to do
something like this being offered to someone in the Village.   
Flottman moved, seconded by Nelson to approve the Ephraim Business Council event application
for 2011 Evenings in Ephraim as presented, with the exception of the non-profit vendor portion,
this will be forwarded to the Village Board for consideration.  Motion passed unanimously.
8. Ephraim Moravian Church – Event – Sunset Services at Anderson Dock
Bristol explained that this is event application for an outdoor ecumenical church service at Anderson
Dock on Wednesday evenings to be held July through August 17.  Bristol explained that this is a bring
your own chair/blanket type of event.  The size is within the size of a wedding party at Anderson Dock.  
Bristol has no issues with this application.
Cox questioned why any group couldn’t go down and use the space.  It was clarified that the group
wanted signage.
April 25, 2011 Plan Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
Flottman stated that there are 7 churches in Door County participating, not sure if anything will be
amplified or not, however it will be an ecumenical church service.  The Foundation has agreed to
letting the group use the parking lot across the street.   
Kirkland questioned the advertisement of this event, however, nothing is being sold at the services.
There will be information signage on site.  This will be the responsibility of Ephraim Moravian Church.
Bridenhagen moved, seconded by Nelson to approve the Ephraim Moravian Church event
application for sunset services at Anderson Dock as presented.  Motion passed unanimously.
John Cox recused himself from the Plan Committee for the item 9.
Nelson moved, seconded by Bridenhagen to appoint Walt Fisher temporary chair.  Motion passed
9. Evergreen Beach Properties – 3039 German Rd  
Fisher pointed out the original motion on the project known as Laurel Ridge.  He questioned whether or
not the Plan Committee felt he new design concept was keeping with the original concept and we’re
happy with the original design concept, does the Committee feel this could be handled together or as
two separate issues.
Bridenhagen stated that he is wondering if the question is if the original conditional use permits were
still valid.  His opinion is it is not.  The permit was for Laurel Ridge and is project specific and expires
within one year of issues and can be reviewed annually.  He thinks that in order to keep everything fair
this application should be for the new project and handled separately.   
Fisher stated that it was the same number of buildings, the same conditions would be placed as
originally, so there are enough similarities that the existing permit if it follows the new plan would be
enough to continue the present conditional use.   
Bridenhagen thinks that since it was given a conditional use once and has expired he would like to see
it go through the process again and be issued a separate conditional use permit.   
Nelson stated that he agrees with Bridenhagen as far as whether or not the approval can be
grandfathered.  If the application was for Laurel Ridge and came exactly as presented in 2006 and
approved it states that the permit expires if no action is taken within a year of the issuance of the
a) Review and consider potential modification to previously approved (2006) Conditional Use
for Multiple Occupancy Residential Housing
John Cox stated that there were two applications and approvals from the original project that
were approved by Nancy Goss and were done within one year of the original approval.  He
stated that the ordinance does not suggest that after a year it doesn’t go away since they got
approval from the Zoning Administrator.  He stated that they are now looking for a modification
to the driveway from the previous application.  He stated that everything else is the same with
the exception of the driveway.  Cox stated that they felt they took 3 actions, took down a cottage,
took down a greenhouse that was part of the plan, built an attached garage that was part of the
plan.  These actions were taken within the time frame laid out in the ordinance.   
Fisher stated there were two permits issued:  a demolition permit for the greenhouse and a
separate zoning permit for building the garage.  These projects were completed.  There is no
other outstanding permit that has not been fulfilled to date.   
Cox also stated that the name Laurel Ridge was just the name and didn’t feel the approval goes
with the name, it goes with the parcel.
Fisher stated that the approvals were based on the plan named Laurel Ridge.
April 25, 2011 Plan Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 7
Bridenhagen questioned if he could have a conditional use for a golf course and never bring it
and market it as a golf course.  He doesn’t feel this can jump from project to project.  It is project
specific.  He feels there are many more changes than the driveway.  Bridenhagen is wondering
why the group didn’t come back for a new conditional use permit instead of trying to amend the
Joyce Gerdmann stated that the name was dropped immediately because this would be done
through Evergreen Beach not Laurel Ridge.    
Fisher explained that they group is referring to the minutes which is why they are referring to the
project as Laurel Ridge.   
Steve Thomas stated that the drawing is more detailed to make it more understandable, however,
in reality it is still offering 5 additional lots to the house that is going to remain.  The shape of the
buildings could change until someone wants to buy a lot and build a house.  He feels these
projects change mid-stream and shouldn’t need to go back just due to a minimum change in the
Kirkland stated that her concern would be if an LLC had originally applied for the permit or if
Evergreen Beach or the Gerdmann’s.   
