Attachment C - VPC Summary - GPA-AL-1-20-5

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
GPA-AL-1-20-5 
Date of VPC Meeting 
Request From 
Request 
Location 
VPC Recommendation 
VPC Vote 
September 22, 2020 
PUD (258.36 acres), P-2  (4.99 acres), R1-6 (8.54 
acres), R1-6 (Approved R-3) (1.04 acres), R-3 (11.13 
acres), R-3A (0.42 acres), R-4 (1.42 acres), C-1 (0.45 
acres), C-2  (3.85 acres), and C-3 (5.87 acres) 
A major amendment to the Grand Canyon University 
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add additional 
property to the PUD and modify the PUD standards 
An area generally bounded by 35th Avenue to I-17, and 
Missouri Avenue to Camelback Road; plus a property 
approximately 130 feet east of the southeast corner of 
27th Avenue and Camelback Road; and a property at 
the southwest corner of 29th Avenue and Camelback 
Road 
Approve as recommended by staff 
10-2-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: 
5 virtual speaker cards were received, 5 wishing to speak, with 4 in support and 1 in 
opposition. 
At this time, Ammon joined the meeting bringing the quorum to 13 members (10 being 
required for a quorum).  
Chair McCabe, staff, explained that Items 4 and 5 on the agenda both pertain to the 
proposed expansion of the Grand Canyon University (GCU) Campus and that, to avoid 
repetition, the staff and applicant presentations will cover both items, that public 
comments and applicant responses will cover both items, and that the items will 
conclude with two separate recommendations. 
Attachment C

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Klimek, staff, explained that the proposed expansion of GCU requires two separation 
actions – first, an amendment to the Phoenix General Plan Land Use Map which 
provides high-level policy guidance on the types of land use envisioned on a parcel-by-
parcel basis throughout the corporate limits and second, an amendment to the existing 
Planned Unit Development that regulates development throughout the campus. With 
few exceptions, zoning must be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map; as 
such, Item 4 proposes that all property being added to the GCU PUD be designed as 
Public / Quasi Public prior to the request for zoning. 
 
GCU created a PUD to govern the development and regulations of its campus in 2010 
with approximately 100 acres. The original PUD has been amended three times since 
the original approval and the current request (Item 5) is for approximately 296 acres of 
land generally bounded by Interstate-17, 35th Avenue, Camelback Road, and Missouri 
Avenue with few exceptions.  
 
Regarding the request for a General Plan Amendment (Item 4), 31.06 acres are being 
requested to change from assorted commercial and residential designations to Public / 
Quasi-Public. The proposed request supports the Core Values of the Phoenix General 
Plan related to education and training and support for entrepreneurship and emerging 
enterprises; as such, staff is recommending approval for Item 4.  
 
Regarding the request to amend the Planned Unit Development (Item 5), the proposed 
amendment preserves many elements from previous amendments such as 
development standards, height, and design guidelines. Notable changes include the 
following: 
 
• Permitted Uses and Land Use Categories. The list of permitted uses has been 
refined and expanded to allow for additional flexibility on the GCU Campus. Two 
new use categories have been added to preserve some of the existing 
entitlements for the properties zoned C-2 and C-3 that are being added to the 
PUD as a means of not creating non-conforming uses. 
• Height Incentive Area. The narrative now includes a height incentive area that, 
subject to use restrictions in addition to design and site development standards, 
would permit a maximum height of 135 feet. Located at the northwest corner of 
Interstate 17 and Camelback Road, the incentive area would promote the 
creation of a campus gateway and community-oriented asset.  
• Shade and Detached Sidewalks. The narrative requires new development along 
sections of Missouri Avenue, Camelback Road, 35th Avenue, and 27th Avenue 
to create shaded and detached sidewalks. Additionally, the narrative includes a 
regulatory shade exhibit depicting 13,000 square feet of architectural shade. 
• Signage. The narrative includes provisions to allow the addition of one ground 
level monument sign on the site of the Kingdom Hall, the addition of banner signs 
founded on the palm trees along Camelback Road, and one wall mounted digital 
display board along the east elevation of a new building located on the northwest 
corner of Camelback Road and the 31st Avenue alignment.  
 
