Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - PH 2016-01-06 - REZONING - MCLAREN CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Wednesday, January 6, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Wednesday, January 6, 2015. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen E. McIntyre, President Brandon M. Kritzman, Vice President Scott Bahr Maureen Miller Brosnan Brian Meakin Cathy K. White MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Planning Don Knapp, City Attorney Bonnie J. Murphy, CER-2300, Certified Electronic Recorder This is a Public Hearing relative to a request for a change of zoning within the City of Livonia on Petition 2015-11-01-10, submitted by McLaren Performance Technologies, to rezone a portion of the property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, between Parker Avenue and Hubbard Road, 32233 Eight Mile Road, in the Northeast ¼ of Section 3, from R-3 (One family residential) to P (Parking) without any conditions. I would like to make a note of an additional piece of data that the Council has received. If the Council was provided prior to the adoption of the ordinance a protest which is duly signed by the owners of at least 20 percent of the area of land within 100 feet from the property proposed to be rezoned, excluding publicly owned land, then the amendment requires a three-quarters vote of the Council. In the case of this Petition 2015-11-01-10, we received approximately only 7.3 percent of the owners of the land within 100 feet registered a protest against the rezoning, which means that this will not require a three- quarters vote of the Council, it will require a simple majority of the Council. The City Clerk has mailed notices to those persons in the area affected by the proposed changes, and all other requirements of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, have been fulfilled. The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:43 p.m. with President Kathleen McIntyre presiding. There were sixteen people in the audience. The Public Hearing is now open for comments. Please state your name and address before making your comments. McIntyre: I’d like to move to Mr. Knapp to give us some background. 2 Knapp: Thank you, Madam President. I’m just going to sort of start at the end. What the Administration is recommending is a rezoning of the property to reflect the current condition of it. As you know, there is a large parking structure to the rear of the McLaren property that has been under construction for the past year or so and it’s 90 plus percent complete. And so we’re asking you to rezone the property to that P (Parking) classification as it was before. Just a little bit of background for those who may not be completely familiar with the McLaren situation. It is in the midst of litigation, currently the litigation is in the Michigan Court of Appeals. There was a – dating back to 2010, a request to rezone a portion of the property where – actually a smaller portion of the property where the parking structure now stands to the P (Parking) district designation. That was done pursuant to a conditional rezoning agreement in 2010. McLaren did not put in the parking lot that they had intended but instead in 2014 came and asked the City Council to amend that conditional rezoning agreement and allow them to construct the parking structure that is there today. In August of last year, Mr. Horton, who is the Plaintiff in the lawsuit against the City and McLaren, filed a two count Complaint. The first count was against the City seeking a writ of mandamus and asking that all building permits and construction permits be withdrawn so that the construction on the parking structure ceased. And it also had Count II which is a breach of contract claim. Again, there is a conditional rezoning agreement in this case, that conditional rezoning agreement is between the City and McLaren. There was a hearing held before Judge Susan Hubbard on th. November 12 At that hearing, the Judge denied a writ of mandamus and effectively sort of brought the City out of the case but ordered a preliminary injunction to be entered. Shortly thereafter, about six days later, the Judge issued a written opinion in which the Judge indicated that the City is dismissed, the conditional rezoning agreement could not be enforced by Mr. Horton because he’s not a party to the contract. The conditional rezoning agreement is a contract between the City and McLaren. If you’re not a party to it, you can’t enforce it. But strangely in that decision the Judge also ordered McLaren to file a rezoning petition and have the property rezoned even though there was no outstanding counts in the Complaint on which to base it and that’s the subject of the appeal, whether or not the Judge committed a legal error based upon the facts and the law and we’re at the very beginning stages of that process and it won’t be over for about, you know, best guess is at best eight months, probably up to eighteen months. Usually appeals last between twelve and eighteen, so they can be a little bit shorter than that but typically it’s within that twelve to eighteen month period. 