OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Olathe, Kansas/City Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Planning Commission Meeting Summary - September 14, 2026

City Council — Monday, September 14, 2026
BodyOlathe, Kansas
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, September 14, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:49:04

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:07

Like to call tonight's meeting to order.

0:09

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

0:14

I Pledge of Allegiance to the United States.

0:22

Under God.

0:24

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

0:34

Well, as we begin our meeting this evening, I'll take a moment to acknowledge that we do have a quorum of planning commissioners present with seven of nine commissioners in attendance.

0:44

I think the other two will still be here before we get too far into our agenda.

0:48

I want to thank everyone in the chamber for attending this evening's meeting as well as those watching online.

0:53

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

1:02

It's important that our meetings are conducted with dignity and respect.

1:06

This applies to every person in attendance.

1:08

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

1:15

Finally, the actions on the issues we discuss are ultimately under the responsibility of the City Council.

1:21

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

1:29

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

1:36

Should that interaction take place as a result of a business relationship or any other actual interaction, which we refer to as ex parte communication, commissioners will report that interaction when we reach that item in the agenda.

1:51

We'll now move on to the consent agenda.

1:53

This evening we have two items on the consent agenda.

1:57

With the consent agenda, these items are listed and considered routine by the planning commission, and they may be approved in one motion.

2:04

There is no public hearing for items on the consent agenda.

2:07

There's no discussion unless a commissioner would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda and considered separately.

2:15

Commissioners, do you see anything on the consent agenda that you would like to pull for additional information or questions from staff?

2:24

All right, seeing none, uh, do I have a motion for the consent agenda?

2:27

Please Mr.

2:31

Chair, I move to approve the consent agenda is written.

2:34

Thank you, Commissioner Corcoran.

2:36

Do I have a second?

2:37

Second.

2:37

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

2:38

All those in favor say aye.

2:40

Aye.

2:40

Aye.

2:41

All opposed.

2:42

And that motion passes 8 to 0.

2:47

So we'll move on now to our regular agenda and our public hearings.

2:52

This this evening we have five scheduled public hearings.

2:56

For the first public hearing this evening, a continuance has been requested.

3:00

When a case is submitted or scheduled for a continuance, the public hearing will not be opened.

3:07

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

3:14

This process assures that anyone that has an interest in the case has the opportunity to participate.

3:20

So a continuance is requested to a future planning commission meeting for SU 26-0008.

3:28

Is there a motion regarding the request?

3:33

Chair, I move that we approve the continuation of SU 26-0008.

3:39

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

3:40

Do I have a second?

3:42

Second.

3:42

Thank you, Commissioner Brigida.

3:44

All those in favor say aye.

3:46

Aye.

3:46

Opposed.

3:48

That motion passes 8-0.

3:53

The second public hearing is a request for the approval of rezoning for frontier trails logistics, located northwest of 175th and U.S.

4:02

69 Highway.

4:03

Ms.

4:04

Winter is here to present the case tonight.

4:07

Go ahead, Lauren.

4:20

Good evening, Commissioners.

4:21

Lauren Winter, planner two.

4:23

As introduced this application before you tonight is a request to zone to the M2 district in a preliminary site development plan for frontier trails logistics.

4:41

The site is located northwest of 1775 Street in U.S.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Planning██████████████████████████████████34%
Environmental Protection█████████████████████████25%
Public Safety████████████12%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████████10%
Procedural████████8%
Economic Development███3%
Public Engagement███3%
Community Engagement██2%
Public Health██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Planning Commission Meeting Summary - September 14, 2026

The Olathe Planning Commission convened on September 14, 2026, with seven of nine commissioners present. The meeting covered five public hearings, including a continuance, a rezoning and preliminary site development plan for a logistics warehouse, and three interrelated items for Johnson County Aggregates (JCA): a rezoning to Agricultural, an amendment to an existing special use permit for quarry operations, and a new special use permit for quarry expansion.

Consent Calendar

  • The consent agenda, consisting of two routine items, was approved unanimously (8-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Jacob Turner (attorney for property owner 167th Street LLC) expressed that the property owner is now fully supportive of the Frontier Trails Logistics project, provided the collector road maintains access to his property.
  • Dan Quackenbush (Lakestone resident, HOA president) opposed the JCA quarry expansion, stating he does not trust the applicant's promises based on past unfulfilled commitments. He reported that dust from the quarry has caused health issues and claimed the quarry halted home construction in the Lakestone subdivision.
  • Nancy Bottomei (Lakestone resident) opposed the expansion, stating that industry standards do not adequately protect citizens' health and quality of life. She expressed concern over money offered by the applicant for intersection improvements, calling it a bribe.
  • Doug Bottomei (Lakestone resident) described experiencing dust and blasting firsthand, stating it negatively impacts daily life.
  • Mary Beth Mora (resident near the quarry) opposed the expansion, citing concerns about noise, dust, compromised foundations, reduced property values, and health risks from silica dust, including silicosis and lung cancer.
  • Kim Erickson (Lakestone resident) stated that the dust and noise are already unbearable and questioned the enforceability of promised stipulations.
  • Carolyn Erickson (Lakestone resident) described severe dust, rattling china from blasts, and new health issues (allergies, coughing) since moving near the quarry.
  • Terry Ostenfeld (Lakestone resident) stated that blasting causes earthquake-like shaking, cracked foundations, and limestone rocks. He argued underground blasting may worsen ground vibrations. He reported that a previous owner died of lung cancer and that dust makes his property unusable. He asserted that 1988 stipulations did not solve problems.
  • Chuck Brandenburg (Prairie Highlands resident) reported dust issues and asked commissioners whether they would move their families into the affected neighborhood.
  • Greg Reno (Lakestone resident) reported that blasting causes cracks in new sheetrock and falling ceiling debris. He expressed skepticism about applicant promises, comparing them to unfulfilled promises from the Dakota Access Pipeline.
  • Kathy Slater (longtime Lakestone resident) reported cracks in sheetrock and foundation from 40 years of quarry operations and stated that nothing has been done to mitigate problems.
  • Lori Quackenbush (Lakestone resident) invited commissioners to visit the area to see the dust and blasting firsthand.
  • Cynthia Peterson (Lakestone resident) reported that dust accumulates inside her closed home within hours. She expressed health concerns for her great-grandchildren, one of whom has developed a persistent cough.

