Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals and Equalization - 04/25/2002 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION THURSDAY,APRIL 25, 2002 7:00 P.M. City Center Council Chambers BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Patricia Pidcock, Chair; Mike Best, Vice Chair; Judy Ilstrup, Doug Malam and Annette O'Connor CITY STAFF PRESENT: Steve Sinell, City Assessor; Staff Appraisers: John Sams, Barb Cook, Jody Carlson and Colin Schmidt; 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. Sinell explained that State law provides for the Board of Appeal and Equalization which duties include the hearing of any appeals of value or classification. The Board has the authority to sustain the value or classification or to increase or decrease the assessor's market value. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of this Board's action, they may appeal to Hennepin County,however, they must first appear before this Board. Sinell further explained that Appeal Numbers 2 and 4 were resolved prior to this meeting. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Hear Personal Appeals Appeal No. 1 —Thomas S. Robertson, 6963 Woodland Drive The applicant was not present. MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by Malam, to continue Appeal No. 1. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 3 —Dave Ingber, 8943 Sylvan Ridge Ingber explained that the review appraisal for his property is for$436,000 and he feels his property should be valued between $365,000 and $370,000. He feels that there were mistakes made on his review including the total square footage. The report shows the second floor at 1,273 when it is 1,218 while the basement should be at 1,268. The basement does include a 10' by 20' room that is totally unfinished. The deck size is also incorrect on the appraisal form. Ingber pointed out that the exact same house behind him was up for sale last year for $369,400. It was on the market for 120 days and did not sell. Ingber said he feels that would be closer to the value of his home. The home next door to his is virtually the same but a little larger with a larger BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 25, 2002 Page 2 lot. Ingber said his lot is valued $4,000 more than the neighbor's lot that is larger. Ingber asked that the Board lower his value to about$365,000 or$370,000. In response to a question from Malam, Ingber responded that his appraisal is off by approximately 300 to 350 square feet of finished space. The deck measures 10' x 17' plus the patio for a total of 304 square feet, not 704 square feet as stated in the appraisal. A porch was also mentioned in the appraisal and Ingber said he does not have a porch. It also mentions that his property backs up to a park and he does not back up to a park but to woods. Sinell pointed out that staff does not have his deck at 700 square feet. Ingber said he did talk to staff regarding the comparables that were used. They looked at Centex homes and his is an Orrin Thompson home. Ingber said he does not feel that these are comparables since they are different homes and different styles. Sinell explained that City staff did offer to share the appraisal with the petitioner, however, he did not want to do that. With regard to the size, Sinell further explained that City staff does disagree with Ingber's numbers. Staff did review the size and found the house to be relatively square and staff feels that the size on the appraisal is correct. Sinell pointed out that the petitioner is using Hennepin County's data. Even though the City provides this information to the County, the County does convert this information and it is not always converted correctly. The City's data does show a deck and patio at 478 square feet and an 18 square foot open porch which does not factor much into the value. Sinell stated that this property does adjoin Pioneer Park, a 29-acre park. He explained that generally properties adjoining parks sell for a premium. Staff did review the appraisal and three of the comparables used were directly in the neighborhood. None of the homes used adjoined the park. The homes used were recently sold and the lowest value would be comparable to Ingber's house after adjustments. Ingber said he does challenge the square footage on the appraisal and he would be happy to have an appraiser come out to measure the square footage. Sinell explained that when the house was built in 1990 the City's appraiser did measure the house. Sinell said they would be happy to have an appraiser come out to measure the house again. He pointed out that when the house was purchased in 1997, it sold for$304,000. Ingber said he paid $295,000 for the house. Sinell indicated that the homestead application indicated that the house was purchased for$304,000. Malam pointed out that a home adjoining a park is an amenity and when someone is looking to purchase a home they don't care if it is a Centex or an Orrin Thompson home. Best indicated that the last recorded sale for this property was in 1997 for$304,000 and the proposed increase in value is not out of line. O'Connor said she could not see anyone having a problem with paying $399,000 for this property. Eden Prairie is in high demand and this property has a very nice yard. MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 3 to sustain the value of the property located at 8943 Sylvan Ridize. The motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 25, 2002 Page 3 Appeal#5 —Floyd and Jane Siefferman, 6997 EdiZebrook Place Floyd Siefferman explained that his home is located