3 So, understanding that, there is a chance that although I think it very small, that if the Plaintiff in this case would prevail, at the very least it’s good from the Petitioner’s standpoint and I think good from the City’s standpoint to go through the effort of rezoning the property to reflect the conditions that exist today. In the event that McLaren and the City prevail, as I expect, this is going to be nothing more than belts and suspenders. If for some reason the City were to lose, the City is still in a great position because the property is rezoned to reflect as it exists today. So, that’s the recommendation of the Administration and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. McIntyre: If there are no questions, we will now go to the Petitioner which is McLaren. Good evening. Maxwell: Good evening. Scott Maxwell, 38823 Eight Mile. Thanks for having me here this evening. Just to add a little bit to what Mr. Knapp was saying, there are two paths going on, the appeal and the request for rezoning tonight. The reason from our standpoint to put the emphasis on the rezoning is that for the other building in Southfield that as you recall we’re moving about ninety or so people from there to the new building in Livonia, without the ability to use the parking structure and get it done and available, our lease in Southfield is done in April so we really can’t sort of wait for the case to come out in court. So from our standpoint this would be a prime path in pursuing to getting the rezoning completed. Other than that, any questions? McIntyre: Any questions for Mr. Maxwell? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Maxwell. We will now open the hearing for public comments and again, we ask you to approach the podium, use both podiums, and please give us your name and address so we know who’s addressing the Council. Thank you. Good evening. Horton: Good evening. My name is Mike Horton. So I hate to have to do it to you, I’m going to kind of go over this again. In 2010 McLaren was petitioning the City to have this same piece zoned for parking. So the immediate or surrounding property owners opposed that, we had the votes to stop it, I think McLaren understood that, they brought us into their facility, gave us a very specific plan, a small street level parking lot, that was it with berms and a small retention pond. We agreed to let them do that provided they did not pursue any further expansion on that site. Otherwise, we would have never agreed to do this and none of us would be having this conversation because it would just be the open field that it was before. It has even been suggested that hey, you bought next to a commercial property, you get what you get. In fact, that would be wrong. McLaren bought residential property so I still do not understand why we are being forced to suffer because they bought a piece of property and then were 4 allowed to build a – try to appreciate this for a minute, if you would. Look at me, this distance between me and Scott, that’s how far from the back of my fence to a three-story parking structure I stand. Add about another five rows and you’re on my back porch. No greenbelt, I understand Brandon to say when this came up before, you said hey, man, we’ll try to do some things that will cover this up. There is no greenbelt that’s going to cover a three-story building, not in the next forty years anyway. It’s horrible. I imagined the worst and it wasn’t even close. This is so bad I don’t even look that way anymore. The thing that drives me crazy is, this body, you individuals, not all of you, in 2010 agreed that you would see to it that our interests were supported in this, too, and you did not. You let them wildly change what they agreed not to do and no one has ever given us any type of explanation as to why that happened. And Mr. Knapp seems to think it’s just a slam dunk and there’s some outside chance he could lose but maybe he should have been at that hearing because I don’t think that Judge would agree with him. Not everyone agrees that this is a great thing. Certainly not if you live next to it. So I’m here tonight to ask you to take this opportunity to try and right a wrong. The fact that they never did what they promised to do is not disputed, they don’t even dispute that. So obviously I don’t want this to happen and I ask this body to look out for all of us, not just the one who has the most to offer. Any questions? McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Horton. Steele: Good evening. My name is Daniel Steele, I’m Mr. Horton’s attorney but I also live in Livonia, I’m at 11037 Ingram. Mr. Knapp forgot to mention, and I’ll read just a short couple sentences from the opinion of the court. And I of course was also there, too, and I would invite -- I assume, well, I would invite each of you to take a look at the opinion that the Judge wrote but also that the transcript of the hearing was very dramatic. The Judge was very upset at what had happened and it’s worthwhile to see the transcript of the hearing. If any further issues come up with respect to McLaren or this piece of property or Mr. Horton or Livonia, it will go back to the same Judge, too, to hear anything that has to do with that piece of property, that’s the way it works in Wayne County Circuit Court. The Court, after looking what had gone on in 2010 and 2014, said having found that the property at issue is zoned R-3, that’s the property where there was already a three-story parking structure, that having found that, which is what they said, the court finds that Livonia Ordinance Section 24.02 is applicable to the parking structure already under construction. That ordinance, Livonia 24.02 states “Buildings erected, altered, razed, or converted, or