Court Opinion

ID: 9963906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 15:07:04.881838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:03.897370
License: Public Domain

No. 125,734

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                 AUSTIN PROPERTIES, LLC,
                                        Appellant,

                                             v.

                                CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS,
                                         Appellee.

                              SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1.
       Cities and counties may enact broad zoning ordinances and procedures so long as
they do not violate state zoning statutes.

2.
       State zoning statutes do not prohibit zoning authorities from treating applications
for multi-family residential planned unit developments as zoning amendments governed
by K.S.A. 12-757.

3.
       Zoning authorities are not prohibited from applying the protest provisions of
K.S.A. 12-757(f)(1) to multi-family residential planned unit development applications.

4.
       When neighbors file a valid protest petition against a zoning amendment pursuant
to K.S.A. 12-757(f), the zoning authority can only approve the amendment by a 3/4
majority vote.

                                             1
5.
        If a zoning authority fails to approve a protested zoning amendment by 3/4
majority vote, the protested zoning amendment is denied, and the processes for
resubmission of failed zoning amendments in K.S.A. 12-757(d) are inapplicable.

6.
        Zoning authorities are strongly encouraged, although not required, to consider and
document the factors enumerated in Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 584
P.2d 130 (1978), when evaluating zoning amendments. Zoning authorities may consider
some Golden factors more important than others and are not limited to the factors
enumerated in Golden for their zoning decisions.

7.
        Zoning authorities cannot rely on unsupported generalities or a plebiscite of
neighbors when making zoning decisions.

        Appeal from Johnson District Court; JAMES F. VANO, judge. Oral argument held August 15,
2023. Opinion filed April 26, 2024. Affirmed.

        Melissa Hoag Sherman and Lewis A. Heaven, Jr., of Spencer Fane LLP, of Overland Park, for
appellant.

        Andrew D. Holder, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP, of Overland Park, for appellee.

Before WARNER, P.J., GARDNER and HURST, JJ.

        HURST, J.: Austin Properties, LLC (Austin) submitted an application to the City
of Shawnee (the City) to develop a "high-end" multi-family residential planned unit
development on approximately 29 acres near Highway K-7 and Woodsonia Drive.
Unfortunately for Austin, an overwhelming number of neighbors filed a protest petition

                                                   2
opposing Austin's application, thus requiring the City to achieve a three-fourths (3/4)
majority vote for approval of Austin's application. After failing to achieve the requisite
super majority vote for approval, Austin's proposal failed to pass. Austin sought judicial
review and the district court upheld the City's decision. Austin now appeals, claiming the
district court erred.

       Along with determining the reasonableness of the City's decision to not approve
Austin's development, this case presents novel questions about the City's application of
state zoning statutes to its application process for mixed residential planned unit
developments. Ultimately, the broad authority and discretion of zoning authorities
supports the City's decisions on each issue. The City may enact zoning ordinances—that
are not inconsistent with state zoning statutes—to its application process for planned unit
developments for mixed residential use. Although not how most people characterize
rezoning, the City is permitted to treat applications for planned unit developments as
requests for rezoning and apply statutes and ordinances accordingly. Additionally, this
court cannot say the City acted unreasonably when it denied Austin's proposed
development. While there is no doubt this court's review, and likely the credibility and
reliability of the City's zoning decisions, would benefit from a more complete explanation
of its rationale for denying Austin's application, there is sufficient information in the
record to demonstrate the reasonableness of the City's decision.

       The district court's decision is affirmed.

                        FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       Austin owns 29.2 acres of undeveloped land (the Subject Property) in the 5100 to
5300 blocks of Woodsonia Drive in the City of Shawnee in Johnson County. Most of the
Subject Property is bounded by 51st Street to the north, Woodsonia Drive to the east,
53rd Street to the south, and Highway K-7 to the west. A small parcel of the Subject

                                              3
Property is located just south of 53rd Street. The elevation of the Subject Property
declines as it nears Highway K-7.

                 The City's 1996 Approved Use for the Subject Property

       J.C. Nichols Company previously owned property that included the Subject
Property, and the City granted its rezoning request from agricultural use to planned mixed
residential use in 1996. That 1996 rezoning included approval for construction of a multi-
family and townhome development of 330 garden level multi-family units in 33 buildings
and 68 townhome units in a combination of two-, three-, and four-plex buildings on 44.6
acres. The overall density of the 1996 approved plan was approximately 8.9 dwelling
units per acre (du/acre). However, the approved 1996 plan was never developed, and the
Subject Property was later acquired by Rodrock Homes (Rodrock).

            The City's 2002 and 2004 Approved Use for the Subject Property

       In 2002, the City approved Rodrock's development plan for the Subject Property
which contained 224 townhome units in 57 buildings and 137 single-family cottage units
on 43.7 acres. The overall density of Rodrock's plan was approximately 8.3 du/acre. But
a subsequent land acquisition and development plan by the State affected the Subject
Property and made Rodrock's 2002 plan no longer feasible. In 2004, Rodrock obtained
the City's approval for yet another development plan for the Subject Property which
contained 314 townhome units in 111 buildings on 43.7 acres, yielding an overall density
of approximately 7.2 du/acre. However, later State action also rendered this development
plan infeasible. Austin eventually acquired the Subject Property before any development
occurred.

                                             4
                       The Current Property Development Dispute

       The Subject Property is currently zoned planned unit development mixed
residential use (PUDMR). The land to the north and east of the Subject Property is zoned
single-family residential use and contains single-family homes located in the Woodsonia
subdivision. Land to the south of the Subject Property is zoned commercial highway use
(CH) and PUDMR. The southern land zoned CH is developed with office and retail uses
in the Woodsonia West Center, and a newly constructed fire station and under-
construction daycare facility are located on part of the southern land zoned PUDMR. The
remaining portion of the southern land zoned PUDMR is undeveloped but approved for
townhomes.

       The City's Future Land Use Map within its Comprehensive Plan (the
Comprehensive Plan) designates the Subject Property for development with a mix of
high- and medium-density residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates that
the highest density be on the western side of the Subject Property adjacent to Highway K-
7 and medium density be on the eastern side next to Woodsonia Drive. The City's
Comprehensive Plan defines high-density residential uses as between 10 and 15 du/acre
and medium-density residential uses as between 5.01 and 10 du/acre.

       In 2019, Austin applied for approval of a new preliminary development plan—the
"Woodsonia West Multi-Family Development" (the Woodsonia West Development)—
and the necessary "rezoning" of the Subject Property from PUDMR to PUDMR. As
explained below, the City defines applications for PUDMR as requests for rezoning or
zoning amendments. Austin's Woodsonia West Development spanned 29.2 acres and
contained 42 townhome units in 14 triplex buildings and 384 multi-family units in 16
multi-story apartment buildings, yielding 426 units with an overall density of
approximately 14.6 du/acre.

                                            5
   The City Planning Commission's Report on Austin's Woodsonia West Development

       The City Planning Commission prepared a staff report (the Report) in which it
summarized the impact of Austin's proposed development and found it "should have
little, if any, detrimental effect upon the surrounding properties." The Report summarized
feedback from the USD 232 School District, which provided there was ample student
capacity without changing any boundaries and that "[t]he School District has planned for
this type of growth and has indicated it will not negatively affect their services." The City
staff relied on Austin's traffic impact study prepared by traffic engineers to conclude that
"the street network adjacent to the proposed development is currently well under capacity
and the extra traffic generated by the development will have little to no impact on
roadway level of service as a result." The City's Transportation Manager reviewed
Austin's traffic study and testified at a City Council meeting that he agreed with its
conclusions and the routes in and around the neighborhood were "built to handle
additional traffic."

       The Report ultimately recommended approval of Austin's Woodsonia West
Development. The Report explained:

       "Denial of the request would not appear to benefit the health and welfare of the
       community. The property has been zoned PUDMR for multi-family uses since 1996.
       Staff believes the proposed development conforms to the Future Land Use Guide of the
       Comprehensive plan by providing a desirable residential transition/buffer from existing
       single-family homes to townhomes to multi-family buildings along K-7 Highway. The
       use of the Planned Unit Development allows for a mixture of differing residential types
       while governing building materials and site layout to provide a more cohesive, quality
       development. The development is a high quality plan that provides a variety and mixture
       of housing stock as a unified, cohesive community. The multi-family uses add to an
       increase in population needed to help attract and sustain desired restaurants and retail
       uses.
               ....

