Meeting Information
- Convene
- Pledge of Allegiance
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Planning item: CUP-12-16-02: Conditional Use Permit request for Eudora Quarry #68. The property is generally described as being located at the northwest corner of N 1200 Road and E 2400 Road. Requested by N.R. Hamm Quarry, Inc., for Katherine L. Neis, property owner of record) (Brian Pedrotti)
(3) Other Business
(a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)
(b) Appointments
(c) Miscellaneous
(d) Public Comment
(4) Adjourn
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:37 P.M. on Wednesday, May 21, 2003. All members were present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
CONSENT AGENDA 05-21-03
Commissioner Jones made a motion to approve the following Consent Agenda:
- Note receipt of fee reports for the month of April.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner McElhaney and carried 3-0.
PLANNING 05-21-03 -- CUP-12-16-02: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EUDORA QUARRY #68; NORTHWEST CORNER OF N 1200 ROAD AND E 2400 ROAD
The Board reconvened the May 14, 2003 public hearing of Item No. 4 of the minutes of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission dated 2/26/03. This item is CUP-12-16-02: Conditional Use Permit request for Eudora Quarry #68. The property is generally described as being located at the northwest corner of N 1200 Road and E 2400 Road. Requested by N. R. Hamm Quarry, Inc., for Katherine L. Neis, property owner of record. This item was continued in order to determine if the protest petition was valid. Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, noted that a committee consisting of Patty Jaimes, Dan Watkins, and Adra Burks met and came to the unanimous conclusion that the protest petition was valid, which necessitates a unanimous decision by the County Commission.
Brian Pedrotti, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, introduced the item and noted that Staff recommended approval of the CUP, with conditions and restrictions as set forth in its February 26, 2003 Staff Report. Pedrotti stated that the Eudora Planning Commission and the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission previously held a joint public hearing on the matter. The Eudora Planning Commission recommended denial of the CUP and that the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission voted to recommended approval of the CUP, subject to conditions and restric tions set forth the minutes from its February 26, 2003 meeting, revised March 25, 2003.
Dan Watkins, attorney for the applicant, presented the following requests, as set forth in his letter to the Board dated May 12, 2003, to clarify or modify the conditions and restrictions of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commis sion:
Watkins requested deletion of the prohibition of asphalt/concrete production at the site that the Planning Commission added to Section I. Watkins explained that omitted that prohibition would not allow Hamm Quarry to operate an as phalt/concrete plant as a matter of right, but rather would allow Hamm Quarry to request a temporary business permit at some time in the future. The temporary business use would be subject to whatever limitations or conditions the Board put on the permit at that time.
Watkins requested that the last sentence in Section II be deleted and utilities be added to Section VIII. Watkins explained that this was not a substantive revi sion, but that it was better placed under Section VIII rather than Section II.
Watkins requested that the terms "springs & wells" be deleted from pre-blast survey requirements in Section V because they vary so much from time to time that it is difficult to determine what might have caused a change. Building foundations is the most common type of pre-blast survey. Watkins went on to discuss pre-blast surveys.
Watkins requested deletion of the appeal to the Board contained in Article V if Hamm Quarry and neighbors cannot agree upon the extent of the pre-blast survey. Watkins stated that an appeal could place the Board in the position of having to hire its own expert. Watkins noted, however, that it was extremely unlikely that an appeal would ever be needed because Hamm Quarry would go to great lengths to satisfy neighbors. Watkins stated that the appeal process might provide a safeguard that protects residents from Hamm Quarry being arbitrary.
Watkins requested amendment to the fencing requirements in Section VI. First, he stated that clearing vegetation to erect a fence might be counterproductive on the east of the site. Katherine Neis owns additional property on the west of the site and, to the extent quarrying d s not interfere, will continue to farm it in conjunction with the CUP site. A fence along the west edge of the site would interfere with her farming operation because it would place a fence line through the middle of a field. Watkins stated that an entire perimeter fence would not promote safety or security-in a lot of areas natural topography and set-backs would protect people. Watkins suggested adding a condition that the Board approve a fencing plan before commencement of operations.
Watkins requested "for blasting" be deleted from Section VIII because the discharge permit in that Section referred to discharge of water, not explosives.
Watkins requested that the performance bond requirement in Section IX be lowered from $1,000 to $600 because $600 was consistent with state law and the bond was running to the Kansas State Conservation Commission. A repre sentative of the State Conservation Commission couldn't explain the benefit of an additional bond.
Watkins requested deletion of the drainage study in Section IX because it is duplicative of similar requirements that Hamm Quarry would have with other regulatory agencies and the Planning Office d s not have expertise in reviewing a drainage study.
Watkins requested changed Section XI(e)(iii) to require that the road improve ments be completed before commencing rock extraction on the new site, rather than 24 months after the CUP is granted. Watkins stated that Hamm Quarry may not start rock extraction right away and tying the road improvements to rock extraction would make more sense.
Watkins requested revision to the strobe back-up light requirement in Section XII so that strobe lights are required one-half hour before sunset, not at 5:30 p.m., for the obvious reason that in summer months it d s not get dark until much later.
Watkins requested that the periodic review be a 5 year intervals, not 3 year intervals. This is consistent with other County CUPs. Also, Watkins requested that the review be limited to whether Hamm Quarry is complying with the CUP and that each review not be a de-facto new CUP application.
Watkins requested that Condition 2.a, which would require the existing quarry to be subject to the CUP, be deleted because including the existing quarry would subject the rock extracted from the existing quarry to the $0.10/ton charge. Watkins suggested that requiring the existing quarry to be reclaimed could be added as a requirement, but it should not be included in the CUP.
A discussion took place regarding state law reclamation requirements and it was stated that the reclamation requirements in Hamm Quarry's lease are more stringent to than state law. Reclaiming the existing Petefish quarry would certainly be in Hamm Quarry's best economic interests and that it had every intention of doing so. Marvin Zielsdorf, Site Manager for Hamm Quarry, ex plained the reclamation process-as new cuts are made, old cuts are reclaimed to reduce costs. He stated that he estimates 3.5 million tons of rock that can be quarried from the new site and the property will be reclaimed. With respect to the Petefish quarry, state law requires reclamation for cuts made after 1994, but Hamm Quarry would agree to reclaim the entire quarry without regard to when the cut was made.
A discussion took place concerning truck routes. When rock is hauled to a project, the truck route is specified by the contracting agency, such as Douglas County or the City of Eudora. Also, it was noted that Hamm Quarry has other quarries that would likely be used for projects north of the Kansas River.
A brief discussion took place concerning blasting. Explosives are only kept on site during actual operations. During the last 10 years, explosives have been on site for 2 four-month periods. When on site, the explosives are kept in a bermed magazine and are subject to ATF requirements and audits.
Watkins stated that Hamm Quarry would agree to a requirement that it cooperate and coordinate with Eudora city and school officials regarding truck traffic on Route 1061 and would participate in solutions. Keith Browning, Director of Douglas County Public Works, discussed the on-going traffic studies along Route 1061. These issues exist regardless of Hamm Quarry truck traffic. Eudora has retained a consultant to make suggestions for revisions to Route 1061 as it enters the city. Browning stated that there are a are a number of things that can and will be done to enhance safety, such as making it more clear that the driver is entering a city such as "Welcome to Eudora" signs and street lights. Watkins stated that Hamm Quarry has expressed willingness to work with the City of Eudora and the school district regarding coordination of school times.
Chairman Johnson then asked for public comment:
Dan Hoover stated that he had never been officially notified of any hearing having to do with the CUP. He purchased property for the serenity and nature in the area. He spoke in opposition of the quarry, raising concerns about the storage of explosives and encouraged the Commission to look at fencing. He is worried that kids might get into the explosives. Also, the expanded quarry might squelch additional building in the area and cause of loss of property tax reve nues. He requested that the Board determine road issues now, not later; that he be listed on Hamm Quarry's insurance to make sure damage to his structure is covered by insurance; a requirement for a 1000 foot set-back from County line road and that foliage be retained; stricter restrictions on blasting hours; and a requirement to reclaim existing quarry before starting on new site.
Bob Miller note he had looked at other quarries run by Hamm Quarry and his observation is they are not well maintained and other quarries are better main tained.
Karen Rowland, a realtor in the area, expressed concerns about lower property valuations, traffic issues, and the effects that blasting would have on surrounding foundations.
Bernice Staus questioned whether the rock is available at another location and whether $0.10/ton is adequate for road maintenance. She stated that she d s not believe that reclamation guidelines have been followed in the past and also expressed concerns about land values and that the quarry would hinder growth.
Adra Burks, attorney for Arthur Neis, spoke in opposition to the CUP. She stated that there are 600 residential homes or platted lots in the area and the that Eudora would continue to develop to the south. She noted that there is no fence along the northern boarder of the site, between her client's property and the subject site. She requested Hamm Quarry to pay for a survey to determine where the 150 foot set-backs would start from. She requested a requirement of similar set-backs around entire site, not just 800 feet from current residences. Also vegetation should be added between her client's property and the new quarry site, which is currently cropland. She requested a fence between the quarry site and Katherine Neis's other cropland to the west, which is currently being farmed on a contiguous basis.
