Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 6:30 P.M. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 3. A. Regular meeting minutes of September 1, 2016 Approve the regular meeting minutes of September 1, 2016, as presented. 4. PUBLIC FORUM 5. NEW BUSINESS 5. A. Vacate Complete Access Control on Lot 32, Block N, The Oaks Addition Adopt a resolution recommending vacation of complete access control along the south line of Lot 32, Block N, The Oaks Addition and forward the resolution to the City Council for consideration. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT 1 Planning Commission Meeting 3.A. Meeting Date: 09/15/2016 Submitted By: Everett Haynes, Assistant City Planner Subject: Regular meeting minutes of September 1, 2016 Recommend a Motion to: Approve the regular meeting minutes of September 1, 2016, as presented. Attachments Meeting minutes of September 1, 2016 2  CITY OF DERBY MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 6:30 P.M. MEETING MINUTES 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 3. A. Regular meeting minutes of August 4, 2016 Recommend a Motion to: Approve the regular meeting minutes of August 4, 2016, as presented. Moved by Pat Baer, seconded by Edward Sheldon to approve the regular meeting minutes of August 4, 2016, as presented. Vote: 7 - 0 Other: Paula Langworthy (ABSENT) Dennis Poteete (ABSTAIN) Van Willis (ABSTAIN) 4. PUBLIC FORUM 5. NEW BUSINESS 5. A. Amend Zoning Regulations: Communication Structures Background Information: Senate Substitute for House Bill No. 2131 was recently passed by the Kansas Legislature. The bill affects how the city regulates wireless communications facilities. One of the significant impacts of the bill is that it allows wireless communications facilities to have access to use the public right-of-way 3  communications facilities to have access to use the public right-of-way in a manner that is similar to other public utilities. Derby's public right-of-way is zoned and therefore, many of the regulations affecting wireless communications facilities are within the city's zoning regulations. The state law takes effect October 1, 2016, and therefore staff has prepared a number of proposed amendments to ensure compliance with state law, and to eliminate potentially confusing or contradictory language within the existing regulations. In addition to the zoning regulations, the city's ordinance regulating management of the public right-of-way also affects utilities and wireless communications infrastructure proposed within the right-of-way. City staff is recommending that an in depth analysis of the zoning regulations is needed in order to consider the broader implications of how wireless communications facilities are regulated, the result of which will likely include creation of a new section of the zoning regulations. Proposed amendments to the text of the zoning regulations require a public hearing: Notice of the required public hearing was published in the Derby Informer on August 10, 2016. Because the proposed amendments to the zoning regulations are general in nature and do not affect specific properties, notices are not mailed to individual property owners. It is anticipated that city staff may need to make general corrections to spacing, numbering or formatting of the regulations to properly incorporate the proposed amendments. Staff recommends that general authority be granted to city staff to make non-substantive corrections after Planning Commission review and before City Council consideration. Staff Comments: Listed below is a summary of proposed amendments: Article 2, Section 202 "Definitions" The definition of "height, maximum" includes a list of exceptions to the maximum height restrictions. The proposed amendment relocates the list of exceptions to Article 3, Section 302.E "Bulk Regulations." The definition for "public utility uses" clarifies that "poles" means "utility poles" and a new definition for "utility poles" is provided. The definition also adds "communication structures" as a public utility use. "Communication structure" is added as a new definition. The definition is consistent with the definition for "wireless support structure" as used in Senate Substitute for House Bill No. 2131. 4  New definitions for "utility pole" and "monopole" are recommended. The definitions clarify and create distinction between utility poles and other types of poles or towers. Article 3, Section 300.E "Exemptions" Subsection 300.E.1 clarifies that "poles" is intended to mean "utility poles." It clarifies that utility poles that are exempt from the regulations are those that are less than 60 feet in height and less than 24 inches in diameter. Subsection 300.E.1 further clarifies that "communication structures" are not exempt, which is consistent with other types of utility substations. A new subsection "2" is added to exempt monopole structures that are less than 60 feet in height when located within the public right-of-way adjacent to B-3, B-4, B-5 or M-1 zoning