2016.08.25 PC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Subject: Sprouts Pediatric Dentistry Project Colleen, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me earlier this week. As., indicated, I am legal counsel to Finnegan Holdings, LLC and Meredith Kurysh. Our clients own the property located at 14722 Victor Blvd. N., Hugo, MN 55038 (the "Property"). I understand from our discussion, that Associa Minnesota is the property management company for the Victor Gardens Community Association residential homeowner's association (the "Association"). As a follow-up to our discussion, I am writing to advise that neither the Association nor its Architectural Review Committee ("ARC") have standing or any other legal or other right to require prior review or approval by the Association or ARC in connection with the planned development of the Property or our clients' pending efforts to obtain City approval for the construction of the Sprouts Pediatric Dentistry Clinic to be located on the Property. Specifically, I would point out the following. On February 18, 2003, the Association's Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements was recorded with the Washington County Recorder as Document No. 3309081 (the "Declaration") The Declaration imposes certain restrictions, covenants, conditions and easements on the residential lots within the Association. Pursuant to the Declaration, "property" is defined as the "real property subject to this Master Declaration, and other property which is subsequently subjected to this Master Declaration from time to time, together with all improvements located thereon. The term "unit(s)" is defined as a residential unit, a CIC unit and an apartment village unit. The Declaration does not include, or apply to ,any commercial property. My clients' Property is no a residential unit, a CIC unit or an apartment village unit. In order to be binding upon the individual residential parcels of "property" subject to the Declaration and situated within the Association, the Declaration must be recorded against each individual parcel of "property". The Declaration provides for the creation of the ARC. ARC's stated role, and scope of authority, is limited to serving the Association to, "oversee, review and regulate architectural and design matters involving the "property."" We have also reviewed the Development Agreement recorded on December 22, 2004 against the Property as Document No. 3488413. Nowhere in the Development agreement is there any requirement for architectural review or approval by the Association or ARC in connection with commercial properties that are subject to the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement does, however, require the development and implementation of architectural review and design guidelines for all "residential buildings". Finally, we reviewed Resolution 2000-47 by the City of Hugo. Under the "Commercial Development Standards" portion of the Resolution, there is no requirement for prior Association or ARC review or approval. The only requirement is that, "all commercial buildings shall comply with the PUD development standards for the General Business zoning district. . Despite the foregoing, I understand that the Association and ARC are incorrectly taking the position that my clients are required to seek and obtain prior ARC approval for the design and architectural elements of their project. Legally speaking, that is incorrect. Specifically, I would note the following: 1. According to an updated title report for my clients' Property, the Declaration was never recorded against the Property. Because it was never recorded against the Property, the Property is not subject to, or in any way bound by, any of the covenants, conditions, restrictions or easements set forth in the Declaration including, but not limited to, any obligation to seek and obtain prior review or approval from the Association or ARC for any design or architectural elements of their building;