Attachment B - Approval Report ABND 230053.pdf

ATTACHMENT B
Planning and Development Department
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL – ABND 230053
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 January 18, 2026), 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.
1

Planning and Development Department
January 18, 2024
Preliminary Abandonment Staff Report: ABND 230053
Project# 22-3544
Quarter Section: 15-31
District#: 7
Location: 1st Avenue and Riverside Avenue
Applicant: 3402 1st Ave., LLC and PDH Properties
LLC, and Arizona limited liability company
Request: To abandon the 20-foot strip conveyed to
Maricopa County via a Quit Claim Deed,
recorded in docket 147, Page 508; to
abandon the 30-foot Riverside Avenue right-
of-way east of 1st Avenue; and to abandon a
60-foot by 30-foot portion of right of way at
the intersection of Riverside Avenue and 1St
Avenue.
Purpose of request: The applicant states the abandonment
request is to remove unnecessary rights-of-
way to allow the owner to develop their
property.
Hearing date: January 18, 2024 (Continued from
December 7, 2023 and November 9, 2023)
2

Hearing Summary
From November 9, 2023
Ms. Dru Maynus, the Abandonment Coordinator, starts off the conversation by informing the
Abandonment Hearing Officer, Mr. Chris DePerro that abandonment case ABND 230053 would
need a continuance. She then introduced abandonment ABND 230053 and read into the record,
the location, the applicant, the request, and the purpose of request.
Mr. DePerro, states the City did not obtain a completed application submittal from the applicant
that included the right-of-way on the south side of Riverside Avenue across 1st Avenue to the
east. He then asks if this it is a partial request and to be able to approve the abandonment if we
needed the entire length of the right-of-way.
Ms. Maynus and Ms. Alyssa Neitzel the Site Planning Administrative Supervisor both confirmed
yes.
Ms Neitzels tells the Abandonment Hearing Officer that the applicant Cheryl Ross was in
attendance to request the continuance.
Mr. DePerro invites Ms. Ross to speak.
3

Ms. Ross states that the owner of the abandonment request Mr. John Culver was in attendance
to speak.
Mr. Culver says that the reason for the request was incorrect and asked for it to be corrected.
He went on to say that he owns the properties on the southwest and northwest side of 1st
Avenue .He further explains that the existing right-of-way bisects his properties and a result he
is trying to clean it up with the abandonment application.
Mr. DePerro says that he understood, but that a complete application request that includes the
southern right-of-way across 1st Avenue is needed. So in order to legally do it, it has to be
requested by the owner so the City can advertise correctly .
Mr. Culver states that he understands.
Mr. DePerro asks Ms. Maynus and Ms. Neitzel if advertising it correctly the only issue.
Ms. Maynus says that is correct.
Mr. DePerro says okay if that is all that is needed then we can continue to the next hearing. He
proceeds by asking staff if they have received the request from the applicant.
Ms Maynus says yes.
Mr. DePerro explains that although the City was requesting the applicant to add the additional
right-of-way into their request, we still have to a written request from the applicant in the City
files.
Mr. DePerro reads into the record that abandonment case ABND 230053 would be continued to
the next abandonment hearing on December 7, 2023. He finished up with saying the request
will be readvertised with the boundary change.
From December 7, 2023
Ms. Dru Maynus, the Abandonment Coordinator, introduced abandonment ABND 230017 and
went on to state that the abandonment was missing required signatures; therefore, will also
need to be continued.
Mr. Christopher DePerro then requested to hear from the applicant Cheryl Ross to get a clear
understanding of what is going on with obtaining signatures from property owners to the south
side of the right-of-way.
Ms. Cheryl Ross stated that she and her attorney Christopher McNickel were still working on
obtaining the signatures.
Mr. Christopher McNickel goes on to say that he has his clients and they can speak on what is
going on.
The Hearing Officer interjects and lets him know we haven’t heard the case yet and we are only
needing clarification on the signatures because as it stands the abandonment is deemed
incomplete. He then goes on to ask if they are having difficulty obtaining signatures, and what
date they are planning to continue to the abandonment to?
4

Mr. Christopher McNickel, goes on to explain that most of the commercial properties are owned
by his clients and that he believes that they have satisfied the 2/3 required signatures
requirement of the petition.
The Hearing Officer let the applicants know it isn’t appropriate to analyze whether the
application is deemed complete during the hearing and that he would continue it to the next
hearing date of January 18, 2024, and to work with the Abandonment Coordinator to overcome
the abandonment’s signature issues.
From January 18, 2024
Ms. Dru Maynus, the Abandonment Coordinator, introduced abandonment ABND 230017 into
the record. She went on to state that staff recommended continuance based off the application
still missing signatures from the property south of Riverside Avenue.
Mr. Christopher DePerro, the Abandonment Hearing Officer, started the discussion by asking
the applicant representative Scott Malm and John Culver where they were at with regards to the
required signatures.
John Culver went on to explained that the application was initially a request to abandon the 25-
foot strip along Riverside Avenue and stated they have the 2/3 signatures for that portion of
right-of-way. He went on to state that City recommended that the applicant include the southern
portion of right-of-way and that they have 2/3 of the required signatures, but staff stated that the
signature of the property owner to the south was needed regardless of the 2/3 signatures that
they had. Mr. Culver stated that the property owner in question stated that they will not sign and
will continue to use the property and there will be no path forward to getting him to sign off on
the abandonment. Mr. Culver explains that he owns 80% to 90% of land north of the strip and
because of the other property owner he will not be able to join the properties and develop them,
thus, making the abandonment dead and they do not know what to do.
Mr. DePerro wanted clarification on which properties Mr. Culver owned. He asked if it was the
properties west of 1st Avenue, but he doesn’t own the property south of the right-of-way east of
1st Avenue.
Mr. Culver stated that the Abandonment Hearing Officer was correct in his assertion. He went
on to state he owned everything north and Paul also owned everything north to the east of 1st
Avenue. Mr. Culver then states that the report stipulated that he had to construct a driveway in
and he has no issues with any of the stipulations. But the issue lies in needing the property
owner to the south signature because he doesn’t want to give up the property.
Mr. DePerro provides clarification that the owner does not own that portion of land and then
went on to ask if Josh Rogers, Street Transportation Department staff member, had anything to
add to the conversation.
Mr. Rogers goes on to state that the Street Transportation Department only requires the
majority of property owners abutting the right-of-way to sign the petition in support for
commercial land. Josh then asks the applicant representative to clarify how many properties are
to the north and to the south in total.
Mr. Culver says there are a total of 15 properties that touch the abandonment request area and
they have 10 signatures.
5

Mr. DePerro then says he believes Josh meant just the portion east of 1st Avenue.
Mr. Culver says east of 1st Avenue there will be four on the south and five or six to the north.
Mr. DePerro asks Mr. Culver, but you just don’t have that one property owner at 3405?
Mr. Culver says no because his fence encompasses the right-of-way, and he is storing items in
the right-of-way and renting it.
Mr. DePerro then states he wants to confirm that the advertising of the map of abandonment
included the south 30-feet with the Abandonment Coordinator and Robert Martinez.
Robert then states he will take a look.
Mr. DePerro then asks Mr. Rogers if Streets would be okay with the applicant having six out of
the nine signatures.
Mr. Rogers says yes, but can we push this application to the end so staff can confirm the
signatures.
Ms. Maynus then says one of the primary reasons staff requested that the applicant obtain the
signature from the property to the south was because the owner came into City Hall with
concerns and was not in support of the abandonment.
Mr. DePerro states that is good to know but we are not taking away private property, the owner
is actually using public property for private uses and so the City is less sympathetic to the issue.
Mr. DePerro then states that ABND 230053 will be moved to case number 7 so that the
Abandonment Coordinator and Robert Martinez review the signatures and advertisement.
Ms. Maynus puts up the advertisement document for ABND 230053 on the screen for everyone
to see.
Mr. DePerro states okay great it was advertised correctly and that we only need to confirm the
signature while we go on to the next ABND case 230054.
Mr. DePerro picks up where we left off by asking who was doing the research while we moved
on to the other cases.
Mr. Rogers confirms that he along with Street Transportation Department staff and Site
Planning staff were all working in the background to do the research. He states that all the
property owners adjacent to the right-of-way specifically on the east side of 1st Avenue that the
northern property owners signature suffices. Then on the west side of 1st Avenue that we need
majority of all of the property owners abutting the right-of-way. He further explains there are a
total of 3 property owners of the westside, and that the applicant provided two signatures. So he
believes they have met the signature requirements.
Mr. DePerro then asks the applicant if he has anything to add and if they are okay with us
continuing on with reviewing the abandonment case.
6

