[0:09] >> like to call tonight meeting

[0:12] to order.

[0:13] please join me in the pledge of

[0:14] allegiance.

[0:18] >> I pledge allegiance to the

[0:19] all.

[0:37] >> I'll take a moment to

[0:39] acknowledge we have a quorum

[0:41] present with seven of nine

[0:43] commissioners in attendance.

[0:45] I think the other two will

[0:46] still be here before we get too

[0:48] far into the agenda.

[0:49] want to thank everyone for

[0:51] attending the meeting as well

[0:53] as those watching online.

[0:55] planning commission meetings

[0:56] are a important part of the

[0:57] process for interpreting, and

[0:59] applying the city comprehensive

[1:01] plan and unified development

[1:02] ordinance.

[1:03] it is important our meetings

[1:04] are connected with dignity and

[1:05] respect.

[1:08] this applies to every person in

[1:09] attendance.

[1:10] we strive to provide where

[1:12] ideas and opinions of all

[1:13] participants are held in the

[1:14] highest regard.

[1:16] finally, the actions on the

[1:17] issues we discuss are

[1:19] ultimately under the

[1:20] responsibility of the city

[1:21] council.

[1:22] as planning commission, we are

[1:23] here to help the council as

[1:25] elected representatives to be

[1:26] fully informed to make the best

[1:28] choices for our city.

[1:30] by statute, the planning

[1:32] commission strives to not

[1:33] engage with any party on the

[1:35] issues on the agenda prior to

[1:36] our meeting.

[1:38] should that interaction take

[1:39] place as a result of a business

[1:41] relationship or any other

[1:44] interaction, which referred to

[1:45] as ex parte communication,

[1:47] commissioners will report the

[1:49] interaction when we reach that

[1:51] item in the agenda.

[1:53] we'll move to the consent

[1:56] agenda.

[1:57] there are two items consent

[1:59] items.

[2:01] these are considered routine by

[2:02] the planning commission.

[2:06] approved in one motion.

[2:07] there is no public hearing for

[2:09] items on the consent agenda and

[2:12] there is no discussion unless

[2:14] removed from the agenda and

[2:15] considered separately.

[2:16] commissioners, do you see

[2:17] anything on the consent agenda

[2:19] you like to pull for additional

[2:21] information or questions from

[2:22] staff?

[2:25] seeing none, do I have a motion

[2:27] for the consent agenda, please?

[2:32] >> mr. Chair, I move to approve

[2:34] the consent agenda as written.

[2:36] >> thank you commissioner

[2:37] corcoran.

[2:38] do I have a second?

[2:39] >> second.

[2:40] >> thank you commissioner

[2:41] brown.

[2:42] all in favor aye.

[2:43] opposed?

[2:44] that motion passes 8-0.

[2:49] so we'll move now to our

[2:51] regular agenda and public

[2:53] hearings.

[2:54] this evening we have five

[2:55] scheduled public hearings.

[2:57] for the first public hearing, a

[2:59] continuance has been requested.

[3:01] when a case is submitted or

[3:04] scheduled for continuance, the

[3:06] public hearing will not be

[3:07] opened.

[3:08] comments, recommendations or

[3:09] analysis on the case isn't

[3:11] provided or discussed until the

[3:14] public hearing is officially

[3:15] opened.

[3:16] this process insures anyone

[3:18] with interest in the case has

[3:19] the opportunity to participate.

[3:22] so, continuance is requested to

[3:24] future planning commission

[3:25] meeting for su26-0008.

[3:30] is there a motion regarding

[3:31] request?

[3:34] >> chair, I move we approve the

[3:36] continuation of su-26-0008.

[3:40] >> thank you commissioner

[3:41] chapman.

[3:42] do I have a second?

[3:43] >> second.

[3:44] >> thank you commissioner

[3:45] bergida.

[3:46] all in favor say aye.

[3:47] opposed?

[3:49] that motion passes 8-0.

[3:54] the second public hearing is

[3:55] request for the approval of

[3:57] rezoning for fun tear trails

[4:00] logistics northwest of 175 and

[4:03] u.s. 69 highway.

[4:05] mrs. Winter is here to present

[4:06] the case tonight.

[4:13] go ahead, lauren.

[4:21] >> good evening commissioners.

[4:22] lauren winter, planner 2.

[4:24] as introduced is application

[4:27] before you is request to zone

[4:29] to the m2 district in site

[4:32] development plan for frontier

[4:34] trails logistics.

[4:36] the proposal consist of one

[4:38] speculative warehouse

[4:40] distribution facility.

[4:42] the site is located northwest

[4:44] of 175th street and u.s. 169

[4:48] highway with direct street

[4:51] frontage along 169 highway.

[4:53] the site is adjacent to lone

[4:56] elm park in the lineage cold

[4:58] storage facility.

[4:59] the property is undeveloped

[5:00] with existing cell tower which

[5:03] may remain as permitted by the

[5:05] udl.

[5:06] the adjacent industrial

[5:08] property is zoned to the m2

[5:10] general industrial district,

[5:13] and the subject property

[5:14] currently retains county rural

[5:17] zoning.

[5:18] the request tonight is to

[5:20] rezone to the m2 district.

[5:24] the future land use map of the

[5:27] elevate olathe comprehensive

[5:29] plan designate the property and

[5:30] much of surrounding area as

[5:32] industrial.

[5:33] the requested m2 district

[5:35] aligns with the future land use

[5:36] designation.

[5:38] in the zoning aligns with the

[5:40] goals and policies of the

[5:41] elevate olathe comprehensive

[5:43] plan, including providing mix

[5:44] of land uses within the city

[5:46] and promoting high quality

[5:47] development.

[5:51] the 70 acre site accommodate

[5:54] one warehouse with over-head

[5:57] doors facing north and south

[5:58] and the primary entrances

[5:59] facing public roadways.

[6:02] the single story warehouse will

[6:04] be just over a million square

[6:05] feet.

[6:09] two screen walls in blue

[6:11] constructed to extend the

[6:12] eastern facade to block the

[6:14] view of the overhead doors from

[6:16] 169 highway.

[6:18] on site detention is located on

[6:20] the western and northern

[6:21] portions of the development,

[6:23] and additional landscaping will

[6:25] be provided to screen from

[6:26] public view.

[6:28] north/south industrial

[6:34] collector is along the west

[6:36] side of the property to provide

[6:39] to the north and south.

[6:41] four access points are shown on

[6:42] the site in red off carson

[6:45] street and gated fire access

[6:48] road off 169 highway is shown

[6:50] in orange.

[6:54] the applicant provided a

[6:55] landscape plan that meets all

[6:57] udl requirements.

[6:58] specifically, significant tree

[7:01] preservation along the west

[7:03] property line and enhanced

[7:05] buffer along the south as it is

[7:06] adjacent to future commercial

[7:08] zoning.

[7:10] the applicant is also proposing

[7:12] birming at the southeast

[7:14] corning as a additional

[7:15] screening for nearest u.s. 169

[7:19] highway.

[7:21] refinements and landscape

[7:23] details will be provided at the

[7:25] final site development plan

[7:27] that includes ground cover,

[7:30] utility screening and

[7:31] landscaping will meet the udl

[7:33] requirements.

[7:35] the building will be

[7:37] constructed of painted textured

[7:39] concrete panels in shades of

[7:41] gray with a band of blue around

[7:43] all facades.

[7:44] upper glass is provided and the

[7:47] primary facades include ground

[7:49] floor glass.

[7:51] the building meets material

[7:53] articulation requirements and

[7:54] no wavers are requested.

[7:58] the applicant met all

[8:00] notification requirements and

[8:01] neighborhood meeting was held

[8:02] july 30 with one resident in

[8:05] attendance who is the property

[8:06] owner to the north.

[8:09] the primary topic discussed at

[8:10] the meeting was future access

[8:12] to the adjacent northern

[8:13] property and the applicant

[8:15] addressed the property owner

[8:16] questions by discussing various

[8:18] access options for the proposed

[8:20] development.

[8:22] neither staff nor the applicant

[8:24] has received any correspondence

[8:25] regarding this case.

[8:31] staff recommends approval of

[8:32] the rezoning rz26-0011 to the

[8:37] m2 district with the following

[8:38] use restrictions due to the

[8:41] intensity of the use or

[8:43] reliance on outdoor storage and

[8:45] the adjacency to major

[8:50] roadways.

[8:51] the applicant is agreeable to

[8:52] the restrictions.

[8:53] staff also recommends approval

[8:56] of the site development plan

[8:59] rz26-0011.

[9:01] the applicant is agreeable to

[9:02] all stipulations listed here,

[9:05] including providing adequate

[9:07] truck staging on site to avoid

[9:09] staging on public streets, full

[9:11] screening outdoor storage and

[9:13] equipment from public view.

[9:14] this item will be considered at

[9:16] the october 6 city council

[9:19] meeting.

[9:20] this concludes my presentation.

[9:22] I'm available for any questions

[9:23] and the applicant is here as

[9:25] well, but will not be making a

[9:26] presentation.

[9:27] >> okay.

[9:28] that was my question.

[9:29] good to know.

[9:30] any questions from

[9:33] commissioners?

[9:34] commissioner chapman.

[9:35] >> thank you, chair.

[9:37] ms. Winter one question, the

[9:38] property owner to the north,

[9:40] has the applicant and owner

[9:43] resolved issues with regards to

[9:45] access to his property to the

[9:46] north?

[9:47] >> yes, my understanding the

[9:48] property owner to the north is

[9:51] happy with the accommodations

[9:53] the property has made with the

[9:54] collector road.

[9:55] >> okay, thank you.

[9:57] >> uh-huh.

[9:59] >> commissioners, do you have

[10:00] additional questions?

[10:04] now open the public hearing.

[10:05] we do have one individual

[10:07] signed up for the public

[10:09] hearing.

[10:10] give you layout how it works

[10:13] which applies to all public

[10:14] hearings this evening.

[10:17] your name will be called and

[10:19] head to the podium here to your

[10:22] left.

[10:23] each person has five minutes

[10:26] start out by stating your name

[10:27] and address for the record and

[10:29] then there will be a timer over

[10:31] here on your right that

[10:33] indicate the amount of time you

[10:34] have to speak and you are

[10:36] welcome to use the full five

[10:38] minutes.

[10:39] for this particular one, we

[10:40] only have one scheduled

[10:41] speaker.

[10:42] if we have multiple speakers,

[10:44] just guidance how that will

[10:46] work when we get to that point.

[10:49] when we have multiple speakers,

[10:51] we are looking to hear new

[10:54] information on public hearings.

[10:56] all has been a lot of

[10:58] correspondence on issues

[11:00] tonight which have been

[11:01] available to all the

[11:02] commissioners we read through

[11:03] it in preparation for tonight's

[11:04] meeting.

[11:05] the purpose of the public

[11:06] hearing is we are looking for

[11:07] new information.

[11:08] what is it we haven't heard?

[11:09] what are we looking at that

[11:11] hasn't been considered?

[11:12] that is what we like to see

[11:13] from the speakers this evening.

[11:15] regardless which issue you may

[11:16] have shown up for.

[11:18] in saying that, if the person

[11:20] before you says the exact same

[11:22] thing you are going to say, it

[11:24] is perfectly okay to wave your

[11:26] right to speak as a repeating

[11:28] yourself doesn't-it isn't a

[11:31] tally this many said this in

[11:33] favor of this many and opposed.

[11:35] that isn't how it works.

[11:36] we just want to look at all the

[11:37] facts and use that information

[11:40] to make our decision.

[11:41] that is just guidelines how

[11:43] public hearings work.

[11:44] we do have one signed up.

[11:49] jacob turner, if you like to

[11:50] make your way to the podium.

[11:56] >> thank you all.

[11:57] jacob turner, 11000 king

[12:03] street.

[12:04] I am here representing the

[12:06] property owner to the north.

[12:09] 167th street llc.

[12:12] I'm his attorney.

[12:13] he has apologize he couldn't

[12:16] come but asked me to convey a

[12:18] message to this commission.

[12:20] he had attended the

[12:21] neighborhood meeting and

[12:24] expressed strong concerns about

[12:26] the lack of access to his

[12:28] property, because the way he

[12:30] saw the development would have

[12:31] actually land locked portion of

[12:34] his property and he wouldn't

[12:35] have been able to develop it.

[12:36] he had--we had additional

[12:38] conversations with the

[12:39] applicant and the applicant he

[12:42] was pleased with the change the

[12:44] application creating the

[12:46] collector road that now will

[12:48] allow him to help develop his

[12:50] property at the time he chooses

[12:52] to develop the property in line

[12:55] with the comprehensive plan.

[12:57] he asked me to come explain

[12:59] that-sense the neighborhood

[13:02] meeting he is in full support

[13:03] as long as there a collector

[13:05] road or access that continues

[13:06] on his property to the north.

[13:08] that's all I have to say today.

[13:09] thank you.

[13:10] >> thank you mr. Turner.

[13:11] appreciate it.

[13:13] seeing no other speakers, do I

[13:15] have a motion to close the

[13:18] public hearing?

[13:20] >> so moved.

[13:21] >> thank you commissioner

[13:22] bergida.

[13:23] second?

[13:24] >> second.

[13:25] >> thank you commissioner

[13:27] terrones.

[13:28] all in favor say aye.

[13:30] opposed, nay.

[13:32] and the public hearing is now

[13:33] closed.

[13:34] is there any additional

[13:35] discussion needed on this issue

[13:38] commissioners for staff or the

[13:41] applicant?

[13:43] seeing none, do I have a motion

[13:44] on rz26-0011?

[13:51] >> mr. Chair, I move for

[13:52] approval of rz26-0011 with all

[13:56] stipulations and

[13:57] recommendations as presented by

[13:58] staff.

[13:59] >> thank you commissioner

[14:00] bergida.

[14:01] do I have a second?

[14:02] >> second.

[14:03] >> thank you commissioner

[14:04] brown.

[14:05] mrs. Will, will you take a roll

[14:07] call vote, please?

[14:08] [roll call]

[14:18] >> motion passes 8-0.

[14:24] >> we'll move to the third

[14:25] public hearing.

[14:26] request for approval of

[14:27] rezoning for the johnson county

[14:30] aggregate located southeast of

[14:31] 151 and old 56 highway.

[14:35] mr. Jurey will be here this

[14:36] evening to present the case.

[14:38] the rezoning portion of this,

[14:40] which we got several issues on

[14:42] this particular issue.

[14:43] the rezoning will be heard

[14:45] first fallowed by the two

[14:46] special use permits on this

[14:49] property for the subsequent

[14:51] public hearings.

[14:52] mr. Jurey.

[14:54] >> excuse me.

[14:58] thank you chair and planning

[15:00] commission.

[15:01] nathan jurey, senior planner.

[15:02] before I start I want to

[15:04] provide an overview of the next

[15:06] three applications as they are

[15:09] all interrelated, but were

[15:11] reviewed by staff separately

[15:13] and analyzed separately.

[15:15] overall, johnson county

[15:16] aggregate submitted rezoning

[15:19] request request to amend their

[15:21] existing special use for the

[15:23] existing quarry and special use

[15:25] to expand their existing

[15:27] quarry.

[15:28] dan jones with jca is here

[15:30] tonight is and brought his team

[15:31] including curtis peterson with

[15:36] polsinelli.

[15:37] the property is in blue on the

[15:39] screen here.

[15:40] it is owned by jca in south

[15:43] west olathe.

[15:44] the site is bound by old 56.

[15:54] the entire site accept for

[15:56] northwest corner which is

[15:59] outlined in purple is in the

[16:01] city olathe.

[16:02] jca has annexation request and

[16:05] the three cases before you

[16:07] tonight will all be heard at

[16:09] the october 6 city council

[16:11] meeting for the final decision.

[16:14] and just to clarify before you

[16:15] do ask planning commission is

[16:17] allowed to make recommendations

[16:19] on annexed property, but just

[16:21] the final decision can't occur

[16:23] until annexation happens.

[16:27] so, the overall property is

[16:31] split into two areas.

[16:33] what I'll call the existing

[16:38] quarry in yellow and expansion

[16:40] quarry in red.

[16:41] the existing quarry did receive

[16:44] special use approval in 1988

[16:47] and there was a hundred foot

[16:50] buffer that was required at the

[16:52] time shown in green on the

[16:54] screen.

[16:55] jca is requesting to expand the

[16:57] existing quarry and would like

[16:59] that both areas the existing

[17:00] and expansion to function as

[17:03] one continuous operation.

[17:06] to do that, the expansion

[17:08] quarry needs proper zoning and

[17:11] special use approvals.

[17:13] the existing quarry as well

[17:15] must be amended to remove the

[17:18] hundred foot setback from the

[17:20] expansion quarry property.

[17:23] so, all in all, jca did submit

[17:26] two special use requests, but

[17:28] they view it as one

[17:31] interrelated request all

[17:34] together.

[17:35] with that, I will present the

[17:37] rezoning first, open the public

[17:42] hearing, call for a vote and

[17:43] repeat the same process for the

[17:44] next two applications as well.

[17:46] are there any questions before

[17:47] I move on?

[17:53] >> I would like just to address

[17:54] one thing.

[17:55] on the prior screen where it

[17:57] showed the expansion quarry

[17:59] existing quarry, so there was a

[18:02] buffer at that point?

[18:03] >> yes.

[18:04] the buffer right here was

[18:07] required from what was

[18:09] previously farm land and is

[18:12] farm land now, but in 1988 it

[18:14] was zoned separately and there

[18:15] is hundred foot buffer from

[18:18] that property.

[18:19] >> alright.

[18:20] so, if the expansion were to

[18:21] take place, is there no longer

[18:24] a buffer?

[18:25] >> that is their request, yeah.

[18:27] >> okay.

[18:32] >> hearing nothing else, we'll

[18:33] get started with the rezoning

[18:35] request.

[18:36] so, the expansion quarry

[18:39] property is about 110 acres

[18:41] used as farm land at the corner

[18:44] of old 56 and old 56.

[18:46] the property is currently zoned

[18:49] county rural and county ag and

[18:52] jca is requesting to rezone to

[18:55] the agriculture district.

[18:58] this district does generally

[18:59] permit agriculture uses, but

[19:02] allows for some uses such as

[19:05] quarrying with special use

[19:06] approval.

[19:07] so, I will stress here you do

[19:08] not need to consider the

[19:10] queries a part of this rezoning

[19:11] request as the quarry will be

[19:14] reviewed separately and

[19:15] analyzed separately as part of

[19:17] the special use request.

[19:20] the elevate olathe future land

[19:23] use map designate the property

[19:24] as neighborhood commercial and

[19:26] business park,b however

[19:28] sanitary sewer isn't readily

[19:30] available to support this type

[19:31] of development as envisioned in

[19:33] the comp plan.

[19:36] the ag district is an

[19:39] appropriate zoning district as

[19:40] one of the purposes is a

[19:47] holding zone to protect

[19:48] properties from pre-mature

[19:49] development.

[19:50] this request aligns with the

[19:52] goals and strategies of the

[19:53] comp plan, including land use

[19:56] 1.1 strategy as the ag district

[19:59] will protect the area from

[20:01] piece-meal development for more

[20:07] contiguous growth development

[20:09] in the future.

[20:10] the applicant met public notice

[20:13] and neighborhood meeting

[20:14] requirements.

[20:15] neighborhood meeting held in

[20:16] july with 44 people in

[20:18] attendance.

[20:19] there were a lot of questions

[20:21] at the meeting, but none about

[20:24] the ag district rezoning.

[20:27] staff answered several

[20:30] inquiries but did not receive

[20:32] comments on rezoning request as

[20:33] well.

[20:34] so, in summary, staff is

[20:35] supportive of the requested

[20:38] rezoning to agriculture

[20:39] district with no stipulations.

[20:41] with that, I will stand for any

[20:42] questions.

[20:43] curtis peterson is here and

[20:45] available for any questions as

[20:46] well.

[20:47] >> thank you mr. Jurey.

[20:48] commissioners, you have

[20:50] questions for staff regarding

[20:51] rezoning?

[20:52] commissioner seeling.

[20:53] >> thank you sir for the

[20:54] presentation.

[20:55] my only question is simple, why

[20:57] rezone to ag and not m2 like

[21:01] the rest of the property?

[21:02] >> the future land use map is

[21:04] commercial and for business

[21:06] park and m2 zoning doesn't

[21:09] align with that, so the

[21:11] ag district is a better holding

[21:15] zone to allow for the requested

[21:17] use the quarry which we'll

[21:20] review later.

[21:21] it does allow for that and

[21:22] holding it from any unwanted

[21:25] development of industrial in

[21:26] the area.

[21:27] >> got you.

[21:28] thank you.

[21:30] >> any additional questions for

[21:31] staff?

[21:33] commissioner bergida.

[21:34] >> commissioner seeling stole

[21:36] my first question so move to

[21:37] the second one.

[21:39] in terms of property taxes, is

[21:44] there any difference if it is

[21:45] zoned ag opposed to m3?

[21:48] >> I believe property taxes are

[21:49] based on the use of the

[21:51] property.

[21:52] those are from the tax assessor

[21:55] assessment of the property.

[21:56] >> so even though it is zoned

[21:58] ag it isn't taxed as ag,

[22:00] assuming we approve the special

[22:02] use permit for this property?

[22:06] >> not a expert in tax law

[22:08] here, sorry.

[22:09] >> that would be correct, yes.

