Plan Commission

1 VILLAGE OF SISTER BAY 2 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 3 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2025 4 APPROVED AS AMENDED 5 1. Call to Order & Roll Call 6 Chair Bhirdo called the Plan Commission meeting to order on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, at 5:30 7 p.m. and took roll call. 8 9 Present: Plan Commission Chair Denise Bhirdo, and Commission members Steve Bacsi, Nate Bell, 10 Laurel Harff, Skip Heidler, and Patrice Champeau. 11 12 Staff Member(s): Village Administrator Julie Schmelzer, Administrative Assistant Sarah Bertges 13 14 Others: Kurt Harff, Nick and Mary Deviley, John Smith, Alejandra Ullauri, M Schwindenhammer, A 15 Weiner, Cynthia Nelson, Brynn Swanson, Rachel Stollenwerk, Mary Kay Shumway. 16 17 2. Approve of Agenda 18 Motion by Heidler, second by Harff, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried – all ayes. 19 20 3. Approve Meeting Minutes: September 23, 2025 21 Motion by Bacsi, second by Heidler, to approve the meeting minutes from September 23, 2025, as 22 presented. Motion carried – all ayes. 23 24 4. Comments, Correspondence and Concerns from the Public 25 Bhirdo provided an update on the conditional use permit that was granted and moved to the Village 26 Board from last month's meeting. She explained that after extensive discussion at the Village Board 27 meeting, the board removed the condition requiring the cottage closest to the water to have 28 bedrooms removed and be used for storage only. 29 30 Bhirdo cited specific timestamps from the board meeting recording, noting that at 1:15 into the 31 meeting, the applicant's attorney stated his clients agreed with the conditions. At 1:08, Geo Caris 32 discussed the cottage by the water, stating they did not submit any plan to change either of the two 33 structures and that she only needed to redo the main house as she wanted to retire there. 34 35 Chair Bhirdo quoted herself from the board meeting, questioning whether the Plan Commission had 36 come up with the idea on their own, as she recalled hearing it from the applicant. She also noted 37 that at 1:21 in the meeting, Cynthia (Geocaris) stated she never had correspondence with Julie 38 (Village staff) and had no personal communication with anyone before the hearing. 39 40 Bhirdo then referenced the Planning Commission meeting recording at 15:15, where Cynthia was 41 quoted saying "our intention with the cottage by the water is to turn it into more of a boathouse and 42 not have bedrooms. That one is extremely rustic at this point, and so our new home replaces those 43 bedrooms. We would like to keep that building as a storage unit, kind of a boathouse for water 44 things." 45 46 Chair Bhirdo stated she would be asking the board for reconsideration because she believed the 47 Village Board was misled. 48 49 5. Public Hearing 50 a. Proposed Ord. No. 2025-013; Ch. 66; Text Amendments; P-1, CS-1, Signs 51 Bhirdo opened the public hearing at 5:38 p.m.  Minutes for the October 28, 2025 Regular Monthly Meeting of the Plan Commission 1 Schmelzer explained the proposed text amendments would: 2 ● Amend section 66.0331 to allow marinas in a P-1 zoning district and establish regulations for 3 side yards and open space 4 ● Amend section 66.0315 to allow agri-tourism operations in a CS-1 zoning district and create 5 related definitions 6 ● Amend section 66.071066, 66.0711, and 66.079, and create section 66.0712 and related 7 definitions to clarify sign regulations 8 9 Schmelzer noted the Plan Commission had previously discussed issues with outdated or confusing 10 aspects of the code. The proposed amendments had been posted on the village website, and notices 11 were mailed to property owners in the P-1 and CS-1 districts, as well as those that are a commercial 12 center or multi-business development. 13 14 Hearing no public comments, Bhirdo closed the public hearing at 5:40 p.m. 15 16 6. Discussion/Action Items 17 a. Proposed Ord. No. 2025-013; Ch. 66; Text Amendments; P-1, CS-1, Signs 18 The Commission discussed several corrections to the proposed amendments: 19 Heidler suggested several revisions including: 20 ● Line 15, page 10: Changing language regarding awning signage to read "signage on awning or 21 canopy as specified above shall not count toward total signage unless a permit is required" 22 ● Line 28, page 10: Reducing the maximum height for marquee signs from 12 feet to 8 feet 23 ● Standardizing terminology throughout the document by using either "per side" or "per sign face" 24 consistently 25 Bhirdo suggested amendments to: 26 ● Page 10, line 33: Standardize the size limit for business signage in a commercial center to 12 27 square feet for both multi-tenant and single-tenant businesses 28 ● Page 11, line 5: Reduce the maximum size for multi-use development signs from 48 square feet 29 to 36 square feet 30 ● Page 11, line 41: Add "orchards" to the definition of agritourism while maintaining "ranches" and 31 "other agricultural businesses" 32 ● Page 12, line 17: Revise the definition of "billboard" to not restrict it only to off-premise signs 33 34 Motion by Bell, second by Champeau, to recommend the proposed ordinance as presented and 35 amended to the Village Board. Motion carried – all ayes. 36 37 b. Planned Unit Development; Nick and Mary Deviley; Approx. 