Laserfiche WebLink
06/24/96 MON 15:50 FAX 16123402807 DORSET WHITNEY 002 <br /> DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP <br /> • MINNEAPOLIS PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH <br /> NEW YORK <br /> WASHINGTON,D.C. 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET <br /> DENVER <br /> LONDON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498 <br /> BRUSSELS SEATTLE <br /> TELEPHONE: (612) 340-2600 <br /> HONG KONG FAx: (612) 340-2868 PARC° <br /> DES MOINES <br /> BILLINGS <br /> ROCHESTER <br /> GREGORY A.FGMAINE MI]SOULA <br /> COSTA MESA (612:34.0437260 <br /> GRISAT FALLS <br /> June 24, 1996 <br /> Mr. Scott Harlicker <br /> Assistant City Planner <br /> City of Elk River <br /> 13065 Orono Parkway <br /> Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> Re: Proposed Rezoning; Public Hearing No. ZC 96-10 <br /> Dear Mr. Harlicker: <br /> • Cargill, Inc. is very disappointed by staff's last-minute decision to fundamentally <br /> alter the Code amendment proposal that we have been discussing. By using thcS proposed <br /> new research-use definition to amend Elk River's agricultural districts, rather than the II <br /> zone as we have been discussing since April, staff's recommendation would not only <br /> make those portions of the Animal Nutrition Center (ANC) in the II areas <br /> nonconforming, it would also create new limitations on Cargill's operations in the Rla <br /> zone that do not presently exist. It would hardly seem necessary to remind you of the <br /> Planning Commission's prior assurances that the proposed rezoning in No. ZC 96-10 is <br /> not intended to make any portion of the ANC a nonconforming use or otherwise to <br /> adversely affect Cargill's operations. Staff's inexplicable decision to include the research- <br /> use concept in the agricultural districts rather than the I-1 zone, however, would create <br /> just that adverse result. <br /> Besides failing to solve the nonconforming-use problem, staffs recommendation, <br /> dated June 25, 1996, for agenda item 5.8 misleads the Planning Commission by suggesting <br /> that staff is "working with Cargill" on this research-use issue and that the company <br /> concurs in staff's view that the problem here somehow will be addressed by this <br /> recommended change to the agricultural zones. The plain truth is that staff took the new <br /> research-use definition for the II zone that we have been discussing for several weeks and <br /> last Thursday you advised me for the first time that staff "might" use this language to <br /> amend the agriculture zones rather than the Il district. I objected and explained that this <br /> proposal would not address any of the nonconforming-use issues of concern to Cargill. <br /> • My objections were ignored, and without any further contact with me or Cargill, staff sent <br />