Rodrock Enterprises, LP v. City of Olathe
| Decision Date | 13 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 85,130.,85,130. |
| Citation | 28 Kan. App.2d 860,21 P.3d 598 |
| Parties | RODROCK ENTERPRISES, L.P., Appellant, v. CITY OF OLATHE, KANSAS, A Municipal Corporation, and OLATHE PLANNING COMMISSION, A Municipal Agency, Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Lewis A. Heaven, Jr., and Henry F. Sonday, Jr., of Holbrook, Heaven & Osborn, P.A., of Kansas City, for appellant.
Michael K. Seek, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, L.L.P., of Overland Park, and Leonard Hall, assistant municipal counselor, City of Olathe, for appellees.
Before MARQUARDT, P.J., ELLIOTT, J., and PADDOCK, S.J.
Rodrock Enterprises, L.P. (Rodrock) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Olathe (City) and the Olathe City Planning Commission. We affirm.
By ordinance dated July 21, 1998, the City incorporated the Woodland Road Corridor Plan (WRCP) into its comprehensive plan and adopted the Residential Neighborhood Design Manual (design manual) as a policy guideline. In February 1999, Rodrock purchased a tract of land, approximately 35.56 acres, located within the WRCP area. Rodrock submitted a preliminary plat for 140 lots or 3.94 dwelling units per acre. Although the plat did not conform to the WRCP or the design manual, the City's planning staff opined that the density was within the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) limitations and recommended approval of the plat with conditions. On April 12, 1999, the planning commission voted 4-1 to deny approval of the plat because it did not conform to the WRCP or the goals of the design manual.
Rodrock filed a petition for a permanent order of mandamus and appealed the planning commission's decision to the trial court. The trial court denied Rodrock's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the City and the planning commission. Rodrock appeals both rulings.
Rodrock argues that approval of a plat which conforms to a city's subdivision regulations is a ministerial act which may be compelled by an order of mandamus. Its argument is based on case law that predates the current statutory law. The law now requires that the planning commission consider various factors in evaluating a plat. Consideration of the factors requires the exercise of judgment and discretion. Mandamus is a proceeding to compel performance of a specified duty. K.S.A. 60-801. Mandamus is an appropriate proceeding for the purpose of compelling a public officer to perform a clearly defined duty, one imposed by law, that does not involve the exercise of discretion. Legislative Coordinating Council v. Stanley, 264 Kan. 690, 697, 957 P.2d 379 (1998). Mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of discretion by a public official. Hill v. City of Lawrence, 2 Kan. App.2d 457, 458, 582 P.2d 1155,rev. denied 225 Kan. 844 (1978). An action in mandamus is inconsistent with the statutory provision for challenging the "reasonableness" of a decision. See K.S.A. 12-760(a); Gaslight Villa, Inc. v. City of Lansing, 213 Kan. 862, 872-73, 518 P.2d 410 (1974).
Rodrock relies primarily on Moore v. City of Lawrence, 232 Kan. 353, 654 P.2d 445 (1982). The Moore court said: "The planning commission is given no discretionary authority under this procedure." 232 Kan. at 361. At the time Moore was decided, K.S.A. 12-705b (Weeks) provided: "If the plat conforms to the requirements of [the subdivision] regulations, there shall be endorsed thereon the fact that it has been submitted to and approved by the city planning commission or joint committee." The current statute, K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 12-752(b), contains substantially the same language. However, the statute defining the scope of the subdivision regulations has been significantly modified. The current law contains a nonexclusive list of factors which provide for efficient and orderly location of streets, reduction of vehicular congestion, and "any other services, facilities and improvements deemed appropriate." K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 12-749(b). (Emphasis added.)
Under the current statutes, the planning commission has the power to adopt a comprehensive plan. It also has the power to amend the plan by resolution to add its recommendations. The former statute allowed an appeal to question the reasonableness of the ordinance or regulation. See K.S.A. 12-712 (Weeks). The current statute allows an appeal to the trial court to determine the reasonableness of the planning commission's decision. K.S.A. 12-760(a).
Clearly, the scope of the subdivision regulations and the authority of the planning commission to adopt and alter a comprehensive plan under the current law require the planning commission to exercise considerable discretion. Under the current law, approval of a plat is not a ministerial act and may not be compelled though mandamus.
Reasonableness is the standard by which the trial court reviews the planning commission's decision. See K.S.A. 12-760(a). Reasonableness is a question of law to be determined on the facts. On appeal, we apply the same standard as the trial court. See Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. City of Olathe, 263 Kan. 667, 676, 952 P.2d 1302 (1998). There is a presumption that the planning commission acted reasonably, and the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body. 263 Kan. at 683.
Rodrock argues that the planning commission's reasons for denying approval of the plat were so vague and ambiguous as to be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. The planning commission's concerns in the minutes of the April 12, 1999, meeting include the plat's failure to conform to the WRCP and design manual, and inadequacy of the transition from an existing large-lot development to the plat's smaller lots.
Rodrock further contends that the planning commission lacked the discretion to deny approval of the plat if it complied with applicable subdivision and zoning regulations.
Assuming that the planning commission has discretion in applying the regulations, its discretion must be exercised within the limits of the regulations and its statutory authority. Approval of a plat is improperly denied where the plat conforms to all zoning and subdivision regulations and planning commission standards. Denial must be based on violation of regulations and standards which are within the authority conferred by the enabling legislation. See 83 Am. Jur.2d, Zoning and Planning § 556, p. 445-46. However, the Kansas statutes provide that a city may adopt regulations which control the aesthetics of the development. See Blockbuster Video, Inc., v. City of Overland Park, 24 Kan. App.2d 358, 361, 948 P.2d 179 (1997). The city may then choose to enforce them or not when a development plan is proposed. 24 Kan. App.2d at 360-61.
The issue before this court is whether the WRCP and design manual constitute legally adopted subdivision regulations of the City and, if so, whether the plat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.H. Gump Revocable v. City of Wichita
...determined on the facts. On appeal, we apply the same standard as the trial court. [Citation omitted.]" Rodrock Enterprises, L.P. v. City of Olathe, 28 Kan.App.2d 860, 863, 21 P.3d 598, rev. denied 271 Kan. 1037 Initially, we recognize that City is not following the recommendation of the MA......
-
Evans v. City of Emporia
...like the trial court, reviews a zoning board's decision by a reasonableness standard based on the facts. Rodrock Enterprises, L.P. v. City of Olathe, 28 Kan.App.2d 860, 863, 21 P.3d 598, rev. denied 271 Kan. 1037 (2001). The Kansas Supreme Court discussed the standard of review of zoning is......
-
Dowling Realty v. City of Shawnee, 90,078.
...acted reasonably, and this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body. Rodrock Enterprises, L.P. v. City of Olathe, 28 Kan. App. 2d 860, 863, 21 P.3d 598, rev. denied 271 Kan. 1037 K.S.A. 12-747(a) authorizes a city planning commission to make a comprehensive ......