17 acres east of St. Hwy 57 in Sec. 8 38 Schmelzer presented the proposed planned unit development (PUD) that had been initially 39 discussed several months ago. The proposal included various housing types on approximately 14-15 40 acres of land. She noted that since the initial presentation, the applicants had spent time revising 41 plans and engineering drawings to lower infrastructure costs. 42 43 The development would include: 44 ● "A" buildings: 11 home sites with houses ranging from 700-900 square feet, with a common 45 courtyard and 10-unit detached garage area 46 ● "B" buildings: 8 homes, 1,100-1,300 square feet with one-stall garages in a wooded setting 47 ● "C" buildings: 10 homes, 1,300-1,500 square feet with a common courtyard/playground area 48 ● "R" buildings: 10 homes, 1,500-1,800 square feet 49 ● Duplexes: 8 buildings (16 units): 1,100-1,500 square feet with attached two-stall garages 50 2  Minutes for the October 28, 2025 Regular Monthly Meeting of the Plan Commission 1 Schmelzer indicated the proposal met all PUD requirements, with only elevation views and a 2 landscaping plan still needed before proceeding to a public hearing. 3 4 Nick Deviley explained the proposed building layout, noting the 40-foot road right-of-way with 23 5 feet from curb to curb, and building setbacks of 25 feet from the right-of-way. All utilities would be 6 buried. 7 8 The Commission discussed: 9 ● Parking requirements, with Heidler expressing concern about guest parking. Deviley agreed to 10 address this with additional parking spots in open areas 11 ● Potential for one-way traffic through parts of the development 12 ● The diversity of housing sizes and types, with Heidler expressing concern about the quantity of 13 smaller homes 14 ● Whether the homes would be affordable for the workforce 15 16 Deviley clarified that the development was not specifically "workforce housing" but rather housing 17 aimed at "blue collar" residents currently renting, including village workers and others in the "middle 18 ground" who can get pre-approved for $225,000-325,000 but cannot find suitable housing in the 19 area. He emphasized they were not proposing low-income housing. 20 21 Several commissioners expressed support for the diversity of housing types and sizes, noting it 22 would meet a significant need in Sister Bay. 23 24 By consensus, the Plan Commission agreed to schedule a public hearing for next month for the 25 proposed planned unit development, contingent upon receiving the necessary elevation views and 26 landscaping plan. 27 28 c. Site Plan/Architectural Review; Accessory Use to Existing Business; Northern Haus; 10388 29 Fieldcrest Rd. 30 Schmelzer presented the proposal from Sarah of Northern Haus, who had purchased the property 31 next door to their wedding venue. The proposal would add a small addition for prep space, storage, 32 and a one-bedroom unit that could serve as employee housing. The property has adequate parking. 33 Schmelzer added for the use to be approved, it would need to be considered an accessory use to the 34 wedding venue use on the adjacent lot, and, the two uses would need to be on one lot. 35 36 Sarah confirmed she would be willing to combine the two lots as recommended by staff to properly 37 classify the proposed use as an accessory to the main wedding venue. 38 39 The Commission discussed the proposal, with members expressing support for the improvement to 40 the property. 41 42 Motion by Harff, second by Champeau, to recommend approval of a development agreement to the 43 Village Board, including the requirement to combine the properties. Motion carried – all ayes 44 45 d. Site Plan Review/Change of Use; Tavern to Retail; Two Coast Trading; Country Walk Shops, Unit 46 32 47 Schmelzer presented the proposal to convert the former Little Vegas Tavern into a retail store. She 48 noted there were no zoning issues with the change and that there was adequate parking. Schmelzer 49 also suggested the Commission consider amending the code in the future to streamline the process 50 for changes to retail within a retail complex, noting the $1,500 application fee may be excessive for 51 such straightforward cases. 3  Minutes for the October 28, 2025 Regular Monthly Meeting of the Plan Commission 1 Motion by Bhirdo, second by Bacsi, to approve the change of use as presented. Motion carried – all 2 ayes. 3 4 e. Development Agreement Amendment; Mobile Food Court; RaeAnne LLC; 10563 Country Walk 5 Drive 6 Schmelzer explained that the applicant, Mike (who was not present), had received approval for a 7 Mobile Food Court two years ago but had made limited progress. The concrete pad from a previous 8 shed violation had been removed, and some grading for the driveway had been done. Mike cited 9 issues with the HOA road and family problems as reasons for the delay. 10 11 The Commission discussed whether to grant a one-year extension or require the applicant to start 12 the process over. Some members expressed concerns about the viability of the project. Harff raised 13 concerns about the project's timeline, noting the applicant indicated in his letter that he hoped to 14 get the project going in 2026 or 2027, and that he was having difficulty securing funding. Bhirdo 15 reminded the Commission that the financial viability of a project is not within their purview. 16 17 Motion by Bell, second by Champeau, to extend the development agreement for one year. 18 Motion carried 5-1 with Harff opposed 19 20 f. Site Plan/Architectural Review; Residence in Unplatted Area; Alejandra Ullauri; South Lot in a 3 21 Lot CSM, Country Lane 22 Schmelzer explained that due to code requirements, building in unplatted areas requires Plan 23 Commission approval for site plan and architectural review. The proposal is for a single-family home 24 with a shared driveway on Country Lane. The design met all zoning requirements. 25 26 Motion by Bell, second by Heidler, to approve the site plan and architectural review as presented. 27 Motion carried 5-1 with Champeau opposed 28 29 g. Nonconforming Signage; Serenity Spring; 10560 Applewood Road 30 Patrick, the maintenance director for Serenity Spring, presented a request to replace signage at the 31 former Good Samaritan facility. The request was for three ground signs: one at Highway 57, one in 32 front of Bargains Unlimited, and one at the main entrance. 33 34 The Commission discussed concerns about off-premise signage, which is not allowed under the 35 village code. There was discussion about which signs were essential for wayfinding versus marketing 36 purposes. 37 38 Motion by Bell, second by Champeau, to approve only Sign #5 (the main entrance sign). Motion 39 carried – all ayes. 40 41 Patrick was advised that wall signs and directional signs not visible from public roads may be 42 permitted under different sections of the code. 43 44 h. Development Agreement Amendment; Basement Revision; Preserving Foundations; 2387 Ava 45 Hope Court 46 Schmelzer explained that Paula Anschutz had signed a development agreement that did not include 47 a basement plan, but what was built had an exposed basement with walk-out access and additions 48 to access the basement. While these met setback requirements, they were not in the approved 49 development agreement. 4  Minutes for the October 28, 2025 Regular Monthly Meeting of the Plan Commission 1 Paula Anschutz noted that she had met with staff and understood she was taking a risk by 2 proceeding, but the village board had encouraged her to complete the project knowing she would 3 need to return to the Plan Commission. 4 5 Motion by Bell, second by Champeau, to recommend to the Board approval of the development 6 agreement amendment. Motion carried – all ayes. 7 8 i. Proposed Contract; Zoning Map Update; BayLake Regional Planning Commission 9 Schmelzer presented a proposed contract with BayLake Regional Planning Commission to update the 10 village's zoning map to align with the recently adopted comprehensive plan. She noted the village 11 must have the zoning map consistent with the comprehensive plan within a year of its adoption. The 12 contract would include creating an interactive map layer for the village's GIS system. The cost would 13 not exceed $20,000. 14 15 Bell expressed concerns about the lack of a rate sheet and specific cost breakdown. Heidler asked 16 about the interactive map functionality and was told it would be incorporated into the village's GIS 17 system. 18 19 Motion by Bhirdo, second by Heidler, to recommend the Village Board enter into the contract as 20 presented. Motion carried 5-1 with Bell opposed. 21 22 7. Administrator's Report 23 Based on past conversations regarding the need for housing amendments, Schmelzer drafted some 24 proposed text amendments to consider, along with other amendments required by statutes or 25 mentioned throughout the year. She also noted several Assembly Bills that, if enacted, would 26 require several future code amendments and encouraged commissioners to follow the legislation to 27 ensure Ch. 54 and Ch. 66 remained compliant with statutes. She indicated that she would not 28 present amendments that would be nullified if the legislation passed, but would present other 29 amendments at the next meeting. 30 31 8. Matters to be Placed on a Future Agenda or Referred to a Committee, Official or Employee 32 Schmelzer mentioned she would bring text amendments forward, and include the public hearing for 33 the Deviley project. 34 35 9. Next Meeting 36 The Commission agreed to keep the next regular meeting on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, at 5:30 37 p.m. A special meeting would be held in December. 38 39 10. Adjournment 40 Motion by Heidler, second by Harff, to adjourn at 8:12 p.m. Motion carried – all ayes. 41 42 Respectfully submitted by, Sarah Bertges, Administrative Assistant 5