[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]