districts. Monopole structures that are proposed to be located within the right-of-way are still subject to the city's ordinance and other regulations providing for management of the public right-of-way. Article 3, Section 302.E "Bulk Regulations" Subsection 1.a of this Section is divided into two parts in order to separate maximum lot coverage and maximum structure height into distinct subsections. New subsection 1.b addresses only maximum structure height. A list of structure types that are allowed to exceed the bulk regulations of the zoning district in which the structure is located was relocated to this section (previously in definition for height, maximum). Subsections 3, 4 and 5 clarify that separate approvals (exception or special use) are needed in order to allow certain structures to exceed the maximum height restrictions of the zoning district in which they are located. Article 3, Section 303.G "Lot Size Requirements and Bulk Regulations for Public Utility Facilities" "Public utility facilities" is changed to "public utility uses" for consistency with other sections. A reference to the definition for "height, maximum" is removed and instead references the maximum structure heights specified for the zoning district in which the structure is located unless otherwise exempted. "Distribution centers" was added to "electric and telephone substations" for consistency with other sections. "Communication structures" was added to this section for inclusion with other types of public utility uses. Article 6, Section 600.B (regarding bulk regulations for accessory structures) Removes a reference to the definition for "height, maximum" and 5  instead references Section 302.E where the exceptions to structure height are proposed to be relocated. Article 11, Section 1101.C "Eligible Special Uses" The table for eligible special uses is updated to correct a conflict resulting from "communication structures" being listed twice. "Communication structures that are not mounted on the roof or directly secured to a wall of a principal building" are proposed to be permitted as special uses only in B-3, B-4, B-5 and M-1 zoning districts. Recommend a Motion to: Adopt the recommended amendments to the text of the zoning regulations as presented, authorize city staff to make necessary adjustments to numbering, spacing, and formatting, and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Commissioner Adams opened the public hearing and determined that a quorum was present. Cody Bird, City Planner announced that proper notice had been given in accordance with State law. Adams asked Commissioners to report any ex parte communications. There were no ex parte communications reported. Bird presented the staff report. Adams acknowledged that there were no individuals that had signed up to speak during the public hearing. He asked if anyone in attendance desired to share any public comments. No public comments were provided PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Adams asked how best to proceed with discussion and in what order the Commission should address the report. Cody Bird, City Planner replied that the Commission could discuss the proposed amendments by article, or could go line by line in the draft amendments. Adams said he was comfortable with following the order by article as presented in the staff report. He asked if it was appropriate for questions to be asked as the discussion progressed. Bird answered that questions could be asked at any time. Bird began the discussion by explaining the proposed the proposed amendments. Adams pointed out that Section 300.E.1 is intended to clarify that "poles" 6 means "utility poles" are exempt is less than 60 ft. in height and less than 24 inches in diameter. Monopole structures allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to certain zoning districts includes the 60 ft. height restriction, but does not include the 24 inch diameter requirement. He asked if the diameter requirement was intentionally omitted. Bird answered yes. There are some monopoles that exceed 24 inches in diameter that are needed to support heavy wires, or where overhead wires change direction. Because of this need, the diameter requirement was intentionally not included. In addition to the zoning regulations, the City also has a right-of-way ordinance which regulates use of the right-of-way. The City also has franchise agreements with utility providers which can stipulate additional restrictions and guidelines. The zoning regulations being discussed tonight will not be the only document used to regulate utility poles, but will be the primary tool used to regulate pole heights. Commissioner Baer asked that since monopole structures are allowed within the right-of-way adjacent to B-3, B-4, B-5, and M-1 zones, will this prevent the engineering department from determining that these poles will endanger the public's health and safety? Bird answered that the City will still have the ability to require right-of-way permits and will