Water Dist. No. 1 of Johnson County v. City Council of City of Kansas City, 70151
Decision Date | 15 April 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 70151,70151 |
Citation | 871 P.2d 1256,255 Kan. 183 |
Parties | WATER DISTRICT NO. 1 OF JOHNSON COUNTY, Appellant, v. The CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY OF KANSAS CITY, Kansas, and the City of Kansas City, Kansas, Appellees. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The record is examined and it is held, under the facts in the instant case, that conditions imposed by a city in granting a special use permit to a K.S.A. 19-3501 water district are reasonable.
2. A city's right to subject a K.S.A. 19-3501 water district seeking a special use permit to municipal zoning ordinances is not preempted by State regulation of the water treatment process under the facts in the instant case.
Wilson E. Speer, of Speer, Austin, Holliday & Zimmerman, of Olathe, argued the cause, and Michael J. Armstrong, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellant.
N. Cason Boudreau, Deputy City Atty., argued the cause, and Harold T. Walker, City Atty., was with him on the brief for appellees.
This is a land use case involving the validity of conditions imposed in granting a special use permit. The contestants are both governmental units. Water District No. 1 of Johnson County (District) is dissatisfied with the decision of the City Council of Kansas City, Kansas (City). The District sought a special use permit for additional inert treatment residue basins on District land located in the City. The City granted the permit, subject to nine conditions. The District objected to the conditions and appealed under K.S.A. 12-760 ( ). The trial court upheld the City's decision. Our jurisdiction is under K.S.A. 20-3017 and K.S.A.1993 Supp. 60-2101(b). We granted the District's motion to transfer to this court.
We must decide whether the conditions imposed in granting the District's request are reasonable and whether they conflict with the State's preemption of the water treatment process.
The scope of review in zoning cases is governed by a series of concepts we summarized in Combined Investment Co. v. Board of Butler County Comm'rs, 227 Kan. 17, 28, 605 P.2d 533 (1980). See Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 247 Kan. 486, 492-93, 802 P.2d 494 (1990). We have applied these concepts to the review of special use permit decisions. See Daniels v. Board of Kansas City Comm'rs, 236 Kan. 578, 584, 693 P.2d 1170 (1985). The Combined Investment concepts provide a prologue for our analysis in the case at bar:
(a) the lawfulness of the action taken, and
(b) the reasonableness of such action.
"(8) An appellate court must make the same review of the zoning authority's action as did the district court." 227 Kan. at 28, 605 P.2d 533.
In addition to the scope of review concepts used to analyze special use permit cases, we have noted that the factors in Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 598, 584 P.2d 130 (1978), should be considered by the zoning body. The Golden factors can aid the reviewing court in determining the reasonableness and validity of zoning determinations. See Davis, 247 Kan. at 493, 802 P.2d 494; K-S Center Co. v. City of Kansas City, 238 Kan. 482, 494, 712 P.2d 1186 (1986). In K-S Center Co., we held the Golden factors are to be applied in special use permit cases. 238 Kan. at 494-95, 712 P.2d 1186.
The District is a quasi-municipal urban water supply and distribution district established under K.S.A. 19-3501 et seq. Service is provided to approximately 300,000 people, most of whom reside in Johnson County, Kansas. A special use permit was sought to construct water treatment residual disposal monofills, also known as sludge lagoons, in the City. Monofills are used for the deposit of a by-product of the District's water softening treatment process. The treatment process produces an inert residue, lime, that consists primarily of calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) reviews and permits the use of this type of residue treatment. The District began using the monofill in 1975 on a 34-acre tract in the 100-year flood plain. The tract was purchased by the District in 1985.
In 1990, the District decided a second monofill was needed and applied for a special use permit. The City granted the permit, subject to four conditions:
The 1990 monofill was characterized as a short-term solution to the treatment discharge problem that would give the District time to explore alternatives.
In 1991, the District submitted an application to the KDHE for a demonstration program of controlled discharge of the lime residue into the Kansas River. The District sought river discharge because the monofill produced several adverse effects, including an impact on land use, the concentration of possible hazardous substances, and the expense of construction. KDHE denied the application.