uses carried on in violation of any provision of this ordinance are hereby declared to be a nuisance per se.” 5 So what the Court has ruled is that the building, despite what Mr. Knapp says, that this is just a pro forma event, right now as it stands the Court has ruled that the building is a nuisance per se and at some point the City Council, the City will have to act on it. A building within the City has been declared by the Court a nuisance per se. The idea that this is just a pro forma event is incorrect. I was at the Planning Commission Meeting, I looked at what material was considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Taormina told the Planning Commission that this is the same ordinance that was voted on in 2010, that’s not correct. This is not what we voted on in 2010. In 2010 there was a conditional zoning agreement, the proposal was for a surface parking lot, that’s what the Livonia City Council unanimously approved in 2010 after there had been a lot of discussion, a lot of meetings where people got together and they agreed that this is what would happen on that piece of property. That’s what was voted on, that’s what was agreed to. Nothing happened whatsoever. Move forward to 2014, in 2014 by that time the Mayor’s office and McLaren had decided we want a three-story parking structure. Forget about that 2010 plan, we want a three-story parking structure. There was a couple problems with that. One, there was a State statute that said this property reverted to residential sometime in 2011 when the conditional zoning agreement wasn’t followed through on in any way whatsoever, the statute is completely clear, it says the property reverts to the prior zoning. So McLaren and the Mayor’s office wanted to put a three-story parking structure on a piece of property that was zoned residential, that’s problem one. Second problem, again we’re in 2014, the second problem is the City Council was not going to approve the rezoning. It would have to go back to the City Council for rezoning in 2014 and the Mayor knew he didn’t have the votes on the City Council. It would require a three-quarters majority, they knew that they didn’t have the votes there. So what happened? The Mayor’s office advised the City Council and the surrounding residents we don’t need to go back to the City Council, we don’t need to have it on the rezoning issue, it’s already zoned. The Mayor’s office said it’s already zoned Parking. That was contrary to the State statute that said it reverted. But it went back only on the site plan issue. The site plan issue had two City Council members who voted against it, those are the same two City Council members that would have voted against any attempt to rezone it, but the citizens, the citizens of Livonia, Mr. Horton, the surrounding residents, all the citizens never had their due process right in 2014 to have this issue considered by the City Council. They had the right to have the rezoning of this property considered by the City Council and if it had been in 2014, if a rezoning request had gone to the City in 2014, it wouldn’t have passed and that means there would be no parking structure there today. The votes weren’t there, a parking structure would not have been – would not have been erected. So that’s the status, that’s what’s up in the Court of Appeals right 6 now. That’s the status of this. Now, the suggestion that all we’re doing is just okaying what’s already there, and that this is just a pro forma vote, that’s not correct. The citizens of Livonia, Mr. Horton, the residents, were denied their right to have the matter considered in 2014 pursuant to a State statute that said it reverted to R-3 and pursuant to Livonia Ordinance that says you must have a three-quarters vote of the City Council for rezoning. So that’s the status right now. This morning I went and looked at some of the notes from the Planning Commission. I think I looked at the file that you have today. One thing I didn’t see in there was there was a lot of photographs provided by residents, not me, residents that had taken photographs, they were provided to the Planning Commission, I didn’t see those in there. But I would certainly urge you to either look at the photographs or go see the area in question. A letter from the --- what I saw in there was this, the letter from the th Planning Commission to the City Council dated December 28, and it’s the Planning Commission recommending that this rezoning be approved. The first paragraph says “that the proposed change is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning district in the area.” Again, please go look at the site because it’s completely incompatible and nowhere in Livonia is there a use such as this where you have 100 feet of parking structure infringing into a residential area. And it’s not just the parking structure. Mr. Horton looks out, he sees the parking structure, and this is people all around, see a parking structure, you see what is an open storm sewer, they call it --- it’s a retention pond but it’s an open storm sewer. What they’ve done is they’ve taken the storm sewer which should go out to Eight Mile and they now send it back into an area that’s zoned residential. In addition they’re going to widen Hubbard soon, the newspapers all covered stories that they’re going to put in another turn lane for Hubbard, and you’ve got what used to be Mr. Horton’s next door neighbor is now three large utility poles that are