Laserfiche WebLink
080 <br />COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 8, 1991 <br />Bob Adamson, developer of Oak Brook Peninsula spoke of the <br />integrity of the development. He noted that there is a cul -de- <br />sac at the entrance to his development. A "private road" sign <br />can be posted if it is felt that this will reduce the traffic of <br />Otter Lake Drive. Mr. Adamson noted that the matter of the <br />private street will be addressed in the covenants. The property <br />will generate approximately $100,000 in property taxes each year. <br />Mr. Adamson explained that additional perc tests are required at <br />the time of construction on a house. This is done to insure perc <br />tests are taken at the site of the septic systems. <br />Mr. Adamson noted that everything has been done that is required <br />by City Code. All other requests and requirements have been <br />completed. Upkeep of the street and bridge will be done by the <br />home owners association. This will be outlined in the protective <br />covenants. <br />Mr. Adamson said that he felt the Otter Lake Drive home owners <br />were not at all concerned about the historical aspect or the <br />environmental aspect of his development. The residents were only <br />concerned about driving on what they consider their private <br />street. He noted that he has all permits except for the bridge. <br />This permit cannot be issued until the design of the bridge is <br />determined. <br />Mr. Adamson said that it is time to put this issue to rest. He <br />said the plat is a good plat and is morally and technically <br />correct. He asked if the vote is negative, what does the Council <br />propose to do with the land? <br />Mr. Miller explained that this request is for a major subdivision <br />and a variance for a cul -de -sac over 500 feet. He explained that <br />this preliminary plat was started some time ago. He also <br />explained the background and noted that it was known that it <br />would be a controversial issue. Mr. Miller said he has met with <br />all persons involved and has not been able to resolve all of the <br />issues. All through this process, not one agency involved with <br />the review has raised one single issue that could be a basis for <br />denying this plat. <br />Mr. Miller explained that currently another variance has been <br />requested and it is currently going through the DRB process. <br />This variance is for a private road and bridge to the preliminary <br />plat. Whether the bridge and road is public or private, it will <br />be constructed to City standards. The DRB has recommended <br />approval of the preliminary plat and the variance for the cul -de- <br />sac. Based on "pure hard facts" the preliminary plat and the <br />variance should be approved by the Council. <br />Mr. Hawkins explained that the City must take direction as it <br />PAGE 10 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />