Like to call tonight's meeting an order, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Under God is liberty and scroll.

Should we get our meeting tonight?

I'll take a moment to acknowledge that we have a quorum of planning commissioners present.

With six of us, although we have two that will probably be here in the next few minutes.

So we're good.

Either way.

Planning commission meetings are an important part of the process for interpreting and implying the city's comprehensive plan and unified development ordinance.

It's important that our meetings are conducted with dignity and respect, and that applies to every person in attendance.

We strive to provide an atmosphere where the ideas and opinions of all participants are held in the highest regard.

And finally, the actions on the issues we discuss are ultimately under the responsibility of the city council.

As a planning commission, we're here to help the councils, our elected representatives to be fully informed to make the best choices for our city.

By statute, planning commission strives not to engage with any party on the issues on the agenda prior to our meeting.

Should that interaction take place as a result of a business relationship or any other type transaction, which we refer to as ex parte communication.

Commissioners will report that interaction when we reach that item on the agenda.

We'll now move to the consent agenda.

And this evening we have four items on our consent agenda.

Commissioners, do you have any items that need to be pulled for additional information or questions from staff?

Mr.

Chairman, I had one question on item B, if we could remove that one, please.

Okay.

Um please note that uh we'll be pull item B from the consent agenda, PLN 2500.

Are there any others?

All right.

Um I will uh call for a voice vote voice vote on the remaining three items on the consent agenda.

The motion, please.

Mr.

Chairman, I would move for the approval of the consent agenda minus item B as in Bravo for approval, subject to all staff comments and stipulations.

Thank you, Commissioner Crane.

Thank you.

Commissioner Somewhere down there.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

And that does pass 7 to 0.

Commissioner Brigida.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, I was wondering if for the record the staff could provide a little bit more information.

I'm pulling up the exact number here, but of the more background information on the 18.69 million dollar uh animal shelter that we have in the CIP.

Uh this evening, I've heard some information that's a little bit of a downgrade of a project, but that might not exactly be the case.

And I believe we have 6.3 or something million like that that's already encumbered on the project.

So if staff could just provide a little bit more background on that.

I don't think your mic's on.

Should be automatic.

Can you hear me now?

Okay, yep.

Jamie Roboshot Economy Director.

Um yes, this project was previously in the 2025 to 2029 CIP at 15 million dollars.

Um over that five-year period into the 2026 to 2030, the total project cost is now 25 million.

And so what you're seeing in that five-year span from 2026 to 2029 is what's allocated during that period.

So previous dollars in the previous CIP are shown on that individual.

If you go to the animal shelter um sheet specifically, it's gonna show you prior funds that were allocated in a previous CIP.

So for example, this project's been under design and um we've had architects and contracts in place on this for a few years now, and some expenses have been spent.

We've also purchased land um that the site will go on, and so all those previous expenses aren't going to show in that sheet that you have in your packet of the 26 to 2030 period, but the total project budget asset in the 26th to 2030 CIP is what we would refer to as 25 million, even though you're seeing that 18.7 there.

Now that is still subject to City Council approval to date.

I don't have the exact number off my off the top of my head.

The project was authorized at 15 million, and then the council earlier this year authorized it to go up to, I believe, um around 19 million.

Um the 26 to 2030 is going to put that at 25, just because as we've gotten further down on the design of it.

So it hasn't been downgraded, but the project is still being designed.

So as far as specifics of it, I can't tell you that exactly because it's still being worked through.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further questions on that item?

No questions.

Uh I just I struggle a little bit with the dollar amount, and I know it's that may be slightly outside the bounds of what we're supposed to do, and I do think an animal shelter does align.

Um with the needs of the community, and and and I think we should be supportive of an animal shelter.

I again though, I in our role I'm just really struggling with that number.

If that makes sense.

Okay.

Well, note that for the record.

Thank you, Commissioner Brigitte.

There's no further discussion.

I'll take a motion for the item.

Mr.

Chairman, I would recommend approval of item B from the consent agenda PLN 25-000 for as presented.

Thank you, Commissioner Craight.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen.

Uh we'll do a roll call vote on this, please, Ms.

Will.

Commissioner Creighton.

Yes.

Commissioner Lynn.

Yes.

Commissioner Bergita.

Yes.

Commissioner Toronas.

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Breen.

Yes.

Chair Janner.

Yes.

That motion passes seven to zero.

All right, thank you.

We'll move ahead now.

And this evening we have two scheduled public hearings for the first public hearing this evening.