Bridenhagen asked Thomas whether or not he was against applying for an additional conditional
use permit to do the planning.  He doesn’t feel he would be against it, however, it isn’t his
project it is the Gerdmann’s project.   
Fisher moved, seconded by Nelson that whereas an application for conditional use for
multiple occupancy known as Laurel Ridge was passed unanimously by a previous
Planning Committee, and whereas that plan included five new building sites plus one site
with an existing house, and whereas the new development plan for the site is still composed
of five new detached single family residences plus one existing house, and whereas the
Laurel Ridge plan was passed with the understanding that we will have to evaluate and
pass on the drainage plan, proposed driveway, lighting plan, condominium documents,
parking plan and landscaping plan, and whereas that understanding still exists, I move
that we recognize the existence of the Conditional Use Permit issued June 26, 2006.  Motion
passed unanimously.
Bridenhagen questioned Bristol and Buhr on their thoughts.
Bristol stated that he thought an argument could be made that process was started.  He feels the
bigger question is whether or not the project ceased after that.   
Fisher stated he felt that he answered those questions in the motion.  Bristol would like the
original permit mentioned in the motion, if that is the intent.   
Flottman asked if the motion intercedes the necessity to have a new conditional use.  He feels
that actions were taken on this project.  He felt that the termination portion of the language is
vague and he felt that circumventing a vague portion of the ordinance isn’t too terrible as long as
it gets a more concrete definition in the future.  For the meantime, he isn’t sure there is a huge
difference of an application for a new permit or extending the existing permit.   
Bridenhagen stated that he is for this project, however, he isn’t convinced that the Plan
Committee can legally extend the existing permit.  He feels that there were other plans for the
property, but isn’t sure about the legality of extending the permit.  Bridenhagen asked Buhr if
she thought this could be done.
Buhr stated that she does not have the ability to give an opinion on the legality of extending the
existing permit.   
Bristol stated that if the Plan Committee determined that action happened and it hasn’t been
terminated the use is still current.  The current use is a multiple occupancy housing development
April 25, 2011 Plan Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 7
if this project hasn’t terminated.  He would like the Plan Committee to make the call regarding
Nelson stated that he feels that since there was action taken within 12 months the timeline is now
wide open and there is no further limitation on time specified.  The presumption is that the
property owner isn’t going to sit on the property, but that is just the presumption there isn’t a
specific time limitation.  He also stated that the zoning permit and the demolition permit was not
done in the name of Laurel Ridge, it was done under the Gerdmann/Cox/Jacobson and Glenn
Gerdmann/Laurel Ridge Condo is the name on the Zoning permit.  These do not tie this project
by one name; there is a cross reference in ownership.  He feels that the Plan Committee can only
work with how the ordinance is written and they should make a recommendation to the Village
Board as to whether or not this is given the correct intent or should be reworked.
Nelson agrees with Fisher.   
Flottman stated that he thinks legally that since the code is vague legality isn’t an issue.   
Nelson feels satisfied that the conditions have been met and this can continue.   
b) Concept Review –Multiple Occupancy Residential Housing Project
There are site plans and sketches of conceptual elevations in the packets.   
Bristol stated that this will not be going for conditional use review.  Final designs may change
based on buyers for the properties.  The units and the project as a whole will come back for full
design review.   
Steve Thomas met with the Evergreen Beach group and looked into the plan.  They developed a
different idea of the layout of the houses on the property and still achieving all goals for the
project.  The site plan is bringing the driveway in on the west side of the property is a better
approach.  He thinks the impervious surface is less than previously presented.  The existing
house will remain as is.  The detached garage will be removed at some point and some existing
pavement will be removed.  The houses will each be different they won’t be cookie cutter.  Each
buyer will have the ability to customize their individual home.  The sizes are going to be
between 1,400 and 1,800 sq. ft.  First floor square footage will be 1,100sq ft to 1,200sq ft.  
Would like to have patios versus decks.  He would like to do engineered insulated slabs versus
crawl spaces.  Storm water runoff is an issue on the site, however, instead of a retention pond
design he would like to spread the water over a bigger area than concentrate it in a small pit.  He
would like to have rain gardens.  He plans on roughly 11,000 sq ft of rain garden area.  The
overflow pipes may not be necessary, that hasn’t been decided yet.  The water should only sit on
the property for two days due to the composition of the soil on the property.  These will be
planted with natural plants that are already in the wetlands there now.  The home designs are
simple structures with simple roof shapes, shed dormers, rectangular windows, the coloring is a
combination of white and grey, possibly board and baton, with carriage garage doors.
