pf_02113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Rick Jop}:e May 25. 1990 Page 2 I~troduction. Rosewood Estates is a high-quality alternative residenti3l facility for the elderly, It was built j~ 1989 on a forme_ school site cn ~ake Owasso. The prorerty fronts on Victoria Street for 397 feet. It is at leas~ 238 feet deep along its north boundary and at least 250 feet deep along its south boundary. (The def-th of the parcel varies as Lake Owasso rises and falls.) Setback E~croachments. The site is subiect to the following building setback requirements~ 30 feet along Victoria Street, 15 feet along the north and south boundaries and 75 feet from the shoreline of Lake Owasso. The Spring 1990 as-built survey of the t'uilding shows that there are three r,,~nor encroao~~ents into the setback areas. Into the &Duth setback area ther~ are t~o encroachments, which are 0.1 to 0.7 feet deep_ Into the lakeshore setback area there is one ~ncroachment, which is 0.0 feet to about 3.6 feet deep along a distance of abo~t 18.7 feet. These enc~oachments were purely unintentional and ~ere the result of surveying and/or construction errors. Li~erty Rosewood Limi~ed Partnership apologizes to the Cit,y of Roseville for these encroachments. Inpact of the Encroachments. The land to the south of Rosewood Estates is parkland owned by the City of Roseville. The, encroachments of J.l to 0.7 fe~t tOWdLd this parkland will not adversely impact the park, On the lakeside of the building, the encroachment of up to 3.6 feet is an encroachment only if the lakeshore is deemed to be ~t its october 1988 location or some higher location. At lower lake levels (for example the March 2~, 1~90 lake level) the building is well within the 75-foot lakeshore setback. All this is shewn on the enclosed ~urvey. Lake Owasso \oIill not be adversely impacted by the location of the building. Hardship of Compliance. It would be a severe hardship on the owner of Rosewood Estates if no setback variances were granted and if the City of RCSeVl~!e wet-e t.o L'eq-".<....<i: tl'<..t t;-.~ encroachments be removed or additional land be dc~uired. The cost of removii1g the e!~.::roaching walls Df the building would be prohibitive and ~rossly disproportion~t~ to any resulting public benefit. Likewise, the opt~on of acqui~ing ildditional land on th~ periphery is not availa~le, ~hcre is no lEgal ~ay to make more land between Lake O'"as~o d!\d the building; and we assume ~~'~\"0~''-\:. i ~ ~