Developer Nick Ericson owns four acres of land in Lakeside, adjacent to the Hawk Ridge Estates neighborhood. In 2023, Ericson approached Duluth city planners to request the property be rezoned from R-1 (Residential-Traditional) to R-P (Residential-Planned), in order to accommodate a development he had in mind.
Apart from modifications specifically allowed in an R-P zone, the underlying R-1 zoning requirements all stay in place. Developers are extended greater flexibility for projects in R-P districts, as long as their development provides a public benefit of some kind. Examples of acceptable public benefits, described in the city’s Unified Development Code, include:
- “Significant preservation and protection of natural resources”;
- “More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high quality development at a lesser cost”;
- “Bike lanes and trails within the development that connect to other trails and destinations”; and
- “Recreational facilities that are available for regular public use, such as parks, trails, and playgrounds.”
Initially, Ericson sought permission to exceed R-1 height limits in his development, so he could fit more units under a single roof and minimize the site’s impervious surfaces (those which do not absorb water, like rooftops and driveways). While R-1 districts allow for buildings to be 30 feet tall, Ericson wanted to construct buildings 45 feet tall, with a density of eight to ten dwellings per acre. He proposed building no more than 33 dwellings on the entire site.
Ericson said the development would include a combination of single-family dwellings and a cottage home park (smaller units with shared common space). To fulfill his public benefit obligation, he proposed leaving an acre of undeveloped green space on the site and providing public trail connections to the adjacent parkland.
Initially, things went smoothly. City staff reviewed Mr. Ericson’s proposal and agreed that it met the requirements for R-P zoning. To apprise neighbors of the developer’s intentions, Ericson and city staff also held three required public meetings (one at a community center, one online, and one at the site itself) in November of 2023.
However, by March of 2024, an outcry had erupted in the community against Ericson’s development. Many of the project’s opponents lived in Hawk Ridge Estates, the neighborhood next to the proposed development site, which featured single-family homes on expansive lots. They argued that the increased housing density of the project was “out of character” with Hawk Ridge Estates. Opponents also expressed concern about the additional traffic the new development would create in their neighborhood.
A second group of opponents was concerned about the impact on the environment. Because Ericson’s property was immediately beneath Skyline Parkway and adjacent to Amity Creek, these opponents were concerned that the proposed buildings would interfere with Skyline’s scenic views and, by increasing the amount of storm runoff into the creek, would damage trout habitat.
On April 9, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the R-P zoning, after establishing the following limiting parameters:
- The maximum allowable building height would be reduced to 30 feet from the proposed 45;
- The density would be reduced to six units per acre; and
- The total number of units allowed on the site would be capped at 18.
These proposed changes didn’t differ much from the R-1 zoning requirements. The biggest difference was that Ericson would be allowed to cluster the dwellings closer together under the new R-P zoning.
Instead of placating project opponents, the updated project scope caused their outcry to grow louder. They demanded to know how they could trust a developer whose plans were constantly changing—ignoring the fact that Ericson’s plans had changed in response to their complaints.
City councilors and planning commissioners received more than 100 letters in opposition to the project. Opponents ignored the substantial limitations which had already been imposed on the development, contending that R-P zoning would give the developer “free rein” to do whatever he wished—without oversight or transparency.
On May 25, 2024, Ericson announced that he was abandoning the project. It is fair to say that community input was primarily responsible for crushing his dream.
NIMBYs
For some reason, some property owners adamantly object to changes in their immediate vicinity. In development circles, such people are known as Not In My Backyarders, or NIMBYs.
Consistency and logic are often dismissed by NIMBYs; stopping the creation of a development in their neighborhood is their primary goal. In this case, we found project opponents’ concerns to be particularly disingenuous. They failed to see that the majority of their criticisms applied to their own homes as well.
The Hawk Ridge Estates neighborhood, itself, has only existed since 2004, when the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) assembled 55 acres of land and secured a $7.4 million tax increment financing subsidy to develop it.
At that time, many citizens decried the loss of urban green space, the increased storm water runoff that would result from more impervious surfaces, and the impact that a neighborhood at the base of Hawk Ridge might have on migrating bird populations. (Birds which are unable to cross Lake Superior follow the shoreline during the spring and fall migrations, passing directly over Hawk Ridge in large numbers.)