supplying the power for this industrial facility. There’s ways to solve this other than allowing it to move forward with a rezoning vote in two weeks. I’d ask that since this is a Public Hearing, I’d ask that there be a study meeting, I’d ask that this Council consider other ways to deal with this issue. Thank you very much. McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Steele. Kragt: Good evening. My name is Jeff Kragt, and I’m an attorney representing McLaren. And I wasn’t going to speak except for Mr. Steele decided to talk to the jury who apparently is City Council. There is litigation, there is an appeal. He’s trying to argue the legal merits of a case before you that’s 7 in the Court of Appeals and I was also at the Wayne County Circuit Court hearing and it was strange on many levels. What Mr. Steele paints is the picture that he would win if it goes back there, however there’s two counts to Mr. Horton’s Complaint, both were dismissed. He appealed the decision of this Judge who ruled against him. So, I don’t want to really get into the merits of the case but he lost, I mean both parties are on appeal. The opinion he refers to that was issued after the hearing did mention nuisance per se, and that’s a term of art, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a nuisance, that people hate it and it’s obstructive. What the nuisance per se in this case is, because she determined, wrongly in our opinion, that the property reverted back to the R-3 zoning, you now have a parking structure over 90 percent complete that’s now on a residential R-3 zone. That’s a term of art that means something that is not in a zone where it should be then that’s called a nuisance per se. What Mr. Steele also didn’t mention in the opinion is that the Judge directed McLaren to come back and seek this rezoning to handle it. If this is rezoned, there is no more nuisance per se. McLaren is not looking for anything other than what occurred, what they were approved for, they built it according to the site plan, the 2014 site plan. Asking for this rezoning puts this back into where everybody in this room thought it was back in 2014 which was zoned parking. If that’s done, then there is no more nuisance per se. And so I ask you to continue on this path and don’t delay this rezoning, this City and these parties have handled this issue and have been to so many th meetings on this. We ask you to continue it to your January 20 for a vote. It’s like Mr. Maxwell said, it is important, too, to keep this moving to get rezoned because we don’t want to have anything out there as wrong as it may be, a decision that this is an R-3, we ask you to move forward as your city attorney recommends and to rezone this back to Parking. Thank you. McIntyre: Thank you. Wegener: Good evening. McIntyre: Good evening. Wegener: Melissa Wegener, 20425 Hubbard, I live directly across the street from the project, I’m the second house down. I hope you people went out and looked at this in the last month, because it’s not what it was six months ago. I just constantly, because people know where I live, every day I’m inundated with why, why did they do that to you people? I wouldn’t want to live there, that’s horrible. It’s city business as usual. That’s all the comments I hear. I even hear it from the trades people that were out there working, they said there’s nothing like this out there. It’s a laughing stock amongst the trades people that they put something like that into a neighborhood. As you know, this issue regarding the zoning of this 8 property goes back, beginning back in 2008. At that time the thing was going to change from R to P, the Mayor was very proud of the fact that he reached a compromise at that time and he stated that compromise was beneficial to the City and the residents. Since that time the City and the Council have forgotten what’s beneficial to the residents. Our City ordinance regarding zoning states and you all should read that and you all should know that, you’re elected to enforce that and to protect us and protect the City, it states as a plan its purpose is to protecting public health, safety and general welfare of the community. It goes on to state it is to ensure that we have regulations and restrictions that increase our safety and security and our home life and to create a favorable environment to raise our children and to enhance our property’s civic values and to regulate overcrowding of land use. Well, if you don’t want to call that overcrowding, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Obviously if you don’t think a parking deck on a small piece of property for 150 cars is overcrowding, you don’t think additional traffic, noise, lights, is not a safety issue? You think that the building enhances our property values? Do you think the additional lighting in the parking lot is intrusive to our homes? My house is lit up like a Christmas tree at night. I mean, my whole front room and my driveway it looks like a full moon every night. We’ve asked them numerous times to turn the lights off, can’t even get them to do that. And then they’re going to put lights in the parking lot? That’s just going to add. There should be something that protects us from all the lighting out there. That parking deck is open ended. Those lights are going to come right into my window, not to mention the three electrical lines or Edison poles I’m looking at on that parking lot property that wasn’t supposed to be