Discussion Items

  • Continuance (SU26-0008): A continuance was granted unanimously (8-0) for a special use permit renewal for The Pet Ranch.
  • Frontier Trails Logistics (RZ26-0011): The commission heard a request to rezone approximately 70.62 acres from County Rural to M-2 (General Industrial) and approve a preliminary site development plan for a 1-million-square-foot warehouse. Staff and applicant supported the project. The public hearing featured one speaker (Jacob Turner, representing the adjacent property owner north of the site) who stated that after conversations with the applicant, his client became fully supportive of the project, contingent on the inclusion of a collector road to maintain access to the northern property. The commission voted 8-0 to approve the rezoning and preliminary plan with staff stipulations.
  • Johnson County Aggregates – Rezoning (RZ26-0013): A request to rezone approximately 109 acres from County Agricultural and County Rural to Agricultural (AG) district, intended as a holding zone for future quarry use. Staff supported the rezoning. Commissioner Corcoran expressed a preference for M-2 or M-3 zoning to match the surrounding area but voted in favor. The motion passed 8-0.
  • Johnson County Aggregates – Existing Quarry SUP Amendment (SU26-0009): A request to amend the existing special use permit for the quarry to remove a 100-foot setback from the expansion area and increase a stream buffer from 50 to 120 feet, and add operational restrictions. Staff recommended approval with stipulations including dust control, blasting limits, and reclamation. Commissioner Brigida voted no due to unanswered questions. The motion passed 7-1.
  • Johnson County Aggregates – Quarry Expansion SUP (SU26-0007): A request for a new special use permit to allow surface quarrying (10-year limit) and underground mining (15-year limit or by end of 2051) on 109 acres. Staff recommended approval with stipulations. Commissioners Brigida and Lynn voted no, citing health concerns and the expansion's proximity to homes. The motion passed 6-2.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Agenda: Approved 8-0.
  • Continuance (SU26-0008): Approved 8-0.
  • Frontier Trails Logistics (RZ26-0011): Approved 8-0.
  • JCA Rezoning (RZ26-0013): Approved 8-0.
  • JCA SUP Amendment (SU26-0009): Approved 7-1 (Commissioner Brigida dissenting).
  • JCA Expansion SUP (SU26-0007): Approved 6-2 (Commissioners Brigida and Lynn dissenting).
  • All JCA cases will be forwarded to the Olathe City Council for final decision on October 6, 2026, pending annexation of the unannexed portion of the property. The commission's role is advisory.

Note: The meeting minutes were unavailable; this summary is based solely on the agenda and transcript. The date of the meeting is September 14, 2026.

Meeting Transcript

Like to call tonight's meeting to order. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I Pledge of Allegiance to the United States. Under God. Indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Well, as we begin our meeting this evening, I'll take a moment to acknowledge that we do have a quorum of planning commissioners present with seven of nine commissioners in attendance. I think the other two will still be here before we get too far into our agenda. I want to thank everyone in the chamber for attending this evening's meeting as well as those watching online. Planning commission meetings are an important part of the process for interpreting and applying the city's comprehensive plan and unified development ordinance. It's important that our meetings are conducted with dignity and respect. This applies to every person in attendance. We strive to provide an atmosphere where the ideas and opinions of all participants are held in the highest regard. Finally, the actions on the issues we discuss are ultimately under the responsibility of the City Council. As a planning commission, we're here to help the council as our elected representatives to be fully informed to make the best choices for our city. By statute, the planning commission strives to not engage with any party on the issues on our agenda prior to our meeting. Should that interaction take place as a result of a business relationship or any other actual interaction, which we refer to as ex parte communication, commissioners will report that interaction when we reach that item in the agenda. We'll now move on to the consent agenda. This evening we have two items on the consent agenda. With the consent agenda, these items are listed and considered routine by the planning commission, and they may be approved in one motion. There is no public hearing for items on the consent agenda. There's no discussion unless a commissioner would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Commissioners, do you see anything on the consent agenda that you would like to pull for additional information or questions from staff? All right, seeing none, uh, do I have a motion for the consent agenda? Please Mr. Chair, I move to approve the consent agenda is written. Thank you, Commissioner Corcoran. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Brown. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. And that motion passes 8 to 0. So we'll move on now to our regular agenda and our public hearings. This this evening we have five scheduled public hearings. For the first public hearing this evening, a continuance has been requested. When a case is submitted or scheduled for a continuance, the public hearing will not be opened. Comments, recommendations, or analysis on the case is not provided for or discussed until the public hearing is officially opened. This process assures that anyone that has an interest in the case has the opportunity to participate. So a continuance is requested to a future planning commission meeting for SU 26-0008. Is there a motion regarding the request? Chair, I move that we approve the continuation of SU 26-0008. Thank you, Commissioner Chapman. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Brigida. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com