Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

like to call tonight's meeting to order, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Well, as we begin our meeting this evening, I'll take a moment to acknowledge that we do have a quorum of planning commissioners present with seven of nine commissioners in attendance. I think the other two will still be here before we get too far into our agenda. I want to thank everyone in the chamber for attending this evening's meeting, as well as those watching online. Planning Commission meetings are an important part of the process for interpreting and applying the City's comprehensive plan and unified development ordinance. It's important that our meetings are conducted with dignity and respect. This 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 our Planning Commission, we're here to help the Council as our elected representatives to be fully informed to make the best choices for our city. By statute, the Planning Commission strives to not engage with any party on the issues on our agenda prior to our 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. This evening we have two items on the consent agenda. With the consent agenda, these items are listed and considered routine by the Planning Commission, and they may be approved in one motion. There is no public hearing for items on the consent agenda. There's no discussion unless a commissioner would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Commissioners, do you see anything on the consent agenda that you'd like to pull for additional information or questions from staff? All right, seeing none, do I have a motion for the consent agenda, please?

Mr. Chair, I move to approve the consent agenda as written.

Thank you, Commissioner Corcoran. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Brown. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? And that motion passes 8-0. So we'll move on now to our regular agenda and our public hearings. This evening we have five scheduled public hearings. For the first public hearing this evening, a continuance has been requested. When a case is submitted or scheduled for a continuance, the public hearing will not be opened. Comments, recommendations, or analysis on the case is not provided or discussed until the public hearing is officially opened. This process assures that anyone that has an interest in the case has the opportunity to participate. So a continuance is requested to a future planning commission meeting for SU 26-0008. Is there a motion regarding the request?

Chair, I move that we approve the continuation of SU 26-0008. Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Birgitta. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes 8-0. The second public hearing is a request for the approval of rezoning for Frontier Trails Logistics, located northwest of 175th and US 69 Highway. Ms. Winter is here to present the case tonight. Go ahead, Lauren.

Good evening, Commissioners. Lauren Winter, Planner 2. As introduced, this application before you tonight is a request to zone to the M2 District in a preliminary site development plan for Frontier Trails Logistics. The proposal consists of one speculative warehouse distribution facility. The site is located northwest of 175th Street and US 169 Highway with direct street frontage along US 169 Highway. The site is adjacent to Lone Elm Park and the lineage cold storage facility. The property is currently undeveloped with an existing cell tower, which may remain as permitted by the UDL. The adjacent industrial property is zoned to the M2, General Industrial District. And the subject property currently retains county rural zoning. And the request tonight is to rezone to the M2 district. The future land use map of the Elevator Olathe Comprehensive Plan designates this property and much of the surrounding area as industrial. The requested M2 district aligns with the future land use designation. And the zoning aligns with the goals and policies of the Elevated Olathe Comprehensive Plan, including providing a mix of land uses within the city and promoting high-quality development. The 70-acre site will accommodate one cross-dock warehouse with overhead doors facing north and south. and the primary entrances facing public roadways. The proposed single-story warehouse will be just over a million square feet. Two screen walls shown in blue will be constructed to extend the eastern facade to block the view of the overhead doors from 169 Highway. On-site detention is located on the western and northern portions of the development, and additional landscaping will be provided to screen from public view. A north-south industrial collector will be constructed along the west side of the property to provide future access to the undeveloped properties to the north and the south. Four access points are shown on the site in red off of Carson Street, and a gated fire access road off of 169 Highway is shown in orange. The applicant provided a landscape plan that meets all UDO requirements, specifically significant tree preservation along the west property line and an enhanced buffer along the south as it is adjacent to future commercial zoning. The applicant is also proposing Birmingham at the southeast corner as an additional screening measure for Dock Doors nearest US 169 highway. Further refinements and landscape details will be provided at the final site development plan. That will include shrubs, ground cover, utility screening, and all landscaping will meet the UDO requirements. The building will be constructed of painted and textured tilt-up concrete panels in shades of gray with a band of blue around all facades. Upper glass is provided and the primary facades will include ground floor glass. The building meets material articulation requirements and no waivers are requested. The applicant met all notification requirements and a neighborhood meeting was held on July 30th with one resident in attendance who is the property owner to the north. The primary topic discussed at the meeting was future access to the adjacent northern property and the applicant addressed the property owner's questions by discussing various access options for the proposed development. Neither staff nor the applicant has received any correspondence regarding this case. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning RZ26-0011 to the M2 district with the following use restrictions due to the intensity of the use or reliance on outdoor storage and the adjacency to major roadways. The applicant is agreeable to these restrictions. Staff also recommends approval of the Preliminary Site Development Plan, RZ26-0011, as stipulated. The applicant is agreeable to all stipulations listed here, including providing adequate truck staging on site to avoid staging on public streets, full screening of outdoor storage and equipment from public view. This item will be considered at the October 6th City Council meeting. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions, and the applicant is here as well, but will not be making a presentation.

Okay. That was my question, so good to know. All right. Are there any questions from commissioners?

Commissioner Chapman. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Winter, just one quick question. The property owner to the north, has the applicant and the owner resolved any issues with regards to access to his property to the north?

Yes. From my understanding, the property owner to the north is happy with the accommodations that this property has made with the collector road.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, do you have any additional questions? Well, now I'll open the public hearing. We do have one individual signed up for the public hearing. I'll just give you some layout of how the public hearing works, which applies to all the public hearings this evening. If you're signed up to speak, your name will be called, and you'll head to the podium over here to your left. Each person will have five minutes. Start out by stating your name and address for the record, and then there'll be a timer over here on your right that'll indicate the amount of time that you have to speak, and you're welcome to use the full five minutes. For this particular one we only have one scheduled speaker. If we do have multiple speakers, just a little guidance on how that will work when we get to that point. When we have multiple speakers, We're looking to hear new information on public hearings. There's been a lot of correspondence on some issues tonight, which have been available to all the commissioners. We've all read through that in preparation for tonight's meeting. The purpose of the public hearing is we're looking for new information. What is it that we haven't heard? What is it we're looking at that hasn't been considered? That's what we'd like to see from our speakers this evening, regardless of which issue you may have shown up for. In saying that, If the person before you says the exact same thing that you were going to say, it's perfectly okay to waive your right to speak. As repeating yourself doesn't really, it's not a tally. We're looking at this many said this were in favor, this many were opposed. That's not kind of how it works. We just want to look at all the facts and use that information in which to make our decisions. So that's just some guidelines on how public hearings work. We do have just one signed up for this. So Jacob Turner, if you'd like to make your way to the podium.

Thank you all. I'm Jacob Turner, 11000 King Street, Northern Park, Kansas. I'm actually here representing the property owner to the north that you just asked the questions on, 167th Street, LLC, owned by Mark Clear. I'm his attorney. He has apologized that he couldn't come today, but he had asked me to come convey a message to this commission. He had attended the neighborhood meeting and expressed strong concerns about the lack of access to his property because the way he saw it, the development would have actually landlocked a portion of his property and he would not have been able to develop it. We had additional conversations with the applicant And the applicant, he was pleased with the change to the application creating the collector road that now will allow him to help develop his property at the time that he chooses to develop that property in line with the comprehensive plan. So he's actually asked me to come explain that since that neighborhood meeting, he's become full supportive of that as long as there's a collector road or some sort of access that continues onto his property to the north. So that's all I have to say today.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Appreciate it. Okay, seeing no other speakers, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Brigitte. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Taronis. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. And the public hearing is now closed. Is there any additional discussion needed on this issue, commissioners, for staff or for the applicant? Seeing none, do I have a motion on RZ26-0011? Mr. Chair, I would remit.

move for the approval of RZ26-0011 with all stipulations and recommendations as presented by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Brigitte. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown. Ms. Will, will you take a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Taronas?

Yes.

Commissioner Brigitte?

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Seelig?

Yes.

Commissioner Lin? Yes. Commissioner Corcoran?

Yes.

Chair Channer? Yes. That motion passes 8-0.

Okay, we'll move on to our third public hearing, which is a request for the approval of rezoning for the Johnson County aggregates located at southeast of 151st and Old 56 Highway. Mr. Jury will be here this evening to present the case. The rezoning portion of this, which we've got several issues on this particular issue, the rezoning will be heard first, followed by the two special use permits on this property for the subsequent public hearings. So, Mr. Jury. Excuse me.

Thank you, Chair and Planning Commission. I'm Nathan Jury, Senior Planner. Before I do start, I do want to provide an overview of the next three applications as they are all interrelated, but were reviewed by staff separately and analyzed separately. So overall, Johnson County Aggregates, or JCA, submitted a rezoning request, a request to amend their existing special use for their existing quarry and a special use to expand their existing quarry. Dan Jones with JCA is here tonight, and he brought his team, including Curtis Peterson with Polsinelli. The overall property is outlined in blue on your screen here. It is owned by JCA, located in Southwest Latham near New Century Airport. This site is bounded by Old 56 to the north as well as to the west, 159th to the south, and the BNSF Railroad to the east. The entire site, except for the northwest corner, which is outlined in purple, is in the City of Olathe. JCA does have an annexation request, and the three cases before you tonight will all be heard at the October 6 City Council meeting for their final decision. And just to clarify before you do ask, Planning Commission is allowed to make recommendations on annexed property, but just the final decision can't occur until annexation happens. So the overall property is split into two areas, what I'll call throughout this presentation the existing quarry in yellow and then the expansion quarry in red. The existing quarry did receive special use approval in 1988, and there was a 100-foot buffer that was required at the time shown in green on your screen. JCA is now requesting to expand the existing quarry and would like that both areas, the existing and expansion, to function as one continuous operation. To do that, the expansion quarry does need proper zoning and special use approvals. The existing quarry as well must be amended to remove that 100-foot setback from the expansion quarry property. So all in all, JCA did submit two special use requests, but they do view that as one interrelated request altogether. So with that, I will present the rezoning first. We'll open the public hearing, call for a vote, and then repeat the same process for the next two applications as well. Are there any questions before I move on?

Yes, I'd like... I would like just to address one thing. So on the prior screen where it showed the expansion existing quarry, so there was a buffer at that point.

Yes. The buffer right here was required from what was previously a farmland, or was farmland and is farmland right now, I guess. But in 1988, it was owned separately. Okay. And there's a 100-foot buffer from that property.

All right. So if the expansion were to take place, is there no longer a buffer?

That's their request, yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay, hearing nothing else. We'll go ahead and get started with the rezoning request. So the expansion quarry property is about 110 acres, currently used as farmland, located at the corner of Old 56 and Old 56. The property is currently zoned county rural and county ag, and JCA is requesting to rezone to the ag or agricultural district. This district does generally permit agricultural uses, but it does allow for some uses such as quarrying with special use approval. So I will stress here that you do not need to consider the quarry as part of this rezoning request as the quarry will be reviewed separately and analyzed separately as part of the special use request. The Elevate Olathe Future Land Use Map designates the property as neighborhood commercial and business park. However, sanitary sewer is not yet readily available to support this type of development as envisioned in the comp plan. The AG district is an appropriate zoning district as one of the purposes is to be a holding zone to protect properties from premature development. This request does align with the goals and strategies of the comp plan, including land use 1.1 strategy, as the AG district will protect this area from piecemeal development, helping ensure a more contiguous growth pattern in the future. The applicant has met all public notice requirements and neighborhood meeting requirements. Neighborhood meeting was held in July with 44 people in attendance. According to the minutes provided by the applicant, there were a lot of questions at the meeting, but there were none really about the AG district rezoning itself. Staff did answer several inquiries about the request, but did not receive any comment letters on the rezoning request itself as well. So in summary, staff is supportive of the requested rezoning to the agricultural district with no stipulations. With that, I will stand for any questions. Curtis Peterson is here and available for any questions as well.

Thank you, Mr. Jury. Commissioner, do you have any questions for staff regarding rezoning? Commissioner Seelig.

Thank you, sir, for your presentation. My only question is a simple one. Why rezone to ag and not M2 like the rest of the properties?

Well, the future land use map is for commercial and for business park, and the M2 zoning doesn't align with that. So the Ag District is a better holding zone to allow for their requested use, the quarry, which we'll review later. But it does allow for that, as well as holding it from any unwanted development of industrial in that area. Got you. Thank you.

Are there any additional questions for staff? Commissioner Brigitte.

Commissioner Seelings stole my first question, so we'll move on to my second one. In terms of property taxes, is there any difference if it's zoned ag as opposed to M3?

I believe property taxes are based on the use of the property. Those are from the tax assessor's assessment of that property.

So even though it be zoned ag, it would not be taxed as ag, assuming we approve the special use permit for this property?

I'm not an expert in tax law here, sorry.

That would be correct, yes.

