Laserfiche WebLink
W <br />POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. <br />Mayor and City Council <br />September 27, 1982 <br />Page 3 <br />b) May Millers use the "wetlands" for 100% of the <br />required park dedication on their property? <br />13. What is the legal description of the Wetland Zoning <br />District overall, and on the Millers' property? <br />(See 48.15, subd. 2.) <br />This ordinance should include now at least the <br />following: <br />1. Right to build parking lots in the wetland. <br />2. Right to use the wetland for 100% of the zoning and <br />subdivision requirements for: <br />a) Setbacks. <br />b) Lot area. <br />c) Open space. <br />d) Drainage areas, ponds and improvements. <br />e) Park dedication. <br />f) Floor area ratio limitations. <br />g) Installation of sewer and water pipes and other <br />public utilities. <br />3. A right to fill at least 50% of the wetland without <br />need for a variance. <br />The Millers object to the adoption of this ordinance and <br />believe it is arbitrary, unreasonable, confiscatory as to them <br />and their property and constitutes an unconstituitional taking <br />of their property rights subjecting the City and council <br />members voting for it to a claim for compensatory and punitive <br />damages, if adopted. If changes are made to the ordinance, the <br />Millers may not need to sue the City and council members, and <br />the majority of the wetlands in the City can be 'acquired' at <br />no cost to the City. The City Council cannot expect t•o take <br />all of the wetlands in the City without first paying for them. <br />