[22:11] >> thank you.

[22:15] >> thank you.

[22:17] any additional questions?

[22:23] alright.

[22:25] moving forward then I'll open

[22:27] the public hearing.

[22:28] on this zoning change, we have

[22:30] no one signed up to speak on

[22:33] the public hearing, so-

[22:34] >> chair janner, we did have

[22:37] one person signed up.

[22:39] >> I'm sorry.

[22:42] >> that's okay.

[22:44] thought you already showed me a

[22:45] blank one.

[22:46] my bad.

[22:48] alright.

[22:49] I'll open the public hearing.

[22:51] we do have one scheduled

[22:52] speaker.

[22:55] mr. Dan quackenbush, if you

[22:58] like to make your way to the

[22:59] podium.

[23:00] >> I'm here, I don't really

[23:01] have comment on this part of

[23:05] it.

[23:06] [inaudible]

[23:07] >> thank you very much.

[23:10] now I'll entertain a motion to

[23:12] close the public hearing.

[23:15] >> mr. Chair, I move to close

[23:16] the public hearing.

[23:18] >> thank you commissioner

[23:19] seeling.

[23:20] do I have a second?

[23:21] >> second.

[23:22] >> thank you commissioner

[23:23] chapman.

[23:24] all in favor say aye.

[23:25] opposed, nay.

[23:26] the public hearing is now

[23:27] closed.

[23:28] just for clarification, if you

[23:31] hadn't signed up mr.

[23:33] quackenbush do you want to be

[23:35] listed as a speaker on the

[23:39] other public hearing?

[23:41] you already are.

[23:42] want to make sure you are not

[23:43] sacrificing your right to

[23:45] speak.

[23:46] moving forward then, the public

[23:48] hearing is closed.

[23:50] commissioners, you have any

[23:51] additional questions?

[23:55] if not, I will entertain a

[23:57] motion for rz26-0013.

[24:02] >> mr. Chair, I don't have a

[24:03] question, but I have one

[24:06] comment and I think

[24:07] commissioner seeling got at

[24:09] this with the question as well.

[24:11] it seems to make more sense to

[24:12] me to-I'm going to be voting in

[24:16] support of this motion, but it

[24:18] with make more sense to me for

[24:20] it to be m3 or m2 with what's

[24:24] continuous in that area opposed

[24:27] to ag.

[24:28] especially as we know what is

[24:29] coming down the pipeline.

[24:30] that just a general comment as

[24:32] we do these rezonings.

[24:33] it makes a lot more sense to

[24:36] have it continuous with what's

[24:37] in the area opposed to we

[24:39] decided it wasn't going to be

[24:41] this but everything else around

[24:45] it is so have it as a holding:

[24:48] >> thank you for making that

[24:49] part of the record.

[24:50] alright.

[24:51] I will entertain a motion on

[24:53] rz26-0013.

[25:01] >> mr. Chair, I move to approve

[25:03] the rezoning rz26-0013.

[25:09] >> thank you commissioner

[25:10] corcoran.

[25:11] second?

[25:12] >> second.

[25:13] >> thank you commissioner

[25:14] terrones.

[25:16] roll call vote mrs. Will.

[25:20] [roll call]

[25:29] >> motion passes 8-0.

[25:33] >> alright.

[25:34] moving ahead.

[25:35] on the fourth public hearing,

[25:37] which is request for approval

[25:39] of special use permit for

[25:40] johnson county aggregates to

[25:43] existing quarry located old 56

[25:45] highway and west 159 street.

[25:48] welcome back mr. Jurey.

[25:50] >> thank you, chair,

[25:51] commissioners.

[25:52] so, yes, the existing quarry,

[25:55] jca is requesting to amend the

[25:58] 1988 special use approval for

[26:01] the existing rock quarry

[26:02] located at northeast of old 56

[26:05] and 159 street outlined in

[26:08] yellow on the screen.

[26:10] jca existing rock crushing

[26:13] plant superior bones asphalt

[26:16] are located on the property as

[26:17] well as the point of sales

[26:19] office down in the southeast

[26:21] corner of the property.

[26:23] I will as point of correction

[26:25] on the staff report, the jca

[26:27] property is nearly 568 acres,

[26:29] including the pendage up here

[26:33] that is just north of the 151

[26:37] street alignment.

[26:40] the site was zoned m2 and m3

[26:43] back in 1988 and largely

[26:45] surrounded by industrial zoning

[26:47] to the south, east and west.

[26:49] residential rural or ag zoning

[26:52] as well to the north.

[26:57] in 1988, special use permit for

[27:00] rock quarry was approved with

[27:01] 11 stipulations, including one

[27:05] that was requiring hundred foot

[27:08] buffer from that previous

[27:11] farmer's property.

[27:14] the jca is proposing to

[27:18] continue quarrying this

[27:19] property indefinitely approved

[27:22] back in 1988 and transition to

[27:25] underground mining in the

[27:28] future.

[27:29] they request to remove the

[27:30] hundred foot buffer and willing

[27:31] to add restrictions that comply

[27:32] with today's standards and

[27:35] improve the current situation,

[27:36] particularly regarding dust and

[27:38] air quality.

[27:40] shown on the screen are the

[27:44] above ground quarry limits

[27:45] which do comply with the

[27:47] setbacks established in 1988,

[27:50] two changes.

[27:51] first the hundred foot setback

[27:53] from the expansion quarry

[27:55] property would be removed to

[27:56] allow for one continuous

[27:59] operation and second, jca was

[28:01] willing to increase the cedar

[28:04] creek stream buffer setback

[28:06] from 50 feet to 120feet and

[28:08] that was to comply with today's

[28:11] stream buffer requirements

[28:12] adopted after the 1988

[28:15] approval.

[28:19] the 1988 special use did

[28:21] require birms along public

[28:23] records and hundred foot buffer

[28:25] from the expansion property as

[28:26] well.

[28:27] today the quarry is visible

[28:30] from 151 street and the also

[28:36] from the 159 street bridge.

[28:40] the applicant is willing to

[28:41] install a birm down in that

[28:44] along the bridge area down

[28:45] there in the south side of the

[28:48] property to in essence screen

[28:51] that existing quarry from view

[28:54] on 159.

[28:56] as for the hundred foot buffer

[28:59] agreed to stipulation that

[29:01] requires to install a birm

[29:03] where necessary to screen the

[29:05] quarry from public view,

[29:06] whether that is on the

[29:08] expansion quarry property, or

[29:11] on their own property in the

[29:13] future.

[29:19] jca is also proposing to

[29:21] transition to underground rock

[29:23] mining.

[29:24] shown on the screen are the

[29:25] proposed underground mine

[29:27] limits.

[29:28] these do comply with today's

[29:29] required 200 foot setback for

[29:31] underground along the perimeter

[29:33] of the site, and also the 120

[29:36] foot stream buffer requirement

[29:37] that I mentioned previously.

[29:42] jca is willing to reclaim the

[29:44] property in two phases whereas,

[29:47] phase reclamation wasn't

[29:48] required in 1988.

[29:51] so, in 15 years jca will

[29:54] reclaim roughly 110 acres in

[29:56] the southwest corner of the

[29:57] site for phase 1 and there will

[30:01] be a birm required between

[30:03] phases 1 and 2 to insure the

[30:05] quarry remains completely

[30:07] screened.

[30:08] for phase 2, this area will not

[30:09] be reclaimed until quarrying

[30:11] and mining is complete as this

[30:13] is where the rock crusher,

[30:16] stock piling and sales will

[30:18] continue to occur.

[30:21] the applicant provided a future

[30:23] concept plan to show how the

[30:25] existing quarry could be

[30:26] developed.

[30:27] buildings are shown along the

[30:29] north and the west boundaries,

[30:33] and quarried areas in essence

[30:37] the rest of the property is not

[30:39] expected to be able to support

[30:41] buildings due to removal of bed

[30:44] rock from the surface quarrying

[30:46] operations.

[30:47] however, this area could

[30:48] support pavement and small

[30:50] structures as well.

[30:52] as stipulated, the undergrounds

[30:54] mine will be engineered to

[31:00] support.

[31:05] the comprehensive plan

[31:06] designate the property as parks

[31:07] and open space.

[31:10] while the existing quarry

[31:11] doesn't align with the land use

[31:16] designation the property will

[31:17] be reclaimed open space after

[31:19] the site is reclaimed.

[31:21] agreed to stipulations to

[31:22] insure the property could be

[31:23] developed as shown in the

[31:24] future.

[31:26] this preserves future

[31:28] flexibility for development in

[31:29] the event the comp plan vision

[31:30] does change from the parks and

[31:34] open space designation today,

[31:37] since this quarry probably

[31:39] won't be reclaimed for a while

[31:41] with indefinite approval as

[31:43] they received back in 1988.

[31:47] in addition, the proposal does

[31:49] meet goals and strategies of

[31:51] the comp plan.

[31:52] willing to add stipulations to

[31:55] the existing quarry not

[31:57] established in 1988.

[31:58] these additional stips will

[32:00] minimize negative impacts and

[32:02] provide greater corridor

[32:04] setback, meeting lu2.9 and any

[32:09] 12.1.

[32:14] all neighborhood and public

[32:16] notice requirements have been

[32:17] met and neighborhood meeting

[32:20] was not required for the

[32:21] existing quarry as no

[32:22] neighborhoods are within the

[32:24] 500 foot required buffer area.

[32:26] staff did receive written

[32:28] comments from six individuals

[32:29] included in the agenda and also

[32:31] received since publication

[32:33] received I believe five

[32:36] additional written comments,

[32:38] even the last one coming

[32:39] through after 5 today I believe

[32:42] we provided to you in print

[32:44] form.

[32:45] so, these will be forwarded as

[32:49] well to the city council

[32:51] packet.

[32:52] in general, this correspondence

[32:54] include feedback about air

[32:56] quality or dust in general and

[32:58] the health impact that, rock

[33:01] spillage on public roads,

[33:03] blasting, the noise and ground

[33:05] vibration associated well as

[33:09] water quality and impact to

[33:10] property values.

[33:12] to address dust and rock

[33:14] spillage, jca will reclaim the

[33:17] 110 acres in 15 years reducing

[33:19] a source of dust from wind

[33:21] erosion and other dust sources

[33:25] from that 110 acre site.

[33:28] they will also remove the

[33:30] existing drive on old 56

[33:32] limiting potential track-out

[33:34] dust and rock spillage along

[33:36] old 56 and limiting track-out

[33:40] to only 159 street.

[33:43] in addition, jca submitted a

[33:46] dust control plan as reviewed

[33:47] by the johnson county

[33:48] department of air and by third

[33:50] party specialist, joseph who

[33:53] does specialize in air quality

[33:55] compliance.

[33:56] this plan will reduce dust from

[33:57] current levels in a variety of

[33:58] ways.

[33:59] first foremost, jca agreed to

[34:04] monitor dust levels

[34:06] periodically using a

[34:07] combination of lab testing as

[34:10] well as real time censors they

[34:12] will deploy in the field.

[34:14] second, the rock crushing

[34:16] plant, which is a major source

[34:18] of dust will be up graded with

[34:21] new dust suppression equipment

[34:23] and operations will be scaled

[34:25] back on windy days and they

[34:27] will have train spotters to

[34:32] notice the requirements.

[34:34] to address the next biggest

[34:35] source of dust, vehicle

[34:37] movement.

[34:38] jca is chip unpaved roads and

[34:46] installing track-out control

[34:49] devices where pavement

[34:51] transitions to unpaved haul

[34:53] roads internally.

[34:54] in addition, they are

[34:55] committing to daily street

[34:56] sweeping along 159 street and

[34:59] they did purchase vacuum

[35:02] sweeper for that as well.

[35:04] so, most importantly I will say

[35:07] the dust control plan is a

[35:11] living document.

[35:12] they have agreed to review it

[35:14] and adjust it as necessary

[35:16] annually through a meeting with

[35:18] staff.

[35:19] we can adjust that as the

[35:20] quarry changes, quarry will

[35:23] change over the years and

[35:25] sources of dust and where it

[35:28] comes from as they quarry

[35:31] through the site so the ability

[35:32] to change that as their

[35:34] operations change will be

[35:35] beneficial.

[35:38] lastly, I will say jca will

[35:42] maintain a complaint log and

[35:46] willing to report to city

[35:48] council for compliance.

[35:50] as for blasting, jca submitted

[35:54] a report to confirm the blasts

[35:55] complied with the u.s. Bureau

[35:58] mines blasting limits which is

[35:59] a well established national

[36:01] standard and olathe standard

[36:03] for that fact.

[36:04] in the last year, blast did

[36:06] occur in the purple area on the

[36:09] screen and the seismic readings

[36:13] were taken from two locations

[36:15] up north there and then on

[36:19] their expansion quarry property

[36:22] towards the northwest.

[36:26] so, as you can see on the graph

[36:29] on the right side of the

[36:31] screen, the peak seismic

[36:34] reading for all the blasts that

[36:35] occurred in the last year have

[36:39] fallen well below the legal

[36:42] limits of olathe standards for

[36:46] ground vibration.

[36:50] so, in summary, jca agreed to

[36:53] place additional restrictions

[36:54] on their existing quarry.

[36:56] that is currently allowed to

[36:57] remain indefinitely.

[36:59] the request meets approval

[37:01] criteria and aligns in the comp

[37:04] plan.

[37:05] with that, staff recommends

[37:06] approval of the requested

[37:08] amendment with the stipulations

[37:09] outlined in staff's report.

[37:14] too long to fit on the page I

[37:15] will say, so mention the topics

[37:17] here.

[37:19] jca is willing to limit hours

[37:21] of operation, blasting stips,

[37:26] screening or visibility stips,

[37:27] air quality, water quality,

[37:29] transparency for the public, as

[37:32] well as making sure the mine is

[37:34] engineered appropriately for

[37:38] future land use and reclamation

[37:40] for the property.

[37:42] with that, I will stand for any

[37:43] questions.

[37:44] that is lot of information so

[37:45] if you have questions I'm

[37:46] available as well as curtis

[37:50] peterson and dan jones.

[37:52] >> thank you mr. Jurey.

[37:53] commissioners, you have any

[37:54] questions for staff?

[37:56] >> thank you chair.

[37:58] thank you nathan.

[37:59] good presentation.

[38:01] a lot of topics here.

[38:04] I will ask about the dust

[38:06] control monitoring.

[38:07] I know it it goes to property

[38:08] both of the applications we

[38:11] will be looking at here

[38:13] tonight.

[38:14] so, there have been a lot of

[38:17] comments regarding the problem

[38:18] with dust and the current

[38:21] quarrying situation.

[38:24] the applicant has a plan to

[38:25] control that.

[38:26] I guess my question is, what is

[38:29] the baseline established to

[38:31] determine that in fact we have

[38:33] a problem that exceeds an

[38:36] acceptable baseline?

[38:37] is there a baseline established

[38:38] with regards to air quality in

[38:40] the area as it relates to the

[38:42] mining operations?

[38:43] >> so, they do comply with the

[38:46] current standards for the rock

[38:50] crusher.

[38:51] that is particularly what is

[38:52] the biggest source of dust.

[38:53] so, that is what the state and

[38:56] johnson county air division do

[38:59] inspect that annually and do

[39:01] comply.

[39:02] what they are doing is in

[39:04] addition and beyond that.

[39:06] so, the legal limits are set by

[39:09] the state for the rock crusher,

[39:13] and they are in compliance with

[39:15] that.

[39:16] they are just proposing to

[39:17] improve the situation.

[39:19] >> is the-they talk about in

[39:22] the report, talk about they are

[39:25] going to significantly upgrade

[39:27] the dust suppression system.

[39:29] is the current one not

[39:30] adequate?

[39:32] >> not adequate.

[39:33] >> so, I will say, the legal

[39:38] limits of what the rock crusher

[39:40] can do are set by the state and

[39:45] federal epa, and they are in

[39:48] compliance with those

[39:50] standards.

[39:51] >> okay.

[39:52] I guess what I'm trying to

[39:53] understand here, if we are

[39:54] having-if there is issue with

[39:57] the air quality with the

[39:58] current suppression system in

[40:00] place, I guess to me just seems

[40:04] we have a issue that needs to

[40:06] be addressed and I'm curious,

[40:08] is the upgrade going to address

[40:09] the issue, because the comments

[40:11] we hear is that there is a dust

[40:14] problem out there.

[40:16] and the other thing I'm curious

[40:18] about and will probably flow

[40:20] over into both of these

[40:21] applications, there a comment

[40:23] in here about send samples for

[40:29] asbestos and silicate testing.

[40:32] how often is that done and what

[40:34] is the protocol if in fact they

[40:37] test positive?

[40:38] >> so, they are proposing to

[40:44] test for those two items four

[40:46] times a year, quarterly in

[40:48] essence, and I will say that

[40:50] there are legal limits for

[40:52] those as well and the mine I

[40:57] believe the mine safety health

[40:59] administration which is federal

[41:01] administration does regulate

[41:03] that for worker safety, so they

[41:04] have limits within the quarry

[41:06] itself that they need to adhere

[41:08] to for their own workers.

[41:09] >> thank you.

[41:10] this probably is maybe a

[41:11] question more for the

[41:13] applicant, but the question,

[41:14] what is the protocol if they

[41:15] exceed the limits?

[41:17] for the safety of the

[41:19] neighborhoods around?

[41:21] >> I might differ to that.

[41:23] >> that's fine.

[41:26] thank you.

[41:27] >> thank you commissioner

[41:28] chapman.

[41:29] other questions for staff?

[41:32] commissioner seeling.

[41:34] >> thank you, sir again for the

[41:36] presentation.

[41:37] this may go to the next

[41:39] hearing.

[41:40] not sure, but you mentioned it

[41:41] so thought I bring it up so I

[41:42] don't miss my chance to ask.

[41:44] on one of the slides you were

[41:47] showing buffering or birming

[41:48] and you had--thank you.

[41:53] so, I guess you mentioned on

[41:55] the new property and I'm

[41:58] specifically talking about the

[42:00] north and northwest and west,

[42:01] will they be birming that area

[42:03] along old 56 highway?

[42:06] >> in this area?

[42:09] >> yes.

[42:10] >> so, yes, on the next case it

[42:14] shows that.

[42:15] there is a stipulation that

[42:16] says regardless this does need

[42:19] to be screened from view.

[42:22] we don't say what property it

[42:23] has to be on, just has to be-it

[42:26] is performance standard and has

[42:28] to be screened.

[42:29] >> why does that need to be

[42:30] screened?

[42:32] >> so, udo has a requirement

[42:34] for any outdoor use outdoor

[42:37] operations and the screening

[42:38] that is required throughout

[42:41] udo.

[42:42] >> okay.

[42:44] again, next hearing but you

[42:45] brought it up, so should

[42:46] approval happen for the next

[42:49] piece of land, they will birm

[42:51] it in that area you just

[42:53] marked?

[42:54] >> correct.

[42:55] >> thank you.

[42:56] second question, you mentioned

[42:57] the biggest source of dust is

[42:59] from the rock crusher.

[43:01] you mentioned they are going to

[43:03] up grade on the rock crusher to

[43:04] control the dust.

[43:05] is that a stipulation or is

[43:07] that an agreement?

[43:09] >> so, that is in the dust

[43:11] control plan before you

[43:12] tonight.

[43:13] there is a stipulation that

[43:15] says they need to install that

[43:20] by date certain.

[43:21] >> thank you, sir.

[43:23] >> additional questions?

[43:24] commissioner lynn.

[43:28] >> thank you mr. Chair.

[43:29] following up on commissioner

[43:31] chapman question, for the

[43:32] testing results, I see those

[43:35] results are reported to the

[43:37] johnson county department of

[43:39] health and environment yearly

[43:40] and it is available for the

[43:41] public to see.

[43:44] is there a requirement to

[43:46] inform the public should it be

[43:48] found to be out of compliance?

[43:52] >> I don't know what johnson

[43:54] county protocol is.

[43:57] I am not entirely sure.

[44:00] but, if we find anything out of

[44:01] compliance, we'll have our own

[44:04] standards to address it with

[44:06] them particularly.

[44:08] >> okay.

[44:09] thank you.

[44:11] >> one question mr. Jurey, you

[44:12] had made comment when we were

[44:15] on the topic of blasting that

[44:17] they were meeting the olathe

[44:19] limits where the blasting is.

[44:21] as far a olathe limits, does

[44:24] that mean there are state and

[44:25] federal limits on that and if

[44:27] there are olathe limits, how

[44:29] are they set and do they

[44:31] differ?

[44:32] >> so, the seismic- the graph

[44:37] here, this is a u.s. Bureau of

[44:40] mines limits they established.

[44:45] not entirely sure when they

[44:46] established them, about they

[44:47] were established by u.s. Bureau

[44:49] of mines and-

[44:51] >> so that is federal?

[44:52] >> yeah, federal.

[44:55] we follow that I believe state

[44:58] probably follows that too and

[45:00] any other-each state decides

[45:03] whether they follow that or

[45:04] have stricter requirements.

[45:05] >> when we talk about federal

[45:07] or state or olathe, we are

[45:08] pretty much all following the

[45:10] same guideline on this?

[45:11] >> yes.

[45:12] >> thank you.

[45:13] any additional questions?

[45:15] commissioner corcoran.

[45:18] >> who owns the triangle piece

[45:19] of property on the northwest on

[45:22] the north and west side of 56

[45:24] highway?

[45:25] >> the north and west side.

[45:30] right here?

[45:32] right there?

[45:34] >> yes.

[45:35] >> that is right-of-way

[45:37] currently.

[45:38] >> it is all right-of-way?

[45:39] thank you.

[45:40] >> owned by johnson county.

[45:42] >> thank you.

[45:44] >> okay.

[45:45] any additional questions for

[45:46] staff?

[45:48] commissioner bergida.

[45:50] >> thank you mr. Chairman.

[45:51] going back to some of the

[45:53] questions about dust, I'm

[45:56] reading the stipulations from

[45:57] 1988, and stipulation d talks

[46:03] about the applicant shall work

[46:04] with the city and county

[46:07] applying appropriate dust

[46:08] control measures and then goes

[46:09] on to describe it.

[46:12] are those in place currently is

[46:14] what we were talking about in

[46:15] terms of some of the tests

[46:17] reported periodically and sent

[46:18] to the county?

[46:20] >> so, these specifically-I

[46:24] will say 159 street used to be

[46:27] a gravel road and so that was

[46:29] applying appropriate dust

[46:31] control measures to 159 street

[46:33] specifically.

[46:34] since then, obviously it is a

[46:38] paved road now.

[46:39] rock spillage on a gravel road

[46:41] might have been good, helped to

[46:43] maintain it, but no longer good

[46:45] rock spillage on paved road

[46:47] with vehicle speeds at what

[46:49] they are.

[46:50] that is something that they are

[46:51] willing to work with us and

[46:53] they will do daily street

[46:55] sweeping to make sure they

[46:56] comply.

[46:57] >> okay, so you are saying d is

[47:00] no longer necessary because it

[47:02] is paved, so we don't have-

[47:04] >> yes.

[47:05] >> okay.

[47:07] that answers my question

[47:09] regarding pollution.

[47:10] on the topic of stipulations

[47:12] additionally, what was the plan

[47:15] for f on the stipulation, the

[47:17] quarry operation reclamation?

[47:20] follow development plan

[47:21] approved by the planning

[47:23] commission and the date is

[47:26] blotted out.

[47:27] what was the reclamation plan?

[47:28] >> they showed reclamation plan

[47:31] that in essence had industrial

[47:33] lots, so zoned m2, m3, so it

[47:36] had industrial lots lined out

[47:39] around the site, but based on

[47:44] their proposal, the quarried

[47:48] areas are no longer

[47:51] developable, so-

[47:53] >> was there a timeline for the

[47:55] reclamation plans?

[47:56] >> no, the 1988 approval was

[48:00] indefinite no time limit

[48:02] quarry.

[48:03] >> okay, so f didn't happen or

[48:05] there wasn't-

[48:06] >> there was no timeline

[48:08] associated with it, correct.

[48:10] >> okay.

[48:13] on h, what is their current

[48:19] measures to prevent pollution

[48:21] of cedar creek and lake olathe?

[48:23] >> they do have a 50 foot

[48:26] setback from the stream and

[48:30] they do keep vegetative to help

[48:33] reduce that stormwater run-off

[48:37] going into the cedar creek

[48:40] itself.

[48:41] >> stipulation j, the interior

[48:44] drive paved until the site is

[48:47] developed with industrial uses.

[48:48] was that at any point triggered

[48:51] is or-it doesn't sound the

[48:53] interior drive is paved?

[48:55] >> no, that was based upon

[48:58] reclamation it triggers the

[49:00] pavement for the uses.

[49:02] >> okay.

[49:03] and then have we been doing k

[49:07] inspect the site once a year

[49:10] and a report being submitted to

[49:13] the planning commission and

[49:14] city council?

[49:15] >> no, we have not consistently

[49:18] been doing that.

[49:19] >> okay.

[49:20] and are then, shifting gears,

[49:22] taxes, there was a helpful

[49:24] slide presented on taxes.

[49:26] it seemed most that was taxes

[49:28] in general and not towards the

[49:31] city olathe itself.

[49:32] am I accurate in saying that?

[49:35] I saw it was broken down to

[49:37] sales tax, but there was no

[49:39] breakdown in terms of property

[49:41] taxes to the city.

[49:42] has there been any analysis on

[49:44] that?

[49:45] >> the applicant might be

[49:46] answer some that.

[49:47] they provided that slide, but I

[49:49] believe there was property tax

[49:51] shown on that.

[49:54] >> that was all the taxes, not

[49:56] specifically--

[49:57] >> okay.

[49:58] >> if I need to ask the

[50:00] applicant later that is fine.

[50:02] just curious, this rezoning of

[50:04] the 109 acres or what not, how

[50:08] much does that add or change,

[50:10] because this is all historic

[50:11] and are not changing whether we

[50:13] approve or not from my

[50:14] understanding.

[50:15] they will continue to operate

[50:18] whether we approve this or not,

[50:20] so what's the added economic

[50:22] benefit of approving?

[50:26] >> I'll let the applicant

[50:28] answer that as well.

[50:29] >> and then, this might be a

[50:32] applicant question, how much

[50:35] noise is there underground

[50:38] vibration or noise or vibration

[50:41] underground blasting opposed to

[50:43] surface blasting because I

[50:45] notice the different start

[50:47] times.

[50:48] one was 8:30 and the other is

[50:50] 10 o'clock so what is the

[50:51] difference?

[50:52] >> I don't know if I have the

[50:53] numerical difference but in

[50:55] general, underground blasting

[50:57] is more muffled.

[50:58] you have the all the rock and

[51:01] earth above to help dampen the

[51:05] sound, but vibrations can be

[51:08] similar.

[51:09] >> okay.

[51:10] thank you.

[51:13] >> any additional questions for

[51:14] staff?

[51:15] do we need to have the

[51:16] applicant--

[51:19] >> if we could on the last two.

[51:20] the tax slide and if they are

[51:22] able to provide additional

[51:23] information on sound or

[51:24] vibration that would be

[51:26] helpful.

[51:27] >> absolutely.

[51:31] >> kurt peterson on behalf of

[51:32] the applicant.

[51:33] 900 west 48 place kansas city

[51:37] missouri.

[51:39] we are supportive of all the

[51:41] stipulations, which if I got

[51:43] numbers right, 1 and 2 and all

[51:45] the sub points that come under

[51:46] them.

[51:47] we are accepting that.

[51:48] and, if you dont mind chair, if

[51:50] I can go in order the there was

[51:52] a couple questions mr. Jurey

[51:53] had differed to the applicant

[51:55] that commissioner chapman asked

[51:57] so thought maybe addressing

[51:58] those and then working over if

[52:00] that is okay?

[52:02] >> yeah.

[52:03] >> remind me if I miss

[52:05] something, please.

[52:06] >> absolutely.

[52:07] >> commissioner chapman had

[52:08] first asked about whether

[52:09] there's a baseline for air

[52:11] quality.

[52:12] all these changes, there is a

[52:13] huge dust control plan.

[52:14] how do we know if there is

[52:16] material change once everything

[52:17] is done in installed.

[52:19] the answer is building on what

[52:21] mr. Jurey said.

[52:22] he wasn't wrong, just adding

[52:23] more detail to it.

[52:24] we had a exhaustive analysis

[52:30] done of the quarry dust

[52:31] situation in 2023 and completed

[52:35] by environmental consulting

[52:37] services, which is the same

[52:38] consultant that handled our

[52:40] dust control plan if you look

[52:41] on the cover of that so you

[52:43] recognize the name.

[52:44] again, they have all the bona

[52:46] fide and well known and highly

[52:48] respected.

[52:49] so, we have that from 2023 and

[52:50] the nature that in the summary

[52:53] was a study for testing dust

[52:55] and for specifically compliance

[52:57] with 40c [inaudible] which is a

[53:02] lot of stuff, but it matters.

[53:03] it is something that is really

[53:04] important.

[53:05] that was the analysis and the

[53:06] very same thing that we would

[53:07] have tested after we do these

[53:09] extensive dust control

[53:11] measures, enhancement to the

[53:12] crusher and all that.

[53:13] there will be a apple to apple

[53:15] comparison immediately once we

[53:17] installed everything.

[53:18] something else we were talking

[53:20] about today that contributes to

[53:21] the core baseline answer is

[53:23] that, johnson county department

[53:24] of health and environment is

[53:26] the body that oversees what is

[53:27] happening at the quarry with

[53:29] dust et cetera and it was just

[53:31] a few-I was trying to-two or

[53:33] three weeks ago so within the

[53:35] last 30 days they actually came

[53:37] out and did their report, which

[53:39] yes, looks at the same things

[53:41] as the 2023 study, but actually

[53:43] goes beyond that.

[53:44] they don't just focus on the

[53:46] crusher because that is the

[53:47] main source of dust, but they

[53:49] also go around and watch haul

[53:52] routes, look at the stock piles

[53:54] and anywhere dust is happening

[53:56] the county looks to make sure

[53:57] we are in full compliance,

[53:59] takes extensive notes and has a

[54:00] report, so the answer to the

[54:02] question in short recap would

[54:04] be we have a wonderful baseline

[54:09] from 2023 and very recent just

[54:11] before if this is all approved

[54:12] and move forward immediately,

[54:13] you have the county with their

[54:15] data contributing with the

[54:17] baseline.

[54:19] the next question-I would say

[54:23] with that, one thing that came

[54:25] to mind because there was

[54:26] several times that both

[54:31] asbestos and silica was brought

[54:33] up.

[54:34] with you have a rock quarry

[54:35] like this, the way god made

[54:37] rock, glaciers and put

[54:39] everything together, you are

[54:40] not likely to find-the quarry

[54:43] has been around since 1890, a

[54:48] really long time and the

[54:49] testing has been going on for

[54:52] asbestos and silica regularly

[54:55] and there is never been

[54:56] anything out of compliance with

[54:57] respect to those materials, so

[55:00] it is very unlikely being legal

[55:03] about this, very unlikely you

[55:05] would find that at the quarry

[55:07] whether undergrounds or the

[55:08] expansion quarry for more

[55:11] surfaces, so that is good news

[55:13] but we are not going to just

[55:15] rest on our laurels, we are

[55:17] doing quarterly testing and

[55:18] making publicly available

[55:19] through the city.

[55:20] the second question

[55:21] commissioner chapman you asked

[55:24] I are wanted to address is,

[55:27] good question, you said, I hear

[55:29] all this whatever page dust

[55:32] control plan and all these 2

[55:33] and a half pages of stipulation

[55:35] from staff, but use my own

[55:38] words, is the quarry doing what

[55:40] it is supposed to do today out

[55:42] there with dust?

[55:43] it really important for

[55:45] everybody to understand that

[55:47] jca is one of the best

[55:48] operators around and absolutely

[55:50] achieving everything required

[55:51] by law.

[55:52] I think can't remember who said

[55:54] it whether staff but federal

[55:59] state and local have

[56:00] requirements for dust

[56:01] suppression and operating a

[56:02] quarry and all the inspections

[56:04] and testing and reports have

[56:05] down they have been in

[56:07] compliance.

[56:08] the baseline is compliance with

[56:09] law, but I will have a short

[56:13] presentations for the third

[56:14] application and we'll emphasize

[56:15] we are trying to go way beyond

[56:17] that.

[56:18] the last question raised I

[56:19] thought needed to be addressed

[56:21] is, what happens if something

[56:28] shows up?

[56:33] what happens?

[56:34] there is a statutory period

[56:36] where there is a cure period

[56:37] that says you need to fix this

[56:39] immediately and retest.

[56:40] if that isn't successful then

[56:42] you lose your ability to

[56:43] operate until it is fixed.

[56:46] you cannot operate and have to

[56:47] cease operations.

[56:48] those are three questions I

[56:49] felt that were not yet fully

[56:51] addressed you asked.

[56:53] going to commissioner bergida,

[56:56] the first in the mind not

[56:59] addressed is tax question with

[57:00] respect to you're right, there

[57:05] were sales taxes broken down

[57:07] between aggregate,b all and to

[57:09] the city.

[57:10] I don't think you are asking

[57:11] about that.

[57:12] on the property taxes I think

[57:13] you are right.

[57:14] I think it was a aggregate

[57:15] number and someone's--welcome

[57:18] someone to give the exact

[57:19] percentage but the city mill

[57:20] levies are something in the 10

[57:22] to 15 percent of overall tax

[57:24] levies, so if you wouldn't mind

[57:26] doing the math that is times

[57:28] the aggregate numbers that

[57:29] would be the city's take.

[57:32] also had written down the-yes,

[57:35] the concept of the difference

[57:37] between when there is a rock

[57:39] extracted underground versus

[57:42] above ground. Blasting is the

[57:44] way you do that.

[57:45] we do 2 to 3 times a week,

[57:47] surface blasting not increasing

[57:49] that and below ground it is

[57:51] much more frequent but much

[57:52] much much smaller of the

[57:54] charges use, because you-none

[57:56] being experts but you don't set

[58:00] off big charges undergrounds.

[58:03] they are very very small.

[58:04] we can dig now or the next

[58:07] application chair if you want

[58:09] to get into the blasting.

[58:14] if you have follow questions I

[58:16] am happy to answer those on

[58:18] blasting too.

[58:19] >> go ahead.

[58:20] >> do you all have estimates on

[58:22] the additional economic benefit

[58:25] from this area, because it's

[58:28] roughly 450k in sales taxes, so

[58:32] like 110, 115 year and if it is

[58:36] 10 to 15 we are looking at

[58:38] another 30k or 50k over the

[58:44] last four years.

[58:45] how much does approving this

[58:50] area, how much economic benefit

[58:52] would it give to the city for

[58:53] tax revenues?

[58:54] >> so, you are right, size up

[58:56] sales tax and property tax and

[58:58] together we can do that math

[58:59] and play it out over a lot of

[59:00] years, and the last number you

[59:02] saw in the packet-we could have

[59:04] gone indirect and didn't carry

[59:06] it out, but the other one on

[59:07] the sheet that you may recall

[59:10] is we talked about if as we

[59:12] transition, all the topics are

[59:14] deep we can go just keep asking

[59:16] question if you want to go

[59:17] deeper, but don't want to wear

[59:20] out the welcome.

[59:22] we transition from above ground

[59:24] mining on the big existing to

[59:26] underground and that takes

[59:27] number of years.

[59:29] the idea is, this transition

[59:31] piece which was always meant to

[59:33] be and again don't want to get

[59:34] into the public hearing,

[59:36] limited period of time, 10

[59:37] years, was helping with the

[59:39] transition to get everything

[59:40] underground and the other

[59:41] number you saw, if transition

[59:45] didn't happen the volumes go

[59:46] way down for a number of years.

[59:48] that then causes whether a city

[59:49] olathe, with big street

[59:51] projects or anybody else in the

[59:52] area to have to go to likely

[59:55] two other quarries.

[59:57] you have to have the right rock

[59:58] and right quantity specifically

[1:00:01] for concrete and asphalt

[1:00:03] separately and the haul cost

[1:00:04] are so significant so we

[1:00:06] presented a study to staff to

[1:00:08] show what is the overall cost

[1:00:10] of projects in the area if you

[1:00:12] had to bring that special kind

[1:00:14] of rock from outside the area.

[1:00:19] I believe it is 25 to $26

[1:00:20] million a year to the area if

[1:00:24] slowed down for a period of

[1:00:25] time.

[1:00:26] that is the third economic

[1:00:27] impact.

[1:00:28] >> is the surface level and

[1:00:31] forgive me, not technical

[1:00:32] expert, is the surface level

[1:00:34] harvesting on the 400 acres

[1:00:39] significantly slowing down

[1:00:40] hundred acres is the bridge to

[1:00:42] when you do the subsurface

[1:00:44] across the board or 500 plus

[1:00:47] acres?

[1:00:48] is that accurate?

[1:00:49] >> that is fair.

[1:00:50] other then I tweak it because

[1:00:51] the concept is right.

[1:00:53] it isn't slowing down yet, but

[1:00:55] the idea is because of the

[1:00:56] transition underground takes a

[1:00:57] number of years for the

[1:00:58] engineering and everything it

[1:01:02] would end up slowing down a

[1:01:04] lot.

[1:01:05] now we are not at the point

[1:01:06] yet, which is why we are trying

[1:01:08] to do this right now and not

[1:01:10] get to that point.

[1:01:11] >> okay.

[1:01:12] thank you.

[1:01:13] >> thank you mr. Peterson.

[1:01:14] any additional questions?

[1:01:16] commissioner corcoran.

[1:01:19] >> I think I heard the answer,

[1:01:22] there johnson county inspection

[1:01:24] you had less then 30 days ago,

[1:01:27] full compliance with-

[1:01:28] >> that's right.

[1:01:30] >> county requirements?

[1:01:31] >> that's right.

[1:01:32] >> thank you.

[1:01:34] >> commissioner bergida.

[1:01:35] >> sorry, I did have another

[1:01:37] one.

[1:01:38] if this is more appropriate for

[1:01:39] later, that is fine as well.

[1:01:41] there is-I think I understand

[1:01:44] the additional economic impact

[1:01:46] over the timeline.

[1:01:48] what about the additional

[1:01:49] impact on residents in terms of

[1:01:54] noise and variance and timing

[1:01:57] of vibrations things like that?

[1:01:59] because, does moving it over

[1:02:03] that far is there any-if I

[1:02:05] missed it my apologies, but is

[1:02:08] there concrete difference or

[1:02:11] marginal increase they

[1:02:12] experience because of this?

[1:02:14] >> I will look at chair and I

[1:02:17] am going to looking for a

[1:02:19] answer to the question and also

[1:02:20] legal counsel.

[1:02:21] do you want me-this is largely

[1:02:23] get nothing to the next hearing

[1:02:24] and I'm fine with it, but

[1:02:26] differ to your direction as to

[1:02:28] whether we do that now?

[1:02:31] >> keep the record cleaner if

[1:02:33] you delayed for the next

[1:02:34] hearing.

[1:02:36] >> okay.

[1:02:37] >> maybe a few minutes from

[1:02:38] now.

[1:02:39] >> that's fine.

[1:02:41] >> do it on public hearing

[1:02:42] number 5.

[1:02:45] okay.

[1:02:47] any other additional questions

[1:02:48] for staff or applicant?

[1:02:51] okay.

[1:02:52] if not, I open the public

[1:02:53] hearing.

[1:02:54] on this one, we had one,

[1:03:01] quackenbush are you speaking on

[1:03:03] this one or the next one?

[1:03:05] come on up.

[1:03:06] >> this [inaudible] my name is

[1:03:11] dan quackenbush, 1405 south

[1:03:13] lake stone drive.

[1:03:16] I lived there since 1980.

[1:03:18] my house was one of the last

[1:03:21] built in lake stone.

[1:03:26] this is the same people came to

[1:03:35] my house and in my living room

[1:03:38] talked to the entire homes

[1:03:41] association and promised

[1:03:43] exactly what they are promising

[1:03:46] now.

[1:03:47] we'll take care of the dust.

[1:03:48] we'll take care of the

[1:03:49] vibration.

[1:03:51] you won't hear the backup

[1:03:54] bells, you just are hear the

[1:03:55] occasional blast here and

[1:03:56] there.

[1:03:57] all kinds of promises and

[1:03:59] frankly, I don't trust them.

[1:04:01] not for a minute.

[1:04:02] and yeah, there is all kinds of

[1:04:04] government regulations and

[1:04:06] such.

[1:04:08] that are supposed to keep them

[1:04:09] in line.

[1:04:10] you got to be out there 24

[1:04:12] hours a day to do it.

[1:04:14] frankly, no kidding I think a

[1:04:17] movie company would like to use

[1:04:19] 159 street for a reenactment of

[1:04:22] the 1930's dust storm.

[1:04:25] all you have to do is drive

[1:04:27] down that street and you can

[1:04:29] choke up if you don't have your

[1:04:31] a c running.

[1:04:33] so, please, look at the

[1:04:36] reality.

[1:04:37] I am the current president of

[1:04:39] homes association.

[1:04:40] want I never got a notice.

[1:04:43] the people across the street

[1:04:44] who just moved in, brought me

[1:04:47] the notice because they mailed

[1:04:48] it to them.

[1:04:52] the original plan for lake

[1:04:54] stone was well over a hundred

[1:04:57] homes.

[1:04:58] we now have 29.

[1:05:01] when the quarry opened, all

[1:05:03] home construction in lake stone

[1:05:06] ceased.

[1:05:08] now, when they came to my

[1:05:10] house, they brought me this

[1:05:11] drawing here, and it is not

[1:05:14] real informative or anything,

[1:05:16] but it shows 37 plots in lake

[1:05:20] stone.

[1:05:21] that didn't include the other

[1:05:22] side of the lake, the other end

[1:05:25] of the lake, all that.

[1:05:26] we were going have well over a

[1:05:28] hundred homes.

[1:05:29] I'll get to the financial part

[1:05:32] that in a minute.

[1:05:33] so, lake stone estate people

[1:05:39] have been putting up with this

[1:05:40] quarry for 40 years.

[1:05:42] we had clouds of dust, we had a

[1:05:45] lot of noise, a lot of

[1:05:47] vibration I have two stone fire

[1:05:50] places I have to clean up every

[1:05:53] week all the mortar that falls

[1:05:55] out of them every time they

[1:05:56] blast.

[1:05:57] now, we were all thinking,

[1:06:02] myself, lake stone, oak run

[1:06:05] people that they were about to

[1:06:07] run out of land.