                                                    6
       "Staff is supportive of the project and the efforts the developer has made in creating a
       quality multi-family plan that provides a variety and mixture of housing stock as a
       unified, cohesive community. Staff believes the plan conforms to the Future Land Use
       Guide of the Comprehensive Plan by providing a desirable residential transition/buffer
       from existing single-family homes to townhomes to multi-family along K-7 Highway.
       The use of the Planned Unit Development allows for a mixture of differing residential
       types, while governing building materials and site layout to provide a more cohesive,
       quality development. The multi-family dwellings create an increase in population, which
       is needed to help attract and sustain desired restaurants and retail uses in this area of
       Shawnee.

       "Staff recommends approval . . . ."

       In November 2019, the Planning Commission held a public meeting where it
heard evidence and testimony about Austin's application and it ultimately voted
unanimously to recommend approval of Austin's Woodsonia West Development.
Following the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, neighboring
property owners filed a protest petition. The City determined the protest petition triggered
a requirement that Austin's application required at least a 3/4 majority vote of the City
Council for approval. See Shawnee Municipal Code of Ordinances (S.M.O.)
§ 17.92.030(E)(6).

                           The December 2019 City Council Meetings

       The City Council first considered Austin's Woodsonia West Development
application at a public meeting on December 9, 2019. After hearing evidence and
testimony, the City Council voted to continue the matter for two weeks to allow Austin
time to meet and consult neighboring property owners regarding their concerns. Before
the next City Council meeting, the City's Community Development Director issued a
memorandum outlining Austin's efforts to address the neighboring property owners'
concerns and describing the resulting modifications to the proposed development plan.
                                                     7
Austin modified the development plan by reducing the number of units from 426 to 413,
comprised of 362 apartments and 51 townhomes, thereby decreasing the overall density
to 14.1 du/acre.

       The City Council again considered Austin's application at its next public meeting
on December 23, 2019, and took a vote after receiving evidence and testimony. Four
councilmembers—Matt Zimmerman, Jim Neighbor, Mickey Sandifer, and Lindsey
Constance—voted to approve Austin's application. Four councilmembers—Eric Jenkins,
Mike Kemmling, Stephanie Meyer, and Lisa Larson-Bunnell—voted to deny Austin's
application. The City Council therefore advised Austin that its Woodsonia West
Development application was not approved because it failed to receive the requisite 3/4
majority vote from the City Council.

                            Judicial Review of the City's Denial

       Austin petitioned for judicial review, challenging the City's denial under two
general categories: (1) the City Council's decision was unreasonable; and (2) the City
Council's decision was invalid because it failed to follow the zoning procedures required
by state law. Austin later deposed the four councilmembers who voted against approving
its application. Between the two City Council meetings and their depositions, the
councilmembers who voted against approval generally identified four reasons for their
votes: (1) density; (2) traffic; (3) size and character; and (4) public opposition.

       For example, all four councilmembers who voted to deny the application stated in
some manner that they believed Austin's Woodsonia West Development was too dense
and would negatively impact local traffic. The denying councilmembers also cited
concerns that the Woodsonia West Development was incompatible with the
neighborhood's character because of its size and design. The councilmembers' specific

                                               8
statements about their concerns with the Woodsonia West Development are addressed
more fully in other parts of this opinion.

       In addition, the councilmembers emphasized the overall public opposition to
Austin's Woodsonia West Development. At the first City Council meeting,
Councilmember Larson-Bunnell said, "To say that this is an unpopular project is an
understatement . . . I know that I am not to take popular opinion as the sole deciding
factor of this—of my vote and I don't want to give the impression that I am. But I think
that that context is important." Councilmember Jenkins likewise stated that "[t]he
neighbors were there first . . . I think there's kind of a right to being there first. That gives
you certain additional rights." Councilmember Jenkins further elaborated at the second
City Council meeting:

       "I've received many, many e-mails on this subject on this particular development. And
       they've kind of been different than e-mails I've gotten on a lot of other subjects that have
       been brought before this Council. And the way they've really differentiated from what I
       normally get from people is that they weren't highly emotionally charged. They weren't
       screw you, guys, we want this changed. They were very well thought out. And people
       spent a lot of time analyzing this problem and providing information and data to me. And
       I read all of them. I'm trying to answer all you guys back. But I did read them all, one by
       one, and I digested them as carefully as I could. And it still left me with this underlying
       concern that the density is too great. And I think the one gentlemen [sic], you know, it is
       important that we—that the people have a say-so in this. And that can't be the only
       consideration. I understand that. That's the way the legal process works. The developer
       has rights as well as the residents have rights. But I do feel that it certainly is something
       to take into consideration. It's a significant consideration. And when you have this
       monolithic opposition as opposed to fractured opposition like, yeah, I like this project,
       oh, I hate it. I like it. I mean we're not getting that. It's all I hate it. So, that's kind of an
       unusual bent too that we're having such a steadfast front here that says no, we don't want
       this impacting our neighborhood. And that has quite an impact on me because something
       keeps bothering me, something about by and for the people or something like that. And
       that gives me a lot of concern."

                                                         9
Councilmember Jenkins reiterated his reliance upon public opposition during his
deposition testimony: "It was a factor," although "it's not my prime consideration, but it's
something that does matter."

       Upon competing motions for summary judgment, the district court ultimately
granted summary judgment to the City and dismissed Austin's petition with prejudice,
reasoning that "the City's denial of [Austin]'s Application was lawful."

       Austin now appeals.

                                        DISCUSSION

       Austin appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City,
claiming: (1) the City abused its discretion in denying Austin's application; (2) the City
violated Austin's due process rights by failing to comply with K.S.A. 12-757(d); and (3)
the City violated Austin's due process rights by unlawfully expanding the right to protest
under K.S.A. 12-757(f). Before addressing the substantive issue of whether the City's
decision to deny Austin's Woodsonia West Development application was reasonable, this
court must determine whether the City violated Austin's due process rights during the
process.

I.     THE CITY DID NOT DEPRIVE AUSTIN OF ITS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

       Austin argues the City violated its due process rights by requiring it to submit a
rezoning application and permitting protest petitions for the Woodsonia West
Development because the Subject Property was already zoned PUDMR. Austin claims
this case "involves the wrongful denial of a preliminary development plan, not the
rezoning of the Subject Property," and that the City incorrectly relied on the protest
petition provisions in K.S.A. 12-757(f)(1). Essentially, Austin argues that because the

                                             10
Woodsonia West Development was not an application to amend the Subject Property
from one type of zoning, such as agricultural, to a different type of zoning, such as
residential, the City improperly permitted protest petitions.

       This court exercises unlimited review over the interpretation of statutes
and ordinances. Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145, 149, 432 P.3d 647 (2019);
State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita, 303 Kan. 650, 659, 367 P.3d 282 (2016). The
most fundamental rule of statutory interpretation "is that the intent of the legislature
governs if that intent can be ascertained." Stewart Title of the Midwest v. Reece & Nichols
Realtors, 294 Kan. 553, 557, 276 P.3d 188 (2012). That review begins with the "plain
language of the statute, giving common words their ordinary meaning," and when that
plain language is clear and unambiguous this court "refrain[s] from reading something
into the statute that is not readily found in its words." In re M.M., 312 Kan. 872, 874, 482
P.3d 583 (2021).

       Additionally, the various provisions of a statute or ordinance must be considered
in pari materia, "to reconcile and bring those provisions into workable harmony, if
possible." Roe v. Phillips County Hospital, 317 Kan. 1, Syl. ¶ 3, 522 P.3d 277 (2023).
This court "must give effect, if possible, to the entire act" and read the provisions "so as
to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible." State v. Bee, 288 Kan. 733, Syl. ¶ 4,
207 P.3d 244 (2009).

       A.     The City has the authority to enact broad zoning ordinances and
       procedures.

       The first part of Austin's due process claim is that the City illegally allowed
"protest petitions outside of zoning amendments that altered and changed the zoning of
real estate." Austin claims the phrases "rezoning" and "zoning amendment" in K.S.A. 12-
757 only apply to requests to change a property's zoning designation for its permissible

                                              11
uses. For example, Austin argues that a request to change zoning from residential to
agricultural or commercial is the only type of change that constitutes "rezoning" or
"zoning amendment" under the statute. This court recognizes that the Woodsonia West
Development application is a far cry from a traditional rezoning request.

