Opinion ID: 1247763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Conformance of the Requested Change to the City's Master or Comprehensive Plan

Text: The City's master plan has consistently designated Landau's property for residential use. Antioch Road was designated as the eastern border for a large residential area to the west. The K-150 Corridor Study was approved by the City Council in April of 1986. Based on this study, the City changed its master plan to include a strip of multi-family residential use along the west side of Antioch Road in the vicinity of 127th Street to buffer industrial use from single-family residential use. Based on the K-150 study, commercial zoning was at variance with the master plan; multi-family use was not. The zoning authority is presumed to have acted reasonably. The landowner must prove the City's decision to be unreasonable. Our analytical journey, pausing momentarily at each of the eight Golden criteria, persuades us that the City Council was not unreasonable in denying Landau's requested 16 acres of commercial zoning. 2. EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER ZONING REQUEST At trial, Landau attempted to present evidence of a rezoning request for a parcel near 123rd and Metcalf, which was granted by the City more than a year after his request was denied. Landau contends that the later zoning request was factually similar to his request and was relevant evidence to the reasonableness of the City Council's decision. The standards for admitting new evidence in zoning appeals to the district court were well stated in Keeney v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 389, 394, 454 P.2d 456 (1969): Parties attacking the reasonableness of an ordinance should not be precluded from the presentation of relevant evidence showing unreasonableness, even though such evidence was not presented to the governing body. This is not meant to imply that the hearing in district court should be a retrial on the merits of the zoning application, irrespective of whether or not a record was made of the city council's proceedings; neither does it imply that a party may lie in wait and ambush the other side at the district court hearing. The district judge remains armed with his usual discretion in admitting or rejecting evidence, and his rulings will not be disturbed unless substantial rights of a party are thereby affected. Landau was able to present evidence of other rezonings by the City Council that were not in compliance with the master plan: two parcels on the east side of 127th and Antioch that were rezoned for commercial use, and a parcel at the intersection of 127th and Pflumm, which was rezoned to commercial use. The Pflumm rezoning occurred six months after the denial of Landau's rezoning and was within the same large residential area which the City sought to protect by denying the Landau rezoning request. Although the trial court could have admitted the evidence of rezoning at 123rd and Metcalf, it clearly had the discretion to exclude it. The Metcalf rezoning occurred in a completely different residential area over a year after Landau's application was denied. There were factual similarities and factual differences between the Metcalf rezoning request and Landau's. Landau was able to present evidence of other rezonings which were at variance with the master plan. It was not an abuse of discretion to exclude the Metcalf evidence. 3. THE CITY'S APPRAISAL OF LANDAU'S PROPERTY Landau argues that Kevin Nunnick's testimony on the value of Landau's property should have been excluded. Landau contends that Nunnick's appraisal was not admissible because (1) it was not relevant to the issue of reasonableness and (2) the City, although able to do so, did not present it to the Council prior to the zoning denial. The City, in its unsuccessful motion in limine, urged the trial court to exclude all evidence not presented to the City Council. Landau opposed the City's motion. Landau, as a trial court litigant, wanted to allow in additional evidence. On appeal, his position shifts; here, he seeks to keep such evidence out. The City did not hire Nunnick until May 1987, after its motion in limine had been denied. Nunnick's appraisal was based on land values at the time Landau purchased the property and at the time the City Council denied Landau's rezoning application. Landau argues that: (1) the evidence could have been produced by the City at the Council meeting and (2) because the City has not justified its failure to do so, the trial court cannot now receive it. We are not persuaded by the argument. Landau also contends that Nunnick's testimony had no bearing on the City's decision and, therefore, cannot be used to support the decision as a reasonable one. In our view, Landau's reasoning lacks merit. His view highlights our concern for the smaller and mid-sized Kansas communities. Landau's view would place an undue burden on zoning bodies to produce expert testimony at hearings on the most routine zoning changes in anticipation of the applicant's future lawsuit. Nunnick's testimony was relevant to the issue of reasonableness. It was helpful in an analysis of the