Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals and Equalization - 05/14/2002 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 7:00 P.M. City Center Council Chambers BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Best, Vice Chair; Judy Ilstrup, Doug Malam, Annette O'Connor CITY STAFF PRESENT: Steve Sinell, City Assessor; Lorene McWaters, Recording Secretary I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER In the absence of Chair Patricia Pidcock, Vice Chair Mike Best called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. It was explained that this was the second of two Board of Appeal and Equalization meetings for 2002. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Approve Minutes from April 25, 2002, Meeting MOTION: Malam moved, seconded by Ilstrup, to approve the Minutes of the April 25, 2002 Board of Appeal and Equalization as published. Motion carried 4-0. B. Review Items Continued from April 25, 2002, Meeting Appeal No. 1 —Thomas S. Robertson, 6963 Woodland Drive Sinell noted that the property review was conducted on May 8, and the owner and staff agreed to a reduction in value to $325,000 (from$335,400). MOTION: Malam moved, seconded by Ilstrup to reduce the valuation to $325,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal No. 6—David Berndt, 15701 North Lund Road Sinell noted that the owner and staff had agreed to a reduction in value to $170,000 (from$177,800) and noted as Partial Construction. MOTION: O'Connor moved, seconded by Ilstrup to reduce the valuation to $170,000 and note partial construction. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal No. 7 — Sandeep Kapil, 9642 Jonathan Lane Sinell noted that a review appraisal valued the property at$455,000,but that staff was recommending retaining the 1/2002 EMV of$419,800. Kapil made a presentation to staff to support his belief that the EMV should be reduced to $385,000. Kapil questioned the appropriate use of comparables in the staff's evaluation. He said he performed his own comparisons and found that staff did not take into consideration upgrades in the comparable homes, such as Corian countertops, knock-down ceilings, millwork, etc. He said such upgrades could account for more than $11,000 difference in value. Kapil also objected to the use of the sale price of the home when calculating the EMV. Sinell noted that Hennepin County has repeatedly certified that Eden Prairie's assessments meet the criteria for market value assessments, and that the Board does not have the power to arbitrarily switch from using market values for assessments. Best further explained that the Board's procedure involves determining only whether or not the owner can reasonably expect to sell the property for the assessed value. Kapil further asserted that certain features of the property reduce its value. He said the backyard is not usable because of a steep slope to the pond; the west side windows look into neighbors windows; and the front of the house faces Alcove Circle. He said all of these factors suggest a maximum market value of$385,000. llstrup said that while she understands Kapil has issues with the property, these should have been taken up with the builder. Sinell pointed out that the slope of the yard and placement of the windows were taken into consideration when assessing the property. O'Connor said that in her experience the slope of the yard would not greatly affect the value of the house. Best said the Board would ultimately have to make a decision based on "test of reasonableness," or whether or not the property could draw the assessed value of $419,000. He said he believes it would, based on the information gathered by staff and presented by Kapil. MOTION: Malam moved, seconded by O'Connor to sustain the staff valuation of$419,800. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal No. 8 —Steve Guyette, 6529 Rowland Road Sinell noted that staff inspected the property on Friday, May 10, and a review appraisal was completed on May 14. The review appraisal recommended reducing the EMV of the home from$483,500 to $435,000. The reduction in value is based on the fact that the original assessment was completed without the benefit of viewing the interior of the house. After viewing the interior, staff recommended the lowered value. Guyette questioned the accuracy of the City's assessment. As supporting evidence said he calculates that the size of his lot is closer to 10,500 square feet than the 15,000 square feet calculated by City staff. Guyette showed a plat that he said supports his assertion. Board members said there was no way of determining lot size based on the plat Guyette presented. Guyette said another issue he has with the assessment is that it does not take into consideration of the "emotion" that goes into determining the market value of a lot. When asked what he was looking for from the Board, Guyette demanded that the Board admit that the building of a home on the flag lot behind his property negatively affected the aesthetics of the property and thus reduced its value. When Board members asked Guyette what he believed to be the reduction in value due to the construction,he replied that it was the Board's job as professionals to make such calculations. Sinell said the staff review noted that assessments had taken into consideration that a house might be built on the lot behind the property. Guyette said he is angry with the way in which the City handled the platting of the property next to his. O'Connor said that in that case Mr. Guyette is bringing his issue to the wrong Board. O'Connor further stated that it is not necessarily realistic to build a home with the expectation that no development will ever take place on nearby properties. Sinell reminded Guyette that the only thing the Board of Appeal and Equalization is chartered to do is to determine the value of a property on the date of the assessment, not to determine who has possibly been wronged by another party. Guyette again demanded to be given a dollar value for the impact of the changed view has on his property. Sinell said he fundamentally disagreed with Guyette's argument that the building of the adjacent house lowers the value of Guyette's property. MOTION: Malam moved, seconded by O'Connor to accept the staff recommendation to reduce the value to $435,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal No. 9 —Terry and Cheryl Back, 16659 Manor Road North Sinell noted that the owner and staff had agreed to a reduction in value to $265,000 (from$289,500). MOTION: Malam moved, seconded by llstrup to reduce the valuation to $265,000. Motion carried 4-0. C. Sign Board of Review Documents The Board of Review signed the documents presented by City Assessor Steve Sinell. III. ADJOURN THE 2002 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING MOTION: O'Connor moved, seconded by Ilstrup to adjourn the meeting of the 2002 Board of Appeal and Equalization. Motion carried 4-0. The Board of Review was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.