       The Subject Property is currently—and has been for decades—zoned PUDMR,
and Austin's Woodsonia West Development complies with the permitted uses of PUDMR
zoning. Moreover, the City has previously approved multi-family residential
developments on the Subject Property. The issue here is not the type of development—
such as residential, agricultural, or commercial—but the scope. Although this court
recognizes the distinction, it must determine whether state law permits the City to treat
applications for multi-family residential planned use developments as rezoning or zoning
amendments.

       The enabling statute provides that cities and counties may enact "planning and
zoning laws and regulations . . . for the protection of the public health, safety and
welfare" and that it "is not intended to prevent the enactment or enforcement of additional
laws and regulations on the same subject which are not in conflict" with the statute.
K.S.A. 12-741(a). This means that cities and counties have broad discretion to enact and
enforce zoning regulations so long as they do not conflict with state zoning statutes.
K.S.A. 12-741(a); K.S.A. 12-755(a); 143rd Street Investors v. Board of Johnson County
Comm'rs, 292 Kan. 690, 707-08, 259 P.3d 644 (2011). Therefore, the City's zoning
ordinances are invalid only if they conflict with state zoning statutes. Zimmerman v.
Board of Wabaunsee County Comm'rs, 289 Kan. 926, 939, 218 P.3d 400 (2009); Genesis
Health Club, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 285 Kan. 1021, 1033, 181 P.3d 549 (2008).

       Cities and counties "may adopt zoning regulations which may include, but not
limited to, provisions which . . . [p]rovide for planned unit developments." (Emphasis
added.) K.S.A. 12-755(a)(1). The phrase "zoning regulations" is defined as "lawfully

                                             12
adopted zoning ordinances of a city and the lawfully adopted zoning resolutions of a
county." K.S.A. 12-742(a)(11). "Zoning" is defined as "the regulation or restriction of the
location and uses of buildings and uses of land." K.S.A. 12-742(a)(10). The plain,
unambiguous language of the statutes permits the City to adopt ordinances that "[p]rovide
for planned unit developments" and regulate or restrict the location or use of buildings
and land within planned unit developments. See K.S.A. 12-755(a)(1). However, some
might argue that this case relates to the amendment or change of a planned unit
development, not the provision of one, because the Subject Property has previously been
approved for a multi-family residential planned unit development.

       So this court must analyze the process for zoning changes—or changes to "the
regulation or restriction of the location and uses of buildings and uses of land." The state
statute permits the City to "supplement, change or generally revise the boundaries or
regulations contained in zoning regulations by amendment." (Emphasis added.) K.S.A.
12-757(a). After adopting such zoning regulations, they may be amended through
procedures initiated by the governing body, or "[i]f such proposed amendment is not a
general revision of the existing regulations and affects specific property, the amendment
may be initiated by application of the owner of property affected." (Emphases added.)
K.S.A. 12-757(a). So, as here, where a property owner wants to amend the zoning—that
is, change the "regulation or restriction of the location and uses of buildings and uses of
land"—the City may adopt ordinances that govern such amendment.

       When the statutes are read together and given their plain, ordinary meaning, they
do not prohibit the City from considering an application for multi-family residential
planned unit developments—such as the Woodsonia West Development—as a proposal
for rezoning or a zoning amendment governed by K.S.A. 12-757. Not only is this finding
consistent with the plain language of the statute, but it is also consistent with Kansas
Supreme Court precedent applying K.S.A. 12-757(d) to requests for special use permits
(SUP) and conditional use permits (CUP). See, e.g., Manly v. City of Shawnee, 287 Kan.

                                             13
63, 67-68, 194 P.3d 1 (2008); Crumbaker v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc., 275 Kan. 873,
886-87, 69 P.3d 601 (2003). Neither a CUP nor SUP involves the limited type of rezoning
that Austin claims is required before the City may apply the provisions of K.S.A. 12-757,
which demonstrates the breadth of what the court considers a zoning amendment.

       B.      The City is not prohibited from allowing neighbors to file protest petitions
       to applications for multi-family residential planned unit developments.

       Having found that the City has the authority to treat PUDMR applications
as requests for rezoning or zoning amendments, this court must determine whether
the City may also apply the protest petition process to PUDMR applications. The
state protest petition statute provides:

       "[W]hether or not the planning commission approves or disapproves a zoning
       amendment, if a protest petition against such amendment is filed in the office of the city
       clerk or the county clerk within 14 days after the date of the conclusion of the public
       hearing pursuant to the publication notice, signed by the owners of record of 20% or
       more of any real property proposed to be rezoned or by the owners of record of 20% or
       more of the total real property within the area required to be notified by this act of the
       proposed rezoning of a specific property, excluding streets and public ways and property
       excluded pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the ordinance or resolution
       adopting such amendment shall not be passed except by at least a 3/4 vote of all of the
       members of the governing body." (Emphases added.) K.S.A. 12-757(f)(1).

       The City adopted the provisions of K.S.A. 12-757(f)(1) in its Municipal
Code of Ordinances, which provides in pertinent part:

       "Regardless of whether or not the Planning Commission approves or disapproves a
       proposed zoning amendment or fails to recommend, if a protest petition against such
       amendment is filed in the office of the City Clerk . . . the ordinance shall not be passed

                                                    14
       except by at least three-fourths (3/4) vote of all of the members of the Governing Body."
       (Emphasis added.) S.M.O. § 17.92.030(E)(6).

The City's protest petition ordinance mirrors the state statute. Thus, if the state statute
does not prohibit protest petitions under these circumstances, then the City's protest
petition ordinance applies to PUDMR applications like the Woodsonia West
Development. See Genesis Health Club, 285 Kan. at 1033.

       Under K.S.A. 12-757(f)(1), protest petitions are permitted when there is "property
proposed to be rezoned." Nothing in this subsection changes the meaning of the phrases
"zoning amendment" or "rezone" as used elsewhere in the statute. As explained above,
there is not statutory language prohibiting the City from treating PUDMR applications as
zoning amendments or rezoning proposals. Additionally, through dicta in Crumbaker, the
Kansas Supreme Court presumed the protest provision in K.S.A. 12-757(f)(1) applied to
the application for a special use permit. 275 Kan. at 887. Although this is merely dicta,
the Kansas Supreme Court has not indicated an intent to deviate from that stance or this
court's interpretation of that language. Therefore, the City is not prohibited from adopting
ordinances that apply the protest provisions of K.S.A. 12-757(f)(1) to multi-family
residential planned unit development applications like the Woodsonia West
Development.

       The City did not violate Austin's due process rights by creating ordinances that
incorporated the zoning amendment requirements in K.S.A. 12-757(d) and (f) to PUDMR
applications.

                                                  15
       C.     The City did not violate K.S.A. 12-757(d) when it failed to approve Austin's
       Woodsonia West Development pursuant to K.S.A. 12-757(f).

       Having found the City has the authority to treat PUDMR applications as zoning
amendments under K.S.A. 12-757(d), and likewise that the City may provide for protest
petitions against those applications under the procedures in K.S.A. 12-757(f)(1), this
court must determine whether the City exercised its authority in accordance with those
statutes. What follows when a zoning amendment fails to garner the requisite 3/4
majority vote for approval in the face of a valid protest petition appears to be a matter of
first impression for this court.

       The parties apparently agree that when the Planning Commission recommends a
proposed zoning amendment to the City Council and no protest petition has been filed,
K.S.A. 12-757(d) requires the City Council to either adopt or override the Planning
Commission's recommendation or return the recommendation with an explanation of why
it failed to adopt or override. K.S.A. 12-757(d). But they disagree about what is required
when neighbors file a valid protest petition against the proposed zoning amendment—as
is the case here. Austin claims that, after the City failed to approve its application by a
3/4 majority vote, the City was still required to either override the Planning
Commission's recommendation by a two-thirds (2/3) vote or return the application to the
Planning Commission "with a statement specifying the basis for the governing body's
failure to approve or disapprove." K.S.A. 12-757(d). The City disagrees, and argues that
because neighbors filed a valid protest petition under K.S.A. 12-757(f), the City was
relieved of the requirements in K.S.A. 12-757(d) to override or return the application to
the Planning Commission. Essentially, the City argues that if it receives a valid protest
petition to a zoning amendment, the application must either be approved by a 3/4
majority or it is automatically denied with no further steps required.