Burks also discussed rock requirements and availability in the vicinity. Captains Creek or Stoner rock, grade 1 or 2, is considered "high grade" or "pavement quality" rock for highway paving projects. She questioned whether the high grade rock on the Petefish quarry exists in the new CUP area. She said Hamm Quarry has a lot of high grade Stoner in its Leavenworth quarry. Burks stated that when considering a CUP, the issue is not whether Hamm Quarry has the high grade rock, but whether the high grade rock is available to any paving contractor at all. Because high grade pavement rock is available to other contractors nearby, she d s not see the public good of the new quarry.
Burks also questioned whether the $0.10/mile will adequately compensate the County for road maintenance. She provided estimates of receipts to the County assuming 100 trucks per day, year round. Commissioner Johnson asked Hamm Quarry whether the 100 trucks per day estimate was just from the new CUP site or from both the new quarry and the Petefish Quarry. Watkins stated that this number would be the total amount from both quarries, not 100 trucks from each quarry. This number of trucks would only apply during a large paving project and would not be continuous. It was noted that if Hamm Quarry took 100 trucks per day out of the new site six days a week, the new site would be totally mined in a few years.
Burks questioned that explosives would be kept on the site over night at times, which she though violated applicable explosives regulations. She also discussed brooks and springs in the area and possible loss of water source from the expanded quarry and that there should be a way to determine how it will happen if springs run dry. She stated that the review period should be shorter than 5 years because of the expanding development in the area.
Burks concluded that the extension of the quarry is not appropriate. If the CUP is to be granted, stringent conditions must be imposed to protect health and welfare.
Marty Kobza, Superintendent of Eudora School District No. 491, expressed no position for or against the CUP. He did express traffic safety concerns. He stated that he is pleased with progress that has been made in working with Keith Browning concerning Route 1061. He asked that if the CUP is granted, the Board place guidelines for trucks using Route 1061. He requested that this not be left to work out later, but had no suggestion on how to do so.
Watkins address blasting issues and concerns that opponents had raised. Watkins noted that there is strict liability with regard to explosives and subject to strict regulations. Watkins asked David Dresler, Dresler & Associates, to explain how the explosives were stored in a magazine, which is fire rated and weighs about 3 tons. The magazine is kept in an earthen berm. Dresler stated that he knows of no past violations by Hamm Quarry. Dresler also stated that in his 10 years as a explosives consultant, he had never done a pre-blast survey on a spring. Blasting vibrations do not affect acquifers or ground water table; the vibrations do not cause water to fluctuate. State and federal regulations restrict blast vibrations and he designs blasts to comply with the regulations. Dresler stated that studies have shown that these regulations are sufficient to prevent damage to surrounding properties. Dresler knows of other quarries that have high pressure gas pipelines running through them and blasts are designed to prevent damage to the pipelines.
Watkins also noted Section XI(e)(iv) of the restrictions require Hamm Quarry to supply rock and dust control along the township road during periods of quarry activity-this is in addition to the $.10/ton payment.
Watkins noted that the property value issue is raised every time a quarry tries to locate. Nevertheless, people continue to build homes near quarries. Watkins also stated that Eudora could double in population two times before reaching the CUP site. If that type of growth occurs, rock from the site will be needed.
Hamm Quarry is willing to cooperate with the Schools and Public Works on traffic control issues. Public Works and Eudora certainly have the authority to place speed and travel limits on Route 1061.
Watkins was asked of reclamation on the existing quarry and opponents claims that there had been no reclamation. Watkins stated that Hamm Quarry is willing to be subject to a restriction that it reclaim the existing quarry within 3 years of completing operations on the Petefish quarry.
Martin Zielsdorf, Site Manager for Hamm Quarry, spoke on behalf of the appli cant. He discussed operations on the current Petefish quarry. He expressed that opponents expressed a lot of fallicies concerning the quality of paving rocks. Additional discussion took place about reclaiming the Petefish quarry.
Commissioner Jones made a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner McElhaney seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
Commissioner Jones stated that he was leaning towards granting the CUP with extensive conditions, but thought that they Board should determine whether there were three votes to grant the CUP before spending time on the conditions.
Chairman Johnson agreed and stated he was in favor of granting the CUP. He stated that approval would weigh heavily on his mind if there was not an existing quarry there. He stated he would have a difficult time supporting a new quarry, but would support the expansion of the existing quarry.
