Loading...
INFORMATION #3 07-15-1996City of River TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Steven B. Ach, City Planne~. July 15, 1996 Cargill Property This evening, the City Council will be requested to take action on three items that are of interest to Cargill. The three case files include the following: · Case No. OA 96-9 - Establishing a new use for animal nutrition and agricultural research · Case No. ZC 96-10 - A rezoning of approximately 60 acres of Cargill's property from Rla to 1-1 · Case No. OA 96-4, which amends some of the uses allowed as permitted or conditional in the I-1 and I-2 zoning districts. At the Planning Commission meeting on June 25, 1996, Cargill's attorney prepared a letter addressing the above three case files, expressing Cargill's concerns. This letter was distributed to all the Planning Commission members and I believe the City Council may have also received the same letter. In reviewing the letter provided by Mr. Fontaine, I felt that the letter contained several inaccuracies which needed clarification in order for the City Council to make an informed decision on the items. Although staff may have had disagreements with Cargill, I believe we have made a good faith effort in trying to work with them regarding the issues surrounding their research facility and other property within the City. In case the Council did not receive the letter from Mr. Fontaine, I have attached a copy of that letter, along with the letter from Peter Beck and Dave Sellergren, responding to the letter the City received from Mr. Fontaine. I hope this will assist the City Council in their decision on the three items mentioned above. If any of the Councilmembers have questions prior to Monday night's meeting, please feel free to contact me at 441-4902, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. s:\councilXcar gill.doc 13065 Orono Parkway ° P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 ° (612) 441-7420 ° Fax: (612) 441-7425 DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER Attorneys at Law TO: FROM: RE: DATE: 3500 Fifth Street Towers I50 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4235 Telephone (612) 340-5555 FAX (612) 340 5584 Writer's direct dial number: 2800 Minnesota World Trade Center 30 East Seventh Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-49'49 Telephone (612) 291-%33 FAX (612) 291-9313 MEMORANDUM Mayor Hank Duitsman and Members of the City Council City Attorney Peter Beck, Cargill July 9, 1996 1401 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite i100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone (202) 393 2554 FAX (202) 393 3131 2970 t~ne I-aN*r Center 12Il/) Sexenteenth Street l)enxer, Colorado 802(/2-5823 telephone (303) 572-6200 [A~, (303) 572-6203 Reply to Minneapolis office The staff has asked that I advise the City Council with respect to a letter dated June 24, 1996 from Cargill's attorneys to Scott Harlicker. This letter makes several inaccurate statements of fact, and then threatens litigation against the City if staff does not recommend and the City does not adopt a specific zoning ordinance amendment. Municipal zoning actions, including rezonings and text amendments, are legislative acts with respect to which the City has a great amount of discretion. The City's actions are presumed valid, and the courts will not interfere, unless: The zoning action effects an unconstitutional taking; or The zoning action exceeds the powers delegated to the city by state law; or The zoning action is unsupported by any rational basis. These are very difficult standards for a property owner to meet. In my view, a decision to rezone to light industrial property which is located along a state trunk highway and recently included in the City's urban service district is well within the scope of the City's zoning authority. The same is true with respect to decisions about what uses to allow within the light industrial zoning district. This is not to say that Cargill cannot or will not sue the City. If the largest corporate entity in the state wants to hire the largest law firm in the state to sue to the City of Elk River, we cannot prevent that. However, in my view, such a lawsuit, if a facial attack on the rezoning described above, would be without merit to the point of being nearly frivolous. I encourage the City Council not to be intimidated by Cargill's attorney's threats, and to make its zoning decisions based on what, in the City Council's judgment, is in the best interests of all the citizens of Elk River. Dave Sellergren will be at the Council meeting on July 15 to answer any questions you might have. Please feel free to call him (340-5571) if you would like to discuss this further before the Council meeting. PXB 126075.02 /?':/ DORSEY & WHITNEY ~"A$ H I NCTO N. BItU$$ f-'LS DES MOJNI~S PILLSBURY Ci~NT.~iL SOUTH 220 SOUTH SIXTH STRaUT MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498 TELEPNON~: (612) ~40-2600 FAx: (612) 340-2868 June 24, 1996 LLP 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 the proposed new research-use definition to amend Elk River's agricultural districts, rather than the I1 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 I1 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 a. ffec!,Cargill's .operations. Staff's inexplicable derision to include the research- use concept in me agricultural districts rather than the I-1 zone, however, would create just that adverse result. Besides failing to solve the nonconforming-use problem, staff's recommendation, dated June 25, I996, for agenda item 5.8 misleads the Planning Commission by sltggesting that staff is'"working with Cargill" on this research-use issue and that the compa ny 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 I1 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 I1 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 15:81 16123402807 DORSEY ~IITNEY $co~t Harlicker Page2 DOKSEY & WHITNEY LLP June 24,1996 003 out its memorandum last Friday recommending the code change for the agrictdtural districts. Your memorandum for agenda item 5.8 also contains several factual errors, one of which is the inaccurate statement that "It]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 tl~e 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 eveats 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 A.NC 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 lea ~'e Cargill with no choice but to take legal action to protect its multimillion dollar investn~ent 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; lhey are the con.sequences of planning and zoning decisions made by the City to address anticipated future situations without apparently considering impacts on actual, existing acti vities. Finally, we would urge you to carefully explain to the Planning Commis.qon 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 explanative7. GAF:gle ~e~_~ame cc: Elk River Planning Commissioners Timothy Thomas, Esq.