                                              16
       Unlike K.S.A. 12-757(d), the protest petition statute contains no process for
situations when the City fails to approve a protested zoning amendment. See K.S.A. 12-
757(f). When neighbors file a protest petition, K.S.A. 12-757(f) provides that:

       "[W]hether or not the planning commission approves or disapproves a zoning
       amendment, if a protest petition against such amendment is filed . . . the ordinance or
       resolution adopting such amendment shall not be passed except by at least a 3/4 vote of
       all the members of the governing body." K.S.A. 12-757(f)(1).

The parties disagree on whether and how K.S.A. 12-757(d) and K.S.A. 12-757(f) work
together.

       This court cannot consider subsection (d) in isolation. Rather, the various
provisions of the statute must be considered together to bring the result "into workable
harmony, if possible." Roe, 317 Kan. 1, Syl. ¶ 3. Typically, "when statutory provisions
are in conflict, the more specific provision generally prevails." Bruce v. Kelly, 316 Kan.
218, 255, 514 P.3d 1007 (2022). Here, subsection (f) specifically applies to the approval
process for proposed zoning amendments under the less-common circumstance when
neighbors file a valid protest petition. Therefore, subsection (f) is the more specific
provision and thus, when applicable, controls over subsection (d).

       However, when applying these rules of construction, there is a gap in the process.
If subsection (f) applies, the governing body can only approve the proposed amendment
with a 3/4 majority vote but, unlike the process in subsection (d) when there is no protest
petition, subsection (f) does not require the governing body to override the Planning
Commission's recommendation or explain its reasons for failing to approve the proposed
amendment. Moreover, the statute does not explicitly provide that the City's failure to
approve the proposed zoning amendment over a valid protest petition would result in an
outright denial of the application and therefore terminate the process.

                                                   17
       Austin points to this lack of resolution as a problem with the City's interpretation
of the statute. Austin argues the heightened voting requirement in subsection (f)—
requiring approval by a 3/4 majority—should merely supplement the simple majority
required for approval in subsection (d) rather than supplant subsection (d)'s requirements
altogether. Austin's interpretation would mean that when the City fails to adopt the
Planning Commission's recommendation to approve a protested zoning amendment by a
3/4 majority, the City would still need to either override the Planning Commission's
recommendation by 2/3 majority or return the proposed amendment to the Planning
Commission with an explanation for its failure to approve or override. While that seems
reasonable—particularly because subsection (f) simply increases the required votes for
approval but includes no other limitations—this court must determine whether that was
the Legislature's intent.

       Hypothetically if neighbors had not filed a protest petition and the City still failed
to approve the Woodsonia West Development or override the Planning Commission's
approval recommendation, the City would have to return the application to the Planning
Commission with an explanation for the failure to adopt or override. In that situation, the
Planning Commission would have a second chance to resubmit the Woodsonia West
Development (with or without changes) to the City Council for passage by a simple
majority vote. K.S.A. 12-757(d). The statute provides:

       "If the governing body returns the planning commission's recommendation, the planning
       commission, after considering the same, may resubmit its original recommendation
       giving the reasons therefor or submit new and amended recommendation. Upon the
       receipt of such recommendation, the governing body, by a simple majority thereof, may
       adopt or may revise or amend and adopt such recommendation by the respective
       ordinance or resolution, or it need take no further action thereon. If the planning
       commission fails to deliver its recommendation to the governing body following the
       planning commission's next regular meeting after receipt of the governing body's report,
       the governing body shall consider such course of inaction on the part of the planning

                                                   18
       commission as a resubmission of the original recommendation and proceed
       accordingly. The proposed rezoning shall become effective upon publication of the
       respective adopting ordinance or resolution." (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 12-757(d).

       If this court reads subsection (f) as Austin proposes—i.e., to simply increase the
required vote for approval in subsection (d) from a simple majority to a 3/4
supermajority—the City's failure to approve or override could result in applicants
receiving a second attempt at approval by only a simple majority. After receiving a
resubmitted application, whether changed from the original or not, the City Council may
then approve it by a simple majority or "take no further action." K.S.A. 12-757(d). In
other words, under Austin's interpretation of the statute, even when neighbors file a valid
protest petition, the heightened voting requirement would not apply to the second attempt
at approval. This "loophole" in the statutory scheme could allow applicants to effectively
circumvent the heightened voting requirement triggered by a valid protest petition.

       While it appears that neighbors could file a second protest petition on the next
attempt, this result could create an endless loop. In that endless loop, neighbors would
carry a heavy burden to refile protest petitions each time the Planning Commission
resubmits the proposed zoning amendment to the City Council, even if unaltered from the
original application that failed to receive the requisite 3/4 majority approval. It is
conceivable that litigants could strategically use this process to obtain approval for
protested amendments by a simple majority. By requiring a 3/4 majority to approve
zoning amendments after neighbors have filed a valid protest petition, the Legislature
expressed a clear intent that protested zoning not be approved by a simple majority vote.

       Because neighbors filed a valid protest petition against the Woodsonia West
Development pursuant to K.S.A. 12-757(f), the City Council could only approve the
development by a 3/4 majority vote. The City Council's failure to achieve the 3/4

                                                 19
majority vote needed for approval resulted in the application's denial, and the processes
for resubmission of failed zoning amendments in K.S.A. 12-757(d) are inapplicable.

II.      THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT ACT UNREASONABLY WHEN IT FAILED TO APPROVE
THE WOODSONIA WEST DEVELOPMENT.

         Austin claims the City unreasonably failed to approve the Woodsonia West
Development because:

      (1) the councilmembers did not provide a sufficient explanation on the record for their
         decision;
      (2) the councilmembers prejudged the proposal;
      (3) the Golden factors weighed in favor of approval;
      (4) the City had previously approved similar development plans on the Subject
      Property; and
      (5) the City's denial was based on an improper plebiscite of the neighbors.

         The Kansas Judicial Review Act (KJRA) does not provide for judicial review of
city zoning decisions, but "any person aggrieved" by a zoning decision may bring an
action "to determine the reasonableness of such final decision." K.S.A. 12-760(a); Frick
v. City of Salina, 289 Kan. 1, 10, 208 P.3d 739 (2009) ("[T]he KJRA does not apply to
the actions of cities, counties, or other political subdivisions of the state."). At the first
step of judicial review, the district court reviews the zoning decision for reasonableness.
The district court's decision is then appealable to this court, which "must make the same
review of the zoning authority's action as did the district court." Combined Investment
Co. v. Board of Butler County Comm'rs, 227 Kan. 17, 28, 605 P.2d 533 (1980). "The
standard for review of an order denying or granting a zoning change is whether the order
entered is reasonable." Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, Syl. ¶ 5, 584 P.2d
130 (1978).

                                               20
       Courts give broad deference to zoning authorities in determining whether to grant
or deny zoning amendments or rezoning requests. The scope of this court's review is
"limited to determining (a) the lawfulness of the action taken, and (b) the reasonableness
of such action," and this court must presume the zoning authority acted reasonably.
Combined Investment Co., 227 Kan. at 28. This court gives no deference to the district
court's determination as to whether the zoning authority's actions were reasonable,
because "[w]hether action is reasonable or not is a question of law, to be determined upon
the basis of the facts which were presented to the zoning authority." 227 Kan. at 28. A
zoning authority's "[a]ction is unreasonable when it is so arbitrary that it can be said it
was taken without regard to the benefit or harm involved to the community at large,
including all interested parties, and was so wide of the mark that its unreasonableness lies
outside the realm of fair debate." 227 Kan. at 28.

       Zoning authorities should consider the Golden factors when deciding whether to
approve a proposed zoning amendment:

       (1) The character of the neighborhood;
       (2) the zoning and uses of properties nearby;
       (3) the suitability of the Subject Property for the uses to which it has been
       restricted;
       (4) the extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby
       property;
       (5) the length of time the Subject Property has remained vacant as zoned;
       (6) the relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare by the destruction of
       the value of plaintiff's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the
       individual landowner;
       (7) the recommendations of permanent or professional staff; and
       (8) the conformity of the requested change to the adopted or recognized master
       plan being used by the city. See Golden, 224 Kan. at 598.

                                              21
Kansas appellate courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of the Golden factors
in evaluating the reasonableness of a zoning authority's decision. See, e.g., 143rd Street
Investors, 292 Kan. 690, Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive
factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own
comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan.
at 945-46; Manly, 287 Kan. 63, Syl. ¶ 5 ("When considering zoning matters, a governing
body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v.
Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303, Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002); Johnson
County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 255 Kan. 183, 184, 871 P.2d 1256
(1994); Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 247 Kan. 486, 493, 802 P.2d 494 (1990); Landau
v. City Council of Overland Park, 244 Kan. 257, 261-62, 767 P.2d 1290 (1989); Taco
Bell v. City of Mission, 234 Kan. 879, Syl. ¶ 5, 678 P.2d 133 (1984).

