Pike Lake residents filled the August 14 Cook County Planning Commission meeting held in the Cook County commissioners’ room at 5 p.m., with most folks there to voice displeasure about a proposed “glampground” in a residential area of Pike Lake.
Joe and Bailey Hutchence, currently of Duluth, are new property owners at 1219 Pike Lake Road, and recently they introduced themselves to the public at Cascade Lodge restaurant. The couple also took time to meet prospective neighbors to let them know they were planning to build a luxury glampground called Cedar Bound.
However, after the initial meeting, Pike Lake residents found out through the Hutchences’ social media that what they had been told and what the Hutchences were planning was much grander than what the couple told them, and it didn’t take long for opposition to the glampground to form.
The Hutchences purchased 42.1 wooded acres and have requested an Interim Use Permit from the county to establish a public recreational area within the FAR-2 zone district, on land adjacent to the Pike Lake Road.
The Hutchences are proposing to create an initial recreational area accommodating up to 18 guests within an eight-unit glampground far bigger than the two units they told their perspective neighbors.
What is glamping?
Cook County Planning and Zoning Director Bill Lane explained “glamping” is a new word that first appeared in the United Kingdom in 2006. It combines glamorous and camping to make glamping. Campers get all the comforts of home in a remote (sometimes) setting. The Hutchences describe their venture as a “sustainable luxury glamping retreat in northern Minnesota.”
In a press release the Duluth couple extolled, “Our vision is to create a sustainable luxury glamping retreat, featuring year-round tented cabins. These units will be available for short-term rental, and will be tucked away within our property, offering privacy and solitude, while still providing modern amenities.”
However, many residents living near the proposed glampground expressed frustration with the thought of a commercial operation being built in their neighborhood, and that frustration was evident at the Wednesday night planning commission meeting.
Bill Lane said following the release of public notifications sent to neighbors, Land Services received, “a variety of written comments from property owners in the area regarding the Cedar Bound operation which included: The placement of a commercial operation in a residential zone district; trespassing, noise and other disruptions; impacts on wildlife; increased wildfire risks; control of guest pets; septic compliance; impact on property values; and impacts on the environment, etc.”
Lane explained the comments were “viable and serious concerns and certainly, the request for a commercial recreational area in an otherwise residential landscape further dissolves the integrity of residential zoning in a county increasingly beholden to tourism.
“Further introspection occurs when considering the function of the FAR-2 zone district itself, which states: The principal purpose of the FAR-2 district is to provide for permanent or seasonal residential uses at a low density. Farming, forestry operations and other rural activities are also allowed.”
Because the Hutchences were promoting their business online before a CUP was issued, Lane advised, “You are already advertising for a use that has yet to be permitted. I suggest you remove all commercial components of that advertisement until approved by the Cook County Board of Commissioners. There is an ‘assumption’ here, which may be challenged or disallowed, altogether.”
With the notification from Lane, the Hutchences immediately pulled their advertising off their website.
Explaining the project to the audience and planning commission, Bailey Hutchence said the couple wants to build their facility in stages, starting with completion of a 2-person unit, then adding a 4-person unit, and finally, building a group area of six one-room 14×14-foot units, staged together and connected by a shared platform deck. All of the amenities for the group area (kitchen, shower, toilets) would be housed in an auxiliary building adjacent to the units.
Additionally they plan to build a home and a 40×60-foot pole barn, neither of which will be commercial ventures.
When it came time to build, Bailey said they would keep the sites far from neighbors, adding they would be intentional with their unit placement, “so as to respect our neighbors and ensure minimal impact on the land. In addition, we plan to build a home for ourselves on the property and maintain a year-round presence.”
Bailey also said she and her husband understood their neighbors’ concerns, and they would do all they could to mitigate those concerns. “We will not have any trails leading toward property boundary lines. Where necessary, we will post signs to discourage guests from wandering beyond any designated trails within our property.
“Our units will be placed a considerable distance away from the road and from surrounding property lines. Where needed, we will plant trees to promote privacy and clarify the boundaries. All units will be drive-up, and have a designated parking spot, to avoid any congestion or disturbances to neighbors. And finally, we will have enforced quiet hours.”