suitability of the property for the uses to which it has been restricted. The testimony also had relevance to the issue of whether the denial of the rezoning either decreased the value of Landau's property or placed any undue hardship upon him. Landau contends that Nunnick's testimony constituted piecemeal production of evidence, a concept this court has previously found unacceptable. He relies upon International Villages, Inc., of Amer. v. Board of Comm'rs of Jefferson County, 224 Kan. 654, 585 P.2d 999 (1978), and Olathe Hospital Foundation, Inc. v. Extendicare, Inc., 217 Kan. 546, 539 P.2d 1 (1975). In Olathe Hospital, we found that the proffered testimony was an attempt to retry the merits of the application and that it did not go to the issue of the arbitrariness of the administrative agency's decision. 217 Kan. at 561. In International Villages, we said: The trial court may take additional evidence that is relevant to the limited issues of reasonableness and legality of the order appealed from. 224 Kan. at 660. The trial court did not err by allowing Nunnick to testify. 4. THE CITY'S CROSS-APPEAL: SHOULD THE RECORD BE LIMITED? The cross-appeal arises from the conflict between the principles of zoning law developed in Bodine v. City of Overland Park, 198 Kan. 371, 424 P.2d 513 (1967), and Keeney v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 389, 454 P.2d 456 (1969), and the recharacterization in Golden of specific tract rezonings as quasi-judicial actions. Golden did not overrule the two earlier opinions. We are now called upon to decide whether it should have. The City is supported by the League of Kansas Municipalities, amicus curiae, in advocating that Bodine and Keeney should be overruled. We decline to do so. We do not agree with the amicus argument that the current process will lead to a duplication of effort that is wasteful of the public's dollar. On the contrary, we are mindful of the perceived economic impact on Kansas communities were we to adopt the amicus view. Kansas Zoning The standard of review of rezoning decisions turns on the reasonableness the City's determination. The Bodine and Keeney decisions established that, when a rezoning decision is on review before the trial court, additional evidence may be considered. The additional evidence must meet the requirement of relevancy as to the issue of reasonableness. The trial court was definitely not to retry the case on the merits of the application. Prior to Golden, this court stated: [T]he governing body has the right to prescribe zoning, the right to change zoning and the right to refuse to change zoning.... There is a presumption that the governing body acted reasonably and it is incumbent upon those attacking its action to show the unreasonableness thereof. Arkenberg v. City of Topeka, 197 Kan. 731, 734-35, 421 P.2d 213 (1966). The Arkenberg view conformed with the majority of jurisdictions which consider acts of rezoning to be legislative in character. Because of the legislative character, rezoning decisions are given much deference and are only overturned on a showing of clear error or abuse. 2 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning § 27A.04 (4th ed. 1988). We changed our characterization of specific tract rezoning in 1978. In Golden, we stated: A city, in enacting a general zoning ordinance, or a planning commission, in exercising its primary and principal function under K.S.A. 12-704 in adopting and in annually reviewing a comprehensive plan for development of a city, is exercising strictly legislative functions. When, however, the focus shifts from the entire city to one specific tract of land for which a zoning change is urged, the function becomes more quasi-judicial than legislative. Golden, 224 Kan. at 597. We suggested that each zoning body enter a written order summarizing the evidence and stating the factors it considered in reaching its decision. A simple yes or no vote did not give a reviewing court any clue to the reasonableness of the zoning decision. We then listed the eight Golden factors. We reiterated that reasonableness is still the standard for review but that the standard is better applied if reviewing courts have a record to act upon. 224 Kan. at 599. We did not, in Golden, specifically address the issue of what evidence could be considered by a reviewing court in determining the reasonableness of the zoning decision. In Combined Investment Co. v. Board of Butler County Comm'rs, 227 Kan. 17, 27, 605 P.2d 533 (1980), we indicated that additional evidence, as established by Keeney, could still be considered in rezoning reviews. We said that a review of a rezoning is not an appeal but is a direct action challenging the reasonableness of the decision of the local authority. 