State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n v. Modern Tractor and Supply Co., 17620
| Decision Date | 20 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 17620,17620 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MODERN TRACTOR AND SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Judy L. Curran, Dist. Counsel, Kansas City, Zachary Cartwright, Dist. Counsel, Rich Tiemeyer, Chief Counsel, Jefferson City, for plaintiff-appellant State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp. Com'n.
Gerald H. Lowther, Michael K. Cully, Lowther, Johnson, Joyner, Lowther, Cully & Housley, Springfield, for defendant-respondent Modern Tractor and Supply Co.
By this action the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission (Commission), exercising the power of eminent domain, acquired an easement for the construction of the James River Freeway through Kickapoo Prairie Farm owned by Modern Tractor and Supply Company (Modern Tractor). The farm contained 272.78 acres. The right-of-way contains 34.78 acres. A jury found Modern Tractor's damages to be $940,000.00. On its appeal, the Commission's principal assertions of trial court error stem from the admission of expert opinions valuing the farm rezoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) containing commercial, multi-family residential and single-family residential property. The following is an outline of the evidence necessary to provide a background for consideration of the dispositive issues.
Kickapoo Prairie Farm is located near the southwest corner of Springfield. The east 84.44 acres were in Springfield. The west 188.34 acres were west of the city limits. The farm was bordered on the east by Kansas Expressway, a limited access four-lane roadway. It was bordered on the south by Greene County Highway M, also known as "Republic Road". It was bordered on the west by Scenic Avenue and a residential subdivision. It was bordered on the north by vacant land.
Basically, Kickapoo Prairie Farm consists of three 40-acre tracts east and west by three 40-acre tracts north and south, excepting the 40-acre tract at the northwest corner and 14 acres in the form of a rectangle from the southeast corner. The east six 40-acre tracts were bisected by a north-south road, known as "Cox Road". James River Freeway extends in an east-west direction through the approximate center of the south six 40-acre tracts. Of Kickapoo Prairie Farm, 143 acres remain north of James River Freeway and 95 acres remain on the south side of James River Freeway.
James River Freeway is a limited access divided four-lane roadway extending in a general east-west direction. It will eventually connect U.S. 65 on the east with U.S. 60 on the west. In doing so, it extends across the southern part of Springfield. There will be a diamond interchange at the intersection of Kansas Expressway and the divided highway of James River Freeway. The appropriation for James River Freeway also included the right-of-way for what is termed the "Cox Road Connector". The Cox Road Connector extends in a westerly direction from Kansas Expressway to provide ingress to and egress from Cox Road. The Cox Road Connector right-of-way is located approximately 150 feet north of the right-of-way for the north ramp from Kansas Expressway to James River Freeway. From Kansas Expressway, the Cox Road Connector runs parallel to that ramp for approximately 1,000 feet and then curves to the north and connects with the existing right-of-way of Cox Road. Cox Road is bisected by James River Freeway.
The date of taking was September 3, 1985. Kickapoo Prairie Farm was improved with a barn and other unidentified buildings. It was used primarily for pasture. It was subject to a three-year farm lease dated March or April 1985. The east 84.44 acres in the City of Springfield were zoned "R-1", single-family residential. The west 188.34 acres, under the zoning regulations of Greene County, were zoned "A-1", agricultural.
Modern Tractor presented the testimony of Claude Eugene Boles, Jr. Boles had served as Community Development Director for Springfield from 1979 to 1985. At the time of trial, he was a land planning consultant. He was accepted as an expert on zoning and planning. The ordinances of the City of Springfield governing zoning were not introduced in evidence. Apparently they provide for the zoning and development of a Planned Unit Development. The testimony was that such ordinances provide a mechanism whereby a landowner can devise a plan for zoning different portions of a sizeable tract for different uses. The ordinances outline the various steps needed for the approval of such a plan and its adoption as part of the zoning regulations of the City of Springfield. The required steps include a preliminary conference, submission to and approval or disapproval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The last step is the final approval of a Planned Unit Development by the adoption of an ordinance by the City Council.
The Southwest Springfield Development Plan (Plan) was introduced into evidence. See § 89.340 RSMo. The purpose and scope of that Plan is outlined by the following excerpts from the Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission adopting the Plan.
"WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by state statute and Section 11.2 of the City Charter has the authority and the responsibility to develop a master plan for the development of the City of Springfield, and;
WHEREAS, Section 11.5 of the City Charter provides that the master plan for the physical development of the City, with the accompanying maps, charts, descriptive and explanatory matter shall show the Commission's recommendations for the development of city territory, and;
WHEREAS, Section 11.6 of the City Charter provides that the Commission may adopt the master plan for the development of the city as a whole by a single resolution, or may by successive resolutions adopt successive parts of the plan, said parts corresponding to major geographical sections of the city or to functional divisions of the subject matter of the plan, and may adopt any amendment or extension thereof or addition thereof, and;
* * * * * *
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and recommends to Council for adoption Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference thereto as the Southwest Springfield Development Plan Element of the Master Plan for the development of the City of Springfield, Missouri."