review placement to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare is protected. Bird continued to explain proposed amendments to Article 3. Baer asked if the definition of "communication structures" clearly identifies the difference between a telecommunication structure for a major wireless provider and a personal radio antenna? Bird clarified that personal communication devices are covered in article 10 of the regulations and are typically only allowed as an exception in residential districts. Commissioner Willis asked if it is possible to delineate commercial vs. residential or private communication structures or if that is even necessary? Bird explained that the exception provisions apply only to personal communication structures. The exception procedures is not intended for commercial structures to be located in a residential district. From a practical standpoint, it is generally not going to be feasible to locate personal communication structures in a right-of-way. Willis asked if private individuals could place a personal utility pole in an easement in their backyard. Bird explained that easements are different than right-of-ways. The state law is only related to road right-of-ways, which does not include utility easements in backyards. Bird continued to proposed amendments to Article 6. Recommended changes include updating a reference to Section 302.E for height restrictions. Bird also explained that other bulk regulations including setbacks and lot coverage were not edited would still apply as specified for the zoning districts. Bird continued with Section 1101.C. The "eligible special uses" table is 7 proposed to be updated to only allow free-standing communication structures in B-3, B-4, B-5, and M-1 zones. Bird clarified that a special use is similar to a zone change reqeust and requires a public hearing, notification, Planning Commission and City Council approval. Commissioner Rhein asked if requiring co-location on communication towers is addressed in the zoning regulations. Bird answered that co-location the City's zoning regulations do not currently contain any requirements for co-location. The new State law that takes into effect October 1st specifically removes the city's ability to require co-location. Private parties may still choose to enter into agreements to co-locate, but local governments cannot require companies to do so. Rhein asked if other types of utilities commonly co-locate. Is that a private matter, or does it need City approval? Bird answered that he was not aware if the City has required other types of utilities to co-locate in the past, but clarified that the new State law only relates to wireless communications, and the the City cannot require companies to co-locate. Willis asked why the City would be concerned about co-location. Bird answered that historically, cities have required companies to co-locate on existing towers to minimize the overall number of new towers in a city. It is most frequently related to community aesthetics. Willis asked if is there a disadvantage to the City if four or fourteen units/companies co-locate on one tower. Bird answered there is generally no disadvantage to multiple co-locations, however, the City can no longer require such co-locations as a result of the new State law. Commissioner Gould asked if the County is also updating their telecommunication regulations. He asked if there would be any conflicts when dealing with tower locations within the city's zoning area of influence. Bird answered that Wichita and Sedgwick county are in the same process of updating their wireless communication codes and regulations. He added that Wichita and Sedgwick County have a master wireless communications plan, and he is not sure how such cases would be handled in relationship to those existing plans. Commissioner Renberger asked what the new State law says about the use of right-of-ways in residential areas and how high-density residential areas could be impacted as possible prime locations for towers to handle data traffic. Bird answered that among other matters, the new State law addresses the use of "distributed antenna systems." Distributed antenna systems include amplifiers (similar to "hot spots" or booster stations) and a central tower. Amplifiers are typically placed on existing utility poles which are allowed in the right-of-way and have a minimal visual impact. The proposed amendments to the zoning regulations are primarily focused on the visual impact of the larger towers. Renberger elaborated that companies could ask for additional coverage in residential areas and if the City cannot require co-location, it could result in 8  major carriers building multiple towers in a residential area. Ultimately, the construction of multiple utility poles could endanger the aesthetics of a neighborhood. Bird replied that a provider would still need to submit an application for the use of a right-of-way. The review process for right-of-way permits does consider various limiting factors