Thank you. Thanks, Amanda.

Thank you. All right. Any additional questions? All right. Moving forward then, I will open the public hearing. However, on this, the zoning change, we have no one signed up to speak on the public hearing. So I'll now entertain a motion to close.

Chair Janner, we did have one person signed up. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay.

I thought you already showed me a blank one. My bad. All right. I'll now open the public hearing. We do have one scheduled speaker. Mr. Dan Quackenbush, if you'd like to make your way to the podium.

I'm here. I don't really have any comments on this part of it. We'll cover it quite well in the next part.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Now I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Mr. Chair, I move to close the public hearing.

Thank you, Commissioner Sealing. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Chapman. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And the public hearing is now closed. Just for clarification, if you hadn't signed up, Mr. Quackenbush, do you want to be listed as a speaker on the other public hearing? Sure. You already am, so we're covered. Okay. Just wanted to make sure you weren't sacrificing your right to get up and speak. Okay. Well, moving forward then, the public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do you have any additional questions? If not, I will entertain a motion for RZ26-0013.

Mr. Chair, I don't have a question, but I do have one comment, and I think Commissioner Sealing got at this with his question as well. It seems to make more sense to me to, and I am going to be voting in support of this motion, but it would make more sense to me for it to be M3 or M2 with what's continuous in that area as opposed to ag, especially if we know what's coming down the pipeline. That's just a general comment for as we do these rezonings it makes a lot more sense just to have it continuous with what's in the area as opposed to oh we decided it wasn't going to be this but everything else around it is so we're going to have as a holding that that's my only thought on that okay well thank you for making that part of the record all right i will now entertain a motion on rz26-0003 0013 excuse me

Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve the rezoning, RZ26-0013. All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Corcoran. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Toronis. A roll call vote, Ms. Will.

Commissioner Toronis?

Yes.

Commissioner Birgitta?

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman? Yes. Commissioner Seelig? Yes. Commissioner Lynn? Yes. Commissioner Corcoran?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown? Yes. Chair Channer? Yes.

Yes.

That motion passes 8-0.

All right, moving ahead. We're in our fourth public hearing, which is a request for the approval of the special use permit for Johnson County Aggregates to the existing quarry located at Old 56 Highway and West 159th Street. Welcome back, Mr. Jury.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. So, yes, the existing quarry. JCA is requesting to amend the 1988 special use approval for the existing rock quarry located at the northeast of Old 56 and 159th Street, outlined in yellow on your screen. JCA's existing rock-crushing plant, Superior Bowen's asphalt plant, are both located on this property, as well as their point of sales office down in the southeast corner of the property. As a point of correction on Staffport, the JCA property is nearly 568 acres, including the appendage up here that is just north of the 151st Street alignment. The site was zoned M2 and M3 back in 1988 and is largely surrounded by industrial zoning to the south, east, and west, residential, rural, or ag zoning as well to the north. In 1988, special use permit for rock quarry was approved with 11 stipulations, including one that was requiring a 100-foot buffer from that previous farmer's property. JCA is proposing to continue coring this property indefinitely as approved back in 1988 and transition to underground mining in the near future. They are requesting to remove that 100 foot buffer and are willing to add restrictions that comply with today's standards and improve their current situation, particularly regarding dust and air quality. Shown on your screen are the above-ground quarry limits, which do comply with the setbacks established back in 1988 with just the two changes. First, that 100-foot setback from the expansion quarry property would be removed to allow for one continuous operation. And then second, JCA was willing to increase their Cedar Creek stream buffer setback from 50 feet up to 120 feet, and that was to comply with today's stream buffer requirements that were adopted after the 1988 approval. The 1988 special use did require berms along public roads and a 100-foot buffer from the expansion property as well. Today the quarry is visible from 151st Street and also from the 159th Street Bridge. The applicant is willing to install a berm down in that, along the bridge area down there in the south side of the property to, in essence, screen that existing quarry from view on 159th. As for the 100-foot buffer, JCA has agreed to a stipulation that will require them to install a berm wherever necessary to screen the quarry from public view, whether that is on the expansion quarry property or on their own property in the future. JCA is also proposing to transition to underground rock mining. Shown on your screen are the proposed underground mine limits. These do comply with today's required 200-foot setback for underground along the perimeter of the site and also the 120-foot stream buffer requirement that I've mentioned previously. JCA is willing to reclaim the property in two phases, whereas phase reclamation was not required in 1988. So in 15 years, JCA will reclaim roughly 110 acres in that southwest corner of the site for phase one. And there will be a berm required between phases one and two to ensure the quarry remains completely screened. As for phase two, this area will not be reclaimed until quarrying and mining is complete, as this is where their rock crusher stockpiling and sales will continue to occur. The applicant provided a future concept plan to show how the existing quarry could be developed. Buildings are shown along the north and the west boundaries. and cord areas, in essence, the rest of the property is not expected to be able to support buildings due to the removal of bedrock from the surface coring operations. However, this area could support pavement and small structures as well. As stipulated, the underground mine will be engineered to support up to five-story buildings on the surface and underground warehousing could be developed below. The comprehensive plan designates the property as parks and open space. And while the existing quarry does not align with this future land use designation, the property will be reclaimed as open space after the site is reclaimed. In addition, JCA has agreed to stipulations to ensure this property could be developed as shown in the future. This preserves future flexibility for development in the event that the comp plan vision does change from the parks and open space designation today, since this core probably won't be reclaimed for a while with their indefinite approval as they've received back in 1988. In addition, the proposal does meet goals and strategies of the comp plan. JCA is willing to add stipulations to the existing quarry that were not established back in 1988. These additional steps will minimize negative impacts and provide a greater stream corridor setback, meeting LU 2.9, as well as NE 12.1. All neighborhood and public notice requirements have been met. Neighborhood meeting was not required for the existing quarries. No neighborhoods are within the 500 foot required buffer area. Staff did receive written comments from six individuals that were included in the agenda. And we've also received, since publication, we've received, I believe, five additional written comments, even the last one coming through after five today that I believe we've provided to you in print form. So these will be forwarded as well to the City Council packet. In general, this correspondence includes feedback about air quality or fugitive dust in general and the health impacts of that, rock spillage on public roads, blasting, the noise and ground vibration associated with that, as well as water quality and the impacts to property values. To address dust and rock spillage, JCA will reclaim that 110 acres in 15 years, reducing a source of dust from wind erosion and other dust sources from that 110 acre site. They will also remove the existing drive on Old 56, limiting potential track out dust and rock spillage along Old 56 and limiting track out to only 159th Street.

Thank you.

In addition, JCA did submit a dust control plan that was reviewed by the Johnson County Department of Air and by a third party specialist, Joseph Mazzari, who does specialize in air quality compliance. This plan will reduce dust from current levels in a variety of way. First and foremost, I will say that JCA has agreed to monitor dust levels periodically using a combination of lab testing, as well as real-time sensors that they'll deploy in the field. Second, the rock crushing plant, which is a major source of dust, will be upgraded with new dust suppression equipment, and operations will be scaled back on windy days, and they'll have trained spotters to, in essence, notice those requirements. To address the next biggest source of dust, vehicle movement, JCA is paving or chip sealing nearly a mile of their currently unpaved roads. And they'll be applying or installing track out control devices where pavement does transition to unpaved haul roads internally. In addition, they are committing to daily street sweeping along 159th Street. And they did purchase a vacuum sweeper for that as well. And so... Most importantly, I will say that the dust control plan is a living document and they have agreed to review it and adjust it as necessary annually through a meeting with staff. So we can adjust that as the quarry changes, quarry will change over the years and sources of dust and where it's coming from as they quarry through the site. So the ability to change that as their operations change will be beneficial. So lastly, I will say JCAID will maintain their complaint log and is willing to report to City Council periodically as an additional checkpoint for compliance. As for blasting, JCA did submit a report to confirm that their blasts from the last year have complied with the U.S. Bureau of Mines' blasting limits, which is a well-established national standard and Olathe's standards, for that fact. In the last year, blasts did occur in the purple area on your screen, and the seismic readings were taken from two locations, up north there and then on there, expansion quarry property towards the south, or sorry, the northwest. So they, as you can see on this graph on the right side of your screen, their peak seismic reading for all the blasts that occurred in the last year have fallen well below the legal limits of today's, or Olathe's standards for ground vibration. So in summary, JCA has agreed to place additional restrictions on their existing quarry that is currently allowed to remain indefinitely. This request does meet the approval criteria and aligns with the comp plan as outlined in the staff report. With that, staff does recommend approval of the requested amendment with the stipulations outlined. and staff's report. The STIP list was too long to fit on this page, I will say, so I'll just mention the topics here. JCA, in essence, is willing to limit their hours of operation, blasting STIPs, screening or visibility STIPs, air quality, water quality, transparency for the public, as well as making sure their mine's engineered appropriately for future land uses and their reclamation of this property as well. So with that, I will stand for any questions. There's a lot of information. So if you have any questions, I'm available, as well as Curtis Peterson and Dan Jones.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Jury. Commissioner, do you have any questions for staff? Commissioner Chapman.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Nathan. Good presentation on a lot of topics here. I'm going to ask about this dust control monitoring. I know it goes to probably both of the applications we're going to be looking at here tonight. So there have been a lot of comments regarding the problem with dust in the current quarrying situation. And the applicant has a plan to control that. I guess my question is, what is the baseline that's been established to determine that, in fact, we have a problem that exceeds an acceptable baseline? Is there a baseline that's been established with regards to air quality in that area as it relates to the mining operations?

So they do comply with the current standards for their rock crusher. That's particularly what is the biggest source of dust, right? So that is what the state and Johnson County Air Division do, inspect that annually, and they do comply. So what they're doing is in addition and beyond that, right? So the legal limits are set by the state for the rock crusher, and They are in compliance with that. They're just proposing to improve their situation.

Is the, and they talk about in the report, talk about they're going to significantly upgrade the dust suppression system. Is the current one not adequate?

So I will say the the legal limits of what the rock crusher can do are set by the state, right, and federal EPA. And they're in compliance with those standards.

Well, I guess what I'm trying to understand here, if there's an issue with the air quality with the current suppression system that's in place, I guess to me it just sort of seems like we have an issue here that needs to be addressed. And I guess what I'm curious about is, is this upgrade going to address this issue? Because the comments that we hear is that there's a dust problem out there. And, you know, the other thing I'm curious about, and I guess we're going to probably flow over into both of these applications, is there's a comment in here about send samples for asbestos and the crystalline silicate testing. How often is that done? And what is the protocol if, in fact, they test positive in these areas?

So, yeah, they are proposing to test for those two items, asbestos and crystalline, I think four times a year, quarterly, in essence. And I will say that there are legal limits for those as well. And I believe the Mine Safety Health Administration, which is a federal administration, does regulate that for the workers' safety. And so they have limits within the core itself that they need to adhere to for their own workers.

Thank you. And this probably is maybe a question more for the applicant, but I guess the question is, what's the protocol then if, in fact, they exceed these limits for the safety of the neighborhoods around?

I might defer to that. Yeah, and that's fine.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Chapman, other questions for staff? Commissioner Seelig.

Thank you, sir, again for your presentation. So this may go to the next hearing. I'm not sure, but you mentioned it, so I thought I'd bring it up so I don't miss my chance to ask. On one of the slides, you were showing buffering or berming, and you had, yeah, thank you. Yeah. So I guess you mentioned up on the new property, and I'm specifically talking about the north and northwest and the west, will they be burning that area along Old 56 Highway?

Um, in this area, is that what you're asking? Yes. Yeah. Um, so, so yes, on the next, on the next, next application, they'll show that. Um, but there is a stipulation that says, regardless, um, this, this does need to be screened from view. Um, we don't say what property it has to be on. It just has to be, it's a performance standard and it has to be screened. Why does that need to be screened? So UDO does have requirements for any outdoor use, outdoor operations, and the screening of that is required through our UDO. Okay.

So should, again, next hearing, but you brought it up, so should approval happen for the next piece of land, they will burn it in that curved area where you just marked, right? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Second question, you mentioned the biggest source of dust is from the rock crusher.

you mentioned that they're going to up put some upgrades on the rock crusher to control the dust is that a stipulation or is that an agreement so that that is in the dust control plan that's before you tonight so there there is a stipulation that says they need to install the the proposed improvements from that dust control plan by a date certain okay so wonderful so yes yep thank you sir all right additional questions commissioner lynn

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following up on Commissioner Chapman's questions, for the testing results, I see that those results are reported to the Johnson County Department of Health and Environment yearly and that it is available for the public to see. Is there a requirement to inform the public should it be found to be out of compliance?