The District, in August 1991, submitted the second special use permit petition to the City. The application expressed the District's intent to construct two additional monofills on the remaining 25 acres of the 34-acre tract. The City's planning staff issued a review summary identifying three issues the staff believed needed to be considered by the City: (1) the environment; (2) development; and (3) the balancing of interests as required by the courts in zoning cases which involve another governmental agency. No one opposed the petition. The Planning Commission recommended approval, subject to three conditions:
"A) Softening residual only. (This avoids presedimentation residuals that are currently returned to the river.) B) The duration of the special use permit being ten years. C) Measures are taken as necessary to assure that the areas of the monofills will be able to support buildings similar to what could be supported if the monofills were not present without extra expense for special foundations. Such measures would include at least the placement of 12 feet of fill above the monofills with the first 6 feet compacted as set out in item # 4 of Terracon's August 28, 1991, letter."
The City agreed to hold the application over for two months to allow Johnson County and the City to discuss the possibility of cooperation in the area of wastewater treatment facilities.
A motion for approval of the permit failed on a vote of three to four. A five-to-two vote was required to deny the permit because the Planning Commission had recommended that the permit be approved. K.S.A. 12-757(c). The petition was returned, and the Planning Commission again recommended approval.
Upon completion of testimony in the second hearing, the City approved the permit, subject to nine conditions (conditions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and the four years in condition 2, originated with the City):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clark v. City of Shawnee
...the subject area as long as the city's ordinance does not conflict with the state law. Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City Council of Kansas City , 255 Kan. 183, 194, 871 P.2d 1256 (1994). The City's Ordinance in question here matches the express exception allowed in state law by makin......
-
Dwagfys Mfg., Inc. v. City of Topeka, Kan., Corp.
...Cadoret , 263 Kan. 164, 170, 946 P.2d 1356 [1997] ; McCarthy , 257 Kan. at 584, 894 P.2d 836 ; Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City , 255 Kan. 183, 193, 871 P.2d 1256 [1994] ; Dillon Stores v. Lovelady , 253 Kan. 274, 279, 855 P.2d 487 [1993] ; Executive Aircraft Consulti......
-
McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 88,075
...court must make the same review of the zoning authority's action as did the district court." See Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 255 Kan. 183, 184, 871 P.2d 1256 (1994) (applying Combined Investment concepts to special use permit decisions); M.S.W., Inc. v. Marion C......
-
Home Builders Ass'n of Greater Kansas City v. City of Overland Park
...Thus, the excise tax is valid unless it conflicts with the fee charged by K.S.A. 28-115. Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City Council of Kansas City, 255 Kan. 183, 193-94, 871 P.2d 1256 (1994). The excise tax imposed by the City does not conflict with the fee in K.S.A. 28-115 but, rathe......
-
Home Rule Power for Cities and Counties in Kansas
...an ordinary home rule resolution. [FN85]. 252 Kan. 421, 4255, 845 P.2d 57 (1993). [FN86]. 253 Kan. 274, 279, 855 P.2d 487 (1993). [FN87]. 255 Kan. 183, 193, 871 P.2d 1256 (1994). [FN88]. 257 Kan. 566 894 P.2d 836 (1995). [FN89]. Executive Aircraft, 252 Kan. at 425. Note that the concurrence......
-
Home Rule: a Primer
...City of Bonner Springs, 269 Kan. 670, 8 P.3d 701 (2000). 15. Id. ftn. 13. 16. Johnson County Water District No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 255 Kan. 183, 871 P.2d 1256 (1994). 17. State ex rel. Schneider v. City of Kansas City, 228 Kan. 25, 612 P.2d 578 (1980). 18. Moore v. City of Lawrence, ......
-
Beware - the Supreme Court Further Restricts the Authority of Municipalities to Condition Development Approvals
...being "rationally related" to the police power authority to promote the general welfare. Water Dist. No. 1 v. City Council of Kansas City, 255 Kan. 183, 191, 871 P.2d 1256, 1262 (1994). [FN37]. Dolan, 114 S. Ct. at 2321. [FN38]. Id. at 2320 (citing Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 16......
-
Kansas Land Use Law Practice Tips
...omitted). [27] Golden, 224 Kan. 591, Syl. ¶ 2. See also Water District No. 1 of Johnson County v. City Council of City of Kansas City, 255 Kan. 183, 190-91, 871 P.2d 1256 (1994). [28] Tri-County Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Harper County, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1168......