Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 19 impacting the court's jurisdiction over the petition in error) Citation: Landrum v. City of Omaha Planning Board, 297 Neb. 165, 899 N.W.2d 598 (2017) NEBRASKA (07/14/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a city council acted legislatively or judicially when it simultaneously faced requests for rezoning and a special use permit (thus determining whether a court had jurisdiction over a petition in error, challenging the city council's zoning actions). The Background/Facts: Daryl Leise; Redbird Group, LLC; and Ray Anderson, Inc. (collectively the "Developers") proposed the construc- tion of a convenience storage and a warehouse facility on property in the city of Omaha (the "City"). The property was zoned "community commercial" ("CC"). The City's Municipal Code (the "Code") allowed for special "overlay districts" to be "overlaid" upon a property in addi- tion to its base zoning district. For the Developers to proceed with their proposal, they needed three zoning approvals from the City: a condi- tional use permit, which could be issued by the City's Planning Board; a special use permit, which could be issued by the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning Board; and a rezoning to place the subject property within a "major commercial corridor" ("MCC") overlay district, which also could be granted by the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning Board. The Developers applied for those zoning approvals. Residents (the "Homeowners") who owned property near the Developers' property op- posed their approval. Among other things, the Homeowners expressed concern about the impact of the proposed construction on property values, views, and the compatibility with the nearby residential neighborhood. After public hearings, the Planning Board voted in favor of the Developers' conditional use permit, thus approving it subject to conditions. The Planning Board also voted in favor of the special use permit and MCC overlay rezoning, forwarding those applications to the City Council for final action. After more public hearings, the City Council ultimately voted to approve the MCC rezoning and passed an ordinance to implement it. The City Council also approved the special use permit, subject to conditions. The Homeowners appealed by filing an amended petition in error. They requested vacation or reversal of: (1) the Planning Board's ap- proval of the conditional use permit; (2) the City Council's passage of the resolution that approved the special use permit; and (3) the City Council's passage of the ordinance implementing the MCC overlay district. The Homeowners claimed that the decisions of the City Council © 2017 Thomson Reuters 3