I don't know what Johnson County protocol is. I'm not entirely sure. But if we find anything out of compliance, we'll have our own standards to address it with them particularly.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, one question, Mr. Jerry. You had made a comment when we were on the topic of blasting that they were meeting the Olathe limits on where the blasting is. So as far as Olathe limits, does that mean that there are also state and federal limits on that? And if there are Olathe limits, how are they set and do they differ?

So the seismic, so this graph here, this is a U.S. Bureau of Mines limits that they established. I'm not entirely sure when they established them, but they were established by U.S. Bureau of Mines. So that's federal? yeah federal um and and so we follow that um i believe state probably follows that too and and um any other and each i guess each state decides whether they follow that or have stricter requirements so when we talk about federal or or state or like we're pretty much all following the same guideline on this okay thank you are there any additional questions commissioner corcoran nathan i don't know if you noticed or not but who owns the triangle piece of property in the northwest

on the north and west side of 56th Highway. The north and west side? Yeah, the little remainder piece at the curve.

Like right there? Is that what you're asking? Yes. That is right away currently. It's all right away? Yeah, it's right away. Great, thank you.

Owned by Johnson County. It'd be Johnson County.

Thank you.

Okay, are there any additional questions for staff? Commissioner Birgitta? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Going back to some of the questions about dust, I'm reading the stipulations from 1988. And stipulation D talks about the applicant should work with the city and county implying appropriate dust control measures. And then it goes on to describe it. Are those in place currently? Is that what we were talking about in terms of some of these tests that are reported periodically and sent to the county? What does that currently look like?

So D specifically, I will say 159th Street used to be a gravel road. And so that was applying appropriate dust control measures to 159th Street specifically. Since then, obviously, it's a paved road now. Rock spillage on a gravel road might have been good actually help us maintain it but no longer good rocks village on pave road with the the vehicle speeds at what they are um that's something that they are willing to work with us and they'll do daily street sweeping to make sure that they comply okay so you're saying basically d is no longer necessary because it's paved so we don't necessarily have okay so that answers my question regarding pollution cedar creek in the lake um

On the topic of stipulations additionally, what was the plan for F on that stipulation? The quarry operation reclamation shall generally follow development plan approved by the planning commission and the date is blotted out. What was the reclamation plan?

They showed a reclamation plan that, in essence, had industrial lots. So it's zone M2, M3, right? So it did have industrial lots kind of lined out around the site. But based on their proposal, the quarried areas are no longer developable. So... Was there a timeline for these reclamation plans? No. The 1988 approval was an indefinite no-time-limit query, in essence. Okay. So F didn't happen, or there wasn't a reclamation? There was no timeline associated with it.

Correct. Okay. What is their current measures to prevent pollution of Cedar Creek and Lake Olathe?

They do have a 50-foot setback from the stream and they do keep it vegetated to help reduce that stormwater runoff going into the Cedar Creek itself.

Okay, and then stipulation J, the interior drive does not need to be paved until the site is developed with industrial uses. Was that at any point triggered or is the interior, it doesn't sound like the interior drive is currently paved.

No, that was based on the reclamation. Upon reclamation, it would trigger the pavement for those uses.

Okay, and then have we been doing K, City staff shall inspect the site once a year about the date of approval by the City Council and then a report being submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council. No, we have not consistently been doing that. Okay. And then shifting gears, taxes. There was a helpful slide presented on taxes. It seemed though that most of that was taxes in general and not towards the City of Olathe itself. Am I accurate in saying that? I saw it was broken down to sales tax, but there was no breakdown in terms of property taxes to the city. Has there been any analysis on that?

The applicant might be able to answer some of that. They provided that slide. But I believe, if I remember right, there was property tax shown on that.

Correct, but that was for all the tax entities, not specifically the city. And if I need to ask this to the applicant later, that's fine. But I'm just curious, this rezoning of the 109 acres or whatnot, How much does that add or change? Because this is all historic, and this is not changing whether we approve or not, from my understanding. They're going to continue to operate whether we approve this or not. So what's the added economic benefit of approving this particular ad? I'll let the applicant answer that as well. Okay. And then this might also be an applicant question. but how much noise is there in underground vibration, or excuse me, noise or vibration in underground blasting as opposed to surface blasting? Because I noticed the different start times on that. One was 8.30 and one was 10 o'clock. So what's the difference in that?

I don't know if I have the actual numerical difference, but just in general, underground blasting is more muffled. I mean, you have all the rock and earth above to help dampen that sound, but the vibrations can be similar.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Are there any additional questions for staff? Do we need to have the applicant

If we could, on those last two, the tax slide, and then if they are able to provide additional information on sound or vibration, that would be helpful.

Yeah, absolutely.

Chairman, hello. Kurt Peterson here on behalf of the applicant. I'm at 900 West, 48th Place in Kansas City, Missouri. And I officially, the one thing I was going to do on this application, which I should do for the record, is say we're supportive of all of the stipulations, which if I got my numbering right, are numbers one and two, and then all of the subpoints that come under them, so. We are accepting of that. And if you don't mind, Sheriff, I can go in order. There was a couple of questions that Mr. Jury had deferred to the applicant that Commissioner Chapman had asked. So I thought maybe addressing those and then working over if that's okay, Commissioner Brigitte, to you. Okay. And if you remind me if I missed something, please. absolutely so commissioner chapman had first asked about whether there's a baseline for air quality all these changes there's a huge dust control plan how do we know if there's been material change once everything is done and installed and the answer is building on what mr jury said he was not wrong i'm just adding more detail to it We had a exhaustive baseline analysis done of the quarry's dust situation in 2023. It was actually completed by Environmental Consulting Services, which is the same consultant that handled our dust control plan, if you look on the cover of that so you'll recognize the name. And again, they have all their bona fides. They're very, very well known and highly respected. So we have that from 2023 and the nature of that in a summary, it was a study for testing dust and for specifically compliance with 40 CFR part 60 subpart triple zero, which is a lot of stuff, but it really matters. It's something that's really important. So that was the analysis and that's the very same thing that we would have tested after we do these extensive dust control measures, enhancements to the crusher and all of that. So there'll be an apples to apples comparison immediately once we've installed everything. Something else that we were talking about today that I think contributes to that kind of core baseline answer is that Johnson County's Department of Health and Environment is the body that oversees what's happening at the quarry with dust, et cetera. And it was just a few, I was trying to figure, two or three weeks ago, so within the last 30 days, they actually came out and did their report, which, Yes, looks at the same things as the 2023 study, but it actually goes beyond that. They don't just mostly focus on the crusher because that's your main source of dust at any quarry. But they also go around and they watch our haul routes. They look at our piles, our stockpiles, and anywhere where dust is happening, the county looks to make sure that we're in full compliance, takes extensive notes and has a report. So the answer to your question in short recap would be we have a wonderful baseline from 2023 and also we have very recent just before if this is all approved and we move forward immediately, you have the county also with their data contributing to that baseline. Commissioner Chapman, the next question, and I would say with that, one other thing that came to mind because there was several times that both asbestos and silica were brought up. The great news is when you have a rock quarry like this, I guess the way God made rock, glaciers and put everything together, You're not likely to find when you've been doing this. This quarry has been around since 1890. I could be off by 20 years, but a really long time. And this testing has been going on for asbestos and silica. I can unpack that if you want to go deeper into frequency and all that, but regularly. And there's never been anything out of compliance with respect to those materials. So it's very unlikely kind of being even legal about this. Very unlikely you would ever find that at this quarry. whether you're going underground or to the expansion quarry for some more surface quarrying. That's good news, but we're not just going to rest on our laurels like that. Again, as you saw, we're going to be doing quarterly testing for both those and making them publicly available through the city. The second question, Commissioner Chapman, that you asked that I wanted to address is, Yeah, it's a really good question. You said, well, I hear all this, you know, whatever page dust control plan and all these two and a half pages of stipulations from staff, but I'm going to use my own words. Is the quarry doing what it's supposed to be doing today? out there with dust. And it's really important for everybody to understand that JCA is one of the best operators around and absolutely is achieving everything that's required by law. And I think, I can't remember who said it now, whether it was staff or, but federal, state, and local all have requirements when it comes to dust suppression, blasting, operating a quarry. And all of the inspections, all of the testing and reports that have been done have shown they've been in compliance. So the baseline is compliance with law, but I'll have a short presentation for the third application, and you'll hear me emphasize we're trying to go way beyond that. The last question you raised that I thought needed to be addressed is what happens if, let's pick silica, you could say naturally occurring asbestos, but something shows up, contrary to what I said, that it's very unlikely, but what if it does? What happens? Well, there's a statutory period where there's a cure period that says you need to fix this immediately and retest. And if that's not successful, then you lose your ability to operate until that's fixed. You cannot operate like that, so you have to cease operations. Those are the three questions I felt like that were not yet fully addressed that you asked. Now going to Commissioner Birgitta. The first, in my mind, that wasn't fully addressed, Commissioner, was the tax question with respect to, you're right, and if we need to put up a slide, we can, but there were sales taxes which were broken down between all the taxing jurisdictions, sorry, aggregate, all, and then to the city, so I don't think you're probably asking about that. On the property taxes, I think you're right. I think it was an aggregate number, and someone's I welcome someone to give me the exact percentage, but the city's mill levies are something in the probably 10 to 15 percent of overall tax levies. So if you wouldn't mind doing the math, that's just times those aggregate numbers, that would be the city's take. Also had written down the Yes, the concept of the difference between when there's rock being extracted underground versus above ground, as you all know, blasting is the way you do that. Above ground for us, we do two to three times a week. We do surface blasting. That's it. Not increasing that. And then below ground, it's much more frequent, but it's much, much, much smaller in terms of the charges you use because you kind of, even none of us being experts, but you go down, you don't set up big charges underground when you're down there mining. They're very, very small charges. So we can dig into now or under the next application chair if you want to get into more into blasting and things like that. I don't want to just keep talking, but if you have more questions, I'm subject to chair. If you have follow-up questions, Commissioner Brigitte, I'd be happy to answer those on blasting too.

Go ahead, Commissioner Brigitte. Do you all have estimates on the additional economic benefit from this area? Because it's Roughly 450K in sales taxes, so like 110, 115 a year. And then if it's 10 to 15, we're looking at another 30K or 50K, we'll be generous, 50K over the last four years. So how much does...

approving this area how much economic benefit would it give to the city in terms of tax revenues so you're right to size up sales tax and property tax and we could together do that sort of math and play it out over a lot of years and then the last number that you saw in the packet i mean gosh we could have gone really indirect and we didn't keep carrying it out but the other one we did put on the sheet that you may recall is we talked about if as we transition again all these topics are deep that we can go for you just keep asking me questions if you want to go deeper but i don't want to you know to wear out the welcome here at the microphone, but we will transition from above ground mining on the big existing to underground. And that takes a number of years. So the idea is this transition piece, which was always meant to be, and again, I don't want to get into that public hearing, you know, limited period of time, 10 years, was helping with that transition so we can get everything underground. And the other number that you saw was if that transition didn't happen, then the volumes would go way down for a number of years. That then causes, whether it's the city of Olathe with big street projects or anybody else in the area, to have to go to likely two, our study showed two other quarries. You have to have the right kind of rock. You have to have the right quantity. specifically for concrete and for asphalt separately. And the haul costs are so significant. So we presented a study to staff to show what would be overall additional cost of projects in the area if you had to bring that, again, special kind of rock, not from here, but from outside the area. And that's the other large number. I believe it's approximately $25 to $26 million a year to the area if this was slowed down for some period of time. That's the third sort of economic impact in that study.

So is the surface level And forgive me, I'm not a technical expert on this. Is the surface level harvesting on those 400 acres significantly slowing down? And so it would be the 100 acres is kind of the bridge to when you're doing the subsurface across the board or the whole 500 plus acres? Is that accurate?

That's fair, other than I'm going to tweak it because the concept you said is right. It's not slowing down yet, but the idea is because of the transition to underground takes a number of years for the engineering and everything staff knows, it would end up slowing down a lot. But right now, we're not at that point yet, which is why we're trying to do this right now and not get to that point. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Any additional questions? Commissioner Corker?

Mr. Peterson, I think I heard the answer to this, but I just want to double check. The Johnson County inspection that you had less than 30 days ago, full compliance with county requirements? That's right. That's right. Great. Thank you.

Commissioner Birgitta?

Sorry, I did have another one. If this is more appropriate for a later one, that's fine as well. But, okay, so there's – I think I understand the additional economic impact over the timeline. What about the additional impact on residents in terms of noise and variance in timing of vibrations, things like that? Because does moving it over that far, is there any, and if I missed it, my apologies, but is there any concrete difference or is there any marginal increase that they're going to experience because of this?

And I'm going to look at Chair, and I'm looking forward to answering your question and also to legal counsel. Do you want me, this is largely getting into the next hearing, and I'm fine with it, but I defer to your direction as to whether we do that now or in a minute.