there, you know, and where is all this traffic going to go? Now they want to widen our street? We were never told any of this, it just got worse day after day. I’m appalled at what has happened. You know, this condemns our neighborhood and I wonder why on earth the City allowed this to happen. Their comment is the City doing business as usual. That’s what they say all the time. And all the neighbors that I know, all people in the community that talk to me, they said they can’t trust the City anymore and that’s sad. It shouldn’t be like that. This has been the laughing stock. Maybe you don’t hear it but we do. Everybody comes through our neighborhood, this is atrocious, they said they can’t believe that you’d let that happen. I just hope, I know it’s probably way too late, but I hope you consider or at least to try and get us some help or find something that’s going to make this a little easier to deal with. We’re never going to be able to sell our homes. The neighbor next door and the neighbor on the other side, they have young children, do you think they can play in the front yard? You’ve got truck traffic out there. I’ve had to call, I can’t tell you how many times, all the guys that runs the traffic for the large roads, he’s been down there writing tickets, they’re standing out there in the middle of Eight Mile holding up traffic, parking semis out there during the day. We don’t even know what loading dock traffic is going to be like. We were told 9 it’s supposed to come out but they’re all going in. I know right now they’re doing construction and it’s all different, it’s not going to get any better. You know you’ve got school busses going down there, you’ve got people, the whole neighborhood is upset with the traffic. And then you’ve got this parking deck with 150 cars, what kind of noise and lights is that going to be? Did you even think about that before you voted on this? Apparently not. McIntyre: Thank you, Miss Wegener. Brossard: Hello, my name is James Brossard, I live at 20391 Parker in Livonia here on the west side of Parker behind McLaren, I’m the first house off of Eight Mile. And I’ve been a resident since 1965 and McLaren I believe came in in 1968. We have coexisted quite well. And this rezoning, I have no opposition against it and I ask for your approval for McLaren. Thank you. McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Brossard. R. Martin: Ralph Martin, 20366 Hubbard, I’m on the south side of the property. The rezoning in 2010 was difficult for the Council and McLaren to get through and the Council actually suggested that residents get together with the representative of McLaren at that time, she would come up with an agreement which we did. The Council praised us for that. And they took that agreement that we all agreed to and presented it to the City, they said it was great, and then they turn right around and slap it in our face, that what we said was not a contract, what McLaren said was not a contract. I called the Legal Department, they said it’s not a contract when this thing started happening in 2014. They said if you agreed in 2010 for ground level parking and that was it, no further expansion, once you agreed to that you’re stuck with whatever McLaren wants to do. They can do anything they want to. We were told that by the City Council and the Legal Department. We had a breakfast meeting with former members of Council, they pretty much told us it’s going to happen no matter what you do and I think they figured it would no matter what we did. But they also figured who the hell is going to spend any money to find out whether they’re being lied to or not? Well, we were lied to. You’ve taken away not only our property value, but our trust in our City government, our faith in the people that we elected and it really irritates the neighbors. It irritates me and my relatives and friends. What you did --- my son went to Clarenceville High School. His senior year at parent teacher conferences, his history teacher said Mr. Martin, your son didn’t do his job in history, he should fail. But since he’s a senior, I really hate to fail him. My answer to the teacher was, screw him, if he didn’t do his job, don’t reward him by passing him. He had to go to summer school to graduate. I’m asking you don’t just throw this thing back and say yes, it’s approved without really getting into it, understanding what happened. You’ve done more than just 10 take property values away, you’ve taken faith in government from all of us and everybody we’ve talked to about this. They can’t believe it, I can’t believe it. The other thing is, what does conditional rezoning mean? Does anybody have an answer, Mr. Knapp? McIntyre: No, sir, Mr. Martin --- R. Martin: They won’t answer the question? McIntyre: No, Mr. Martin, you need to direct your comments to me, please. R. Martin: Okay. Does anybody have an answer to what conditional rezoning is? Obviously not. What does unconditional rezoning mean? Because that’s specific in McLaren’s new proposal, unconditional rezoning. Nobody has an answer to that either. The answer I got from McLaren or from Mr. Knapp’s office was unconditional meant nothing, they could do whatever they wanted to on that property, go as high as they want to, as far as they want to because they own the property. Now, only the residents that are within 100 feet of the parking structure are allowed to vote on this thing or have a say on it. But in order to put the