Through shade, detached sidewalks, support for alternative transportation, and the 
creation of attractive streetscapes, the request to amend the PUD advances the

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
purpose and intent of the Tree and Shade Master Plan, the Complete Streets 
Guidelines, and the “27th Avenue To Do List.” Through the creation of a mixed-use 
campus and the addition of housing options, the request to amend the PUD advances 
the purpose and intent of the Freeway Specific Plan and the HousingPHX Plan.  
 
The request to amend the PUD would consolidate and redevelop several smaller 
parcels into one larger development, be compatible and appropriately buffered from the 
surrounding area through landscape and building setbacks and would bring additional 
educational opportunities to area residents. As such, staff is recommending approval 
subject to stipulations with the following being of note:  
• Add a statement regarding future consideration of the Enhanced C-3 Use 
Category in the next PUD to adjust for potential changes coming to the 27th 
Avenue Corridor.  
• Eliminate language that would allow banners to be mounted on palm trees 
• Additional criteria for the east facing digital display board 
• Requiring a Traffic Impact Study or Statement 
 
APPLICANT PRESENTATION 
 
Taylor Earl, of Earl & Curley representing GCU, provided an overview of the history of 
the PUD, GCU’s positive impact on the immediate community and larger economy, and 
the content of the Planned Unit Development. GCU employs more than 6,400 
employees, is one of the largest employers in the west valley, and creates 
approximately $1.1B in economic activity annually. The GCU PUD, first adopted in 
2010, had served the exact intent of the Planned Unit Development Zoning District; it 
has provided the flexibility for GCU to develop, expand, and adapt in a manner that has 
allowed the campus to thrive by allowing for custom development standard and use 
permissions.  
 
GCU has invested $1.5B into educational infrastructure single 2008 and its campus is 
one of the most diverse communities in the nation. Tuition rates have been frozen since 
12 years with traditional students paying an average of $8,700 per year.  
 
Notable additions include the addition of shade standards including a mix of vegetative 
and architectural shade throughout the campus, the addition of a bicycle program, 
upgrades to three bus pads to current standards, and detached sidewalks along 27th 
Avenue to aide in the enhancement of the corridor as envisioned by community leaders 
such as Jeff Spellman. 
 
The PUD has helped GCU being recognized as having the 6th Best College Dorms in 
American (of 1,384) and as having the 19th Best College Campus in America (of 1,417). 
The campus also provides multiple community benefits to the area and the region 
including free tutoring for high school students through the learning lounge, the largest 
Habitat for Humanity partnership in the nation, and the GCU Arena and Event Center. 
 
GCU is asking for a few amendments to the staff recommendation related to the 
following: 
 
• Palm Tree Banners. Whereas staff is recommending no palm-mounted banners, 
GCU is asking the Village to reconsider the aesthetic with the condition that the

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
banners can be mounted on every third tree with approximately 90 – 100 feet of 
spacing between banners. Under the current PUD, pole mounted banners would 
be permitted but GCU does not like the aesthetic and feels it would detract from 
the historic streetscape which has mature palm trees. Staff had assembled a 
series of conditions should the Village elect to recommend the palm aesthetic 
and GCU is generally agreeable to those conditions.  
• Digital Display Board. The staff stipulation adds some conditions to the location 
and operation of the digital display board proposed at the northwest corner of the 
31st Avenue alignment and Camelback Road. GCU is asking the Village to 
reconsider the language in this stipulation to allow for additional promotion of 
community-oriented events. The sign would face due-east to protect the 
neighbors to the south which is already reflected in the staff stipulations. The 
current stipulation references Section 705.C.13 which contains a requirement 
that the sign would need to be spaced s minimum of 100’ of flashing warning 
signs for crosswalks, train crossings, fire stations, and etc.); the proposed 
location would be within 100’ of a crosswalk and GCU is therefore asking for 
relief from that provision in addition to removing the condition that a Use Permit 
be required and reducing the minimum separation from the corner of the building 
from 5 feet to 2 feet. 
• Temporary Tents. GCU is asking the Village to allow the addition of temporary 
tent structures by right on the GCU Campus. Without this addition, GCU would 
need to request a permit every time they want to hold a wedding or special event 
on their 300 acre campus; this requirement only recently came to light.  
 
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS: 
 
Adams stated that the request makes sense but asked how the neighborhoods and 
businesses has responded to the proposal and how the proposal impacts police and fire 
capacity and response times. Earl responded that the PUD contains development 
standards such as setbacks and stepbacks to protect adjacent property values.  He 
noted that they have held two neighborhood meetings through this process and that 
generally the response has been positive with a few attendees inquiring whether GCU 
would like to purchase their properties. He explained that rarely do neighbors attend a 
meeting in supportive or neutral on a topic. GCU has campus police officers and has a 
long-partnership with the Phoenix Police Department and both expand proportionate to 
growth. 
 
Becker inquired regarding plans to expand and whether GCU is actively pursuing 
property acquisition. Earl responded that it may be appropriate to describe efforts as 
being interested in property acquisition but not necessarily being in active pursuit; they 
do have a real estate broker to evaluate inquiries and facilitate discussions, but the 
process is not pro-active at this time. 
 
Williams drew the distinction between prevention and pro-active policing with the 
former focusing on community-investment compared to the latter focusing on 
incarceration. Earl explained that the Habitat for Humanity partnership is the largest in 
the nation raising $3.5M and renovating more than 300 homes; in that relationship, 
Habitat for Humanity provides the expertise and GCU provides the volunteers and the 
money. GCU provides empowerment through education including the learning lounge 
which provides free tutoring. These efforts are in addition to the on-campus police, 
partnership with the Phoenix Police Department, and CPTED principles in place on the

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
campus; Earl noted that these programs and partnerships have been very successful 
and have been developed in collaboration with neighborhood leaders through the 
Violence Impact Project. Williams stated that GCU should seek to reduce its reliance 
on pro-active policing and its partnership with the Phoenix Police Department.  
 
Keyser stated that he was involved in curb-appeal projects in the area where they 
would identify run-down and vacant properties, often owned by elderly residents, and 
clean up those properties. The program then evolved to include a partnership with the 
Neighborhood Services Department and the Phoenix Police Department where the PD 
would contact the owners and offer their assistance. He stated that this partnership, 
which may still be operating or may have been subsumed by the Habitat for Humanity 
partnership, is a great example of crime-prevention and the “broken windows theory of 
policing.”  
 
He then read a letter from a concerned resident expressing concern over the shallow 
setbacks along the Little Canyon Trail; he echoed the sentiments of the letter and 
expressed further concern over the 0 foot setback along Little Canyon Park. He asked 
Earl if GCU would be willing to delay to allow for additional study of these topics. Earl 
responded that GCU is on a tight schedule and cannot delay but that there are no plans 
for the redevelopment of existing buildings along the Little Canyon Trail. 
 
Sanchez asked Earl to be more specific about the properties being added to the PUD 
south of Camelback Road. Are there plans to develop these properties? Are there plans 
to acquire more properties south of Camelback Road? She also asked for more detail 
on the Traffic Impact Study. Earl responded that there are no current plans for the sites, 
that there are no active plans to acquire more property, and that the traffic impact study 
will examine the traffic generated by the campus and provide recommendations for what 
traffic investments should be required.  
 
Sanchez noted that the intersection of 31st Avenue and Camelback Road is dangerous. 
She asked if any additional neighborhood meetings were held and if any highlight rose 
from the discussion. Earl responded that an additional neighborhood meeting was held 
and that there were two attendees including one from the District 5 Council Office with 
an assortment of questions and no major concerns. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
Daniel Valenzuela (support) introduced himself as a former City Council member but 
stated that he is in attendance as a citizen and expressed his support for GCU and the 
GCU PUD. GCU is an asset to the community and creates $1B in investment annually 
for the community. Additionally, GCU has been a major participant in the Violence 
Impact Project and many other partnerships that have helped to strengthen their 
immediate area and the city. The investments made by GCU go beyond bricks and 
mortar – they are investing in the youth, the people, and the neighborhood and he then 
asked for the committee to vote in support.  
 
Karina Recamier (support) introduced herself and spoke about her experience as a 
Students Inspiring Students (SIS) Scholarship Recipient and as a resident of the GCU 
Area. She grew up in Maryvale but attended Alhambra High School. GCU and its 
learning lounge does a lot to support the youth in the region and the immediate area.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
She works as a lead in the learning lounge and the SIS program focuses on community 
support and volunteerism.  
 