A continuance has been requested.

So and when a case is scheduled for continuance, the public hearing will not be opened.

Comments, recommendations, or analysis on any case is not provided for or discussed until the public hearing is open.

This process ensures that anybody that has an interest in the case has full opportunity to participate.

Continuance is requested to a future planning commission meeting for RZ25-0008.

Is there a motion on the item, please?

Mr.

Chairman, I'll move to approve the continuance for item R05-3008.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Brigita.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye aye.

Opposed, nay.

And that motion passes 8 to 0.

7 to 0, excuse me.

We'll move on to our second public hearing.

This one is a request for approval to proposed amendments to the unified development ordinance, section 18.50.190 pertaining to signs.

Ms.

Schuler is here to present the case.

Yes, good evening, Commissioners.

Jessica Schuler, Senior Planner.

This item is an amendment to UDO 1850 190.

It's a lathe sign code where staff is providing recommendations to support a diversity of signage in our downtown to better support the needs of existing and future businesses.

These updates have also prompted um broader sign code updates for consistency's sake.

So including some updates to sign definitions.

Staff held a workshop with the planning commission on June 28th, and no significant changes have been made since that time.

We did some minor tweaking here and there, added an additional graphic for clarity's sake.

So it is uh typical for staff to work through annual updates to the UDO in alignment with Aletha's 2040 strategic plan.

The intent of this sign code update is to support the business environment in Olatha and increase unique experiences and places as well.

So this evening I'll start with updates that affect the entire sign code.

Um so outside of just the downtown district here.

Uh we have modified definitions for indirectly and internally illuminated signage.

We wanted to add some clarity here.

Um and we also added new definitions for window area, backer panels, and building identification signage as well.

We've included some language here to clearly state that signs located internally to a business or signs that are not visible from the public right away would not require sign permits and that property owner consent is required before a permanent sign is installed.

Seth's also recommending some general updates to directly illuminated signs.

So that's where the source of the illumination is directly visible.

So we propose to allow incandescent bulbs as well as LED tube lighting, which is previously uh previously is prohibited in code.

Um however, for these sign types, we are recommending that a dimming feature would be built in to ensure that we don't have any issues with overly bright signage.

We've also added language here to ensure that signage does not dominate um the building facade or obscure architectural features.

So some language to make sure that we're appropriately scaling our signs and considering the design of the building as well.

The last general update is um to the process by which we review signs that do not specifically meet our sign code.

So currently this process is through the Board of Zoning Appeals at a public hearing.

Um and our recommendation is to make the planning commission the approval body across the majority of the city.

Um so we've written in a set of criteria by which the sign would be reviewed, and this includes safety implications, visual clutter, lighting impacts on a juice and properties, et cetera.

So now I'll speak to updates that pertain specifically to downtown Olatha.

So the area shown on the map to the right that includes the downtown core and the downtown mixed use areas.

Staff is recommending language here that places a greater level of signage scrutiny on historically listed or eligible buildings, and that the review process would include would include a review by our historic preservation board secretary as well.

As we discussed at the Planning Commission workshop, we're also recommending a change to allow some greater flexibility in the number and the types of signs that a business can have by adding this cumulative sign area calculation.

Currently, our sign code is set up to say that a certain type of sign might be allowed in lieu of another type.

Um but this recommendation would allow for a combination of sign types as long as the cumulative area of those would not exceed 15% of the tenant facade area.

For projecting signs and canopy signs, we've added language here to capture the various types and the mounting locations that could occur.

We recommend increasing the size of projecting signs on building corners, and we are trying to clearly identify requirements for canopy signs, whether those are mounted on top of the canopy, on the face of the canopy, or underneath the canopy.

Um specific now to the downtown core itself, staff is recommending an allowance for rooftop signage.

So we've got some strict verbiage speaking to the location, the scale, the mounting of these signs.

Since our planning commission workshop, we have added an additional recommendation to allow one mid-block roof sign per square block.

So in addition to those corner uh locations that we've discussed.

We are also recommending painted signage would be allowed in the downtown core.

These are treated very similarly to standard wall signs with a maximum area of 10% of the wall permitted.

Throughout this update process, we've surveyed downtown business owners and residents within the core and the mixed use areas, and we actually sent a separate survey to uh sign companies as well.

We received a lot of helpful and positive feedback, which we incorporated into these recommendations for you.

Um we heard that yes, there is interest in increasing the variety of sign types downtown, but also that maintaining the historic character of downtown is very important.

