Laserfiche WebLink
15:81 16123402807 DORSEY ~IITNEY <br /> <br />$co~t Harlicker <br />Page2 <br /> <br />DOKSEY & WHITNEY LLP <br /> <br />June 24,1996 <br /> <br />003 <br /> <br />out its memorandum last Friday recommending the code change for the agrictdtural <br />districts. <br /> <br /> Your memorandum for agenda item 5.8 also contains several factual errors, one of <br /> which is the inaccurate statement that "It]he urban service area has also been expanded to <br /> include this area [proposed for rezoning.]" No portion of the ANC, including the area <br /> subject to tl~e rezoning proposal, is presently within the urban service area, nor does <br /> Cargill have any use for such utility services. Indeed, the entire discussion in your <br /> memorandum apparently contemplates a series of industrial development eveats that <br /> will not occur on the Cargill property. <br /> <br /> Staff apparently fails to appreciate the serious issues presented here, or it is <br /> pursuing an agenda at odds with the repeated assurances made by City officials that Elk <br /> River does not intend to alter any of Cargill's authorizations to continue its A.NC <br /> operations or to otherwise force the company to leave the City. As I have indicated to you, <br /> the inevitable result of the course that staff is recommending here will be to lea ~'e Cargill <br /> with no choice but to take legal action to protect its multimillion dollar investn~ent in the <br /> ANC. Cargill clearly would prefer to avoid the necessity of such recourse. I remind you <br /> again that the difficulties here are not the result of any actions taken by Cargill; lhey are <br /> the con.sequences of planning and zoning decisions made by the City to address anticipated <br /> future situations without apparently considering impacts on actual, existing acti vities. <br /> <br /> Finally, we would urge you to carefully explain to the Planning Commis.qon at the <br />hearing on June 25 as to why staff believes the City's interests are best served by provoking <br />a costly legal dispute with Cargill rather than avoiding a conflict through a relatively <br />simple Zoning Code change to the I1 district. We believe the public officials and taxpayers <br />of Elk River will be quite interested in that explanative7. <br /> <br />GAF:gle ~e~_~ame <br />cc: Elk River Planning Commissioners <br /> Timothy Thomas, Esq. <br /> <br /> <br />