Commissioner Jones noted that if a residential subdivision were at the site, it would create more traffic, etc., which could increase safety risks. There are risks involved in all uses. Anytime there is change, people will protest. He did not see the quarry operation as being dramatically worse in terms of property values and safety than other possible uses. All uses have pluses and minuses. Agriculture is changing dramatically and there is no guarantee that the site will remain agriculture for 30 years. Something else is likely to happen to the property. A quarry with appropriate conditions is not as bad as other options.
Commissioner McElhaney also agreed with Commissioner Jones and Chairman Johnson. Commissioner McElhaney stated that state law for reclamation was satisfactory to him. He then suggested that some of the conditions placed on the CUP, such as fencing and screening, be finalized at a later date. With respect to fencing, he thought that the fencing at the northwest side, where the land is cleared would be fine, but fencing should not require clearing of vegetation or interfere with an ongoing farm operations. He is comfortable with safety of the explosives. He also noted it was in compliance with Horizon 2020, which encourages redevelopment and limited expansion of existing industrial sites.
The Board proceeded to give instructions to Planning Staff for revisions to the conditions and restrictions. The applicant and Burks would then have an opportunity to review and comment on the revised conditions before finalizing. In addition to the revisions previously discussed, the Board requested the following revisions:
Condition 2.a. The granting of the CUP should not be tied to including the existing Petefish quarry in the CUP. However, Condition 2.a should contain a clear requirement that Hamm reclaim the existing Petefish quarry within 3 years of ending operations.
Section I. The reference to asphalt/concrete production in Section I should be deleted. This deletion would not allow Hamm to operate a temporary asphalt or concrete plant as a matter of right, but would enable Hamm to request permis sion of the Board to operate such a plant at some time in the future, subject to restrictions imposed by the Board at that time.
Section II. The last sentence in Section II should be deleted, but "utility compa nies" should be added to Section VIII.
Section V. Reference to "springs and wells" will remain in Section V. Perhaps the applicant can suggest a reasonable compromise. An appeals process should remain, but the appeal should probably not be to the Board. Staff and the applicant should come back with a proposal and bring it back to the Board.
Section VIII. Add reference that Hamm Quarries complies with regulations of utilities. Delete "for blasting" because that section deals with water discharge.
Add a provision to require that a fencing and screening plan should be submitted and approved by the Board prior to commencement of operations.
Add a provision to require notice to property owners within 1000 feet prior to first 5 year review, which would include Johnson County residents.
Section IX. The reclamation bond should be in an amount in accordance with state statute.
Section X. The applicant and Planning Staff should discuss the applicant's request to delete this Section, but the Board has a concern about removing it and is inclined to keep it.
Section XI. Delete 1st subsection (d). Subsection (d)(iii) should require road improvements prior to rock extraction from new site.
Section XII. Strobe lights for vehicles shall begin 1/2 hour before sunset, rather than 5:30 p.m. There is no need for a strobe light before dusk.
Restriction XIV. The review process will take place every 5 years, rather than every 3 years. Notice of the initial 5 year review should be given to all property owners within 1,000 feet, including Johnson County residents. Delete the sentence that would allow the Board to revoke the CUP if it wanted to add additional conditions in the future, but planning Staff and the applicant should discuss further.
Index the $0.10/ton for inflation in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. Planning Staff and the applicant should discuss and bring back something appropriate.
The revised conditions should be brought back to the Board and other persons should have an opportunity to review and comment on them before finalizing.
Commissioner Jones made a motion to approve CUP-12-16-02, contingent upon finalization of the conditions and restrictions in accordance with the foregoing discussion, which would require a 3-0 vote. The CUP will not be issued until the conditions and restriction are resolved. Chairman Johnson seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
The Board instructed Staff to revise the conditions in accordance with the foregoing discussion and bring it back to the Board for a Wednesday evening meeting.
The Board thanked those in attendance for their input.
PUBLIC WORKS & CONTRACTS 05-21-03
Commissioner McElhaney made a motion to approve Contract(s) for Right-of- way Easement Acquisitions on Tract Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 17, 24, 33 and 36 for Project No. 23C-3688-01, Route 1029 improvements, in the aggregate amount of $87,535. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Jones and carried unani mously.
MISCELLANEOUS 05-21-03
Chairman Johnson reported that he had met with the three (3) superintendents of schools regarding Jones' proposal to fund the nursing programs. Suggested appointing a committee consisting of recommendations from each superinten dent, Kay Kent and one (1) board member, a Douglas County Resident, and appointments by the commissioners, maybe 12-13 people, develop charge.
Commissioner Jones moved for adjournment. Commissioner McElhaney seconded and the motion carried.
____________________________ _____________________________
Bob Johnson, Chairman Jere McElhaney, Member
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Patty Jaimes, County Clerk Charles Jones, Member
Time and Date