[1:06:10] move on.

[1:06:12] and we are still asking you to

[1:06:14] tell them, move on.

[1:06:15] we put up with this long

[1:06:18] enough.

[1:06:20] now, why should we trust them

[1:06:24] now?

[1:06:25] more regulations, more

[1:06:27] paperwork, whatever.

[1:06:29] frankly, I dont think it will

[1:06:30] happen.

[1:06:32] now, they could have put in

[1:06:36] dust controls 40 years ago.

[1:06:39] some type.

[1:06:40] or, the new owners, don't know

[1:06:43] when they bought it, 10 years

[1:06:46] ago they could have done it,

[1:06:47] but no, they want you and us to

[1:06:52] let them expand their quarry

[1:06:55] and then they will do these

[1:06:58] extra things like controlling

[1:07:00] dust, noise and other things.

[1:07:04] now, I kind of think about the

[1:07:07] planning commission and what

[1:07:10] their job is and conceptually

[1:07:12] sorry, it looks pretty simple.

[1:07:14] I know it isn't, but it looks

[1:07:16] pretty simple.

[1:07:18] you just do your best to zone

[1:07:20] property that is compatible

[1:07:22] with surrounding properties.

[1:07:24] really, that simple.

[1:07:26] so, what should be zoned right

[1:07:29] next to a residential zone?

[1:07:32] refineries?

[1:07:33] chemical plants?

[1:07:35] how about pig farms?

[1:07:37] obviously not.

[1:07:39] I think quarries are right

[1:07:41] there in the same group.

[1:07:44] so, many residents, both lake

[1:07:49] stone and oak run have

[1:07:51] expressed to me the planning

[1:07:53] commission and the city council

[1:07:54] is very much about they only

[1:07:56] care about the bottom line.

[1:07:59] I can't believe that, but it

[1:08:00] might be true, so let's talk

[1:08:03] about money.

[1:08:06] in their report, we have this

[1:08:12] chart.

[1:08:13] I had it here somewhere.

[1:08:14] maybe somebody can put it up

[1:08:15] there for me.

[1:08:19] there it is.

[1:08:20] >> we are out of time.

[1:08:24] >> it claims a whole

[1:08:26] bunch-sales tax and property

[1:08:30] tax and I did the math and the

[1:08:34] city would do a lot better if

[1:08:37] they let us put up the last

[1:08:39] hundred homes and get 6

[1:08:42] thousand, 7 thousand in

[1:08:43] property taxes.

[1:08:44] I know that isn't all for

[1:08:46] olathe.

[1:08:47] >> thank you.

[1:08:49] you are at the end of time.

[1:08:50] >> he can have my time.

[1:08:52] >> it doesn't work that way.

[1:08:53] I appreciate that, but doesn't

[1:08:55] work that way.

[1:08:56] sorry, you are at the end of

[1:08:57] your time.

[1:08:59] >> if you want a copy of this,

[1:09:02] you can have it.

[1:09:05] >> okay.

[1:09:06] commissioners, we have

[1:09:10] any-before we move into that, I

[1:09:11] entertain a motion to close the

[1:09:14] public hearing.

[1:09:19] >> I move we close the public

[1:09:21] hearing.

[1:09:22] >> thank you commissioner

[1:09:23] brown.

[1:09:24] do I have a second?

[1:09:25] >> second.

[1:09:26] >> thank you commissioner

[1:09:27] terrones.

[1:09:28] all in favor say aye.

[1:09:29] opposed, nay.

[1:09:30] the public hearing is now

[1:09:31] closed.

[1:09:32] commissioners, do we have

[1:09:34] additional discussion on the

[1:09:35] item?

[1:09:46] I will save it for the next

[1:09:50] one.

[1:09:51] if not, I call for a motion on

[1:09:52] su26-0009.

[1:10:03] >> I put it up there.

[1:10:05] mr. Chair, I move approval of

[1:10:07] su-26-0009 subject to the

[1:10:12] stipulations that presented in

[1:10:13] the staff report.

[1:10:15] >> thank you commissioner

[1:10:17] corcoran.

[1:10:18] do I have a second?

[1:10:19] >> second.

[1:10:20] >> thank you commissioner

[1:10:21] terrones.

[1:10:22] mrs. Will, will you take a roll

[1:10:23] call vote, please?

[1:10:24] [roll call]

[1:10:37] >> no, just because I have some

[1:10:39] unanswered questions, that's

[1:10:40] all.

[1:10:42] >> commissioner chapman, yes.

[1:10:44] >> chair janner, yes.

[1:10:46] the motion passes 7-1.

[1:10:49] >> I think we'll move to the

[1:10:51] 5th and final public hearing

[1:10:53] which tonight is request for

[1:10:54] approval of the special use

[1:10:55] permit from johnson county

[1:10:57] aggregate quarry expansion

[1:10:59] located southeast of 151 and

[1:11:02] old 56 highway.

[1:11:04] welcome back mr. Jurey will

[1:11:05] present the case.

[1:11:06] >> thank you chair.

[1:11:07] planning commission.

[1:11:08] nathan jurey, senior planner.

[1:11:11] yes, this is for the request to

[1:11:13] expand the quarry now.

[1:11:16] jca is request ing approval to

[1:11:18] expand on to 110 acre property

[1:11:21] at the corner of old 56 and 151

[1:11:24] street.

[1:11:25] this request is to extract rock

[1:11:27] from this property by above

[1:11:29] ground quarrying as well as

[1:11:33] under ground mining.

[1:11:34] the request doesn't include

[1:11:36] rock crushing on the site,

[1:11:38] stock piling or sales on the

[1:11:40] expansion area, specifically as

[1:11:41] those operations will continue

[1:11:43] to occur on the existing

[1:11:46] quarry.

[1:11:49] the special use request is

[1:11:51] contingent on the ag zoning

[1:11:53] request.

[1:11:54] the site must be rezoned from

[1:11:56] county to city zoning.

[1:11:59] shown on the screen here, above

[1:12:02] ground quarry limits shown in

[1:12:04] brown, which comply with the

[1:12:06] required 1 thousand foot

[1:12:09] set[from residential to the

[1:12:10] north and 300 setback shown to

[1:12:13] the west to comply with olathe

[1:12:15] screening requirements.

[1:12:18] requesting a 10 year time limit

[1:12:20] for all the surface quarrying

[1:12:21] operations to be completed.

[1:12:26] for screening, proposing to

[1:12:28] install vegetative birm.

[1:12:35] line of sight were reviewed

[1:12:37] from multiple vantage points

[1:12:39] including one of the highest

[1:12:40] point in the area, which is

[1:12:42] just lake shore and 151

[1:12:44] intersection there.

[1:12:46] and these do confirm the quarry

[1:12:48] will be screened from view from

[1:12:51] that location.

[1:12:56] after 10 years of quarrying,

[1:12:59] jca will reclaim the surface

[1:13:01] with gradual slopes ideal for

[1:13:04] future development.

[1:13:05] all together, reclamation will

[1:13:07] be expected to be completed

[1:13:09] within two years after

[1:13:10] quarrying is done.

[1:13:14] next on the screen are the

[1:13:16] proposed underground mine

[1:13:18] limits.

[1:13:19] so, these mine limits comply

[1:13:22] with the 200 foot setback along

[1:13:25] old 56 highway from the north

[1:13:27] and west property lines as well

[1:13:29] as--I say the mine entrance

[1:13:32] would be located off-site as it

[1:13:34] descends under to the expansion

[1:13:40] quarry and then it will be

[1:13:43] mined underground from there.

[1:13:53] I'll mention this.

[1:13:54] jca is requesting a 15 year

[1:13:57] time limit, or with hard cap of

[1:14:01] the end of 2051, which is 25

[1:14:04] years, whichever occurs first.

[1:14:06] the reason for this unusual

[1:14:08] request I will say is that jca

[1:14:11] expects mine engineering the

[1:14:12] plans and structural for the

[1:14:14] mine to take 5 to 10 years

[1:14:17] after which they expect mining

[1:14:20] to take 15 years.

[1:14:25] the applicant did provide a

[1:14:27] future concept plan to show how

[1:14:28] the property could be developed

[1:14:30] after quarrying and mining are

[1:14:31] both complete.

[1:14:32] buildings are shown along the

[1:14:34] north and west property lines.

[1:14:36] the area to be quarrying again

[1:14:39] is not expected to support

[1:14:40] buildings due to removal of bed

[1:14:43] rock but could support parking,

[1:14:46] stormwater and other small

[1:14:47] structures.

[1:14:48] as stipulated, the undergrounds

[1:14:50] mine is required to be

[1:14:52] engineered to support buildings

[1:14:54] on the surface and underground

[1:14:56] warehousing could go below.

[1:15:02] the comprehensive plan

[1:15:03] designate the property as

[1:15:04] neighborhood commercial and

[1:15:06] business park.

[1:15:07] the proposed use doesn't align

[1:15:09] with the future land use

[1:15:10] designation, the property could

[1:15:12] still be developed with

[1:15:13] commercial and business park

[1:15:14] uses after the land is

[1:15:16] reclaimed.

[1:15:18] to insure alignment with the

[1:15:20] comp plan jca agreed to

[1:15:22] stipulations to insure the

[1:15:23] property can be developed as

[1:15:25] shown on the concept plan.

[1:15:28] also, the proposal achieves

[1:15:31] goals and strategies of the

[1:15:32] comp plan.

[1:15:33] the property will not be

[1:15:35] developed until after

[1:15:36] reclamation protecting this

[1:15:38] property from piece-meal

[1:15:40] development and allowing more

[1:15:42] contiguous development in the

[1:15:44] future.

[1:15:45] the neighborhood meeting was

[1:15:46] held in july with 44 residents,

[1:15:49] meeting minutes from that are

[1:15:51] part of the agenda packet

[1:15:53] before you.

[1:15:54] all public notice requirements

[1:15:58] melt.

[1:15:59] received written comments from

[1:16:00] six individuals also in the

[1:16:01] agenda and received the five

[1:16:03] correspondence as well since

[1:16:06] publication and that is

[1:16:08] provided to you tonight.

[1:16:11] the topics from the public

[1:16:13] correspondence have really been

[1:16:15] around air quality, dust, rock

[1:16:18] spillage, blasting, water

[1:16:20] quality and property value

[1:16:22] impacts.

[1:16:23] again, regarding dust, this

[1:16:27] property will be reclaimed

[1:16:28] after surface quarrying is

[1:16:31] completed in 10 years.

[1:16:33] really limiting any dust

[1:16:34] created from this site at that

[1:16:36] point.

[1:16:41] once--the rock spillage on

[1:16:44] public roads is not a concern

[1:16:46] since they are not accessing a

[1:16:49] public road directly rock from

[1:16:51] this property will be

[1:16:52] transferred over to the rock

[1:16:54] crusher on the existing

[1:16:55] property, and so there is no

[1:16:56] concerns about rock spillage

[1:16:58] from this property itself.

[1:17:02] regarding addressing the dust

[1:17:05] during that requested 10 year

[1:17:06] time limit, jca submitted the

[1:17:09] dust control plan, which

[1:17:11] includes measures to reduce

[1:17:13] dust.

[1:17:14] this includes dust monitoring,

[1:17:15] watering haul roads and

[1:17:19] limiting vehicle speeds on

[1:17:21] their property.

[1:17:23] there is no rock crusher on the

[1:17:25] expansion, so just clarifying

[1:17:28] that, and again, they do plan

[1:17:31] to make this a living document

[1:17:33] and adjust it annually as

[1:17:35] needed to comply with their

[1:17:38] operations as they change.

[1:17:42] lastly, they will maintain a

[1:17:44] complaint log and report to

[1:17:46] city council periodically.

[1:17:49] regarding blasting, jca will

[1:17:52] use blasting to extract rock

[1:17:54] which creates noise and ground

[1:17:56] vibrations.

[1:17:57] to address this concern, jca

[1:17:58] did commission a vibration

[1:18:00] study which is a third party

[1:18:03] professional firm that

[1:18:04] specializes in vibration

[1:18:07] monitoring.

[1:18:08] this study confirms how

[1:18:09] blasting can occur in

[1:18:12] compliance with olathe

[1:18:15] standards and the study

[1:18:17] confirms it is possible,

[1:18:19] seismic monitoring of every

[1:18:21] blast is required in real time

[1:18:23] for each blast for compliance

[1:18:24] and that is sent to the fire

[1:18:28] marshal.

[1:18:29] jca agreed to conduct the

[1:18:32] pre-blast surveys of structures

[1:18:33] within 1800 feet of the surface

[1:18:38] quarry area more then double

[1:18:40] olathe standard pre-blast

[1:18:42] survey distance.

[1:18:43] also, they provide a automated

[1:18:47] notification service to help

[1:18:49] notify residents within or

[1:18:51] anyone that signs up for it

[1:18:53] really that blasts are

[1:18:54] occurring at intervals and sent

[1:18:57] out leading up to the actual

[1:18:59] blast event.

[1:19:02] so, in summary, this request

[1:19:04] meets approval criteria and

[1:19:07] aligns with the comp plan.

[1:19:09] staff recommends approval of

[1:19:10] the expansion with the

[1:19:11] stipulations outlined in the

[1:19:13] staff report.

[1:19:14] jca is amenable to staff

[1:19:17] recommended stips which are

[1:19:19] again regarding the topics on

[1:19:20] the slide here hours of

[1:19:23] operation, blasting, visible,

[1:19:24] air and water quality, public

[1:19:30] [inaudible] I stand for

[1:19:32] questions and believe curtis

[1:19:34] peterson has a brief

[1:19:38] presentations or comment on the

[1:19:40] records.

[1:19:41] >> thank you.

[1:19:42] questions for staff?

[1:19:43] commissioner lynn.

[1:19:44] >> thank you mr. Chair.

[1:19:45] I have two questions.

[1:19:46] the first one, on the future

[1:19:47] land use map that shows

[1:19:49] neighborhood commercial in the

[1:19:51] northern part of the area, are

[1:19:54] there any other area

[1:19:56] surrounding the oak run

[1:19:58] neighborhood that is meant to

[1:20:01] be neighborhood commercial?

[1:20:04] >> other then this area, I

[1:20:07] don't know entirely.

[1:20:08] I have to look at the future

[1:20:09] land use map if there is

[1:20:11] something on another side of

[1:20:12] oak run.

[1:20:15] >> planning development

[1:20:16] manager, there is another node

[1:20:18] west of prairie highlands, so

[1:20:21] you have oak run and prairie

[1:20:23] highland and there is a node on

[1:20:25] plan olathe and we preserved it

[1:20:28] in elevate olathe.

[1:20:29] the idea is have the nodes

[1:20:30] dispersed along major roadways

[1:20:34] near neighborhoods and as you

[1:20:36] go north you get one at 135 and

[1:20:39] hedge.

[1:20:40] largely there is residential

[1:20:42] development already zoned near

[1:20:44] oak run.

[1:20:45] >> okay, thank you.

[1:20:46] how much does the undergrounds

[1:20:48] mining effect the future

[1:20:51] surface development?

[1:20:54] >> specifically-

[1:20:56] >> in this area?

[1:20:57] >> on the property itself?

[1:20:58] >> yes.

[1:20:59] >> so, the mine itself will be

[1:21:02] engineered to-there will be a

[1:21:04] floor and a ceiling and columns

[1:21:07] between in essence and they

[1:21:08] engine to make sure that can

[1:21:11] support up to 5 story building

[1:21:12] on the surface.

[1:21:13] >> okay, thank you.

[1:21:17] >> additional questions for

[1:21:18] commissioners?

[1:21:21] commissioner bergida.

[1:21:22] >> thank you mr. Chairman.

[1:21:25] I want to make sure I

[1:21:26] understand correctly, with the

[1:21:28] thousand foot setback on this

[1:21:32] parcel, what is it currently?

[1:21:37] is it 1217 with this,b it seems

[1:21:40] like from the nearest house or

[1:21:41] structure to where blasting

[1:21:44] would be.

[1:21:45] what is it currently?

[1:21:46] what is that distance?

[1:21:48] >> from the existing quarry?

[1:21:51] >> correct.

[1:21:52] >> okay.

[1:21:54] I had that number.

[1:21:55] I believe it is around like

[1:21:57] 1500 maybe.

[1:22:00] >> so a couple hundred feet

[1:22:01] difference in terms of the

[1:22:07] closest blast?

[1:22:08] >> let me--I might-

[1:22:11] >> 1500 versus 1200.

[1:22:13] do I have the numbers correct?

[1:22:16] >> excuse me, allow the

[1:22:17] speakers to have the floor

[1:22:19] here.

[1:22:26] >> 1500 feet from the existing

[1:22:28] surface quarry area is roughly

[1:22:30] to that 600 foot setback mark

[1:22:34] and then, from the closest

[1:22:37] house to the underground mine

[1:22:40] area would be about 1250.

[1:22:43] >> okay.

[1:22:44] so, the setback for underground

[1:22:47] is 600 feet, but in terms of

[1:22:49] above ground blasting-

[1:22:51] >> the setback for the above

[1:22:53] ground is 600 feet.

[1:22:54] the 200 foot setback is

[1:22:58] underground.

[1:22:59] >> what is the thousand foot

[1:23:00] that I saw?

[1:23:01] >> so, this was back in 1988.

[1:23:04] these setbacks were set when we

[1:23:06] didn't have the thousand foot

[1:23:07] setback requirement, so that is

[1:23:09] a new requirement and that's

[1:23:12] why they propose the thousand

[1:23:13] foot.

[1:23:14] and, on the new one it is

[1:23:15] thousand?

[1:23:16] >> it is a thousand.

[1:23:17] >> okay.

[1:23:18] the closest is 1250 currently

[1:23:20] and then with this new one the

[1:23:23] closest would be 1217, is that

[1:23:27] correct?

[1:23:28] a 43 foot difference?

[1:23:35] >> the underground goes to 600.

[1:23:40] >> but above ground would be-

[1:23:41] >> 1217.

[1:23:43] >> okay, thank you.

[1:23:47] all I got.

[1:23:48] >> thank you.

[1:23:49] commissioner brown.

[1:23:50] >> mr. Jurey, could you-you had

[1:23:54] a couple slides-built time

[1:23:57] limits.

[1:23:58] could you pull the first one

[1:23:59] up?

[1:24:01] even you said it was a oddly

[1:24:03] worded.

[1:24:04] >> for underground mining time

[1:24:07] limit?

[1:24:08] >> that isn't the slide I'm

[1:24:09] looking for.

[1:24:12] >> this one?

[1:24:13] >> no.

[1:24:14] well-- yes.

[1:24:16] yes.

[1:24:17] you said that was oddly worded.

[1:24:21] 15 years after mine begins or

[1:24:24] 20-which ever comes first.

[1:24:26] which ever comes first concerns

[1:24:29] me, because if 15 years comes

[1:24:31] first then it ends at 15 years.

[1:24:34] >> so, it is 15 years after

[1:24:36] mining begins.

[1:24:37] in essence, their proposal is

[1:24:39] they work on the structural

[1:24:41] plans for the mine and they

[1:24:43] expect that to take 5 or 10

[1:24:44] years, and then at that point

[1:24:47] they will start to mine and so,

[1:24:51] it will-that 15 year time clock

[1:24:54] or shot clock will start when

[1:24:56] they start mining.

[1:24:59] if they mine 5 years from now,

[1:25:01] it is a 20 year time limit or

[1:25:04] if they start mining 10 years

[1:25:06] from now it is 25 year time

[1:25:08] limit.

[1:25:10] >> why put in 2051 at all?

[1:25:15] >> so, I will say, 2051 does

[1:25:20] set a end date.

[1:25:23] if structural engineering takes

[1:25:29] 15 years, they only have 10

[1:25:31] years left to underground mine

[1:25:32] the property.

[1:25:33] >> if the structural part of it

[1:25:35] takes 10 years, then they have

[1:25:38] another 15 years on top that.

[1:25:41] less 25 years, rather then--it

[1:25:44] seems like one would expire

[1:25:47] before the other.

[1:25:49] which takes president

[1:25:55] >> trying to understand what

[1:25:57] this concern is.

[1:25:58] sorry.

[1:26:01] so, if they don't mine at all,

[1:26:05] 2051 is the expiration date.

[1:26:08] >> okay.

[1:26:10] >> if they mine in 5 years,

[1:26:14] 2046 would be the expiration

[1:26:16] date because it is 5 plus the

[1:26:18] 15 of mining.

[1:26:20] or if they started today if

[1:26:22] they had all the structural

[1:26:24] engineering plans ready and

[1:26:25] ready to start mining today, it

[1:26:28] would be a 15 year time limit.

[1:26:31] >> got it.

[1:26:32] >> we didn't want just a 15

[1:26:33] year time limit from the start

[1:26:35] of mining, because that would

[1:26:37] not put a end date at there

[1:26:39] back end.

[1:26:40] there is no back-stop because

[1:26:42] it only starts when they start

[1:26:43] mining and they don't mine for

[1:26:45] 50 years we wanted a backstop

[1:26:49] so we know there is a time

[1:26:51] limit of when it would stop at

[1:26:53] the very end.

[1:26:54] >> you had another time limit

[1:26:57] of 10 years on a slide

[1:27:00] someplace.

[1:27:03] >> that 10 year time limit is

[1:27:04] just for the surface quarrying,

[1:27:06] so that starts the day

[1:27:08] approved.

