City Council - Regular Meeting

it is 8 25 this evening i will call a public hearing open for ordinance 2026-84 an ordinance supplementing section 120318 use of the zoning code as two definitions is there anyone that would wish to address council on this public hearing hearing now i'll call that public hearing closed next item for a public hearings ordinance 2026-88

An ordinance considering a conditional use permit for a professional service and recreational use.

That public hearing is open. Is there anyone that wishes to address Council on Ordinance 2026-88? Seeing none, hearing none, I'll call that public hearing closed. It is 825. I will go ahead and call the Westlake City Council meeting for September 17th, 2026. Clerk will please call the roll.

Mayor Clough. Here. President of Council Greenspan.

Here.

Council Members Van Dyke.

Here.

Nannari.

Here.

Del Ragnol.

Here.

LeBeck.

Here.

Havalka. Here. Gatse. Here.

We have a quorum. Mayor, will you please lead us in the pledge, and those in the audience, please rise. Thank you, Mayor. Before members of council are the minutes from the September 3, 2026 regular session, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

It's all moved.

Has there been a motion? Is there a second? Second. Motion's made and seconded. Discussion on the motion? There are none. Clerk will call the roll on the motion.

Greenspan?

Yes.

Van Dyke? Yes. Minari? Yes. Del Regno? Yes. Levesque? Yes. Havelka? Yes. Gadsay? Yes.

Minutes are approved. Next item on the agenda, select a correspondence.

Communication from Mayor Clough dated September 15th requesting authorization to enter into a contract with Range Servant for the purchase and installation of proprietary golf ball washing and distribution equipment for the new Meadowood driving range in an amount not to exceed $57,380.

That item is in reference to Ordinance 2026-112. We'll defer discussion to the appropriate time on the agenda.

Communication from Mayor Clough dated September 15th, requesting council to establish and encumber the amount of $82,250 for the Westlake Police Department renovation project.

I'll entertain a motion to approve the communication request. So moved. Second. Second. Motion's made and seconded. Discussion on the motion? Hearing none, clerk will call the roll on the motion.

Greenspan yes and I yes and Ari yes, Del Regno. Yes, Lovac. Yes, have Alka. Yes, that's a yes motion carries communication from their club dated September 15th requesting authorization to enter into a contract with six Mo architecture for the police station renovation project in an amount not to exceed 82,000 $250 that is in reference towards 2026 one 11 will defer discussion for the appropriate time on the agenda. Communication from Mayor Clough dated September 15th, requesting to accept the proposal from Jackson Deacon and Associates for the renewal of the city's insurance program.

That item is in reference to Ordinance 2026-108. We'll defer discussion to the appropriate time on the agenda.

Communication from Mayor Clough dated September 11th, requesting authorization to enter into a contract for the hiring of general laborers through Safe Staffing of Ohio in an amount not to exceed $94,000 as the lowest, best, and most responsive bid.

That item is a reference to Ordinance 2026-106. We'll defer discussion to the appropriate time on the agenda.

Communication from Mayor Clough dated September 11th requesting authorization to sell the listed items through the GovDeals auction site for the reserve amount listed or higher.

I'll entertain a motion to authorize. So moved. Second. And seconded discussion.

Council has a list of all the items that we would like to sell in their correspondence.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, clerk will call the roll on the motion to authorize.

Van Dyke?

Yes.

Minari? Yes. Del Ragno? Yes. Levesque? Yes. Havelka? Yes. Gatsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. That motion carries. Email from Ellen Sal received September 16th, withdrawing the Sheets Conditional Use Permit application for a mobile order pickup window.

That is item Ordinance 2026-118. We'll defer discussion to the appropriate time on the agenda. Petitions from the public. I have no one that has signed in. Is there anyone that wishes to address council? Hearing none, report to the mayor. Mayor?

Here's a couple of items. One is that the fall shredded day will take place on Saturday, September 26th from 9 a.m. to noon at the Westlake Elementary School. AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM IS THE ANNUAL FALL FESTIVAL AND PUMPKIN HUNT WILL TAKE PLACE ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 10, FROM NOON TO 3 P.M. AT THE RECREATION CENTER. THIS IS FREE TO THE PUBLIC AND THERE WILL BE HAY RIDES, INFLATABLE, LIVE ANIMALS, BUBBLE SHOWS. BUT THERE IS REGISTRATION REQUIRED FOR THE CHILDREN PARTICIPATING IN THE PUMPKIN HUNT ITSELF.

Thank you, Mayor. Reports of administrative officials. I'm not aware of any reports. Hearing none, seeing none. Reports of standing committees, planning, zoning, and legislative committee.