By ordinance, the City Council adopted the Plan "as an element of the Master Plan for the development of the City of Springfield, Missouri", on June 25, 1984.
The Plan is a detailed document of 271 pages which sets forth various goals and standards, an Overall Development Scheme, and Specific Policy Applications. It encompasses an L-shaped study area containing about 11 square miles. Two-thirds of the study area is in Springfield and one-third outside Springfield. The west boundary of the area is Golden Street and the area includes the whole of Kickapoo Prairie Farm. The section of Specific Policy Applications is based upon a plat of the area which is divided into subareas. Kickapoo Prairie Farm is in Tracts 2 and 6 in subarea 8. The plat of the study area and subarea 8 includes the right-of-way for James River Freeway.
Boles testified the highest and best use of Kickapoo Prairie Farm before the taking was as a PUD. Boles prepared three maps or plats of the farm as a PUD disregarding the James River Freeway. They were designated Schemes "A" "B" and "C". Each was a sizeable exhibit, admitted in evidence and shown to the jury. Each plat provided for streets to serve the PUD. Each plat had areas designated as residential (low density), residential (medium density), office/multi-family (high density) and commercial/office. The areas were separated by distinct boundaries, in many cases by streets, and they were distinguished by color. In general, the plats were similar. Scheme B provided for a greater area of office/multi-family (high density) than would Scheme A. Scheme C provided for the following number of acres designated for the following uses:
Use Acres
Residential (low density) 65.8
Residential (medium density) 37.7
Office/Multi-family (high density) 65.3
Commercial/Office 104.2
Boles anticipated that for Scheme C to receive favorable consideration, the developer would be required to spend $755,000.00 in "off-site" improvements such as upgrading adjoining Highway M, upgrading Scenic Street and signals at major intersections. The development of the farm to accommodate Scheme C would require "off-site" and "on-site" improvements costing $3,000,000.00. In Boles' opinion, Schemes A and B were consistent with the Southwest Springfield Development Plan and Scheme C was not. Nevertheless, in Boles' opinion, it was reasonably foreseeable that Kickapoo Prairie Farm would be rezoned to accommodate Scheme C.
Boles also prepared the Land-Use-Plan for Kickapoo Prairie Farm as a PUD after the appropriation. This plan designated the following uses for the following number of acres:
Use Acres
Single-family 77.6
Multi-family 26.4
Medium Density 30
Office/Multi-family 19.5
Office/Multi-family/Commercial 94.4
Office/Multi-family/Limited Commercial 15.7
Commercial/Office 19.4
In Boles' opinion, the portion of Kickapoo Prairie Farm not in the right-of-way could have been rezoned to accommodate the Land-Use-Plan. Boles did not testify as to the value of Kickapoo Prairie Farm either before or after the taking.
Modern Tractor presented five witnesses who were accepted as qualified real estate appraisers in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State by Com'r of Transp. v. Caoili
...property with the more valuable zoning classification, discounted by some amount."). E.g., State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Modern Tractor & Supply Co., 839 S.W.2d 642, 650-51 (Mo.Ct.App.1992); State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Carlson, 463 S.W.2d 74, 81-82 (Mo.Ct.App.1970); City o......
-
Palizzi v. City of Brighton
...State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Lundberg, 312 Or. 568, 825 P.2d 641, 645 (1992); State ex rel. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm'n v. Modern Tractor & Supply Co., 839 S.W.2d 642, 653-54 (Mo.Ct.App.1992); State ex rel. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm'n v. Sturmfels Farm Ltd., 795 S.W.2d 581, 587-88 (M......
-
State v. Watson
...hearsay source without applying his or her own expertise is merely a "hearsay witness." State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm'n v. Modern Tractor & Supply Co., 839 S.W.2d 642, 655 (Mo.App.1992). See also Stang-Starr v. Byington, 248 Neb. 103, 532 N.W.2d 26, 30-31 (Neb.1995); Arizona......
-
State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp. Com'n v. Edelen, 63044
...speculation or unwarranted assumption. The opinion must have a rational foundation. State ex rel. Mo. Hwy. & Transp. Com'n v. Modern Tractor and Supply Co., 839 S.W.2d 642, 648 (Mo.App.1992). We note from the outset that such an expert is not required to conduct a written appraisal, to prov......