Plan Commission

Minutes Village of East Troy Plan Commission & Architectural Review Board 2015 Energy Drive November 12, 2018 6:30 p.m. 1. Call to order- President Seager called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Verification of open meeting notice – Administrator Suhm verified the meeting had been posted according to open meetings laws. 4. Roll call Present: President Seager, Trustee Forty Renucci, Commissioners Edward Arendt, Roger Hayes, Benny Stichmann, Mary Nugent, Erin Seaverson Excused: Others: Zoning Administrator Tim Schwecke and Administrator Suhm 5. Approve Plan Commission minutes of October 8, 2018 Motion by Commissioner Nugent, second by Commissioner Arendt, to approve. Advisory – motion carried, Commission – motion carried. 6. Approve Plan Commission minutes of October 23, 2018 Motion by Commissioner Seaverson, second by Commissioner Nugent, to approve. Advisory – motion carried, Commission – Motion carried with Commissioner Arendt abstaining. 7. Citizen participation Steve Bartle, 504 Phantom Woods Drive, Apt 506, Mukwonago, spoke representing the Fire District as the Assistant Fire Chief. He stated he understood there were some questions related to fire department capabilities pertaining to building height and a potential development. The department does have an 85- foot platform ladder. Assuming 12-feet per floor, they can cover a five-story building with the ladder truck as long as there is 360-degree access to the building. He also stated Elkhorn, Mukwonago, and Lake Geneva have 100-foot ladder trucks. In addition, there are other departments that have 100-foot ladder trucks as well as 85-foot ladder trucks. He reported they have not had any issues reaching a three-story building. He further explained the ladder truck has a pump, tank, ground ladders, and a platform. It can be used standalone due to the tank or with a hydrant. In addition to the ladder truck, they have three engines. One pumps 1,750 gallons per minute and the other two can pump 1,500 gallons per minute. They are above ISO rating for the Village, so it would need to expand quite a bit before it is necessary to add equipment. He stated they do have the capability to serve taller buildings and his understanding is this will be on a future agenda for discussion. 8. Site plan/plan of operation amendment for a new dog park located at 2015 Energy Drive (RA270200001); Village of East Troy (East Troy High School Key Club), applicant (application: 2018-53) A. Possible action by the Plan Commission Sophie Donegan, 2110 Mill Street, representing East Troy High School Key Club, gave a basic overview of the plans. She stated the line drawn on the plans depicts the location of the fence. They also provided proposed materials. The club applied for a grant and will be fundraising with local businesses and seeking donations. The Park and Recreation Commission and Village Board have reviewed and approved of the project. She also stated the Key Club plans to assist with future maintenance of the park through service hours required of this and other clubs. Zoning Administrator Schwecke suggested the park hours state closing 30 minutes after sunset, the application stated sunrise to sunset. Motion by Commissioner Nugent, second by President Seager, to approve the site plan and plan of operation for the dog park with the amendment to include the park would be open sunrise to 30 minutes past sunset.  Commissioner Seaverson questioned if the rules have been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Logan Fitch, representing the Key Club, stated they had not discussed the specific rules yet. The rules presented are the same as Price Park. Motion by Commissioner Seaverson, second by Trustee Renucci, to amend the motion to include a requirement that the Village sign off on specific rules before implemented. Advisory – motion carried, Commission – motion carried. Vote on original motion. Advisory – motion carried, Commission – motion carried. 9. Sign permit for an additional wall sign on baseball grandstand located at 2028 West Street (RXUP 00117); Village of East Troy (American Legion, Post 188), applicant (application: 2018-55) A. Possible action by the Plan Commission Administrator Suhm reviewed the discussion at the prior Village Board meeting. She shared that the Legion said this would be the final championship sign and years would be added for championships afterwards. Zoning Administrator Schwecke reported the amount of signage complies with the sign code. Motion by Commissioner Arendt, second by Commissioner Nugent, to approve the sign as proposed. Advisory – motion carried. Commission – motion carried. 10. Conditional use for a telecommunication tower located at 2030 Young Street (RXUP00209B1); AT&T, applicant; Phase 1 Consulting, Sal Randazzo agent (application: 2018-39) A. Public hearing President Seager opened the public hearing. Jim Jermain, 316 W. Washington Ave., Madison, WI, spoke representing AT&T. He stated AT&T would like to improve cellular coverage for the citizens of East Troy. They also would like to provide better service to first responders through their national network, FirstNet. He stated AT&T was selected by the 9-11 commission and each of the 50 states, to be the provider of emergency communications. He reviewed the 18 requirements of the municipal code, section 510-43(i): Highlights include: 1. AT&T complies with all federal requirements when building a tower. A no-hazard assessment was submitted to the FAA and there is no hazard to air navigation. 