Laserfiche WebLink
1PENHANRCE7!� <br />May 26, 2010 <br />Dear Mayor Adams and City Council members: <br />CULLEN LAKES ASSOCIATION <br />P.O. Box 466, Nisswa, MN 56468 <br />I am writing regarding the Large Resort Overlay District amendment which the Planning Commission recently <br />voted 3 -2 to recommend to you for adoption. <br />Since the recommended amendment uses the 2005 DNR Alternative Shoreland Management Standards' density <br />language, which is the same as the density language in the 2009 DNR draft Minnesota's Shoreland Rules: <br />Standards for Lake and River Conservation (likely to be adopted before the end of the year), the Cullen Lakes <br />Association has no objection to the amendment itself. <br />However, if a resort takes advantage of the density language of this ordinance amendment, it should also have <br />to adhere to the rest of the resort language in the Alternative Standards and draft Shoreland Rules, especially the <br />language dealing with private ownership within a resort. This language places strict limitations on personal use <br />,f privately owned units within a resort. I have attached to this email the 2009 draft Shoreland Rules for your <br />"- reference. You will find the language on residential use in resorts on pages 78 -79. <br />As this relates to Wilderness Resort Villas on Middle Cullen Lake, the density granted in 2005 to the <br />redevelopment of the resort was residential density, a precaution taken by the Planning Commission in case the <br />owners of the privately owned units in the resort opted not to place their units in the resort rental pool, an option <br />given to them by the Planning Commission. <br />According to representatives of the resort developer at the May 20, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, the <br />resort will be using the commercial density allowed by the recommended ordinance amendment for future <br />development, development which will continue the option for owners of the privately owned units not to place <br />their units in the rental pool. This being the case, even if just a few of the units are used only by their owners, <br />there will be residential use in the resort that is disallowed by the DNR. This should not be allowed to happen. <br />Nothing can nor should be done about the residential use of the units already built in Wilderness Resort Villas, <br />because that part of the resort was developed with residential density. However, the future units built under <br />commercial density should be required to follow all the commercial (resort) rules as set forth by the DNR. Very <br />simply said, if you want commercial density you follow commercial standards. <br />If you approve the Large Resort Overlay District amendment, I ask that you somehow include in its language <br />that resorts using it must abide by commercial standards as set forth by the MN DNR, preferably the language <br />that will likely be adopted by year's end. <br />hank you for your consideration. <br />Sincerely, <br />Ann Beaver, CLA president <br />