01-09-2023 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2022 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 14 Penny Saiki, 2874 Casco Point Road, noted Matt Johnson purchased the land with the easements, has told them he is building his own home on the property and renovating the existing house for his parents. This has all now been confirmed from a third party (the seller). Ms. Saiki noted people buy their homes based on location and Orono used to be about preserving natural resources. The neighbors invested in the character of the setting and want to continue to enjoy their privacy. As Ms. Saiki understands from the seller, she does not want the property to be developed. Ms. Saiki noted the DNR review said no vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so and noted any vacation may allow development that would impact conservation of natural resources and habitats. Since this property has never been developed and has access to public waters, many have wondered why the City has seemingly ignored the guidance of the Minnesota department charged with management of public natural resources. Ms. Saiki stated undeveloped land near the lake is becoming scarce and proposed a solution. Since the City Council and Planning Commission intend to give the land to Mr. Johnson, they need to protect the rest of Orono as owners of the land and stated “we are all owners as residents of Orono.” Ms. Saiki said a covenant shall be placed on the deed that states that one house can be built on the property, the existing house would become an ancillary structure (a guesthouse). A covenant attached to the deed means it is on the land so if ownership changes to a contractor or LLC they are also bound to that one house limit. Outside the scope of this project, Ms. Saiki said there are 3,100 households in Orono and there is a limit to how much City structures and services can be financed through taxes. Building more houses to increase the tax base is one way to increase income, but another way is to better manage expenditures. Cases in point include district fire services which have been favored for over thirty years. Printup noted Ms. Saiki must stick to talking about this item. Ms. Saiki stated they must get public support for big expenditures, and stop giving away public land, especially to those who need to recuse themselves when it comes to a vote. That in itself is recognition of conflict of interest. Henry Brantingham, 3185 County Road 6, does not live near the property and has no particular interest. He is interested in the process and looked at the Planning Commission notes where 14 citizens were at the meeting or had submitted written comments. The “score” by citizens was 14 to 0 with 100% against. He read some comments from the minutes of the evening such as “extremely unfair,” “not for the benefit of the citizens of Orono,” “I have a hard time wrapping my head around giving away land for free,” “the big question is that none of us knows the intention of Mr. Johnson.” Mr. Brantingham finds it interesting that they are talking about it being one house but the Members are discussing back and forth that perhaps Mr. Johnson could put in three houses. Other comments include “the plan is incomplete,” “MN Statute 412.853” which is State law, “there is no public benefit,” “why are you giving these parcels away,” “we agree with the DNR there does not appear to be public benefit,” “far reaching implications highlighted by the DNR impacting Forest Lake Bay,” “I am strongly against vacating that right-of-way.” Mr. Brantingham noted after hearing all of this the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend vacating these properties and he is shocked. He said perhaps he is naïve and asked if there is anyone in Orono besides the City Council and the Staff that thinks this is a good idea. He has not heard one person except them say this is a good thing. He asked if it has occurred to anyone what an incredible ethics problem this is? It is a sitting Council Member who recused himself and Mr. Brantingham has a concern about the process.