related to the installation of new poles. Such considerations could include locations of existing utilities and the general public's health, safety, and welfare. Resident concerns are also a factor that can be considered in the decision to approve or deny the application. Rhein referred to residential neighborhoods where utilities are installed underground and do not typically have electric poles. She asked how the City regulates how utilities such as Westar Energy are required to be installed underground? Bird answered that the City enters into a franchise agreement with Westar Energy. The agreement specifies a threshold for how many kilovolts a line is carrying, and if the line is under the threshold, it must be installed underground. If the line is over the threshold, such as main transmission lines to/from the substation on Rock Rd., it is allowed to remain above ground on poles. Bird followed up regarding Mr. Renberger's prior question: In residential neighborhoods where utilities are underground, there are still street light poles which could be utilized by wireless providers to co-locate amplifiers. The City just could not require such co-locations under the new State law. Adams asked if the Commission had any further questions. There were none. Moved by Larry Gould, seconded by Pat Baer to adopt the recommended amendments to the text of the zoning regulations as presented, authorize city staff to make necessary adjustments to numbering, spacing, and formatting, and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Vote: 9 - 0 Other: Paula Langworthy (ABSENT) 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Adams stated that he was originally scheduled to attend the City Council meeting on September 13. He has switched with Commissioner Willis for the September 27 meeting. Commissioner Willis announced that Derby High School is unveiling its new logo and attire. He suggested that Commissioners could consider wearing DHS attire at meetings. Adams announced the next Planning Commission meeting will be on September 15th and asked staff if there were any items submitted for review. Bird stated that one public hearing item had been submitted. 9  Adams asked if any members of the Commission knew they would not be in attendance at the next meeting. No one indicated they would not be available. 7. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Van Willis, seconded by Dennis Poteete to adjourn the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Vote: 9 - 0 Other: Paula Langworthy (ABSENT) _____________________________ _____________________________ Everett Haynes Mitchell J. Adams Recording Secretary Chairperson 10 Planning Commission Meeting 5.A. Meeting Date: 09/15/2016 Submitted By: Everett Haynes, Assistant City Planner Agenda Category: New Business Subject: Vacate Complete Access Control on Lot 32, Block N, The Oaks Addition General Location: Northeast corner of Lookout Pl. and Lookout St. Applicant/Agent: Applicant: Jacob Schmidt Reason for Request: To allow construction of a driveway with access to Lookout St. Background Information: The owner of Lot 32, Block N, The Oaks Addition has requested vacation of platted complete access control to facilitate construction of a driveway with access to Lookout St. The owner has submitted plans for construction of a house facing Lookout Pl. The plans propose a side-loading garage with a driveway accessing Lookout St. Complete access control is platted along the entire south line of the property. Access controls are typically intended to limit vehicle turning movements from private property onto streets or highways in areas where there is a need to preserve traffic service and safety by reducing the number of turning movements. The property was originally platted with access control along Lookout St. since the roadway will serve as a minor collector street serving the neighborhood. The curve of the street east of the property may also have been a consideration in the decision to plat access control. The property is zoned R-1 “Single-Family Residential District.” The owner of the property intends to develop the property for uses permitted within the R-1 zoning district. Strict enforcement of the access control as platted would allow a driveway to be constructed with access to Lookout Pl. (cul-de-sac side) but not to Lookout St. (the through street). Approval of the requested vacation would allow the owner to construct a driveway with access to Lookout St., thus allowing the side-loading garage proposed. 