Um we heard that there is a greater interest in having more signage of a smaller scale than fewer large scale signs as well.

The sign companies provided us with some great technical feedback about illumination technology and about some considerations that we should be including for rooftop signs as well, um, which we have done.

So, as mentioned, we are in the middle of our update process here at our public hearing this evening, um, which follows the city council discussion and planning commission workshop held already.

And then after tonight, we will take these amendments back to city council for consideration and adoption.

Um, but we welcome any additional feedback and thoughts that you might have, and I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Shuler.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

Commissioner Craig?

Ms.

Lorette, our workshop, someone asked the question about if this is successful in the downtown area.

Would we consider potentially in other parts of the city to be able to do something similar?

And I at that time we were talking, we want this to be a very unique part of the of the city.

So that was not really the intention at this point, but if it's successful, would there be some openness to if there was say a redevelopment of a uh an older shopping area that something like this could potentially happen if uh if a developer wanted to pursue something unique?

Yes, absolutely.

Um I think that we could look at expanding this in the future if there's interest from our council members and our planning commissioners to do that.

Um the part of uh this update with the exceptions applies citywide.

So if there did happen to be something that was a very unique situation elsewhere, they could still pursue that avenue as well.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh Commissioners, do you have any other additional questions?

Commissioner Bergita, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

In addition to the top of building signs being added in the middle of a block as opposed to the corners.

Were there any other changes from our discussion at the workshop?

Um no, we added that graphic.

Um minor language tweaking, we bulleted out some of the paragraphs that were one paragraph into A's and B's.

Um nothing, nothing major like that.

We just wanted with that um a little bit more flexibility with some of the redevelopment opportunities that could be mid-block and potential to you know do something really creative that's maybe not just on a corner.

So we wanted to have that opportunity.

Okay.

And then where did we get the 10% number for the painting of a sign on the side of a building or something like that?

Yep, that's stand that follows our um wall sign requirements currently.

Um so you might you might be thinking maybe that sounds small.

Um ten percent, of course, of a larger wall is going to give you a pretty big size sign.

And then when you're looking at some of the wall signs around town, they're taking 10 percent of a tenant space, which shrinks that down a little bit.

And so it's just kind of a scale um thing.

So um I think it does still allow flexibility that we have some of those bigger signs that you see in old historic districts, just depending on the scale of that facade.

Sure.

But the the sign that we had as the image in the presentation would not be allowed as it was more than 10 percent, correct?

I think it was the sisters sign.

Um I have totally passed it.

I went the wrong way.

Potential potentially.

I think it depends on how long that building is to really understand that.

But you're right, that might be a little bit bigger, um, just depending on the scale of that building.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

Commissioners, do there are any questions for staff?

Okay, if not, I'll move forward to the public hearing.

And uh I will now open the public hearing.

However, we did not have anyone signed up to speak this evening.

Uh so I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Bergita.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Tronis.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

And that does pass 7 to 0.

So we'll move forward now.

Uh the public hearing is now closed.

Um, is there any additional discussion needed for this item?

Commissioner Bergida.

Mr.

Chairman, I would just say I'm I'm very happy with the proposal.

We saw pictures of what downtown used to look like, and I think this is a giant step in that direction to preserving some of the character.

I guess the one thing I would add is I would maybe encourage a little bit more flexibility for folks downtown, uh, like the ability to have a little bit more of the wall space or we got into some nuance on some different types of things.

And I know there is the potential for this to become uh something that's used throughout the city later on.

And so if I had just one comment, I would push for more flexibility and trust in the downtown businesses that are going to make it great.

Yeah.

Excellent point.

Yeah, we talked about the character of the old Olaf, we're establishing a whole new character, I think, here too, which I think is going to be very attractive to the cities.

Uh my compliments to the staff for their work on this.

Uh any additional discussion among commissioners.

Chairman I'd make a motion that we approve UD0 25-001 as submitted by staff thank you Commissioner Tronis do I have a second second thank you Commissioner Bergita we will have a roll call vote Ms.

Will you will please Commissioner Toronto?

Yes Commissioner Brigida Yes Commissioner Lynn yes Commissioner Creighton Yes Commissioner Breen Yes Commissioner Brown Yes Chair Janner?

Yes that motion passes seven to zero great we're excited to see what's going to happen downtown um are there any uh further announcements this evening no just appreciate your feedback on the UD update and all the hard work that went into this thank you excellent thanks to thank you to our planning staff if there are no further announcements then uh I'll call for adjournment.

Thank you for being here tonight.