[1:27:09] they are ready to go on that,

[1:27:11] so they will start quarrying

[1:27:13] above ground and they take 10

[1:27:16] years.

[1:27:17] >> when you say when approved,

[1:27:19] is--council?

[1:27:22] so they can start that in

[1:27:23] november?

[1:27:24] >> yes.

[1:27:25] >> thank you.

[1:27:28] >> any additional questions for

[1:27:31] staff or applicant?

[1:27:34] is the applicant making a

[1:27:35] presentation first?

[1:27:37] >> yes, sir.

[1:27:38] >> make your way up mr.

[1:27:39] peterson.

[1:27:45] >> good evening again chair,

[1:27:46] commissioners, kurt peterson,

[1:27:48] 900 west 48 place, kansas city

[1:27:51] missouri here on behalf of the

[1:27:54] applicant.

[1:27:55] again, I have dan jones the

[1:27:56] team with us here.

[1:27:58] quickly I like to provide

[1:27:59] context and background for what

[1:28:01] really was a incredible amount

[1:28:03] maybe record-breaking for me

[1:28:06] with professional staff over

[1:28:07] the last number of months and

[1:28:09] detail and several pages of

[1:28:10] stipulations.

[1:28:11] I feel the back and forth with

[1:28:13] what I agree commissioner brown

[1:28:15] can be-we all tripped over-what

[1:28:17] are the duration.

[1:28:19] very brief I will one last time

[1:28:21] have it come out of my mouth

[1:28:22] and make remarks so if you

[1:28:24] think why are you repeating

[1:28:26] just that duplication for

[1:28:28] emphasis if you don't mind.

[1:28:29] the existing quarry as mr.

[1:28:31] jurey indicated has the

[1:28:33] indefinite sup.

[1:28:34] whatever the shape is, the j on

[1:28:37] the screen.

[1:28:38] we owned the approximately 110

[1:28:39] acres which is referred as the

[1:28:42] expansion quarry.

[1:28:44] we owned the land for about 25

[1:28:45] years.

[1:28:47] we are ready to begin surface

[1:28:49] quarrying.

[1:28:50] it is subject of this permit

[1:28:53] application, but very

[1:28:54] importantly, first time period,

[1:28:56] from the time it is approved if

[1:29:00] approved by council we have 10

[1:29:02] years full stop.

[1:29:03] if there is surface rock left

[1:29:06] to get in the surface area in

[1:29:07] green on the screen and 10

[1:29:08] years expired from the time if

[1:29:10] it is by the city council,

[1:29:12] tough luck.

[1:29:13] can't get anymore surface

[1:29:15] quarrying out that.

[1:29:16] after 10 years, that is it.

[1:29:18] no more surface quarrying on

[1:29:20] the expansion quarry.

[1:29:21] importantly, after the 10 years

[1:29:23] of surface mining, we will

[1:29:25] immediately as mr. Jurey made

[1:29:27] quick reference 10 years is up,

[1:29:29] we'll immediately spend two

[1:29:30] years on that green property on

[1:29:32] the screen and reclaim it.

[1:29:35] we get it ready for

[1:29:37] development.

[1:29:38] so, that it can be developed in

[1:29:39] accordance with the comp plan.

[1:29:42] whether that means commercial,

[1:29:44] you saw retail in the corner.

[1:29:47] it is up to the city whether it

[1:29:49] wants park land.

[1:29:50] it isn't our decision.

[1:29:51] whatever the city wants to do,

[1:29:52] we will have it ready and

[1:29:54] reclaimed for the city.

[1:29:55] after the 10 years this the key

[1:29:58] second part.

[1:29:59] after the 10 year period and we

[1:30:00] are reclaiming for two years,

[1:30:02] we have been spending it can

[1:30:06] take 5, 6, 7, 8 years engineers

[1:30:10] and tunneling and wide enough

[1:30:11] to bring rock out can be a

[1:30:13] decade.

[1:30:14] the bottom line, the most we

[1:30:16] can be doing underground there

[1:30:17] from a deadline perspective

[1:30:19] under the green area is the

[1:30:22] most it could be is if we get

[1:30:25] to the 10 year period on the

[1:30:27] surface and the next day we

[1:30:29] started spend all the time to

[1:30:31] get there and started

[1:30:32] underground mining we have 15

[1:30:34] years and if you add that up

[1:30:35] that is how you get the

[1:30:36] december 31, 2051 date.

[1:30:39] if we get there earlier and

[1:30:40] started earlier this was the

[1:30:41] provision to protect the city.

[1:30:44] it wasn't our request.

[1:30:45] we just said that and staff

[1:30:47] said, no, what if you get in

[1:30:49] there earlier then 10 years on

[1:30:51] the surface doing your business

[1:30:52] and but underground and got

[1:30:54] faster then you thought, you

[1:30:56] only get 15 years because that

[1:30:58] happens before 20fib2051.

[1:31:03] hopefully we are crystal clear

[1:31:04] on the time limits.

[1:31:06] so, all that is just quick

[1:31:09] context and backgrounds for the

[1:31:10] why.

[1:31:11] we are asking and what.

[1:31:15] what are we doing?

[1:31:16] the last remaining issue I

[1:31:17] wanted to touch on because we

[1:31:19] spent months and months working

[1:31:22] on it is the how.

[1:31:23] how are we going to do this on

[1:31:25] that 109 acres in green on the

[1:31:28] screen there?

[1:31:29] above ground and underground.

[1:31:31] from the beginning when we

[1:31:32] first conceived this and

[1:31:34] started internally coming up

[1:31:36] with thesis statements and

[1:31:39] commitments we had a meeting

[1:31:40] with the neighborhoods to the

[1:31:41] north and northwest well

[1:31:42] attended and then we met with

[1:31:44] city staff and worked for a

[1:31:45] long time with city staff and

[1:31:47] the planning commission.

[1:31:49] we dedicated to one thesis

[1:31:52] statement we mean it.

[1:31:54] said this and now here before

[1:31:56] you and the council.

[1:31:57] if we don't make the situation

[1:32:00] better off for the community,

[1:32:02] if you don't think we are

[1:32:03] making it better off through

[1:32:05] everything we propose through 2

[1:32:07] and a half pages of

[1:32:08] stipulations from staff

[1:32:10] probably shouldn't support it.

[1:32:11] if we make it better off then

[1:32:13] continue with sup meeting all

[1:32:15] legal obligations we do today

[1:32:16] and always will, think it is

[1:32:19] pretty compelling to support

[1:32:21] this and make it better off.

[1:32:24] as we developed our detailed

[1:32:26] operational plans and

[1:32:27] commitments, that are translate

[1:32:29] under to this lengthy proposed

[1:32:31] stipulation by staff, we are

[1:32:33] trying to create overall

[1:32:35] operation overall the

[1:32:37] application hearing now and you

[1:32:39] heard a few minutes ago,

[1:32:42] something that is dramatically

[1:32:43] better operated from dust,

[1:32:46] blasting and everything you can

[1:32:47] think of then what we have

[1:32:49] today.

[1:32:50] and, the standard met is we

[1:32:53] will be the quarry that is the

[1:32:54] best operated quarry in the

[1:32:56] quarry that everybody looks to

[1:32:57] not only in the city olathe but

[1:33:02] entire metro.

[1:33:04] so, rather then regurgitate

[1:33:06] staff's presentation, the staff

[1:33:08] report all the stipulations and

[1:33:10] lengthy dust control plan, I

[1:33:12] thought I just close with

[1:33:13] mentioning a couple high level

[1:33:15] points to bring it back and of

[1:33:16] course there is a couple

[1:33:19] unanswered questions I will

[1:33:21] answer too.

[1:33:22] please ask questions because

[1:33:23] there is a lot of substance and

[1:33:24] if unanswered I want to address

[1:33:26] those.

[1:33:27] we focus on these areas, mr.

[1:33:29] jurey had a similar list.

[1:33:32] dust control and air quality,

[1:33:34] blasting related conditions,

[1:33:35] screening, 159 street you heard

[1:33:40] a resident medication it and

[1:33:43] testing, report ing and

[1:33:44] transparency related items.

[1:33:46] and we gather input and didn't

[1:33:48] have what is in front of you

[1:33:50] now on day one.

[1:33:52] we didn't as staff will attest

[1:33:54] it changed and enhanced and

[1:33:57] substantiated and picked up

[1:33:59] feedback from the neighborhood

[1:34:00] meeting we had, we heard a lot

[1:34:02] there.

[1:34:03] helpful and changed a lot.

[1:34:05] we heard from city staff over

[1:34:06] the last number of months, from

[1:34:08] county officials because we did

[1:34:11] have a regulatory body that

[1:34:13] knows the quarry well and

[1:34:15] consulted with experts there

[1:34:16] and third party engineering

[1:34:18] consultant the author of the

[1:34:20] 2023 baseline study and also

[1:34:22] dust control plan in your

[1:34:23] packet.

[1:34:24] and of course, we consulted

[1:34:27] with all the employees out

[1:34:29] there at if quarry every day.

[1:34:31] how could we do better at this

[1:34:33] and put all that together and

[1:34:34] that lead to what you have here

[1:34:35] today.

[1:34:36] the result that is the proposed

[1:34:38] stipulations and associated

[1:34:40] plan sheets that is part of

[1:34:41] this sup application before

[1:34:43] you.

[1:34:44] so, with great confidence I

[1:34:45] will say this in closing, I

[1:34:46] assure you that what is before

[1:34:49] you will make the surrounding

[1:34:51] community better through all

[1:34:52] the details and that it will be

[1:34:54] much better then meeting legal

[1:34:56] requirements under the status

[1:34:57] quo that goes on for a really

[1:34:59] long time.

[1:35:00] and as I said a moment ago,

[1:35:01] this quarry undeniably will be

[1:35:04] the leader and what is looked

[1:35:05] to as the standard in olathe

[1:35:06] and lot of cities in the area.

[1:35:08] quick pivot to few unanswered

[1:35:10] questions commission, if that

[1:35:12] is okay from the dais.

[1:35:14] commissioner bergida, you asked

[1:35:16] this is our differed question

[1:35:18] answer to start, I took away

[1:35:21] from your question from the

[1:35:22] last hearing was, show me the

[1:35:25] residents are better off from a

[1:35:27] blasting perspective and I felt

[1:35:29] you said and just overall how

[1:35:31] the residents are better off.

[1:35:34] you can build on that.

[1:35:37] >> not necessarily better off,

[1:35:39] but how will it impact

[1:35:42] differently.

[1:35:43] >> saying the same thing, but I

[1:35:45] understand what you are saying.

[1:35:47] when it comes to blasting

[1:35:48] because dust and blasting I

[1:35:50] would say were the number one

[1:35:53] and two issues raised add the

[1:35:56] neighborhood meeting.

[1:35:57] take blasting first.

[1:36:01] staff put up a couple slides

[1:36:02] and there were question answer

[1:36:04] about it and I will identify

[1:36:05] what that was.

[1:36:06] that was the blast study done

[1:36:07] by our blasting expert.

[1:36:09] that is here if we want to get

[1:36:11] into the weeds.

[1:36:13] and, what it showed is

[1:36:18] two-summarize it in two ways.

[1:36:20] I would say that first, what

[1:36:22] the blasting study found is

[1:36:24] that, in the worst case

[1:36:27] vibration scenario and say that

[1:36:30] because you imagine how deep a

[1:36:32] blast is, they take two

[1:36:35] different standards and take

[1:36:37] the most conservative.

[1:36:38] the one that can make things

[1:36:40] look the worst.

[1:36:41] if you look at on the spectrum

[1:36:43] what the worst estimated

[1:36:45] vibration is, here is the

[1:36:47] conclusion:that the

[1:36:50] nearest-they look what is

[1:36:51] closest, the near structures is

[1:36:55] vibration less then half the

[1:36:59] united states bureau mines, the

[1:37:01] internationally accepted

[1:37:03] standard.

[1:37:04] less then half the ground

[1:37:05] vibration limit.

[1:37:06] just get context.

[1:37:07] remember how we saw the last 6

[1:37:09] months of vibrations on the one

[1:37:11] table some time tonight and the

[1:37:13] triangle and x was down here.

[1:37:15] it is a saying that st. The

[1:37:17] estimated result here.

[1:37:18] and the other notable result

[1:37:21] from the study done on what

[1:37:22] will happen with blasting

[1:37:24] again, this hearing the green

[1:37:26] the 110 acres in the northwest

[1:37:28] corner is that, the conclusion

[1:37:31] was the blasting ranges and

[1:37:33] worst case scenario are in the

[1:37:35] similar range they are today

[1:37:37] when we blast all the way over

[1:37:38] and this builds on the next

[1:37:40] commissioner bergida good

[1:37:41] question, where we are

[1:37:44] blasting-doing my hand like you

[1:37:45] can see, where it says, m2 over

[1:37:48] there, and so I transition into

[1:37:50] that.

[1:37:51] again, similar ranges.

[1:37:53] not worse off which is the

[1:37:55] essence if I understand the

[1:37:56] question.

[1:37:57] then I want to transition

[1:37:59] because you asked another good

[1:38:01] question during this hearing.

[1:38:04] you were talking distances and

[1:38:05] were like, show me the relative

[1:38:07] distances and thought one of

[1:38:09] your questions because I think

[1:38:11] staff was addressing your

[1:38:12] question, but another part of

[1:38:13] the question was, you

[1:38:15] remembered seeing a slide that

[1:38:16] showed that we have blasting

[1:38:19] today.

[1:38:20] this is the existing quarry

[1:38:24] think of the middle purple

[1:38:25] where m2 is and your brain

[1:38:28] tells you the distances are

[1:38:29] farther then when you go to the

[1:38:31] green ag.

[1:38:33] again, I am formulating that

[1:38:35] because I think it is a really

[1:38:37] good question you have and the

[1:38:38] answer is, again, I so you

[1:38:41] don't just believe kurt

[1:38:43] peterson, spent months and

[1:38:46] months putting this together

[1:38:48] but I have a vibration expert

[1:38:50] the author here, the essence is

[1:38:52] this, the reason we have ranges

[1:38:55] and city formula, which it says

[1:39:00] how much you can blast looks at

[1:39:02] distance, but looks at the

[1:39:04] power of the blast.

[1:39:07] what does that mean?

[1:39:09] we use larger charges in the

[1:39:12] middle of the site to stay

[1:39:16] below half of what is

[1:39:18] permitted.

[1:39:19] as we move closer whether that

[1:39:20] be surface or undergrounds, our

[1:39:22] blast have to back off more and

[1:39:24] more and more and it is

[1:39:26] designed in a unbelievably

[1:39:29] meticulous way.

[1:39:30] if I'm a neighbor this is I

[1:39:31] would be thinking, would be

[1:39:33] that is nice but you showed a

[1:39:37] study it stays in the same

[1:39:38] vibration range back to the

[1:39:40] question, but how do we know

[1:39:42] that is what will happen?

[1:39:44] and the important part we have

[1:39:45] a stipulation and I linked this

[1:39:48] to udo, our seismic monitors

[1:39:52] have to report that to the fire

[1:39:54] marshal and that is tracked

[1:39:56] back to the vibration levels we

[1:39:58] tell we will operate at.

[1:39:59] we have to do that.

[1:40:00] that is part of the approval.

[1:40:02] so, I want to close-this is a

[1:40:05] comment for the public.

[1:40:06] I thought it was worthwhile

[1:40:08] chair to mention this quickly.

[1:40:10] we had a back and forth at the

[1:40:11] neighborhood meeting where

[1:40:14] really like true understanding

[1:40:16] that we don't know who was

[1:40:17] talking to mr.-we are in a

[1:40:31] different place and not just

[1:40:32] believe us t is ask

[1:40:35] professional staff as suggested

[1:40:37] will you do this, yeah.

[1:40:38] 90 percent-will you do that?

[1:40:40] sure.

[1:40:41] will you do this?

[1:40:42] we may need to tweak it.

[1:40:44] we didn't stop and also said

[1:40:46] okay-please put it in

[1:40:48] stipulation.

[1:40:49] we have to live by it and do

[1:40:50] the reporting and meetings and

[1:40:51] have to make it publicly

[1:40:53] available to the city.

[1:40:54] we are not hiding from anything

[1:40:55] so apologize on behalf of

[1:40:58] whoever that was that gave that

[1:41:00] experience but that is

[1:41:01] absolutely not what will happen

[1:41:04] if approved given all the

[1:41:05] stipulations we have to live

[1:41:07] by.

[1:41:08] with that chair, happy to

[1:41:09] answer any questions.

[1:41:10] >> any questions for the

[1:41:11] applicant?

[1:41:15] >> one more question.

[1:41:16] >> go ahead, commissioner

[1:41:18] brown.

[1:41:19] >> we have been told that the

[1:41:21] majority of the dust is created

[1:41:22] by the crusher.

[1:41:28] the movement of the dust is a

[1:41:31] function of the wind obviously.

[1:41:33] can you tell us where on this

[1:41:35] slide that crusher actually

[1:41:37] exists?

[1:41:38] >> I would be happy to.

[1:41:39] there is a slide that circles

[1:41:41] it.

[1:41:42] do I control that?

[1:41:47] just if you dont mind, I will

[1:41:49] address while getting the slide

[1:41:50] up.

[1:41:51] one from the very beginning one

[1:41:55] item we like to be held to is

[1:41:57] that is where the crusher

[1:41:59] stays.

[1:42:00] it doesn't move closer to the

[1:42:01] neighbors and stays right

[1:42:03] there.

[1:42:20] >> in the middle of the

[1:42:21] property?

[1:42:22] >> yes, sir.

[1:42:23] >> commissioner seeling.

[1:42:24] >> there was another slide that

[1:42:25] showed a picture of the crusher

[1:42:26] and dust control measures put

[1:42:28] on it.

[1:42:29] can you explain what that is we

[1:42:31] are looking at?

[1:42:32] >> I know what you are thinking

[1:42:35] of, yes.

[1:42:36] we have two nationally known

[1:42:38] companies for dust mitigation

[1:42:40] related to crushers, and we

[1:42:42] actually this is the busy

[1:42:45] season because crushers break,

[1:42:48] but we got on the books several

[1:42:49] months ago for them to come and

[1:42:52] we have been dealing with them

[1:42:54] remotely and so we are warmed

[1:42:57] up with them but they are

[1:42:59] coming this week and

[1:43:00] immediately going to the very

[1:43:02] specifics of what we are

[1:43:03] ordering to meet the deadline

[1:43:04] having the crusher enhanced by

[1:43:09] whatever it is, june 1 or july

[1:43:11] 1.

[1:43:12] whatever is in the record.

[1:43:13] it is summer coming up.

[1:43:15] while the finest details will

[1:43:21] be substantial.

[1:43:22] I think the one I highlight the

[1:43:23] most we talked with

[1:43:24] professional staff about is

[1:43:25] that the-dan will kick me if I

[1:43:28] get terms slightly wrong, but

[1:43:30] the most dust created on the

[1:43:33] within the crusher at the

[1:43:36] transfer points and so the

[1:43:38] transfer points we are looking

[1:43:42] at able to enclose them which

[1:43:44] is good way oo have a fail safe

[1:43:46] to mitigate dust.

[1:43:47] that was the biggest leaps

[1:43:51] forward in the improvements.

[1:43:54] >> what do you expect the

[1:43:56] measures to produce?

[1:43:58] >> the neighbors asked the same

[1:43:59] question.

[1:44:00] fair question.

[1:44:01] because we have people that are

[1:44:02] not going to hyperbolize, it is

[1:44:05] really hard.

[1:44:06] going back to the baseline, you

[1:44:08] can't know until we have a

[1:44:10] baseline.

[1:44:11] we have a good baseline and

[1:44:13] there is significant dollars

[1:44:15] going toward this.

[1:44:16] there will be a huge

[1:44:18] difference.

[1:44:19] >> sounds measurable?

[1:44:20] >> it will be measurable.

[1:44:22] >> thank you, sir.

[1:44:24] >> any additional questions?

[1:44:26] commissioner bergida.

[1:44:27] >> thank you mr. Chairman.

[1:44:28] we will go back to distances

[1:44:30] and just the same way you

[1:44:31] repeated things just to make

[1:44:32] sure we are on the same page.

[1:44:34] I'm doing it one more time just

[1:44:35] to make sure.

[1:44:36] >> doesn't bother me.

[1:44:38] >> there has been no

[1:44:39] subterranean blasting to date?

[1:44:42] >> correct.

[1:44:44] >> of the existing mining area.

[1:44:48] the closest under ground

[1:44:52] blasting is 1250?

[1:44:54] >> I will say this and ask

[1:44:55] staff with a exhibit and say

[1:44:56] this-I have the control.

[1:45:00] let's start with this and build

[1:45:02] to get to the answer to the

[1:45:03] question.

[1:45:04] when there is underground

[1:45:07] blasting per udo there is a

[1:45:10] setback of 200 feet.

[1:45:12] let's start there.

[1:45:13] whatever the measurement is you

[1:45:14] are asking is at the 200 foot

[1:45:17] line.

[1:45:18] to repeat back, the question

[1:45:20] you are asking is, what is the

[1:45:21] closest distance we get from

[1:45:23] the 200 foot line.

[1:45:25] the closest blast to the

[1:45:27] closest structure is the

[1:45:28] question?

[1:45:29] >> that is correct.

[1:45:30] >> I can get that.