2. Proposed power and structure are all located on one parcel. 3. Although located in the height-restriction overlay district, the FAA has determined there is no hazard. 4. AT&T has submitted a certified engineering letter confirming the tower will collapse within the subject property. There is no fencing requirement. 5. AT&T is going to enclose the tower within a security fence. 6. The tower is less than 200 feet in height so there will be no lighting on the tower. 7. Provisions with regard to structure size have been provided for the equipment building and it is less than the 1,500 feet referenced in the code. 8. An emergency power system will be utilized 9. A sign will be located near the base of the tower. 10. Although less than required height at 110 feet, they will permit co-location. 11. Co-location requirement is also a state statute. They are always willing to consider existing towers before constructing a new one. According to state statute 66.04042(b)(6), if the applicant does not choose existing they must provide a sworn statement attesting co-location within applicant’s search ring would not result in the same coverage, capacity or it is economically burdensome. He emphasized statute says “same”, not similar and discussed PIM will negatively impact the signal, referencing today’s technology due to the proximity of the water tower. 12. Co-location is not a viable option. 13. Given proximity to wooded area and distance from road, landscaping is not being proposed but  they would be willing to work with the Commission if required. 14. A lease agreement has been entered into with property owner and will cover future property owners and operators. 15. They will maintain the grounds and ensure the site is free from junk and debris with monthly and annual inspections. 16. AT&T does not object to termination of approval as discussed in the ordinance. 17. AT&T does not object to $20,000 financial guarantee, referencing state statute section 4(i) regarding limits to political subdivisions and stated they do not object as long as it is in accordance with this. 18. AT&T understands the Village wants to make an informed decision and does not object to hiring a third-party consultant as long as there is a demonstrated need, defined scope of work and overall charges are consistent with state statute. Dan Berni, Phase I Consulting and Andrew Flowers, AT&T Mobility were accompanying Mr. Jermain at the meeting. Kevin Pollard, W177 N9886 Rivercrest Drive, Suite 261 Germantown, WI, spoke representing SBA Communications. SBA is the owner of the existing tower located across the street on property at 2029 Young Street. He stated, SBA opposes and objects to AT&T’s application and permit for construction. He stated their position is there is no reason why AT&T cannot provide that coverage by co-locating on the existing tower. The applicant needs to provide a sworn statement indicating that co-location would not result in the same mobile service function or capacity, is technically infeasible, or is economically burdensome. Their position is AT&T did not provide this statement (it was stated later in the meeting AT&T did provide the sworn statement that day). He stated the letter they provided, dated October 24, did not comply and was not a sworn statement. More importantly, even if it did comply, the letter does not establish that co-location would not result in the same service functionality, coverage and capacity or that it is technically infeasible. He stated the October 24 letter provides a vague assertion that the existing tower’s proximity to the water tower has the potential to degrade the AT&T signal. They dispute there is any degradation of the signal. The statement provided falls short of the required statement that co- location is technically infeasible, would not provide the same level of service, functionality and capacity. On that basis alone, he stated he believes the application is incomplete and must be denied. On September 24, 2018, SBA submitted a radiofrequency propagation analysis, which establishes that the co-location would result in the same coverage and functionality. The applicant has not submitted any information to refute that analysis. The water tower was constructed 1970 and the existing cell tower has been in place since at least 2006. SBA owned the tower since 2012. During that time at least three other tenants have been located on the tower, including one who was an affiliate of AT&T, and they have had no issues with service. He asked for the reasons stated, that the application be objected. He also stated he understood the Village intends to obtain a third party to review the information submitted. If the Village does not decide to reject the application, he asked that AT&T indicate what level of PIM (passive intermodulation) would