It would keep the record cleaner if you delayed that for the next hearing.

So maybe a few minutes from now.

Yeah, we'll do it on the early hearing number five. Okay. Any other additional questions for staff or for applicants? Okay. If not, I'll open the public hearing. On this one, we had one. Mr. Quackenbush, are you going to speak on this one or are you going to hold it for the next one?

I'll speak.

Come on up and join us.

Okay. Well, this is real deja vu for me.

Let's wait until you get to the podium and have a microphone.

Okay. Sorry. My name is Dan Quackenbush. I live at 1405 South Lake Stone Drive. I've lived there since 1980. My house was one of the last built in Lake Stone. This is deja vu. I mean, the same type of people, these people didn't because they weren't probably born yet, came to my house and in my living room, talked to the entire Homes Association and promised exactly what they're promising now. We'll take care of the dust. We'll take care of the vibration. You won't hear the backup bells. You'll just hear the occasional blast here and there. All kinds of promises. And frankly, I don't trust them. Not for a minute. And yeah, there's all kinds of government regulations and such that are supposed to keep them in line. You've got to be out there 24 hours a day to do it. And frankly... No kidding, I think a movie company would like to use 159th Street for a reenactment of the 1930s dust storm. All you have to do is drive down that street, and you can choke up if you don't have your AC running. So please, look at the reality. I'm the current president of the Homes Association. I never got a notice. The people across the street who just moved in brought me the notice because they mailed it to them. The original plan for Lake Stone was well over 100 homes. We now have 29. When the quarry opened, all home construction in Lake Stone ceased. Now, when they came to my house, they brought me this drawing here. And it's not real informative or anything, but it shows 37 plots in Lake Stone. And that didn't include the other side of the lake, the other end of the lake, all that. We were going to have well over 100 homes. And I'll get to the financial part of that in just a minute. So... Lake Stone Estate people have been putting up with this quarry for 40 years. We've had clouds of dust. We've had a lot of noise, a lot of vibration. I have two stone fireplaces. I have to clean up every week all the mortar that falls out of them every time they blast. Now, we were all thinking, myself, Lake Stone people, Oak Run people, that they were about to run out of land. Hallelujah. Move on. And we're still asking you to tell them, move on. We've put up with this long enough. Now, why should we trust them now? More regulations, more paperwork, whatever. Frankly, I don't think it'll happen. Now, They could have put in dust controls 40 years ago, some type. Or the new owners, I don't know when they bought it, 10 years ago they could have done it. But no, they want you and us to let them expand their quarry and then they will do these extra things like controlling dust, noise, and other things. Now, I kind of think about the planning commission and what their job is. And conceptually, sorry, it looks pretty simple. I know it isn't, but it looks pretty simple. You just do your best to zone property that is compatible with surrounding properties. Really that simple. So what should be zoned right next to a residential zone? Refineries? Chemical plants? How about pig farms? Obviously not. I think quarries are right there in the same group. So, Many residents, both at Lake Stone and Oak Run, have expressed to me that the Planning Commission and the City Council is very much about they only care about the bottom line. Now, I can't believe that, but it might be true. So let's talk about money. In their report... We have this chart. I had it here somewhere. Maybe somebody can put it up there for me. Whoops. There it is. Unfortunately, we're out of time. Well, it claims a whole bunch of... sales tax and property tax and i did the math and this city would do a lot better if they let us put up the last hundred homes and get six thousand seven thousand in property taxes i know that's not all for olathe thank you you're at the end of your time it doesn't work that way i appreciate that but it doesn't work that way i'm sorry you're at the end of your time If you want a copy of this, you can have it.

Okay. Commissioners, do we have any, well, before we move into that, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I move we close the public hearing.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Trenitz. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. And the public hearing is now closed. Commissioner, do we have any additional discussion on this item? I do, but I'm going to save it for the next one. If not, I will call for a motion on SU 26-0009.

I'll put it up there. Mr. Chair, I move approval of SU 26-0009 subject to the stipulations that have presented in the staff report.

Thank you, Commissioner Corcoran. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Taranis. Ms. Will, will you take a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Sealing?

Yes.

Commissioner Lynn? Yes. Commissioner Corcoran?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Taranis?

Yes.

Commissioner Brigitte?

No, just because I have some unanswered questions. That's all.

Commissioner Chapman? Yes. Chair Janner?

Yes.

That motion passes 7-1.

I think now we'll move on to the fifth and final public hearing, which tonight is a request for approval of the special use permit for the Johnson County Agrit Quarry expansion located southeast of 151st and 056 Highway. Welcome back, Mr. Drury. We'll present the case.

Thank you, Chair, Planning Commission, Nathan Drury, Senior Planner. So yes, this is for the request to expand the quarry now. So JCA is requesting approval to expand onto the 110-acre property at the corner of Old 56 and 151st Street. This request is to extract rock from this property by above-ground quarrying as well as underground mining. To clarify, this request does not include rock crushing on the site, stockpiling or sales on the expansion area, specifically as those operations will continue to occur on the existing quarry. The special use request is contingent on the AG zoning request as the site must first be rezoned from county to city zoning. Shown on your screen here are the above-ground quarry limits, shown in brown, which comply with the required 1,000-foot setback from residential to the north, as well as a 300-foot setback being shown to the west to comply with Olathe's screening requirements. JCA is requesting a 10-year time limit for all their surface quarrying operations to be completed. For screening, JCA is proposing to install a vegetative berm that is generally 20 or 30 feet above the existing grade along old 56. Line of sites were reviewed from multiple vantage points, including one of the highest points in the area, which is just at Lake Shore and 151st intersection there. And these do confirm that the quarry will be screened from view from that location. So after 10 years of quarrying, JCA will reclaim the surface with gradual slopes that will be ideal for future development. Altogether, reclamation will be expected to be completed within two years after quarrying is done. Next on your screen are the proposed underground mine limits. So these mine limits do comply with the 200-foot setback along Old 56 Highway from the north and west property lines, as well as I will say that the mine entrance would be located offsite as it descends underneath the existing quarry or descends underneath to the expansion quarry, I should say, and then it'll be mined underground from there. I'll just mention this, sorry, JCA is requesting a 15-year time limit or with a hard cap of the end of 2051, which is 25 years, whichever occurs first. The reason for this unusual request, I will say, is that JCA does expect mine engineering, the plans and the structural for that mine to take five to 10 years, after which they expect mining to take 15 years. The applicant did provide a future concept plan to show how the property could be developed after quarrying and mining are both complete. Buildings are shown along the north and west property lines. The area to be quarried again is not expected to support buildings due to the removal of bedrock, but this area could support parking, stormwater, or other small structures. As stipulated, the underground mine is required to be engineered to support buildings on the surface and underground warehousing could go below. The comprehensive plan designates this property as neighborhood commercial and business park. While the proposed use does not align with this future land use designation, the property could still be developed with commercial and business park uses after the land is reclaimed. To ensure alignment with the comp plan, JCA did agree to stipulations to ensure the property can be developed as shown on the concept plan. Also, the proposal does achieve goals and strategies of the comp plan. This property will not be developed until after reclamation, protecting this property from piecemeal development and allowing more contiguous development in the future. The neighborhood meeting was held in July with 44 residents. Meeting minutes from that are part of the agenda packet before you. All public notice requirements have been met. Staff did receive written comments from six individuals, which are also in agenda, and we received the five correspondence as well since publication that have been provided to you tonight. The topics from the public correspondence have really been around air quality, dust, rock spillage, blasting, water quality, and property value impacts. Again, regarding dust, this property will be reclaimed after surface coring is completed in 10 years, really limiting any dust created from this site at that point. Once, yeah, the rock spillage on public roads is also not a concern since they are not accessing a public road directly. Rock from this property will be transferred over to the rock crusher on the existing property. And so there's no concerns about rock spillage from this property itself. Regarding addressing the dust during that requested 10-year time limit, JCA did submit that dust control plan, which does include measures to reduce dust. This includes dust monitoring, watering haul roads internally, as well as limiting vehicle speeds on their property. There is no rock crusher on this expansion. So just clarifying that. And again, they do plan to make this a living document and adjust it annually as needed to comply with their operations as they change. Lastly, they will maintain the complaint log and report to city council periodically. Regarding blasting, JCA will use blasting to extract rock, which does create noise and ground vibrations. To address this concern, JCA did commission a vibration study by Vibratech, which is a third-party professional firm that specializes in vibration monitoring. This study did confirm how blasting can occur in compliance with the Lathes standards. While this study does confirm that it's possible seismic monitoring of every blast, is required in real time to review each blast for actual compliance. And those reports are sent to the fire marshal after each blast occurs. Lastly, JCA has agreed to conduct a pre-blast survey of structures within 1,800 feet of the surface quarry area, which is more than double Olathe's standard pre-blast survey distance. Also, they'll provide an automated notification service to help notify residents or anyone that signs up for it, really, that blasts are occurring at intervals that they'll be sent out leading up to the actual blast event. So in summary, this request does meet approval criteria and aligns with the comp plan as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of this expansion with the stipulations outlined in the staff report. JCA is amenable to staff's recommended steps, which are, again, regarding the topics on the slide here, hours of operation, blasting, visibility, air quality, water quality, public transparency, mine engineering, and reclamation. So with that, I'll stand for any questions, and I believe Curtis Peterson does have a brief presentation or comments on the record he'd like to make.

Thank you, Commissioner. Questions for staff? Commissioner Lin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two questions. The first one, on the future land use map that shows neighborhood commercial in that northern part of that area, Are there any other areas maybe surrounding the Oak Run neighborhood that is meant to be neighborhood commercial?

Other than this area, I don't know entirely. I'd have to look at the future land use map if there's something on another side of Oak Run.

Kim Hollingsworth, Planning and Development Manager. There is another node that's west of Prairie Highlands. So we have Oak Run. As you move further west, you have Prairie Highlands. There's a node that has been there for some time on Plan Olathe. We preserved it in Elevate Olathe. The idea is to have these nodes dispersed along major roadways near neighborhoods. And then as you go north, you get one at 135th and Hedge area is the next node. But largely there's residential development already zoned. near Oak Run.

Okay, thank you. And then how much does the underground mining affect then the future surface development?

Specifically on the property itself? Yes. So the mine itself will be engineered to make sure that there'll be a floor and a ceiling and columns in between, in essence. And they'll engineer it to make sure that that can support up to a five-story building on the surface.

Okay. Thank you. Additional questions from Commissioners?

Commissioner Brigitte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. With the 1,000-foot setback on this parcel, What is it currently? It's 1217 with this. It seems like from the nearest house or structure to where blasting would be. What is it currently? What's that distance?

From the existing quarry? Correct. Okay. I had that number. I believe it's around 1,500 maybe.

It's a couple hundred feet difference in terms of the closest blast. Let me, 1,500 versus 1,200, that's, do I have those numbers correct?

Excuse me, allow the speakers to have the floor here.

So, 1,500 feet from the existing surface quarry area is roughly to that 600 foot setback mark. um and then from the closest house to the underground mine area um would be about 12 50. okay so the the setback for underground is 600 feet but in terms of above ground blasting sorry the setback for the above ground is 600 feet the 200 foot setback is the underground What's the 1,000 foot that I saw? So this was back in 1988. These setbacks were set back then when we did not have that 1,000 foot setback requirement. So that's a new requirement. And that's why they're proposing the 1,000 foot setback.

But on the new one, it is 1,000.

It is 1,000 on the new.

So the closest is 1,250 currently. And then even with this new one, The closest would be 12, 17. Is that correct? So it's a 43-foot difference.

The underground would go down to 600. Okay. But above ground would be 12, 17.

Okay. Thank you.

All right.

All I got.

Thank you. Commissioner Brown?

Mr. Cherry, could you go back here? You had a couple slides about time limits. Could you pull the first one up? Even you said it was kind of oddly worded.

For the underground mining time limit?

Is that what you're asking? That's not the slide I'm looking for.

This one.

No. Well, yes, yes. You said that was... Oddly worded, 15 years after mine begins or 2015, whichever comes first. Whichever comes first concerns me because if 15 years comes first, then it ends after 15 years.

So it's 15 years after mining begins. So in essence, their proposal is they're going to work on their structural plans for the mine, and they expect that to take five or 10 years. And then at that point, they'll start to mine, right? And so that 15-year time clock or shot clock will start when they start mining. So if they mine five years from now, it would, in essence, be a 20-year time limit. Or if they start mining 10 years from now, it'd be a 25-year time limit.

Then why put in 2051 at all?

So I will say 2051 does set an end date. That way, if structural engineering takes 15 years for some reason, 2051 will occur before. They'd only have 10 years left, in essence, to underground mine that property.