parking structure up, you had to dig a pond which adjoins my property and my neighbor’s property and it adjoins a property on Parker. That had to be there in order to do the parking structure. They had to run their storm drains into that structure to keep the water out of the building on Parker, the very end building, it was flooding that building in there. Once they got the approval to do this, first thing they do is put the drain in because it was getting water and that was okay, that was part of what our agreement was. But nothing else ever happened that we agreed to or that they agreed to. They purchased two votes by buying the gentleman’s house where the parking lot is now or where the side lot is now on Hubbard, also the one on Parker. So there’s two votes that they don’t have to worry about because they got them. I don’t know what they’re doing with Jim, he’s been very happy with McLaren. Now, his kitchen, they can look in his kitchen window from the parking structure. He mentioned that to me and his wife mentioned it to me, it’s an uncomfortable feeling. But nobody here has to contend with that, you only have to do one thing, what’s right for the residents and McLaren. McLaren has 16 million dollars invested in this thing and if they had gone back in 2014 instead of saying to us this zoning from 2010 is legitimate, listened to us when we questioned it, get the answer and then do it properly instead of saying screw them, we’re going to do it our way, and let them agree on it later. Well it is later now. Now there’s a three- story garage parking structure in a residential area that they got built. Now the pressure is on McLaren and the City and their attorney to get this thing resolved. Well, I ask you one thing, instead of saying yes, no, there’s a third thing you can do, you can say I want you to do this, direct McLaren and their representatives to sit down with the residents and their 11 representatives and try to reach a compromise that will satisfy everybody and get everybody else off the hook. You’ll never the property as far as we’re concerned, but you may be able to get a compromise because it affects all of us in this spot. You’ve got a new Mayor. The new Mayor said in Livonia Today, regarding a question from Livonia Today, “The promise that I will always keep is that I will have an open ear and open mind to suggestions and ideas. I will lead by example. And as I said election night, you will never be sorry you hired me.” I hope that’s true. He also said, “Managing and leading people has been part of my life since I was eighteen years old. Military experience and my two businesses tell me how to lead people. You have to listen and understand people. It helps when people enjoy what they’re doing, serving the public is what we do in the City.” Now we need to see an example of that through. We don’t see it anywhere else we could respect. We don’t see Detroit. We don’t see Livonia. I thought we could see it here and respect it here. Do your job and do it right. That’s all I have. McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Martin. R. Martin: You’re welcome. C. Martin: Thank you. Christopher Martin and I’m no relation to the previous speaker, 12275 Inkster Road. I’ve attended these meetings, was at the Planning Commission meeting but I had to leave before this came on or I would have spoke at that particular meeting. But I don’t live in the area but I do believe that the people have been mistreated and it’s been going on for a while. When this started out years ago, it was supposed to be a parking lot and then it morphed into a parking structure. It’s 2016, it just turned 2016, look at your calendars a couple days ago there, but Mr. Knapp had mentioned that it’s the recommendation of the Administration to rezone this to P which is Parking. Is that the current Administration from 2016? And my question to you, Council President, is who is the current Administration that is recommending that? Is that Dennis Wright? McIntyre: We have a new Mayor. C. Martin: But it’s 2016 now. McIntyre: Dennis Wright is the Mayor. C. Martin: Is it your understanding that he, that what Mr. Knapp said is correct, that he is recommending this as the Administration? 12 McIntyre: If I’m hearing the new Administration, that’s my understanding it’s the new Administration which is Mayor Wright. Brosnan: We have a letter signed by Mayor Wright. C. Martin: So it’s confirming that, my question, that that’s the Administration? McIntyre: Yes. C. Martin: I think that’s unfortunate because that is not, as the gentleman read something in quotes there, that is not in any of his campaign literature in seeking the job of being Mayor, that’s not what he stated he would do, in my opinion. And I can go get out that literature in the future and point it out. But I do believe that the citizens in that particular area have been bamboozled, I like using that word every now and then, and it’s unfortunate because you’ve got a structure now that is not going to be going away. So all you can do now is battle in out in court, come up with a compromise, but it will never be like it was initially promised and that was to be a parking lot, not some behemeth of a structure. And there is nowhere else within the City and I did watch the Planning Commission Meeting, the video of that, because you said nowhere in the City is a parking structure on a P piece of a parking lot and basically he’s saying now you’ve opened the