be acceptable for its purposes. The third party, who is conducting the analysis, could conduct this by propagating levels on the existing cell tower. He concluded stating all we are dealing with is a vague assertion that there is potential for the phenomenon of PIM that could potentially be an issue. Attorney Pruitt advised while in the public hearing for this matter it is the time for the Commission and staff to ask questions. Referencing Act 67, he noted the decision will need to be based on the information presented during this time. Attorney Pruitt stated one of the issues the Village staff has is they do not know what PIM (passive intermodulation) is or what causes it, and it is likely our Commissioners do not have that background. He discussed this is the reason the Village would like to contract for a third-party analysis. He asked Mr. Jermain to respond to the assertion by the SBA representative that SBA had submitted a radiofrequency analysis on 9/24/18, but he does not see that level of specificity in the 10/24/18 letter from AT&T. Attorney Pruitt did note, the letter was submitted as a sworn statement today (11/12/18). He stated the letter was more informational that PIM is a problem and AT&T is concerned it might have an impact on service. He asked for AT&T’s response to this point. Mr. Jermain responded stating building a new tower is far more expensive than utilizing an existing one. Based on this, the inclination would be to utilize the existing structure. The existing tower has had three different carriers since 2006, but now he thinks there is only one on the tower. He is not certain why others are no longer on tower. He stated with advancements in technology, when you start to look at 4G or LTE it requires much more bandwidth and higher speeds. Something that may have worked just fine years ago is much more susceptible to interference. The concern is AT&T can take a gamble and say they are not sure if this will impact service. That is an expensive gamble. They are convinced the water tower stem will have an impact on signal. He questioned, what if they locate on the existing tower and it is wrong, and they cannot provide the service demanded by customers and first responders? They want to get it right the first time to make sure they have the highest level of service possible. Attorney Pruitt questioned if there any sort of testing, besides building the tower, that AT&T could do to determine in advance if there will be a problem between the SBA tower and water tower. Andrew Flowers, 930 National Parkway, Schaumberg, IL, spoke as the Senior Real Estate and Construction Manager for AT&T Mobility in IL and WI. He stated to address the question regarding testing that could be done, it is like chasing a mouse. It is something that happens and then disappears. He used the analogy of the speeds creeping up over time from gsm to 5G, of a 1970s car carburetor being adjusted to fine tuning a Ferrari. He stated they are now finding it necessary to change out the connections that hold the cables to the tower because they flap in the wind and create vibration which results in PIM. He stated with a tower about 50’ away from a giant steel tube it is inevitable that there will be some type of degradation in service. They do not know exactly what it is. With that level of investment, it is very tough to take that leap of faith knowing if it is wrong they will have to build somewhere else. Attorney Pruitt questioned if there was any sort of testing that could be performed. Mr. Flowers responded short of building a site, there is not very much they would be able to do unless they put up a temporary facility and run the loads off of that. Even then, a temporary facility is not built to the same standards as a new site so there is an unknown factor. Attorney Pruitt questioned the analysis that was done by SBA and how that was or was not germane to the application. Mr. Flowers was not aware of the radiofrequency analysis. He stated he would assume they took the frequencies supplied to the FCC and ran a propagation map. If you run a propagation map it will not indicate a problem. That is not the problem that they have. The problem is with the interference that is created, like something is in the way, like it is there or not there. Different frequencies run at different levels and he is not sure if they ran testing all the way down to that level. Again, very difficult for SBA or a third party to come in and do testing besides building the facility. Attorney Pruitt stated there were some questions at a staff level about the amount for the review. SEH has put forth a proposal not to exceed $10,000. Attorney Pruitt explained, Mr. Jermain referenced the 4(b) limitation of $3,000 in the state statute. However, that only applies to a permit. He clarified the Village is not charging a permit fee of $10,000. This cost is to cover the third-party consultant’s review of the issue because we do not have the qualifications on staff. To have enough time to conduct the third-party review, the public hearing will need to adjourn until the next month. He asked if SBA had an issue with agreeing to this extension of time. Mr. Jermain