Plan Commission

1 VILLAGE OF SISTER BAY 2 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 3 TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2025 4 (APPROVED AS AMENDED) 5 6 1. Call To Order & Roll Call 7 Chair Bhirdo called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and took roll call. 8 9 Present: Plan Commission Chair Denise Bhirdo, and Commission members Steve Bacsi, Nate Bell, 10 Patrice Champeau, Laurel Harff, Skip Heidler, Ron Kane 11 12 Staff Member(s): Village Administrator Julie Schmelzer 13 14 Others: In person- Kurt Harff, Brian Frisque, Brodie Overbeck, Josh Becker, Tim Perille, 15 Vivian Nienow, Nick Deviley. Virtual attendance- Ellie Soderberg-Guger, Karen Berndt. 16 2. Approval Of Agenda 17 Motion by Bacsi, seconded by Champeau, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried - all 18 ayes. 19 3. Approve Meeting Minutes: June 24, 2025 20 Motion by Champeau, seconded by Kane, to approve the meeting minutes of June 24, 2025, as 21 presented. Motion carried - all ayes. 22 4. Comments, Correspondence and Concerns from the Public 23 Chair Bhirdo asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Plan Commission. There were 24 no comments from those in attendance, and the Administrative Assistant confirmed there were no 25 participants wishing to speak via Zoom. When Nick Deviley arrived he requested the Commission 26 review their codes regarding historic signage, such as the signage that exists on his property. 27 5. Discussion/Action Items 28 (a) Certified Survey Map; Nick Deviley; 10440 Orchard Dr. 29 Village Administrator Schmelzer introduced the certified survey map (CSM) for Nick and Mary 30 Deviley's property at 10440 Orchard Drive. She noted that the staff report and proposed CSM were 31 included in the packet, and that surveyor Brian Frisque was present to answer questions. Mr. Deviley 32 arrived slightly later in the discussion. 33 Schmelzer explained that the applicant wishes to create three parcels from the property, with the 34 restaurant to be on its own parcel. The proposed division would follow along the easement that runs 35 to the farm. She noted that future sewer laterals would follow the lot lines, making future 36 connections more straightforward. 37 Chair Bhirdo referenced the staff report, asking about the southernmost motel building not meeting 38 the 40-foot setback from the egress easement. Schmelzer confirmed this was a nonconforming 39 structure, noting that the existing building appears to be about 15-20 feet from the easement. 40 Skip Heidler asked about the intended purpose of the second lot. Schmelzer explained that it would 41 potentially be used for another B1 use or something associated with the farm use in the future. Deviley 42 conveyed he would rather not disclose the proposed use of the property at this time.  Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025 - Plan Commission (Approved as Amended Version) 1 Mr. Deviley arrived and addressed the Commission directly about his plans. He clarified that he intends 2 to sell the restaurant, likely by August 15th if the CSM is approved. He explained that he doesn't want 3 to sell the entire property, preferring to retain portions of what he considers his "front yard" to the 4 farm. 5 Mr. Deviley provided background on the property, noting that it had expanded from 2.5 acres to nearly 6 6 acres when they were planning to build a brewery in 2018. He described how the sewer and water 7 laterals would need to be configured, and how the division would help eliminate an easement for the 8 existing septic system currently located on his farm property that serves the restaurant and motel. 9 Heidler asked about access to the public street, noting that lot 2 would be on an easement rather than 10 a public street. Schmelzer explained that the Land Division Code allows for lots on private roads or 11 easements with Plan Commission approval, and that the existing easement meets the required width. 12 Motion by Bhirdo, seconded by Champeau, to recommend approval of the certified survey map to the 13 Village Board. Motion carried - all ayes. 14 (b) Courtesy Review; Awning Signage; Champeau Flooring/Tim Perilla; 2613 S Bay Shore Dr. 15 Administrator Schmelzer introduced the courtesy review request for awning signage for Champeau 16 Flooring. She explained that the owner, Tim Perille, was requesting guidance on how much lettering 17 could be placed on an awning before it would be considered a sign under the village code. Schmelzer 18 noted that she prepared an extensive write-up in the packet along with renderings provided by the 19 owner. 20 21 There was a discussion on commercial centers and whether the property was part of a commercial 22 center. The Commission agreed they needed to revisit the code and clarify what constituted a 23 commercial center. 