Thank you, Mr. President. The planning, zoning, legislative committee met on September 8, 2026. Committee members Dwayne Van Dyke, Chair Mark Getze, and Dave Del Regno were present. Also present were Council President Dave Greenspan, Council members Todd Levesque and Amy Valka, law director Mike Maloney, planning director Jim Bedell. The meeting convened at 6.01 p.m. Item one, discuss conditional use permit application from Thomas Lawrence slash L7 group for a blanket conditional use permit approval for various business types for 36 units at 28220 Rainey Parkway, parcel 212-01-013. Planning director Bedell explained that a development plan for this property was approved in June. The proposal is for four flex industrial condominium buildings to be constructed in 4 phases of over 4 to 6 years each building would be approximately 12,000 square feet with up to 9 units per building in a total of 40 144 parking spaces he outlined the various permitted uses being requested and stated that such a blanket C. U. P. would streamline approvals the applicant Tom Lawrence stated that there's a shortage of 1000 to 2000 square foot office spaces in Westlake and that there would be a be for high-end clients and for owner-occupied, not leased. Council members expressed concern with a blanket CUP would allow staff-level approvals instead of individual public hearings and would limit Council's ability to review future uses when the units are sold. There was discussion about the CUP process, the length of time it takes, and the ramifications of setting a precedent with a blanket CUP. Council Member Del Regno moves, seconded by Council Member Getze, that legislation be drafted relative to this request. Motion carried. three, four, and zero against. Number two was discuss conditional use permit application from the new preschool LLC, Destina MOGA, for a child day care center and associated food service at 905 Corporate Way Parcel 214-02004. Mr. Bedell explained the proposal for a licensed child care facility with a maximum enrollment of 98 children and 26 total employees. Opposed improvements for the building and site include a commercial kitchen for associated food service, staff restroom, and newly fenced outdoor playground. The site provides adequate open space, parking, circulation, emergency access, and queuing parking for drop-off, pickup, staffing, occupancy, and security measures all meet requirements. Applicant Destina Moga explained that they wish to reintroduce their family business, previously Le Chaperon Rouge in Westlake, and for that, THIS LOCATION IS IDEAL. COUNCILMEMBERS HAD NO ISSUES WITH THIS REQUEST. COUNCILMEMBER GUETZE MOVED. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DEL REGNO THAT LEGISLATION BE DRAFTED RELATIVE TO THIS REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0. Item 3 was to discuss conditional use permit application from Timothy Wright for a Sheetz convenience store with a mobile pickup window and a passenger car fuel canopy at 1100 Crocker Road parcel 211-16-020. Mr. Bedell explained that redevelopment of the site for a six-fuel pump island Sheetz gas station on a 24-7-hour convenience store with drive-through pickup window, the latter requiring a conditional use permit. The existing hotel will remain, but in a smaller format, and there are plans for a future car wash and an out parcel. Representatives for the request described the mobile order pickup drive-through, which would accommodate three and a half car stacking in the lane with an expected 20 to 35 cars total per day. Council members had concerns about traffic queuing, hours for indoor-outdoor eating areas, security cameras, the effect on hotel business. Entrances exits in alignment with neighborhood drives curfew hours tree preservation a lot split size Sizes for the future car wash a traffic study will provide more information a conceptual plan will be considered by Planning Commission on September 14th councilmember del Regno moved council seconded by councilmember gets a that second That legislation be drafted relative to this request motion carried 3 nothing item 4 was to discuss conditional use permit application from John Homer Concord reserved for a comprehensive campus master plan to add new independent lifestyle apartments and amenities at 2116 Dover Center Road, parcel 212-26-025. Mr. Riddell explained the proposed campus redevelopment three phases to add more independent living options and modernize the facilities. Conditional use permit is required for this proposal since the property was recently rezoned to Health Campus District. He outlined the multiple steps in the process including a master plan, preliminary and final development plans for each phase along with this CUP. Applicant John Homer stated that this is a big demand for independent living, or that there is a big demand for independent living and they already have 115 reservations. The consensus was in favor of the conditional use permit Although there will be concerns about the height and setback to the buildings, their architectural alignment with existing buildings and privacy, lighting and noise impacts on neighboring properties. Councilmember gets a move, seconded by Councilmember Del Regno that legislation be drafted relative to this request. Motion carried three, nothing. Item five is to discuss a zoning map amendment application from Kevin Hoffman, Bradley Park Suites LLC to change the zoning of 30755 Center Ridge Road parcel 217-16-033 from general business to PUD small-scale residential to develop a 20-unit townhome development. Mr. Bedell explained that this request to rezone 3.9 acres to PUD small-scale residential, which would be limited to townhomes 20 units, and constrained by wetlands and an easement for the metro parks. He reviewed the surrounding properties, businesses, and residential areas in the corridor along Center Ridge Road from the city's boundary to Crocker Road, as well as the guide plan, which indicates that the area to be general business or retail commercial in the future. The conceptual plan meets most requirements except for a driveway that encroaches on the metro parks. This request will require voter approval at the November 2027 election. Council members seem to agree that this is the best use of the land, but had concerns about wetland drainage lines and an overall fit with surrounding uses. Councilmember Getsay moved and seconded by Councilmember Del Regno that legislation be drafted relative to this request. Motion carried three nothing. Item six was discuss data centers. The committee discussed a definition of data centers as prepared by the law department and presented tonight. Councilmembers were in favor of it and discussed how to incorporate it with the existing moratorium passed on 9-3-26. Future discussions will address a course of action as to what is permitted and not permitted. Councilmembers Del Regno moved and seconded by Councilmember Getsay that legislation be drafted to amend the moratorium ordinance, ordinance number 2026-99 with this definition, motion carried three nothing. The meeting adjourned at 8.45, respectfully submitted, Dwayne Van Dyke, chair, and I make a motion to receive and file.

And a motion to receive and file. Is there a second? Second. Motion's made. Second. Discussion on the motion. Hearing none, clerk will call the motion to receive and file.

Nannari? Yes. Teleregno? Yes. Levesque? Yes. Havelka? Yes. Gadsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke?

Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you, Mr. Van Dyke.

We have two committee of the whole. MINUTES THAT I'LL READ. THE FIRST ONE WAS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SEPTEMBER 10TH. PRESIDENT, MYSELF, COUNCIL MEMBERS VAN DYKE, NANARI, DEL REGNO, LEVICK, HAVELKA, AND GETZE. ALSO PRESENT WERE MAYOR CLUFF, LAW DIRECTOR MALONEY, SERVICE DIRECTOR STOOM, DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS GRAHAM, CHIEF B. LOSER, AND CAPTAIN DANCY. THE MEETING CONVENED AT 7 P.M. THERE WERE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. THE FIRST ITEM WAS TO DISCUSS E-BIKES. Police Captain Dancy gave an update on activities and efforts with the schools and the interactions with kids and parents about e-bikes. Discussion ensued regarding regulations of e-mobility devices, which included class one, two, and three e-bikes, as well as razors, electronics, skateboards, et cetera. Points addressed were age restrictions, speed limitations, registration, helmet requirements, licensing, lighting, use of sidewalks, shared use paths, and in street signage and difficulty of enforcement the law department will draft legislation incorporating the parameters agreed upon for future discussions the second item was the discussion of short-term regulations a short-term rental regulations that item will be deferred into for a future meeting the meeting convened at 8 36 p.m respectfully submitted david s greenspan chair I'll entertain a motion to receive and file. So moved. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. And second the discussion on the motion to receive and file. Hearing none, clerk will call the roll on the motion.

Del Regno? Yes. Levesque? Yes. Havalka? Yes. Getze? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Nenari?

Yes. The motion carries. Just as an aside, I'm anticipating the e-mobility legislation at our next meeting on October 1st, and short-term rental discussion will take place in Committee of the Whole on 9-28. THE SECOND CAUCUS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CONVENED THIS EVENING AT 7 30 P.M. PRESENT WERE COUNCIL MEMBERS GREENSPAN VAN DYKE NANARI NANARI ATTENDED AT 7 35 DEL REGNO LEVICK HAVELKA AND GETZE ALSO PRESENT WERE MAYOR CLUFF LAW DIRECTOR MALONEY DIRECTOR STOOM SMOLLETT SHAW BIDELL SERBER STIBLE GRAHAM GAD Chiefs below sir Moran and clerk Rosenbaum discussed for agenda items selected correspondence as well as the following items 7 This evening after the meeting. Mr. Small invited council to attend a demonstration of the recreation field lights at the rec center and also a discussion of rec center interior improvements and The following committee meeting was scheduled, the committee meeting of the whole on September 28th at 7 p.m. to discuss police station renovation and short-term rentals and ordinance 202695. WE DID ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7.55. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER NANARI, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DEL REGNO FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING REAL ESTATE. ROLL CALL VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS UNANIMOUS. ALSO PRESENT WERE THE MAYOR, FINANCE DIRECTOR, LAW DIRECTOR, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR. EXECUTIVE SESSION CONVENED AT 8.24 P.M. AND A MOTION TO ADJOURN The Committee of the Whole was made by Councilmember Van Dyke, seconded by Mr. Levesque, which convened at 8.25 p.m. this evening. Next on the agenda, reports of other boards and commissions. Planning Commission, Mr. Del Regno.

Thank you, sir. Planning Commission met on the 14th, Monday of this month. Several items on here. Six of them will be looking for motions. One's just a mention. First item would be Windmill Village site improvement.

Yes, 2297 Windward Drive. Joshua Holpen was the applicant. This is a bit of an unusual one. This is actually a residential deck. However, it is in a multifamily cluster development that had a development plan that was approved by this body at one point. And so since the owners would like to Constructed deck modest sized deck, but it does encroach 4.5 feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback. So it does have to Have a zoning modification Otherwise would be a zoning variance. So we get one of these maybe every three or four years like this so this is the location of the deck given the interior arrangement of the foundation for the house and the doorway this is really the only place it can go does have a as i said that slight encroachment and it actually butts up to this This was the holdout property, I think, when this was being developed. So this is maybe the longest backyard in Westlake that I'm aware of. So really, for this to encroach 4.5 feet, it's not going to be bothersome to any neighbor. It's still going to be hundreds of feet away. Or even if this is a future lot right here, it still will be hundreds of feet away. So Planning Commission did recommend approval.