Public Comment
When it came time for the planning commission to take comments, all of those who came forward spoke in opposition of the glampground.
“I’m opposed to the glampground,” said Jinsey Smith. “When I first heard this news I was devastated for many reasons. We chose to buy property in this area of the county for one reason, to be free of commercial endeavors. This is clearly a commercial operation and we are not zoned commercial. My property also borders them on two sides. If I wanted to sell it would be nearly impossible.”
Gary Robinson has been living near the Hutchence property for 33 years. He gave a lot of reasons why he didn’t want to see a CUP granted, adding, “I, Gary Robinson, am against this 100 percent.”
Bob LaMettry owns 27 acres near the proposed glampground, which he called, “a resort without a lake.” He asked how many units could ultimately be built on the property? What was the final plan for the development? Did it fit with what is in the area today? He finished by asking the commissioners to keep the area zoned residential, and to deny the CUP permit to the Hutchences.
Erin Blegen grew up in the area, moved way and returned, “To raise my family—this is the stuff of nightmares for me. I chose Pike Lake because it is where I grew up. I wanted my kids to have a place where they could roam and ride bikes and not have to worry about the threat of strangers. Bringing in 40 strangers on any given day, and recycling them out for another 40 in the same week means my neighborhood will not feel safe.
“Please do not allow these individuals to come into my neighborhood and push out yet another young family. It is very clear through all of their advertising that growth is the absolute goal. They will not stop once they are allowed to start. Please keep the neighborhood intact as it zoned.”
Judy Boots wasted little time at the microphone. A 45-year resident, she stated, “We having zoning laws for a reason, let’s respect them.” She worried about increased traffic on a bad road, decreasing property values and closed by saying, “I’m totally opposed,” to the commercial establishment of a glampground.
Mike Schelmeske doesn’t live around Pike Lake, but he does live in a wooded area of the county. Last year a commercial operation was given a CUP to open near his house and he said the road was much busier than it had been in the past, and the road had been damaged (he counted 42 potholes). He said the neighborhood wasn’t as quiet as before. He urged the planning commission to deny the CUP and leave the neighborhood residential.
Sarah Erickson and her husband John own property right across the road from the Hutchences. They couldn’t attend the meeting because they were working in the metro area, where they now live. Instead, they sent a letter: “We have a garage cabin up there and are currently renovating our metro home to sell which will finance our move to Cook County. We’ll be bringing two children and a couple of ponies. This is the dream; it’s coming true 2020.
“Over the past year we have had some second thoughts about it with polygamists and aliens/ liberals and road improvements. We can deal with those issues as they are not directly across the road from us… We chose this area for its zoning and non-touristy vibe…Cook County is losing its magical attraction all for the tourists $$$ first mentality. Honestly, you may end up losing families seeking their peace of mind for that very reason.”
Erickson finished by writing, “Unfortunately maybe, Montana is looking quite appealing right now.”
Following the public comments planning board commissioner Judy Motschenbacher stated that many of the Pike Lake residents worked in the tourist industry, and those folks had located to the Pike Lake area to, “rest and retreat,” from the tourists.
She acknowledged the glampground would bring tourists to the area, but if the planning commission were to grant a CUP to the Hutchences, “We might have to throw out the rest of the ordinance.” Later she remarked, “This is a residential area. It’s not commercial and this is a new commercial venture, and I can’t support it.”
County Commissioner Heidi Doo-Kirk, the county board liaison to the planning commission, asked Bill Lane that if the three-year CUP were granted and then rescinded, would the Hutchences have to remove the buildings?
Lane responded, “Yes.”
Planning commission board member Jerry Hiniker said he could see both sides of the argument, and when time to vote, he was the only commissioner who didn’t vote against issuing the CUP.
The matter will now go before the county board of commissioners who will decide to follow the recommendation of the planning commission, or to give the Hutchenses a 3-year CUP for a glampground.
Leave a Reply