While I'm in favor of redevelopment of this land, the number of variances being requested does not sound like they are thinking of their neighbors or the wildlife that will be disturbed.
R
Ray and Sally Steffens
7 years ago
We agree with all the comments that have been made about the over development and amount of variances being asked for.
J
Jean Gass
7 years ago
No
D
Dale Carlson
7 years ago
I welcome the redevelopment of the Driftwood property within the current development regulations that are in place to protect the lake.
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
Overcrowding is bad for the lake. Please have Driftwood follow the current regulations.
R
Rob Haglund
7 years ago
Wholeheartedly agree
K
Kimberly Schulte
7 years ago
Very opposed to this overdevelopment
B
Bob Brauer
7 years ago
As an Upper Whitefish homeowner, I agree this project should be denied as proposed.
A
Adam Fetcher
7 years ago
The variances requested for this development are frankly out of control. I support smart development in Crow Wing County, but I don't support the degradation of our most precious resource: the lakes that sustain the entire region. As a member of the Kater family, I grew up fishing in the lagoon between the former Driftwood Resort and Kater Island. I know what a special - and sensitive - area it is, home to all kinds of spawning fish and waterfoul species, not to mention a beautiful natural amenity for everyone who spends time in the area (including those who will live and/or stay at the former Driftwood site). Putting slips for dozens if not hundreds of boats in this tiny, shallow lagoon is unconscionable. It will degrade the area ecologically and hurt the natural beauty for everyone. Please respect the integrity of our lakes and the health of our water. It belongs to everyone on the lake, and that's why we have sensible standards and regulations governing such development. Development can and should be a benefit to all, but only if we follow the rules.
J
Jeff Laurel
7 years ago
Featured
The granting of multiple variances for a situation that is not a real hardship renders the state regulations useless for their intended purpose of protecting our lakes. A less aggressive version of this project would better respect the long-term natural asset that is the lake.
K
Kay Rezanka
7 years ago
The Planning Commission must thoughtfully consider the many long-term ecological impacts of the large number of variances being requested here. The wetland between Driftwood and Kater Island is an historic nesting area for loons. The very large number of mooring slips proposed will discourage loons from nesting in this area and will negatively affect the water quality on which they and other wildlife depend. To minimize the significant impacts this development will have on the land and waters, the Commission must expect it to proceed within the existing ordinances. Future generations of Whitefish Chain residents and visitors are depending on today's Commission to adhere to the shoreland development rules to protect water quality for their tomorrow.
W
william gass
7 years ago
Too much development for this parcel here. Come back with something that works for everyone, instead of being so greedy.
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
Too many docks...keep to legal rules.
M
Mike Dougherty
7 years ago
The development of the Driftwood Resort site would be a welcome addition so long as such development follows the current State of Minnesota and local regulations for shoreland development.
B
Brad Spratt
7 years ago
I'm not sure why it is showing me as a resident of Canada, but I am a full time resident on Lower Hay lake.
B
Brad Spratt
7 years ago
I would have no issues with the redevelopment of this property as a resort with a restaurant and bar. But, the variances that are being requested seem to be opposed to the tightening of lake shore development regulations. I inquired about having a living quarters in a garage to use before building a house on my property. I was told at the time that when I built my home I would need to disconnect those living quarters from water and septic as my 1.23 acres was too small to allow for 2 dwellings. When I hear about the request for a variance for 20+ buildings and set back variances in addition to the impervious surface variance request. I can't imagine what it would do the the water quality of our lake. As for the request for 76 dock slips, that would increase the amount of boat traffic on Lower Hay lake by a large percentage. With the weed problem that Upper Whitefish had last summer, the amount of water skiing and tubing traffic was already very high. If that many boat slips were added to this lake, I would think the probability of a serious accident would increase drastically. So, while I would welcome this property be redeveloped to again be used as a resort (which the chain is losing more and more resorts every year) I would urge that the county adhere to the current lake shore development regulations and denied the requests as purposed.
S
Sandy and Pat Stone
7 years ago
This is ridiculous. The lake quality was absolutely horrible last summer especially on Upper Whitefish. This will only compound the problem.
