Planning Commission Meeting Summary - August 24, 2026
Planning Commission Meeting Summary - August 24, 2026
The Olathe Planning Commission met on August 24, 2026, with seven of nine commissioners present. The meeting addressed routine consent items, a discussion on the 2027-2031 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), and public hearings on two rezoning applications. Four public hearings were continued to future meetings. The commission approved a commercial rezoning (RZ26-0009) unanimously and a multifamily rezoning (RZ26-0006) on a 6-1 vote.
Consent Calendar
- Items A, C, and D (routine approvals) were approved 7-0 without discussion.
- Item B (PLN26-0003: Discussion on the finding that the 2027-2031 Capital Improvements Plan is in conformity with the Elevate Olathe Comprehensive Plan) was pulled for discussion. Commissioner Bergita asked about the animal shelter budget, noting the total revised from $25 million to $19 million, and expressed appreciation for adjustments, encouraging further reductions. The item was then approved 7-0.
Public Comments & Testimony
- David Connor (11259 South Montclair) opposed the multifamily rezoning (RZ26-0006), arguing the apartments do not conform to the surrounding single-family neighborhood character, will reduce property values, increase traffic, and create safety issues. He stated the development belongs along major roadways, not in residential areas.
- Forrest Miles (Gatewood Villas) opposed the project, noting high-density apartments have never been placed in the center of R1/R2 areas in Olathe. He cited traffic congestion on College Boulevard and safety concerns for children, especially with the extension of Sunnybrook Boulevard toward an elementary school.
- Bill Statler (1129 South Montclair) disputed the staff's characterization of harmony with existing uses, stating the surrounding area is predominantly R1 and R2, not R3. He argued the proposed density and height are out of scale with the neighborhood.
- Max Cook (11475 South Round Tree Street) opposed the rezoning, stating it benefits only the city and county, not residents. He urged the commission not to allow the project.
- Fred Nelson (11442 South Northstone Street) opposed the multifamily development, citing traffic congestion from the new Dillon's store, nearby schools, and St. Paul Church. He expressed willingness to accept commercial use but not high-density residential.
Discussion Items
- RZ26-0009 (College and Sunnybrook Commercial): A rezoning from BP (Business Park) to C-2 (Community Center) on ~11 acres for commercial uses (restaurants, bank, retail). Staff recommended approval with restricted uses. The applicant (Melissa Vancrum, Rouse Fretz White) noted the site has been zoned BP for 25 years, and the C-2 district better aligns with the adjacent Dillon's grocery store and the adopted Elevate Olathe Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bergita asked about the change from BP; the applicant explained BP limits retail and services. No public testimony was given. The commission voted 7-0 to approve with staff stipulations.
- RZ26-0006 (College and Sunnybrook Multifamily): A rezoning from BP to R-3 (Low-Density Multifamily) on ~20 acres for 333 residential units (townhomes and apartments) with a density of 16.65 units per acre. Staff recommended approval; the concept plan includes pedestrian connections and a trail link. Applicant Kurt Peterson highlighted the downzoning from BP (which allows up to 144 feet), 76% tree preservation, and consistency with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Chapman questioned tree preservation standards (20% minimum required by code, with additional protection from a stream corridor). Commissioner Toronas asked about the traffic study; staff (Charlie Love) confirmed it accounted for the adjacent commercial development and other approved apartments west of K-7. Commissioner Breen inquired about topography and sight lines; staff noted buildings are set back 80-190 feet from the western property line and the trail separates them from homes. The commission voted 6-1 to approve (Commissioner Bergita voted no).
Key Outcomes
- Four public hearings (RZ26-0010, RZ26-0011, RZ26-0013, SU26-0007) were continued to future Planning Commission meetings on motions passed 7-0 each.
- RZ26-0009 (Commercial): Approved 7-0 with staff-recommended restricted uses and a stipulation for a revised preliminary site development plan. The case proceeds to City Council.
- RZ26-0006 (Multifamily): Approved 6-1 (Commissioner Bergita opposed) with no additional stipulations beyond staff's recommendation. The case proceeds to the September 15, 2026 City Council meeting.
Meeting Transcript
I would like to call tonight's meeting to order. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands under God. So we begin our meeting tonight. I'll acknowledge that we do have a quorum of planning commissioners present with seven of nine commissioners in attendance. Commissioner Corcoran and Sealing were unable to uh join this evening. But I want to thank everyone in the chamber and everyone watching online for attending this evening's meeting. Planning Commission meetings are an important part of the part of the process for interpreting and applying the city's comprehensive plan and the 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. 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 council as our elected representatives to be fully informed so that they can make the best choices for our city. By statute, the planning commission strives not to engage with any party on the issues on our agenda prior to this meeting. Should that interaction take place as a result of a business relationship or any other interaction, which we refer to as ex parte communication, commissioners will report that interaction when we reach that item in the agenda. We'll now move on to the consent agenda, and this evening we have four items on our consent agenda. Consent it consent agenda items are listed and are considered routine by the planning commission and may be approved in one motion. There is no public hearing on any of these issues, and there will be no discussion unless a commissioner requests that an item be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Commissioners, is there anything that falls into that category that needs to be pulled for additional information or questions of staff? Mr. Chairman B heater. Thank you. I would like to pull item B. Okay. Anything else? If not, I will entertain a motion on the remaining three items. Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve items A, C, and D on the consent agenda. Thank you, Commissioner Breen. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. That motion passes seven to zero. So, Commissioner Bergita. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick question for uh staff. You're on. Yeah. Okay. Um first off, thank you for all the materials uh that you pulled together on this. I just had one quick question. On the um shelter. I understand last year we approved it for 25 million, and the current balance I saw was 14 million on that. Has 11 million been spent or what's the status on that? Yeah, so the total proposed project amount for the animal shelter is revised from 25 million to 19 million. Was there just cost savings that came into play or why the reduction? We're currently re-evaluating that project in its entirety and probably will provide further details at a later date. Okay.
openpublica.com