But if the structural part of it only takes 10 years, then they have another 15 years on top of that. Less 25 years rather than... It seems like one would expire before the other, which takes precedence.

I'm trying to understand what this concern is. Sorry. So if... If they don't mine at all, 2051 is the expiration date. Okay. If they begin mining in five years, 2046 would be the expiration date because it's five plus the 15 of mining. Or if they started today, if they had all their structural engineers plans ready and were ready to start mining today, it would be a 15-year time limit. In essence, we didn't want just a 15-year time limit from the start of mining because that would not put an end date at the back end. There would be no backstop because it would only start when they start mining. And if they didn't start mining for 50 years, we wanted to have some backstop to make sure that we knew that there was a time limit of when it would stop at the very end.

You had another one, another time limit of 10 years on some site someplace. Yes.

Yeah, and so that 10-year time limit is just for the surface quarrying. So that starts the day it's approved. They're ready to go on that. So they'll start quarrying above ground, and they'll take 10 years.

When you say when it's approved, is that by council? By council, yeah. So they can actually start that in November? Yes. Thank you.

Okay, are there any additional questions for staff or applicant? Is the applicant making a presentation first? Yes, please, sir. All right. Yeah, make your way up, Mr. Peterson.

Good evening again, Chair, Commissioners Kurt Peterson, 900 West, 48th Place, Kansas City, Missouri, here on behalf of the applicant, which is Johnson County Agrates LLC, the owner of the property. Again, I have Dan Jones, our team with us here. Quickly, I'd like to provide just context and background for what really was an incredible amount, maybe record-breaking for me, with professional staff over the last number of months in detail and several pages of stipulations. I feel like, in fact, just the back and forth with what I agree Commissioner Brown really can't. I mean, we all tripped over it a little bit. What are the duration? So in very brief, I'm going to one last time have it come out of my mouth and make a few other remarks. So if you think, Kurt, why are you repeating just that, a little bit of duplication for emphasis, if you don't mind. So the existing quarry, as Mr. Drury indicated, has the indefinite SUP. We got that, you know, the whatever shape that is, the J on the screen. We've owned the approximately 110 acres, which tonight's been referred to as the expansion quarry, so I'll do the same thing. We've owned the expansion quarry land for about 25 years, and we're now ready to begin surface quarrying, as you've heard. That's the subject of this permit application before you right now. But very importantly, first time period, From the time it's approved, if it is approved by the council, we would have 10 years full stop. If there's still surface, I'm on the surface right now. If there's surface rock left to get in that surface area in green on the screen and 10 years have expired from the time, if it is by the city council, tough luck. Can't get any more surface quarrying out of that. So after 10 years, that's it. No more surface quarrying on the expansion quarry. But importantly, after the 10 years of surface mining, We will immediately, as Mr. Drury made quick reference, 10 years is up, we'll immediately spend two years on that green property on the screen and we'll reclaim it. We get it ready for development so that it can be developed in accordance with the comp plan. Whether that means commercial ground, you saw some retail up in the corner, whether it's going to be up to the city, whether the city wants parkland, whatever it is, it won't be our decision, whatever the city wants to do there. We'll have it ready and reclaimed for the city. And then after the 10 years, this is the key second part, Commissioner Brown, right? After that 10-year period, and by the way, we're over there reclaiming it for two years, we'll have been spending, that's right, I mean, it can take five, six, seven, eight years, the engineering and then getting tunneling all the way under, getting it wide enough where you can actually start to bring rock out. That can be a decade. So the bottom line is the most we could be doing underground there from a deadline perspective under that green area is what, when you think about it, the most it could be is if we get to the 10 year period on the surface. And let's say the next day we started, you know, we spent all the time to get there and we started underground mining. We'd have 15 years. And if you add that up, that's how you get that December 31st, 2051 date. But if we get there earlier and we started earlier, this was a provision to protect the city if you know what i mean commissioner it wasn't our request we just said that and staff said nah what if you get in there earlier than 10 years and you're on the surface doing your business there and and but you're underground you got there faster than you thought you only get 15 years so that would happen before 2051 fully realized i just repeated what mr jury said but hopefully through that we're all crystal clear on on the time limits So all of that is just a very quick context and background really for the why, why we're asking to do what we want to do, and then also the what, you know, what exactly you're going to be doing. But the last remaining issue I wanted to touch on because we've again spent months and months working on it is the how. How are we going to do this on that 110, 809 acres in green on the screen there, above ground and underground? So from the beginning, when we first conceived of this and we started internally coming up with our thesis statements and our commitments, then we had a meeting with the neighborhoods to our north and northwest that was well attended. And then we met with city staff and worked for a long time with city staff and now this planning commission. We've been dedicated to one thesis statement that we mean it, said in front of all those groups I just said, said this, and now it's ultimately here before you and ultimately the council this. If we don't make the situation better off for the community, if you don't think we're making it better off through everything we're proposing and through the two and a half pages of stipulations from staff that we're gonna have to live with, then you probably shouldn't support it. But if we do make it better off than just having us continue with our indefinite SUP meeting all legal obligations that we do today, and we always will, I think it's pretty compelling to support this and make things better off. So as we've developed our detailed operational plans and commitments that have been then translated into this lengthy proposed stipulations by staff, We're trying to create an overall operation, overall, the application we're hearing now and the application you heard a few minutes ago, overall as one quarry, something that is dramatically better operated from dust and blasting and everything you can think of than what we have today. And the standard that will be met is we will be the quarry that is the best operated quarry and the quarry that everybody looks to, not only in the city of Olathe with the other quarries right around us, but in the entire metro. So rather than regurgitate at this point staff's presentation, the staff report, all the stipulations and the lengthy dust control plan, I thought I'd just close with mentioning a couple of high level points just to kind of bring it back. And of course, as you know, there's a couple of unanswered questions I'm going to answer too. But please ask questions because there's a lot of substance here. And if there's anything unanswered in your mind, I want to be able to address those. So we focus heavily on these areas. Mr. Drury had a similar sort of list. dust control and air quality, blasting-related conditions, screening, 159th Street specifically, you heard one of the residents mention it. There's a big focus in the neighborhood meeting. And then testing, reporting, and kind of transparency-related items. And we gathered our input. We didn't have what's in front of you now on day one. We didn't at all. As staff will attest, it's changed a lot and been enhanced and substantiated. And we picked up all our feedback from... The neighborhood meeting that we had, we heard a lot there. It was helpful and we had changed a lot. We heard from city staff over the last number of months. We heard from county officials because we did, again, we have a regulatory body at the county that knows our quarry very well. And we consulted with experts there. We consulted with the third-party engineering consultant, again, that was the author of the 2023 baseline study, and then also the dust control plan that's in your packet. And then, of course, we honestly, it was interesting, we consulted with all the employees that are out there at the quarry every day, like, how could we do better at this? We put all that together, and that's what led to what you have here today. So the result of that... is the proposed stipulations and the associated plan sheets, that's part of this SUP application before you. So with great confidence, I will say this in closing, I can assure you that what's before you tonight will make the surrounding community better through all these details, and that it'll be much better than meeting legal requirements under the status quo that's going to go on for a really long time. And as I said a moment ago, this quarry undeniably will be the leader. It'll be what's looked to as the standard in Olathe and a lot of cities in there. Quick pivot now to a few unanswered questions, Commissioner, if that's okay, from the dais. Commissioner Birgitta, you asked, this is our deferred question answer to start, I took away from your question from the last hearing was, show me that residents are going to be better off from a blasting perspective. That was one. And then I kind of felt like you said, and really just overall, how are residents going to be better off? And you can build on that if you'd want or do it now if you'd like.

Not even necessarily better off, but how is it going to impact them differently than what they're currently experiencing?

Yeah. We're saying the same thing, but I understand what you're saying. When it comes to blasting, because really dust and blasting, I would say were the, in whichever order, number one, number two, issues that were raised at the neighborhood meeting. And so let's take blasting first. Staff actually put up a couple slides and there were some question and answer about it. And I'm going to really identify what that was. That was our blast study done by our blasting expert. That's here if we really want to get into the weeds. And what it showed is really two things. if I had to summarize it in two ways, I would say that first, what the blasting study found is that in the worst case, this is direct quote, worst case vibration scenario. And I say that because again, you can imagine how deep a blasting expert is and all their assumptions. They take, there's two different standards. They take the one that's most conservative, if you know what I mean, the one that can make things look the worst. If you take that and you look at in the, on that spectrum, what the worst case will estimated vibration is. Here was the conclusion. that the nearest to, they always look at what's closest, right? The nearest two residential structures is going to have vibration that is less than half of the USBM. That's that United States Bureau of Mines, the internationally accepted standard. Less than half of the USBM ground vibration limit. So just kind of get context. Remember how we saw the last six months of vibrations on that one table sometime tonight? And the triangle and the Xs were way down here. It's saying that's the estimated result here. And then the other notable result from this study that's done on what will happen with blasting, again, this hearing, the green, the 110 acres in the northwest corner, is that the conclusion was that the blasting ranges in the worst-case scenario are in the similar range that they are today when we're blasting all the way over, and this is going to build on my next Commissioner Birgitta good question, where we're blasting, I'm doing my hand like you can see, over where it says, you know, M2, right, over there. And so I'm going to transition into that. Again, similar ranges, not worse off, which I think is the essence, if I understand Mr. Brigitte's question, is that. But then I want to transition because you asked another good question. Now, this was during this hearing. You were talking about distances. You're like, wait a second, show me the relative distances. And honestly, I thought one of your questions, because I think staff was addressing your question, but even another part of your question was, You remembered seeing a slide that showed that we have blasting today. This is on the existing quarry down in the core of the site, kind of where, think of the middle of the purple-ish, right, where the M2 is. And I think your brain was telling you, I think those distances are farther than when you go up into the green ag. So I think that's, again, I'm kind of formulating that for you because I think it's a really, really good question you have. And the answer is that, and again, so you don't just believe Kurt Peterson, Obviously, I've spent months and months and months and months helping put all this together. But I have a vibration expert, the author here, if we need to go that deep. But the essence of it is this. The reason we have ranges like this and the reason we have a city formula that when it says how much can you blast and what's the impact going to be and all that, it's a formula that looks at not only distance, but it looks at the power of the blast, if you know what I mean. So what does that practically mean? We use larger charges when we're in the middle of the site there to get a certain stay below half of what's permitted by the time you get to homes in the northwest. As we move closer, whether that be surface or that be underground, our blasts have to back off more and more and more and more. And it's designed in an unbelievably meticulous way. And then just because if I'm a neighbor, this is the thing I'd be thinking as I said that would be, that's nice that you showed a study That's going to make sure that it stays in the same vibration range. Again, back to Mr. Birgitta's question. But how do we know that's what's really going to happen? And the important part there is we have a stipulation, and I think this is even UDO, actually, that within several days of every single blast, our seismic monitors have to report that to the fire marshal, and all of that can be tracked back to the vibration levels we're telling you we're going to operate at. We have to do that. That's part of our approval. So I wanted to just close. This is actually a comment for the public. I thought it was worthwhile, Chair, to just mention this quickly. We had a back and forth at the neighborhood meeting where really like true understanding that we don't know who was talking to Mr. Quackenbush. We don't doubt that it happened, and believe him, a long time ago. Here's how I would differentiate that we are absolutely in a different place. We're people of integrity. And it's not just believe us. It's go back and ask professional staff again and again as suggestions. Will you do this? Yeah. 90%. Will you do that? Sure. We can do that. Will you do this? Yeah, we might need to tweak that. We can do that. But then we didn't stop there. We also said, okay, please put it in stipulations. We have to live by it. We have to do the reporting. We have to do the meetings. We have to make it all publicly available through the city. We're not hiding from anything. So I apologize on behalf of whoever that was that gave Mr. Quackenbush that experience, but that's absolutely not what's going to happen if this is approved, given all the stipulations that we have to live by. With that, Chair, I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any.

Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant?

One more question.

Go ahead, Commissioner Brown.

We've been told that the majority of the dust is created by the crusher. The movement of the dust is a function of the wind, obviously. Can you tell us where on this slide that crusher actually exists? Mm-hmm.

I'd be happy to. There's actually a slide that circles it. Do I control that? Is that? Yeah. And just, if you don't mind, I'll address this while we're getting the slide up. From the very beginning, one item we noted we'd like to be held to is that that's where that crusher stays. The crusher doesn't move closer to the neighbors. It stays right there.

Sorry.

I can see there's a circle, too, on one of them, but we can point it out if we need to with the cursor. It's right in the middle of the property. Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Seeley?

I'll just follow on to that one real quick. There was another slide that showed a picture of the crusher and then what the dust control measures put on it. Can you explain what that is we're looking at?

