5.8 ek/ A.(
( ( ITEM 5.8.
city of
Elk/, } •
River
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott Harlicker, Assistant Planner
DATE: June 25, 199,
SUBJECT: City of Elk River Request for Zone Change
from Rla (Single Family Residential) to
II(Light Industrial) Public Hearing
Case No. ZC 96-10
Request
Consider a request by the City of Elk River to rezone approximately 60 acres of
• the east half of the northeast quarter of Section 14 lying north of Highway 10
and south of 165th Avenue from Rla (Single Family Residential) to I1 (Light
Industrial).
Overview
This rezoning request was tabled because of concern about the impacts on the
Cargill Animal Nutrition Center. The rezoning will affect a portion of the
property that was included in the Conditional Use Permit granted in May 1995
for the operation of a feedlot. The 60 acres of Cargill's property affected by the
rezoning is a field and contains a caretakers residence, the actual research
facility is not affected by this rezoning and it is staff's opinion that the nutrition
center can continue operation as a conditional use, at the current location, under
the conditional use permit that was issued in 1995.
In a related matter, there has been discussion about how accurately feedlot
describes the actual operation of the nutrition center. To address that issue staff
is working with Cargill in drafting a new definition, animal nutrition and
agricultural research, which will better describe the operations of the Cargill
Animal Nutrition Center. It is intended to be included as a conditional use in
the Al (Agricultural Conservation) and Rla (Single Family Residential) zones.
•
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
• In order to approve a rezoning request there must be a finding that a) the plan
was in error when it was adopted, and therefore, should be changed or, b) the
times and circumstances have changed since the plan was adopted, and a
changed is warranted. With this proposed rezoning, the times and circumstances
have changed in that the Comprehensive Plan has been updated and the land
use designation of the area under consideration for rezoning has been changed
to LI (Light Industrial) Also as part of this update, the City recognized the need
to increase industrial opportunity in the City and identified this area to help
address that need. The urban service area has also been expanded to include
this area.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
proposed rezoning from Rla (Single Family Residential) to I1 (Light Industrial)
based on the following:
1. The rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
designation of LI (Light Industrial)
2. Times and conditions have changed to warrant an extension of industrial
• development opportunities along Highway 169.
3. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recent expansion of the
urban service area and the concept of providing industrial land within
the urban service area.
4. The property is located along 165th Avenue, which is classified as a
collector, and Highway 10, which is classified a major arterial, providing
for adequate transportation needs required for industrial development.
s:\planning\scott\zc96-10j
06/24/96 MON 15:50 FAX 16123402807 DORSET WHITNEY 002
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
• MINNEAPOLIS PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH
NEW YORK
WASHINGTON,D.C. 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
DENVER
LONDON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498
BRUSSELS SEATTLE
TELEPHONE: (612) 340-2600
HONG KONG FAx: (612) 340-2868 PARC°
DES MOINES
BILLINGS
ROCHESTER
GREGORY A.FGMAINE MI]SOULA
COSTA MESA (612:34.0437260
GRISAT FALLS
June 24, 1996
Mr. Scott Harlicker
Assistant City Planner
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
Re: Proposed Rezoning; Public Hearing No. ZC 96-10
Dear Mr. Harlicker:
• Cargill, Inc. is very disappointed by staff's last-minute decision to fundamentally
alter the Code amendment proposal that we have been discussing. By using thcS proposed
new research-use definition to amend Elk River's agricultural districts, rather than the II
zone as we have been discussing since April, staff's recommendation would not only
make those portions of the Animal Nutrition Center (ANC) in the II areas
nonconforming, it would also create new limitations on Cargill's operations in the Rla
zone that do not presently exist. It would hardly seem necessary to remind you of the
Planning Commission's prior assurances that the proposed rezoning in No. ZC 96-10 is
not intended to make any portion of the ANC a nonconforming use or otherwise to
adversely affect Cargill's operations. Staff's inexplicable decision to include the research-
use concept in the agricultural districts rather than the I-1 zone, however, would create
just that adverse result.
Besides failing to solve the nonconforming-use problem, staffs recommendation,
dated June 25, 1996, for agenda item 5.8 misleads the Planning Commission by suggesting
that staff is "working with Cargill" on this research-use issue and that the company
concurs in staff's view that the problem here somehow will be addressed by this
recommended change to the agricultural zones. The plain truth is that staff took the new
research-use definition for the II zone that we have been discussing for several weeks and
last Thursday you advised me for the first time that staff "might" use this language to
amend the agriculture zones rather than the Il district. I objected and explained that this
proposal would not address any of the nonconforming-use issues of concern to Cargill.
• My objections were ignored, and without any further contact with me or Cargill, staff sent
06/"..4/96 MON 15: 51 FAX 16123402807 DORSEY WHITNEY [ 003
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
• Scott Harlicker
Page 2 June 24, 1996
out its memorandum last Friday recommending the code change for the agricultural
districts.
Your memorandum for agenda item 5.8 also contains several factual errors, one of
which is the inaccurate statement that "[t]he urban service area has also been expanded to
include this area [proposed for rezoning.]" No portion of the ANC, including the area
subject to the rezoning proposal, is presently within the urban service area, nor does
Cargill have any use for such utility services. Indeed, the entire discussion in your
memorandum apparently contemplates a series of industrial development events that
will not occur on the Cargill property.
Staff apparently fails to appreciate the serious issues presented here, or it is
pursuing an agenda at odds with the repeated assurances made by City officials that Elk
River does not intend to alter any of Cargill's authorizations to continue its ANC
operations or to otherwise force the company to leave the City. As I have indicated to you,
the inevitable result of the course that staff is recommending here will be to leave Cargill
with no choice but to take legal action to protect its multimillion dollar investment in the
• ANC. Cargill clearly would prefer to avoid the necessity of such recourse. I remind you
again that the difficulties here are not the result of any actions taken by Cargill; they are
the consequences of planning and zoning decisions made by the City to address anticipated
future situations without apparently considering impacts on actual, existing activities.
Finally, we would urge you to carefully explain to the Planning Commission at the
hearing on June 25 as to why staff believes the City's interests are best served by provoking
a costly legal dispute with Cargill rather than avoiding a conflict through a relatively
simple Zoning Code change to the I1 district. We believe the public officials and taxpayers
of Elk River will be quite interested in that explant'• T.
Very r y yours,/
4
Gre-.ry A. F. aine
GAF:gle
cc: Elk River Planning Commissioners
Timothy Thomas, Esq.
110