Motion to approve the windmill village site improvement deck with modifications listed in the report of the September 14th 2026 Planning Commission there's been a motion is there a second second motions made in second the discussion of the motion Here none clerk will call roll in the motion.

Well back. Yes, the Velka. Yes, that's a yes Greenspan. Yes and Ike. Yes, then Ari. Yes Del Regno. Oh

Yes. And motion carries. The next one is going to be on a future agenda. It's the Ascend at Center Ridge subdivision, major final plot, 29707 Center Ridge Road, parcel 21726003. um the next one would be the maruti hotel group uh incorporated lot split and final development plan 25050 through 25054 sperry road parcel 21308018

Yes, so this is a lot split to separate the 2 existing hotels and 2 restaurants at this location into 4 individual parcels. Whenever this happens and you've got lot lines that go through parking lots. It does trigger modifications zoning modifications. And there's actually a couple of the parcels that are a little bit undersized as well. Reciprocal easement declarations would formalize any shared access parking utility rights maintenance for these newly created parcels. They would be perpetual. The city has approved similar multi parcel splits in the past Crocker Commons Done for four parcels for Charles Schwab the older office buildings the new office building and the retail tenants the Julie billiard school separation from Ascent Church and Luther Luther houses separation from Concord Reserve We're not unaware of any issues arising from those prior approvals that are similar. So there will be no changes to any of the properties resulting from this request. They're really invisible lines on the ground. If the properties are sold off in the future, the new owners will be bound by these easement declarations. And if they scrape the site and they want to do something new with one of these properties, then these modifications go away and then they're bound to the actual zoning codes. but the you know, the amount the declarations are super important, so There's a couple of parcels that you see the actual parcels for the restaurants are a little undersized for that zone They're supposed to be two acres are at one point eight one and one point five three acres. So that's one modification there's some site some side setbacks for the hotel that are a little bit undersized restaurants are a little undersized and that and the also the rear setback for some of the parcels are less than 15 feet so that would require modifications as well so this is the site it's one large site it was all that one developer it's been very challenging for it to be sold to different developers through the years and so their solution would be to just subdivide it like I mentioned and and it's not to the naked eye. There will be no change. Continue to look just the way that it does today, just that you may see different owners of those in the future. With that said, Planning Commission recommended approval with the modifications that I just went over and a condition that the easement declaration is recorded with each of the four parcels. Thank you.

Make a motion to approve the Maruti Hotel Group Inc. Final Development Plan with modifications and conditions listed in the report of the September 14, 2026 Planning Commission.

There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. Motion is made and seconded. Discussion on the motion?

Mr. President. Mr. Vandell. Mr. Vandell, could you go back to the, one more maybe. So how is the, and maybe you said it and I didn't quite understand it, access to these sites from a drive and utility standpoint? How was that maintained?

All through these easements. The reciprocal easement agreements create the mechanism for the common ownership and maintenance of these utilities.

I don't see any lines showing where the easement actually, or you're literally saying that... That's not this document. That's a separate document. So there is a document, though, that shows physically where these... the drives can be or not be or You know, that's that's included.

That's yes, that would be yes, there's and they're already there already is as you can see There's driveways that access this so this also this was a question that came up at Planning Commission this is actually part of an existing agreement that that will still be maintained as well and And that's not on their property. That's a separate property.

And that's an easement, access easement there. These drives come off. And then that center area and then the other drive that's on the other side of the property is also. Right. All right, so in other words, if somebody comes in and wants to come up with a different plan, they have to keep basically where the drives are on this site at this point. Yes. Including like the left-hand side drives along either the hotel area and...

Yeah, this is right. Yes, exactly. And the only way that that would change is there would have to be agreement among these property owners to do a new declaration that would have different drives, for example.

And then the only other thing, I guess, is the, you know, so here we're creating parcels now that don't meet our, if they came and wanted to build a restaurant on these parcels, they couldn't.

These two are undersized. I mean, they could have actually gone to the center line here, and then they wouldn't have been undersized. And then this, instead of this being a parcel reaching out to the street, this would have had easements to get to the street. That would have been a way to work around for it. So there's ways that they could have made it work and not be a bit undersized. But yeah, that You know the purpose with you know, the purpose of having the acreage size is for parking but it's also for drainage usually, you know considering that if these were just Undeveloped parcels that each of them they're all over an acre Each one would have their own retention base and you don't have that but there's a one detention basin for the whole parcel and

that they all share in maintaining?

Yeah, and I don't know how that actually works for that. But yeah, you have that. You've got shared parking here. So a lot of the need for the larger lots goes away in this case because you're not losing any of the parking. You're not losing any of the drainage. It's not ideal. I'll agree. It's not ideal to do it this way.

I mean, but what about the, I guess, is this because as private owners we don't have access to the agreement as to how the drainage is maintained and that type of thing?

No, no, it's just this is a very old development for Westlake.

So there isn't even a detention on this pond?

I couldn't tell you how the drainage works with this. I didn't look into it for this project because they're not changing drainage. They're not changing the only thing that this is doing is it's just. It's just carving out lots paper lots, but nothing physically is changing so I didn't do the research on how the where all the utilities are going and coming as they're not changing anything.

Right it's just that you don't want to. You know create something worse the next owner buy something and that cuts it off from the other people so.

All right. I believe that's where the deed restrictions come in.

Correct. Further discussion? Hearing none, there's been a motion and a second. Clerk will call the roll on the motion.

Havalka? Yes. Katze? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Nannari? Yes. Del Regno? Yes.

LeBach? Yes. Motion carries. The next on the agenda was the Marici House Site Improvement Storefront and Patio, 24389 Detroit Road, parcel 21404007.

You probably all remember this as Asian Wok, which this is the new restaurant. This will be an Indian restaurant. And as you can see, it's having an extensive upgrade to the exterior with new landscaping, new architecture, signage, lighting. It's really going to be nice when it's done. It'll have outdoor dining as well. It is a very small lot. We're talking about that one, the lots there being about an acre and a half. This is barely more than half an acre. And this is just, you know, at the time it was developed, standards were a lot less. So it does generate a couple of... Setbacks you've got the patio would encroach into the front setback. They're not doing any They're not doing any entertainment if they were to do entertainment like live music that would come back before use a conditional use permit so there's a Walk-in cooler and the patio they encroach into the side setback a little bit not much and parking they would like to have three parking spaces that will encroach into the front setback they've added some landscaping between it and the sidewalk to help soften the view of that there's a dumpster enclosure it does not have one right now they're doing a nice masonry dumpster enclosure which is something that we'd like to see they're also going to include an arborvitae hedge to screen it from the subdivision to the south. So they're really doing some nice things with this for a small development like this. Just some conditions about lighting, just to make sure that there's no glare off site. It's kind of a standard thing. Modification, split-faced CMU block for the trash enclosure. In this case, just because of where it's located, Planning Commission thought that made sense for the budget for this project and then also the walk-in cooler. It's a standard. Color for the walk for walking course which would be behind and not really visible for any any residential homes. So this is landscaping plan. This is if you remember this is what it looks like today has a small mansard roof and this is the new design.

Planning Commission did recommend approval with modifications and conditions Thank you a motion to approve the Marie Chi how a site improvement storefront and patio with the Modification condition conditions listed in the report of September 14 2026 Planning Commission.

There's been a motion. Is there a second second? Motions made and seconded discussion Your president.