[1:45:31] >> not from the road, but-

[1:45:33] >> I will give you a answer and

[1:45:35] while I look for it also say

[1:45:37] that is the very thing we

[1:45:38] studied and what I explained

[1:45:40] the two findings from the blast

[1:45:42] study, not making it worse.

[1:45:44] but I'll give the measurement

[1:45:46] in 10 seconds.

[1:45:47] >> while you are doing it if we

[1:45:49] can, currently the closest

[1:45:54] surface level blasting going on

[1:45:56] is 1550 and with the new area

[1:46:00] it would be 1217?

[1:46:03] >> okay, if you have grace with

[1:46:05] compound questions, do you mind

[1:46:06] if do the first one?

[1:46:09] >> not at all.

[1:46:11] >> the answer to the question

[1:46:12] in the blast study this is

[1:46:13] exhibit there, for underground

[1:46:17] mining to the closest

[1:46:18] structure, which is--do I have

[1:46:22] a cursor?

[1:46:23] which is the structure in this

[1:46:27] area and second closest is

[1:46:29] here.

[1:46:30] I will give both distances and

[1:46:31] measure from the closest point

[1:46:33] at the 200 foot setback for

[1:46:36] underground blast.

[1:46:37] we are on the same page.

[1:46:39] the answer is, to the closest

[1:46:41] structure is 611 feet and then

[1:46:46] the--while we talk about these

[1:46:52] from surface the thousand foot

[1:46:54] setback to the same home is

[1:46:57] 1217 feet.

[1:46:58] >> okay.

[1:46:59] so, I was off 50 feet.

[1:47:01] on the existing though, is that

[1:47:05] for-I know it hasn't happened

[1:47:07] yet, but subterranean would be

[1:47:10] 1250, is that accurate?

[1:47:13] and then what has been done is

[1:47:15] 1550 on the surface?

[1:47:19] >> do I have that-do you have

[1:47:21] the measurement?

[1:47:23] from the existing if we do 200

[1:47:25] foot setback do we have a

[1:47:26] measurement?

[1:47:28] >> it is further away

[1:47:30] [inaudible]

[1:47:31] >> I'll repeat it.

[1:47:35] for everybody to hear--

[1:47:37] >> tony, just to answer the

[1:47:38] question, the measurements I

[1:47:40] provided those were

[1:47:42] measurements I took off of our

[1:47:44] mapping software and based on

[1:47:47] the setbacks of the existing

[1:47:48] quarry that were shown yes, it

[1:47:51] was 1250 from the underground

[1:47:55] to the nearest structure and

[1:47:57] 1550 from the surface quarry

[1:48:00] limits.

[1:48:01] >> okay.

[1:48:02] we are talking about the 333

[1:48:04] foot change on above ground and

[1:48:08] underground we are talking 639?

[1:48:13] is that accurate?

[1:48:14] >> I cant do math in my head

[1:48:16] like that, sounds about right.

[1:48:18] >> close enough.

[1:48:20] why is the subterranean closer

[1:48:25] then the surface?

[1:48:26] is it just because the rocks

[1:48:28] are there?

[1:48:29] why is that?

[1:48:30] right now from my reading of

[1:48:32] the report it goes up to .12

[1:48:36] and 10, 15 years from now it

[1:48:39] could go up to .17.

[1:48:42] I don't know if that is a huge

[1:48:43] difference, but other readings

[1:48:44] are .02.

[1:48:46] >> it is not.

[1:48:48] again, we have expert here but

[1:48:51] likely not perceivable.

[1:48:55] we did this on purpose, find

[1:48:57] the closest place.

[1:48:58] that reading worse case

[1:49:00] scenario likely not perceivable

[1:49:01] is just the one house and

[1:49:03] nothing else, but we wanted to

[1:49:05] still show that.

[1:49:07] and back it your just being

[1:49:09] able to picture this, the

[1:49:11] underground while you don't

[1:49:12] know until you finish the 5, 6,

[1:49:14] 7 years of engineering is

[1:49:15] likely gets into 300 to 400

[1:49:18] foot deep and back to what I

[1:49:20] talked about blasting, it is

[1:49:22] really important to visualize

[1:49:24] in our mind the blasting is so

[1:49:27] much smaller in terms of

[1:49:30] charge.

[1:49:31] again, I heard-I wont say on

[1:49:33] the record, but I heard from

[1:49:35] the blasting expertise is one

[1:49:38] and divided by big number

[1:49:40] compared to surface blasting in

[1:49:42] the middle of the site.

[1:49:44] >> [inaudible] in this table?

[1:49:47] the charge weight what you are

[1:49:50] talking about?

[1:49:51] the strength of the blast?

[1:49:52] the 85 versus-

[1:49:54] >>b it is listed in the table

[1:49:56] underpinning all the analysis

[1:49:58] of the blast study to show this

[1:50:00] isn't going to change current

[1:50:01] conditions.

[1:50:03] >> okay.

[1:50:04] thank you.

[1:50:05] >> thank you.

[1:50:07] >> any additional questions for

[1:50:09] the applicant?

[1:50:17] thank you.

[1:50:18] >> thank you.

[1:50:19] >> we'll move forward now to

[1:50:20] the public hearing, which is a

[1:50:22] good opportunity for me to

[1:50:25] review some things we talked

[1:50:26] about earlier in the meeting.

[1:50:29] I know through going through

[1:50:30] multiple public hearings, it

[1:50:32] sounds like we are hearing a

[1:50:33] lot of the same thing.

[1:50:34] we are talking about dust and

[1:50:36] blasting and distances and it

[1:50:39] is all important.

[1:50:40] as we get up into the public

[1:50:42] hearing, the primary purpose of

[1:50:44] this is hearing new

[1:50:45] information.

[1:50:46] what have we not heard that we

[1:50:49] need to take into consideration

[1:50:50] as we move forward?

[1:50:54] in honor of everybody's time,

[1:50:56] we are not looking to repeat

[1:50:58] what is already said.

[1:50:59] so, just keep that in mind as

[1:51:01] you go.

[1:51:02] this is of course the public

[1:51:03] hearing everybody signed up

[1:51:05] for, so we have a longer list

[1:51:06] of names here.

[1:51:08] it goes in procedures how it

[1:51:09] works.

[1:51:11] call the speaker up and also

[1:51:13] call up the person next that is

[1:51:15] after them.

[1:51:16] I appreciate if both of you

[1:51:18] come up and second person could

[1:51:20] be at the chair next to the

[1:51:21] podium so we can roll right

[1:51:23] into the next speaker and keep

[1:51:24] that moving in honor of

[1:51:27] everyone's time.

[1:51:30] move forward on that so-it is

[1:51:32] same rules as far as stating

[1:51:34] your name, address for the

[1:51:36] record, please observe the

[1:51:39] clock and work with that as

[1:51:40] well and we'll get through this

[1:51:43] and figure how we move forward.

[1:51:47] so, starting off on the public

[1:51:50] hearing I will now open the

[1:51:52] public hearing.

[1:51:55] mr. Quackenbush you are first

[1:51:59] on the list again.

[1:52:01] nancy bottle is listed second.

[1:52:06] when I do call your name, if

[1:52:07] you are opting to pass because

[1:52:09] your comments have been made,

[1:52:11] let me know at that time.

[1:52:21] >> just have to finish what I

[1:52:22] started in the first one.

[1:52:23] during the august meeting, the

[1:52:25] quarry staff indicated they

[1:52:28] would deed city land to allow

[1:52:32] 151 street to go straight

[1:52:34] through.

[1:52:35] that is something we haven't

[1:52:37] heard before.

[1:52:38] they also promised 2 or $3

[1:52:42] million to do something for the

[1:52:43] intersection at 56 highway and

[1:52:48] lake shore drive and 151.

[1:52:51] now, first, I haven't heard a

[1:52:55] single person from our

[1:52:57] neighborhood or the other

[1:52:58] neighborhood that thinks that

[1:53:00] any that is important to the

[1:53:03] neighborhood.

[1:53:04] it sounds like a bribe to the

[1:53:08] planning commission.

[1:53:10] thank you.

[1:53:13] >> thank you.

[1:53:15] nancy, followed by assume her

[1:53:18] husband, douglas.

[1:53:25] if I mispronounce your name,

[1:53:28] ask for forgiveness up front.

[1:53:30] >> nancy.

[1:53:34] 14084 south lake stone drive.

[1:53:37] thank you for listening to us

[1:53:38] today.

[1:53:39] we have members of the

[1:53:40] community of city olathe and I

[1:53:42] think what you haven't heard is

[1:53:46] what we have try to come up

[1:53:48] with time to work through

[1:53:49] ourselves without having the

[1:53:52] opportunities to for this to be

[1:53:54] our jobs where we have the time

[1:53:56] to put together lots of stuff,

[1:53:58] so maybe haven't gotten many

[1:53:59] things from many of us, but we

[1:54:02] have not been derelict trying

[1:54:04] to come up with information to

[1:54:05] share with you.

[1:54:07] forgive me while I read my

[1:54:09] chicken scratch.

[1:54:11] I'm glad some city planners

[1:54:13] have pre approval but you

[1:54:18] haven't gotten pre approval

[1:54:20] from citizens.

[1:54:21] some of our planning include

[1:54:22] things taking care of our

[1:54:24] families.

[1:54:25] we have 5 generations of

[1:54:26] families in the area, and we

[1:54:29] are taking care of young to

[1:54:33] old.

[1:54:34] some getting parents moving in

[1:54:35] with us and they are sensitive

[1:54:37] to some of the dust levels and

[1:54:38] some of the noise levels and

[1:54:40] part reason we like the

[1:54:42] community and being outside of

[1:54:44] it is the fact that it is a

[1:54:46] little more quite and we are

[1:54:48] happy community that are very

[1:54:50] communicative with each other

[1:54:53] and plan things together with

[1:54:54] each other and we try to share

[1:54:57] everything with all those

[1:54:58] around us, but our plans are

[1:55:00] our standards and not industry

[1:55:01] standards.

[1:55:03] communities citizen standards

[1:55:04] are for communities and

[1:55:06] citizens and we depend on you

[1:55:07] the planning commission and the

[1:55:09] city and county of olathe or

[1:55:11] johnson county and olathe city

[1:55:13] to take care of us.

[1:55:16] but, industry standards are set

[1:55:18] to take care of the industry.

[1:55:20] if this quarry has been around

[1:55:22] since the 1800 hundreds how old

[1:55:25] are?

[1:55:27] standards?

[1:55:28] I know they get updated, not a

[1:55:30] fool, but standards are set in

[1:55:32] place to take care of the

[1:55:33] industry and not to take care

[1:55:35] of the community and the

[1:55:36] citizens around them.

[1:55:38] I like you to take that into

[1:55:41] account when you think this

[1:55:43] goes forward.

[1:55:44] the community is directly cross

[1:55:50] from this piece.

[1:55:51] the rest of the property is

[1:55:54] here.

[1:55:55] we are directly across the

[1:55:57] street from this expansion plan

[1:55:59] and it does have a impact.

[1:56:02] my husband is recently become a

[1:56:04] house husband and he called me

[1:56:05] the other day and wanted to

[1:56:06] know what the noise was in the

[1:56:07] middle of the day.

[1:56:08] not kidding.

[1:56:09] it was what you think it might

[1:56:12] be.

[1:56:13] blasting.

[1:56:14] it was first time he had

[1:56:15] realized that sound and it

[1:56:17] surprised him enough he brought

[1:56:18] it up to me.

[1:56:19] please keep in mind that

[1:56:21] citizen plans and citizen

[1:56:23] standards are probably

[1:56:24] different then industry

[1:56:25] standards and I ask you to

[1:56:28] think who they help.

[1:56:29] one thing that maybe you also

[1:56:30] haven't heard is creating a

[1:56:33] problem that doesn't exist.

[1:56:36] why I didn't hear you bring up

[1:56:38] the fact what we heard in the

[1:56:40] neighborhood meetings was money

[1:56:43] would be give toon the planning

[1:56:44] committee or city olathe that

[1:56:46] was going to help this

[1:56:49] intersection, but it was also

[1:56:50] said in the next breath that

[1:56:52] the city could do with it that

[1:56:54] money whatever it wanted.

[1:56:57] okay.

[1:56:58] then it isn't to fix a problem

[1:57:00] that doesn't exist.

[1:57:02] meaning, the intersection

[1:57:05] there.

[1:57:06] it is for something else and I

[1:57:07] ask the question of what that

[1:57:08] would be for.

[1:57:09] it does look bad on the city

[1:57:11] olathe ultimately if monies are

[1:57:15] given for a problem that does

[1:57:16] not exist.

[1:57:17] lastly, I guess I like to bring

[1:57:19] up the fact I haven't heard

[1:57:21] from anybody I find it quite

[1:57:23] honesty disheartening that the

[1:57:27] city olathe would consider and

[1:57:28] all due respect the planning

[1:57:29] commission would consider

[1:57:31] putting your citizens health

[1:57:33] and the way we raise our

[1:57:35] families and try to interact

[1:57:36] and be proactive in our

[1:57:38] communities and you put us at

[1:57:39] risk at the benefit of what, in

[1:57:46] return for monies or maybe

[1:57:48] potentially the plot of land to

[1:57:50] come back to the city of olathe

[1:57:53] that can't have land put or big

[1:57:56] property put on it because we

[1:57:57] heard that tonight.

[1:57:59] maybe it can have a pond or

[1:58:00] walkway.

[1:58:01] I love our parks and trails in

[1:58:03] the area.

[1:58:04] I have friends that work on

[1:58:05] them and keep them updated.

[1:58:06] I think they are beautiful, but

[1:58:10] in the next breath they can do

[1:58:12] with this whatever they want

[1:58:13] when it is given back to them.

[1:58:16] a lot of good that does me now.

[1:58:18] I do have to live with the

[1:58:20] sound of there blasting and

[1:58:21] even though it does fall within

[1:58:23] industry standards, who do

[1:58:25] those benefit?

[1:58:26] so, please keep in mind the

[1:58:28] industry standards and who they

[1:58:30] benefit that please don't put

[1:58:34] the city and any monies they

[1:58:38] might get ahead of our

[1:58:39] citizens.

[1:58:40] thank you.

[1:58:41] >> thank you nancy.

[1:58:43] doug is next and marybeth mora,

[1:58:47] if you can make your way up.

[1:58:50] >> doug.

[1:58:52] 1404 south lake stone olathe.

[1:58:56] can you all hear me okay?

[1:58:59] great.

[1:59:00] thank you very much for

[1:59:01] inviting us and letting us

[1:59:02] speak on our behalf and

[1:59:04] addressing you.

[1:59:08] I guess as far as looking at

[1:59:09] new information, one my wife

[1:59:13] did refer to the fact didn't

[1:59:15] know what the blasting sounded

[1:59:17] like.

[1:59:18] I haven't been here the entire

[1:59:19] time we moved in and we are

[1:59:24] moving from the west and big

[1:59:25] move and doing a lot of things

[1:59:27] and very involved situation.

[1:59:28] on the other hand, I was

[1:59:30] surprised to just be sitting

[1:59:32] having cup of coffee watching

[1:59:34] the birds by the lake and hear

[1:59:36] an explosion.

[1:59:39] for any of you that like to see

[1:59:42] what your ears hear or what you

[1:59:45] see or want to run down 159 and

[1:59:48] have a peanut butter and jelly

[1:59:51] sandwich at lunch, feel free to

[1:59:53] invite yourself or call me.

[1:59:55] glad to show you and you can

[1:59:56] taste the grit in the sandwich

[1:59:58] and hear the blasting on the

[2:00:02] porch.

[2:00:03] more then glad to share that

[2:00:04] with you.

[2:00:05] I think that since 1988 they

[2:00:13] made good use of the property

[2:00:14] that they have.

[2:00:15] I hate to see that this extends

[2:00:17] any further or that you deviate

[2:00:19] from the plan you had created

[2:00:21] back then showing that there

[2:00:23] was going to be support for the

[2:00:25] community commercially and

[2:00:28] possibly additional jobs right

[2:00:30] there.

[2:00:31] I don't see why it needs to be

[2:00:34] changed to ag land.

[2:00:35] I think that is a bad vote on

[2:00:37] the planning commission part

[2:00:38] and encourage the entire

[2:00:40] commission or entire county

[2:00:41] board not to vote that way.

[2:00:44] but, if you do want to

[2:00:48] experience for yourselves and

[2:00:49] see what it is really about,

[2:00:55] feel free to give me a call.

[2:00:57] >> thanks doug.

[2:00:58] marybeth mora followed by kim

[2:01:01] erickson.

[2:01:05] >> yes, marybeth mora and I and

[2:01:08] my husband and two grand

[2:01:11] daughters live, 24600 west 154

[2:01:16] street.

[2:01:17] we are the property, 611 feet

[2:01:19] from that place that is talked

[2:01:24] about.

[2:01:25] so, there are many reasons why

[2:01:27] we must not allow for this

[2:01:29] quarry project to go forward.

[2:01:32] I will start from miner to

[2:01:35] major, so bear with me with

[2:01:39] what may seem initially smaller

[2:01:42] reasons, but in order of

[2:01:46] importance.

[2:01:47] blasting and machinery

[2:01:49] generates high noise levels

[2:01:54] causing stress and behavioral

[2:01:56] changes in wildlife and pets.

[2:02:00] we live a distance already from

[2:02:03] blasting and we see that with

[2:02:05] our dog.

[2:02:06] okay?

[2:02:08] the dust quarrying raises

[2:02:11] travels far, settling on plants

[2:02:15] and effecting their growth.

[2:02:17] that is a scientific fact.

[2:02:20] we lived in many places and we

[2:02:24] never had so much dust to deal

[2:02:26] with in our homes as we have in

[2:02:28] this place, but we love it

[2:02:30] anyway.

[2:02:31] we deal with it, but bring it

[2:02:33] closer, it would be different.

[2:02:35] it would effect the plants.

[2:02:37] it would effect our vegetation

[2:02:40] and our gardens, our

[2:02:43] vegetables.

[2:02:45] the next thing is, the

[2:02:48] foundations of our homes in the

[2:02:50] area will be compromised by the

[2:02:53] underground movement from the

[2:02:55] impact of the blasting's.

[2:02:58] so, and then the value of our

[2:03:00] property will go down

[2:03:02] considerably.

[2:03:04] what we have spent years with

[2:03:07] sweat and tears developing for

[2:03:08] our family and our posterity

[2:03:12] would have to be considered a

[2:03:13] loss.

[2:03:14] this is unacceptable.

[2:03:17] I know there have been some

[2:03:20] people that have lived in the

[2:03:22] area that say that they if this

[2:03:25] goes through they are moving.

[2:03:27] I don't like to think that

[2:03:30] everybody's property value will

[2:03:34] be going down and that will

[2:03:36] change things a lot.

[2:03:38] but, most importantly, and I am

[2:03:43] saying this from a perspective

[2:03:44] of a mother, grand mother, also

[2:03:47] a nurse, our health will be

[2:03:50] effected in significant ways.

[2:03:53] the fine dust particles will

[2:03:58] most likely contain silica,

[2:04:00] naturally found in certain

[2:04:01] stone, rock, sand and clay.

[2:04:04] this silica can be easily

[2:04:07] inhaled by those living close

[2:04:09] to a quarry.

[2:04:10] once inside the lungs the dust

[2:04:11] particles are attacked by the

[2:04:13] immune system, which causes

[2:04:16] silicosis a disease that can

[2:04:19] take years to develop.

[2:04:20] it causes swelling and scarring

[2:04:22] in the lungs.

[2:04:26] the nhs website states that

[2:04:29] people with silicosis may

[2:04:31] become bed bound and rare

[2:04:33] instances even can be fatal.

[2:04:35] it can also lead to lung

[2:04:37] diseases such as copd and lung

[2:04:39] cancer.

[2:04:40] the dust exposure can cause eye

[2:04:42] problems too.

[2:04:44] hearing can be effected.

[2:04:46] the international journal of

[2:04:48] environmental research and

[2:04:49] public health conducted a study

[2:04:52] comparing two groups, one far

[2:04:54] from a quarry and the other

[2:04:56] near the quarry.

[2:04:57] those residing closer to the

[2:04:59] quarry had a higher respiratory

[2:05:04] symptoms like nasal congestion,

[2:05:07] cough, as mu and deteriorating

[2:05:09] lung function.

[2:05:11] those susceptible are young and

[2:05:13] elderly.

[2:05:14] my husband and I are getting up

[2:05:17] there in years and we are

[2:05:18] raising our grand daughters on

[2:05:20] the very property like I said

[2:05:23] closest to the perspective

[2:05:25] quarry.

[2:05:26] we live right across the

[2:05:29] street.

[2:05:30] we need to stay healthy for our

[2:05:31] girls who lost both parents and

[2:05:36] depend on us.

[2:05:38] we are appealing to our city

[2:05:42] officials to put the health and

[2:05:44] wellbeing of us, the residents

[2:05:46] of the city above any other

[2:05:49] endeavor.

[2:05:51] people's health must always

[2:05:53] take priority over economic

[2:05:55] growth.

[2:05:59] (applause)

[2:06:01] >> thank you.

[2:06:04] carolyn erickson.

[2:06:10] >> my name is kim erickson.

[2:06:12] my address is 2604 west 150

[2:06:16] street in the housing addition

[2:06:19] that you have seen called lake

[2:06:23] shore estates.