I know which one you're thinking of, yes. So we have two nationally known companies for dust mitigation related to crushers. And we actually, this is their, funny, this is the busy season because crushers break and they're wanted everywhere. But we got on the books several months ago, whatever it was, for them to come. And we actually have, we've been dealing with them remotely, right? And so we're really warmed up with them, but they're actually coming this week to meet with us. And then we're immediately going into the very specifics of what are we ordering so that we can meet our deadline of having the crusher fully enhanced by... whatever it is, June 1st or July 1st, whatever's in the record. It's summer coming up. And while the finest of details, that's exactly what we're working out, they'll be substantial. I've been involved in these discussions with them. And I think the one that I would highlight the most that we've talked with professional staff about is at the, and Dan will kick me if I get terms slightly wrong, but the most dust is created within the crusher. The most dust is created at the transfer points And so these transfer points, what we're really looking at is being able to enclose them, which is a really good way to have a fail-safe that you've mitigated dust. There's lots of other things, but that seemed to be one of the biggest leaps forward in those improvements. What do you expect those measures to produce as far as dust reduction? The neighbors asked the same question. It's a fair question. And because we have people that are not going to hyperbolize, you know, it's really hard. But going back to the good baseline, I mean, you can't know, right, until you have a baseline. We have a really good baseline. And just say there's significant dollars going towards this, there will be a huge difference. It sounds to me like it's measurable. It will be measurable, absolutely. Because you already have a baseline. That's right. Thank you, sir.

Any additional questions? Commissioner Brigitte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, we're going to go back to distances and just the same way you repeated things just to make sure we're on the same page. I'm going to do it one more time just to make sure. It doesn't bother me. So there has been no subterranean blasting to date. Correct. Of the existing mining area, the closest underground blasting would be 1250.

So I'm going to say this, and I'm going to ask staff where there's an exhibit. I'm going to say this to you. Of course, I have the controls. I keep thinking you have the controls. Let's start with this, and we'll build to get to the answer to your question. When there's underground blasting per UDO, you cannot get closer. There's a setback of 200 feet. So let's start there. So whatever the measurement is that you're asking about is going to be at the 200 feet. going to be at the 200 foot line and the and to repeat back to you the question you're asking is what is the closest distance we get from the 200 foot line that is the closest underground blast to the closest structure is that your question that is correct yeah i actually can't get that so not not from the road yeah i'm going to give you an answer and while i'm looking for it also say that is the very thing we studied and what i explained remember the two findings from the blast study not not making it worse etc but but i'll give you that measurement in just about

10 seconds. And then while you're doing it, if we can, currently the closest surface level blasting that's going on is 1550. And with the new area, it would be 1217.

Okay. If you have grace with me with compound questions, do you mind if we do the first one and then ask that one again? No, not at all.

Not at all.

So the answer to your question, which is in the blast study presented to staff, so this is an exhibit there. is for underground mining to the closest structure, which is, well, yeah, do I have a cursor? Yeah, which is the structure that's right in this area here, and then the second closest is right here, so I'll give you both distances, and we're measuring from the closest point at the 200-foot setback for an underground blast, right? We're doing the repeat to each other thing, so we're on the same page. The answer is to the closest structure is 611 feet, And then why we're talking about these things from surface, which is the 1,000-foot setback to that same home, is 1,217 feet.

Okay. So I was off 50 feet. Okay. So on the existing, though, is that for, and I know it hasn't happened yet, but the subterranean would be 1,250. Is that accurate? And then what has been done is 1550 on the surface.

Do I have that? Like, do you have that measurement? I'm trying to think. From the existing, if we do the 200-foot setback, do we have a measurement off the top of it? I'm trying to picture something that has that.

It's further away than the expansion property, so we did.

I'll repeat it in a second.

We don't have.

Okay. For everybody to hear.

Nathan Jury, Senior Planner. Tony, just to answer your question, the measurements that I did provide, those were measurements that I took off of our mapping software. And based on the setbacks of the existing glory that were shown, Yes, it was 1250 from the underground to that nearest structure and 1550 from the surface quarry limits to the nearest.

So we're talking about 333 foot change on above ground and then underground we're talking about a 639. Is that accurate?

I can't do math in my head like that, but it sounds about right.

It's close enough. So why is the subterranean closer than the surface level? Is it just because the rocks are there, or why is that? Because right now, from my reading of the report, it goes up to 0.12, and 10, 15 years from now, it could go up to 0.17. And I don't know if that's a huge difference or not, but other... readings are at 0.02.

It's not. Again, we have our expert here, but it's likely not perceivable, that range. And it's the one house. Again, we did this on purpose, like find the closest place. That reading, in the worst case scenario, that's likely not perceivable, is just that one house, nothing else. We wanted to still show that. And back to your just being able to picture this, the underground, while you don't know until you finish the five, six, seven years of engineering, is likely gets into 300 to 400 foot deep. And back to what I talked about blasting, it's really important to... visualize in our mind, the blasting is so much smaller in terms of charge. I mean, again, I've heard, I won't say it on the record because I won't get it exactly right, but I've heard from our blasting experts that it's one and then divided by big number compared to when we're doing surface blast, certainly surface blast in the middle of our site today. So much, much smaller charges.

Is that the charge weight in this table? The charge weight is the... Is the charge weight what you're talking about, the strength of the blast, like the 85 versus the 380? It is.

It's listed in the table. And again, that's underpinning all these analysis of the blast study to show that this is not going to change current conditions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Are there any additional questions for the applicant?

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, so we'll be moving forward now to the public hearing, which is a good opportunity for me to review some of the things that we talked about earlier in the meeting. Because I know going through multiple public hearings, it sounds like we're hearing a lot of the same thing. We're talking a lot about dust. We're talking a lot about blasting and distance and stuff, and it's all important. As we get up into our public hearing, the primary purpose of this is hearing new information. What have we not heard that we need to take into consideration as we move forward? In honor of everybody's time, we're not looking to repeat what's already been said. So just kind of keep that in mind as you go. This is, of course, the public hearing that everybody signed up for, so we've got a lot longer list of names here, so we'll kind of go some procedures of how that works. I'll call the speaker up, and I'll also call up the person next to them, that is after them. And I'd appreciate it if both of you would come up and the second person could be at the chair next to the podium so we can roll right into the next speaker and kind of keep this moving in honor of everyone's time. And move forward on that so that we can, and it's the same rules as far as state and your name, address for the record. Please observe the clock and work with that as well. We'll get through this and figure out how we move forward. So starting off on our public hearing, I will now open the public hearing. Mr. Quackenbush, you're first on the list again. Nancy Bottlemy is listed as second. And at some point when I do call your name, If you're opting to pass because your comments have already been made, let me know at that time.

Okay. Dan Quackenbush, 1405 South Lake Stone, Olathe, obviously. I just have to finish what I started in the first one. During the August meeting, the quarry staff indicated that they would deed city land to allow 151st Street to go straight through. That's something we haven't heard before. They also promised $2 or $3 million to do something for the intersection at 56 Highway and Lakeshore Drive and 150 First. Now, first, I haven't heard a single person from our neighborhood or the other neighborhood that thinks that any of that is important to the neighborhood. It sounds like a bribe to the Planning Commission.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Quagmire. Nancy Bottomey, followed by, I assume, her husband, Douglas Bottomey. And if I mispronounce your name, I ask for forgiveness up front.

Nancy Bottles. Like, bottle me up. I'm at 1404 South Lake Stone Drive. Thank you for listening to us today. We are the members of the community of the city of Olathe, and I think what you haven't heard is some of what we've had to try to come up with some time to work through ourselves without having the opportunities for this to be our jobs where we have the time to put together lots of stuff. So you maybe haven't gotten many things from many of us, but we've certainly not been derelict in our duties in trying to come up with some information to share with you. Forgive me while I read my own chicken scratch. I'm glad that some of the city planners have given some preapproval, but what you haven't gotten is the preapproval from some of the citizens that live in this community. Some of our planning includes things that are taking care of our families. We have, from what I can figure, about five generations of families that live in this area. And we're taking care of everything from young to old. Some of us are getting people, we're getting our parents moving in with us. And they are sensitive to some of the dust levels and some of the noise levels. And part of the reason we like this community and being right outside of it is the fact that it is a little bit more quiet. And we are a happy community that are very communicative with each other. And we plan things together with each other. And we try to share everything with all those around us. But our plans are our standards and not industry standards. Community citizen standards are for communities and citizens. And we depend on you, the Planning Commission, and then the city and county of Olathe or Johnson County and Olathe City to take care of us. But industry standards are set up to take care of the industry. If this quarry has been around since like the 1800s, how old are some of these standards? I know they get updated through the years. I'm not a fool. But standards are still set in place to take care of the industry and not to take care of the community and the citizens around them. And I'd like you to take that into account when you think about whether or not this goes forward. The community actually is directly across from this extended use plan, this expansion piece. The rest of the property is over here from us if we're all facing this map. But we are directly across the street from this expansion plan, and it does have an impact. My husband has recently become a house husband, and he called me the other day and wanted to know what that noise was in the middle of the day. I'm not kidding. And it was indeed what you think it might be. It was blasting. And it was the first time he had realized that sound, and it surprised him enough that he brought it up to me. So please keep in mind that citizen plans and citizen standards are probably different than industry standards. And I ask you to think about who they help. One of the things that maybe you also haven't heard is, you know, creating a problem that doesn't exist. Why I did not hear you bring up the fact that what we heard in the neighborhood meeting was that some money would be given to the planning committee or the city of Olathe that was going to help this intersection. But it was also said in the next breath that the city could do with it that money, whatever it wanted. Okay, well, then it's not to fix a problem that doesn't exist, meaning the intersection there. It is for something else, and I do ask the question of what that would be for. And it does look bad on the city of Olathe, ultimately, if monies are being given for a problem that does not exist. And lastly, I guess I would like to bring up the fact that I haven't heard from anybody that I find it, quite honestly, a little disheartening that the city of Olathe would even consider, and with all due respect, this planning commission would even consider putting your citizens' health and the way we raise our families and the way we try to interact and be proactive in our communities, and you would put us at risk at the benefit of what? In return for... or maybe potentially the plot of land to come back to the city of Olathe that can't have land put or big properties put on it because we heard that tonight. Maybe it can have a pond or a walkway. I love our parks and trails in the area. I have friends that work on them and keep them updated. I think they're beautiful. But in the next breath, they can do with this whatever they want when it is given back to them. Okay, well, a fat lot of good that does me now. And I do have to live with the sound of the blasting. And even though it does fall within industry standards, who do those benefit? So please keep in mind the industry standards and who they benefit. That, you know, please don't put the city and any kind of monies they might be getting ahead of our citizens. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy. Doug Bottlemy is next, and Mary Beth Mora, if you could make your way up.

Doug Bottlemy, 1404 South Lake Stone in Olathe. Can you all hear me okay?

Okay.

Great. Thank you very much for inviting us and let us speak up on our behalf and addressing you. I guess as far as looking at new information, you know, one, my wife did refer to the fact that I didn't know what the blasting sounded like. I have not been here the entire time that we have moved in. We're moving from out in the west, and it's been a big move, so we're doing a lot of things. It's a very involved situation. On the other hand, I was kind of surprised to just be sitting out having a cup of coffee, watching the birds by the lake and, you know, hear an explosion. Um, for any of you that'd like to, you know, see what, uh, you know, your ears hear or what you see, or you want to run down 159th and have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with me at lunch, by all means, feel free to invite yourself or call me. I'm glad to show you. And you can, you know, taste the grit in your sandwich and you can like hear the blasting at the, the, you know, on the porch. More than glad to share that with you. Um, I think that, uh, I think that since 1988, they've made good use of the property that they have. I'd hate to see that this extends any further or that you deviate from the plan that you had created back then, showing that there was going to be some support for the community commercially and possibly additional jobs right there. I don't see why it needs to be changed into ag land. I think that's a bad vote on this planning commission's part. I'd encourage the entire commission or the entire county board not to vote that way. But if you do want to just experience it for yourselves and see what it's really about, please feel free to give me a call. I'm the only bottle me in the phone book.

Thanks, Doug. Mary Beth Mora, followed by Kim Erickson.