Mr. Culver says yes.
Mr. DePerro asks Ms. Maynus to go over the report.
Ms. Dru Maynus, Abandonment Coordinator read ABND 230053 into the record, stating the
location, applicant, request, purpose of request and City Staff research.
Mr. DePerro states that Mr. Rogers more than likely didn’t update his comments because they
appear to be outdated and does not include the 30-feet of right-of-way that was included in the
last hearing.
Mr. Rogers states for the record that that Street Transportation Department is supportive of the
abandonment now that it includes the 30-feet of right-of-way which is the full right-of-way.
Mr. DePerro then looks over the stipulations and asks are they the same as the comments
above. He also asks Mr. Rogers how does stipulation #4 apply.
Mr. Rogers says the stipulation no longer applies and adds that the stipulation can be deleted.
Mr. DePerro then explains that the abandonment request area that area across the north end of
1st Avenue up to the purple line needs to be left out of the abandonment area because east of
the monument line at 1st Avenue would go back to the other property owner and it would cut off
ingress and egress to their property. He suggested that they keep 1st Avenue to where their
property begins.
Mr. Culver says correct.
Mr. DePerro says to Mr. Rogers that he believes they should keep that stipulation and that they
will not abandon any of the existing 1st Avenue but everything around it will be abandoned.
Mr. Rogers agrees.
Mr. DePerro asks Mr. Culver if that makes sense.
Mr. Culver says yes.
Mr. DePerro explains stipulation #1 to the applicant and asks if they understand.
Mr. Culver says yes it makes sense.
Mr. DePerro explains that the consideration fee will only apply to portions of the abandonment
that are fee title right-of-way meaning conveying property such as the water easement area
wouldn’t be included in that calculation, only things that are dedicated rights-of-way. Then asks
Mr. Culver if that makes sense.
Mr. Culver says yes.
Mr. DePerro asks Mr. Rogers if Street’s wants 1st Avenue to terminate into a proper driveway.
Mr. Rogers says yes that the applicant only has to build it to City standards and there need to
be a visual separation between where the right-of-way begins and ends.
7

Mr. DePerro asks Mr. Culver if that makes sense.
Mr. Culver says yes, but goes on to say that the street is dirt and there is a fire hydrant and asks
how far do they have to go to the left and right.
Mr. Rogers clarifies that they are not talking about the east or west portions of 1st Avenue, but
instead how it terminates to the north which is the applicant’s property. He then says just the
end point from where your property begins to the north and where the right-of-way ends, not the
east and the west.
Mr. Culver says so basically whatever the plans would call out for a standard driveway they
would just end on the left and the right of the standard driveway.
Mr. Rogers confirms with a yes.
Mr. Culver says he understands.
Mr. DePerro then says to the applicant that they would follow up with the Streets Department
after the abandonment as they will have to show that they have met their stipulation before it
goes to City Council.
The Abandonment Hearing Officer granted conditional approval for abandonment 230053
subject to stipulations in the staff report dated January 18, 2024 as written.
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 rights-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. No right-of-way within 30-feet of the 3rd Avenue monument line shall be abandoned.
8

4. No right-of-way within 30-feet of the 1st Avenue monument line shall be abandoned.
5. 1st Avenue shall be terminated with a driveway, as approved by Street
Transportation.
6. All landlocked parcels shall be replated, legally combined, or have an alternate
legal access provided (private ingress/egress easement) to a public street.
7. 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: __________ 2.29.2024
REPORT SUBMITTED BY: Dru Maynus, Abandonment Coordinator.
cc: Applicant/Representative, Scott Malm, Gust Rosenfeld, P.L.C.
Christopher DePerro, Abandonment Hearing Office
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.
9