D
David and Sandra Hill
7 years ago
We understand the need for and support appropriate development of the former Driftwood Resort. However, the plan as proposed seems excessive and out of character for the surrounding community. We are most concerned about the impact on the quality of the shoreline, wetlands and water. In particular, the inclusion of 76 mooring slips with many in the wetlands could prove to be very damaging. For this, and other reasons stated, we oppose the plans as set forth and every effort should be made to adhere to relevant regulations.
While I'm in favor of redevelopment of this land, the number of variances being requested does not sound like they are thinking of their neighbors or the wildlife that will be disturbed.
We agree with all the comments that have been made about the over development and amount of variances being asked for.
No
I welcome the redevelopment of the Driftwood property within the current development regulations that are in place to protect the lake.
Overcrowding is bad for the lake. Please have Driftwood follow the current regulations.
Wholeheartedly agree
Very opposed to this overdevelopment
As an Upper Whitefish homeowner, I agree this project should be denied as proposed.
The variances requested for this development are frankly out of control. I support smart development in Crow Wing County, but I don't support the degradation of our most precious resource: the lakes that sustain the entire region. As a member of the Kater family, I grew up fishing in the lagoon between the former Driftwood Resort and Kater Island. I know what a special - and sensitive - area it is, home to all kinds of spawning fish and waterfoul species, not to mention a beautiful natural amenity for everyone who spends time in the area (including those who will live and/or stay at the former Driftwood site). Putting slips for dozens if not hundreds of boats in this tiny, shallow lagoon is unconscionable. It will degrade the area ecologically and hurt the natural beauty for everyone. Please respect the integrity of our lakes and the health of our water. It belongs to everyone on the lake, and that's why we have sensible standards and regulations governing such development. Development can and should be a benefit to all, but only if we follow the rules.
The granting of multiple variances for a situation that is not a real hardship renders the state regulations useless for their intended purpose of protecting our lakes. A less aggressive version of this project would better respect the long-term natural asset that is the lake.
The Planning Commission must thoughtfully consider the many long-term ecological impacts of the large number of variances being requested here. The wetland between Driftwood and Kater Island is an historic nesting area for loons. The very large number of mooring slips proposed will discourage loons from nesting in this area and will negatively affect the water quality on which they and other wildlife depend. To minimize the significant impacts this development will have on the land and waters, the Commission must expect it to proceed within the existing ordinances. Future generations of Whitefish Chain residents and visitors are depending on today's Commission to adhere to the shoreland development rules to protect water quality for their tomorrow.
Too much development for this parcel here. Come back with something that works for everyone, instead of being so greedy.
Too many docks...keep to legal rules.
The development of the Driftwood Resort site would be a welcome addition so long as such development follows the current State of Minnesota and local regulations for shoreland development.
I'm not sure why it is showing me as a resident of Canada, but I am a full time resident on Lower Hay lake.
I would have no issues with the redevelopment of this property as a resort with a restaurant and bar. But, the variances that are being requested seem to be opposed to the tightening of lake shore development regulations. I inquired about having a living quarters in a garage to use before building a house on my property. I was told at the time that when I built my home I would need to disconnect those living quarters from water and septic as my 1.23 acres was too small to allow for 2 dwellings. When I hear about the request for a variance for 20+ buildings and set back variances in addition to the impervious surface variance request. I can't imagine what it would do the the water quality of our lake. As for the request for 76 dock slips, that would increase the amount of boat traffic on Lower Hay lake by a large percentage. With the weed problem that Upper Whitefish had last summer, the amount of water skiing and tubing traffic was already very high. If that many boat slips were added to this lake, I would think the probability of a serious accident would increase drastically. So, while I would welcome this property be redeveloped to again be used as a resort (which the chain is losing more and more resorts every year) I would urge that the county adhere to the current lake shore development regulations and denied the requests as purposed.
This is ridiculous. The lake quality was absolutely horrible last summer especially on Upper Whitefish. This will only compound the problem.
We understand the need for and support appropriate development of the former Driftwood Resort. However, the plan as proposed seems excessive and out of character for the surrounding community. We are most concerned about the impact on the quality of the shoreline, wetlands and water. In particular, the inclusion of 76 mooring slips with many in the wetlands could prove to be very damaging. For this, and other reasons stated, we oppose the plans as set forth and every effort should be made to adhere to relevant regulations.
No way!
I am NOT in favor of this development!