stated he thinks the state statute is pretty clear with regard to what the requirements are. In this case he will challenge SBA to state there is absolutely no interference that could be caused by the water tower on the antennas. If there is any impact, the state statute is very clear. It states, as long as you cannot get the same level of service then co-location is not a requirement. Take an opportunity to do a search on PIM and whether it affects service, you will find it is an implication. Due to the fact that there is a metal column in close proximity, it is not going to provide the same level of service. He stated, we feel the decision is clear and would encourage you to make it. If you feel like you need the additional input from an engineer, we certainly support that. He would like to see what the scope of the request is and the timeline for it. He concluded, can a metal structure in front of a cell tower affect the service? He thinks the answer will be yes. Attorney Pruitt stated the statue was accurately quoted. It does talk about the AT&T coming forth with a statement from somebody who has responsibility for placement of the mobile service support structure attesting that co-location within the applicant’s search ring would not result in the same level of service and capacity, is technically feasible, or is economically burdensome. He stated, that is the statute being discussed and he feels that for the Village to make an informed decision it needs the assistance from the third-party. President Seager questioned if there was an attainable number or something the Commission can look at for a level of PIM from the third-party investigation. Mr. Flower stated it is pretty close to zero. The more there is, the more interference there ends up being at different frequencies. An acceptable level would need to be determined on a per-frequency basis on what is coming back as a deflection from the water tank. Is it acceptable for people in areas to not receive the same service as they would if it was located on their own facility? It is hard to quantify an exact number. Trustee Renucci questioned if there was an industry standard for an acceptable interference level. Mr. Flowers stated there was none that he knew of. Attorney Pruitt stated under the influence of the new act, Act 67, the Plan Commission and Village Board must make a decision based on the information that is presented. Due to this, he cautioned individuals against doing their own research. Addressing AT&T and SBA, he stated in terms of interacting with the consultant he would suggest both sides cooperate to the extent that they need to submit technical information that addresses interference. The consultant will come back and make a presentation to the Commission and they will have the benefit of additional relevant information they were not able to present at this meeting. Zoning Administrator Schwecke stated that as part of the packet there was a letter that addresses the co- location issue. Attorney Pruitt suggested that the letter be presented in a different form and the applicant has provided the letter with the sworn statement, that was distributed at the meeting. Zoning Administrator Schwecke asked the AT&T representatives to go through the information in that letter to be sure the two letters have the same information because both letters are dated the same, even though they were written at different points in time. The current letter, dated October 24, 2018, submitted as the sworn statement, is notarized on the back. Andrew Flowers stated, the letter is the same letter, the only changed was to make it a sworn statement. Zoning Administrator Schwecke pointed out the letters are different. Discussion of the letter by Mr. Flowers included that the first paragraph discussed the co- location on the SBA tower in close proximity to the water tank would cause interference to AT&T and there were pictures attached to the letter. The second paragraph has to do with radio signals in close proximity to metal objects. He discussed PIM is acceptable in some cases, but in most cases it will cause a negative interference with their signals. It is hard to calculate what it would do to those signals. He stated everything that is put on a tower could potentially cause PIM. The applicant offered an example from Brookfield, Wisconsin. The AT&T tower was built in the 1990s and the City of Brookfield wanted to build a stem water tank right next to it. Brookfield built a tower next to it, about 50 feet away. The tank was made a little taller than originally planned due to AT&T’s concerns, but the antenna still shooting right into the stem and they have data from that site to show there is quantifiable interference from the stem. This particular site is a different metal and different diameter, so it is difficult to state how it will react. However, they know it has been an issue in the past. Concern of this possible interference is why they would prefer to build their own tower and not co-located on SBA’s tower. Zoning Administrator Schwecke asked the applicant again to indicate what the differences are between draft 1 and draft 2 of the letter, not