Attachment B - Approval Report 230062.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
10576 characters
1 Planning and Development Department CONDITIONAL APPROVAL – ABND 230062 Your abandonment request was granted CONDITIONAL APPROVAL by Christopher DePerro, Abandonment Hearing Officer. This request will NOT be completed until all the stipulations have been met and this request is formally adopted by City Council. It is the APPLICANT’S RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that all stipulations are satisfied. Please contact Dru Maynus at 602-262-7403 for questions and notification of your completion of the stipulations. Upon completion of the stipulations your request will be scheduled for City Council action. If the stipulations of abandonment are not completed within two years from the date of your conditional approval (your expiration date is December 7, 2025), this request will then expire. At that time a new submittal will be required along with the required payment for the abandonment process. A one time, one year extension can be requested prior to the expiration date, with applicable extension fee due. ATTACHMENT B 2 Planning and Development Department December 7, 2023 Preliminary Abandonment Staff Report: ABND 230062 Project# 03-2661 Quarter Section: 04-24 District#: 8 Location: Alley between 4th Street and 5th Street, South of Riverside Avenue, and North of Broadway Road Applicant: Perwinder Singh Request: To abandon an alley that is located between 4th Street and 5th Street, south of Riverside Avenue and North of Broadway Road. Purpose of request: The applicant states to reconsolidate the proposed abandonment area back to the neighboring landowners specifically to allow for the development of a townhome community. Hearing date: December 7, 2023 3 Hearing Summary Mr. Christopher DePerro, the Abandonment Hearing Officer calls the meeting to order on December 7, 2023. Ms. Dru Maynus, Abandonment Coordinator, introduced abandonment ABND 230062 and read the case into the record by stating the applicant, location, and purpose of the request, as well as City staff research. Mr. Christopher DePerro asks the applicant if they would like to add any additional comments regarding the abandonment request. Mr. Perwinder Singh clarified which properties he owned. He went on to explain that he submitted a townhome and multifamily development project to the City, but which both had issues due to the alley location and the alley creates additional setbacks for each property. So they submitted for an abandonment so they can combine all the parcels. He went on to explain that there are transients and abandoned cars in the alley. The abandonment will help clean up the property. Mr. Christopher DePerro asked for Ms. Theresa Hale, adjacent property owner, to speak. 4 Ms. Hale stated that she is the secretary for a neighboring church located at 4221 S 4th Street. She then said that both her and Perry have gone to great lengths to keep the community clean. She explained that the neighborhood is dealing with the homeless community burning things in the neighborhood, trash, and vehicles parking in the alley. She pleaded with the Hearing Officer to grant the abandonment because the current state of affairs in the area is a nuisance to all the neighbors. The Hearing Officer said he understood. He then asked staff what other responses were received by utility providers. Ms. Maynus said that the Water Service Department requested that the entire alley be retained as a sewer easement or as may be modified by the affected utilities with 24-hour maintenance access subject to the following standard stipulations. Or the applicant/property owners can abandon the sewer main to the southern part of the property lines and install a new manhole (The rest of the alley is retained as is) prior to the Resolution of Abandonment in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the Planning and Development Department, or as otherwise approved by the Water Services Department. All work is to be done by a licensed contractor at no expense to the City of Phoenix. Mr. DePerro said he was confused with the Water Services Department’s comment because it said the rest of the alley is retained as is. He asked did were they thinking they wouldn’t have to retain the sewer easement on the north end, but they would retain it as a sewer easement or were they trying to say that the applicant needs to retain the alley as an alley? He went on to say it was worded oddly and he believe he went the latter because the request was for the entire north and south alley. He then further explained that what Water Services Department probably meant was that if the applicant didn’t want to retain the sewer easement, then they could take out the sewer for Perry’s four properties if he would like to do that. Mr. DePerro then asked, what other comments were received? Ms. Maynus stated, that Cox said the abandonment was in a conflict review since it has facilities in the alley. She then went on to say no other utility providers had major concerns with the abandonment. Mr. DePerro said, he also didn’t see any overhead utility