Yes, mr. Van Dyke So look can we talk about the walk-in cooler for a minute because we just went through this with the gas station at the corner of Detroit and Dover Center over Center and they clad it with brick So is this a is this a literally a silver? Walking cooler.

Yes, so I thought we didn't permit those in the city that that's exactly why this requires a Well, it's not that they're permitted in the city it's just that it would require a modification so if you do not agree with the modification then don't approve the modification and

So I don't agree with the modification of having a silver walk-in cooler. And especially because it is actually up against homes behind it. And the apartment building to the other side.

And the office building on the other side. So I think that that needs to be. It was, pardon me, I'm sorry. I think it was discussed and we did not, they were not gonna look into another model with colors.

Yeah, we discussed I don't I don't recall that we're in the case but you could definitely make a requirement that it well not to approve the modification and Kind of think of how to do this send it back to send the cooler back to the Planning Commission.

I mean because we That gas station did a great job of Concealing it and and I thought that was the whole we weren't going to go down the path of having these silver Coolers on the back of buildings because if we have it here They'll have it in other places. So I I think that they can do something to Address that and not in that even a different color. I'm not sure that necessarily solves the issue. It's still a unfinished and

It's like a prefab design. I mean, they're doing a nice job on the rest of the building.

It looks beautiful, but it's visible because there's a parking lot on one side. There's apartments there, houses to the south.

This is a row of green giant arbs, so the south eventually won't see it.

I know, but everybody that parks in the parking lot, everybody that goes to the bank over there, so I'm opposed to it.

Yeah, Mr. Van Dyke, I agree with Mr. Van Dyke. Mr. Riddell, what language do you recommend to be consistent with our actions at the Sunoco Station? That it be sided in such a way to be consistent with the design on the building?

Yeah, sided with masonry to match the building.

Okay.

Yeah, and then make that a condition of approval and then I'll share it with the architect tomorrow that he's gonna have to redesign that part of it.

Okay, so Mr. Van Dyke, do you want to make that motion to amend the motion to approve? So right now there's a motion to approve as is. I don't think we got to that.

Oh, we haven't made the motion yet. I don't believe we did make the motion.

We did, and it's seconded.

I apologize.

This is the Murchie House? Yes. Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to amend the modifications for the Murchie House proposal to

Would be to enclose the.

Now we have to enclose the in lieu of a walk-in aluminum cooler, a cooler with a walk-in, a walk-in, in lieu of a walk-in cooler with an aluminum finish, provide brick facing to match the rest of the building.

So you would eliminate the last part of modification number one and remove that and the walk-in cooler and aluminum finish. So strike that and then add your condition to number two. JUST TO HELP DENISE OUT.

OKAY, SO THE MOTION THEN TO AMEND WOULD BE TO MODIFY CONDITION ONE TO REMOVE IN THE WALK-IN CORE TO BE AN ALUMINUM FINISH AND THEN In the same amendment in condition to that the exterior of the walking core structure shall be consistent with the exterior of the building.

Is that is that summarize of Mister Biddle, yes, Sir, OK does that take question does have to be consistent with the signing of the building can we is a hedgerow allowed to be put around it or fencing. Are we going to dictate to them what material to use to enclose this walk-in cooler?

Well, first of all, we have an amendment. We have a motion to amend before we discuss the amendment. We're good with the amendment. Is there a second on the amendment? Second. Motion to second. Now we can have discussion, Mr. Del Regno. Sorry, I apologize. No, it's okay.

Are we going to ask that a specific material be used to enclose the walk-in cooler or... Can we give them options as far as a buffering goes for it?

So, in my opinion, it should, you know, I'm not even sure these outdoor walk-in coolers should be, I think we need to look at that in general because, you know, here you have, it's basically something that should be inside the building and what's outside the building. And so, but I think it should be consistent with the actual building. And I think putting fences up and screens does not serve the same purpose. And because the fence won't be tall enough and because this is going to be the height of the building or close to it. And I just think we need to, and especially because we just had somebody go through and did a great job doing that. So I think that's not fair to not be consistent with it.

So we'll allow a resident to put a buffer or a barrier around their generator on the side of their house with hedges, but we won't allow a business that's turning in, one is on a very small parcel that has been an eyesore for a number of years, and we're gonna tell them that they have to go the extra distance to do that, and we'll allow a resident to use landscaping to buffer a generator.

Well, I'm not sure, Mr. Del Regno, that I would agree that those are the same issues. This is a commercial establishment. And I actually... I'm not sure I would say that building was an eyesore. I think a lot of us ate some great Chinese food there over the years, so it's certainly the last few years.

Jim, do you have the picture of what it is right now?

I know, Dave. I drive by it all the time, but all I'm saying is that if they're spending all this money on the building, I appreciate that, but we should be consistent with it from the exterior, because otherwise we will have these aluminum coolers throughout the city.

OK, so there's been a motion to amend. It's been seconded. Any further discussion on the motion to amend?

Well, I just want to state, first of all, I think planning did a great job on vetting all this. And I don't agree with Mr. Van Dyke that this is an issue at all. And I'm very familiar with the layout and very familiar. And what they're doing is fabulous. And I... I being said it's in the back of the place and I certainly don't think there's going to be noise with this cooler I don't have any problems with what planning already recommended and that's what they're there to do you know I don't think this is for us to just Dispute I I don't see how they do it Administratively if you want to discuss it with you know Arbor Vita's or whatever, but I don't I don't think that it's for us to dictate that So that's my opinion.

Okay further discussion Yes, I'm in agreement with I Two of my colleagues. I think that because this is an established existing building, in an ideal world, we'd like to have that cooler enclosed in the building, but it's already built. And I know that they're going through a lot of expense to deal with all of the challenges on this property. And I think that there are probably many ways that we could let them have that cooler without being too restrictive on how they cover it, how they hide it.

further discussion. Mr. Gatsay.

I think we need to be consistent so I'm more on the side of I would prefer to see brick but there might be other alternatives so I'm more inclined to not act on this tonight and let the applicant come back and maybe have a suggestion I don't know maybe changing the color works I don't know I would prefer to be consistent

Can't this be handled administratively? The rest of the stuff is all good. I don't think it can be. It cannot.

Any other questions or comments?

I do have one last comment, I guess. So what we are doing right now is we are going to basically allow walk-in coolers on the back of every building in Wessex, Ohio. We didn't say that. No, it's exactly what you're doing.

If we have not learned our lesson on setting precedents, that's what exactly we're doing.

We're going to set a precedence here. Absolutely. And we just, as I mentioned... We had the station, the Sunoco Station, at the corner of Detroit and Dover Center, and they went and enclosed it, and it looks better. Otherwise, it would have been a big silver thing on the back of the building, or maybe white.

And that's viewed from everywhere. This would not be viewed from anywhere.

Mr. Van Dyke has the floor. Mr. Van Dyke.

So I'll just say that, so you're precedent setting and I think that's, you know, and I appreciate everything that the Planning Commission does. I think they do a great job. But at the same time, there's things that we have a certain standard here of all the buildings that we've, everybody spends a lot of time on, Planning Commission, Council, the planning director to try and keep everything at a certain level. And I don't think that this meets that same level, if you ask me. So that's all. Thank you, Mr. President. Any further discussion?

I will just add that I agree that we have set a precedent with Sunoco, and I don't like the concept of a silver box, aluminum box sitting out. Whether this is the solution or not, the amendment, but I do not like the proposal as presented by the Planning Commission. So with that, we have a motion to amend. Clerk will call the roll on the motion to amend.

Getsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Nanari?

No.

Del Regno?

No.

Levesque?

No.

Pavelka? Yes.

That amendment carries. Now before us is the original motion as amended. Any further discussion on the motion?

My only comment would be should we have the applicant have any input into this?

Well, so there's a motion right now to approve. If we wish to change that motion, we think how we'd procedurally do this because we've amended the planning commission's recommendation so we could hold the item here and not take action on it mr bidel could take it back to the applicant for consideration and then we can bring it back on october 1st as we've done in the past we have taken pulled something off the agenda i mean they've done a very nice job with this building and i'm not an architect but maybe the brick is not the correct solution to this

So, excuse me. Yeah, Mr. Van Dyke. So I'm assuming the applicant also though has a timeframe that they'd like to get this moved forward and rather than postponing it, my suggestion would be vote on it and then if the applicant wants to come back and ask us to reconsider, we could do that. Mr. President, would that be an option?

We could do that.

Or if you table it, then it's two weeks before they can move forward.

Can I ask a procedural question? Yes. If we go ahead and approve this with the brick, and they come back and say, no, whatever is better, do they have to go all the way back through the planning commission? For a change?

No, we can make that modification? No, they're just some recommending body.

Right. We would be able to take care of it. So right now there's a motion to approve as amended and that's the motion before us. So we have to take action on that motion unless those who made the original motion wish to resend their motion and the second would have to do the same. Do I hear that? Or if not, we'll vote on it. It'll be a yay or a nay. If it fails, I believe it would have to go all the way back to the planning committee. It would start the process all over again, correct? If it fails, yeah. So without the motion being rescinded and this item held, we have to take action on the motion right now. Failure starts the process all over again. So who made the motion?

To approve? Yes. Del Ragnos, seconded by Nanari.

AND THEN THE AMENDMENT?

THE AMENDMENT'S NOW PART OF THE MOTION. SO THE AMENDMENT'S IN.

SO THE QUESTION, AND I GUESS BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, MR. VAN DYKE, YOU'RE SAYING BRICK. I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE EXISTING OR THE MODIFICATIONS ARE AS FAR AS MATERIAL GOES, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK you know, if they threw a brick up around it and it doesn't go with the building, you would not be ecstatic about that either, correct? So I guess my question is, is there other alternatives for screening of this cooler in your, because right now you're telling them we're going to go with a brick and I don't know if, what they would do with that. So my question is, is there options or what is your thoughts on that? Keep in mind I would assume that these things are needing to be serviced I don't I'm just looking at it from that standpoint. They're going to there's There's probably some servicing that needs to be done from the panels on the exterior of this thing is my guess I'm a hundred percent sure it's a rooftop unit probably sitting on top of it with condenser that would need to be serviced and we're going to enclose it and make it more difficult if there's an issue with the cooler if they have to swap the cooler out and They're going to have to fly it in over the top of an existing brick wall. There's all sorts of things that I foresee them not wanting to do, I guess.

So here's the thing, I guess I would like them to be able to move forward on their projects so they can keep moving it forward, but what's been presented does not, well, I've expressed my issues with it, and so I can't design something on the floor, and nobody else can either, but Arborvitae's not gonna cut it in my book here, for me, personally. maybe for somebody else. So I don't know.

I don't know how to answer this. Mr. Bedell? If I could just make a suggestion. Approve everything but the cooler, send the cooler back to the Planning Commission, and the architect and the owner can come up with a better solution for that for our next meeting in October. That'll let them get the project underway except for this one detail because this is a prefab unit. This isn't going to show up in December anyways. They haven't even started work on the building. When is their schedule to get started? Do you know? No, I don't know.

OK, so right now, here's where we are. We have a motion that's been amended. If we wish to amend the motion as amended to remove the cooler from the motion, then we would need to do that. And then we would send that specific recommendation back to Planning Commission. Is that amenable? I would have to entertain a motion to amend the amended THE AMENDMENT, WELL, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ATTEND THE AMENDED MOTION TO REMOVE MR. BIDELL, COULD YOU PUT THAT CONDITION ONE UP AGAIN? ACTUALLY WE MOVED CONDITION ONE INTO CONDITION TWO. SO THE AMENDMENT HAS CONDITION TWO. ONE HAS BEEN STRICKEN AND THE WALKING COURT WILL BE ALUMINUM FINISH IS NO LONGER PART OF THE MOTION. THE MOTION IS THE AMENDMENT MOVED IT TO CONDITION TWO. SO TO BE CLEAR, WHAT WE WOULD THEN DO IS ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO AMEND CONDITION TWO TO REMOVE THE PROVISIONS FROM THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I'M TRYING TO, BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL WHAT THOSE WERE. I'M LOOKING AT THE CLERK IS GOING TO HAVE TO PLAY BACK THE. WORK REALLY HARD TOMORROW. IT MIGHT TAKE UNTIL 835 TO GET THE AMENDMENTS OUT TO US. THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO. Because right now, the motion has been amended to remove the items in condition one I just talked about, put it into condition two. So if the intent is to remove the core from the entire motion, we would need to make that motion and then send that portion back to Planning Commission. Otherwise, the motion before us is to brick the core.

I THINK WE HAVE TO GO WITH THE BRICK BECAUSE WE VOTED ON IT, RIGHT?

WE VOTED ON IT, RIGHT? WE VOTED ON IT, RIGHT? WE PUT IT THROUGH. WE PUT IT THROUGH. WE PUT IT THROUGH. IT HAS BEEN VOTED ON YET.

IT HAS BEEN VOTED ON YET. IT HAS BEEN VOTED ON YET. THE MOTION THAT WAS PRESENTED THE MOTION THAT WAS PRESENTED THE MOTION THAT WAS PRESENTED HAS NOT BEEN VOTED ON.

HAS NOT BEEN VOTED ON. If this motion does not pass, they go back to the start?

Correct. If the motion that's before us fails, the whole thing goes back to the plan. They start all over again. So if we want to allow the project to move forward and send the cooler concept back to the Planning Commission, we would need to amend the motion as amended to strip out language of the cooler AND THEY CAN PROCEED WITH THE REST OF THE PROJECT.

OR WE APPROVE IT AS IT'S AMENDED NOW, AND IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM, THEY GO BACK AND GET THE BRICK COOLER, WHATEVER, ADDRESSED. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE BETTER CHOICE. I DON'T KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS, MARK. I SAT THROUGH MANY OF THOSE MEETINGS.

Mr. Bedell, is that plausible?

Yeah, I think that would work too. So then what you're saying is you'll leave it the way it is, and with the condition that it's brick, if brick is not possible for some reason, then they'll go to have it reconsidered at the next planning commission meeting.

And can that just be walked right on the planning commission agenda?

As a reconsideration, yes.

Okay, we don't have to, it doesn't have to be referred or you can direct it right there.

Well, yeah, it's actually, it would be on them to actually apply for it, yes.

All right, does that sound plausible? Okay, if so, and no further discussion, clerk will call the amended motion.

Getze? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Nannari? Yes. Del Regno? No. LeBeck? Yes. Havelka? Yes.

That motion carries. Mr. Del Regno, next item.

Motion to approve, I'm sorry, Julie Billiart School Final Development Plan 3600 Crocker Road, parcel 21610033.

