ROLL CALL: Mayor Gatt, Mayor Pro Tem Staudt, Council Members Casey, Fischer, Margolis, Mutch, Wrobel

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, City Manager

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Khalid Cossor, representing Main Street Partnership, thanked the City Council, Mayor, City Manager Pearson, and City Attorney Schultz for all of their work they did on the Main Street Project. The partnership has been involved with this Project since 2006, when they had bought the building. It has been a tough time for all of us for the last five or six years. During that period of time, the City was always willing to listen to them or cooperate with them. They have done everything they could in the tough times to make a go of this project. He wanted to assure everyone that they will continue to do what they have done in the past to support this project. He thanked the City Attorney again for the excellent job he did. He said the City Attorney was a good person to work with. He would have liked the project to have done better than it has. He said the last five years has been a learning experience for them. He said they are a profitable organization in spite of the tough times. They have adjusted during that period of time. There will be things that will come up and we will continue to ask the City to provide the same cooperation and perhaps a little more for the next phases of this project. He thought the next couple of years will be tough. They will work with whoever buys the property next to them because it is in their best interest. He concluded that he appreciated the efforts to bring this to a conclusion. They had no conflict with the proposals that the City Attorney has put together and they will sign it.

1. Consideration of the request of TCF Bank, Victor R. Cassis Living Trust u/a/d November 12, 2011, and Main Street Partnership, LLC, for Final Site Plan approval for Main Street, SP12-16.　 The subject site is 20.66 acres of land located in Section 23, east of Novi Road, and south of Grand River Avenue, in the TC-1, Town Center-1 Zoning District.　 The applicant is proposing to terminate the two condominiums recorded over the property, and create three separate metes-and-bounds parcels, with provision for parking, access, stormwater, and public/private utility easements.

City Manager Pearson wanted to thank City Attorney Schultz, Deputy Community Development Director McBeth, and Community Development Director Boulard for all the work they have done over the five or six months, and Council for identifying that this was a priority by coming here tonight for a special meeting. This final site plan represents the dissolution of the condominium that was a single development by a developer. It has changed over time with the different property owners. The City Administration concurred with the property owners that the best way to move forward was to unwind the original condominium and let each of the properties develop on their own with commonalities. The parking will be carried over in a different form from the original condominium. It was one of the biggest issues. He thought they had reached an accommodation on it with the property owners. There is shared parking but they are not going to have to create individual parking for their developments. It is important to give us an opportunity for future developments. There is some minor language changes that may be necessary to finalize this. They still need agreement from Luna Properties about some of the parking. They have had formal discussions but haven’t had been able to get a final review. The latitude in language has been built into the motion before Council.

Larry Czekaj, TCF Bank, thanked everyone for calling the Special Meeting. It is out of the ordinary. He believed he submitted the plan in July, 2011. He had been working with the City Attorney since August when it was decided the best approach was to bring all the owners in because they were interested in the same thing. He commented that it has been great working with the City Staff. It brought three of the owner’s together with a common goal. In his experience, it wasn’t the most complex transaction he has ever seen but it took some time unraveling the documents in this project. TCF is the lender for building number one. The owners have worked well as good borrowers in difficult times. Going forward, once everything is cleared up, the project should do well.

Victor Cassis had hoped the vote would be positive. After the many years of difficulty, he hopes to look forward to a good future. He thanked the Mayor and Council for accepting this project. He mentioned how City Manager Pearson, City Attorney and Community Development have worked well with him on this project and will miss them. He has prospects for this project. It will go well if we cooperate together. He appreciated everyone’s efforts.

Member Mutch thanked everyone involved in this project. He felt it sounded like everyone has come to an agreement on the major issues. It has been easy for Council to wait for everyone to get all the issues cleared up. He saw that it was a lot of unraveling to return this area back to what it was. We do have some things built into the agreements, but we are making a fresh start for the property owners. He had no problem with the agreements or actions that were taken but had some questions for City Attorney Schultz as to the City’s obligations. He asked about the maintenance agreement for the Main Street improvements that had been put in place through an SAD process and asked for clarification as to how it will change the responsibilities for the various parties. City Attorney Schultz replied that the City’s responsibilities really won’t change from what is happening now. In terms of the agreement, they change under the existing agreement from the1990’s where the City had a minimal obligation. The change in the legal obligation has changed but the City has actually been doing it for the last few years. It will be business as usual. The most important part of the exchange agreement amendment has to do with finally taking that arrangement between the parties, which has been informal in the past, and having everyone agree as to what their maintenance will be. The agreement in its current form was with Evergreen. There was one property owner responsible for all the maintenance, when in truth; there are five owners who are responsible. We are taking the four of them and putting in writing what those responsibilities will be. It will assist the property owners and the City if it turns out that they are not performing their maintenance obligations. Member Mutch confirmed that we have enforcement mechanisms built into the agreements. He asked about the changes to the parking lot lease by the Fire Station. The lease will be extended for an additional ten years and that there is an understanding that various parties will all have access to utilize that property for parking. City Attorney said that the lease right now is with the Condominium Association. We are getting rid of the Association, so it has to be assigned to somebody. Instead of assigning it to all three as separate individual property owners, now, it essentially recognizes that it is primarily used by the Main Street Partnership Group. That is who it is being assigned to but the assignment requires that it will be open and available for public parking. Member Mutch asked if the City will get any compensation for the use of that property. City Attorney Schultz said that we don’t get it now and not going forward. Member Mutch asked if it created a taxable situation for the City because it is treated as a public parking lot with this access. City Attorney Schultz said he didn’t know whether or not Glenn Lemmon, City Assessor, has it being assessed for taxes. The lease would require them (Main Street Partnership) to pay in the event taxes were assessed and for maintenance. The City has no responsibility at all. Member Mutch noted that we own the property and are not charging for the use of it, but they (Main Street Partnership) are responsible for the maintenance and improvements. The potentially land locked parcel through the vacation of Paul Bunyan Drive within the Site Plan approval will maintain access for that property through a public easement. City Attorney said that it was really Council’s motion and the vacation resolution in the second item that guarantees access if they need it. Member Mutch was concerned about the extension of the parking lot lease agreement which takes it to 2051. It makes it challenging for future Councils. He hoped that all the people will be successful with their developments and the City may want to convert that property to something other than a parking lot. Past Council made the commitment to 2041, so another ten years is not a deciding issue. All the concerns he had were answered or addressed. He said that there had been discussion about Luna as to their participation in the various agreements. He asked if they had everyone in agreement in terms with what we are asking to approve tonight. City Attorney said they do not have a formal response from Luna. We have had the informal conversation with them. They were at the meetings in November and December and are aware of what is going on. They may have comments on the way we have framed some of the agreements. We are asking them to consent to a larger easement document because, historically, there are easements and rights going back and forth across Main Street between the common area and the Vic’s (Luna Property) area. They needed to be kept abreast of what is going on. They probably should consent to what is being done. Their main issue is that it doesn’t affect what is going on at their site. The motion that is before Council addresses that towards the end. It is contingent on Luna giving us the approval. Hopefully, they will approve it or the changes will be minor changes so we don’t have to revisit this. Member Mutch noted that much of it is can be addressed with the parties that were there. City Attorney Schultz said that it was the parking more than anything else. If they are satisfied with the language, then we should be okay.