Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
The final plat approval Mallers Joyner Cinemas LLC needed to reconfigure its three lots between Mariners Drive and Husky Trail was given to them Monday night by the Warsaw Plan Commission.
The Plan Commission approved the preliminary plat at their May 11 meeting.
For Monday’s meeting, City Planner Justin Taylor reminded the board the petitioner submitted a plat to reconfigure three lots at 1060 Mariners Drive. Historically, the parcels were merged for tax purposes and have been maintained under common ownership.
“The need to reconfigure these parcels has arisen because of the existing lot line for the northwestern parcel, formerly lot 11, traverses the existing structure of (North Pointe Cinemas), making changes in ownership not feasible,” he said. “The proposed plat includes an expansion of the drainage and utility easement on the west side of lot 3 to allow access to the public stormwater basin.”
Taylor informed the Plan Commission that on June 3 the Traffic Safety Commission reviewed the Plan Commission members’ concerns. The Traffic Safety Commission recommended option 1 as the preferred egress and ingress for lot 3, which is along Husky Trail near the North Pointe Cinemas sign. The Traffic Safety Commission discussed an option for access along Mariners Drive, but that was not preferred over access on Husky Trail, he said.
Taylor recommended the Plan Commission grant final approval for the proposed plat, which they did by a vote of 6-1, with member Jeff Owens opposed. There were no remonstrators to the petition at any of the public meetings.
The second petition Monday before the commission came from Kevin Biggs to subdivide 0.56 acres, historically designated as Block B, to create two new lots to the west of the intersection of Stag Street and Buck Trail.
Taylor said Block B was originally in 2005 as a 24,298-square-foot neighborhood greenspace, intended to offset the reduced lot sizes of the adjacent villa-style homes, which were lots 1 through 20. Block B is one of three blocks on the original plat. Blocks A and C contain designated wetlands and stormwater detention areas.
“Ownership of Block B was initially intended to transition to the neighborhood Home Owners Association (HOA), but that transfer never occurred,” Taylor said. “Over the past two decades, the developer has been unsuccessful in transferring the parcel to the HOA, and the HOA has formally stated that it does not wish to accept the liability or the financial burden associated with maintaining the greenspace.”
Given the HOA’s lack of opposition to the development of these two parcels, and the continued burden of the undeveloped property that is upon the developer, Taylor said the Planning Department recommended that the Plan Commission give a favorable recommendation to city council.
“So this would modify the existing PUD (planned unit development) ordinance,” Taylor said. “So that’s something I wanted to make sure was clear to the board. That this was platted as a PUD, so what we’d be doing tonight is making one of three possible recommendations to city council: a favorable recommendation, an unfavorable recommendation or no recommendation. And then kind of tagging that with any requirements that you’d want to see if this was approved.”
He stated that’s the procedure to modify a PUD in the city.
Plan Commission President Rick Keeven asked if there were any comments or concerns from the public. Taylor said no, other than in speaking with the current HOA president for the villas, the president emailed him and said the HOA did not want to take ownership of the parcels.
Councilwoman Diane Quance said when the PUD was approved, they were required to provide green space for residents so she had a concern about sending a favorable recommendation to the council.
Commission member Jeff Owens advocated for the petitioner, whose company was a client of his 30 years ago.
“As a developer of the subdivision, you can’t make the Home Owners Association take the property. So, where they sit right now, they can’t build on it and the (HOA) won’t take it. Really, the path forward is, because they can’t do anything with it, it’s inventory they can’t use, the only way for them to dispose of it now is through tax sale. So, they don’t pay the taxes, it goes through tax sale, somebody might buy it,” Owens said. “... So, it’s in a purgatory of nobody can do anything with it because of how it got started.”
If it goes to tax sale and nothing happens to it, the property just sits out there. Owens said each of the two neighboring properties are generating roughly $2,000 each year in property taxes.
“So, we actually have an opportunity to increase the city’s income or the county’s property tax incomes by $4,000 by letting this happen. Otherwise, nothing’s going to happen to it, other than everybody looks at it and says, ‘It’s not mine,’” Owens stated.
Asked who currently maintains the property, Biggs, owner and developer, said they currently hire someone to maintain the property.
He said about two years ago, they made their best efforts to formally form an HOA for the Paths of Deerfield. Within the neighborhood, there is a section of villas. The Villa HOA formed and organized primary because of snow removal and lawn care. Biggs said when they sought to form the master HOA for the rest of the community, “they rejected our efforts to do so and said we don’t want an HOA, and we have no mechanism to force that upon them.”
Biggs said they now have a piece of ground that is meant for the neighborhood’s benefit, but the villa HOA said they didn’t want it. All the lots out there have been sold, so he said, as a developer, they don’t have any interest in the addition anymore. A solution for everyone would be to add two more lots out there on the common area.
Councilman Juergen Voss asked Biggs if they were paying the property tax on the property, and he said they are. Voss said Biggs’ plans seemed like a simple solution to the problem and he was in favor of it.
After some discussion, including why the Plan Commission had to make a recommendation to the city council instead of the Board of Zoning Appeals dealing with it - it’s not an exception or variance - the Plan Commission approved Owens’ motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the city council. Voss seconded that motion and Quance abstained.
The last item on the agenda - a dumpster ordinance - was tabled again by the Plan Commission, per Taylor’s request.