Yes, I'm Mary Beth Mora, and I and my husband and two granddaughters live on 24600 West 151st Street. We are that property. It's 611 feet from us. that place that is being talked about. So there are many reasons why we must not allow for this quarry project to go forward. I'm going to start from minor to major, so bear with me with what may seem initially smaller reasons, but in order of importance. Blasting and machinery generates high noise levels, causing stress and behavioral changes in wildlife and pets. We live a distance already from blasting, and we see that. with our dog. Okay. The dust that quarrying raises travels far, settling on plants and affecting their growth. That is a scientific fact. We've lived in many places and we've never had so much dust to deal with in our homes as we have in this place. But We love it anyway. We deal with it. But bring that closer. It would be different. It would affect the plants. It would affect our vegetation and our gardens, our vegetables. The next thing is the foundations of our homes in the area will be compromised by the underground movement from the impact of the blastings. And then the value of our property will go down considerably. What we have spent years with sweat and tears developing for our family and our posterity would have to be considered a loss. This is unacceptable. I know there have been some people that have lived in the area that say that if this goes through, they're moving. So I don't like to think that everybody's property value will be going down and that will change things a lot. But most importantly, and I'm saying this from a perspective of a mother, grandmother, also a nurse. Our health will be affected in significant ways. The fine dust particles generated by quarrying will most likely contain silica, which is naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand, and clay. This silica can be easily inhaled by those living close to a quarry. Once inside the lungs, these dust particles are attacked by the immune system which causes silicosis, a disease that can take years to develop. It causes swelling and scarring in the lungs. The NHS website states that people with silicosis may become bed bound and in rare instances even it can be fatal. It can also lead to lung diseases such as COPD and lung cancer. The dust exposure can cause eye problems too. Hearing can be affected. The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health conducted a study comparing two groups, one far from a quarry and the other near the quarry. Those residing closer to the quarry had a higher prevalence of respiratory symptoms like nasal congestion, cough, asthma, and deteriorating lung function. Those especially susceptible are the young and elderly. My husband and I are getting up there in years, and we are raising our granddaughters on the very property, like I said, that is closest to the prospective quarry. We live right across the street. We need to stay healthy for our girls who lost both parents and depend on us. We are appealing to our city officials to put the health and well-being of us, the residents of the city, above any other endeavor. People's health must always take priority over economic growth.

Thank you, Kim Erickson. Carolyn Erickson.

My name is Kim Erickson. My address is 2604 West 150th Street. in the housing addition that you've seen called Lakeshore Estates. I wonder, would it be inappropriate if I showed a photo of what it looks like in the field when you see all the dust? Can I pass this around? Legal?

It's your five minutes.

Beg your pardon?

It's your five minutes.

Five minutes, okay. In the background, I'm standing right at old Highway 56 and 151st Street. That's the quarry and the dust on the way to it. That comes right into our neighborhood.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I don't have anything that you haven't heard already. We talk about not necessarily new things. But what you haven't heard is the impact that comes with having to face this dust and noise potentially any day of the week. And if you haven't experienced that, You can't really respond, I don't think, well to this situation. And we're trying to do our best to do what we think we can do I hope that the stipulations that you have put down or are suggested somehow can be enforced because they haven't been in the past. Thank you. Thank you, Kim.

Carolyn Erickson, followed by Terry Ostenfeld.

I'm Carolyn Erickson. I live at 2604 West 150th Street. That was my husband that just spoke. My father built his house in Lake Stone Estates in 1980. He moved there, built his house there because he thought it was a beautiful, quiet, peaceful, lovely neighborhood. And He had lived in the city for a long time, and he was ready to get out someplace nice like that. It was quiet for a long time until the quarry came. And when it came, like everyone has said, the dust and the blasting was amazing. We would come up periodically. We lived in Oklahoma. Yes, the wind blows there too, but I had never seen such a mess. My mother was a white glove artist. No dust in the house, okay? But there certainly was dust all the time that she had to take care of. It was bad. I mean, when you'd hear the blasting, you could hear the glasses in the china closet rattle. Now, that's blasting noise. And right as you turn into off of Lake Stone Drive, we're the third house in. And if it rattles our stuff like that, I can't imagine what it does to their house there on the corner. We're right behind them, just behind them a ways. It's not right. It's not right. We moved up here three years ago following my father's death and everything. We moved up here three years ago permanently. I've never had such allergies, my eyes watering, and all that kind of thing since we've moved here. Coughing, all that kind of stuff. I go to the doctors and I say, what's wrong up here? I think what's wrong up here is the the atmosphere that we're living in. It's not right. It's just not right. It's not right what we breathe. It's not right what we have to live with, what we have to deal with every single day. You get your car washed. If you don't put your garage door down immediately, your car is dirty immediately. I mean, it's just dirty from all the dust that comes into the garage. It's just not right. And if it's going to be more so, and it will be, and I can't imagine it being that close to 056, going all the way around there, that we're not going to have a major, major problem and the people over on the other side, in Oak Run, aren't going to have... significant amount of problems, too. We all need to stay healthy, and right now, that's not happening, what we're having to breathe and having to deal with. Thank you.

Thank you, Carolyn. Thank you. Terri Austin-Feld, followed by Chuck Brandenhoff? Burke. Brandon Burke. My apologies. Terri?

Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Terry Ostenfeld. My address is 1614 South Lake Stone Drive. Many of my neighbors have already commented on things I was going to address, but I would second the emotion that you can come and sit in my house anytime as well. The blasting literally feels like you're in an earthquake and it hits your house. Your entire house shakes. So if you just want to know, please, you're invited to my house as well. Again, I really don't want to repeat what others have said, but hopefully I can expound a little bit on the issues that we're facing. And here's what I want the commission to understand. What I have heard Attorney Peterson say here today is that the vibrations are going to stay in the same range even with the quarry moving closer. Believe me, that gives us zero comfort because the vibrations that we are already experiencing are unacceptable. Our foundations have cracked. You can say, well, everybody's foundation cracks. This is settling. It's not. And I can show you a photograph. I have landscape rocks in my yard that were limestone rocks unearthed when my house was built in 1982. They're cracked all the way down the middle. This is not settling. These are 12 feet across, and this is what the vibration from the quarry has done. These rocks have lasted the ice age, but yet the quarry vibration is what's taken them down. The other thing I'd like to address that I've not heard addressed by the neighbors is that the issue of the underground blasting. We've been told that, don't worry, we're going to move the blasting underground. That's not the panacea that the quarry wants you to think it is. I invite you to do even a quick Google search of what happens when you blast underground versus surface blasting. it will tell you that moving blasting underground does not eliminate the issue, while it eliminates the issue of fly rock, the ground vibrations that are experienced at surface can actually be more intense when you move blasting underground. This stands to reason because open air blasting, which they're doing now. Some of this energy caused by the blasting vents out into the open air. But when you move it underground, all of that explosive energy is trapped in the rock and directly converted into ground vibration. So you can see the damage that's already caused. Keeping the vibrations at the same level is not going to help us at all. Secondly, what I think is most important is the issue of dust. And to someone who's not experienced what we're experiencing, dust. So what? Big deal. Your car gets dirty. That's not the problem. What the problem is, is what's contained in this dust. And as one of the neighbors has mentioned, we're looking at hazardous crystalline silica dust. This is classified as a known human carcinogen. Breathing it in causes incurable lung damage. Call me slow. I'm just putting all this together because I've just lived in my house two years. But the gentleman, the widow who I bought my house from, did die of lung cancer. I have a screened porch on the south side of my house. It's basically unusable because no matter how much you clean it, every single day, everything in there is covered with dust, not just dust. Again, this is incredibly unhealthy things that we're breathing. Come to my house, breathe this. We can't open our windows. It makes your throat dry. It makes your chest hurt. And this is what we're living with. for the quarry owners to tell us that, no, don't worry, we're gonna stipulate, we're gonna make sure that moving this quarry isn't any worse than you have right now. Well, that's not really good enough. The stipulations that they were making, stipulations were made in 1988, they didn't solve the problem, that's just it. Keeping under the, whatever the standards are, hasn't solved the problem before. Why should we accept or believe that they're going to solve the problem in the future? I would ask that you deny the application because it is not just inconveniencing the people in our neighborhood, it's poisoning us. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Terri. Chuck Brandenburg and Greg Reno, next. Been sitting too long.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Chuck Brandenburg. My wife and I bought a house two years ago at 25344 West 144th Street. If you don't know where that is, it's Highlands on the Green. The other day we were outside and my neighbor goes, what was that? And it was a huge explosion. And we're kind of new to what's going on with this process. And so I get here tonight and I heard about the dynamiting. And obviously that's what it was because there was no airplane crash. But anyway, we do have a dust issue where we leave the car out. It gets dusty, as Carolyn was explaining. Most of my career, I worked as a CFO for a grain company. And... EPA was honest all the time about our dust system because the people in the towns, you know, they wash clothes. The dust would get on the clothes. And so we had to take precautions about dust. and in a grain elevator it's edible you know it comes from an edible product like corn beans milo wheat um so when we moved here i i i couldn't believe the dust going on at at the quarry um but uh i think i i don't envy your job it's it's tough i know but um I'd just like to leave you with this thought. Respectfully, would you move in that neighborhood? Would you pick up your family and move in that neighborhood? That's all I have. Thank you.

Thanks, Chuck. Greg Reno, followed by Katie Slater. Did I get that right?

My name is Greg Reno, 1514 South Lake Stone Drive. My wife and I moved here nine years ago from Iowa. I commuted back and forth and worked through the weekday. The first month we were down, my wife heard an explosion. She didn't know what had happened. If it was an earthquake, as the last speaker said, if a plane had crashed, she ran outside, didn't know what to do. but learned later that it was from the mines. Now, I will say thank you. It's not as bad as it used to be, but we remodeled our home two years ago. We have cracks already in our new sheetrock. Each time there's a blast, we have the knockdown from the ceiling comes down. We know when there was a blast because we come home and there's white flecks all over our floor. And that's very annoying. Another thing about the berm, if you look at, I wish that map was up, but where there used to be offices, there's now a rock berm there. As I said, we moved down from Iowa, so we had a lot of friends come and see us. And we came driving from east to west, and our friend said, what is that, their words, ugly pile of rock doing up there? So, well, that's the quarry. That's the berm so you don't see what's going on. It is an ugly berm. And I agree with what the last speaker said. I don't want to be in your shoes to make this decision. You have a tough decision. At the same time, I feel sorry for you as quarry people. I'm a small business owner also. I have been all my life. We're in a changing world. The world that I farm, the regulations, we are regulating ourselves to death. I wish that happened to them as the last speaker said about the dust. Ag with dust and corn and soybeans, I know where I sell grain, the elevators are shut down just to get rid of dust. Think about that. As I said, we have doors in our house that we can't close because the foundation has shifted. As I said, I feel sorry for you. You guys have a tough decision. We are in a changing world. The world around your quarry has moved in. One of us is going to move out in all seriousness. It's up to you guys to decide. There's a lot of beautiful homes up all around there. This could be developed. Just because there's a quarry there now doesn't mean it has to stay there. Just because there's homes there now doesn't mean those people have to stay there either. I'll just close with this. As I said, we came from Iowa. I farm in Iowa, and if you remember hearing about the Dakota Access Pipeline that came down through Iowa from South Dakota, that went right through our farm. They promised us everything. We are gonna dig this in, we're gonna put the pipe in, and when we leave, you won't even notice we were there. My wife doesn't like this, but this is my word. They raped our soil. 300 feet wide, this has been over 10 years ago, you can still see where they went through. The quarry can make great promises, have great intentions, but if nothing is followed through on, and if you don't answer to the public, it's wasted words. I pray you guys make the right decision for all of us. Thank you.

Katie Slater, followed by Lori Quackenbush.

Hi. I'm Kathy Slater. I have lived in Lakeshore Estates since late 1979, so a long time. It is a beautiful area, and we have loved living there. We have dealt with the quarry for almost 40 years now with the dust and the blasting, just like everybody else said. We have cracks in our sheetrock as well as one in our foundation, too. There is nothing about the quarry that's going to benefit any of our neighbors, not in our neighborhood, Lake Stone, not in Oak Run, not in Prairie Highlands. It's going to affect everybody because the dust and the sound and the vibrations travel a long way. So I appreciate what they've said, the quarry people, but honestly, we've lived with them for all these years, and nothing has been done to mitigate the problem, not the noise, not the dust or anything. So it's hard for us to really believe what they say, even though I'm sure they're going to try to do it, but we've had experience with them not following through. I know it's hard for you all to probably understand if you don't live in any of these areas or anything close to that, but I hope that you will consider our quality of life and also our property values as you make the decision. And we appreciate your listening. Thanks.

Thank you, Kathy. Lori Quackenbush, followed by Don Thomas.

Yes, Lori Quackenbush, 1405 South Lake Stone Drive. And I'm sorry, I should have just waved my right. But I really do want to invite you all to go on a field trip. And seriously, please, drive out there. See what we're seeing and living with every day. Because have any of you been out there? okay just a couple of you but you really all need to go and maybe you'll see from our point of view because it is awful and we love living there we've lived there since nineteen eighty and we have no plans on going anywhere we plan to die there which is kinda scary now that i think about it but you know i i don't i want to live long and i don't want to have all this dust and crap that we see and intake shortening my life. You know, I don't have that many years left. So please consider all the homes, all the people around. Thank you.