Yes, so this is an expansion. It's an 8400 square foot addition to their existing building estimated cost 3.4 million. It will relocate students currently in the lower level to more appropriate and accessible learning spaces with new restrooms classrooms and programming spaces as well. Their capacity will only grow by about a dozen pre-K students to about 144. They do have enough parking for that. They would like to get this underway as soon as possible. There's a standard condition regarding rooftop. mechanical equipment. It's actually in a place where it won't be visible anyways, but that's a standard condition. The only modification with this is they did not want the addition to be solid brick. They did want to break up the brick in some places with a ripped metal panel and in a smooth texture. I'll show you what I mean by that in a minute. This is the location of the addition. It does meet code for setbacks. It meets code for everything. Virtually, it's one story. This is what I mean when I say that they did not want to do, for budget reasons, they did not want to do the entire sides of the building. This is in an area with a lot of screening. They're going to do some buffering and screening. This faces the residents. They will do brick on the corners, though, to break that up and brick along the front facade, which this is the most visible for people arriving to the school by car. And this is what it will look like when completed. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the conditions. There are some standard conditions regarding lighting as well that were in there and modification. Thank you.

A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JULIE BILLY ART FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH MODIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE REPORT OF THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION.

IS THERE A MOTION OR SECOND? SECOND. MOTION IS MADE AND SECOND IN DISCUSSION. I'LL TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS. CONDITION TWO, IS THAT METAL RIB PANEL CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN ANY? NO.

No, and it was purely a budgetary item for them to do it in that design. But no, it's not something that would be allowed. And it's nowhere else in the city. I can't say it's nowhere else in the city. It's just with recent changes with the design review requirements in 1237 definitely would not allow it. Before that, I'm not even sure if it was allowed before, just in our industrial areas where you would see that sort of a treatment.

Planning Commission had numerous discussions on this, Mr. President, and the issue is the location of it and where it would be visible to anyone. So as Mr. Bedell is showing right there, it's on that backside heading north, or I'm sorry, south, planned south on that. is the residents that are sitting down below Plan South. There's residents over beyond that hedgerow. Along with the buffering that's going up there is a six foot board on board, along with several red maples going throughout that. It would be shielded from any view of neighbors. Also, the neighbors to the South are at a lower elevation than this building. It was a contentious discussion on this material, but based on the what they're the services that they're providing in their budgetary restraints, we felt that it was necessary to do it.

Further. ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. VAN DYKE?

I GUESS I'LL ASK IT. AGAIN, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT, BUT NONETHELESS, THIS IS STILL GOING TO BE A Every time we do things like this that become precedent setting, then the next one comes in and they're like, let them do it here. Why can't we do it over there? So the other thing I guess I don't understand is why it would be a light color. Why would it not match the brick? Would that be, and from a color standpoint, would that blend it in better?

Mr. Bedell, is that a question you can answer?

Not really. It's the color that they selected.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. WE HAVE A STANDARD IN THE CITY FOR A REASON. WE SET CODES, WE SET DESIGN STANDARDS FOR A REASON. AND I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS. I'M SORRY, THE HARDSHIP, IF I USE A BZA DEFINITION OF IT BEING COSTLY IS NOT A HARDSHIP I WISH TO CONSIDER OR A TOPIC I WISH TO CONSIDER. there's a standard we expect in the city and we deviate from it here as Mr. Van Dyke said we set a precedent so I'll go can you put the conditions up please I'll make a motion to we have a we have a motion second so I'll make a motion to amend the recommendation to remove modification two from the recommendation is there a second second motion is made second discussion Okay, I'm sorry.

Yes, there's you have to remove. There's a last part of that condition one and that the building elevations showing masonry at the corners are approved. You probably would need to rewrite that to say something like that. All elevations are of masonry, brick masonry or something.

So I'll need Mr. Levesque to rescind his second. And then I'll amend the motion. So do you rescind your second? I do.

OK.

So I'll amend my motion to be consistent with the language from Mr. Bedell. So that's the motion. Second. And seconded. OK. Thank you, Mr. Bedell. Any further discussion on the motion to amend? Hearing none, clerk will call the roll on the motion to amend.

Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke?

Yes.

Nonary?

No.

Del Regno?

No.

Levesque?

Yes.

Ovalka? Yes. Getsing?

Yes.

That motion carries. The original motion is amended. Any further discussion? Hearing none, clerk will call the roll on the motion as amended.

Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke?

Yes.

Nannari?

No.

Del Regno? No. LeBeck?

Yes.

Havalka? Yes. Gatsey? Yes.

That motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Del Regno.

Northmore Studios Final Development Plan 31207 Viking Parkway Parcel 21103001.

Yes, this is a new light industrial office, flex office development. It's a 9.7-acre site. It will have four freestanding mass timber buildings constructed in two phases. Phase one is 5,200 square feet. The studio for Woodworks, which is the main business that's also the developer, and then two 9,600 square foot flexible office buildings. Phase two is a third 9,600 square foot office slash industrial building. This would require conditional use for office use or any other type of use. The light industrial is allowed though. Site improvements, they are preserving a lot of the woodland areas and wetlands and will include walking paths. wetland boardwalk, exterior terraces, and, of course, parking. And very interesting architecture. There's one of the conditions, driving into one of the parking lots, they need to shave off a bit of this island so that fire trucks can get in there other than that. It's fine. There are some setback, very minor setback modifications partially caused by the fact that they are preserving wetlands on the site. So it's caused one of the buildings to be a little bit too close to one of the lot lines. And some of the parking spaces to be a little bit too close to Viking Parkway. So there's a condition about signage, future signage, standard condition about HVAC equipment. and which is actually going to be behind the buildings and shouldn't be visible anyways. And then they have a very interesting kind of a siding. It's not a siding that we would see in our industrial zone, and it's a Japanese siding, and it actually uses fire. It's actually a charred wood type siding, and so it removes all the moisture. and makes it actually pest resistant resistant as well and very interesting stuff so we look forward to seeing that does require modification because it's not something we have in our code so this is how it will look when it's done the uh this is the this is phase one this is all phase one right here and then phase two is this portion i'm sorry where's phase one i'm sorry Yeah, phase one. So phase one will be these three buildings and then this parking here. And then this is phase two. They have a lot of land make parking that they probably will never get into. You can see the extensive walking paths, boardwalk through the wetlands. They're very much into nature. And very interesting, unique architecture for industrial buildings. in a campus-like setting. That said, Planning Commission did recommend approval with modifications and conditions in the report.

Make a motion to approve the Northmore Studios final development plan with modifications and conditions. List in the report is September 14, 2026, Planning Commission.

Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. Motion is made. Second the discussion. Hearing none, clerk will call the roll on the motion.

Van Dyke, yes, Nari, yes, Del Ragno, yes, Lovac, yes, Pabalca, yes, Getze, yes, Greenspan, yes.

Last but not least, inch creative final development plan 27580 Detroit Rd parcel 21213061.

Yes, so this is a small addition to the back of the building to provide some much-needed storage space, 2,300 square feet, and they've actually been here at this location since 1997, and they're just running out of room. They're doing really well. So it's just a lawn area back there. A couple trees will be removed and some shrubs and a sidewalk, but nothing that would be visible from the street. Or the one one residence that's still here. It's way back here way back beyond their garage and of course this is owned by Kahuna nursery and i-90 back there, so There are some modifications it's a bit too close to Kahuna nursery by about two and a half feet and It's a little too close to i-90. It's supposed to be 40 feet. It's at about 23 feet So that's a modification There's a modification to waive buffering requirements just because where it's located and it does will match the actual rest of the building as well. They have asked for a modification for siding for this building.