necessarily additional explanations. Mr. Flowers explained that the engineer that wrote this letter is the AT&T Area Manager. In the first letter that was written he was trying to explain how there is a difference in different types of interference, their PIM concerns that have to do with the advanced developed telecommunication systems against the older ones. When he rewrote the letter, the engineer was trying to make it clearer and to state these are the issues we have with this facility. It would be difficult to go back and forth between the two letters and he apologized for the confusion. He stated that this is one of the first times they have had to come in and argue the point of PIM and no PIM because it is like trying to chase a rabbit down a hole. AT&T has many facilities they want to build, increase the capacity they have in the area, and increase the customer experience that they don’t want to take the risk of building the facility and having it wrong. Zoning Administrator Schwecke asked if AT&T had ever approached SBA about co-location on their tower. Mr. Flowers explained, in the industry site acquisition teams drive the area and their first obligation is to find facilities that already exist. In this instance the SBA tower was considered as one of the opportunities. They did not contact SBA directly, besides looking at their webpage, to determine exactly what the facility is and taking pictures. This is all the engineers need for initial consideration for coverage in the area. When the engineers started to see this facility in relation to the water tank it was a no-go from the beginning. The engineer is the same one that had the issue in Brookfield. The proposed location is about 800-900 feet east of the existing tower according to Mr. Flowers and Zoning Administrator Schwecke questioned if they are confident the extra distance will reduce the potential interference. Mr. Flowers stated that the greater the distance away, the greater the chances they will not have interference. If one drives down the expressway you can see tower farms. That is how towers used to be located and now they are finding those are the facilities they are having the most trouble with because the towers are shooting into the next tower. He explained rust and tags blowing in the wind from other towers can cause interference issues. Commissioner Seaverson referenced being familiar with the air infiltration and applying acceptable standards in this case due to her engineering background. It is a case-by-case, client-by-client decision made for each client as far as an acceptable standard. She asked if AT&T would share their acceptable standard with the Commission. She questioned if this is a specific or a vague standard. The letter states that “the placement of AT&T equipment in such close proximity to the water tank could have a negative impact on quality and service and we cannot support the use of the tower next to the water tank.” She stated that this statement is not definitive and before putting up and approving a second tower in the community she would like to be sure this definitely does or does not impact or meet this acceptable threshold or standard. She would want to see the third-party consultant independently make that determination unless AT&T can provide us with these definitive levels of service. Commissioner Stichmann asked if PIM is measurable at all or is it simply a phenomenon of a problem. Mr. Flower stated that PIM is measurable because they know it is causing the interference. The problem with this facility is how to measure PIM off a structure and be able to measure it before the facility is built, spending all the money to build it. The measurement for PIM is very hard to quantify because conditions change. AT&T will work with SEH to give them all the information available and have SEH come back and give their determination. He stated, the report from SEH will need to go back to AT&T’s engineering department and will need to be given to AT&T’s management to determine whether the PIM measurement is acceptable to management. Commissioner Stichmann clarified, this is a measurement of how another signal is interfering with your frequency. Mr. Flowers stated it is nowhere near as simple as it used to be. He explained they used to be able to use a crane with antennas and do testing to ensure coverage patterns. Now it is getting down to a point where trying to fine tune an engine that is so precise it is hard to do. SEH will have a hard time to qualify how much degradation there will be without the facility being built. Commissioner Stichmann stated this is a challenge to the Commission and it may be precedent setting. He explained, without any of them having the genuine knowledge to say this is a black and white issue, they need assistance. He said it is not an issue to us so much as it is abiding by the law. Mr. Jermain stated he understands the desire to get to a quantifiable amount of PIM indicating the impact to service. He urged consideration of the state statute which says the approval consideration includes whether it provides the same functionality, coverage, capacity and is technically feasible. He feels that a big metal column in front of the antenna will have an impact, they just do not know how much of an impact. If the tower will have an impact, and it will, then you need to consider the statutes. He referred to what he sees as the motivations in the project, stating there is an existing tower owner that wants to rent the tower and a carrier that wants to provide the best service to customers and wants to make the investment in the community to achieve that by building a new tower. Zoning Administrator Schwecke referred to the given examples of items that would cause PIM on a tower and asked if they are saying that co-location is ever feasible. Is there ever an instance where you will totally avoid the interference? Mr. Jermain responded, while it can be possible when AT&T does detect PIM in existing infrastructure they try to eliminate it. In this case, they do know right off the bat that there is a huge interference right in front of it. Times have changed, the technology and speeds have developed  and are getting more technical. Most leases are 25 years and they are trying to make sure it will be suitable for many years to come. Trustee Renucci asked if AT&T intends to rent space on tower. Mr. Jermain answered that AT&T always tries to design so there is space available, but they do not like to own towers. He stated in 2013 USA Today posted an article about AT&T selling or leasing 9,700+ towers. AT&T’s goal is not to own towers, it is to provide the best quality wireless service to customers. Trustee Renucci questioned, what is the current rate to lease a cell tower and if there is a time limit. Mr. Flowers stated for AT&T towers they have master lease agreements with most of the major carries. He cannot disclose the amounts because it is proprietary but there is a range and it is a reasonable amount of money per month to lease that space. Companies such as SBA, that own towers, usually have higher lease amounts. Most leases are for a 5-year initial term with five 5-year extensions for a total of 20-25 years. Trustee Renucci suggested perhaps AT&T does not want to pay a lease and wants to build their own tower. Mr. Flowers stated this is a business and when they build a facility they review all building costs. Just the environmental costs are $25,000-$40,000, plus the engineering study, the tower, the foundation and more. This is a major investment between $350,000- $500,000 for a site. Trustee Renucci stated then you have proprietary lease amounts you can charge to other carriers. He stated they are not in the business to lease space but there are ordinances that specify they need to have a three-carrier tower. They build the facility, so the tower can be extended if the municipality desires this to minimize the number of towers. The towers are built so they meet the requirements of the law and they have the ability to allow another carrier to locate on it. President Seager confirmed that this issue can be extended to the December 10, 2018 meeting. SBA had no further comments/questions when asked. Zoning Administrator Schwecke discussed as part of the packet a letter from the manufacturer was supplied discussing the fall zone. The standard is a certain distance from the property line unless they provide a letter discussing a smaller fall zone. He stated he wanted to inquire whether the Commission had any questions about this information. With no questions, he stated from a staff perspective, the letter is clear. Motion by President Seager, second by Trustee Renucci, to adjourn the Public Hearing to December 10, 2018 at 6:30. Attorney Pruitt stated that the Village Board approved the concept of hiring a third-party consultant as long as work does not begin prior to the requested deposit being received. This may impact the time frame. Commissioner Seaverson asked about the possible interference from tall metal buildings in the area because this is an industrial park area and wanted to know if the representatives from AT&T were in agreement that something below the tower itself would not provide any interference. Their response was that they had drove around and looked at buildings in the area prior to the meeting and they would like to suggest that SEH take the surrounding buildings into account as well as the water tower for both locations. Advisory – motion carried. Commission – motion carried. B. Possible recommendation by the Plan Commission to the Village Board Motion by President Seager to table the site plan to the December 10 meeting at 6:30 and also noted that nothing will resume as far as investigation until receipt of the $10,000 from AT&T for investigation by a third-party. President Seager explained that the Commission understands that AT&T is trying to provide the best possible service to their customers, but this is new territory for the Commission and they are trying to make the best decision possible for the community. AT&T felt that they will need about 10 days to get the check to the Village and then SEH will need time to do the investigation. The suggestion was to come back  at the January 2019 meeting. Motion died due to lack of second. Motion by Commissioner Seaverson, second by Commissioner Stichmann, to reconsider the motion to table the public hearing to December. Advisory – motion carried, Commission – motion carried. Motion by President Seager, second by Commissioner Seaverson, to adjourn the public hearing to the January 14, 2019 Plan Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. Advisory -motion carried, Commission - motion carried. 