Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />August 23, 2005 <br />Page 6 <br />are driving, they can see the light coming out, but won't be able to see in. The canopies will <br />match as well as the wall sconces. It will give the feeling that it is a four -sided building. <br />Mayor Faust noted that without the amendment to the Developer's Agreement, the variances are <br />needless to approve. He stated these request should be held. The request for the Amendment to <br />the Developer's Agreement, Item VII. A. must be moved up to the next item for discussion. <br />8 VII. GENERAL BUSINESS OF COUNCIL <br />9 A. Resolution 05 -069, Amendment to developer's agreement with Amcon St. Anthony. <br />10 Mr. Morrison explained a letter was presented to him before the meeting that states the applicant <br />11 will provide the City with $50,000 to amend the Agreement. He said he had a letter from legal <br />12 counsel that outlines the City's options. He noted eight resolutions were prepared for <br />13 consideration for this item. <br />14 <br />15 Councilmember Horst questioned if the agreement is amended as stated, whether the developer <br />16 would have eight months to complete the project with the same kind of terms that the City would <br />17 take the property back if this provision isn't met. Mr. Morrison said this is something that could <br />18 be negotiated. It is not stated now. <br />19 <br />20 Councilmember Horst said that based on the track record, it should be included. Mr. Morrison <br />21 said that if the Council chooses to proceed on that, it should be included in the motion and <br />22 specific terms should be noted. <br />-4 Councilmember Gray asked for an explanation for the difference of $50,000 being offered now <br />25 and $150,000 offered in June to amend the agreement. Mr. Tucci explained in June they were <br />26 asking for a major modification. Now they are back to the originally approved plan, basically. <br />27 He said they had a discussion with Ehlers on the reduced tax amount to the City due to the <br />28 building size, and the impact was under $1,000 per year. They tried to estimate what the tax <br />29 implication was and determined the amount of $ 50,000. The taxes should have already been <br />30 paid for a year on this project. <br />31 <br />32 Mr. Tucci explained in regards to landscaping with this building they have an integrated <br />33 landscape plan to integrate what the City will do in the right of way. At the Planning <br />34 Commission meeting, there was discussion that the developer needs to make sure the sidewalk <br />35 going around the building connects. That was left to discussion with Staff. He suggested that <br />36 Guy with Village Pub can explain further. He said they learned from the last proposal that this <br />37 body seems to have a preference to have the restaurant on the pad where it was first approved. <br />38 They also learned that the Council was concerned that it would become more of a pub at 3,500 <br />39 square feet. At 6,000 square feet, it seemed too big for a restaurant, so they now arrived at a size <br />40 of 4,500 square feet. He said they will specify in the lease that a 50150 ratio of liquor and food <br />41 sales must be maintained. The architect is ready to start drawings tomorrow if this is approved. <br />42 He said he would like to begin the site prep work tomorrow. He noted the condition of having <br />43 the project complete in eight months was an oversight on his part. <br />44 <br />Bob Foster, attorney for applicant and resident, said he asked Guy Peterson of Jackson Street Bar <br />and Grill to attend the meeting. He invited Mr. Peterson to explain why it will be a <br />47 neighborhood restaurant rather than a bar. <br />