11 Staff Comments: It is not uncommon for corner lots in residential districts to be platted with either access control on one side, or 25 ft. building setbacks on both sides facing streets. Access control is typically used to indicate which side of the lot is intended to be the front by limiting access to the other side. In contrast, platting 25 ft. setbacks on both sides of the street allows flexibility for the owner to choose which side will be the front side. The additional setback ensures that vehicles parked in driveways do not overhang the street right-of-way line, and do not interfere with vision triangles at the intersection. The property was originally intended to have the front facing Lookout Pl. (cul-de-sac), but this is not a requirement if the property is developed in accordance with all other applicable district regulations. Other lots located along Lookout St. have driveway access to the street. The requested vacation would allow construction of a driveway consistent with other lots in the neighborhood. Traffic volume and speed at this location are expected to be typical of residential subdivisions. Allowing the property to have additional access to Lookout St. is not anticipated to create any undue traffic congestion or turning conflicts. If the vacation request is approved, development of the lot must still comply with standard zoning regulations for the district, including building setbacks, off-street parking, and paving requirements. Design and location of the driveway will be reviewed as part of the building permit. Vacation requests require a public hearing: Notice of the public hearing was provided in accordance with State law. The notice was published in the City’s official newspaper on August 24, 2016. Notices were mailed to affected property owners on August 23, 2016. At the time of this writing, staff received one phone call from a neighbor asking why the vacation was being requested. Staff explained the desire for the driveway access. The neighbor did not express any concerns and neither supported nor opposed the request. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission should adopt a resolution stating its recommendation, with or without conditions, and announce the date upon which the City Council will consider the requested vacation. A draft resolution was prepared by staff based upon staff's review of the vacation request and approval recommended by staff. The draft resolution is attached. The Planning Commission may instruct staff to modify the resolution as necessary to reflect the decision of the Commission. Recommend a Motion to: Adopt a resolution recommending vacation of complete access control along the 12  Adopt a resolution recommending vacation of complete access control along the south line of Lot 32, Block N, The Oaks Addition and forward the resolution to the City Council for consideration. Attachments Location Map Site Plan Draft Resolution 13  Attachment 1: Location Map Fairw Newber 2 RES 6 RES KK 8 GC-A 1 1 7 9 7 RES Z 6 ir 5 ay C RES 8 RES B 10 5 Sawgrass GC-3 9 1 RES MM 11 4 12 10 2 3 2 Fairway 11 13 3 2 14 Ln 12 4 1 15 Ct 1 13 5 RES C 16 RES D r reek D 14 6 17 Cir RES GC-B RES 30 15 18 Sawgras Ct X 29 19 16 6 Triple 25 28 Fairway s 20 17 27 C 24 21 3 18 23 26 Tall 22 Tall Tree Rd RES F Tre 25 RES I e Rd RES C 24 23 19 RES G RES H 22 RES L 25 1 4 RES OO 2 20 21 RES E 3 RES Q RES R 1 24 RES J RES PP R d RES XQ 4 RES B T re e RES XS 23 1 Tall 2 16 Cir RES RES XT RES SS 2 5 RES XF XW 22 Newberry St 4 3 ge 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RES H St 3 1 Ed 5 1 21 15 6 1 ters Clearlake St 2 4 Woodard Res P Res R 20 14 7 4 Res I Res Q e St Wa Reserve O 6 2 5 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 dg 3 19 13 8 2 4 RES 6 RES RES G 7Wa 5 13 14 25 26 GC-C 18 12 9 M ters 12 7 24 23 Dr 27 9 28 22 11 10 l ut Cir 27 26 25 8 24 17 Lookout Res J Creek PlRes ek 9 W 6 7 E 11 15 28 8 23 16 10 11 3 Triple Cre K P at ers Edg 8 16 29 9 Looko 6 17 18 19 20 10 10 22 15 21 12 17 30 Res E 11 11 10 9 e Ct 9 21 14 65432 1 18 31 13 8 20 15 14 12 12 RES 19 Subject Property: 13 RdRESRes C 32 Res A ed Oak D Reserve GC-1 6 7 F Res B 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 RESN XH 13 RES 5 1474 Lookout Pl. 12 1 2 3 2 1 11 RES 14 4 4 3 4 Newberry St 35 36 37 t 6 5 RES GC-5 10 Newberry Pl M St RES XG 3 tS 7 e reek Ct s Edg RES XJ 2 ou 9 7 6 5 RES K 38 t er 1 ok 8 39 Wa 28 Lo RES XI Ct Lookout St Reserve A 1 27 1 2 3 45 RES GC-4 t 1 15 Newbe RES L ou rry C4ir. s Edge St 26 8 o ok 2 Newberry Ct. L 14 6 Reserve 2 25 RES XK 7 3 5 24 13 A 1 6 4 7 t RES RES XM K 12 2 1 8 3 ase S 5 3 11 1 9 Tr i p 10 4 erch 2 3 RES XL 2 le 5 Summ C re 6 Sum e r chase k e m 4 6 11 Pl D 1 RES GC-D 3 7 5 r ir 10 RES J RES XN 10 9 8 C 24 ase 8 9 7 1 11 Su mmerch e 23 as 2 5 4 4 20 erch 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 m RES I 21 m RES XU Su RES XV Meadowlark Blvd Meadowlark Blvd Ct 117 A 12 RESERVE A 6 7 7 116 115 114 113 112 17 1 1 9 10 5 15 1 2 3 21 1 2 3 4 5 117 1 8 Lo 11 14 RESERVE B 1 A 16 2 2 n 4 RESERVE C 4 reek Ct Dry Creek Cir 118 A Windmill Ct gh 3 13 Rd 8 8 118 1 15 3 7 o rn 2 12 1 2 3 5 14 13131212 11111010 9 A 20 A 119 120 121 122 123 4 10 3 6 wC Br TRACT E 12 2 14 Ra 1 t 11 34 iar 4 6 Su 121 A 120 A122 A125 A ns na wo 15 A 17 A 19 A 16 A A 18 A 9 A 9 4 5 B 33 32 7 A A A 126 A 123 A 3 13 5 10 ri a rw 5 et 12 hid nt a 128 A 127 A 127 126 125 124 od 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 6 8 oo 31 6 8 Dr Mo 21 128 4 12 11 Dry Stream 21 Ct A 119 A