Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 16 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
County rejects resort plans
Board denies expansion at Frank’s Lodge
Originally published 12:00 p.m., April 23, 2008
Updated 06:57 a.m., April 24, 2008
The owner of a popular Star Lake resort says he won’t pursue an ambitious expansion after having plans denied Tuesday by the Otter Tail County Board.
John Frank, owner of Frank’s Lodge & Campground, said Tuesday he’s likely to abandon plans for adding 42 camping sites and eight sites designated just for tents at his Star Lake Resort. Barring any successful appeal, which Frank said is doubtful, it’s likely he will remain with five cabins and 42 camping sites.
The county planning commission submitted a report to the county board outlining several concerns about density and other issues it deemed would make the expansion inappropriate on the western arm of Star Lake.
“This is mostly about density issues,” said Commissioner Dennis Mosher who joined Robert Block, Everett Erickson and Roger Froemming in voting down the measure. Commissioner Syndey Nelson was not in attendance.
Tuesday was the second time Frank had expansion plans for his resort rejected by the county board. Earlier Frank sought to increase the number of units at his resort and campground from 47 to 97.
Bob Weatherly, who owns property near Frank's Lodge & Campground, told the county board he had concerns about the density issue. Specifically, he questioned whether the western arm of Star Lake would be able to handle additional camping sites at the resort.
The county planning commission, in its recommendation to the county board, said that, due to the size of the project, the request was not compatible with the surrounding area.
The commission also stated that the Star Lake Township road near the current resort and campground is not suitable for an increase in traffic and said there would be increased dust when more vehicles used the road.
There would be other adverse environmental effects if the permit were allowed, county officials said — including the funnelling of noise towards the lake that would disturb the natural topography.
Chris McCann of Interstate Engineering, who is representing Frank and the project, said his client has put a lot of effort into the permit and asked the board to send the issue back to the planning commission so that a worthwhile dialog could take place.
The county board rejected that option.
The commissioners decided against tabling the matter because the permit had been rejected once before. If Frank wants to reapply, he will need to start the process all over again — including payment for a new application fee and going through the notice and hearing process again.
The board did, however, approve three other applications for conditional use permits, but two of them had certain conditions that need to be met. Two of the approvals are for projects in Dora Township east of Pelican Rapids and the third is for a project near Parkers Prairie.
Another application was withdrawn prior to the county board meeting, so no action needed to be taken by the four commissioners in attendance.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by localfisherman (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
how would noise affect the topography???
Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
no, it is the people who have lakeshore property there don't want to let anyone else enjoy it, just like the fish lake deal.
Posted by lookitup (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's already 47 campsites there - I'm not sure I follow how this does not let "anyone else enjoy" the lake.
The proposal did not meet the current Shoreland Management Ordinance, so the resort owner tried to get a variance. The Planning Commission (and later the County Board) denied it based on: 1. The request is not compatible with the surrounding area. 2. The Township Road is not suitable for a lot of traffic, the proposal would cause a lot of dust. 3. The environmental impact on the aquatic vegetation. 4. The project is located on a narrow arm of a General Development Lake. 5. The aquatic vegetation in the lake diminishes the useable area of the lake. 6. The noise would be funneled towards the lake. 7. The proposed disturbance of the natural topography (moving 9,000 cubic yards of dirt). 8. The request exceeds the number of dwelling units allowed by the Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO). 9. The boat slips already exceed the number allowed by the SMO.
All of this information is available online at the County website.
Our County Board and the Planning Commission (and the Board of Adjustment) actually do a nice job of balancing interests. This particular project would not be good for the lake at all. In fact, there are probably too many sites there now.
Posted by luvmyboys (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Have you ever been to the West Arm of Star Lake??? It has nothing to do with not wanting others to enjoy Star Lake. What a complete assinine comment. It has everything to do with trying to preserve what's already there. If you've ever been in that back bay you would know that 80+ campsites is way too many. The planning commission was right on in denying this request.
Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
so you are saying that Chris McCann of Interstate Engineering hasn't a clue of what he is doing or talking about?
Posted by goingfishing (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, leave it to this bunch of commissioners. Wouldn't it be more helpful to the citizen/owner to have it referred back to committee? But, no, make any progress for this county as difficult as they can is the mentality. That's always the case and frankly, many of us are getting very tired of it.
Posted by gumball (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Chris McCann is a representative for Frank and the project. He does have a clue what he is doing, but he's doing it for the benefit of his client. I've been to Frank's Campground before, like about 20 years ago. It's a nice place, but there isn't enough beach to support domething like they were proposing. People would be stacked like cordwood by the beach instead of being able to relax by it.
Posted by gumball (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, I'm a great speller. It's support something, not domething. Dooohh!!
Posted by lookitup (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This proposal was not "progress". It was an attempt to make more $$ at the expense of the lake, at a place that already has too many sites and boat slips for their frontage. We don't need that kind of "progress" in OTC. Thank you Commissioners and Planning Commission.
Posted by goingfishing (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I simply was stating that it might have been beneficial for all if they would have referred it back to committee. Maybe there could have been a compromise of some sort. But, no, they prefer to just reject most applications and that is their way of controlling the voters that put them in office. There will be no thanks by me to this group of commissioners. They simply stand in the way of whatever type of development and progress comes up but yet feel free with our money on things like the Government Service Center and the Ottertail City Sheriff's Office. Next will be the remodeling of the Court House at millions of dollars cost.
Posted by cheaprent (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By whose estimation is this Mr. Frank "popular"? Having been a regular customer at Frank's Lodge for some thirty five years, I believe you meant to say, "the owner of a popular resort", which Frank's Lodge always was under former owners John (Buck) and Lucille Frank, both now deceased.
Posted by Bluegill (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This article has used the term " owner " rather loosely also.
Posted by jhage (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I believe you meant to say, "the owner of a popular resort""
You are correct. Thanks. I have updated the story.
Jeff Hage, editor
The Daily Journal
Posted by lookitup (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
goingfishing - so the County folks "prefer to just reject most applications"?? Really?? Maybe you should visit their website and review the minutes of the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment. "Most" applications are not rejected, and those that are have good explanations as to why they are rejected. Do a little research before you make foolish statements that you can't substantiate.
http://www.co.otter-tail.mn.us
Posted by cheaprent (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the retraction-I agree with Bluegill...I believe the "owner" is misrepresenting himself to the county board-check the records.
Posted by SandyB (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe that there is a misunderstanding about what Frank's Lodge desires to do with their expansion. It is not that there were to be 40+ added boaters and jet skiers on Star Lake. It is more likely that retirees and people who come up for the weekend would have a lovely spot near a lake to park their trailer. The amount of additional dock/boat slips that were being considered was negligible. If there is concern about additional dust created by increased traffic on the township road, perhaps a little well-placed substance to decrease dust would do the trick.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)