floodgates to structures, parking structures, being placed in P zoned areas. And what has happened here, I believe, is that many of you are team players and you don’t want to look at yourself in the mirror and say my job is to do, use my own mind, my own opinion, and research things myself and come up with it no matter who prompts me, okay, to vote a certain way or do a certain thing. When I worked in factories that’s why I was put in charge sometimes of things and representing people because I didn’t go with the flow, I didn’t lick my finger and see which way the wind was blowing and I certainly was never good at following orders but a lot of people will tell you that. I did what I felt was best in the situation that was being presented. I don’t know how you’re going to turn this ship around, you can’t make that building go away. But you certainly, the people that were involved in this, Planning, City Council, really in my opinion mistreated these people. McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Brosnan: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Ms. Brosnan. Brosnan: Thank you. If everyone in the audience is done, I just have a couple comments to make. First, I want to start by letting my colleagues know how saddened I was to actually see this item come before us again. I’m 13 saddened because I do, I once again have to see Mrs. Wegener, Mr. Martin and Mr. Horton and once again hear what I think is one of the saddest stories in Livonia’s history. Back in 2010 that group of people plus a number of their neighbors really came together in good faith to try to work with McLaren in putting together some kind of compromise and I was one of those Council people that unanimously voted for the 2010 agreement with the surface parking lot because, largely because those residents felt secure that the compromise that they had worked out was one that we as a City was going to help stand behind along with McLaren and everybody was going to work together to make sure that the parking structure wasn’t that, just a surface parking lot. And I think had any of us at that point in time ever envisioned that we would have gotten to today, we would have continued that fight, we would have continued all of the opposition that we were mustering at that time and there was a great amount of it and I think probably enough of it to have stopped the project then. But we were really interested in making sure that he economic viability of one of Livonia’s large taxpayers continued and so there was a really good faith effort to put together a compromise. In 2011 when the surface parking lot wasn’t surfaced and in 2014 when they came back looking for the three-story parking structure, I was one of those votes in opposition to it. So it will come as no surprise that I will once again remain consistent and be in opposition of whatever resolution is before us that moves forward with a parking structure. But for those residents who have come before us tonight and once again shared this sad, sad story, obviously we can’t turn this ship around, I think the last Mr. Martin said that, but if there was any room to work with the neighbors and McLaren has no legal obligation to do that and probably is resistant to it because there currently is a lawsuit pending. But there’s always one vote that you look back on in your Council history and you regret. That vote in 2010 would be my one vote. Thank you. McIntyre: Mr. Bahr. Bahr: A couple of us have had the opportunity of having this in both the Planning Commission and now on Council and I can always understand neighbors being frustrated with significant changes in their neighborhood. As I’ve stated on a different issue recently, I grew up in a place where we had a big field in the backyard and it was owned by another man who kept it up for us so us kids could play baseball and football in there and now there’s a subdivision there and that wasn’t fun either. And so I certainly understand the frustrations even if my history going back to 2010, I don’t have that history. I know when it came before Planning Commission there were a number of things that were done with the site plan to try and alleviate the infringement on the neighbors. One of those things I know and we’ve got the plan right in front of us here, the landscaping plan, is 14 extensive to shield that. I know that’s not there instantaneously but we have the renderings right here in front of us I think when that is mature, which won’t be as quickly as anybody would like, but it will actually be a very nice compromise to a situation that understandably you’re not happy about. But all that being said, rather than rehashing all the things that went through Planning Commission and Council related to site plan and all that, that all has happened. The issue before us tonight is this rezoning. That’s what the issue is and so a vote on this rezoning, frankly all this stuff related to site plan and what can be done to shield it and shielding lights which were in that resolution, all that is done. This is strictly about a rezoning. So I just want to make that clear and with that in mind and understanding the reality of the situation, I will offer an approving on this. McIntyre: All right, thank you, Councilman Bahr. Are there any additional public comments? Mr. Kritzman? Kritzman: Just a couple of quick comments. I did eventually vote to approve this, I did work hard to make certain that we pushed back a