lines. Mr. DePerro asked, what were the recommended stipulations. Ms. Maynus asked, if the Hearing Officer wanted to go over Street Transportation Department’s comments prior to going over the stipulations? Mr. DePerro said Street Transportation Department’s comment was fairly easy to understand and they it meant the southern alley could not be cut in half. Mr. Eric Buskirk, Street Transportation Department representative, agreed. Ms. Maynus then went over stipulations 1 though 5. Mr. DePerro then asked the applicant if he understood if the alley was existing right-of-way and that it was zoned R-4 multifamily. He went on to explain that because of that the City is required 5 per ordinance to charge a consideration fee to return properties designated as right-of-way to private property. Mr. Singh confirmed he understood. He said that once they had conditional approval, he would then look at the cost and pay for it since he calculated it to be just under $6,000. Mr. DePerro interjected to explain that since the property is zoned multifamily it would require an appraisal. He said the applicant has two options the first being conducting their own appraisal or two the City’s Real Estate Department has a process where they review comparable properties in the area, and they will offer you a price and it up to the applicant if they want to take their deal. Mr. Singh said it was fine and they have been working with the City for a long time and it’s their only option as opposed to variances. Mr. DePerro concurred. Mr. DePerro asked the applicant if he understood stipulation #3 and explained that they cannot cut off the southern alley portion because there is a manhole that has to stay in its current location. Mr. Singh said the alley is 20-feet and even if it was 18-feet it wouldn’t impact them. Mr. DePerro confirmed that the alley is indeed 18-feet. Mr. Singh said it doesn’t impact them. Mr. DePerro says what he is trying to convey is that the alley abandonment would commence north of the south alleyway and would not stop at the property line just above the south alley. Mr. Singh said he was fine with that. Mr. DePerro said stipulation number 4 wasn’t needed because it is covered under stipulation number 1. Ms. Hale asked if the church would be allowed to put a fence up? Mr. DePerro explained that the church would get half of the alley, but they wouldn’t be allowed to put a fence up down the middle of alley because there would be a sewer easement in the alley. Ms. Hale then asked could it be located closer to the current property line? Mr. DePerro said maybe a chain-link fence, but a wall more than likely would not be allowed. The Hearing Officer granted conditional approval for abandonment 230062 subject to stipulations in staff report with one modification to remove stipulation number 4 and to renumber stipulation number 5 to be the new stipulation number 4.” 6 Recommended Stipulations of Approval The request of abandonment, if approved by the Abandonment Hearing Officer, will be subject to the following stipulations: 1. Either a or b shall be complied with: a. All utilities shall be relocated to locations approved by each affected utility company. All work is to be done by each affected utility company at no expense to the affected utility company. An appropriate performance agreement, in an approved form and cost amount, must be posted with the Planning and Development Department to guarantee the improvements. b. All right-of-way shall be retained as a public utilities easement with 24-hour vehicle maintenance access. 2. Consideration which provides a public benefit to the City is required in accordance with City Code Art. 5, Sec. 31-64 and Ordinance G-5332. Cost for abandoned Right-of-Way adjacent to property not zoned single family residential will be $500 OR Fair Market Value whichever is greater. Cost for property zoned single family residential is $1.00 a square foot for the first 500 square feet, $0.10 a square foot thereafter; OR Fair Market Value at the option of the Planning and Development Director or designee. The applicant shall submit calculation and fee to Planning and Development Department. The applicant shall request a selection of approved appraisers from the current list maintained by the Real Estate division of the Finance Department. 3. Right-of-way shall not be abandoned within 18-feet of the northern property line of 418 East Broadway Road. 4. All stipulations must be completed within two years from the Abandonment Hearing Officer’s decision. This conditional approval has been reviewed and approved by the Abandonment Hearing Officer. Hearing Officer Signature: ____________________________________ Date: __________ REPORT SUBMITTED BY: Dru Maynus, Abandonment Coordinator. cc: Applicant/Representative, Perwinder Singh Christopher DePerro, Abandonment Hearing Officer If the area to be abandoned is within or adjacent to a redevelopment area established pursuant to A.R.S.§36-1471 ET.SEQ., Consideration may be given to the restrictions upon the property and the covenants, conditions and obligations assumed by the redeveloper in the determination of fair market value. 4.9.24