One Resident Questions Why

Her property was assessed $90,000 while the street in front of her driveway was dropped approximately 5 ft due to the Clear Water Creek Development.
Centerville City officials are on record stating the assessment payments would not have to be paid until the driveway was fully corrected. Payments came due last December, ironically the same time this homeowner was hit by a following vehicle while entering the unsafe drive. Prior to the Clear Water Creek Development start this driveway was level with the street and there were no safety issues.
The real question may be who is responsible for repairing the collapsed drive? The City of Centerville or the Developer?

A Little History Review
Per The Citizen July 10, 2008
Fruth had appeared before Centerville City Council at a previous meeting, at which she claimed her drive had been left four feet above street level since the road improvements had been made.
She was offered two options to remedy the situation by the city engineer at the July 10 meeting, but explained she would need further time to decide which course of action she wished to pursue. The City Council voted to delay the passing of a resolution on Old Mill Road residents’ special assessments until a later meeting when Fruth’s situation had been resolved.
The Citizen

Ms. Fruth questions why the City of Centerville is insisting her property is potentially worth over one million dollars while the Anoka County property tax statement shows her property value has dropped approximately $50,000 and Zillow.com estimates a value of $272,500. Ms. Fruth is willing to sell to any developer willing to pay the price (One Million) the current council claims the property is worth.
Why do Council members continue to insist they know everything? We see every day how their pretending to be decorators influenced the colored concrete and street lights on Main Street!

As you can see the driveway issue has still not been resolved by the City of Centerville yet the resident has already been assessed $90,000. Curiously, the Developer (previous member of Planning and Zoning history) has had his assessments deferred.
Additional history Here

Are Downtown Redevelopment Plans “Holding Property Hostage”?

“We are taking this input,” Commission Vice Chair Tom Wood said, “so we can sit down and make a decision based on what our constituents are looking for.”
It wasn’t a public hearing— or at least, that’s what several city council members in attendance kept reminding Wood, who ran the meeting.
But it certainly looked, walked and quacked like a public hearing: council chambers were filled by citizens, many of whom took the opportunity to speak.
The zoning changes were made in anticipation of immediate purchase off ers from the Beard Group, the development company working with the City of Centerville on its downtown redevelopment project.
As the economy slowed, however, the purchase offers never materialized, and homeowners who welcomed the opportunity to sell their homes—as well as those who had no intention of moving— have been left in a holding pattern for well over three years.
Olaf Lee, who with his wife Margaret owns a home at 1724 Heritage Street, said that he wanted to add onto his garage, add another bedroom, and possibly build a sunroom. “To date,” Lee said, “I’ve been told [by the city] that there is no possibility of ever [making improvements to] that house.”
Randy Gnadke, 1751 Main Street, said that he would add on to his home, possibly up to 20% of its existing square footage.
Patricia Camp, 7121 Centerville Road, said she was surprised to find out that her home is a nonconforming use. “I’ve been a resident of this community for 31 years,” she said. Although she has no current plans to expand her home, she objected to limitations posed by the rezoning restrictions.
Wendy Brilowski, who in 2004 purchased the 150-yearold residence at 7124 Main Street “with the intention of making a lot of changes,” said that she wasn’t sure whether her home was included in the rezoned area, but has a number of long-term plans, including bumping out a wall in the kitchen and adding a porch. With market conditions the way they are, and with the added penalty of being a non-conforming use, Brilowski said, selling is likely not an option. “I honestly don’t think I could get fair market value,” she said.
Bryce Wasiloski said that although he has a “pretty decent” understanding of what the downtown redevelopment plan is, “it looks a little diff erent when you’ve been rezoned.” He said, “It’s a very uncertain feeling; it’s like you’re living on borrowed time.”Resident Lenae Marshall, who resides outside the rezoned area, referred to what she called the city’s desire to make Centerville a destination town as “a want, and not a need.” She said, “It is unethical to take what is not theirs and redistribute it to another … it is not the mayor’s role to elevate the collective good.”
City Attorney Kurt Glaser advised, “We cannot take people’s property for redevelopment [purposes]—we can’t. It’s not legal.”
But Olaf Lee asked, “Isn’t indefi nitely holding our property hostage, ‘condemnation’? Where we have to maintain it, with no future? Otherwise, you don’t buy a fixer-upper. Why bother?”
Mayor Mary Capra, who last month said that allowing nonconforming uses to expand would cost city residents money in the long run, reminded attendees that the downtown redevelopment plan was “reviewed by the entire community.”

Deb Barnes
The Citizen
3/17/2010
Link Here

Development Not Likely Anytime Soon

We are concerned over the proposed current Comprehensive Plan situation facing residents of Centerville. When we moved into the City of Centerville seven years ago there was no talk of zoning changes or development issues. Over the next few years we attended several meetings to discuss a Comprehensive Plan for Centerville. Many residents raised valid concerns over the plan.
In the end, the council did decide that the 2006 plan was in the best interest of the city. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan has not accomplished its proposed intent and is nowhere close to being implemented. Under the 2006 plan the ability of current residents to improve their properties is severely restricted. The City Council is placing an unfair and undue hardship on many of the residents. Over the past years we have been told that this Comprehensive Plan is looking towards the future.
We firmly believe that this future development is not likely any time soon. If the city council is to continue with these restrictions it needs to prove that the current comprehensive plan, which was very unpopular with many, is viable. Given the current economic conditions it does not appear to be so. We agree with Council Member Broussard Vickers who is quoted as saying “I think this is a big deal, and it’s having a significant impact on people who live in downtown.” We also agree with the City Attorney, who is quoted as saying “The best thing to do is to listen to the public as to what they want.” We do not want a City Council and Zoning Board that severely limit our ability to improve our property without a good reason. We agree with Council Member Broussard Vickers, “It could be ten years before we see the downtown develop.”
Mark & Wendy Brilowski
Letter to the Editor
The Citizen
03/03/2010