[2:06:25] I wonder, would it be

[2:06:29] inappropriate if showed a

[2:06:31] photo of what the-what it looks

[2:06:35] like in the field when you see

[2:06:37] all the dust?

[2:06:38] can I pass this around?

[2:06:42] >> legal?

[2:06:46] it is your 5 minutes.

[2:06:48] >> beg your pardon?

[2:06:49] >> it is your 5 minutes.

[2:06:52] >> 5 minutes, okay.

[2:06:53] the background standing at

[2:06:56] highway 56 and 151 street.

[2:06:59] that is the quarry and the

[2:07:03] dust.

[2:07:06] that comes right into our

[2:07:07] neighborhood.

[2:07:51] I don't have anything that you

[2:07:53] haven't heard already.

[2:07:55] I just we talk about not

[2:07:59] necessarily new things, but

[2:08:03] what you haven't heard is the

[2:08:04] impact that comes with having

[2:08:07] to face this dust and noise

[2:08:13] potentially any day of the

[2:08:16] week, and if you haven't

[2:08:18] experienced that you can't

[2:08:21] really respond I don't think

[2:08:25] well to this situation.

[2:08:33] we are trying to do our best to

[2:08:36] do what we think we can do.

[2:08:40] I hope that the stipulations

[2:08:42] that you have put down or

[2:08:46] suggested somehow can be

[2:08:48] enforced, because they haven't

[2:08:51] been in the past.

[2:08:53] thank you.

[2:08:54] >> thank you kim.

[2:08:55] carolyn erickson followed by

[2:08:57] terry austinfeld.

[2:09:05] >> I'm carolyn erickson, 2604

[2:09:10] west 150 street.

[2:09:12] that was my husband that just

[2:09:14] spoke.

[2:09:15] my father built his house in

[2:09:16] lake stone estates in 1980.

[2:09:19] he moved there built his house

[2:09:23] there because he thought was a

[2:09:24] beautiful, quite, peaceful,

[2:09:28] lovely neighborhood, and he

[2:09:32] lived in the city a long time

[2:09:33] and was ready to get out

[2:09:36] someplace nice like that.

[2:09:39] it was quite for a long time

[2:09:41] till the quarry came and when

[2:09:43] it came, we like everyone said,

[2:09:46] the dust and the blasting was

[2:09:49] amazing.

[2:09:50] we would come up periodically,

[2:09:53] we lived in oklahoma.

[2:09:56] yes the wind blows there too,

[2:09:58] but I had never seen such a

[2:10:00] mess as my mother was a white

[2:10:04] glove artist, no dust in the

[2:10:06] house.

[2:10:07] there certainly was dust all

[2:10:08] the time that she had to take

[2:10:10] care of.

[2:10:16] it was bad--when you hear the

[2:10:18] blasting, you could hear the

[2:10:20] china the glasses in the china

[2:10:23] closet rattle.

[2:10:25] that is blasting noise and we

[2:10:30] right as you turn off lake

[2:10:32] stone drive, we are the third

[2:10:36] house in.

[2:10:38] and if it rattles our stuff

[2:10:40] like that, I can't imagine what

[2:10:42] it does to their house there on

[2:10:46] the corner.

[2:10:47] we are right behind them just

[2:10:49] behind them a ways.

[2:10:52] it is not right t. Isn't right.

[2:10:54] we moved up here three years

[2:10:57] ago following my father's

[2:10:59] death.

[2:11:00] we moved up here three years

[2:11:01] ago permanently.

[2:11:04] I never had such allergies and

[2:11:07] my eyes watering and all that

[2:11:10] thing since we moved here.

[2:11:11] coughing.

[2:11:12] all that kind of stuff.

[2:11:13] I go to the doctors and say

[2:11:14] what is wrong up here.

[2:11:15] I think what is wrong up here

[2:11:17] is the atmosphere we are living

[2:11:22] in.

[2:11:23] it isn't right.

[2:11:24] it is just not right.

[2:11:25] it isn't right what we breathe,

[2:11:26] it isn't right what we have to

[2:11:28] live with, what we have to deal

[2:11:29] with every single day.

[2:11:32] you get your car washed, if you

[2:11:35] dont put your garage door down

[2:11:36] immediately, your car is dirty

[2:11:39] immediately.

[2:11:40] it is just dirty from all the

[2:11:42] dust that comes into the

[2:11:47] garage.

[2:11:48] it is just not right and if it

[2:11:49] is going to be more so and it

[2:11:52] will be and I can't imagine it

[2:11:54] being that close to old 56

[2:11:57] going all the way around that

[2:11:59] we will not have major major

[2:12:01] problem and the people on the

[2:12:04] other side oak run, are not

[2:12:08] going to have the significant

[2:12:10] amount of problems too.

[2:12:11] we all need to stay healthy and

[2:12:14] right now, that's not

[2:12:16] happening.

[2:12:17] what we have to breathe and

[2:12:18] having to deal with.

[2:12:19] thank you.

[2:12:21] >> thank you carolyn.

[2:12:22] terry austinfeld followed by

[2:12:26] chuck brandonhof.

[2:12:29] brandonburke.

[2:12:31] my apologies.

[2:12:33] terry.

[2:12:35] >> thank you commissioners.

[2:12:36] I'm terry.

[2:12:38] my address is 1614 south like

[2:12:41] stone drive.

[2:12:42] many neighbors have already

[2:12:44] commented on things I was going

[2:12:45] to address, but I would second

[2:12:47] the motion that you can come

[2:12:48] and sit in my house any time as

[2:12:50] well.

[2:12:51] the blasting literally feels

[2:12:52] like you are in a earthquake.

[2:12:54] it hits your house.

[2:12:56] your entire house shakes, so if

[2:12:58] you just want to know, please

[2:12:59] you are invited to my house as

[2:13:02] well.

[2:13:03] again, I really don't want to

[2:13:04] repeat what others said, but

[2:13:06] hopefully can expound on the

[2:13:08] issues we are facing.

[2:13:10] here is what I want the

[2:13:11] commission to understand, what

[2:13:15] I have heard attorney peterson

[2:13:17] say here today is that, the

[2:13:20] vibrations are going to stay in

[2:13:22] the same range even with the

[2:13:26] quarry moving closely.

[2:13:27] that gives zero comfort because

[2:13:30] the vibrations we already

[2:13:32] experience are unacceptable.

[2:13:34] our foundations have cracked.

[2:13:36] you can say well, everybody's

[2:13:38] foundation cracks.

[2:13:40] settling.

[2:13:41] it is not.

[2:13:44] I can show you a photograph.

[2:13:47] I have landscape rocks in my

[2:13:49] yard that were limestone rocks

[2:13:51] when my house was built in

[2:13:53] 1982.

[2:13:54] they are cracked all the way

[2:13:55] down it middle.

[2:13:56] this isn't settling.

[2:13:57] these are 12 feet across.

[2:14:00] this is what the vibration from

[2:14:01] there quarry has done.

[2:14:02] these rocks blasted the ice

[2:14:06] age, but yet the quarry

[2:14:07] vibration has taken them down.

[2:14:19] even the other thing I like to

[2:14:21] address that I have not heard

[2:14:22] addressed by the neighbors is

[2:14:23] that, the issue of the

[2:14:26] underground blasting.

[2:14:27] we have been told that don't

[2:14:29] worry, we'll move the blasting

[2:14:31] underground.

[2:14:33] this not the panacea the quarry

[2:14:37] wants you to think.

[2:14:38] I invite you to do a quick

[2:14:39] google search of what happens

[2:14:42] when you blast underground

[2:14:43] versus surface blasting.

[2:14:47] it will tell you that, moving

[2:14:51] underground while it eliminates

[2:14:54] the issue of fly rock, the

[2:14:56] ground vibrations that are

[2:14:58] experienced at surface can be

[2:15:00] more intense when you move

[2:15:02] underground.

[2:15:04] this stands to reason because

[2:15:05] open air blasting, which they

[2:15:07] are doing now some of the

[2:15:08] energy caused by the blasting

[2:15:10] vents to the open air, but when

[2:15:12] you move undergrounds, all the

[2:15:13] explosive energy is trapped in

[2:15:15] the rock and directly converted

[2:15:17] into ground vibration so you

[2:15:19] see the damage it already

[2:15:20] caused, keeping the vibration

[2:15:23] at the same level isn't going

[2:15:25] to help us at all.

[2:15:30] secondly, what I think is most

[2:15:33] important is issue of dust.

[2:15:36] to someone not experienced what

[2:15:38] we are experiencing, dust.

[2:15:40] so what, big deal.

[2:15:42] your car gets dirty.

[2:15:44] that's not the problem.

[2:15:45] what the problem is, is what is

[2:15:47] contained in the dust.

[2:15:50] as a neighbor mentioned, we are

[2:15:52] looking at hazardous silica

[2:15:57] dust.

[2:15:58] this is classified as known

[2:16:00] human carcinogen.

[2:16:02] breathing it in causes

[2:16:05] incurable lung damage.

[2:16:09] call me slow, I'm just putting

[2:16:12] all this together because I

[2:16:13] just lived in my house two

[2:16:14] years, but the gentlemen the

[2:16:16] widow I bought my house from

[2:16:18] did die of lung cancer.

[2:16:22] I have screen porch.

[2:16:24] it is basically inuseable

[2:16:29] because now matter how much you

[2:16:31] clean it everything is covered

[2:16:33] in dust.

[2:16:34] this is incredibly unhealthy

[2:16:36] things we are breathing.

[2:16:38] come to my house, breathe this.

[2:16:40] we can't open our windows.

[2:16:43] it makes your throat dry.

[2:16:45] it makes your chest hurt and

[2:16:48] this is what we are living

[2:16:49] with.

[2:16:50] so, for the quarry owners to

[2:16:52] tell us, don't worry, we are

[2:16:56] going to stipulate and make

[2:16:57] sure that moving this quarry

[2:16:59] isn't any worse then you have

[2:17:01] now.

[2:17:02] well, that's not really good

[2:17:04] enough.

[2:17:05] the stipulations you are making

[2:17:10] were made in 1988 and they

[2:17:12] didn't solve the problem.

[2:17:13] that is just it, keeping under

[2:17:14] the whatever the standards are

[2:17:16] hasn't solved the problem

[2:17:18] before.

[2:17:19] why should we accept or believe

[2:17:21] they will solve the problem in

[2:17:23] the future?

[2:17:25] I would ask that you deny the

[2:17:27] application, because it isn't

[2:17:31] just inconveniencing the people

[2:17:33] in the neighborhood, it is

[2:17:34] poisoning us.

[2:17:37] thank you for your

[2:17:38] consideration.

[2:17:40] >> thank you terry.

[2:17:43] chuck and greg reno next.

[2:17:48] >> been sitting too long.

[2:17:51] good evening everyone.

[2:17:52] my name is chuck brandonberg.

[2:17:54] my wife and I bought a house

[2:17:56] two years ago, 25344 west 144

[2:18:01] street.

[2:18:04] it is high lands on the green.

[2:18:06] the other day we were outside

[2:18:08] and my neighbor goes, what was

[2:18:10] that?

[2:18:11] it was a huge explosion and we

[2:18:14] are new to what is going on

[2:18:17] with this process and so I

[2:18:22] heard about the dynamiting and

[2:18:25] that is what it was because

[2:18:26] there was no air plane crash,

[2:18:29] but anyway, we do have a dust

[2:18:32] issue where we live.

[2:18:35] leave the car out, it gets

[2:18:36] dusty as carolyn was

[2:18:40] explaining.

[2:18:42] most of my career I worked as a

[2:18:45] cfo for a green company and epa

[2:18:50] was on us all the time about

[2:18:53] our dust system, because the

[2:18:55] people in the town, they washed

[2:19:00] clothes and the dust gets on

[2:19:02] the clothes and so, we had to

[2:19:06] take precaution about dust, and

[2:19:10] in a grain elevator, it is

[2:19:11] edible.

[2:19:12] it comes from edible product

[2:19:16] like corn, beans, wheat, so

[2:19:19] when we moved here, I couldn't

[2:19:22] believe the dust going on at

[2:19:25] the quarry, but I think--I

[2:19:32] don't envy your job.

[2:19:33] it is tough, I know, but I like

[2:19:43] to leave you with this thought,

[2:19:44] would you move in that

[2:19:46] neighborhood and pick up your

[2:19:47] family and move in that

[2:19:50] neighborhood?

[2:19:51] that is all I have.

[2:19:52] thank you.

[2:19:53] >> thank you chuck.

[2:19:54] greg reno followed by katie

[2:19:56] slater.

[2:20:03] >> my name is greg reno.

[2:20:05] 1514 south lake stone drive.

[2:20:08] my wife and I moved here 9

[2:20:10] years ago from iowa.

[2:20:15] I commuted back and forth and

[2:20:17] worked through the week day.

[2:20:20] the first month we were down my

[2:20:22] wife heard a explosion and

[2:20:24] didn't know what had happened.

[2:20:26] if it was a earthquake, if a

[2:20:29] plane crashed, she ran outside,

[2:20:32] didn't know what to do.

[2:20:34] but, learned later it was from

[2:20:37] the mines.

[2:20:38] I say thank you, it isn't as

[2:20:39] bad as it used to be, but we

[2:20:42] have we remodeled our home two

[2:20:46] years ago and have cracks

[2:20:47] already in our new sheet rock.

[2:20:50] each time there is a blast, we

[2:20:51] have the knock down from the

[2:20:53] ceiling comes down.

[2:20:55] we know when there is was a

[2:20:57] blast because we come home and

[2:20:59] there are white flecks all over

[2:21:01] the floor.

[2:21:02] that is very annoying.

[2:21:05] another thing, about the birm,

[2:21:10] if you look at-I wish the map

[2:21:12] was up, but there used to be

[2:21:14] offices there is now a rock

[2:21:16] birm there.

[2:21:17] as I said, we moved from iowa

[2:21:19] so we had a lot of friends come

[2:21:21] see us, and we came driving

[2:21:24] from east to west and our

[2:21:25] friends said, what is that,

[2:21:29] their words, ugly pile of rock

[2:21:32] up there.

[2:21:33] said, that is the quarry.

[2:21:35] that is the birm so you dont

[2:21:36] see what is going on.

[2:21:39] it is a ugly birm.

[2:21:44] I agree with what the last

[2:21:45] speaker said, I dont want to be

[2:21:48] in your shoes to make the

[2:21:49] decision.

[2:21:50] you have a tough decision.

[2:21:52] at the same time, I feel sorry

[2:21:53] for you as quarry people.

[2:21:57] I am a small business owner

[2:21:58] also.

[2:21:59] I have been all my life.

[2:22:01] we are in a changing world.

[2:22:04] the world that-I farm.

[2:22:08] the regulations we are

[2:22:10] regulating ourselves to death.

[2:22:15] I wish that happened to them as

[2:22:16] last speaker said about the

[2:22:18] dust.

[2:22:19] ag with dust and corn and

[2:22:23] soybeans, I am sell grain the

[2:22:28] elevators are shut down just to

[2:22:30] get rid of dust.

[2:22:32] think about that.

[2:22:42] as I said, we had doors on the

[2:22:44] house that we can't close

[2:22:46] because of the foundation has

[2:22:48] shifted.

[2:22:53] as I said, I feel sorry for

[2:22:56] you.

[2:22:57] you guys have a tough decision.

[2:22:59] we are in a changing world.

[2:23:02] the world around your quarry

[2:23:04] has moved in.

[2:23:06] one of us is going to move out.

[2:23:10] all seriousness.

[2:23:11] it is up to you guys to decide.

[2:23:15] there is a lot of beautiful

[2:23:16] homes up all around there.

[2:23:19] this could be developed.

[2:23:21] just because there is a quarry

[2:23:22] there now, doesn't mean it has

[2:23:26] to stay there.

[2:23:28] just because there is a homes

[2:23:29] there now, doesn't mean those

[2:23:31] people have to stay there

[2:23:33] either.

[2:23:37] I'll close with this, as I

[2:23:40] said, we came from iowa.

[2:23:42] I farm in iowa and if you

[2:23:44] remember hearing about the

[2:23:45] dakota access pipeline that

[2:23:47] came through iowa, from south

[2:23:50] dakota, that went right through

[2:23:52] our farm.

[2:23:54] they promised us everything.

[2:23:57] we are going to dig this in, we

[2:23:58] are going to put the pipe in

[2:24:00] and when we leave you won't

[2:24:02] notice we were there.

[2:24:07] my wife doesn't like this, but

[2:24:09] this is my word, they raped our

[2:24:12] soil.

[2:24:15] 300 feet wide this has been

[2:24:17] over 10 years ago, you can

[2:24:19] still see where they went

[2:24:22] through.

[2:24:24] the quarry can make great

[2:24:25] promises, have great

[2:24:30] intentions, but if nothing is

[2:24:31] followed through on, and if you

[2:24:34] don't answer to the public, it

[2:24:37] is wasted words.

[2:24:40] I pray you guys make the right

[2:24:43] decision for all of us.

[2:24:44] thank you.

[2:24:49] >> katie slater followed by

[2:24:50] lori quackenbush.

[2:24:53] >> hi.

[2:24:54] cathy slater.

[2:24:55] I lived in lake side since late

[2:25:01] 1979 so a lot long time t. Is a

[2:25:03] beautiful area and we love

[2:25:05] living there.

[2:25:06] we have dealt with the quarry

[2:25:09] all most 40 years now with the

[2:25:10] dust and blasting just like

[2:25:11] everybody else said, we have

[2:25:13] cracks in the sheet rock as

[2:25:15] well as one in the foundation

[2:25:17] too.

[2:25:18] there is nothing about the

[2:25:19] quarry that will benefit any of

[2:25:21] our neighbors.

[2:25:23] none in our neighborhood, like

[2:25:25] stone, or oak run or prairie

[2:25:29] highlands.

[2:25:30] the dust and sound and

[2:25:33] vibration travel a long way.

[2:25:34] I appreciate what they said.

[2:25:36] the quarry people.

[2:25:37] but honesty, we lived with them

[2:25:39] all these years and nothing has

[2:25:40] been done to mitigate the

[2:25:42] problem.

[2:25:44] not the noise, not the dust or

[2:25:45] anything, so it is hard for us

[2:25:47] to really believe what they

[2:25:49] say.

[2:25:50] even though I'm sure they are

[2:25:51] going to try

[2:25:53] >> student do it, but we had

[2:25:54] experience with them not

[2:25:55] following through.

[2:25:57] I know it is hard for you to

[2:25:59] understand if you don't live in

[2:26:00] any of these areas or anything

[2:26:02] close to that, but I hope that

[2:26:04] you will consider our quality

[2:26:07] of life and also our property

[2:26:08] values as you make the decision

[2:26:11] and we appreciate you

[2:26:12] listening.

[2:26:13] thanks.

[2:26:14] >> thank you, cathy.

[2:26:16] lori followed by don thomas.

[2:26:19] >> yes, lori.

[2:26:25] pretty-sorry, I should wave my

[2:26:27] right, but I really do want to

[2:26:29] invite you all to go on a field

[2:26:31] trip and seriously, please

[2:26:34] drive out there, see what we

[2:26:35] are seeing and living with

[2:26:37] every day, because have any of

[2:26:40] you been out there?

[2:26:42] okay.

[2:26:43] just a couple of you.

[2:26:44] but you really all need to go

[2:26:46] and maybe you'll see from our

[2:26:48] point of view, because it is

[2:26:50] awful.

[2:26:51] we love living there.

[2:26:52] we lived there since 1980 and

[2:26:54] we have no plans on going

[2:26:56] anywhere, we plan to die there,

[2:26:58] which is kind of scary now that

[2:27:00] I think about it.

[2:27:03] I want to live long and don't

[2:27:04] want to have all this dust and

[2:27:06] crap we see and intake

[2:27:09] shortening my life.

[2:27:11] I don't have that many years

[2:27:15] left, so please consider all

[2:27:16] the homes, all the people

[2:27:17] around.

[2:27:18] thank you.

[2:27:20] >> thank you lori.

[2:27:21] don thomas.

[2:27:25] cynthia peterson.

[2:27:28] followed by steve--

[2:27:36] >> hi.

[2:27:37] thank you for the opportunity.

[2:27:38] I'm cindy peterson.

[2:27:44] our house was built in 78, so

[2:27:47] one of the earlier houses.

[2:27:49] we lived there since 2004.

[2:27:53] my parents we built an addition

[2:27:56] on my dad was a architect and

[2:27:58] would have loved this fight

[2:27:59] with--he was a architect and

[2:28:02] liked to engage and practice

[2:28:04] law without a license, but if

[2:28:09] you know him you know that is

[2:28:10] true.

[2:28:11] he probably appeared before you

[2:28:12] guys at some point years ago.

[2:28:16] and so, we knew the people who

[2:28:18] we bought the house from warned

[2:28:21] us about the quarry.

[2:28:22] we thought, how bad can that

[2:28:24] be?

[2:28:25] we love the property and bought

[2:28:26] the house and my dad designed

[2:28:27] an addition for my parents to

[2:28:30] live in by us and, but soon as

[2:28:35] we moved in, we realized what

[2:28:38] the problems were and I

[2:28:42] don't--it is all the same

[2:28:43] thing.

[2:28:44] the blasting and the dust.

[2:28:48] this afternoon my house is shut

[2:28:53] up and air conditioning on and

[2:28:55] I clean off the counter and I

[2:28:56] come back two hours later and

[2:28:58] there is a little grit on the

[2:29:01] counter.