        A. The City Council created a minimally sufficient record of the reasons it failed
        to approve the Woodsonia West Development.

       As far back as the original enumeration of the Golden factors, the Kansas Supreme
Court has admonished zoning authorities to "place in their minutes a written order
summarizing the evidence and stating the factors which were considered in reaching the
decision either to deny or to grant a requested zoning change." Golden, 224 Kan. 591,
Syl. ¶ 4; Davis, 247 Kan. at 493; Zimmerman, 289 Kan. 926, Syl. ¶ 11. This is because
"[a] mere yes or no vote upon a motion to grant or deny leaves a reviewing court, be it
trial or appellate, in a quandary as to why or on what basis the board took its action."
Golden, 224 Kan. at 597. While reasonableness remains the standard, that reasonableness
is "more readily, more effectively, and more uniformly applied if zoning bodies will
place in their minutes a written order delineating the evidence and the factors the board
considered in arriving at its conclusion." Golden, 224 Kan. at 599. Although not required,
the Kansas Supreme Court has "strongly encouraged" zoning authorities "to make formal

                                             22
findings of fact concerning its decisions regulating land use." Zimmerman, 289 Kan. 926,
Syl. ¶ 11.

       During City Council meetings, some of the councilmembers expressed concerns
about the Woodsonia West Development's impact on the character, density, and traffic of
the existing neighborhood. Councilmember Larson-Bunnell discussed the large number
of neighbors, both residential and commercial, who opposed the development and noted
neighbors' concerns "about the potential for increased crime, overcrowded schools, and
decreased property values" but further stated, "I really haven't seen strong data to support
these concerns and my decision tonight is not based on those factors." Councilmember
Larson-Bunnell identified traffic concerns, specifically the number of cars during the
morning and evening commute, the increased likelihood of danger through the
roundabouts on Johnson Drive, the safety of the proposed exits to get to 47th Street, and
the likelihood of an increase in traffic cutting through the Woodsonia neighborhood. The
councilmember further explained, "On the whole, these traffic concerns are valid and
there is a direct correlation between the number of units in the proposed development and
the impact to traffic." Finally, Councilmember Larson-Bunnell expressed concern about
the size of the proposed buildings detracting from the character of the neighborhood.

       Councilmember Jenkins explained that the original neighbors were there first and
that "gives [them] certain additional rights." Councilmember Jenkins also said, "I don't
think this development fits the characteristics of the neighborhood it's being built next
to." Councilmember Jenkins noted the proposed development would have buildings that
"tower, literally tower over this [existing] development," and "I'm having trouble with
the, like I say, the density of this project." Councilmember Jenkins also pointed to
increased traffic, although noting that the traffic study showed it would stay "within
reason." Councilmember Meyer expressed concerns "about the buffer, particularly on that
north side and then what the traffic concerns would look like."

                                             23
       During the December 23, 2019 City Council meeting, only Councilmember
Jenkins expressed concerns on the record. The councilmember's concerns mimicked
those expressed during the first meeting about the development's density and character
arising from having taller buildings in a smaller space than was previously approved.
Councilmember Jenkins explained, "[W]e get these bigger buildings and that's what's
causing the problem here that people are concerned about. And I have those same
concerns because everybody says it meets the Golden rule test. No, it doesn't. It
negatively affects the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood." Councilmember
Jenkins explained that, after reading emails from concerned neighbors, there was an
"underlying concern that the density is too great."

       After the City Council failed to approve the Woodsonia West Development,
Austin initiated litigation and deposed the disapproving councilmembers. While the
district court did not rely on the deposition testimony, its inclusion in the record is not an
error and the court may inquire into the facts or factors the councilmembers considered
when making their decision. While not necessary, the parties agree that such an inquiry
would be helpful in this case and for that reason this court will consider the deposition
testimony only to the extent it informs the court of the councilmembers' reasons for
opposing Austin's application. See Landau, 244 Kan. at 261 (permitting limited discovery
into the facts or factors considered in the rezoning decision).

       Councilmember Larson-Bunnell testified that traffic was a concern, particularly at
two intersections, although the councilmember did not question the sufficiency of the
road capacity but was more concerned about the "experiences that impact our residents
day to day." Councilmember Larson-Bunnell testified that the neighbors' concerns were
given consideration and that they identified concerns that she shared.

       Councilmember Jenkins testified that his "big issue was density." Councilmember
Jenkins noted that the Subject Property had been reduced from about 44 acres to 29 acres,

                                              24
but the Woodsonia West Development nevertheless "tried to put in basically the same
size development" as was previously approved. Councilmember Jenkins also discussed
damage to "the character of the neighborhood" associated with the proposed building
elevations compared to the adjacent neighborhood and the neighbors' related concerns.
The neighbors' concerns about density "paralleled closely to" Councilmember Jenkins'
concerns. Jenkins relied on his personal experience, a "gut feeling based on years and
years of experience," common sense about human behavior, and the "comments from the
individuals that live in the area and what their current situation is and their extrapolation
as to what they anticipated the additional traffic to cause."

       Although Councilmember Kemmling expressed no concerns during the public
City Council meetings, he testified at his deposition that the "[t]he density of the plan
caused me concern." Additionally, Councilmember Kemmling believed the Woodsonia
West Development failed to meet the Future Land Use Guide even though the Planning
Commission found that it met the City's Comprehensive Plan for future land use.
Councilmember Kemmling also thought the height of the buildings "would be fairly
imposing to the surrounding structures," which would not match the existing character of
the neighborhood. The likely increase in traffic cutting through the Woodsonia
neighborhood, as well as problems with parking, also concerned Councilmember
Kemmling. Councilmember Kemmling further testified that neighbors "raised a lot of
concerns which were concerns of mine as well that I heard at that meeting."

       Finally, Councilmember Meyer testified that she was concerned about the density,
traffic, and lack of an adequate buffer zone between the "single-family homes and the
high-density apartment buildings." Her specific traffic concerns related to the
roundabouts getting backed up at certain intersections. Councilmember Meyer
acknowledged the Planning Commission's approval but disagreed with their
determination. The councilmember explained that those disagreements were based on
experience looking at a lot of development plans and "living very near that site, it's a

                                              25
place that I sort of drive by the intersection every day" and "it's a pretty congested single-
family neighborhood."

       While some of the councilmembers referred to the Golden factors or a particular
factor, the record would have benefited greatly if the councilmembers had specifically
identified the factors considered. This panel joins the numerous previous panels of this
court, and the Kansas Supreme Court, in cautioning zoning authorities to take care in
their quasi-judicial role to create a record enabling review and lending credibility to the
process. See, e.g., Johnson County, 255 Kan. at 184-85; Sechrest v. City of Andover, No.
118,052, 2018 WL 4655611, at *6-7 (Kan. App. 2018) (unpublished opinion) (zoning
authority failed to explain concerns about small zoning amendment).

       However, this failure does not render the City Council's decision per se
unreasonable. See Landau, 244 Kan. at 263 (finding the zoning authority's failure to
address the Golden factors did not prevent review). Austin contends the councilmembers'
stated concerns are not supported by evidence, but that is a different issue than whether
the record is sufficient to allow for judicial review of the City Council's decision. The
answer to the latter question is yes. Under the circumstances here, where neighbors filed
a valid protest petition and the City Council failed to reach the 3/4 majority necessary for
approval, the information in the record permits appellate review of the City's zoning
decision. See, e.g., Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. City of Olathe, 263 Kan. 667,
679, 952 P.2d 1302 (1998); see also Landau, 244 Kan. 257, Syl. ¶ 7 ("The trial court may
take additional evidence in a zoning appeal where the evidence is relevant to the issue of
reasonableness of the zoning decision.").

                                              26
        B.    The councilmembers' failure to approve the Woodsonia West Development
         was not unreasonable under the Golden factors.

