|
PUBLIC HEARING:
BEACH HOUSE PUD
Visser opened the
public hearing.
Jack Siebers,
Attorney representing Randy Bouwkamp, requested that two conditions to
the Lake Street Beach House PUD be revised. The first condition would
permit the sale of fractional ownership interest in a condominium unit,
which would discourage rentals. Fractional ownership is not the same as
time-share. Fractional ownership interest is more like a second home.
It involves a deed, and encourages pride of ownership. Only one out of
the eight-condo units has sold. Secondly, they are asking condition M
to be revised to state that the condominium owners may use the storage
area over the garages. It currently states that only the association
can use it.
Charles Cooper,
2050 Lake Street, stated that he is against fractional ownership. He
feels that temporary residents would cause too many disturbances.
Henry Vanden
Heuvel, 2099 Ottawa Beach Rd., stated his concerns with condominium
owners and renters using the Bay Front Association’s deeded beach area.
Carolyn Stegink,
2058 Ottawa Beach Rd., stated that she and her husband are not in favor
of fractional ownership interest. She is concerned with overflow
parking, short-term rentals, and property upkeep.
Carol Tuls, 2083
Ottawa Beach Rd., stated her concerns with additional people and traffic
in such a small area.
Randy Bouwkamp,
Developer, stated that the amount of people occupying the units would
remain the same regardless of the number of owners. As it stands now, a
sole owner of a condominium unit could rent it out 52 weeks a year. He
feels fractional owners would buy for their own usage, therefore
eliminating renters. It would be run and maintained by a management
company. He also stated that his office has not received complaints
regarding the lake access.
Tina Stevens, 453
S. 168th Ave., stated her concern with the Lake St. traffic.
She questioned if a limit has been set for the fraction of ownerships.
Attorney Siebers
stated that he has a letter of support from the owners of the
condominium that did sell.
Visser closed the
public hearing.
Koopman stated
that the Planning Commission discussed fractional ownership interests.
There is a significant difference from time-sharing because of the
actual ownership of a piece of property. Fractional ownership is
popular and has positive results.
Steggerda stated
that the number of owners allowed per unit needs to be established.
Bouwkamp stated
that he would limit the number of owners to tenths. A property
management company would oversee it. There would be an association. If
parking becomes a problem, they are willing to assign parking spots.
Steggerda
questioned how taxes would be billed to multi-owners.
Bouwkamp replied
that taxes would be sent to the property management company, and they
would divide it between the owners. Each unit is one tax parcel.
Price stated that
she is very concerned with the parking during summertime.
Ebihara questioned
if Park Township currently has fractional ownership properties.
Visser stated that
the township does not have fractional ownership properties such as the
one requested. Visser and Van Iwaarden looked into fractional ownership
interests in different communities and received positive feedback.
Ebihara questioned
if there would be any restrictions on renting.
Bouwkamp replied
that the township does not have anything in the ordinances to control
other people from renting.
Dreyer stated that utilizing a management company could be a good opportunity to
police the area better than the way it is now.
Ebihara stated
that he is uncomfortable approving this as presented. He feels that
there should be rental restrictions if the Board approves fractional
ownerships.
Price
questioned if ordinances need to be changed to allow fractional
ownership interests.
Martin stated
that the zoning ordinance pertains to the use of the land, not the
ownership.
MOTION MADE;
MOTION SUPPORTED; MOTION CARRIED: A motion was made by Dreyer and
supported by Koopman to authorize the Township Attorney to prepare
the Beach House PUD documents to amend conditions E and M to allow
fractional ownership of no more than 10 owners per unit and to allow
the owners and the association itself to use the area above the
garage for storage, and that the Clerk and Supervisor be authorized
to sign the prepared document.
Ebihara stated
that intuitively ten owners seems to be too many to discourage rentals,
and minimizes the idea of pride of ownership.
Steggerda
disagreed. With more owners there would be less renters because they
would want to use the time they have for themselves.
Motion Carried 5
to 1. Ebihara opposed. |