Laserfiche WebLink
ftUG-13-1993 16:04 UCI ChPIThL P.02 03 <br />VCI <br />capital▼VCI im:. P.O. Eox i75«Lun^ idka. \\N Phone *61-') 4r(*0#»^7*Fox «6iJi 47^-i^ ;m <br />August 12, 1998 <br />Mr. Ponald Moorse <br />City of Orono <br />2750 Kelley Parkway <br />Orono, MN 55356 <br />Dear Mr. Moorse: <br />Thank you for your letter of July 29. Per your wishes I am writing to give you our <br />thoughts and comments regarding the proposed ordinance changes. If you have any <br />thoughts or questions on this please feel free to give me a call. <br />I am only commenting below on the items which appear would have substantial economic <br />impact on our property. The rest of the proposed changes 1 think we can readily agree <br />with. <br />In the council meeting on the 27*** there was some discussion about grandfathering with <br />regard to new ordinances. I think that would still be a concern One way to address that <br />may be to change Subd. 2 to read “Within any “F’ District, no new structure or new land <br />use shall be used except for one or more of the following uses." <br />With regard to the wording changes within the ordinance describing approved uses etc. <br />these are our thoughts: <br />Wc do not understand the reason for eliminating “Bicycles and toys” or “Paper products”. <br />We do not know that we will have a prospective tenant interested in those activities but <br />we would prefer to leave them open unless there is a reason that we are unaware of that <br />makes them objectionable. <br />Warehousing is specifically deleted as an accepted use. This is something that we feel <br />w'ould be very detrimental to us, as the best use for our buildings, aside from heavy <br />manufacturing, is warehousing. Eliminating this use would definitely be a hardship for us. <br />Also, our building would not meet the requirement of 20% minimum office space for an <br />officc/warchouse use. I do not believe it would even meet the 10% requirement of <br />conditional use. <br />1