24 25 Chair Bhirdo mentioned that Brita's business had previously been considered a sign when they came 26 before the Commission. She expressed concern that the proposed awning design did not match other 27 businesses in the village and appeared more like a fixed face than a flap. Heidler noted that the 28 proposed design blurred the line between an awning and a sign. He suggested that perhaps 20-25% 29 of the vertical height of the awning should be the limit for lettering. Bell recalled previous discussions 30 about treating any writing on an awning as a sign, though it wouldn't count toward size limitations in 31 the same way as a traditional sign. Chair Bhirdo read a definition of a flap as "the act of waving or 32 fluttering" and argued that the proposed design with its taut face didn't meet this definition. 33 34 Tim Perille, the business owner, addressed the Commission and explained that his business had 35 recently been approved for a Door County building enhancement grant. He noted that the purpose of 36 updating the awning was to increase visibility, as many people were unaware that a flooring store 37 existed in that location despite living in the area for years. He explained that structured awnings are 38 more durable and aesthetically appealing than unstructured flaps. 39 After extensive discussion about the dimensions of the proposed awning and its face, the Commission 40 determined that the applicant would be allowed 35 square feet of signage in total, including his 41 existing roadside sign. By consensus they directed him to work with the Administrator to ensure his 42 final design would comply with this limitation. 43 The Commission also recognized the need to clarify the code regarding awnings versus signs, and 44 agreed to address this in a future text amendment. 45 (c) Text Amendments; Ch. 18 & 50; Garbage 46 Schmelzer explained that the current code requires short-term rentals to have door-to-door garbage 47 service with containers kept up by the buildings rather than on the road. She noted that the code  Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025 - Plan Commission (Approved as Amended Version) 1 didn't account for owner-operated short-term rentals, where owners are present during the rental 2 period and use the same garbage cans. 3 Schmelzer introduced Vivian Nienow, who owns a short-term rental and was affected by this issue. 4 Ms. Nienow has a mother-in-law apartment in the same building where she lives, which she rents as 5 a short-term rental. 6 Heidler suggested modifying the wording of the proposed amendment to be more specific, 7 recommending "onsite property management by owner" rather than "owner-occupied rentals." 8 After discussion about properties with multiple buildings versus those with separate units under one 9 roof, the Commission agreed to support the amendment with language that would clearly address 10 situations where the owner lives in the same building as the short-term rental unit. 11 Motion by Kane, seconded by Heidler, to recommend approval of the text amendment regarding 12 garbage requirements for owner-occupied short-term rentals to the Village Board. Motion carried- all 13 ayes. 14 (d) Text Amendment; Ch. 66; Park District Uses 15 Schmelzer presented proposed amendments to the P1 (Park District) zoning district. The first change 16 would add “public marinas” as a permitted use, noting that the village’s marina became a non- 17 conforming use after “marinas” were removed from the code two years ago. 18 The second amendment would modify green space requirements to allow the Plan Commission more 19 flexibility during site plan review. Schmelzer explained that this would help with properties like the 20 Historical Society complex, which had exceeded the code-allowed maximum coverage, and would 21 enable common-sense decisions for structures in parks. 22 The third amendment addressed setbacks in park properties, noting that in some cases strict 23 adherence to setbacks would place structures, like restrooms, in impractical locations. 24 Heidler expressed concern about perception that the village might ignore standards for its own 25 properties. Schmelzer assured the Commission that the village has been held to the same standards 26 as everyone else, noting that the parks building and marina building both went through site plan 27 review. 28 The Commission agreed to send the amendment to public hearing, planning for October to allow time 29 for discussion of other text amendments in the August and September meetings. 30 Motion by Bell, seconded by Kane, to schedule a public hearing for the proposed Park District text 31 amendments. Motion carried- all ayes. 32 (e) Request For Proposals; Multi-Family Housing; Ava Hope & Northwoods 33 Administrator Schmelzer presented the single proposal received in response to the village's RFP for 34 multi-family housing on the village-owned property at the corner of Ava Hope and Northwoods. The 35 proposal came from Tim Halbrook, who built the apartment complex next door. 36 Schmelzer outlined Halbrook's proposal, which included three buildings with attached garages 37 containing 21 two-bedroom units, 3 three-bedroom units, 3 one-bedroom units, and 1 handicap unit. 38 She noted that this would exceed the density of 20 units that was specified in the RFP, but that the 39 site plan showed there was still substantial open space even with the higher density. 40 The proposal included 20% of the units reserved for those earning below 80% of the county median 41 income, and a public park area that would be owned and maintained by the developer. 42 Chair Bhirdo provided background on how the village acquired the property after a previous developer 43 went bankrupt. She noted that while the village had invested approximately $590,000 in 44 infrastructure, they had recouped $100,000 by selling 10 lots to the housing partnership. 45 Commission members discussed various aspects of the proposal, including:  Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025 - Plan Commission (Approved as Amended Version) 1 ● Bell suggested the park area should have better connectivity to the surrounding neighborhood 2 through walking trails 3 ● Champeau recommended more than one handicap unit based on the area's aging population 4 ● Chair Bhirdo expressed concern about parking adequacy, suggesting potentially reducing one 5 building from 9 units to 8 to allow for more parking 6 The Commission acknowledged that other committees, particularly the Housing Committee, would 7 need to review the proposal and might have additional requirements regarding the affordability 8 component and other details. 9 Motion by Bhirdo, seconded by Bell, to recommend accepting the proposal contingent on approval by 10 the Housing Committee and Parks Committee. Motion carried - all ayes. 11 (f) Reconsideration Request; eBike Shed; Waterfront Park 12 Schmelzer explained that this was a reconsideration of a previous request regarding a storage shed 13 for e-bikes in Waterfront Park. The original request had been denied primarily because the proposed 14 metal shed did not comply with village code. The applicant had now returned with a proposal for a 15 wooden shed. Attachment handout received. 16 Motion by Bhirdo, seconded by Champeau, to reconsider the request. Motion carried- all ayes. 17 After reviewing the proposed wooden shed design, commission members had concerns about its 18 height and whether it would be a permanent or temporary structure. 19 The Commission expressed interest in knowing the exact dimensions of the proposed shed, whether 20 it would be permanent or seasonal, and if so, who would be responsible for maintenance if it became 21 village property after the initial term. 22 The Commission decided to refer the matter to the Parks Committee for their input before making a 23 final decision. 24 (g) Fee Schedule Review 25 Schmelzer presented the fee schedule for review, highlighting items that fall under the Plan 26 Commission's responsibility. She noted that sign permits ($100) and sandwich board sign permits ($50) 27 require significant staff time but raising these fees might discourage people from obtaining permits. 28 Chair Bhirdo suggested that the festival tent permit fee of $25 might be too low, though Schmelzer 29 indicated it was appropriate given the minimal review needed. 30 Commissioners discussed potentially researching sign permit fees in other communities to determine 31 if Sister Bay's fees were in line with comparable municipalities. 32 The Commission asked Schmelzer to research sign permit fees in other Door County communities for 33 comparison before making any recommendations on changes to the fee schedule. 34 6. Permit Report 35 Chair Bhirdo inquired about several items on the permit report, including a sign permit for Soul Harbor 36 Jewelry on Old Stage Road. Schmelzer clarified that this was likely a business in Country Walk shops 37 and that the applicant name rather than the business name had been entered in the system. 38 Chair Bhirdo also asked about the status of Ecology Sports' sign permit, which was showing as pending. 39 Schmelzer indicated she had communicated with the owner and was working on the matter. 40 Chair Bhirdo noted that she would like to change her approach to reviewing sign permits, preferring 41 to see the entire file in person rather than just receiving information via email. Schmelzer agreed and 42 mentioned plans to also revise the application forms to include space for the Chair's signature.  Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025 - Plan Commission (Approved as Amended Version) 1 7. Matters To Be Placed on a Future Agenda or Referred to a Committee, Official or Employee 2 The Commission identified several topics for future agenda items: 3 ● Historic signage guidelines 4 ● Awnings and signage clarification 5 ● Commercial center definition review 6 ● Multitenant versus commercial center distinctions 7 ● Density requirements and potential increases 8 ● Fee schedule for sign permits and sandwich board signs 9 8. Next Meeting 10 The next regular monthly meeting was scheduled for August 26, 2025, at 5:30 P.M. in the large 11 meeting room at the Sister Bay-Liberty Grove Fire Station. 12 9. Adjournment 13 Motion by Bhirdo, seconded by Champeau, to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 PM. Motion carried - all 14 ayes. 15 Respectfully recorded and submitted by Sarah Bertges, Administrative Assistant