Olathe planning commission declines to recommend rezoning for Lineage Logistics cold‑storage after safety and traffic concerns

The Olathe Planning Commission on Tuesday declined to recommend approval of a rezoning and preliminary site development plan that would allow Lineage Logistics to build an automated cold‑storage facility and additional industrial lots at the northwest corner of 170th Street and Lone Elm Road.

The proposal would split about 145 acres annexed into the city earlier this year: roughly 7 acres at the southwest corner would be rezoned to C‑2 (Community Center) and the remaining 138 acres to M‑2 (General Industrial). On the north half of the site, Lineage proposed an approximately 440,000‑square‑foot automated cold storage building with a 140‑foot tall freezer portion; the company described the structure as oriented with the office to the east, freezer to the north and docks to the south. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning and the preliminary site development plan with stipulations. After lengthy public comment and commissioner questions, a motion to approve failed on a roll call vote of 3 in favor and 4 opposed.

Staff presentation and what was proposed

“This is a rezoning and preliminary site development plan for the 170 Fifth Lone Elm Centre,” Senior Planner Jessica Schueller told commissioners, describing the mix of proposed uses, lot layout and required site design work. Schueller said the proposed M‑2 and C‑2 zoning generally matched the city’s future land‑use map designation for an “employment area,” and staff worked with the applicant to limit higher‑intensity M‑2 uses and to add enhanced setbacks, berming and screening adjacent to Lone Elm Road and Lone Elm Park. Schueller said the applicant agreed to limits on heights for future lots (55 feet for southern industrial lots; 35 feet in the commercial corner), while Lot 1 for Lineage would be allowed the taller 140‑foot freezer subject to the stricter site‑design standards.

Traffic, size and operations

Chief Development Engineer Charlie Love summarized the traffic study and the city’s review: he said the study found existing intersection signals would operate at acceptable levels after the project’s first phase and that future phases would require revised traffic analyses. Love reported that the applicant had stated the site would generate about 500 truck trips per day; later in the hearing Lineage’s representatives clarified their internal estimate for the facility’s truck fleet was closer to 250 trucks a day for that customer, and that some public‑warehouse traffic patterns spread loads across hours. The plan shows two Lone Elm Road access drives; the north entrance was described as a dedicated truck entrance with long stacking length and a gated guardhouse.

Commissioners and neighbors pressed staff and the applicant on the road network. Love said 170th and Lone Elm are currently two‑lane, unimproved roads in places and that the city’s five‑year CIP contained no programmed widening for the corridor; he also said KDOT has started a broader study of the U.S.‑169/170th corridor but that the study has just kicked off and has no firm schedule. Commissioners repeatedly said they were concerned the current roadway network and shoulders would not safely accommodate the scale of truck traffic the facility (or the larger corridor build‑out) could produce.

Hazardous refrigerant, emergency response and safety

Lineage representatives addressed use of anhydrous ammonia refrigerant and safety protocols. Rob Sangdahl, Lineage vice president of real estate, said the company’s planned system is a “vapor tight” closed loop and that the facility would be secured with fencing and gated entrances. Jim Romine, the company’s vice president of construction and design, described industry safety programs and regulatory oversight: “The compliance and training portion, we’re overseen by OSHA, EPA, and also we go with IIAR recommendations, International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration,” Romine said, and he referenced Process Safety Management (PSM) and EPA Risk Management Program requirements for large ammonia charges. He said routine preventative maintenance, relief‑valve replacement schedules and leak detection are part of the planned safety program and that ammonia systems are closed‑loop recirculation systems.

Commissioners asked repeatedly about worst‑case scenarios, emergency response times and the capacity of local fire departments to handle a large release or fire. Chief Community Development Officer Chet Belcher relayed the city fire department’s assessment that Olathe has specialty equipment and cooperative mutual‑aid agreements with surrounding departments; staff later shared an email from Fire command estimating an on‑scene response in the neighborhood of about six minutes. The applicant said their engine room and pressure vessels are in hardened, screened spaces and acknowledged that large charges place the project over federal reporting thresholds; Jim Romine said the planned charge would be on the order of tens of thousands of pounds (the applicant described typical refrigerated‑warehouse receiver sizes and closed‑loop operation during discussion).

Public comment and main concerns

More than 40 speakers signed up for the public hearing; neighbors and community advocates focused on four themes: (1) proximity to Nottingham Creek homes and Lone Elm Park (playfields and trails), (2) truck traffic volume and road capacity on Lone Elm and 170th, (3) safety risks from anhydrous ammonia and facility fires (several speakers cited recent incidents at other Lineage or cold‑storage sites), and (4) noise, light and property‑value impacts. Multiple speakers described their experience of heavy truck activity on Lone Elm, concern about trucks bypassing weigh stations, and the potential for congestion to block emergency responders in the neighborhood.

Commissioners’ deliberations and outcome

Commissioners asked for additional, facility‑specific information: details on Lineage’s safety program changes after fires at other Lineage sites; confirmation of fire‑department equipment and response times; and more specific traffic modeling that included school‑year traffic and future phases. Commissioner Brigitte (full name as recorded in the record) moved to table the item to the next meeting so staff and applicant could supply more information; no second was obtained. A separate motion to approve the rezoning and preliminary site plan, “subject to staff comments and stipulations,” passed on the floor but failed on roll call by a tally of 3 yes, 4 no (Commissioners Breen, Chapman and Brown voted yes; Commissioners Creighton, Brigitte, Taronis/Taronez and Chair Janner voted no). The motion therefore failed and the Planning Commission did not forward a recommendation to City Council.

What happens next

The Planning Commission is an advisory body; City Council is the final approval authority for rezoning. Staff reiterated that, if Council considers the application, it would be considered with the same packet materials and any additional information the applicant or staff chooses to provide. Commissioners who opposed forwarding the application said they wanted more certainty on emergency response capabilities and roadway improvements before recommending a major industrial use adjacent to an established neighborhood and park.

Quotes

“”This is a rezoning and preliminary site development plan for the 170 Fifth Lone Elm Centre,” Jessica Schueller, senior planner, said in opening the staff presentation.

“The study’s analysis … determined that the existing signals … will operate acceptable levels of service post development,” Charlie Love, chief development engineer, said during the traffic presentation.

“Safety is our number 1 priority in our facilities,” Jim Romine, Lineage vice president of construction and design, told commissioners while describing ammonia safety programs.

Ending

Because the Planning Commission did not forward a recommendation, the application — if the applicant pursues the next step — would return to City Council for a final decision. Commissioners and several members of staff asked the applicant and the city’s emergency‑response leadership to provide more detailed, site‑specific information on hazardous‑materials controls, mutual‑aid response capability and roadway improvement timing if the item returns for future consideration.