       In an exceedingly succinct overview, the district court concluded the City's
decision was reasonable without evaluating the Golden factors, or any specific factors.
While this court's review is conducted anew, there is no doubt the process benefits when
the district court conducts its own independent analysis. Both parties have cradled their
arguments in the fabric of the Golden factors, and although the City Council did not go
through each Golden factor and the district court chose not to elaborate on the factors,
this court finds no error in analyzing reasonableness in light of the Golden factors as the
parties have presented. As the court explained in McPherson, the following analysis of
each Golden factor "should not be viewed as reweighing of the evidence, but, rather, a
process of pointing out how the [zoning authority's] findings of facts were reasonable in
light of the record on appeal." 274 Kan. at 331.

       The range of reasonableness in zoning decisions is quite broad, and one single
factor—whether a Golden factor or not—might weigh so heavily in support of a zoning
authority's decision that it outweighs multiple factors in opposition. See, e.g.,
Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 951-52.

       In Zimmerman, the appealing intervenors argued that "either the amount of the
evidence presented in support" of the Board's decision or "the arguably greater amount of
evidence presented in opposition to" the Board's decision warranted reversal. 289 Kan. at
956. The court explained it could not simply reweigh the evidence but could only
determine "whether the given facts could reasonably have been found by the Board to
justify its decision." 289 Kan. at 956. The question is not whether more or better evidence
supported a decision contrary to the zoning authority's, but whether the zoning authority
had a reasonable basis for its decision.

                                              27
       The City's failure to approve the Woodsonia West Development is unreasonable
only if it was "taken without regard to the benefit or harm" to the community. Combined
Investment Co., 227 Kan. at 28. This court may not reverse a zoning authority's decision
merely because a great weight of the evidence supports a contrary outcome. See, e.g.,
Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 956-57. The landowner objecting to the zoning authority's
decision "has the burden of proving unreasonableness by a preponderance of the
evidence." Combined Investment Co., 227 Kan. at 28.

                 1. The Character of the Neighborhood

       Several councilmembers cited concerns about how the Woodsonia West
Development would impact the character of the neighborhood, and this seems to be the
reason most heavily relied upon for denying Austin's application. Specifically, they
expressed concerns about the height of the proposed apartment buildings, the population
density, and how the density would impact traffic. Austin argues it presented evidence
that these concerns are unfounded. Even still, Austin's evidence does not demonstrate that
the councilmembers' concerns about character were "'so wide of the mark'" that the
"'unreasonableness lies outside the realm of fair debate.'" Golden, 224 Kan. at 596.

       Specifically, it is undisputed that the proposed three-story apartment buildings in
the Woodsonia West Development would be taller than neighboring houses. Austin
argues that the apartment buildings would be built on a lower elevation making the height
less noticeable and minimizing the visual impact of the height difference but has
provided no evidence of that contention. Would the lower elevation make the apartment
buildings look more like two stories? This court cannot say that the councilmembers'
concern about the apartment building height marring the neighborhood's character is
unreasonable.

                                            28
       Additionally, Austin argues that the proposed density is within the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the traffic studies show the traffic impact would be de minimis.
But it is undisputed that the Woodsonia West Development's proposed density is higher
than the surrounding neighborhood and previously approved developments and would
thus naturally increase traffic in the area. While the court in Taco Bell cautioned
authorities against relying on general traffic concerns to deny a zoning amendment, that
admonition is inapplicable to this case. In Taco Bell, the governing body refused to
rezone a property located on Johnson Drive (a four-lane highway) from an automobile
service station to a drive-thru window restaurant and cited increased traffic as a concern.
Taco Bell, 234 Kan. at 880-81. Unlike here, the property at issue in Taco Bell was
immediately adjacent to two food establishments. 234 Kan. at 881. The City denied the
request and voted to "down zone" the area to office use only, and the district court found
the City's actions arbitrary. 234 Kan. at 881-82.

       On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court analyzed the Golden factors and found the
City's conclusion that the proposed drive-thru restaurant would disrupt the peace and
quiet of the area unreasonable, "as if there were no other commercial activity nearby."
Taco Bell, 234 Kan. at 888-89. The court noted that the existing adjacent residential
property "would not be harmed by the addition of the Taco Bell as compared to all the
other retail businesses" that were already adjacent to the residential property. 234 Kan. at
888. Taco Bell anticipated the existing 20,000 daily vehicles traveling on Johnson Drive
would become its customers, and there was no evidence that the addition of a drive-thru
restaurant would have any meaningful effect on the already-copious existing traffic.

       Here, the Woodsonia West Development differs from the character of the adjacent
single-family neighborhood. While the density might be just within the City's
Comprehensive Plan, it is significantly higher than the nearby neighborhood and any
previously approved developments for the Subject Property. The Woodsonia West
Development includes about 413 total units, and the highest number of units previously

                                             29
approved for the Subject Property was 398 in 1996. The unit increase from 398 to 413
might seem insignificant, but the Subject Property is currently about 15 acres smaller
than its size 1996 size. Therefore, the development approved in 1996 had a density of 8.9
du/acre, while the Woodsonia West Development has a density of 14.1 du/acre.
Moreover, the previously approved plans included a larger percentage of townhomes than
the Woodsonia West Development. It was not unreasonable for the councilmembers to
conclude that having more apartment units—and thus more residents—in a smaller area
than any previously approved development would create an increase in traffic that
impairs the character of the existing neighborhood.

       Austin argues that the councilmembers' concerns about neighborhood character
are merely excuses masking a prejudice against apartment buildings or other multi-family
housing. This court's opinion should not be read to conclude that multi-family residential
developments are per se of such a distinct character compared to single-family residential
neighborhoods making any denial of such developments reasonable. The
councilmembers' concerns about how the development's density and apartment building
height, which also create more specific concerns about traffic and the buffer zone
between the higher-density apartments and the existing neighborhood, impact the
neighborhood character and aesthetic are not so wide of the mark as to be unreasonable.
See Landau, 244 Kan. 257, Syl. ¶ 3 (appellate review of zoning decisions is limited to
determining reasonableness); see also Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 951-52 (explaining that
zoning authorities may consider aesthetics in zoning decisions and that some
considerations may outweigh other Golden factors). Additional traffic concerns are
addressed more specifically below.

                 2. The Zoning and Uses of Properties Nearby

       The Subject Property is currently zoned PUDMR, and the City has previously

                                            30
approved multi-family residential developments for the Subject Property. While the
Woodsonia West Development technically fits within the zoning requirements for
PUDMR, not all multi-family residential planned unit developments are created equal.
Zoning authorities may consider how the development's specific characteristics fit within
the zoning and uses for the existing property.

       By failing to approve the Woodsonia West Development, the City has not
restricted Austin's ability to use the Subject Property for a different multi-family
residential planned unit development, including apartment buildings. The
councilmembers' specific concerns about how the density, traffic, and buffer zone affect
nearby property uses mirror the concerns about how the development impacts the
neighborhood's character. However, the councilmembers failed to specifically explain
how those concerns negatively impact the zoning and use of nearby properties. But the
City Council's decision is presumed to be reasonable, and Austin carries the burden to
prove its proposed development's density and buffer zone will not harm the use of nearby
property. Even without more specifics, this court cannot say the councilmembers'
concerns about the Woodsonia West Development's impact on nearby property uses were
unreasonable. See Taco Bell, 234 Kan. at 878-88 (finding the zoning authority's concerns
speculative).

                  3. The Suitability of the Subject Property for the Uses to Which It Has
                     Been Restricted

       Under this factor, the court evaluates whether the City's denial of the Woodsonia
West Development leaves Austin with other suitable uses for the Subject Property. This
situation is unique because neither party seeks to change how the Subject Property may
be used or to restrict or permit a particular use. By refusing to approve the Woodsonia
West Development, the City has not prohibited a future similar development on the
Subject Property. Rather, the Subject Property has been and remains zoned PUDMR—

                                             31
suitable for a multi-family residential planned unit development, including apartment
complexes.

       As explained below, the City concedes that the Woodsonia West Development
comports with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the councilmembers did not suggest
suitable alternative uses for the Subject Property. See McPherson, 274 Kan. at 325
(evaluating alternative uses for the property when the requested use was denied). The
City argues its prior approval of developments on the Subject Property sufficiently
demonstrates there are other suitable PUDMR uses for the Subject Property. Yet it has
been about 20 years since the City last approved a multi-family residential development
on the Subject Property.

       Although the City has not technically further restricted the Subject Property
prohibiting future multi-family residential planned unit developments, it has also not
identified what criteria would make Austin's future application suitable for the Subject
Property. But while such a discussion may have been helpful to provide Austin direction
for future applications, the absence of that discussion did not invalidate or render
unreasonable the City's denial of Austin's current application.