The Hawk Ridge Estates neighborhood grew gradually over the past two decades. There are approximately 125 dwellings currently located along two streets and four cul-de-sacs in the neighborhood. New houses are still being built on the few remaining lots.
Local labor leader Ken Loeffler-Kemp resides in the Hawk Ridge Estates neighborhood. On May 13, 2024, Loeffler-Kemp addressed the Duluth City Council and stated that he generally supported development, but that he didn’t like it in this case because, among other things, the proposed homes would be visible.
Ken Loeffler-Kemp: I consider myself an advocate for housing, an environmental advocate, and an advocate for workers. My wife [and School Board Member] Rosie [Loeffler-Kemp] and I were strong proponents of developing the Hawk Ridge neighborhood … For the past 15 years, we’ve enjoyed welcoming new homes and families to the neighborhood. We co-host our National Neighborhood Night Out, … and we do our best to be good neighbors … Additional housing is good for our schools, local businesses, and our community.
The [Ericson] property is highly visible and a sensitive property. You need to pass through the Hawk Ridge neighborhood to access it. It is immediately adjacent to the steep embankments of Hawk Ridge, directly below and visible from Skyline Parkway, and immediately adjacent to the banks of Amity Creek, a designated trout stream, [and] right next to, and visible from, the COGGS bike trail. It sits directly below a narrow flyway for bird migration.
Because of its visibility and sensitive location, it’s important that this development be done right, with City Council oversight, community input, and transparency. And that is why I oppose rezoning this property from R-1 to R-P. Rezoning to R-P would leave the approval of the Regulatory Plan for this development in the hands of an inexperienced, out-of-state developer and a recently-appointed city land use supervisor—no City Council approval, no community input, no transparency …
The last thing that we need here in Duluth is another housing project that stalls out before completion, sitting unfinished for months on end—or another development that, upon completion, leaves the community with long-lasting regret and resentment. I ask you to leave it zoned as R-1.
The fact that Loeffler-Kemp spun the specter of a stalled project out of thin air—with no evidence that Mr. Ericson had ever left a project undone—demonstrates NIMBYs’ predilection for smearing the opposition. And Loeffler-Kemp’s complaint about “no community input” was actually delivered in a forum where he was providing community input.
It should also be noted that the “out-of-state developer” slur is only true insofar as Mr. Ericson does not currently reside in Duluth. He grew up here and graduated from Central High School.
John Teschner, another Hawk Ridge Estates resident, asked city councilors to visit the neighborhood themselves, so they could see how special it was.
John Teschner: I think it’s pretty easy for you to be in your seats and say, ‘Wow, these people don’t want to see development in their back yards’ … All I’ll ask is, before you vote to allow 32 units to be built—which I think would mean something like 50 to 60 [more] cars in that area—I just hope that you’ll drive up … and see it for yourself … Just look at the site and go up to Skyline Drive, drive up Seven Bridges Road, maybe walk down the Amity Trail, and just ask yourself, ‘Does the community that they’re describing make sense in this area?’
To be clear, community opposition had already reduced the project’s number of units to 18. Nobody corrected Mr. Teschner.
Brian Waldoch told the Council that he, too, was another Hawk Ridge neighbor who supported development (in all cases but this one):
Brian Waldoch: I’m a Hawk Ridge resident, a local builder and developer, but I’m a Duluthian first and this project does not make sense on any of those levels ….
As a Duluthian, I know that Duluth needs housing, and this is being built under the guise of housing. But this is not a housing community. This is a vacation community. It’s a snowbird community. It’s difficult to get back there in the winter, and it’s going to be expensive, hard to get to, and that’s not how communities are built.
I’m not opposed to development. I’m a developer. It is my livelihood, and I just respectfully ask the Council to maintain the current zoning.
Mr. Waldoch failed to disclose how he determined that the proposed development would be used by vacationers and snowbirds. This did not stop him from raising the terrifying possibility.
Resident Mark Irving told councilors that he knew of a great alternative spot where the developer could build, 12 miles to the west.
Mark Irving: Some suggestions that might help this. Look for a way of doing a land swap. There is a cottage community that’s already being developed right now, off of Raleigh Street. I went and drove by that today. I believe that there is still some land that is available there and it’s already platted out, infrastructure is already in place, it’s flat, it’s easy to get access to, closer to the buses, closer to shopping areas.
