12-708. History: L. 1921, ch. 100, § 3; R.S. 1923, § 13-1102; L. 1961, ch. 67, § 1; L. 1963, ch. 76, § 1; L. 1965, ch. 97, § 2; L. 1967, ch. 88, § 1; Repealed, L. 1991, ch. 56, § 28; January 1, 1992. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Change in zoning classification must be submitted to commission or committee. Armourdale State Bank v. Kansas City, 131 Kan. 419, 421, 292 P. 745. 2. Facts held to amount to compliance with act. Simmonds v. Meyn, 134 Kan. 419, 423, 7 P.2d 506. 3. Ordinance changing zoning classification held invalid for noncompliance with statutory procedure. Ford v. City of Hutchinson, 140 Kan. 307, 308, 311, 37 P.2d 39. 4. Sufficiency of public hearings and public notices discussed. Moore v. City of Pratt, 148 Kan. 53, 55, 79 P.2d 871. 5. Cited; damage action; answer properly pleaded violation pertinent ordinances; contributory negligence. Stafford v. City of Coffeyville, 161 Kan. 311, 316, 168 P.2d 91. 6. Notice of public hearings did not comply with ordinance; zoning ordinance valid. Piper v. Moore, 163 Kan. 565, 569, 570, 571, 572, 183 P.2d 965. 7. Zoning ordinance invalid; no uniform standard for application; illegal delegation of power to property owners. Schulte v. City of Garnett, 186 Kan. 117, 118, 348 P.2d 629. 8. Owners of frontage property located outside city where rezoning sought entitled to be heard; right to bring action challenging rezoning amendment. Koppel v. City of Fairway, 189 Kan. 710, 711, 712, 713, 715, 716, 717, 371 P.2d 113. 9. Mentioned; requiring platting and dedication of small tract for uniformity as prerequisite to rezoning upheld. Hudson Oil Co. v. City of Wichita, 193 Kan. 623, 627, 396 P.2d 271. 10. Action by city in rezoning property not unreasonable. Arkenberg v. City of Topeka, 197 Kan. 731, 733, 735, 736, 421 P.2d 213. 11. Governing body not obligated to zone in conformity with master plan; reasonableness. Bodine v. City of Overland Park, 198 Kan. 371, 381, 387, 424 P.2d 513. 12. Time elapsing between notice and hearing did not meet statutory requirements; K.S.A. 60-206 inapplicable. Carson v. McDowell, 203 Kan. 40, 41, 43, 452 P.2d 828; 203 Kan. 138, 452 P.2d 831. 13. Evidence insufficient to establish arbitrary conduct in adopting rezoning ordinance; conformity with section. Waterstradt v. Board of Commissioners, 203 Kan. 317, 318, 454 P.2d 445. 14. Cited by trial court in holding rezoning ordinance unreasonable. Coughlin v. City of Topeka, 206 Kan. 552, 553, 554, 480 P.2d 91. 15. Mentioned in holding that certain procedural provisions of city rezoning ordinance directory and not mandatory; adopted ordinance reasonable. Paul v. City of Manhattan, 212 Kan. 381, 383, 384, 387, 511 P.2d 244. 16. Special occupancy permit not an amendment or change of zoning ordinance demanding adherence to procedural requirements hereunder. Weeks v. City of Bonner Springs, 213 Kan. 622, 630, 631, 518 P.2d 427. 17. Rezoning ordinance upheld, judicial rules stated and applied; reasonableness; section complied with. Dent v. City of Kansas City, 214 Kan. 257, 259, 264, 265, 266, 267, 519 P.2d 704. 18. Alteration of proposed zoning amendment by governing board contravened mandatory provisions of section; invalid. City of Manhattan v. Ridgeview Building Co., Inc., 215 Kan. 606, 607, 609, 610, 611, 613, 614, 615, 527 P.2d 1009. 19. Ordinance adopted reasonable; valid exercise of police power; properly adopted majority vote of planning commission present constituted required recommendation. Houston v. Board of City Commissioners, 218 Kan. 323, 331, 333, 543 P.2d 1010. 20. Due process does not require governing body to conduct second hearing where complete record before it. Houston v. Board of City Commissioners, 218 Kan. 323, 331, 543 P.2d 1010. 21. Application for rezoning approved by planning commission; non-decisive vote by city council; suit challenging council's action as arbitrary dismissed. Olson v. City of WaKeeney, 218 Kan. 447, 448, 543 P.2d 932. 22. Cited; a public hearing is a prerequisite for proposed amendments to township zoning regulations. Reeves v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 226 Kan. 397, 402, 602 P.2d 93. 23. Owner of option to buy is real party in interest; application for rezoning permissible. Taco Bell v. City of Mission, 234 Kan. 879, 882, 884, 678 P.2d 133 (1984). 24. Validity of zoning ordinance reviewable only under K.S.A. 12-712; no jurisdiction to hear collateral attack under K.S.A. 60-1701. St. John v. City of Salina, 9 Kan. App. 2d 636, 639, 684 P.2d 464 (1984). 25. Cited; rights between property owner and owner of 92-year leasehold interest examined. Bonanza, Inc. v. McLean, 242 Kan. 209, 216, 747 P.2d 792 (1987). 26. Cited; proper statute to challenge city ordinance rezoning property, timeliness of notice of appeal, effective date of ordinance examined. Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 243 Kan. 522, 524, 759 P.2d 113 (1988). 27. Due process and equal protection provisions of 14th amendment to U.S. Constitution considered in denial of rezoning; city entitled to state action immunity from federal antitrust claims. Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs Co. v. Lawrence, Kan., 715 F. Supp. 1000, 1004, 1006, 1008 (1989). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026