10. PRSR 11-14-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RR� 3400 CITY CENTER CONSULTING OFFICE,BEIJING CHINA Cl: Y - 33 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3796 i PLANT 612 343-2800 MOOTY FAX: 612 333-0066 WEB SITE: www.gpmlaw.com CONFIDENTIAL/ ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO Mayor Stephanie Klinzing Members of the City Council FROM Peter Beck, City Attorney Re: Proposed Cargill Settlement Date: July 10, 2000 BACKGROUND Cargill has operated its animal nutrition center ("ANC") since 1958 on approximately 980 acres in the southeastern area of the City. Attached is a map indicating the location of the Cargill property. Most of Cargill's land is in crops, although Cargill does have a number of animals in a series of buildings located along 165th Street. In recent years, a number of factors have come together to cause some conflict between Cargill and the City. During the City's comprehensive planning efforts, Cargill opposed including any of its land within the city's urban services area (i.e., the area to which utilities are proposed to be extended). In response to this input, the portion of Cargill's property to be placed in the urban services area was reduced, but a significant amount of Cargill's land remained in the urban services area because of the City's desire to provide for urban services and development in the East Highway 10 corridor. In response to this decision, Cargill placed approximately 70 acres of its property along and south of 171St Street into a conservation easement with the Minnesota Land Trust. About this time, Cargill proposed to develop an approximately 30,000 square foot office building on the north side of 165th Street. Because the zoning ordinance does not allow commercial or industrial development in the urban services area until utilities are available, Cargill was not able to proceed with this building. Finally, Cargill objected to the assessment of a portion of its property as part of the East Highway 10 public • improvement project, and filed an appeal of this assessment in Sherburne County District Court. This appeal is still pending.