File #: 2004-0506    Version: 1
Type: Variance / Modification Status: Passed
File created: 6/3/2004 In control: City Council Regular Meeting
On agenda: Final action: 6/16/2004
Title: Variance Request - City File No. 99-011 - Request for variance from the 37 percent requirement of Section 126-327(2) of Chapter 126, Article III, Tree Conservation, of the Code of Ordinances, for Rochester Meadows Site Condominiums, located south of Avon and east of Rochester roads, zoned R-3, One Family Residential, Parcel Nos. 15-23-201-006, -010, -011, -012, Roy Rathka, Applicant
Attachments: 1. Agenda Summary TPP.pdf, 2. Map aerial.pdf, 3. Site Plan - Roch Meadows.pdf, 4. Letter Roch Meadows 20040520.pdf, 5. Memo Campbell 20040406.pdf, 6. Notice Variance.pdf, 7. Minutes cc 20030618.pdf, 8. 0506 Resolution.pdf
Title
Variance Request - City File No. 99-011 - Request for variance from the 37 percent requirement of Section 126-327(2) of Chapter 126, Article III, Tree Conservation, of the Code of Ordinances, for Rochester Meadows Site Condominiums, located south of Avon and east of Rochester roads, zoned R-3, One Family Residential, Parcel Nos. 15-23-201-006, -010, -011, -012, Roy Rathka, Applicant
 
Body
 
Resolved that the Rochester Hills City Council hereby denies a variance of 5.7 percent (i.e., 17 trees) from the 37 percent requirement of Section 126-327(2) of Chapter 126, Article III, Tree Conservation, of the Code of Ordinances, for Rochester Meadows Site Condominiums (City File No. 99-011), identified as Parcel Nos. 15-23-201-006, -010, -011, -012.
 
FINDINGS:
 
1.      The location quality, and age of a regulated tree are not a factor in determining the applicability of Section 126-327(2) of the Tree Conservation Ordinance.
 
2.      There are no special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict application of the Tree Conservation Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land.
 
3.      The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner, as there are alternatives available to meet the requirement of the Tree Conservation Ordinance.
 
4.      The variance will not further the objectives and policies of the City.