it's on the agenda will be having a public hearing on that item and you can talk about it that very good unfinished business table items the truckstops back with us mark yes or the pilot site plan review you had the public hearing at your april fourteenth meeting that was tabled until at tonight's meeting because there were specifically additional issues mainly in regards to access management and driveway design and so forth with the michigan department of transportation that needed to be ironed out and staff is happy to say that all of those issues basically have been r l so staff has  revised report for you tonight quite lengthy with a number of conditions in here the staff is recommending that the site planned for new big new pilot  travel center down in forty just so if the vibe one ninety six that that is or be approved by a planning commission tonight with the conditions noted in the staff report and i believe you do technically i think you have to open the public hearing up again oh it was retail to a date certain and it doesn't automatically come off maybe it does i'm going to say it does ok so we're going to open a public hearing again if there's anyone here with new information that they'd like to share we'd like to hear  come on down rattles a pilot flying j there were two conditions that they caused me a little bit of concern number one was tying the installation of a temporary signal should m dots project be delayed  for whatever reason to the installation of the new signal at relocated interchange drive wholeheartedly agree that we would put a temporary signal and if the if the road work at all is not  done that the physical road but if the new road is in him died is going to reroute traffic on to the new road effectively rendering current location of interchange drive as a write in right out drive way there would be no point of putting a signal there temporary or otherwise because it's a free flow movement in both directions so i would ask that that that portion of the condition be struck and then as we talked about i would ask that the condition saying that we will monitor the situation a year after we open be struck because it's a very open ended vague suggestion and we're all going to be monitoring it anyway and if there's an issue you are the d o t or i'm going to bring it up and we're going to discuss at that point but that way we just lemonade any very open ended comments or conditions thank you anyone else conversations among planning commission members on the house i missed this portion of the study session with the applicant be responsible to are applicable to changing the wording to have both of those items be reviewed with city staff prior to or at some point versus just leaving open to review the lighting whether it's required with city staff i'm saying if there's ever going were to just put it with city staff instead of leave it as a mandate a city staff feels it's required you know placed a signal if they see that the right turn in is right turn out i mean you'd be good that and then same thing with the you know tweaking the traffic study if the city staff agree mark i'm asking you to if you agree with that changing those two items to on page five and i think that we can come up with some language or that meets that meets the intent of that motion if it if you want to move forward with that we can move forward that i'll make that into motion you understand maybe marva not to do you want to go i want to understand i get the gist of it ok so we have a motion that's going to support that district cell five feet seven feet this is more restrictive than regular access rebuilding the eighty you can only be located on the first floor this is going to prevent people from building to stall garages for large r v s and then throwing a bathroom and a kitchen in there and saying yeah it's an accessory don't you that when it really is a garage requiring the a t u to be inspected every three years regardless or not if it's a rental unit prohibiting eighty use from being constructed in the hope college neighborhood area as defined in our zoning ordinance so this can't be viewed as a way for a you know property owner in the college neighborhood to expand the number of people that can live on a lot and also limiting the size of the a t u to no more than one third of the area of the principal building and just remind the commission again these are for owner occupied lots only they are not for rental recommended by staff that this before to the city council for their for their review and discussion at their next available meeting questions can they be rented can the eighty's be vented yes they do you can be what happens if they fail their inspection there were treated like any other rental unit that has a failed inspection well what if the can turn it into a shut thing turned into a sh my take on it is whatever recommendation that you provide in the in this will be forwarded to city council so i mean if it's just a simple plurality vote doesn't carry you know the majority of the planning commission members i think we'd still forward the recommendation whatever it is to city council and let them decide already i'm going to open a public hearing is there anyone here that would like to add something to the discussions that we've been having on the subject come on down state your name and address please my name is carol hoskins i live in jenison michigan we've met before my husband i have been looking for about nine months for housing in holland to move here because we have a son with a developmental disability and we believe that holland would be a wonderful community for us to live in holland has public transportation so that would provide kind of optimum independence for our son who is handicapped but able and that population is growing across the country and i believe that holland would provide you know provides a really warm and welcoming environment on many levels for people with disabilities but not in housing that's that's an area that is lacking so we've been looking for nine months and really having a hard time finding something that's adequate where our son can have independence but we can still provide some of the oversight that he needs to function and to develop into a person who might be able to be even fully independent so we're in favor of eighty use this this provides that kind of flexibility where we can be in his own place and yet we can be nearby to help so we discussion among commission members conditional use permit on the airport so the airport west michigan airport is a made application to the board of appeals for a conditional use permit to allow them to build a new i guess it's not technically going to be an in airport terminal but be a business owner so essentially an office building seventy six hundred square foot office building that's going to be proposed for the end of your ink bowl of art on the north side of the one runway that we have out there so this is on the board of appeals and schedule for other meeting the end of this month in there as per the procedures for conditional use permits or requests goes out to the planning commission and many other city departments including the b p w for any comments and recommendations that you may want to share with the board of appeals so a recommending that you forward your recommendation to the board of appeals that you like what they're doing here and that the a conditional use from it should be corrected so that's sta recommendation this does not require a public hearing just a simple motion would be sufficient and a conversation among commission members on this yes we've had a discussion itch or a previous meeting as well as the study session before this one there is the urgent need for the city to make some amendments to section thirty nine dash three forty one which is a section that it deals with the the m forty corridor or south bend area overlay district and specifically that sections are requirements dealing with signage i won't go into much detail but it's urgent that the city make the change to that section of the ordinance into staff is that provided with commissioners with the two potential options for change and that one of them option number one basically strikes the requirement that all signage in that overlay district need to comply with  c five district requirements for signage and instead the signage would just revert to the base underline zone district in that corridor overlay district so that's option number one an option number two  would be to allow any property in that in forty frontage area be allowed to have one twenty foot tall sign five square feet an area twelve foot setback for me right of way or property  line to have one of those signs in place of the free standing sign that would other boys be allowed under under section thirty nine dish three sixty three and then all other signage needs to comply with section thirty nine three sixty three which is the c five district so in the study session i know that the members over present which is all of you did have an inkling to go with option number one staff certainly thinks that that would be a good choice to do so thank you and open a public hearing on this matter is there anyone to speak to this matter seeing none not close a public hearing is there a motion i have one question what what size is allowed i mean it's still twenty over there gold does it twenty by twenty five by seventy five twenty five and let me check i want to say it's a twenty five foot signed seventy five squeak seventy all those in favor signal by saying i oppose same sine motion carriers every public hearings to schedule none and a communication from commission members