Phoenix Development News (3)

[PHX31]

Did the RFP indicate that the small ADEQ building on site must remain? That would suck. Also, that is a HUGE billboard on site. I'd imagine those two little issues may cause some big design problems (or financial problems as the billboard goes - how does one rid a site of a billboard like that? I'd imagine it's pretty tricky).

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by PHX31

Did the RFP indicate that the small ADEQ building on site must remain? That would suck. Also, that is a HUGE billboard on site. I'd imagine those two little issues may cause some big design problems (or financial problems as the billboard goes - how does one rid a site of a billboard like that? I'd imagine it's pretty tricky).

"The City currently leases a 1,512 SF pad at the north end of the Site to the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). This pad includes a small structure that
is considered to be personal property of the tenant. The lease is included on the RFP
website under “Background Documents” as ADEQ Lease 99942. The City will
transfer title to the successful proposer subject to the lease."

Here are the background documents:

https://www.phoenix.gov/financesite/...se%2099942.pdf

https://www.phoenix.gov/financesite/...20-%20ADEQ.pdf

I can't find any mention of the billboard.

[biggus diggus]

Please note that the RFP you're reading is for the improved bus loading area, not for the vacant lot on the SWC of Central and Camelback. The vacant lot is privately held and the city has no right to issue a RFP for it, that lot is where the billboard is located.

In response to the question about a billboard, it's up to the land owner (lessor) to work within the scope of the lease and come to an agreement to remove the tower. If a lease is operating on a month to month (usually between the land owner and communications company) then it can be terminated with whatever verbiage is in the lease, usually 90-180 days notice. Often times the communication company owns the tower and base and it's written into the lease that they are responsible for all construction and demolition costs.

If the lease is long-term then the land owner and developer will just attempt to compensate the lessee for the lost rent revenue from not having the tower there.

[exit2lef]

^I just realized that after more carefully reading the documents. I assume / hope that the privately owned land is also for sale since the bus area has little value by itself.

[PHX31]

Interesting info on the billboard... let's hope it's a short term (month to month) lease.

Another billboard I'd like to see go (among many others) is the one blocking half of the building that houses Corduroy. That thing is an eye sore and totally blocks what would be a relatively unique (for that location) old brick building. There are many others, though. Funny how at some point the City put the hammer down on Signage (looking at old historical images and the now-beautiful signs that advertised all sorts of things for every shop), yet also probably got cheap and desperate for money as time went on and started to allow these behemoth billboards to pop up.

The RFP mentioned that part of the lot's appeal is due to the ability to assemble nearby parcels of land, so perhaps that corner parcel is for sale too.

[combusean]

I have a hard time believing the RFP'd parcel would be of any use to anybody except the owners of the adjoining vacant lot, so maybe we'll see a realistic proposal to finally hit that corner. And this is Phoenix, so the developer usually comes before the RFP anyways. The RFP is a formality that invites others to the table, but I bet they already have the favorite picked out.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by combusean

I have a hard time believing the RFP'd parcel would be of any use to anybody except the owners of the adjoining vacant lot, so maybe we'll see a realistic proposal to finally hit that corner. And this is Phoenix, so the developer usually comes before the RFP anyways. The RFP is a formality that invites others to the table, but I bet they already have the favorite picked out.

I agree. This RFP doesn't make any sense to me. Am I missing something? What can any developer do with a 28k square foot long, narrow, irregularly shaped lot?

[dtnphx]

The narrow parcel that they're speaking of (27,353 SF) is a City of Phoenix parcel for bus use (think mini central station), not the remaining privately owned parcels for development. This would have no impact as to what is built on the private land. All of the entities on the full triangle parcel (which totals 1.65 acres) is owned by Cornerstone at Camelback LLC. That's a significant parcel to build a big building. The BMO building across the street is on a slightly larger lot (1.8 acres) for reference.

[combusean]

The lot is completely useless by itself for any sort of development except perhaps some oddly shaped townhomes that no developer would seriously pursue right there.