11. Site plan for a telecommunication tower located at 2030 Young Street (RXUP00209B1); AT&T, applicant; Phase 1 Consulting, Sal Randazzo agent (application: 2018-42) A. Possible action by the Plan Commission Motion by President Seager, second by Commissioner Seaverson, to adjourn the site plan to the January 14, 2019 Plan Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. and investigation from a third-party will not begin until the receipt of the $10,000 check from AT&T. Advisory -motion carried, Commission - motion carried with Commissioner Arendt abstaining. 12. Conditional use for mini-storage units located at 2566 Energy Drive (RA142000002, RA142000003); Frank C Price, applicant (application: 2018-39) A. Public hearing President Seager opened the public hearing. Zoning Administrator Schwecke stated the applicant asked to delay the public hearing to December 10 at 6:30 Motion by President Seager, second by Trustee Renucci, adjourn the public hearing until December 10 at 6:30. Advisory – motion carried, Commission – motion carried. B. Possible recommendation by the Plan Commission to the Village Board Note: The applicant submitted a request asking the Plan Commission to adjourn the public hearing to the next meeting on December 10, 2018. 13. Site plan for mini-storage units located at 2566 Energy Drive (RA142000002, RA142000003); Frank C Price, applicant (application: 2018-40) A. Possible action by the Plan Commission Motion by Commissioner Nugent, second by Trustee Renucci, to table consideration of the site plan until December 10. Advisory – motion carried, Commission - motion carried. 14. Possible amendment of the zoning code regarding conditional uses (2017 Act 67) A. Possible action by the Plan Commission Zoning Administrator Schwecke reviewed the modifications he incorporated based on the prior discussion by the Plan Commission. Motion by President Seager, second by Commissioner Arendt, to place on the next agenda for public hearing. Advisory – motion carried, Commission – motion carried. 15. Discussion related to Empty Storefronts conference as presented by Commissioner Erin Seaverson (no packet materials)  Commissioner Seaverson reported she had attended a “Newaukee” empty storefront conference. The focus was to share solutions, national trends, best practices and success stories. She said speakers at the conference were local, regional and national. She found there are many things we are doing that are concurrent with what she heard. This affirms we are already doing some good things in East Troy. She also said there was an emphasis placed on focusing on what you already have in your community. This includes the businesses already here and what they are doing and how can we encourage them to grow. She reviewed the pop-up shops, the process used to encourage these and how it can assist business with getting established. 16. Discussion related to possible amendment of the zoning code regarding architectural/design standards in the new tax increment financing district Zoning Administrator Schwecke reviewed the draft of standards. He stated the table listing acceptable exterior materials still needed to be established. The Commission discussed outdoor storage and whether it should be limited as drafted. Discussion occurred regarding the proposed percentage of 10% of floor space and whether this should be increased as well as required screening for these areas. Commissioner Stichmann questioned if the overlay should be established and allow some TID properties to not be incorporated so they are not subject to the standards. Commissioner Seaverson expressed a desire to incorporate sidewalks through business park and allowing for pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Since this was the first review of the draft, Zoning Administrator Schwecke stated he would bring it back for further discussion on exterior materials and the Commission can further discuss the limitations for outdoor storage. A. Possible action by the Plan Commission 17. Recommendations for future agendas (no packet materials) Pending Items (no packet materials) 1. Possible amendment of the zoning code regarding pavement requirements to access detached buildings 2. Possible amendment of the zoning code regarding metal shipping containers (for storage) 3. Possible amendment of the zoning code regarding the zoning for RXUP 00256 (west side of STH 120 and South of I-43) 4. Possible amendment of the zoning code regarding tree protection standards for new development 5. Communicating with downtown square businesses regarding design review and related matters The Commission also discussed scheduling one more workshop for the comprehensive plan update. 18. Adjourn Motion by President Seager, second by Trustee Renucci, to adjourn at 8:38 p.m. Motion carried.