227 Kan. at 28. Although Combined Investment appeared to retreat from the quasi-judicial characterization set out in Golden, the court did consider the eight Golden criteria. In the same year Combined Investment was filed, we also decided Bolser v. Zoning Board for Aubry Township, 228 Kan. 6, 612 P.2d 563 (1980). In Bolser, we were called upon to determine the applicable statute of limitations for challenges to rezoning decisions. The Court of Appeals, reasoning that such actions were independent suits, applied a five-year statute of limitations. We summarized the zoning case law in Kansas and stated: This evolutionary process has resulted in zoning disputes arising from the zoning of particular tracts being considered quasi-judicial decisions which are subject to judicial review under the same rules applicable to appeals from decisions of administrative agencies while operating in a quasi-judicial capacity. 228 Kan. at 12. We held that rezoning reviews were not independent causes of action. The 30-day statute of limitations that applies to judicial review of administrative actions is the appropriate limitation for actions challenging rezoning decisions. The 30-day limitation was subsequently added to the applicable statutes by the legislature. Such actions are authorized by K.S.A. 12-712, where the rezoning is by a city, and by K.S.A. 19-2913 and 19-2926, where the rezoning is by a county. Administrative Appeals The Bodine, 198 Kan. 371, and Keeney, 203 Kan. 389, concept of allowing additional evidence in the trial court is consistent with cases involving review of administrative actions. Rydd v. State Board of Health, 202 Kan. 721, 732, 451 P.2d 239 (1969). In both Rydd and Keeney, this court called upon the legislature to provide more uniformity for the review of administrative decisions. See 203 Kan. at 395; 202 Kan. at 731-32. The legislature began to address this problem when it enacted the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions (the Act), K.S.A. 77-601 et seq. The Act specifically excludes municipal and county actions and, therefore, would exclude review of rezoning decisions. K.S.A. 77-602(a) and (k). (The definition of state agency does not include any political or taxing subdivision of the state.) K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 77-618 provides that judicial review of disputed facts shall be confined to the record except where additional evidence is authorized by the Act or where certain agency actions are subject to de novo review. K.S.A. 77-619 provides for additional evidence in certain situations. Adopting the K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 77-618 standard for the review of zoning decisions would perhaps have a salutary effect on the perceived confusion that has arisen in such cases since the Golden decision. See Davis, Survey of Kansas Law: Real Property, 32 Kan. L. Rev. 773 (1984); Thompson, Dealing with Bids in Zone Hearings : A Golden Opportunity, 51 J.K.B.A. 277 (1982); and Comment, Rezoning in Kansas: Legislation, Adjudication, or Confusion, 30 Kan. L. Rev. 571 (1982). The trial court would have to determine reasonableness based on the record of the zoning hearing, but could hear additional evidence on claims of bias or procedural errors. We must always pause with caution whenever we approach legislative policy. The Act adopted in 1984 specifically excludes appeals from municipal and county zoning decisions. Our shift in Golden, to the quasi-judicial concept for specific tract rezoning, has been in place since 1978. We must not judicially trespass on legislative territory. If the 77-618 and -619 standards are to be applied to appeals of rezoning decisions, the application must be effected by the legislature. The characterization of rezoning as a quasi-judicial act has been adopted in the Model Land Dev. Code § 2-312 (1976), and endorsed in the report by the American Bar Association Advisory Commission on Housing and Urban Growth entitled Housing for All Under Law 280 (1978). Our standard of review is reasonableness. In our view cities and counties in Kansas are entitled to determine how they are to be zoned or rezoned. Elected officials are closer to the electorate than the courts and, consequently, are more reflective of the community's perception of its image. No court should substitute its judgment for the judgment of the elected governing body merely on the basis of a differing opinion as to what is a better policy in a specific zoning situation. We will rely on the good judgment of the trial court to determine whether the specific tract zoning decision appealed arrives for review accompanied by an adequate record. If, in the view of the trial court, the findings of fact and conclusions of law are deficient under Golden and inadequate for a reasonableness determination, the trial court may, in exercising its discretion, select the alternative of remanding the case to the local governing authority for further findings and conclusions. This procedure has been regarded favorably by commentators. A remand to the agency to consider the evidence would preserve judicial resources and protect the autonomy of the agency. Ainsworth & Shapiro, Rethinking Kansas Administrative Procedure, 28 Kan. L. Rev. 419, 445 (1980). The trial court is not to conduct its own review of the evidence. The City in its cross-appeal requests us to review the reasonableness of its denial of Landau's rezoning request on the record presented to the City Council. We need not do so. We have held the trial court did not err in relying on Keeney, 203 Kan. 389. Affirmed.