[2:29:02] that is not with the windows

[2:29:04] open.

[2:29:05] the windows are open, how many

[2:29:07] days do we have winds from the

[2:29:08] south?

[2:29:11] pretty good winds from the

[2:29:13] south.

[2:29:14] that's coming straight over the

[2:29:17] quarry and straight into our

[2:29:19] neighborhood.

[2:29:20] so, they say, well we'll test

[2:29:21] the winds and if it is too

[2:29:23] windy we won't blast.

[2:29:24] what do they mean by too windy

[2:29:27] because it doesn't matter even

[2:29:29] if it is a slight breeze, dust

[2:29:32] everywhere.

[2:29:34] now my grandson and his family

[2:29:37] have moved in where my parents

[2:29:39] lived.

[2:29:40] they both passed and they have

[2:29:42] a 22 month old and a 5 month

[2:29:46] old, so we have our great grand

[2:29:49] children there.

[2:29:50] the 22 month old is developed a

[2:29:53] cough that isn't related to

[2:29:56] respiratory illness, so I'm

[2:30:02] hoping it isn't related to the

[2:30:03] dust, but I would say, we are

[2:30:05] not planning on moving because

[2:30:06] that, but it really does make

[2:30:08] me think about their health

[2:30:11] growing up, and we want to

[2:30:14] protect them as much as

[2:30:15] possible.

[2:30:17] I figured that my opinion about

[2:30:20] what will happen is it is done

[2:30:22] deal, but I wanted to express

[2:30:26] so you know people in the

[2:30:27] neighborhoods that live around

[2:30:31] there hopefully you will think

[2:30:32] about your decision.

[2:30:33] thank you.

[2:30:35] >> thank you cynthia.

[2:30:38] that is our final scheduled

[2:30:39] speaker tonight.

[2:30:41] do I have a motion to close the

[2:30:43] public hearing?

[2:30:46] >> I move we close the public

[2:30:47] hearing.

[2:30:48] >> thank you commissioner

[2:30:49] brown.

[2:30:50] second?

[2:30:51] >> second.

[2:30:52] >> thank you commissioner

[2:30:53] terrones.

[2:30:54] all in favor say aye.

[2:30:55] opposed, nay.

[2:30:56] the public hearing is now

[2:30:57] closed.

[2:30:58] commissioners, move to

[2:31:00] additional discussion on this

[2:31:01] item.

[2:31:04] >> chair.

[2:31:05] >> go ahead commissioner

[2:31:07] terrones.

[2:31:10] >> I live in west olathe, I

[2:31:12] think couple years ago I wasn't

[2:31:18] on the planning commission then

[2:31:19] by the way, maybe three years

[2:31:20] ago then, but gentlemen came to

[2:31:26] our house all the neighborhood

[2:31:27] and dropped off fliers and it

[2:31:31] was a educational flier about

[2:31:34] what was about to happen and

[2:31:36] would be experiencing these

[2:31:38] blasts, so I have experienced

[2:31:40] the blasts and it is, you know,

[2:31:45] and to be honest, it didn't

[2:31:48] last long, but I do remember

[2:31:50] the concern that I had as I am

[2:31:54] pretty picky and there was

[2:31:56] enough vibration in our home

[2:32:00] and I was definitely concerned

[2:32:02] about foundation issues and

[2:32:04] cracks.

[2:32:05] none that materialized, but

[2:32:07] again, it was short-lived, but

[2:32:10] I do remember hearing it a boom

[2:32:13] sonic boom type and the whole

[2:32:16] house we have a large house,

[2:32:18] the whole house shook, and but

[2:32:23] luckily we didn't see any-I did

[2:32:26] go around looking for cracks in

[2:32:29] the foundation, inside, outside

[2:32:31] and nothing materialized that

[2:32:32] I'm aware of.

[2:32:34] from what I can see.

[2:32:35] I sympathize with these

[2:32:38] comments.

[2:32:39] they are very moving and

[2:32:43] heartfelt.

[2:32:44] please know that whatever the

[2:32:46] outcome is, it is just a

[2:32:48] recommendation.

[2:32:49] my colleagues have asked a lot

[2:32:52] of good questions, and we are

[2:32:57] not elected officials.

[2:32:58] we listen and by the way, thank

[2:33:02] you for your comments.

[2:33:03] you are very well received, and

[2:33:08] but it is just a

[2:33:09] recommendation.

[2:33:10] it is up to your city council

[2:33:12] that they can add different

[2:33:14] factors to what is in front of

[2:33:17] them.

[2:33:18] they could do a number of

[2:33:19] things, so I want to thank you

[2:33:23] and also want to take a minute

[2:33:24] to thank the staff.

[2:33:27] it was a lengthy report and you

[2:33:32] look at this and sometimes have

[2:33:34] to read it two or three times

[2:33:37] to understand so I want to

[2:33:40] thank the staff for the

[2:33:41] detailed and information,

[2:33:43] including the comments that we

[2:33:45] received from the public.

[2:33:48] I want to thank you.

[2:33:49] thank you mr. Chair.

[2:33:51] >> thank you commissioner

[2:33:52] terrones.

[2:33:54] commissioner bergida.

[2:33:55] >> thank you mr. Chairman.

[2:33:57] all those that extended invites

[2:33:59] to us to come visit your

[2:34:01] neighborhood, I would extend

[2:34:02] that to city council, because

[2:34:05] as a commissioner terrones said

[2:34:08] ultimately they have the final

[2:34:10] decision.

[2:34:11] I did have another question for

[2:34:12] the applicant regarding the

[2:34:16] setback.

[2:34:17] mainly, if we were to propose a

[2:34:20] amendment so the setback

[2:34:22] matched existing site, so

[2:34:28] whatever that calculation is,

[2:34:30] whether it's an additional 300

[2:34:34] feet and then put the same spot

[2:34:36] for the underground blasting as

[2:34:40] well, would that be amenable or

[2:34:42] would the applicant be open to

[2:34:44] that?

[2:34:45] >> commissioner, we worked a

[2:34:46] long time on the dimensions and

[2:34:48] I say, we went a thousand

[2:34:50] feet,er which is currents udo

[2:34:55] which is existing quarry.

[2:34:56] which is hard.

[2:34:57] that is lot of rock left there,

[2:34:59] but we thought it was the right

[2:35:00] thing to and meet currents udo

[2:35:03] and underground is underground

[2:35:05] and we need the extent that the

[2:35:07] 200 foot setback.

[2:35:09] we are going 3 and 400 feet.

[2:35:11] >> so that would be a no?

[2:35:12] >> right.

[2:35:15] >> thank you.

[2:35:17] >> any additional questions?

[2:35:18] commissioner chapman.

[2:35:20] >> thank you chair.

[2:35:22] I very much appreciate all the

[2:35:25] comments by our citizens and I

[2:35:27] believe they have some

[2:35:29] legitimate concerns, which I do

[2:35:31] believe like my colleagues they

[2:35:33] should bring these before city

[2:35:35] council.

[2:35:36] however, our job at planning

[2:35:43] commission is do the proposals,

[2:35:45] any proposal, do they conform

[2:35:46] to our comprehensive plan and

[2:35:48] our unified development

[2:35:49] ordinance.

[2:35:51] as they are proposed, staff

[2:35:53] recommends believes they do.

[2:35:58] whether or not, if this special

[2:36:00] use permit is ultimately

[2:36:02] granted, I am wondering if

[2:36:05] perhaps part of the agreement

[2:36:07] should be that perhaps there

[2:36:09] should be annual report that is

[2:36:11] more then a annual report.

[2:36:13] perhaps it should be a

[2:36:14] quarterly or semi-annual report

[2:36:17] to be sure that whatever

[2:36:18] stipulations have been put in

[2:36:21] place that in fact they are

[2:36:22] being adhered to.

[2:36:24] I do have one question for the

[2:36:26] applicant again, if you don't

[2:36:28] mind.

[2:36:33] mr. Peterson you mentioned

[2:36:35] earlier that you are going to

[2:36:37] be putting improvement into the

[2:36:41] current dust mitigation system

[2:36:45] there?

[2:36:46] >> that is right.

[2:36:47] >> what is the expecting

[2:36:48] benefit that will be achieved

[2:36:50] by adding these improvements?

[2:36:53] >> so, from a qualitative

[2:36:55] perspective I pick on the one I

[2:36:57] found most compelling,

[2:36:59] multifaceted, but the transfer

[2:37:01] points where the rock drops

[2:37:02] down and creates the most dust,

[2:37:07] what we are looking at is

[2:37:09] enclosing the transfer points.

[2:37:11] dust comes up and enclosed and

[2:37:14] contained u so that is a

[2:37:16] qualitative answer without

[2:37:17] going through the process we go

[2:37:19] through at the national vendors

[2:37:20] coming to help with the

[2:37:23] improvements.

[2:37:24] that hopefully gives a tangible

[2:37:27] feel.

[2:37:28] that is a major change.

[2:37:31] crushers is biggest dust

[2:37:32] producer and the biggest part

[2:37:34] of the crusher that produces

[2:37:36] dust are the transfer points.

[2:37:37] the primary transfer points

[2:37:39] looking to totally contain

[2:37:40] those, which is super effective

[2:37:43] for dust mitigation.

[2:37:44] >> when they are presenting to

[2:37:46] you their plan for dust

[2:37:48] mitigation, what do they tell

[2:37:50] you it will do?

[2:37:51] do they give you percentages of

[2:37:53] reduction?

[2:37:54] is there anything you can hang

[2:37:55] your hat on with regards to-you

[2:37:58] can expect to see 50 percent

[2:38:01] decrease in dust pollution?

[2:38:04] >> this is the quantitative

[2:38:08] back and forth with we could

[2:38:10] honesty hypothesize and give

[2:38:14] percentage, but we talked to

[2:38:15] neighbors about this.

[2:38:18] it isn't that clear but we can

[2:38:21] have a baseline and test

[2:38:23] afterwards and what we are told

[2:38:25] is, by the experts there will

[2:38:27] be a remarkable difference, but

[2:38:32] no one is ready to assign a

[2:38:34] percentage to it:I wish I had

[2:38:36] one for you.

[2:38:37] >> one final question, how long

[2:38:38] have the improvements been

[2:38:41] available to you?

[2:38:42] >> I don't think any of the

[2:38:44] technology is brand new.

[2:38:46] they are constantly upping the

[2:38:48] standards and we agreed every

[2:38:50] time we do improvements we make

[2:38:52] sure all improvements meet the

[2:38:54] latest standards but it is

[2:38:58] wrong to say anything we are

[2:38:59] talking about was invented

[2:39:01] yesterday but end of the day we

[2:39:02] are committed day one meeting

[2:39:03] all requirements, but this is

[2:39:07] extraordinary what we are

[2:39:08] proposing now in exchange for a

[2:39:10] sup as the bottom line.

[2:39:12] >> thank you.

[2:39:13] >> yes, sir.

[2:39:14] >> stay there mr. Peterson.

[2:39:18] any additional?

[2:39:19] just a couple quick ones.

[2:39:24] as far as dust control

[2:39:27] technology, how would you

[2:39:28] contrast what was in place in

[2:39:30] 1976 versus what we are doing

[2:39:32] now?

[2:39:33] what is the level of change in

[2:39:35] that and what is anticipated in

[2:39:37] the future?

[2:39:38] >> do you have deep specific

[2:39:41] explanation?

[2:39:42] I know the high level, but I

[2:39:45] invite you-I know we talked

[2:39:48] about a lot that technology

[2:39:50] increasingly is better like our

[2:39:52] computer our phone or cars.

[2:39:55] everything.

[2:39:56] but, I don't-if you do you can

[2:39:58] say it, but if not--this is dan

[2:40:00] jones again introduced early

[2:40:03] on.

[2:40:04] >> not opposed to high level.

[2:40:05] just trying to get a idea.

[2:40:06] >> I don't want to gyp on the

[2:40:08] question.

[2:40:09] >> it is obviously a continual

[2:40:11] problem.

[2:40:13] >> dan jones.

[2:40:15] 8014 northwest.

[2:40:19] missouri, 64152.

[2:40:22] 1976 they didn't use dust

[2:40:25] control.

[2:40:27] and, kurt talked about transfer

[2:40:31] points but there is wet

[2:40:33] suppression, nozzle technology

[2:40:35] for spray bars, used to be you

[2:40:39] drain water using hoses or

[2:40:41] piping hoses to come to piping

[2:40:43] and drill holes in the pipes

[2:40:45] and it drops water on there.

[2:40:46] now there are spray nozzles,

[2:40:50] particle size, the different

[2:40:52] dust particles are attracted so

[2:40:54] if you have a smaller water

[2:40:59] molecule it attracts the dust

[2:41:00] molecule and adhere to and drop

[2:41:02] it out.

[2:41:04] and then the second huge part

[2:41:07] about it is all the paving we

[2:41:08] are doing.

[2:41:09] the trucks kick up a huge

[2:41:10] amount of dust and we water the

[2:41:13] roads, we put 80 thousand

[2:41:14] gallons of water on the road a

[2:41:16] day currently, and then the

[2:41:19] trucks track it out on 159

[2:41:21] street that mud comes off, it

[2:41:23] dries and then they drive over

[2:41:25] it and creates more dust.

[2:41:28] it is multi-faceted what we are

[2:41:32] planning on doing, and the

[2:41:35] enclosure of transfer points is

[2:41:37] going to be significant.

[2:41:38] the addition of the updated

[2:41:40] technology on the spray bars

[2:41:42] and spray nozzles in different

[2:41:44] locations of the plant,

[2:41:47] significant.

[2:41:48] paving and doing the sweeping

[2:41:49] and mud control devices to keep

[2:41:51] that stuff from getting on 159.

[2:41:54] remember we are one operator of

[2:41:56] multiple operators that are on

[2:41:58] 159, but doing those things is

[2:42:01] going to significantly reduce

[2:42:03] the dust.

[2:42:04] the paving will reduce a

[2:42:06] significant amount created away

[2:42:10] from the crusher the winds from

[2:42:11] the south pick up and blow.

[2:42:14] >> thank you, dan.

[2:42:17] commissioner--

[2:42:19] >> there is a lot of issues

[2:42:22] involved with this obviously.

[2:42:23] we have dust and vibration,

[2:42:27] health, sheet rock and other

[2:42:31] things we heard about.

[2:42:33] I am understanding of all of

[2:42:36] it.

[2:42:37] we had this information since

[2:42:38] last thursday evening is all.

[2:42:43] the planning commission deals

[2:42:44] with land use issues.

[2:42:48] rather then a lot of issues

[2:42:49] brought up tonight.

[2:42:52] we had it just since last

[2:42:55] thursday, we have a very

[2:42:57] competent planning staff

[2:42:58] dealing with this apparently

[2:43:00] for many months and studying

[2:43:02] it.

[2:43:07] what is already said from three

[2:43:08] other commissioners here, this

[2:43:12] is ultimately up to the city

[2:43:14] council that can deal with

[2:43:15] those issues, rather then just

[2:43:17] the land use issues.

[2:43:19] so, because that, because it is

[2:43:22] land use issue and not we don't

[2:43:24] deal with health issues or

[2:43:26] vibrations here, I have to

[2:43:28] differ to our staff

[2:43:29] recommendation and support this

[2:43:32] ultimately.

[2:43:35] >> commissioner seeling.

[2:43:37] >> I will never say as

[2:43:40] eloquently as others, but I

[2:43:42] want to recognize folks that

[2:43:43] come and speak at commission

[2:43:45] meetings and exercise your

[2:43:47] right to engage city staff and

[2:43:49] planning commission and

[2:43:50] ultimately your city council,

[2:43:51] so thank you all for being here

[2:43:53] tonight for that.

[2:43:54] I am sympathetic to all our

[2:43:57] concerns with dust and your

[2:43:58] property and your health and

[2:44:00] all of the things you mentioned

[2:44:02] tonight.

[2:44:03] we had probably 225 pages or so

[2:44:06] of material we read that we had

[2:44:08] since thursday, and so it was a

[2:44:11] quick read and quick

[2:44:12] understanding of what is going

[2:44:13] on, but you all should know

[2:44:15] city staff works on this stuff

[2:44:17] for months engaging with the

[2:44:19] applicant and I think they have

[2:44:21] put together a long list of

[2:44:23] stipulations that will

[2:44:26] ultimately not solve your

[2:44:28] problems, but improve current

[2:44:30] conditions with the paving of

[2:44:32] the road and the rock crusher,

[2:44:35] dust control I think all that

[2:44:37] will ultimately help with the

[2:44:40] issues you are facing.

[2:44:42] as a planning commission, we

[2:44:43] have a very narrow scope what

[2:44:45] we can look at.

[2:44:46] your city council has a broader

[2:44:48] scope and I would encourage

[2:44:50] those of you that still have

[2:44:52] concerns to engage city

[2:44:55] council.

[2:44:56] they can take a lot more action

[2:44:57] then what we can take, like

[2:44:59] commissioner said earlier.

[2:45:02] this is a land use issue and

[2:45:03] that is the limited scope we

[2:45:04] are allowed to look at, so I am

[2:45:07] in support of this measure and

[2:45:09] will be voting in favor of it

[2:45:10] and I would encourage those out

[2:45:12] there to please engage your

[2:45:16] city council if you have

[2:45:18] additional concerns.

[2:45:19] thank you.

[2:45:20] >> commissioner lynn.

[2:45:21] >> thank you, mr. Chair.

[2:45:22] I really appreciate the forward

[2:45:24] thinking that we do as a city

[2:45:26] to keep areas of our city set

[2:45:29] aside for neighborhood

[2:45:31] commercial.

[2:45:32] I really think that is a better

[2:45:33] use for this.

[2:45:37] more importantly though, I do

[2:45:40] think because of the health

[2:45:41] concerns and I realize it is a

[2:45:42] land use, but as someone else

[2:45:45] stated earlier, the citizen

[2:45:46] standards are different from

[2:45:47] industry standards, and I think

[2:45:49] is about what you can't see.

[2:45:52] not about the dust on the cars

[2:45:54] or the dust you have to do

[2:45:56] inside the house, it is dust

[2:45:57] settling inside the lungs and I

[2:46:01] can't be in favor of something

[2:46:02] that could potentially hurt our

[2:46:04] fellow olathens so I will be a

[2:46:12] no.

[2:46:13] >> anyone else?

[2:46:14] couple quick questions for

[2:46:16] staff before we move to a vote

[2:46:17] on this.

[2:46:18] so, first of all, I don't know

[2:46:20] whether nathan or--is there a

[2:46:24] current anything on the cip

[2:46:27] regarding improvements to 151

[2:46:29] street?

[2:46:31] >> there is not anything in the

[2:46:33] 5 year cip on 151 street.

[2:46:36] >> okay.

[2:46:37] so, based on what we are

[2:46:41] dealing with right here,

[2:46:42] obviously the council will be

[2:46:44] the final say on this, is there

[2:46:48] any scenario where these

[2:46:49] actions would lead to the

[2:46:51] quarry ceasing operation?

[2:46:57] >> sorry, chief community

[2:46:59] development officer.

[2:47:02] there is always a process for

[2:47:04] revoking special use permit if

[2:47:06] there's gross violations, so

[2:47:09] that could be enacted any time.

[2:47:11] >> okay.

[2:47:15] alright.

[2:47:16] any other further discussion?

[2:47:19] commissioner bergida.

[2:47:20] >> thank you, mr. Chairman.

[2:47:22] if I could take my vote I'm

[2:47:24] about to make and last vote I

[2:47:27] made and switch them I would

[2:47:28] and on this one, I try to get

[2:47:31] to a yes, but for similar

[2:47:34] concerns that have been

[2:47:39] expressed, if it was the same

[2:47:40] already been there, it is

[2:47:42] already there.

[2:47:43] but because it will be moving

[2:47:45] closer I will also be voting

[2:47:47] no.

[2:47:48] (applause)

[2:47:51] >> anyone else?

[2:47:54] if not, may I have a motion on

[2:47:57] su26-0007?

[2:48:03] >> mr. Chair, make a motion

[2:48:05] that we approve su26-0007 as

[2:48:18] stipulated by staff.

[2:48:21] >> thank you commissioner

[2:48:22] terrones.

[2:48:23] do I have a second?

[2:48:24] >> second.

[2:48:25] >> thank you commissioner

[2:48:26] chapman.

[2:48:27] mrs. Will, please take a roll

[2:48:28] call vote.

[2:48:31] >> commissioner corcoran, yes.

[2:48:33] commissioner brown, yes.

[2:48:35] commissioner terrones, yes.

[2:48:38] commissioner bergida, no.

[2:48:40] commissioner chapman, yes.

[2:48:42] commissioner seeling, yes.

[2:48:45] commissioner lynn, no.

[2:48:48] chair janner, yes.

[2:48:51] that motion passes 6-2.

[2:48:55] >> move forward to

[2:48:56] announcement.

[2:48:57] city staff you have anything

[2:48:58] this evening?

[2:48:59] >> none this evening.

[2:49:00] thank you.

[2:49:01] >> alright.

[2:49:02] based on that, this meeting is

[2:49:04] hereby adjourned.

[2:49:05] thank you for being here this

[2:49:06] evening.

[2:49:07] [meeting adjourned]

Planning Commission on 2026-09-14- Final TRIMMED

Agenda

Transcript