Wagon Wheel Ct 5 11 St 9eS 22 23 7 9 129 7 t 24 P 30 d 26 25 2424 23 22 A 31 A 22 129 A 130 131 132133 133134134 6 10 7 8 9 10 St or n 8 21 l 8 10 29 t Wi 20 25 9 130 A 137 A A 131 A A 136 A 132 A 6 rS 25 A 27AA 28 A 29 2330AA 32 A 33 A 7 9 Lo 7 9 11 1 tD A 138 A 135 nd 5 ng 28 2 oo r 8 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 138 137 136 t h 19 26 10 ail C 8 mi 6 12 dm se 34 139 4 27 11 34 A A 139 Split R 4 5 7 Dry Brook Ct 13 oa Su 6 144 3 ll R 18 12 n 14 Br 5 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 35 A 48 A 140 141 142 143 146 A 2 d 3 17 16 15 14 13 TRACT 15 C1t 143 49 A 148 A A 145 RESERVE F It is understood41A 42 A 45 that40while the City of 43 AorA 39 38 A DerbyA 36 A 47 A 140 A 142 A r d 26 D 4has no indication bo a reason A to believe 37thatA 48 49 141A 147 A 146 2 16 42 43in the 46 there are inaccuracies A 46 47 information 50 A 148 147 c k 25 20 19 18 17 23 22 21 Bu 24 J 3incorporated in this map, 44warranty or no 149 1 RESERVE E 27 45expressed Ct 50 A 149 154 2representation ay Windmill Rd is being made, either 153 RESERVE D RESERVE B RESERVE or implied, with respect to the information 44 A J 150 A 152 152 A 154A A 1or the data 2 displayed. 3 53 52 51 51 A 150 151 13 2 4 k Dr y St 54 A 52 A56 A55 A 57 A 58 A 59 A 151 A 9 153 A 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 1 1 4 2 8 14 2 3 City of Derby, Kansas  Attachment 2: Site Plan N 15  Passed: _____________. RESOLUTION NO. PC2016-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DERBY, KANSAS RECOMMENDING THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF DERBY GRANT A REQUEST FOR VACATION OF PLATTED COMPLETE ACCESS CONTROL ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 32, BLOCK N, THE OAKS, AN ADDITION TO DERBY, SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS. WHEREAS, K.S.A., 12-504, et seq., provides a procedure for the City’s Planning Commission to consider the vacation of certain plats, streets, easements or reservations; and WHEREAS, the City has received a petition to vacate the platted complete access control along the south line of Lot 32, Block N, The Oaks, an Addition to Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas. WHEREAS, on September 15, 2016 and in compliance with K.S.A. 12-504, et seq., the Derby Planning Commission held the required hearing to consider the above-described request to vacate; and WHEREAS, K.S.A. 12-505 provides that no vacation shall be granted if a written objection thereto is filed with the City Clerk, at the time of or before the hearing, by any owner or adjoining owner who would be a proper party to the petition but has not joined therein; and WHEREAS, no such written objection to the vacation was filed with the City Clerk at the time of or before the required hearing on September 15, 2016; and WHEREAS, K.S.A. 12-505 provides that the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation regarding the vacation and submit such recommendation to the governing body. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Derby, Kansas that: Section 1. Determination. It is hereby determined that due and legal notice of the petition to vacate and of the September 15, 2016 hearing on the requested vacation of the complete access control along the south line of Lot 32, Block N, The Oaks, an Addition to Derby, Sedgwick County, Kansas, has been given by publication and other means as provided by law, no private rights will be injured or endangered by such vacation, the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby, and that in justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner ought to be granted. – REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK – 16  Section 2. Recommendation. Based upon the Determinations stated in Section 1 above, vacation of the above-described portion of complete access control is hereby recommended to the Governing Body of the City of Derby, Kansas, in accordance with the requirements of K.S.A. 12-505, conditioned upon the following: 1. Reservation to the city and the owners of any lesser property rights for public utilities, rights-of-ways, and easements for public service facilities originally held and currently in existence within the above-described portion of complete access control. Section 3. Submission. This Resolution will be submitted to the Governing Body of the City of Derby, Kansas for consideration at the September 27, 2016 meeting to be held in the Council Room at City Hall, 611 N. Mulberry, Derby, Kansas, and shall commence at 6:30 p.m. Section 4. Severability. Should any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this resolution be found to be unconstitutional or is otherwise held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of any remaining provisions herein. Section 5. This resolution shall be effective from and after its adoption. PASSED by the Planning Commission of the City of Derby, Kansas, on September 15, 2016 and SIGNED by the Chairman. Mitchell J. Adams, Chairman Attested: Cody Bird, Secretary 17