Is this real close to that new Cajun building is that.

Yes, the the new Cajun building is OK going to be right here. The planning Commission recommended approval with the modifications in condition in the report.

A motion to approve the injury to find a vote and plan with modifications conditions list the report of September 1420 26 planning Commission.

In a motion, is there a second? Second. Discussion? I'll ask.

You know, I just had one question. Is the address, the address on here is 27580 but it's 27850? I'm just trying to see which one it is.

I think it's, that's a good question.

So what you have to 7, 5, 8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

I mean, it's not really much of anything to look at. It's just a storage. Do I have it? I don't know. I don't think I have it. No, I don't have it. It really didn't look like much. It's just a sided building with, it's a storage building, so it has an overhead door.

But vinyl sided, and I can't remember, what did we say about vinyl siding?

It's permitted, and what it is is to have the entire, it's permitted, but not more than 66% can be vinyl sided, so the other percentage of that would have to be stone or masonry to mix to break it up that's so it's still vinyl siding is allowed it's the fact that this would be all vinyl sided and you wouldn't have some of that broken up by some other material and the reason the planning commission supported that was because what's the utility of of breaking up you know having a third of this as stone or something like that if it's going to be someplace where no one's ever going to see it And the building itself is brick, is that right, the existing?

Yes, yes. Was it a house originally, do you think, or was it a commercial building? No, I think it was originally a house. So how does the vinyl siding, though, tie in with the brick? I mean, is there some white on the building, or how is it?

Yeah, I think I have a picture of the front of it. Yeah, there we go. So it ties into this. Oops. Oops. And it ties in right here. So you've got the white up front, and then you'll have a little bit of white peeking out right here.

And then are they putting a hip roof on? It's just a, no, it's not a hip roof. It's just a box.

Yeah, I think it's, I can't remember if it's a gable end or a hip roof. Gable end. It's a gable end? Yeah, a gable end roof.

Well, yeah, I guess the only thing I'm so, you know, it's an addition and I get it. It's a storage area and it's behind, but still it's a, you know, how does it tie in with this existing design, existing building?

I mean, I'm asking, you know, I mean, it's an addition. It doesn't tie in. It's It's by tying in if, yeah, architecturally, no, it's purely functional.

Okay, I mean, all I would say is it would be if the roof was consistent with the rest of the building and then you had, you know, if there's one change from the rest of it, but it sounds like it's just being put out. So that's fine. Go ahead and vote.

I have a question. This building, it's not detached. It's attached at some point.

Yeah, it attaches right here, right at this spot.

So maybe, Mr. Van Dyke, I think I know where you're going. I don't necessarily disagree. In theory, I don't know where I... If we looked at this as one building, the 66% vinyl coverage, it looks like it would be under the 66% if it was one building, correct? Well, except it's by the wall. No, no, no. What I'm saying is if you take the existing building, it looks like, is it four-sided brick? Yes. And if you take the new building and attach it to it as one building, then the vinyl would itself be less than 66% of total exterior wall surface. If you wanted to look at it that way, yeah. That might be a way to get... YOU KNOW, WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON OUR CODE AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE A CERTAIN STANDARD. I THINK I CAN GET AROUND THAT HERE BY LOOKING AT THIS NOW AS ONE ENTIRE BUILDING AND THE BUILDING ITSELF HAS LESS THAN 66% FINAL SIDING COVERAGE IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT. IF THIS WAS A DETACHED BUILDING, I WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. Okay.

And Mr. President, if I may add one last thing. And so I guess the point of this though is that even though it's in addition to the building and even if it's vinyl siding, YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, IT SHOULD HAVE SOME, IT SHOULD TIE IN WITH THE BUILDING AND NOT LOOK LIKE IT'S JUST A BOX STUCK ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL GOING TO SEE SOME OF IT FROM THE STREET. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT FROM CAHOON ROAD. THEY'RE SPENDING MONEY, THEY'RE BUILDING A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING ACROSS. YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE IT FROM THE FREEWAY. SO I JUST THINK THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. WELL, IT'S JUST, IT'S NOT SEEN SO WE CAN'T, I DON'T, WE HAVE A CODE. But that's all I have to say.

Thank you. OK. Any further discussion? If you're not in clerk call, we're all in the motion.

Nannari?

Yes.

Del Regno? Yes. Levesque? Yes. Havalka? Yes. Götze? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke?

No. OK. That motion carries.

That is all. Next meeting will be the 5th of October.

OK. Thank you thank you will thank Council for that for their patience as we work through several. Several issues. We have several items under legislation under 4th reading or the 2026 84.

An ordinance of limiting section 12 oh 3.18 use of this zoning code as to definitions.

Undertain a motion to adopt.

Some moved.

In a motion, is there a second? Second. Motion's been seconded. Discussion? Hearing none, clerk will hold the roll on the motion to adopt.

Del Regno? Yes. Levesque? Yes. Havalka? Yes. Gadsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Nenari?

Yes. The motion carries. That ordinance is adopted. We have two items under third reading. Ordinance 2026-87.

An ordinance approving the preliminary plan of ascendant Center Ridge major subdivision in the city of Westlake.

I'll take a motion to adopt. So moved. Are there motions or a second? Second. And second in discussion. Hearing none, clerk will call the roll on the motion to adopt.

Levesque?

Yes.

Havalka? Yes. Gadsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke?

Yes.

Nanari?

Yes. Del Regno? Yes. Motion carries. That ordinance is adopted. Ordinance 202688.

An ordinance considering a conditional use permit for a professional service and recreational use.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt. So moved. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. And seconded discussion. Hearing none, clerk will call the roll on the motion to adopt.

Havalka? Yes. Gatsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Minari? Yes. Del Regno? Yes. Levesque?

Yes. Motion carries. That ordinance is adopted. Legislation for first reading adoption under suspension of the rules. Mr. Gatsay?

Yes. I will make a motion to suspend Article 3, Section 10 of the Charter, the rule requiring three separate readings.

Is there a motion to suspend? Is there a second? Second. Motion is made and seconded. Discussion? Hearing none, clerk will call the roll on the motion to suspend.

Getsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Minari? Yes. Del Regno? Yes. LaBeck? Yes. Havelka? Yes.

The motion carries. Ordinance 2026-105.

An ordinance amending appropriations for the city of Westlake, Ohio, and declaring an emergency.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt. So moved. Second. And second in discussion. Mayor?

THIS APPROPRIATION DEALS WITH THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO HIRE SIXMO FOR THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE POLICE STATION. IT ALSO INCLUDES ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR THE FIRE TRUCK THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST COUNCIL MEETING TO GO FORWARD IN PURCHASING We had a million dollars set aside, but it's going to cost more than a million dollars, so that includes the additional expenses there. Then we had some code enforcement for through the building department in the inspection areas. And then we also had some recreation center expenses. And on the back we had the Meadowood golf course. APPROPRIATIONS, GENERAL FUND, WELL IT'S AN ADVANCE. IT INCLUDES THE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PRACTICE RANGE AS WELL AS THE GOLF BALL, GOLF BALL WASHER.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, clerk will roll the motion to adopt.

Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Nenari? Yes. Del Regno? Yes. Levesque?

Yes.

Havalka? Yes. Gatsey? Yes.

Motion carries. That ordinance is adopted. Ordinance 2026106.

