Laserfiche WebLink
5. N <br />Mary Kueffner <br />April 15, 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />Outlot A," Therefore, if the City intends to allow Outlet A to be <br />developed at this point in time, this particular condition of <br />Resolution 87-33 should be amended. <br />The Development Contract for 'Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition <br />contains a number of preambles or paragraphs that were intended to <br />recite some of the historical or procedural background as it <br />relates to the construction of or need for improvements. One of <br />those paragraphs indicates that the developer agreed to plat a <br />large portion of the property as outlet A pursuant to the then <br />current City regulations. There are no other references in the <br />Development Contract to the ultimate use or restriction of use on <br />Outlot A, Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition, Therefore, there aren't <br />any provisions in the Development Contract which would be violated <br />by the current redevelopment of Outlot A. <br />The Declaration of Protective Covenants for Outlet A. Lake <br />Elmo Heights 2nd Addition were granted for the benefit of the <br />owners of Outlet A, Lake Elmo Heights 2nd Addition and "for the <br />purpose of making and maintaining said Lake Elmo Heights 2nd <br />Addition a desirable residential addition," The Declaration <br />further states that Outlot A could only be used for agricultural <br />purposes "so long as the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance controls the <br />use of this land and does not permit any other authorized use." If <br />property was no longer subject to the zoning regulations of the <br />City of Lake Elmo as would be the case resulting from a detachment. <br />and annexation proceeding, or, if the City of Lake Elmo changed <br />zoning regulations, Outlet A could be used for some non- <br />agricultural purpose without violating this particular covenant, <br />In fact, the City is being asked to change its zoning regulations <br />so that Outlot A can be further subdivided. <br />Private property owners have indicated that representations <br />were made when they purchased their property regarding the future <br />use of Outlot A. Those claims would have to be asserted by the <br />property owners against the developer and/or person who sold them <br />the property. I did look at one of the property owner's abstracts <br />of title and, based upon that review, I have concluded that there <br />are no other restrictions of record regarding the use of Outlet A <br />other than those contained in the Declaration of Protective <br />Covenants which was reviewed by the City at the time of <br />development. I have not investigated the validity of any private <br />partly claims against the developer, <br />I <br />