4A - Amendment to Conditinal Use Permit - Wilderness Resort Villas

Home Browse Search

To: Pequot Lakes Planning Commission members From: Tom Beaver,Lower Cullen Lake resident Date: February 10,2014 Re: Wilderness Resort Villas I respectfully submit to you the following comments on the CUP request of Wilderness Resort Villas. Lodge *The proposed lodge to replace the 8 previously platted twin homes follows current concepts of clustering dwellings to preserve green space and is a commendable plan. That said,the height of this lodge lakeside (southwest)would be 33-34 feet,which could be construed as a violation of the 25 foot height restriction. It is the lakeside view of the lodge that is of concern. The existing height regulations(based on level ground)cannot be strictly adhered to in this case. Therefore you as a board,taking this anomaly into consideration, should have the authority to apply common sense in determining the height as viewed from the lake. That is the view the neighbors and general public will have. *The existing trees that supposedly would act as a visual buffer between the lake and the lodge are sparse and mostly deciduous,and quite a few of them will be removed to allow for the construction of the villas and twin homes in tier one(#35-44 on the site plan). As proposed,the lodge,though in the second tier, is exposed to the lake between the three twin homes and the four single dwellings in the first tier. When development is complete,the view of most of the southwest shore will be exposed buildings. *A cluster development(see attached example),which this resort is not but should be, would place the lodge and many of the single and twin homes truly clustered in one area, not spread out along the entire shoreline. The few open areas between units in tier one are visually filled, when viewed from the lake \.- and opposite shores, with the front of the units in tier two, resulting in what looks like a continuous line of buildings fairly close together,thus destroying any appearance of a more natural shoreline. A long,three- story lodge will only exacerbate this situation. *If a lodge is approved, it would be appropriate to require additional vegetation between the lodge and the lake, such as the replacement of trees removed at a 2 to 1 ratio, as a condition of approval. *A flatter roof design would help keep the lodge closer to the 25' maximum height. Second beach *A proposed second water usage beach has been turned down, for environmental reasons, by the planning commission at least four times since 2005. At one time the applicant created the beach anyway and was required to restore the area. This has made this part of the shoreline even more susceptible to environmental degradation. With the proposed expansion of the existing beach, it is difficult to understand why you should even consider yet another attempt to create the oft-denied second beach. Relocation of boat ramp *If the City grants the moving of the boat launching ramp, it would be advantageous to place a condition on the removal of the existing ramp requiring restoration of the area, including a berm to deflect run off into a holding depression or a rain garden. The existing ramp is a conduit for hundreds of inches of run off from Wilderness Road. It would also be wise to place a condition on the construction of the new ramp that would require its design to prevent run off into the lake from the land surrounding it and the road leading to it. City Council member Sjoblad's suggestion of a pressure washing station to address invasive species from the varied watercraft coming from other lakes, some being already infested,would be an �, appropriate condition, but this would need to take place away from the lake to prevent the water used