An ordinance accepting a bid and authorizing the mayor to enter into a contract for the hiring of general laborers for the city of Westlake with safe staffing of Ohio and declaring an emergency.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt. So moved. And motions are second. Second. And seconded discussion. Mayor?

These are the seasonal workers that we can only hire for the pickup of leaves at this time of the year. The total cost would not exceed $94,000. Any further discussion?

Mayor Nunn, call the roll on the motion to adopt.

Van Dyke? Yes. Monary? Yes. Del Ragno? Yes. Levesque? Yes. Havalka? Yes. Gadsay? Yes. Greenspan?

Yes. That motion carries. That ordinance is adopted. Ordinance 2026107.

An ordinance authorizing the mayor to enter into a personal services contract with Graviton Consulting Services for managed services and declaring an emergency.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt. So moved. The motion is there a second? Second. And seconded. Discussion? Mayor?

This is actually for additional services or training for the ERP system that we already have underway.

Further discussion? Hearing none, clerk will roll the motion to adopt. Nannari?

Yes. Del Regno? Yes. Levesque? Yes. Havalka? Yes. Getze? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke?

Yes. Motion carries. That ordinance is adopted. Ordinance 2026108.

An ordinance authorizing the mayor to accept a proposal for the purchase of multi-parallel property and liability insurance, auto liability and auto physical damage insurance, law enforcement officers liability, and other coverage required by the city in declaring an emergency.

UNDERTAIN THE MOTION TO ADOPT. THE SHOW MOVED. IS THERE A MOTION OR A SECOND? SECOND. A MOTION AND A SECOND, MAYOR.

THIS IS OUR ANNUAL INSURANCE COVERING FOR THE MANY DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT AND BUILDINGS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY. IT IS THE SAME INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS INSURANCE.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? VERY NON. CLERK HOLDER ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT.

Del Regno? Yes. Lebeck? Yes. Pavelka? Yes. Ketse? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Nanari? Yes.

Motion carries. That ordinance is adopted. Resolution 2026109.

A resolution requesting the fiscal officer of Cuyahoga County to advance funds to the city of Westlake, Ohio and declaring an emergency.

UNDERTAIN A MOTION TO ADOPT. SO MOVED. SECOND. AND SECOND IN DISCUSSION, MAYOR.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, REQUESTING AN ADVANCE OF THE PROPERTY TAX FUNDS BEFORE THEY'RE ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY MANY OF THE RESIDENTS, BUT OUR BUDGET STARTS ON JANUARY 1, AND WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE ADVANCE OF OUR DOLLARS AT THAT TIME.

Further discussion? Hearing none, clerk hold the roll on the motion. Levesque? Yes.

Havalka? Yes. Gatsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Naniere? Yes. Del Regno?

Yes. The motion carries that resolution is adopted. Ordinance 2026-110.

An ordinance amending ordinance 2026-99 as to a moratorium for data centers as a use and declaring an emergency.

UNDERTAIN A MOTION TO ADOPT? SO MOVED. SECOND. SECOND. THIS ORDINANCE CAME OUT OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WE HAD THAT WAS EXPLAINED IN RED. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF DATA CENTERS. Any further discussion? There are none. Clerk Holder on the motion to adopt.

Valka? Yes. Gatsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Minari? Yes. Del Regno? Yes. Levesque?

Yes. The motion carries. That ordinance is adopted. Orders 2026-111.

An ordinance authorizing the mayor to enter into a personal services contract with SIXMO for architectural services for the police station renovation project and declaring an emergency.

A motion to adopt. So moved. And a motion. Is there a second? Second. Motion is made and seconded. Discussion, Mayor?

This allows me to hire six moat for the architectural services for the police renovation, police department renovation.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, clerk will call the motion to adopt.

Getsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Nannari? Yes. Del Regno? Yes. Levesque?

Yes.

Havelka? Yes.

Motion carries. That ordinance is adopted. Ordinance 2026-112.

An ordinance authorizing the mayor to purchase golf ball washing and distribution equipment for the Meadowwood driving range and declaring an emergency.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt. So moved. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. And seconded. Discussion? Mayor?

This would go with our practice range renovations on the golf course.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, clerk will roll the motion to adopt.

Greensman? Yes. Van Dyke? Yes. Minary? Yes. Del Regno? Yes. Levesque? Yes. Havalka? Yes. Gatsey? Yes.

The motion carries. That ordinance is adopted. Ordinance 2026-113.

An ordinance enacting new Title VII, Chapter 959, engineering fees for permits and inspections and repealing various code sections as to engineering fees and declaring an emergency.

I'll entertain a motion to adopt. So moved. And a motion. Is there a second? Second. And second in discussion. Mayor?

This actually codifies the fees that the engineering department charges for its various services. It does codify them.

Very good. Further discussion? By doing this, are we, every time they make a change to any of these, it has to come back through us, correct? Correct. So, okay, thank you.

Further discussion? Hearing none, Clerk Caller on the motion to adopt.

Van Dyke?

Yes.

nanari yes del regno yes lovek yes pavelka yes getse yes greenspan yes that ordinance is adopted we have several items this evening for under first reading first one is ordinance 2026-114 an ordinance providing for the amendment of the zone map of the city of westlake which zone map is part of the zoning code of the city of westlake by changing the zoning of certain land located at 30755 center ridge road from general business district to pud small-scale residential

That item is being referred to the Planning Commission. Ordinance 2026-115.

An ordinance considering a conditional use permit for a daycare use.

That item is also being referred to the Planning Commission. Ordinance 2026-116.

An ordinance considering a conditional use permit for a senior services use.

That item is also being referred to the Planning Commission. Ordinance 2026-117.

An ordinance considering a conditional use permit for professional office, recreation, and biohacking uses.

That item also is being referred to Planning Commission. Order 2026118. I'll entertain a motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Gatsay.

Yeah, I would like to make a motion to suspend Article 3, Section 10 of the Charter, the rule requiring three separate readings.

There's been a motion to suspend. Is there a second? Second. Motion is made. And second, a discussion on the motion to suspend. Hearing none, call the roll on the motion to suspend.

Nannari?

Yes.

Del Regno? Yes. Levesque? Yes. Havelka? Yes. Gatsay? Yes. Greenspan? Yes. Van Dyke?

Yes. The rules are suspended for ordinance 2026-118.

You want me to read the title now? Yes, ma'am. OK. An ordinance considering a conditional use permit for a drive-through use.

OK so this item is being requested to be withdrawn from the applicant. So we need to take action on this and we would need to defeat this item in order to request respect the request of the applicant. Any discussion. Her non-clerical please call the roll in the motion to adopt.

We don't have one yet.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion to adopt. So moved. Second.

Second.

Okay, I got ahead of myself. I'm not going to repeat myself. Any further discussion? Hearing none, clerk, I'll call the roll on the motion to adopt. Nanari? No.

Delaregno? No. Lavecco? No. Velka? No. Ketse? No. Slate. Greenspan? No. Van Dyke?

No. That motion is defeated. I have two things under miscellaneous. On a positive note, I want to congratulate our school district on receiving five stars in its latest report card. And Mr. Smolik, are we still intending to go to the rec center?

I was thinking we could postpone to the next one. I mean, it's already 10 o'clock. Technically, the park's closed. We aren't allowed to turn them on.

They're not on now, are they? Second. Second. Are we in violation?

They are not out. I have a key to turn them on.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Any other miscellaneous business? No? No guards? Go guards? I think the White Sox caught us tonight. Okay. All right. With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? We are adjourned.