Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals and Equalization - 04/21/2005 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION THURSDAY,APRIL 21, 2005 7:00 P.M. City Center Council Chamber BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Patricia Pidcock, Chair; Mike Best, Vice Chair; Brian Duoos; Doug Malam and Annette O'Connor CITY STAFF PRESENT: Steve Sinell, City Assessor; Staff Appraisers: John Sams, Barb Cook, Dave Buswell; Lisa Ramsey, Assessing Tech.; Carol Pelzel, Recording Secretary I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Pidcock at 7:00 p.m. The Board members introduced themselves presenting a brief background of their experience. Sinell presented an overview of the process and explained that the purpose of the local Board of Appeal and Equalization is to hear appeals regarding current year market value and classification of properties. The current market value can be appealed for 2005 values payable for 2006 taxes. Sinell explained that the basis for valuation is the market value and would also be the basis for the Board's determination. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Hear Personal Appeals Appeal No. 3 —Michael Berglund, 10984 Jackson Drive Berglund explained that his property was assessed a 15 percent increase for this year, an increase of approximately $54,500. He said he felt this was unfair so he asked for a review. The City Assessor came out and explained the process and reviewed the property and increased the value an additional 7 percent for a total assessed value increase of 23 percent. Berglund pointed out that the comparables used were one to three years old. Those comparables included a lot larger than his by 3,000 square feet, a walkout basement and a three-season porch. He explained that his home is in the flight path of Flying Cloud Airport and is located one mile from the airport. Berglund said he feels the 23 percent increase is outrageous and feels that a 10 percent increase is more in line with previous years. Sinell explained that they look for comparable contemporary homes similar to the petitioners. There are not that many contemporary homes out there and not that many that sell. The issues regarding the airport were similar issues on the comparables. Adjustments were made for a three- car garage and walkout versus non-walkouts. Adjustments were also made to the comparables to bring them in line with the subject property. Sinell further explained that a 5 percent adjustment was made for the contemporary style versus the traditional style. They also made a 5 percent BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 21, 2005 Page 2 adjustment for the unusual site orientation. Staff feels the assessment is appropriate and is recommending no change. Duoos asked the petitioner if he felt any one of the comparables presented by staff was more similar to his property. Berglund responded that his home is soft contemporary. Buswell explained that one of the key components was the size of the above ground living space. It was 2,800 square feet, larger than a typical house for that area. Buswell reviewed the comparables that were used for this property. Pidcock pointed out that there are few buyers in the market for contemporary homes,however, when they want a contemporary home they will buy contemporary. Even though there are fewer people buying contemporaries in the overall market, it is still a strong segment. Best explained that part of what this Board does is to apply the information they have tested to determine if the property is reasonably priced for the market. Best pointed out that the petitioner has a very large home with a lot of square footage and four bedrooms and there are nice homes in the neighborhood. He said he would have a problem saying that this home would be worth less than $400,000 in today's market. Best said that the $450,000 value would be dependent on what the inside of the house looks like. He feels the $399,000 value is too low while the $450,000 may be too high. Best said he thinks $420,000 is a better value. He explained that this Board's task is to determine if the property is worth a certain amount and he believes this property is worth $420,800. Malam said he agrees with Best and feels the adjustments that were made were equitable. He pointed out that this Board is chartered to determine a fair and equitable price for this property and he feels $420,800 is fair and equitable. Pidcock said she also agrees and feels this is a fair appraisal of the petitioner's property. Pidcock closed the hearing on Appeal No. 3. MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 3 to sustain the estimated market value of$420,800 for the property located at 10984 Jackson Drive. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 4 —John Berg, 10322 Tuscany Way MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 4, to refer this item to the Assessor for additional review if the taxpayer provides for an inspection. The motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 21, 2005 Page 3 Appeal No. 5 —Carolyn Goldenberg, 7471 Ontario Blvd. MOTION: Motion was made by Duoos, seconded by Malam, in Appeal No. 5, to refer this item to the Assessor for additional review. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 7 —Cheryl White, 18281 Dove Court MOTION: Motion was made by Malam, seconded by Best, in Appeal No. 7, to refer this item to the Assessor for additional review. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 8 —Robin and John Capouch, 7978 Island Road John Capouch explained that in January they had considered relocating and at that time had a realtor do a market value of their property. The realtor indicated that they could put their home on the market for$380,000. He indicated that it is difficult to find comparables for their home. Not many houses sell in this neighborhood and there is a lot of history. There are many different vintages and styles in this neighborhood. Their home only has three bedrooms, which is a negative for this area. Capouch reviewed the comparables used by the City explaining that one was a rambler that is larger than their house and had more bedrooms than his and was a walkout. Capouch said their realtor said they could ask$380,000 if they did improvements to the house. They have rot issues with their garage door and they do not have a deck. The house needs painting inside and out and they do not have a fourth bedroom and that is a major issue in this area. A home in this neighborhood on the best side of the lake and with new siding is valued at $356,000. Malam pointed out that two comparables given the Board were on lakeshore and sold at $490,000 and $515,000. Capouch responded that those homes were much larger and they both had four bedrooms. Sinell explained that