                 4. The Extent to Which Removal of the Restrictions (i.e., Approval of
                     the Woodsonia West Development) Will Detrimentally Affect Nearby
                     Property

       Although the City Council did not create a report identifying how they believed
the Woodsonia West Development would detrimentally affect nearby property, the
councilmembers identified traffic, school overcrowding, and density as reasons for their
votes against approving Austin's application. While some of these concerns also related
to the neighborhood's character, this court will also analyze the detrimental effect
unrelated to the impact on character.

                                             32
                     i.     Density

       As explained above, the Woodsonia West Development's density of 14.1 du/acre,
as amended, was higher than the density of any previously approved development on the
Subject Property. Even so, the Planning Commission's staff Report states that the
Woodsonia West Development's density is lower than another nearby development and
within the range contemplated by the City's Comprehensive Plan. While councilmembers
identified density as a concern, they did not explain how that density level would
detrimentally affect nearby property beyond traffic and school overcrowding.

       This court therefore analyzes the councilmembers' concerns about density related
to their expressed concerns about school capacity and traffic safety and service.

                     ii.    School Capacity

       Neighbors expressed generalized concerns that the Woodsonia West Development
would cause school overcrowding, but it does not appear the councilmembers relied on
those generalized concerns in voting against the application's approval. Although
Councilmember Kemmling's deposition testimony noted the neighbors' concerns about
school overcrowding, it was not the primary reason for the councilmember's vote.
Councilmember Kemmling did not meet with anyone at the school district about potential
overcrowding and cited no evidence, personal experience, or observations that supported
the neighbors' generalized concerns about school capacity. No other councilmembers
cited concerns about school capacity as a reason for denying the Woodsonia West
Development, and Councilmember Larson-Bunnell specifically stated there was no
evidence the development would contribute to school crowding and that school capacity
was not a consideration in her vote.

                                            33
       The City also cites no evidence in its appellate brief supporting the neighbors'
generalized concerns that the Woodsonia West Development would negatively impact
schools. As explained below, "[z]oning is not to be based upon a plebiscite of the
neighbors." Zimmerman, 289 Kan. 926, Syl. ¶ 7. The school district reported that there
was ample capacity to absorb additional students that may result from the Woodsonia
West Development. With knowledge of the current standards and outgoing/incoming
students, the school district is uniquely qualified to determine its ability to accept
additional students related to teacher/student ratios and building capacity for the area
schools. No councilmembers challenged or contradicted the school district's contention
about its capacity to absorb additional students from the Woodsonia West Development.

       Austin has established by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have been
unreasonable for councilmembers to rely on the neighbors' generalized concerns about
school capacity. See 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. at 720 (explaining that the
landowner must "establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged
decision is not reasonable"). However, it does not appear the councilmembers relied on
their personal concerns or the neighbors' generalized concerns about school capacity in
not approving the development. Thus, the neighbors' unsubstantiated concerns regarding
school capacity have no bearing on the reasonableness of the City's denial of that
application.

                      iii. Traffic

       Multiple councilmembers identified specific concerns about increased traffic
during busy commute times, particularly at specific intersections, roundabouts, and cut-
through areas. Many of these concerns were based on the councilmembers' personal
experiences driving and walking in the area. Austin claims the councilmembers' traffic
concerns are unreasonable because the Planning Commission's staff Report stated the
traffic increase "would have little to no impact on roadway level of service." The City's

                                              34
Traffic Manager explained the overall impact on traffic from the proposed development
would be "minor in the overall scheme of the development."

       After traffic concerns were identified, the City's staff provided updated
information that "Woodsonia Drive, 51st Street, and 53rd Street were all designed and
built to a higher collector to facilitate future traffic volumes." The staff Report explained
the traffic study showed an additional 190 trips in the morning peak period and an
additional 215 trips in the evening peak period, but because the "street network adjacent
to the proposed development is currently well under capacity," the additional trips "will
have little to no impact on roadway level of service as a result." The staff Report also
included charts that showed the signal light time would increase by about 1 second in the
morning and half a second in the afternoon. It further showed the service operation level
at the controlled stops, including Johnson Drive, Roberts Drive, Woodsonia Drive, and
Silverheel Street, would all remain between a B and A.

       The City's staff reviewed the traffic modeling reports that showed the traffic
increase would not significantly alter the commute time or roadway safety of the existing
neighbors. Some councilmembers questioned the accuracy of these findings but they did
not identify any inaccuracies in the traffic reports or present contradicting evidence.

       However, unlike the school capacity issue, it is undisputed that the Woodsonia
West Development would increase traffic in the area. The councilmembers cited their
personal experiences in the area for why they believed the traffic increase caused concern
for neighboring property. While generalized traffic concerns are not a reasonable basis
for denial, the councilmembers' personal and shared experiences with the traffic patterns
and practices at specific intersections that were not addressed by the traffic models are
more than generalized traffic concerns. See Taco Bell, 234 Kan. at 887-88 (general traffic
concerns about a potential drive-thru restaurant in a commercial area near other
restaurants were not reasonable). For example, Councilmember Larson-Bunnell identified

                                              35
the difficulty of the angle at Silverheel Street and 47th Street as a particular concern, and
while that issue is apparently known to the City, there is no plan to address it in the near
future. While the City staff explained that the area operated "in a reasonably safe manner"
when it was used as a detour about a decade earlier, this court cannot say such an
explanation so definitively satisfied the councilmembers' concerns as to make them
unreasonable. Moreover, Austin did not address the specific concern about people cutting
through the existing Woodsonia neighborhood. Austin relies on the traffic studies and
models, but those did not address the councilmembers' observations about the current
issues of people maneuvering the roundabouts or the increase in people cutting through
the existing neighborhood.

       The councilmembers provided no additional basis for their expressed traffic
concerns, nor any solution within the PUDMR zoning or the City's Comprehensive Plan,
but the issue still lies in the realm of fair debate. There will be an objective increase in
traffic, and this court will not substitute its personal experience and judgment regarding
the traffic study for that of the councilmembers'. See, e.g., McPherson, 274 Kan. at 330
(noting the zoning authority's decision was not "so wide of the mark that the decision lies
outside the realm of fair debate"). Austin failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the councilmembers' concerns about the effect of the traffic increase on
specific intersections, roundabouts, and people cutting through the existing neighborhood
were unreasonable.

                  5. The Length of Time the Subject Property Has Remained Vacant as
                      Zoned

        On one hand, the Subject Property has been zoned for multi-family residential
planned unit development for almost 30 years without being developed. On the other
hand, the City has previously approved multi-family residential planned unit
developments on the Subject Property, but the last approval was about 20 years ago.

                                              36
Austin has not shown that the City will refuse all future multi-family residential
developments on the Subject Property, thus leaving it unused or underutilized. But the
City has provided no guidance on how Austin could obtain future approval. On the
whole, this factor is not of primary importance to assessing the reasonableness of the
City's denial of Austin's application. See Landau, 244 Kan. at 267 (finding this factor
unpersuasive before the surrounding area had been developed when there was no
evidence of inability to develop the area).

                 6. The Relative Gain to the Public Health, Safety, and Welfare by the
                     Possible Destruction of the Value of Austin's Property as Compared
                     to the Hardship Imposed on the Individual Landowner

       Austin claims that it has been "significantly harmed by its inability to move
forward" with the Woodsonia West Development but has failed to include evidence
supporting that contention. Additionally, Austin has provided no evidence that the
Woodsonia West Development benefits public health, safety, and welfare. There is no
evidence that the proposed development fits the quantity and quality of housing needed in
the area. Nor is there evidence that the Subject Property's lack of development harms the
public. Likewise, however, the City has not demonstrated that the harm to the individual
landowner outweighs the harm to Austin or the public by not approving the Woodsonia
West Development. Austin has not shown that this factor has any bearing on the
reasonableness of the City's decision.

                 7. The Recommendations of Permanent or Professional Staff

        The Planning Commission's staff unanimously and repeatedly approved the
Woodsonia West Development. After neighbors expressed concerns about school
overcrowding, the City's staff obtained additional information and the school district
"provided their methodology used . . . and re-affirmed its original response to school

                                              37
impact." Additionally, after hearing neighbors' concerns about traffic, the City's staff
provided a memorandum with additional explanation about how traffic levels, patterns,
and intersections would remain safe. The City's staff also addressed concerns about
density by explaining that, since 1995, the City's Comprehensive Plan provides that the
Subject Property "has been designated as appropriate for High Density Residential with a
narrow sliver of medium density residential for townhomes to buffer single family to the
east," which aligns with the Woodsonia West Development. The City's staff also
provided the Calamar project as an example of a higher-density project of 17.5 du/acre
that is currently under construction with three-story heights.

