Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals and Equalization - 04/23/1998 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW THURSDAY,APRIL 23, 1998 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS: Chair Phil Olson, Mike Best, Annette O'Connor, Patricia Pidcock, and Carol Standal BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF: Director of Assessing Steve Sinell, Appraiser H John Sams, Appraiser H Barb Cook and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson ROLL CALL: All members were present. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Olson at 7:00 P.M. Director of Assessing Sinell stated notice of this meeting was properly published in the Eden Prairie News ten days prior to this meeting and included with each valuation notice sent to homeowners. He reviewed the purpose of the meeting,the procedures to be followed during the meeting, and the process for further appeal by property owners. The Board is meeting tonight to review the values and classifications for the January 2, 1998 assessment. The Board is required to reconvene within 20 days of this meeting to hear any appeals continued from tonight's meeting. Each appellant whose appeal is continued will be notified of the date and place of the second meeting. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS Olson said we will hear the appeals that are on the Agenda first and then the others that have been submitted tonight. He asked appellants to keep their presentation to five minutes. He said the second meeting of the Board of Review will be scheduled for May 12,at which time those appeals that have not been resolved will be heard. A. PERSONAL APPEALS 1. OSCAR J. MILLER - PID 03-116-22-42-0026 Sinell said this appeal has been dropped. BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES April 23, 1997 Page 2 2. ARTHUR J. ROGERS - PID 05-116-22-34-0001 Mr. Rogers was not present. This appeal will be considered as a written appeal. 3. ASIF KALEEM - PID 20-116-22-23-0098 Mr. Kaleem said he had a 6%increase in valuation from last year to this year. He as made no improvements to the property. He was concerned that the cost of the same structure built in Lakeville is $20,000 less. Sinell said the cost of houses built and sold by a builder is a reflection of what customers are willing to pay for new houses in a new location. When we value properties for assessment purposes, we try to determine the most likely value if the current owner were willing to sell and others were willing to buy. They analyze sales by comparing resales of property to current values. In this case properties in the neighborhood went up about the same percentage. He said Dave Buswell did a market comparison on this property, a copy of which was sent to Mr. Kaleem on April 16. His comparison reviewed resale comparables in the neighborhood,and he determined a value of$185,000 for the property. Kaleem said he thought the lot price would be affected by location, but he didn't understand why the structure price would be more. Sinell replied that one of the other components included in structure price is profit and overhead, and the builder will take as much as possible. Olson said we compare structures in Eden Prairie only, and the question is would an educated consumer pay the price it is assessed at. The consensus was that they would. MOTION: Best moved, seconded by Pidcock, to sustain the valuation of the Kaleem property,PID 20-116-22-23-0098,at$174,500 Motion carried 5-0. 4. WILLIAM & DOROTHY GILK - PID 19-116-22-11-0026 5. WILLIAM & DOROTHY GILK - PID 19-116-22-11-0031 6. WILLIAM & DOROTHY GILK - PID 19-116-22-11-0032 Mr. Gilk said he would first discuss the Turtle Point properties (Appeals 5 and 6). He distributed a letter from a representative of Bearpath. He said last year after discussion with the Board,these properties were revalued,but this BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES April 23, 1997 Page 3 year they went back up to the same amount as last year. He has discussed this with the Bearpath people and they have declined to buy the two lots. When Hwy 212 gets this far, the construction limits for the intersection are at the property line and a wooden sound wall will be put in. The marsh will be completely eliminated. He said it is difficult to sell a lot with a sound barrier in the back that requires a $500,000 house be built on it. He thought these two lots should not be on the tax rolls. O'Connor asked if Hwy 212 is on the north side of the lot. Gilk said it is,and there will be a folded diamond intersection that motorists will use to exit to Dell Road and as an entrance to Hwy 212. O'Connor asked how he came to own these lots. Gilk said he owned 50 acres in this area prior to the Bearpath development. Hwy 212 took 41 of the 50 acres. He has these lots left in a joint venture with Bearpath. Best asked if the northerly line across the back edge is the lot boundary delineation. Gilk said it was, and it is also the construction limit for Hwy 212. Best asked if this is the construction limit exclusive of the total right-of- way or is that the extent of the right-of-way. Gilk said MnDOT has the detailed plans. Best asked if there is any plan for a purchase taking by MnDOT. Gilk said his next step is to ask them to take both lots. Best asked if either lot requires soil correction. Gilk said they did not They could have small walk-outs onto the marsh,but the marsh will be eliminated with road construction. Olson noted we had this discussion last year and reduced the value to$60,000 because we were in agreement that someone would not pay more than that. Depending on the resolution of MnDOT, this valuation could go up. He asked if Gilk had reviewed the Staff appraisal. Gilk said he was not aware he had been sent an appraisal. Sinell said that Colin Schmidt did a staff report on the properties. Colin double checked with Bearpath,and they don't think it would sell at the EMV. They indicated to him they might combine the two lots together and market the combined lot. He noted that comparables 1 and 2 sold, and those back up to the right-of-way. Standal asked what they sold for. Sinell said Comparable 1 sold for$130,000 in August 1997, and Comparable 2 sold for $145,000 in September 1994. Standal asked if they have built on those lots. Gilk said he didn't know. He asked if Staff measured the distance between the backyard and the freeway for the two comparables. He said his lots have almost no distance BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES April 23, 1997 Page 4 between the backyards and the sound wall that will be built. He thought Comparables 1 and 2 have substantially different terrain. Sinell said we are recommending they be reduced to $65,000 each. Gilk asked that they be reduced another $10,000 each, or have the appeals continued to the 2nd meeting in order to get more information and photographs. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Best, to refer the Gilk properties, PID 19-116-22-11-0031 and PID 19-116-22-11-0032,to staff to continue the appraisal process. Sinell noted that Colin Schmidt worked with this already. Gilk said he was sure that the possibility of recovering on these lots is very small. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. Gilk presented a map of the property at 8665 Wynstone Pass (Appeal 4) showing that the lot line extends into water and there are only 16,335 square feet of usable lot space. He said the adjacent lot has 22,000 square feet of usable lot. The back side of his lot will require substantial amount of fill. He thought it should be valued at$103,225,based on the usable space. Sinell noted that one of the comparables is located across the pond and is not fully usable either. O'Connor asked what that lot sold for. Sinell said it sold for$175,000 in 1995. He noted they haven't seen a lot of inflation here and he agreed there is an obvious soil correction that will be incurred. Colin Schmidt worked with the Bearpath sales people who thought it would be worth $155,000 if it were improved. He thought we could reduce the preliminary review to $145,000. Gilk agreed that the comparable had the same problem but only on a small corner of the lot. O'Connor noted the information says the lot is offered for sale through Bearpath for$175,000, and asked if they have ever thought of lowering the price. Gilk said Bearpath is not inclined to drop any prices. Olson thought it is an issue of how much correction is required rather than the percentage of buildable area. Sinell said unless Mr. Gilk has some engineering estimate on what it will cost, an adjustment of $30,000 would still be $145,000. Best thought the issue is on the soil correction, and with that you never know what you are dealing with. He would be inclined to make as high an adjustment as BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES April 23, 1997 Page 5 $40,000 for soil correction. Sinell said he would support that because it adequately represents the risk of the buyer. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by O'Connor,to reduce the valuation of the Gilk property,PID 19-116-22-11-0026,to$135,000. Motion carried 5-0. 5. LELAND KOTTKE - PID 21-116-22-41-0052 Mr. Kottke showed a photograph of his house and lot and noted that the sight line easement is the issue on his property. He has talked to the assessor about this because he thinks the valuation should remain at $166,100. The easement prohibits future construction from exceeding the height of the existing house. Best asked Kottke to clarify what he is talking about. Kottke replied the peak of the house is 890 feet and nothing can be built exceeding that height. The house is 30-32 years old. Best asked if nothing could be rebuilt that would be higher than the current height on the lot with the existing house. Kottke said that was true. Pidcock asked about the trees that appear on the photograph. Kottke said those are on the adjacent lot. Olson thought we need to look at what,realistically, someone would pay for that structure as it exists today, knowing that they could not build anything higher than the current house. Standal thought it is a premium lot. Sinell said the sight line easement is only on the northerly portion of the lot. They could rebuild the house to the south without the sight line restriction. The house has a spectacular view of Staring Lake, and you wouldn't want to plant trees in front of the house anyway. He noted that last year this was not encumbered by the sight line easement. He thought the $176,000 valuation seems to be supportable. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by O'Connor,to sustain the valuation of the Kottke property, PID-21-116-22-41-0052, at $176,000. Motion carried 5-0. Sinell noted Staff has not completed appraisals for the rest of the appeals. 8. LAUREN LEIH - PID 08-116-22-32-0012 BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES April 23, 1997 Page 6 Ms Leih was not present. MOTION: Best moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Leih property, PID 08-116-22-32-0012, to staff for further review. Motion carried 5-0. 9. BARBARA ENGEN - PID 25-116-22-11-0042 Ms Engen was not present. MOTION: Best moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Engen property, PID 25-116-22-11-0042, to staff for further review. Motion carried 5-0. 10. CAROL M. THOMPSON - PID 09-116-22-21-0011 Ms Thompson was not present. MOTION: Best moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Thompson property, PID 09-116-22-21-0011, to staff for further review. Motion carried 5-0. 11. WACLAW JASZCZ - PID 26-116-22-14-0011 Sinell said this appeal has been resolved. 12. MAHMOUD YOUSEFZADEH - PID 24-116-22-44-0043 Mr. Yousefzadeh distributed a report on his property to the Board. He said his valuation went up 9-1/2 % this year. He decided to put the house on the market,but they told him it could not be sold at more than$122,000. It needs to be recarpeted, the patio needs repair, and the bathroom should be redone. The patio needs repair. The costs of the improvements needed would be $16,000. Olson noted there are been four sales on Clark Circle ranging from$124,000 - $142,000;however,the review appraisal could include items that were not considered. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Standal, to refer the Yousefzadeh property, PID 24-116-22-44-0043, to staff for further review. Motion carried 5-0. 13. COLLEEN CAVARA - PID 30-116-22-24-0005 BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES April 23, 1997 Page 7 Ms Cavara was not present. MOTION: Best moved, seconded by Pidcock,to refer the Cavara property, PID 30-116-22-24-0005, to staff for further review. Motion carried 5-0. 14. BARRY S. JOHNSON - PID 30-116-22-13-0009 Mr. Johnson was not present. Sinell noted this appeal just came in on Monday. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Best,to refer the Johnson property, PID 30-116-22-13-0009, to staff for further review. Motion carried 5-0. 15. MARK & GAYLA BELL - PID 30-116-22-13-0011 The Bell's were not present. MOTION: Best moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Bell property, PID 30-116-22-13-0011, to staff for further review. Motion carried 5-0. 16. STEVE & PAM OLSEN - PID 30-116-22-12-0003 The Olsen's were present but did not choose to speak. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Best, to refer the Olsen property, PID 30-116-22-12-0003, to staff for further review. Motion carried 5-0. 17. ROBERT A. CRON - PID 25-116-22-31-0056 Sinell said this appeal has been resolved. 18. DARIN L.BUSCH-PID 04-116-22-42-0120 and PID 04-116-22-42-0126 Sinell said this appeal has been resolved. 19. MARVIN COFER- 14837 Blakeney Road Sinell said this appeal has been resolved. 20. PETER FISCHER - PID 14-116-22-24-0009 Sinell said this appeal has been resolved. C. WRITTEN APPEALS BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES April 23, 1997 Page 8 21. PAUL M. EDWARDSON - PID 21-116-22-42-0027 Mr. Edwardson said he has been in contact with the City Council about the conditions that exist on a property across the street from him at 9030 Staring Lane West. The property is classified as substandard because it is in a state of disrepair and there is a lot of debris around it. His taxes have been going up about$5,000 a year since he purchased the property,and at some point he won't be able to sell his property at what it is worth because of the substandard property. He asked that the EMV be set at$164,600 in order to freeze the value until the property across the street is brought up to acceptable standards. Sinell said we need to do a review appraisal on this one to make sure the value can be supported. He said Staring Lane is one of the neighborhoods that is in transition. It has new and old properties on it. Olson noted that 9060 Staring Lane West sold this year for$230,000. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Best, to refer the Edwardson property, PID 21-116-22-42-0027, to staff for further review. Motion carried 5-0. 2. ARTHUR J. ROGERS - PID 05-116-22-34-0001 Sinell said John Sams did a review appraisal at $135,000. Sams said the house is surrounded by the Rogers Homestead. The home was constructed in 1947 and has been fairly well maintained. Their issue was that the value at $128,700 exceeded what they feel they could get for it, and they would like the value to be set at $118,000. He said the difficulty was finding a house built in 1947 that just sold. They found several built in the 1950's that also had the same traffic situation. Those comparables support the value of $128,700. MOTION: Best moved to sustain the valuation of the Rogers property,PID 05-116-22-34-0001, at$128,700. Motion died for lack of a second. Best said he can't believe a 1400 square foot rambler can't be sold at $128,700. It has a 24,000 square foot lot. MOTION: Best moved, seconded by O'Connor, to sustain the valuation of the Rogers property,PID 05-116-22-34-0001,at$128,700. Motion carried BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES April 23, 1997 Page 9 4-0-1, with Pidcock abstaining. 22. HERMAN WIPPERFURTH - PID 16-116-22-33-0019 Sinell said Staff has not seen this property and would like to review it. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Best, to refer the Wipperfurth property,PID 16-116-33-0019,to staff for further review. Motion carried 5- 0. 23. LINDA V. WEYER- PID 10-116-22-14-0182 24. LINDA V. WEYER - PID 10-116-22-14-0181 Olson noted there have been 11 sales on Stewart Drive in the last few years ranging from$86,500 to$173,00,with an average sale price of$104,000. He said 7212 Stewart Drive sold for$91,500 in March, 1997, and 7295 Stewart Drive sold for$109,900 in February, 1998. Ms Weyer asked if the units that sold were the same style. She said the 7265 side of her property had some severe slab sinking problems. She had the living room mud-jacked but couldn't do the laundry room without major expense. The garage is also sunken. She said there are imperfections on the property that aren't readily visible that she will have to disclose at the time of sale. Pidcock asked if she had any severe cracks in the foundation. Weyer was not aware of any. She thought the increased valuation of$8,200 on each side is on the high side. Olson noted our question is whether it is worth the $97,700 valuation. He asked if she lives on one side and rents out the other. Weyer said that was correct. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Best,to refer the Weyer properties, PID 10-116-22-14-0182 and PID 10-116-22-14-0181, to staff for further review. Motion carried 5-0. D. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Best,to reconvene the Board of Review at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 12, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. E. CLOSE THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING TO ADDITIONAL APPEALS BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES April 23, 1997 Page 10 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Best, to close the Board of Review to additional appeals. Motion carried 5-0. III. CLOSE MEETING MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Best, to close the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Chair Olson closed the meeting at 8:45 p.m.