lakeshore property is premium property. As a community develops, there are fewer premium lots such as this one available. One of the things they did look at were comparables on the water. Sinell reviewed with the Board the comparables that were used for this property. Sinell said it is almost impossible to find lakeshore homes that are the same. They try to find properties that are similar. Capouch said he understands that lakeshore property is a premium. However, he questioned why another house on a nicer part of the same lake is valued less than his. Capouch said they have an unusual floor plan. There is no bathroom on the main level. Anywhere you go in the house you have to go up or down stairs. This limits the market significantly. The home only has one bathtub in the three bathrooms. There are livability issues with the floor plan of this house. Capouch pointed out that this house needs $50,000 to $80,000 in improvements. He respectively asked that the Board reduce the valuation of this property to $380,000, which is still more than reasonable. This is what the market would bear if they made the improvements to the home. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 21, 2005 Page 4 Malam said a home on lakeshore is more valuable. Also, a five-level home is not a livability issue; it is a style. Malam said the fact that there is only one bathtub is also not an issue. Malam said he would be unable to lower the market value below $401,000 and the adjustments made to that value justifies it. Duoos said he agrees with Malam. Lakeshore property is very hard to find and it is difficult to find homes anywhere in Eden Prairie for less than $350,000. Capouch said he is talking about reasonableness. A realtor had completed a market survey in January and it came in at$380,000. Duoos said he feels that figure is low. Pidcock closed the hearing on Appeal No. 8. MOTION: Motion was made by Malam, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 8, to sustain the current estimated market value of$401,000 for the property located at 7978 Island Road. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 12 —Paul Gallenberger, 8182 Pristine Pine Trail MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by Malam, in Appeal No. 12, to refer this item to the Assessor for additional review if taxpayer provides for inspection. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 13 —Ron Thorsett, 7328 Ontario Blvd. Thorsett explained that his home is a contemporary home constructed in 1988 in a neighborhood of similar style homes. The value of his home increased in excess of$50,000 from last year. This is the first time he has contested the value of his home and feels the problem is that the value was too high from the beginning. Homes in this neighborhood are smaller than the average home in Eden Prairie. Thorsett further explained that there are six or eight different plans in the neighborhood built by the same developer. A home with a floor plan almost the same as his sold in October 2004 for$329,000. Thorsett said he does have a three-season porch and does face the Purgatory Creek recreational area. His home only has two bedrooms as opposed to four bedrooms and he has an unfinished basement. Thorsett said he feels the value of his home should be much closer to $329,000. Sinell said Comparable No. 3 did sell for$329,000 but that property backed up to Valley View Road. A $50,000 adjustment was made for that lot because it was the worst lot in the neighborhood. Sinell reviewed with the Board the other comparables used for this case. He explained that staff is recommending a reduction in value to $385,000. The basement is unfinished. Best pointed out that this is a two-bedroom home and for a home of this size and in this location it would be difficult to sell. The other comparable used was a three-bedroom home. Buswell responded that the loft could be converted to a third bedroom relatively easy. Thorsett said they use the loft area as a home office. It is open to the front foyer of the living room. Duoos asked if the petitioner is familiar with any homes in the area that have the loft enclosed and used as a bedroom. Thorsett said he is not aware of any but he is sure they exist. Duoos pointed out that BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 21, 2005 Page 5 Comparable No. 4 sold for$389,000 and has almost the same square footage but has three bedrooms and also backs up to the park. Buswell explained that it has a slightly different layout and does not have as much open living room area. Sinell said when they have done appraisals they have not found a two bedroom versus a three bedroom to be an issue. Best said it may not be an issue on appraisals but it is an issue when marketing the property. The audience for a three bedroom is totally different than an audience for a two bedroom. In response to a question from Duoos, Thorsett said their home is probably larger than the average home in the neighborhood. This is a unique neighborhood. The smaller homes do have finished lower levels. Thorsett said his lower level is not finished. Duoos said staff is recommending the reduction of the estimated market value to $385,000 and that seems justifiable. He would be in favor of lowering the value. Pidcock closed the hearing on Appeal No. 13. Malam said the home only has two bedrooms with an unfinished basement. From a marketability standpoint,he would like to see the market value reduced to $375,000. Best said he agrees that the value should be reduced to $375,000. MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by Malam, in Appeal No. 13, to reduce the estimated market value to $375,000 for the property located at 7328 Ontario Blvd. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 14 —Gary Nichols, 7368 Moonliizht Lane Sinell explained that staff is recommending that the estimated market value for this property be reduced to $399,000. Duoos asked why they are recommending a reduction. Sinell responded that the backyard is very tight and backs up to the next street. There really is no back yard. Also, one of the comparables was recently sold for$399,000. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Malam, in Appeal No. 14 to lower the estimated market value of$422,800 to $399,000 for the property located at 7368 Moonlight Lane. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 18 —Mahmoud Yousefzadeh, 9652 Clark Circle Yousefzadeh said he feels the proposed value is unfair. He explained that his house does not have a basement; it has a family room walkout. The lowest level is not finished. It is a storage room and laundry room. Yousefzadeh pointed out that there is a small commercial utility building and office building located behind his property and that area's zoning was changed from residential to commercial. He feels that the commercial zoning places a huge negative affect on his property. Yousefzadeh said he did have a real estate agent do an appraisal of his property and the agent came up with an appraisal of$216,000 for this house. The house needs BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 21, 2005 Page 6 about$20,000 to $30,000 of improvements including new windows, carpet, siding, etc. Yousefzadeh said he would be unable to sell his house for more than $216,000. Buswell reported that the house was built in 1979 and is in typical condition for a house built at that time. Buswell reviewed the comparables with the Board. Sinell explained that the zoning behind this property was zoned residential when Yousefzadeh moved in and has since been rezoned to commercial. Sinell pointed out that Comparable No. 1 backs up to the back parking lot of the adjacent shopping center and that home sold for$260,000. A 5 percent adjustment was made for the location of the house. Yousefzadeh said he has lived in his home for ten years and has never seen the value of his property increase so much. Pidcock explained that the Board has to look at what the market is as of January 2, 2005. They cannot discuss the previous value and they have no power to do anything other than determine the fair market value for 2005. Pidcock closed the hearing on Appeal No. 18. Best said he feels a value of$216,000 is too low for this property. There are very few properties in Eden Prairie that are that inexpensive. In the last five years,property values have increased in the City. Best said that after looking at appraisals and comparables the value placed on this property is closer to what the market is right now. The value established at$247,000 is very fair given today's market. Malam questioned if many of the homes built in the 1970's need upgrades versus repairs. Malam said that in this neighborhood, he agrees that$247,000 is a realistic and fair value for this property. O'Connor said she is inclined to believe that the $247,000 value is probably correct for this neighborhood. Duoos said he too believes that the $247,000 value is pretty accurate and may even be on the aggressive side. They have not seen the inside of the home. The petitioner did talk about$30,000 of improvements that need to be done and Duoos said he would not be opposed to seeing a slight drop in the value. Buswell said he believes the house is in average condition. MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by Malam, in Appeal No. 18 to sustain the estimated market value of$247,000 for the property located at 9652 Clark Circle. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 21 —Noel Wagner, 8151 Pristine Pine Trail MOTION: Motion was made by Malam, seconded by Best, in Appeal No. 21 to refer this item to the Assessor for additional review. The motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 21, 2005 Page 7 Appeal No. 22 —Beverly Berkbigler, 8168 Pristine Pine Trail Sinell explained that the appraisal was dropped off yesterday afternoon and Ms. Berkbigler indicated that she would be unable to attend this evening's meeting. Ms. Berkbigler does disagree with the proposed estimated market value. MOTION: Motion was made by Malam, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 22 to sustain the estimated market value of$569,800 for the property located at 8168 Pristine Pine Trail. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 23 —Sam Madanayake, 8500 Red Oak Drive MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 23 to refer this item to the Assessor for additional review. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 30—Steven Taster, 15911 Summit Drive MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 30 to refer this item to the Assessor for additional review. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 1 —Mark Saastad, 12272 Jack Pine Trail MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by Malam, in Appeal No. 1 to refer this item to the Assessor for additional review. Sinell explained that they have been unable to reach the homeowner to schedule an inspection of the property. Therefore, the Board cannot act to lower the value without a review of the property. Sinell asked the Board to give staff the opportunity to continue trying to contact the homeowner to schedule a review. Best amended his motion to refer this item to the Assessor for additional review subject to being allowed to inspect the property. Malam seconded the amendment. Vote was called on the amended motion with all members voting aye. The motion carried, 5-0. B. Review Written Appeals There were no written appeals. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 21, 2005 Page 8 C. Hear Other Appeals Dou,las Olsen—9030West Starrinz Lake Olsen explained that his property value increased $62,000 or 30+percent. Olsen said he has not made any improvements to the property since 1975. This property is on its own septic system. He further explained that he did have someone offer him$125,000 for the property. Buswell reported that this property was reviewed this year. They did the entire neighborhood on an individual basis. This property does need some repair on the inside and some work done on the outside. The house does sit on over an acre site. Sinell said that staff needs to prepare comparables for this property. He asked that the Board continue this item to the May 10 meeting to allow staff time to work with the applicant to see if they can reach an agreement on the market value. O'Connor said the Board does not have enough information on this property to rule on it this evening. MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by Malam, to continue this item to the May 10 meeting and to refer it to the Assessor for additional review. The motion carried 5-0. Buswell said the main issue in this case is the condition of the house. He asked if the Board would like staff to take pictures of the inside of this property. Pidcock said that would be very helpful. D. Schedule Next Meeting MOTION: Motion was made by Malam, seconded by Best, to schedule the next meeting of the Board of Appeal and Equalization for Tuesday, May 10, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried 5-0. E. Close the Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting to Additional Appeals MOTION: Motion was made by Malam, seconded by O'Connor, to close the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting to additional appeals. The motion carried 5-0. III. CONTINUE THE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING MOTION: Motion was made by Malam, seconded by O'Connor, to continue the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting to May 10, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was continued at 8:50 p.m.