at the end of the cul de sac. The house is oriented to the rear and has a lot of glass on the back. About five years ago someone applied for a planned unit development for a private road. One lot was split into six lots and one of the houses built was located extremely close to his back property line. Siefferman said he feels the location of this house is extremely close to his property line and greatly decreases the value of his home. Their house is the only house in the area that does not have open space behind them. Because of actions of the City they have a house that practically sits on their back fence. Siefferman said the appraisal indicates that their property backs up to park land. Their house does not back up to a park. They have no windows that look to the left of the property; all of the windows look to the right at the newly constructed house. The appraisal also indicates that they have crown molding in the dining room. Siefferman explained that in 1993 their home suffered a double collapse. The house collapsed in the rear and the front. The house was rebuilt and to cover cracks in the ceiling and walls they added the crown molding. Siefferman stated that they have been unable to maintain the house as it should be. The windows and siding are rotted out at the bottom. It would take approximately $60,000 to get the house in saleable condition. Siefferman pointed out that City staff used comparables in Cardinal Creek. He indicated that no two houses in Cardinal Creek are the same. They need to look at the condition of the house and at the neighboring house that looks down on them. The comparables used have more square footage and the condition of those houses used is much better than theirs. Siefferman said he believes the property value should remain at what it was last year, $348,600. Siefferman said he feels this is generous considering the condition of the house. Siefferman asked the Board to reduce the estimated market value from$425,000 to $348,600. Sinell explained that this property has changed from when the home was initially constructed. It was built in 1982 and it was located at the end of the street. The land to the south and southwest was replatted and did change. The appraisal does indicate that it is no longer the best lot in this area but it does adjoin and overlook Nine-Mile Creek Park and the actual creek. In order to determine how the new house constructed did affect the petitioner's property, staff did take a series of pictures from the deck. The house referred to by Mr. Siefferman is still a distance away from his property. Sinell said staff does agree with the petitioner that the house does have some deferred maintenance but the appraiser did adjust the value by $20,000 for those items. This would bring the house up to the expected condition for a 20-year old house. Sinell reviewed with the Board the three comparables used. Sinell pointed out that this is a relatively large house on a nice lot in a nice neighborhood. Malam said in reviewing the pictures of the property, he does not feel the house located on the adjoining property detracts from the value since that house is located so far away from the petitioner's house. Siefferman pointed out that it is the height of that house that most affects his property. Several oak trees were also removed and the house looks down on their property. O'Connor said she feels the condition of the house is more important than the neighboring houses. The lots in Eden Prairie continue to get smaller and smaller and people would love these lots from the size standpoint. O'Connor pointed out that the condition of the house is a bigger BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 25, 2002 Page 4 factor in the issue of the value. Ilstrup asked if the repairs made to the property passed City inspections. Siefferman responded that they did, however, there are still cracks in the ceiling and bath tiles that need to be repaired. Pidcock stated that having the work done is important for the value and sale price. O'Connor said she feels the petitioner would really have to work to get someone to pay the assessed value for this property because of its condition and the owner must disclose that the walls did collapse. Sinell pointed out that the City appraiser did make a $20,000 adjustment for the condition of the property. If the property were in normal condition, the value should be at$445,000. Best said staff has made a 5% adjustment as far as the condition is concerned,however, a buyer would probably start at 10%. Sinell said a 10% adjustment would drop the value to approximately $400,000 or$395,000. Best said he would like to see the value dropped even more. Best stated that the view is not an issue with this property but the condition is a very significant issue. Motion: Motion was made by Best, seconded by Ilstrup, in Appeal No. 5 to adjust the value of the property located at 6997 Edgebrook Place to $385,000 based on the condition of the property. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 6 —David Berndt, 15701 North Lund Road Sinell reported that an appointment to view this property has been scheduled for May 1. Motion: Motion was made by Best, seconded by Malam, to continue Appeal No. 6. The motion carried 5-0. B. Hear Personal Appeals C. Hear Other Appeals (Those not on the original Board of Appeal and Equalization Review List.) Appeal No. 7 —Sandeep Kapil, 9642 Johnathan Lane Kapil said he spoke to the City appraiser and asked what the basis was for valuing his property at $419,800. Kapil indicated that the appraiser did not provide him with a convincing answer. He explained that this is new construction and he closed on the property last year. Kapil explained that his yard backs up to a pond. He stated that he does not have two-feet of flat space. His is the only lot in the development that does not have a back yard. The usable space in the back has been greatly reduced because of the pond. Also,his lot is situated as such so that they have traffic from both Johnathan Lane and Alcove Circle. Kapil said he feels his property is assessed too high and is requesting that it be reduced. Best pointed out that when the petitioner closed on his property last June the sale price was $434,900. He questioned if Kapil is now stating that a year later the house is worth less than BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 25, 2002 Page 5 what he agreed to pay for it. Kapil said if he were to buy that house today he would not choose that lot. He did not know how the house would look on the lot until it was completed. Kapil said he is not sure how the City could approve the grading for this lot. He feels that with the pond the lot was not graded properly. O'Connor asked if the property had been staked prior to construction. Kapil said it had but it was difficult to see how the house would end up on the lot. Kapil pointed out that his next door neighbor has a similar problem with his lot. O'Connor asked if these lots were less expensive than others in the neighborhood. Kapil responded that he had no idea. O'Connor said she was not aware of any house in Eden Prairie that has gone down in value especially in a year's time. Sinell explained that a pond is often times considered a positive feature for a piece of property. Sinell suggested that City staff review this property again to see if this is an extreme situation. He suggested that staff take photos of the property and report back to the Board. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Ilstrup, to continue Appeal No. 7 to allow for a re-evaluation of the property y City Assessing s�The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 8 —Steve Guyette—6529 Rowland Road Guyette explained that the adjoining property should not have been developed. There are eight variances on the property. He explained that he is across the street from Bryant Lake Park. Guyette stated that he has no respect for City staff because they did not hold the developer of this property to the Developer Agreement. Guyette said he is ready to go to Hennepin County and he does not expect this Board to do anything for him. The City did not hold anyone accountable to the specific stipulations in a Developer's Agreement to prevent the erosion of neighborhood property values. The latest property development has changed the drainage, sightlines and safety of the property and negatively impacts the value of the custom designed property. Pidcock asked what Guyette is requesting of this Board. Guyette responded that he wanted to know how much aesthetics are worth and what would he have to do to rectify this property. This is a beautiful house that was greatly affected by development of marginal property. Sinell indicated that the City would like to set up an appointment to review this property. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Best, to continue Appeal No. 8 to allow staff to conduct a review of the property. Motion carried 4-1 with Malam voting nay. Sinell explained that the petitioner has previously not allowed staff to conduct a review of his property. Malam said he voted against the motion because the petitioner said he did not expect this Board to do anything and that he was planning to appear before the Hennepin County Board. In light of this information, O'Connor said she would like to reconsider her motion. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Best, to reconsider the previous motion. The motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION April 25, 2002 Page 6 Sinell indicated that there was no point in continuing this item for further review because the homeowner would not let them in to do an appraisal. Best suggested that City staff call the petitioner to see if he would allow them to do an appraisal. If he does not allow City staff access to the property this Board would have no other option than to sustain the value. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Best, to continue Appeal No. 8 to allow City staff the opportunity to contact the homeowner requesting a review of the propertY. The motion carried 4-1 with Malam voting nay. Malam pointed out that the petitioner did not ask them to do anything and he does not feel that additional staff time should be spent on this property. Appeal No. 9 —Terry and Cheryl Back, 16659 Manor Road North Sinell reported that an appointment has been scheduled for May 2 for City staff to review this property. MOTION: Motion was made by Best, seconded by O'Connor, to continue Appeal No. 9 to allow staff to review this property. Motion carried 5-0. D. Schedule Next Meeting The next meeting of the Board of Appeal and Equalization is scheduled for Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. E. Close the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting to additional appeals. MOTION: Motion was made by Malam, seconded by Best, to close the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting to additional appeals. The motion carried 5-0. III.CLOSE THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING MOTION: Motion was made by Malam, seconded by Ilstrup, to close the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.