Nicholas Monte (support) introduced himself as a GCU Alumni, resident, and 
homeowner in the area. He explained that all GCU does is overwhelmingly positive 
including its support for education, safety, and employment. About 8 years ago, the area 
was not safe but over the past 4 years the area has become much safer due in large 
part to GCU and its partnership with the Phoenix Police Department and helps support 
small businesses and strong neighborhoods.  
 
Brian Holman (support) submitted a virtual speaker card but was unavailable or could 
not be found in the virtual meeting.  
 
Gail Palmer (opposed) stated that if there were two meetings, he was only made aware 
of one. He thanked Jak Keyser for his instrumental role in making Little Canyon Trail 
become a reality. He expressed concern over GCU’s unwillingness to abide by 
agreements and zoning stipulations including one which restricted access through a cul-
de-sac to pedestrians only. He stated that many people in the neighborhood are not 
happy with GCU because they control the city and are allowed to do whatever they 
wish. He then expressed concern over a diagram that depicted a share of the trail being 
included in the zoning case. 
 
APPLICANT RESPONSE 
 
Earl thanked the speakers for their contributions. Regarding the ownership of the Little 
Canyon Trail, a zoning case is always measured to the center of adjacent right of way 
so the issue raised by Mr. Palmer is a zoning technicality. With any major investment, 
he noted that there will always be disagreements but asked the committee to vote in 
support of the requests because of the great things that GCU has done in the past for 
the neighborhood, the city, and the region. 
 
MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE. 
 
Sanchez asked Earl to confirm whether GCU is still interested in acquiring the Little 
Canyon Trail and the Little Canyon Park. Earl responded that GCU and the City had 
completed some due diligence to explore opportunities but those stalled and GCU 
currently has no interest in acquiring those properties. Security remains a major concern 
related to the Little Canyon Trail which is open all night and GCU would continue to 
explore nighttime closures to enhance the security of their campus. Over the years, 
GCU has invested in improving the quality of the trail including tree plantings and the 
creation of convenient trail parking. 
 
Sanchez stated that she had asked Earl for police data from the VIP Coalition at the 
Information Only Presentation but had not received anything to date. Earl responded 
that GCU prepared a letter to members of the committee that was sent by staff several 
days prior. He offered to send the letter directly to Sanchez. 
 
Sanchez introduced the story raised by Ochoa-Martinez at the Information Only 
Presentation where after the multifamily complex where she lived was acquired by 
GCU, she was given only 15 days to find alternative housing and to relocate. She asked

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
the members of the committee to vote no on the proposed revisions to the staff 
recommendation – no on banners, no on electronic signage, and no on tents.  
Williams expressed concern over the impact of GCU on the surrounding area which is 
inhabited by people with socioeconomic disadvantages and minorities; he noted that 
“pro-active” policing in such an area inevitable produces higher incarceration rates of 
minorities.  
--- From Item 5 (Z-3-D-10-5) ---  Jones stated that GCU is a major asset within the City 
of Phoenix, has had a profoundly positive impact on the community and West 
Camelback area, and that many of the issues raised tonight were both minor and 
fixable. Everyone in this area is well aware of GCU, their plans for continued expansion, 
and knows how to contact their leadership and legal representation. Regarding the 
digital display board, the sign will face due east so there will not be light impacts on 
residents south of Camelback Road. Regarding the banners, it will be more impactful to 
install them on the palm trees than on light poles where the message tends to disappear 
into the street-scene. Regarding the temporary tents, it is not reasonable for GCU to 
complete a 6 week process for every small event they would like to hold on their 
campus. 
MOTION: 
Jones made a motion to approve the request per the staff recommendation. LeBlanc 
seconded the motion. 
DISCUSSION 
VOTE: 10-2-0, motion passes with members McCabe, Jones, Ender, Krietor, Fitzgerald, 
Smith, Adams, Becker, LeBlanc, and in favor; Williams, Sanchez and in dissent; and 
none in abstention. 
During this vote, Keyser was unavailable but still in attendance.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
Z-3-D-10-5 was heard together with its companion General Plan Amendment (GPA-AL-
1-20-5); however, separate actions were made.