Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 1991 <br />developer still must obtain all other necessary permits from <br />other agencies. Council Member Kuether asked if by approving <br />this variance, is the City Council sending a particular message <br />to other agencies. Mayor Bisel said that the City is following <br />its own Code. He asked who has authority over property in Lino <br />Lakes? It should be the City not DNR, RCWD, etc. Mayor Bisel <br />also noted that if the variance had been denied, the City would <br />be put in a position to be sued by the developer. <br />Council Member Reinert said he did not like the Council <br />"variancing" this improvement into place. <br />Consideration of a Variance to Permit a Private Street in Oak <br />Brook Peninsula, DRB Application NO. 90 -66 - Mr. Miller explained <br />that this is a request for private versus a public street in Oak <br />Brook Peninsula. He noted other private streets approved by the <br />City and others currently under consideration by the City <br />Council. Mr. Miller also noted that approval or denial of this <br />variance request will not make any difference in the type of <br />street to be constructed since construction of the street is <br />required to conform to all ordinance specifications. An annual <br />inspection of the street and bridge can be required through the <br />developer's agreement and the restrictive covenants. The cost of <br />the inspections would be billed to the homeowners association. <br />The developer noted that the homeowners would want a quality <br />street and would not hinder the inspection and maintenance <br />agreements. <br />Council Member Kuether moved to approve the variance for a <br />private street in Oak Brook Peninsula, DRB Application No. 90 -66 <br />contingent upon the City retaining the right to inspect the <br />street and to maintain the street if the homeowners association <br />has not done so and to notify the homeowners association of the <br />inspection and the costs. The six (6) findings -of -fact to <br />support the variance are: <br />1. The City does not want nor will it accept a bridge. The <br />RCWD is unilaterally requiring a bridge. <br />2. The land is inaccessible because of water and wetlands. The <br />location of the road is the only possible access. <br />3. Residential use of the land is reasonable. <br />4. Similar land will be treated in the same manner. <br />5. Whether the road and the bridge are public or private, the <br />effect of the proposed development is equally beneficial or <br />detrimental. <br />PAGE 6 <br />143 <br />