“Do you care?” Hawk Ridge resident Karen Hanka demanded passionately:
Karen Hanka: You were voted into this office because your constituents felt like you cared. A NO vote is the obvious answer. The level of confusion and manipulation of facts regarding zoning guidelines can only be attributed to the fact they are trying to make something a YES that shouldn’t be. Let us remember the original vote of the Planning Commission was a NO vote—
[Editor’s note: The Planning Commission originally voted YES.]
Hanka: —and now you want to return to that? Do you care? Or do you only care about a guy from Washington being able to afford a project, so you can say you added housing? …
Do you care that this is going to be a private community with a private road, potentially? Do you care that the heights and densities are going to be visible from three angles—[from] Skyline, Amity, and the current neighborhood? It’s going to be an eyesore …
In closing, do you care? You have two options. If you care, you will vote NO. If you don’t care, you will vote YES to rezoning. I hope that you make the right choice and vote NO.
Neighbor Andrea Jacobsen shared that she was terrified by the prospect of additional traffic in the neighborhood.
Andrea Jacobsen: The rezoning is asking for eight to ten [dwellings] per acre …
[Editor’s note: Six per acre, actually.]
Jacobsen: That’s a lot more houses, so … there’ll be increased density, which is really scary … You’re looking at probably 60 extra cars going in in the morning and in the evening, visitors and guests, and that’s really scary to hear and see. We’ve got hundreds of kids in this neighborhood. That’s why we all built our houses and why our community has grown to be so popular.
Preston Grutzmacher moved to Hawk Ridge Estates in November. Although he supported dense housing elsewhere in the city, Mr. Grutzmacher was appalled that the city was considering allowing Ericson’s proposed development to be built next to Hawk Ridge Estates at a slightly higher density.
Preston Grutzmacher: I moved into Duluth in November to be closer to family, to raise my family, and we left the Cities because we wanted a smaller community, where we could be close with our community—a place where our kids can play on the sidewalk, a place where our kids can run in the street when they’re not paying attention and they might be okay. And the community today fits that need …
Dense housing, not only doesn’t fit the needs of my family [or] the needs of our community … [but] putting dense housing in the middle of a sleepy suburban community that has very little traffic is out of character.
Small homes—fantastic. I love dense living—in urban infill environments. To put this in the middle of a small community doesn’t make sense. The only way to get in and out of the neighborhood is through cars … and the more traffic that there is, the more the opportunity there is for an accident. I don’t want my kids getting injured. I don’t want anyone else in the audience’s children [to] get injured. And the fact is, if we put in dense housing, it’s going to happen.
Touring the neighborhood
Many Hawk Ridge Estates residents urged city councilors to visit the neighborhood so they could see, for themselves, just how special it was.
On Sunday, June 2, 2024, Monitor Publisher John Ramos made time for a self-guided tour through their neighborhood. He parked on Redtail Drive and strolled through Hawk Ridge Estates’ series of cul-de-sacs.
As he passed Preston Grutzmacher’s $685,000 home, Ramos kept a careful eye out for children tumbling heedlessly into the roadway. No one appeared to be stirring on the premises. In fact, Ramos found no evidence that “hundreds of kids” regularly roamed the neighborhood. He did notice one kid shooting baskets in the driveway of Karen Hanka’s $542,300 home and another youth next door, outside of John Gasele’s $596,300 home.
Andrea Jacobsen and her husband were working outside of their $611,300 home when Ramos introduced himself. They were initially welcoming, but that changed when Ramos explained that he was there to take a picture of their house, because he wanted to document where opponents of residential development lived.
The Jacobsens ordered Ramos off their property. As he strolled away with his clipboard, he heard Andrea ask her husband, “Should we put the dog on him?”
Because Ken Loeffler-Kemp had been so concerned that Ericson’s proposed development would be “visible” to people, Ramos was eager to see the invisible house that the Loeffler-Kemps apparently lived in. Alas, it was just a standard five-bedroom, 2,400-square-foot, $590,100 suburban home. Although partially concealed behind a garage and a mass of unkempt trees, the dwelling was clearly visible.
