Jon VandeKopple of 1479 Lakeside Drive, Hudsonville, MI 49426 has applied for a dimensional variance at 3239 Oak Street, Hudsonville, MI 49426, parcel #70-14-29-481-007. The request is for a 28 square foot freestanding sign where a 15 square foot sign is permitted per Section 7-9 E, 2, Table 7.1 of the City of Hudsonville Zoning Ordinance.
At this point Chairman VanDenBerg opened the public hearing.
Jon VandeKopple was present to explain his request for an exterior sign that would be 4’ x 7’. The sign would be partially illuminated. It would list the addresses for businesses renting space in his buildings.
After all present were given the opportunity to speak, Chairman VanDenBerg closed the public hearing.
Dan Strikwerda stated that the applicant received approval for two buildings totaling 15,000 sq. ft. plus the existing 1,532 sq. ft. office towards the front of the property. One option is to combine the allowable freestanding sign space for the two streets on which they have frontage. No sign would then be allowed on Elm Avenue.

Are there unique circumstances or conditions that apply to this property?
VanDenBerg – Yes. It is an oddly shaped lot that has 66’ of frontage on a 1.2 acre lot.

Does the request of this variance go beyond the possibility of increased financial return for the applicant?
Brummel – Yes. This will benefit future tenants.

Has the immediate practical difficulty been caused by anything other than what the applicant has done?
VanderMaas – Yes. It is due to narrow frontage. They need adequate signage.

Will granting this variance uphold the spirit of the ordinance, secure public safety, and uphold substantial justice to property owners in the district? In turn, will denying this variance prevent you, the applicant, substantial rights and privileges that others in the same zoning district are able to enjoy?
VanDenBerg – Yes. The frontage is small on both Elm Avenue & Oak Street.

Has the applicant explored all possible alternatives?
VanderMaas – Yes. The alternatives are limited.
A motion was made by VanderMaas, supported by Brummel, to approve the request for a 28 sq. ft. freestanding sign where a 15 sq. ft. sign is permitted with the condition that the permitted freestanding sign space for both Elm Avenue and Oak Street is combined to allow for 28 sq. ft. of signage at the proposed Oak Street location.

Manufacturers Supply Company, 3127 Highland Drive, Hudsonville, MI 49426 has applied for a dimensional variance at 4235/4236 Corporate Exchange Drive, Hudsonville, MI 49426, parcels #70-18-04-301-011 and –012. The request is for 70’ driveway spacing where 145’ is required resulting in a 75’ variance, per Section 9-4, Table 9.3 of the City of Hudsonville Zoning Ordinance.
At this point Chairman VanDenBerg opened the public hearing.
The applicant was not present for the meeting.
After all present were given the opportunity to speak, Chairman VanDenBerg closed the public hearing.
Dan Strikwerda stated that the applicant received approval for a 121,199 sq. ft. industrial building at the south end of Corporate Exchange Drive. Due to the cul-de-sac, the applicant’s driveway is closer to the south Electro-Techniques driveway than what is permitted by right. The applicant has worked with him at having 2 access points that will serve the business on an 18 acre lot. The driveway has been shifted twice. The spacing was originally about 50’ and is now 90’ 4”.

Are there unique circumstances or conditions that apply to this property?
VanDenBerg – Yes. There is limited access at the end of the cul-de-sac compared to the lot size.

Does the request of this variance go beyond the possibility of increased financial return for the applicant?
VanDenBerg – Yes. This will assist traffic circulation.

Has the immediate practical difficulty been caused by anything other than what the applicant has done?
Brummel – Yes. This is due to the subdivision of lots.
Strikwerda – There currently are 2 lots. Each would have been allowed a driveway. The lots will be combined for the new building.

Will granting this variance uphold the spirit of the ordinance, secure public safety, and uphold substantial justice to property owners in the district? In turn, will denying this variance prevent you, the applicant, substantial rights and privileges that others in the same zoning district are able to enjoy?
VanderMaas – Yes. The business has to have proper access.

Has the applicant explored all possible alternatives?
VanderMaas – Yes. They have been working with Dan Strikwerda for the best solution.
A motion was made by Lubbers, supported by Brummel, to approve a dimensional variance of 54’ 8” for driveway spacing of 90’ 4”.

Dan Strikwerda, AICP
Planning/Zoning Administrator