Thank you, Lori. Don Thomas. Let's go on to Cynthia Peterson. Followed by Steve Schakowsky. What's that?

Hi. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm Cindy Peterson. I live at 1506 South Lake Stone Drive. Our house was built in 78, so it was one of the earlier houses. We've lived there since 2004. My parents, we built an addition on. My dad was an architect. In fact, he would have loved this fight. He was an architect who liked to engage and practice law without a license. But if you know him, you know that's true. He probably appeared before you guys at some point years ago. And so we knew the people who we bought the house from warned us about the quarry. And we thought, well, how bad can that be, right? We love the property. We bought the house. My dad designed an addition for my parents to live in by us. But as soon as we moved in, we realized what the problems were. And I don't probably, you know, I mean, it's all the same thing, the blasting and the dust. But this afternoon, my house is shut up and the air conditioning's on. And I can clean off the counter. And I can come back two hours later and there's a little grit on the counter. That's not with the windows open. The windows are open. How many days do we have winds from the south? Pretty good winds from the south. That's coming straight over the quarry and straight into our neighborhood. So they say, well, we're going to test the wind, and if it's too windy, we won't plop. What do they mean by too windy? Because it doesn't matter. Even if it's a slight breeze, dust everywhere. And now my grandson and his family have moved in where my parents live. They both passed. And they have a 22-month-old and a five-month-old. So we have our great-grandchildren there. The 22-month-old has developed a cough that isn't related to a respiratory illness. So I'm hoping it's not related to the dust. But I would say we're not planning on moving because of that, but it really does make me think about their health growing up. And we want to protect them as much as possible. I figure that, I mean, my opinion about what's going to happen is it's a done deal, but I wanted to express so that you would at least know that people in the neighborhoods that live around there, hopefully you'll think about your decision. Thank you.

Thank you, Cynthia. Okay, that's our final scheduled speaker tonight. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

I move we close the public hearing.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Taronis. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And the public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, let's move on to additional discussion on this item.

Chair.

Go ahead. Thank you, Chair.

You know, I live in Western Latham. I think it was about a couple of years ago, I wasn't on the Planning Commission then, by the way. Maybe it was three years ago then. But a gentleman came to our house, all the neighborhood, and dropped off flyers. And it was an educational flyer about what was about to happen, that I would be experiencing these blasts. So I have experienced a blast. It is, you know, and to be honest, it didn't last long, but I do remember the concern that I had, because I'm pretty picky, and there was enough vibration in our home. And I was definitely concerned about foundation issues and cracks. None of that materialized, but again, it was short-lived. but I do remember hearing it, a boom, sonic boom type, and the whole house, we had a large house, the whole house shook. But luckily we didn't see any, I did go around looking for cracks and foundation, inside, outside, and nothing materialized that I'm aware of from what I could see. So I sympathize, with these comments. They're very moving, heartfelt. Please know that whatever the outcome is, it's just a recommendation. My colleagues have asked a lot of good questions. And we're not elected officials. We're just going to listen. And by the way, thank you for your comments. You're very well received. But it's just a recommendation. It's up to your city council that they can add different factors to what's in front of them. They could do a number of things. So I want to thank you and also want to take a minute to thank the staff. It was a lengthy report. And you look at this and you sometimes have to read it two or three times to understand. But so I want to thank the staff for the detail and the information, including the comments that we received from the public. So I want to thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Trenas. Commissioner Birgitta?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all of those that extended invites to us to come visit your neighborhood, I would extend that to City Council. Because as Commissioner Drona said, ultimately they have the final decision. I did have another question for the applicant regarding the setback. Mainly, if we were to propose an amendment so that the setback matched existing the existing site. So whatever that calculation is, whether it's an additional 300 feet and then you put the same spot for the underground blasting as well, would that be amenable or would the applicant be open to that?

Commissioner, we worked a long time on our dimensions, and I will say we actually went 1,000 feet, which is current UDO, as compared to 600 feet, which is the existing quarry, which is hard. That's a lot of rock that's left there, but we thought it was the right thing to do and meet current UDO. And then underground is underground, and we really need the extent of that, which is the 200-foot setback. Again, we're going 300 or 400 feet. So that would be a no. Right. We want to stay with what we propose. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Okay. Any additional questions? Commissioner Chapman.

Thank you, Chair. I very much appreciate all of the comments by our citizens, and I believe they have some legitimate concerns, which I do believe, like my colleagues, that they should bring these before City Council. However... Our job at Planning Commission is do these proposals, any proposal, do they conform to our comprehensive plan and our unified development ordinance? And as they are proposed, staff recommends and believes that they do. Whether or not, if this special use permit is ultimately granted, I'm wondering if perhaps part of the agreement should be that perhaps there should be an annual report that's more than an annual report. Perhaps it should be a quarterly or a semiannual report to be sure that whatever stipulations have been put in place, that in fact they are being adhered to. And I do have one question for the applicant, again, if you don't mind. Mr. Peterson, you mentioned earlier that you are going to be putting improvements into the current dust mitigation system there for the rock pressure. That's right. Okay. What is the expected benefit that will be achieved by adding these improvements?

So from a qualitative perspective, I'm picking on the one that I found most compelling, and I think the team does. It'll be multifaceted, but at these transfer points where the rock drops down, that creates the most dust when it drops down through the crusher at the transfer point. what we're looking at is actually enclosing those transfer points. So if you think of dust, obviously it comes up and it's enclosed and it's contained. So that's a qualitative answer without going through what the process we're going through with these national vendors that are coming to help us do all these improvements. I think that hopefully gives you a really tangible feel. When we say dust mitigation, we're talking major, that's a major change. The biggest place where you get dust off. Crusher's the biggest dust producer. And the biggest part of the crusher that produces dust are these transfer points. So these primary transfer points, we're looking to totally contain those, which is super effective for dust mitigation.

presenting to you their plan for dust mitigation, what do they tell you it will do? Do they give you any percentages of reduction? Is there anything that you can hang your hat on with regards to you can expect to see a 50% decrease in dust pollution?

This is kind of the, it's good. This is the quantitative sort of back and forth we had before where I said we really, I mean, we could honestly hypothesize and try to give you percentages, but we've talked to the neighbors about this. It's just not that clear, but what we can do is we can have a baseline, which you started that whole discussion today, and then test it right afterwards. And what we're told is by the experts, there will be a remarkable difference. This isn't going to be a, you know, see a little difference, but a remarkable difference, but no one's ready to assign a percentage to it. I mean, that'd be great. I wish I had one for you.

One final question. How long have these improvements been available to you?

I don't think any of this technology is brand new. I mean, they're constantly, as we've worked with staff, they're constantly upping the standards and we We have agreed that every time we do improvements, we're going to make sure that all the improvements meet the latest standards. But it would be wrong to say that anything that we're talking about was invented yesterday. But at the end of the day, we've been committed from day one to meeting all requirements, but we're This is extraordinary what we're proposing now in exchange for SEP as the bottom line. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Stay right there, Mr. Peterson. Any additional questions? Okay, I'll go ahead. Just a couple quick ones for you. So as far as this desk control technology working, I'm I mean, how would you contrast what was in place in 1976 versus what we're doing now? What is the level of change in that and what is anticipated in the future?

I mean, do you have any deep, specific explanation, Dan, that you want to give? I know the high level, but I'd invite you, Dan Jones, if you have a bunch of specifics. If not, I mean, I just know we've talked about a lot that the technology increasingly gets better just like our computer or our phone or cars. I mean, everything. But I don't know if you do. You can come say it, but if it's not. This is Dan Jones, again, that I introduced early on.

And I'm not opposed to a high level. I'm just trying to get an idea of the degree. How much better are we getting at this? Because it's obviously a continual problem.

Dan Jones, 8014 Northwest Bonita Street, Weatherby Lake, Missouri, 64152. 1976, they didn't use dust control. And Kurt talked about transfer points, but there's also wet suppression. So spray bar, nozzle technology for spray bars used to be you just drain water using hoses or piping. hoses to come to piping and you drill holes in the pipes and it would drop water on there now there's spray nozzles for direction particle size the different dust particles are attracted so if you have a smaller water molecule depending on the size of the water molecule it'll attract the dust molecule and adhere to it and then drop it out and then The second huge part about it is all the paving that we're doing. The trucks kick up a huge amount of dust, and we water the roads. We put 80,000 gallons of water on the road a day currently, and then the trucks track it out onto 159th Street. That mud comes off, it dries, and then they drive over it and creates more dust. And so it's multifaceted what we're planning on doing. and the enclosure of the transfer points is going to be significant the addition of the updated technology on the spray bars and spray nozzles in the different locations of plant significant paving and doing the sweeping and the mud control devices to keep that stuff from getting on to 159th now remember we're only one operator of multiple operators that are on 159th but doing those things is going to significantly reduce the dust. The paving will reduce a significant amount that is created away from the crusher that the fugitive winds from the south pick up and blow.

Thank you, Dan. Commissioner Brown?

There's a whole lot of issues involved with this, obviously. We have dust and vibration. health, sheetrock, and other things we've heard about, and I'm understanding of all of it. We've had this information since last Thursday evening is all. The Planning Commission deals with land use issues rather than a lot of the issues that's been brought up tonight. Although we've had it just since last Thursday, we have a very competent planning staff that's been dealing with this apparently for many months and studying it. As I'm reiterating what's already been said from my three other commissioners here, this is ultimately up to the city council that can deal with those issues rather than just the land use issues. So because of that, because it's a land use issue and not, you know, we don't deal with health issues or vibrations here, I have to defer to our staff recommendation and support this ultimately.

Okay.

Commissioner Seelig?

I will never be able to say this as eloquently as the other commissioners, but I always want to recognize folks that come out and speak at commission meetings and exercise your right to engage city staff and planning commission and ultimately your city council. So thank you all for being here tonight for that. I am sympathetic to all of your concerns with dust and your property and your health and all of the things that you mentioned tonight. We had, I don't know, probably 225 pages or so of material that we read that we've had since Thursday. And so it was a quick read and a quick understanding of what's going on. But you all should know that city staff works on this stuff for months, engaging with the applicant. And I think that they have put together a long list of stipulations that will ultimately not solve your problems, but improve current conditions with the paving of the road and the rock crusher, dust control. I think all of that will ultimately help with the issues that you're facing. As a planning commission, we have a very narrow scope of what we can look at. Your city council has a broader scope and I would encourage those of you that still have concerns to engage city council. They can take a lot more action than what we can take. Like Commissioner said earlier, this is a land use issue and that's the limited scope that we're allowed to look at. So I am in support of this measure and I will be voting in favor of it and I would encourage those of you out there to please engage your city council if you have additional concerns. Thank you.

Commissioner Lin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate the forward thinking that we do as a city to keep areas of our city set aside for neighborhood commercial. I really think that that's going to be a better use for this. More importantly, though, I do think because of the health concerns, and I realize it's a land use, but as someone else stated earlier, the citizen standards are different from industry standards. And I think it's really about what you can't see. It's not about the dust on the cars. It's not about the dust that you have to do inside your house. It's the dust that's settling inside the lungs. And I can't be in favor of something that could potentially hurt our fellow Olathans, so I will be a no.

Anyone else?

I have a couple quick questions for staff before we move to a vote on this. So first of all, and I don't know whether Nathan or Chad, if this would be underused. So is there current anything on the CIP regarding improvements to 151st Street?

There is not anything in the five-year CIP on 151st Street.

Okay. So based on what we're dealing with right here, obviously the council is going to be the final say on this. Is there any scenario where these actions would lead to the quarry ceasing operation?

Sorry, Chet Belcher, Chief Community Development Officer. There's always a process for revoking special use permit if there's gross violations, so that can be enacted at any time. Okay.

All right. Any other further discussion? Commissioner Birgitte.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could take my vote I'm about to make and the last vote I made and switch them, I would. And on this one, I try to get to a yes, but for similar concerns that have been expressed, if it was the same as what's already been there, it's already there. But because it's going to be moving closer, I will also be voting no.

CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Anyone else? If not, may I have a motion on SU 26-0007? NEW SPEAKER.

Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we Approve SU 26-007 as stipulated by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Toronis. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Chapman. Ms. Will, please take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Corcoran?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Toronis?

Yes.

Commissioner Brigitte?

No.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Sealing?

Yes.

Commissioner Lynn? No. Chair Janner?

Yes.

That motion passes 6-2. Move forward to announcements.

City staff, do you have anything for us this evening?

None this evening. Thank you.

Based on that, this meeting is hereby adjourned. Thank you for being here this evening.