After documenting all the addresses on his checklist, Ramos next drove up to Skyline Parkway and strolled along the ridgeline, above Hawk Ridge Estates. Looking down, he could clearly see homes in the Hawk Ridge Estates neighborhood.
Ramos estimated that the cliff above Ericson’s land was about 80 feet tall. If 30-foot dwellings were constructed there, it is unlikely they would be visible to Skyline Parkway passersby, unless they parked their vehicle and walked to the edge for a bird’s-eye view.
Next, Ramos walked down the Amity West mountain bike trail, which is built on public land between Hawk Ridge Estates and Amity Creek. Currently, the only public access to this trail, within Hawk Ridge Estates, is a snowmobile trail on Snowy Owl Circle. It is difficult to find and it contains no trail signs, maps, or any indication where it leads. However, Ramos noticed that several homes had trails leading to the Amity Trail from their backyards—a bonus amenity enjoyed by the Hankas, the Gaseles, and a handful of their neighbors.
Ramos also noticed an unofficial, yet well-worn, trail—featuring fresh shoe and mountain bike tracks in the mud—which connected Ericson’s property to the Amity West trail.
Because the border of Ericson’s property is approximately 80 feet from the Amity West Trail, any development on the site would likely be visible from the trail, even if a screening vegetation buffer was left intact.
Several houses in Hawk Ridge Estates were also visible from the trail; they will become more visible when the deciduous trees drop their leaves in the autumn.
To the east, the views of Amity Creek and Lester Park were splendid, leading Ramos to reflect, once again, at just how lucky he was to reside in Duluth.
Cover photo: Peregrine Circle cul-de-sac, Hawk Ridge Estates. Credit: John Ramos
Maybe people would be more amenable to these projects if there were more transparency and if the city applied the zoning laws consistently? Ask the people along London Road or beneath Spirit Mountain if the city is enforcing laws consistently. Also, why is it, when there is a dearth of affordable housing, the city and politicians of all stripes, insist that subsidizing $350k-$600k houses (and how many of these are vacation homes?) or condos somehow helps alleviate this shortage of affordable housing? Maybe start enforcing the law equally without regard as to your last name or to whom your political contributions go?
Thanks, John, for the excellent reporting on the endless shoddy politics of Duluth.
Another aspect of the Loeffler-Kemp residence is a past report that it was built without union labor, and if so, that would add more to the hypocrisy of the concerns brought up by that local “union labor leader” and school board member.
Another aspect, which you touched on, is the children issue. How many young children do these people really have? It is well-known that owners of expensive houses are often older, and of a demographics that have few children. And, in this day and age, how often do children, of this demographic, even play outside?
Missing from this opinion piece is the context of the developer’s pitch to the March Planning Commission meeting. Mr Ericson was evasive and refused to give clear goals for the site beyond wanting flexibility to make stuff up as he went. He asked for a range of density which the Commission refused, and was hyper focused on tiny details like the placement of outdoor grills while vague about number of total units. He also asked that each house be zoned to allow for the building of a detached housing unit that the homeowners could rent out, and was evasive on the question of if the intent was for people to make the development their home or for use as short-term rentals. He went out of his way to assure the Commission that the units to be built would not be affordable, but that even his cottages would be priced comparable to the nearby mcmansions. His drawn plans were unprofessional enough that one Commissioner called them “cartoonish” and a college professor who spoke indicated they would not be acceptable for a college student let alone a supposed professional.
The through line during this entire process has been Mr Ericson’s shifting plans and his seeming willingness to say whatever it takes to get buy-in, while leaving himself enough flexibility to do what he wants.
As for the claims of NIMBY, this may have merit, but does not discredit the serious environmental concerns of building in this location, nor the concerns about the viewshed. By his own admission Mr Erickson wants to build to within a few feet of the height of the cliff overlooking the property. The existing development and the City Council’s blanket waiver of stream setbacks for all of the boondoggle that is Hawk Ridge estates has not helped the serious erosion issues of Amity Creek, banks, admirably highlighted by Mr Ramos’ own photo of the creek.
Finally, the access road for the development passed with 10 feet of an existing home. Not 10 feet from the property, 10 feet from the structure, so this was literally IN their yard, a fact Mr Ericson dismissed by noting they homeowner should have known his plans to build a road there.