My theory is that Cornerstone at Camelback or somebody looking to buy Cornerstone and the bus station approached Phoenix for the station privately and now Phoenix is just going through the motions to sell it through the official channels. This sort of thing happens over and over again.

The last developer even tried to make an attempt to incorporate that lot and its bus uses into a multi tower proposal but was partially rebuked because the zoning proposal wasn't vetted by Valley Metro or Phoenix's public transit agency.

[biggus diggus]

Yes, the truth is you would need to assemble the bus lot along with the adjacent parcels (if I recall correctly there are four of them) on the corner in order to make something happen. It's not feasible to try to build multi-family on that 28k sq ft lot. By the time you get done with site improvements, driveway, and landscaping there isn't room for more than one building.

The parcels on the corner have been available on/off for several years and I've seen good offers be declined but they may be trying to take advantage of the current wave and banks are still giving money away. If someone is indeed buying the parcels and are making it contingent on developing the bus lot, they're doing it pretty quietly because I have not heard a peep.

[Red Robot]

As I understand it, the former bus station parcel must be sold as mandated by conditions put upon the Federal funds used to purchase/develop the land originally into the terminal. Since it is no longer in use for that purpose, the asset must be sold.

So in theory it's only a coincidence that the land is for sale and that it happens to only be useful to the neighboring property owners. That being said, combusean's theory wouldn't surprise me either.

When the planning department was discussing the future of development in uptown at a public meeting, they seemed to believe that the previously proposed project from 2009ish was still going to happen. I think the project had 3 towers, up to 250' already entitled, but the developers were trying to get a variance at the time for 400' and there was a lot of pushback from the community. With the economy at the time the whole thing was never really viable and it just fizzled out. I've only learned bits and pieces about that original proposal, but I'm sure many of you will remember it.

[muertecaza]

City Council set to vote on Derby GPLET at next meeting.

https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerksit...6%20Formal.pdf

I don't know enough to know if this is typical at all, but there are interesting provisions in the proposed contract that would use Derby as sort of a test case for having a lower than standard parking ratio (211 units to 120 parking spaces).

[biggus diggus]

It's also zero lot line, it's going to kill the patio view at Angel's Trumpet.

[PHXFlyer11]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

It's also zero lot line, it's going to kill the patio view at Angel's Trumpet.

Maybe ATAH can install a video wall where the view used to be that has a live feed of the skyline

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

City Council set to vote on Derby GPLET at next meeting.

https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerksit...6%20Formal.pdf

I don't know enough to know if this is typical at all, but there are interesting provisions in the proposed contract that would use Derby as sort of a test case for having a lower than standard parking ratio (211 units to 120 parking spaces).

Great news on the parking. About eight years ago, the City Council overreacted in response to complaints from residents of the Orpheum Lofts who didn't realize that part of urban living is unbundled parking. When their original parking arrangement went awry, the council foolishly decided to require parking for every dwelling unit. I'm glad there's now some willingness to rethink that.

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

It's also zero lot line, it's going to kill the patio view at Angel's Trumpet.

I'm beginning to wonder how much longer Angels Trumpet will be around. It's popular and successful, but the owners have complained about parking meters and are now fighting against the proposed business improvement district. They don't seem to have the same vision as some of their neighbors and since they own their own land, it might make sense for them to sell it at some point.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

They don't seem to have the same vision as some of their neighbors and since they own their own land, it might make sense for them to sell it at some point.

I actually disagree, they have the same view as a lot of the neighbors just not the ones who are spearheading the business district which are the guys in the Evans Churchill arts district up on 4th, 5th, and 6th streets. Everything they are asking for directly benefits that group but at the same time hinders the other businesses in the area, will many people want to go to ATAH, Cobra, or any of the other bars in the area on a two-hour parking meter time allotment?

There's a larger number of business owners against the BID than you'd think, it's not just Matt. I won't name other names but there are many people who, if given the opportunity to vote, would have. There was no opportunity to vote "yes" or "no" on this and that's all they want is to pump the brakes and go back to a y/n vote. As it was done you could vote against it but anyone who didn't vote was counted as a yes, they only counted how many people were in opposition so it looked like an overwhelming number were not opposed.

I have no horse in the race here but my colleagues, friends, and acquaintances who also own businesses in the area are not all as happy and excited as you think.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

I actually disagree, they have the same view as a lot of the neighbors just not the ones who are spearheading the business district which are the guys in the Evans Churchill arts district up on 4th, 5th, and 6th streets. Everything they are asking for directly benefits that group but at the same time hinders the other businesses in the area, will many people want to go to ATAH, Cobra, or any of the other bars in the area on a two-hour parking meter time allotment?

There's a larger number of business owners against the BID than you'd think, it's not just Matt. I won't name other names but there are many people who, if given the opportunity to vote, would have. There was no opportunity to vote "yes" or "no" on this and that's all they want is to pump the brakes and go back to a y/n vote. As it was done you could vote against it but anyone who didn't vote was counted as a yes, they only counted how many people were in opposition so it looked like an overwhelming number were not opposed.

I have no horse in the race here but my colleagues, friends, and acquaintances who also own businesses in the area are not all as happy and excited as you think.

I'm not advocating for or against the BID. I don't really know how I'd feel if I were a property owner in the area. Nevertheless, I just don't see Angels Trumpet lasting all that long when the owners don't seem to like a lot of what's happening around them and when the land they own (as opposed to many neighboring businesses who lease) is potentially valuable. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd certainly like to be since I enjoy the beer and food there.

Parking meter timing is a separate issue unrelated to the BID. I'd like to see all meters north of Fillmore have four-hour or maybe even six-hour time limits in the evening. In the Downtown core, cars parked that long should go in garages, but there are fewer options of that sort in the Roosevelt Row / Evans Churchill area.

Also, please notice I said, "some of their neighbors." I make no claims about who is in the majority on the BID dispute.

[combusean]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

I'm beginning to wonder how much longer Angels Trumpet will be around. It's popular and successful, but the owners have complained about parking meters and are now fighting against the proposed business improvement district. They don't seem to have the same vision as some of their neighbors and since they own their own land, it might make sense for them to sell it at some point.

I'd be opposed to having a 50% increase in property taxes in an already competitive environment.

And if I were a restaurateur, I'd want people hanging around drinking (it's a bar after all) and not having people worry about leaving their car overnight or something.

I know Phoenix is trying to urbanize and the realization that parking is not free is painful, but plopping down meters in a ramshackle, incomplete environment like Roosevelt Row on top of a massive property tax shock is the last thing the area needs to grow. If there were a lot fewer vacant lots, I could potentially see the need for meters and improvement districts.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

I'm not advocating for or against the BID. I don't really know how I'd feel if I were a property owner in the area. Nevertheless, I just don't see Angels Trumpet lasting all that long when the owners don't seem to like a lot of what's happening around them and when the land they own (as opposed to many neighboring businesses who lease) is potentially valuable. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd certainly like to be since I enjoy the beer and food there.

Parking meter timing is a separate issue unrelated to the BID. I'd like to see all meters north of Fillmore have four-hour or maybe even six-hour time limits in the evening. In the Downtown core, cars parked that long should go in garages, but there are fewer options of that sort in the Roosevelt Row / Evans Churchill area.

Also, please notice I said, "some of their neighbors." I make no claims about who is in the majority on the BID dispute.

I'm not attempting to argue with you, just stating mostly for others that the BID is not what everyone wants.

Ten years ago we were all astonished when the city told us how much parking we had to include in buildings and we argued there is too much parking and it was unnecessary. Now, some years later, we are all frustrated that there isn't enough parking. I find it a bit funny.

[nickw252]

The Phoenix Business Journal picked up on the Central and Camelback RFP

The city of Phoenix is looking to sell an undeveloped land parcel at the southwest corner of Camelback Road and Central Avenue next to the Metro light rail station.

The city has issued a request for proposals for the vacant land. The RFP pegs a minimum land sale price of $788,800.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...p-land-at.html