Bridenhagen stated that as Thomas looks at the storm drain do not assume professional
installation, he installed it.  He doesn’t want anyone to assume that this can handle the runoff
from the neighboring properties.   
Thomas stated that the majority of the run-off comes from underground not on top of the
Flottman questioned the flexibility of the suggested sizes.   
Thomas stated that he has parameters that he will not cross so there is some flexibility, but there
is limited flexibility in sizing.
Fisher questioned the design of the buildings, Thomas stated that he will design the buildings.
Fisher questioned the 5 new buildings will be compatible in design, Thomas stated that yes they
will be compatible in designing with similar materials.
Fisher commended the sketches they are helpful in visualizing versus a computerized design.
April 25, 2011 Plan Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 7
Fisher questioned the rain gardens, do they act as a filtering system?  Thomas stated that the
plant materials are filtering but the water should absorb into the ground and not run-off.   
Fisher moved, seconded by Nelson whereas the new conceptual plan for multiple
occupancy residential housing presented this evening to the Plan Committee addresses
favorably concerns expressed in the past including but not limited to: location of the drive
through the project and its drainage into the wetlands, scale of the buildings, siting of the
buildings in relation to neighboring residences, and where the new plan will be designed by
one designer/architect, and whereas all new buildings on the site will be similar in design
and building materials, I move we approve conceptual plan for 3039 German Road.  
Motion passed unanimously.
Back in session after short break 8:40 PM
10. Mitchell Ciohon & Laurel Cox – Anderson Dock - Event – Wedding Ceremony
Bristol explained that this is an event application for a wedding ceremony to be held at Anderson Dock
September 10, 2011.  Bristol has no issue with this application.  175 people expected, however, they
have a plan for the parking for the event.
Fisher questioned the number, Bristol explained that he knew of an event with 150 at the Dock.
Nelson questioned where the offsite parking would be since they’re being shuttled.   
Cox explained that they are encouraging all guests walk to the event the shuttle is for those who can’t
walk to the event.  They will also be approaching the Foundation, however most people are staying at
the resorts downtown.   
Flottman would like the south side of Anderson Lane added and indicate there will be no parking.   
Flottman moved, seconded by Bridenhagen to approve the event application for Mitchell Ciohon
and Laurel Cox for September 10, 2011 at Anderson Dock.  Motion passed, Cox abstained.
11. Annual Review of Comprehensive Plan
Bristol explained that it is a requirement to review the Comprehensive Plan annually and he is asking
the Committee to take a look at the plan and see if there are areas that need review.  This will be on the
agenda for next month and address parking and the discrepancies surrounding it and the exclusion of
the coastal management that needs review and inclusion under recreation.
Kirkland stated that there are several items that say the implementation should be done by 2010.  She
would like to know the status of items.
Bristol explained that the bulk of the implementation was to consider or look into the possibility and
these items may need to be amended.  These will be discussed in May.   
12. Discussion and Recommendation regarding Design Review procedures
Cox stated that he would like to be able to give more latitude to Bristol in his decision making
processes regarding simple frame homes in the RR district.  He would like to give Bristol the ability to
approve conventional structures without having to be held up until the Committee reviews every
project, this is not referring to the historic district.   
Fisher disagrees, he thinks that the staff is great, however the process that is in place works and it
operates a good check and balance system.  He would want it to be fair for every applicant and be held
accountable to applicants.
Nelson agrees with Fisher on this issue.  There are houses that have had issues in the outlying areas in
the past.  Nelson wants to make sure the process is clear rather than fast.
April 25, 2011 Plan Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 7
Flottman agrees with Fisher and Nelson, whenever a chance to mitigate potential problems it should be
Cox stated that he feels the process works, just wanting to know how the Committee feels, status quo.
Bristol stated that every project with an external change goes before some form of design review.
Kirkland thinks the reviews are a good foundation for possible changes in ordinance.
13. Visitors’ Comments
None at this time.
14. Adjournment
Bridenhagen moved, seconded by Nelson to adjourn at 9:08 PM.  Motion passed unanimously.
Recorded By:
Charity Buhr, WCMC

Archive View all from: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007