Laserfiche WebLink
/?':/ DORSEY & WHITNEY <br /> <br />~"A$ H I NCTO N. <br /> <br /> BItU$$ f-'LS <br /> <br /> DES MOJNI~S <br /> <br />PILLSBURY Ci~NT.~iL SOUTH <br />220 SOUTH SIXTH STRaUT <br />MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498 <br />TELEPNON~: (612) ~40-2600 <br /> FAx: (612) 340-2868 <br /> <br />June 24, 1996 <br /> <br />LLP <br /> <br />Mr. Scott Harlicker <br />Assistant City Planner <br />City of Elk River <br />13065 Orono Parkway <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />Re: Proposed Rezoning; Public Hearing No. ZC 96-10 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Harlicker: <br /> <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 the proposed <br />new research-use definition to amend Elk River's agricultural districts, rather than the I1 <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 I1 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 a. ffec!,Cargill's .operations. Staff's inexplicable derision to include the research- <br />use concept in me agricultural districts rather than the I-1 zone, however, would create <br />just that adverse result. <br /> <br /> Besides failing to solve the nonconforming-use problem, staff's recommendation, <br />dated June 25, I996, for agenda item 5.8 misleads the Planning Commission by sltggesting <br />that staff is'"working with Cargill" on this research-use issue and that the compa ny <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 I1 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 I1 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 /> <br /> <br />