little on the architecture of the parking deck, trying to alleviate some of those concerns and I’m sorry, I may get some of these names wrong, Ms. Wegener, that the utility poles ended up in the front yard there because that drives me insane and I think that’s something that we should certainly as a Council moving forward on all plans, try to make certain that those sorts of things end up underground. On one hand I agree with what Councilman Bahr is saying is what’s before us here is a rezoning. The project that we’re getting out there is close to what I expected when I voted for it the first time, so I will likely support it again but I don’t think it is an open and shut sort of situation where we can’t look for – I’m sorry, the first Mr. Martin who spoke, Ralph, said that there are some things here that can make this situation a little bit better. I know, I myself, am going to make my way out to the site and take a look at those things. I wrote question marks here, utility poles, additional trees, façade improvements, addressing the parking deck, I’m going to go myself and make sure that it is up to the expectations I set for myself when I voted for it. McIntyre: Thank you. Anything else? All right. The public comments are now closed on this petition item. If someone is going to speak, approach the podium, please. R. Martin: Again, you’ve got to vote on the zoning, changing the zoning, but I don’t know how you can ignore the fact that the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Legal Department and the Mayor had an opportunity in 2014 to correct this thing and ignored it and flat ass told us no way you’re going to get anything done, it’s a done deal. They ignored that. It’s absolute fraud as far as I’m concerned, as far as our representation from this City. I don’t want to be compared to Detroit, but if you keep pulling 15 stuff like this, we are going to be compared to Detroit and I would hate to see that. I’ve been in this City since 1950, a resident here, I bought my house in 1962, right next to McLaren. It’s just not right, you have to consider everything, not just yes or no. You’ve got to do something that will make this come out better for everybody. Scott’s happier than hell if he gets his garage, he doesn’t care how he got it, it doesn’t matter to him. It doesn’t matter to him, he’s going to get the street widened and the State is going to pay for it, he doesn’t care about that. He’d like to have the phone lines put underground and moved across the street and let the State pay for some of that, too. And one of the things from the Court, I’ll try and represent it, they said it’s a money grab, that stood out, it’s a money grab. I’ve got to ask this question: Does McLaren grab money from the State of Michigan, tax abatement from the City of Livonia, monies for the widening of Hubbard, money for the phone lines in the ground, money for anything they can get? They wanted to hook into Wayne County for the sewer system, storm sewer system, did they do that? If they did do it, it creates a problem to the neighborhood because basements may back up. I know when the retention pond is full, that water has got to be going someplace and I don’t know where it’s going but I see it over the tops of the pipes and it’s not getting any higher, it’s going somewhere. When they were doing this construction I watched them pump water out of the storm drain out of the front lot, into the sanitary drain in the front lot before they put the paving down, nobody knew anything about that. It’s just --- there’s too many things here that are yeah, do this, do that, but I don’t think you people are all informed on exactly what’s going on. My doctor’s wife took her Lexus to the dealer, she backed up out of the garage and the tailpipe hit a cardboard box and when it did, she heard a noise, stopped, got out, moved the box, and got back in her Lexus and backed out the driveway and started going to work. She noticed a vibration and a noise in the car so she took it to the Lexus dealer. They checked it out and they put it back in the back and they came out and they said Mrs., you need a complete new exhaust system and it’s $3,200 on your Lexus. My god, it’s just a little cardboard box. She called her husband. He went to the dealer, talked to the salesman, the write-up person. He says yes, you need a complete exhaust system. He said she just hit a little cardboard box. He said I’m telling you, it’s a Lexus, you need a complete exhaust system. And before he could finish telling me the story, I said did you have it fixed? And he said no. I said who did you take it to? He said a mechanic, when I was going to school, he used to work on my car when I was a resident. I said what did it cost you, $20? He said $45. Two O-rings popped off the car and the bastard was going to get $3,200 because it was a Lexus and she was a doctor. Don’t do that. Just don’t do that. Find out what you need to do here to make this right. Thank you. 16 McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Martin. If there are no further comments, the Public Hearing is closed and I would remind the Petitioner that this item will be on the and you’ll hear the resolutions of tonight on the Agenda of the Regular th Meeting on Wednesday, January 20 and the Petitioner or a representative needs to be present. Thank you very much. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 8:34 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK