Rodrock Enterprises, L.P. v. City of Olathe

4 Citing cases

  1. Maize v. City of Leawood

    124,474 (Kan. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2023)

    In July, the Maizes and the McQuains filed a petition for judicial review of the City Council's action, as provided in K.S.A. 12-760. See Evans v. City of Emporia, 44 Kan.App.2d 1066, 1069, 243 P.3d 374 (2010) (statute covers city commission decision granting conditional use permit); Rodrock Enterprises, L.P. v. City of Olathe, 28 Kan.App.2d 860, 862, 21 P.3d 528 (2001) (planning commission decision). In the district court, the homeowners and the City relied on the record compiled during the municipal proceedings and offered no additional evidence.

  2. Evans v. City of Emporia

    44 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    The appellate court, like the trial court, reviews a zoning board's decision by a reasonableness standard based on the facts. Rodrock Enterprises, L.P. v. City of Olathe, 28 Kan. App. 2d 860, 863, 21 P.3d 598, rev. denied 271 Kan. 1037 (2001). The Kansas Supreme Court discussed the standard of review of zoning issues in McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303, 304-05, 49 P.3d 522 (2002):

  3. R.H. Gump Revocable Trust v. City of Wichita

    35 Kan. App. 2d 501 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that city's denial of conditional use permit on aesthetic grounds was not unreasonable

    [Citation omitted.]" Rodrock Enterprises, L.P. v. City of Olathe, 28 Kan.App.2d 860, 863, 21 P.3d 598, rev. denied 271 Kan. 1037 (2001).           Initially, we recognize that City is not following the recommendation of the MAPC.

  4. Dowling Realty v. City of Shawnee

    32 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 1 times
    Remanding the case to the trial court with directions to send it back to the city planning commission because a local government officer, who advocated approval of his project to "the governmental body of which he ... [was] a member without identifying himself ... as having a substantial interest in the project," acted in violation of Kansas ethics rules

    There is a presumption that the planning commission acted reasonably, and this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body. Rodrock Enterprises, L.P. v. City of Olathe, 28 Kan.App.2d 860, 863, 21 P.3d 598, rev. denied 271 Kan. 1037 (2001).          K.S.A. 12-747(a) authorizes a city planning commission to make a comprehensive plan for the development of a city.