       The City does not cite any independent evidence from traffic experts, school
officials, city planning engineers, or other experts that contradict or undermine their
staff's overall analysis and conclusions about the Woodsonia West Development. Gut
feelings and speculation are not a reasonable basis for concluding the staff's
recommendations are incorrect, but the City is also not required to accept the staff's
recommendation. Manly, 287 Kan. at 70-71 (noting the planning commission "is created
to fulfill an advisory function"). The City's staff acts in merely an advisory role, and
Austin has not shown that the City's failure to follow the Staff recommendation rendered
the City's decision unreasonable.

                  8. The Proposal's Conformity to the Adopted or Recognized City
                     Master Plan

       This Golden factor ensures that proposed developments align with the City's long-
term planning because the "legislature has stressed the making of such plans, and . . . they
should not be overlooked when changes in zoning are under consideration." Golden, 224
Kan. at 598. The City argues the Woodsonia West Development's density of 14.1 du/acre
creates a concern about whether the development fits within the City's Comprehensive
Plan. The parties agree the City's Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property for

                                             38
high- and medium-density multi-family residential development. High density is defined
as 10-15 du/acre while medium density is defined as 5.01-10 du/acre. The City concedes
that the Woodsonia West Development "narrowly fits within the density limits of the
Comprehensive Plan." Even still, the City notes that the development has higher density
than previously approved developments for the Subject Property, which ranged from 7.2
to 8.9 du/acre.

       While it is true that the proposed development's population density fell within the
City's Comprehensive Plan, the City is not required to approve every development
application that falls within the scope of its Comprehensive Plan. In light of the City
councilmembers' other expressed concerns, the fact that councilmembers were concerned
that the Woodsonia West Development's density per acre was at the high end of the
Comprehensive Plan does not render the City's denial unreasonable.

                  9. Overall the City's decision is not unreasonable under the Golden
                     Factors

       The Golden factors are meant to assist in evaluating zoning decisions, but
reasonableness remains the standard. When evaluating the overall reasonableness of a
zoning authority's decision, the Golden factors are used as an aid; they are not exclusive,
and the importance of each factor may weigh differently depending on the proposal. See
Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 951-53 (explaining that a zoning authority may weigh a factor
such as aesthetics more heavily than other factors). The Golden factors are not exclusive,
and "[o]ther factors may and no doubt will be of importance in the individual case."
Golden, 224 Kan. at 599. Therefore, the "traditional tests of reasonableness were not
abandoned but are enhanced by the eight factors which provide a reviewing court with a
basis for testing the action of a governing body in a meaningful way." Taco Bell, 234
Kan. at 887.

                                             39
       Here, the Woodsonia West Development's impact on the surrounding
neighborhood and its character carries a significance that would not be the same if the
proposed development were a commercial property surrounded by other commercial
properties. See Taco Bell, 234 Kan. at 882. While several Golden factors may support
approval of the Woodsonia West Development, Austin has nevertheless failed to show
that the City acted unreasonably. Austin failed to show the councilmembers' concerns
about building height, traffic associated with higher density, and the development layout's
impact on the character of the existing neighborhood were unreasonable.

       This court's review is limited by the governing reasonableness standard, but that
standard is not without consequence. Zoning authorities' decisions must be reasonable,
and the basis for those decisions must be meaningfully discernable from the record.
Given the councilmembers' concerns about traffic, density, height, and buffer zones,
Austin has not shown that the City's denial of its application for the Woodsonia West
Development was unreasonable.

     C. The councilmembers did not improperly rely on a plebiscite of the neighbors or
        prejudge the Woodsonia West Development.

       Austin claims that councilmembers improperly prejudged the Woodsonia West
Development and denied it based on a plebiscite of the neighbors. Austin alleges that
Councilmember Larson-Bunnell prejudged the Woodsonia West Development because
she developed notes explaining her opposition before the public City Council meeting.
Austin claims bias but cites no personal incentive or benefit to the councilmember.

       A zoning authority decisionmaker is not prohibited from forming prejudgments so
long as the decisionmaker "maintained an open mind and continued to listen to all the
evidence presented before making a final decision." McPherson, 274 Kan. at 318. Austin
claims that the weight of the evidence supporting the development is sufficient evidence

                                            40
that Councilmember Larson-Bunnell improperly prejudged the proposal. However, as
explained above, the City Council's decision was not unreasonable. Moreover,
Councilmember Larson-Bunnell did not ignore Austin's evidence. Importantly,
Councilmember Larson-Bunnell stated there was not sufficient evidence supporting
neighbors' concerns about potential for increased crime, property devaluation, or school
overcrowding and her decision was not based on those concerns. Austin failed to show
any prejudgment prevented the councilmembers from keeping an open mind and
adjusting to evidence presented.

       Additionally, this court cannot ignore the potential impact of the nearly universal
neighborhood opposition to the Woodsonia West Development. Neighbors filed a protest
petition and spoke at the City Council meetings in opposition, citing concerns about
traffic, neighborhood character, and school overcrowding, among other things. While the
councilmembers who voted to deny the Woodsonia West Development shared some of
the concerns expressed by neighbors, this court cannot say the councilmembers
abandoned their quasi-judicial responsibility in favor of neighborhood fervor. "Zoning is
not to be based upon a plebiscite of the neighbors; neighborhood objections alone are not
legally sufficient to support land use regulation. Nevertheless, their views remain a
consideration in a governing body's ultimate decision." Zimmerman, 289 Kan. 926, Syl.
¶ 7.

       Important here, because the neighbors filed a protest petition, the Woodsonia West
Development required a 3/4 majority vote to pass. That means Austin needed six of the
eight voting councilmembers to gain approval. So, even if Councilmember Kemmling's
deposition testimony that he had "questions about or concerns about" school capacity
demonstrates that the neighbors' unsupported generalizations "that it's very crowded" at
the schools improperly influenced his vote, one additional vote to approve would not
have changed the outcome. None of the other councilmembers discussed potential school
overcrowding as a reason for their vote to deny.

                                            41
       Zoning authorities need not ignore neighbors' concerns to avoid falling victim to
improper influence. In fact, the statutory scheme gives neighbors' concerns weight by
requiring a super majority vote for passage of a proposed zoning amendment when a
valid protest petition has been filed. See K.S.A. 12-757(f). This demonstrates the
Legislature's intent that neighbors' concerns be given thoughtful consideration. Likewise,
the fact that councilmembers shared concerns with the neighbors does not demonstrate
improper influence. Unlike the facts here, cases cautioning against neighborhood
influence often involve a zoning amendment with only a slight change, or a lack of
zoning authority reasoning. See Taco Bell, 234 Kan. at 891-92 (the zoning request was
similar to the existing neighborhood); Sechrest, 2018 WL 4655611, at *6-7 (zoning
authority failed to explain concerns about small zoning amendment). A zoning authority
can and should consider neighbors' concerns and then examine them to determine
whether they outweigh the community benefits. See Waterstradt v. Board of
Commissioners, 203 Kan. 317, Syl. ¶ 3, 454 P.2d 445 (1969).

       Austin failed to establish the councilmembers improperly prejudged the
Woodsonia West Development to the extent they failed to maintain an open mind before
reaching a conclusion or that their decision was based on a plebiscite of the neighbors.

                                       CONCLUSION

       The City may enact zoning ordinances that are not inconsistent with state zoning
statutes and apply those ordinances to applications for multi-family residential planned
unit developments. Austin's challenge to the reasonableness of the City's decision
demonstrates the tension between landowners and zoning authorities, particularly in
residential zoning cases. Because zoning authorities are encouraged, but not required, to
consider the Golden factors and create a record of specific reasons for their decisions, it
can be difficult for landowners to create development plans that anticipate and alleviate
the zoning authority's concerns while achieving the most desired use of their land.

                                             42
Ultimately, this court's review is limited to determining whether the zoning authority
acted reasonably—which is presumed. The City provided a minimally sufficient record
upon which this court could review its decision, and Austin failed to demonstrate the
City's decision was unreasonable.

       The district court's grant of summary judgment to the City is therefore affirmed.

                                            43