Attachment C - VPC Summary-Info Only - Z-3-D-10-5.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
13303 characters
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary Z-3-D-10-5 INFORMATION ONLY Date of VPC Meeting May 19, 2020 Request From PUD (Planned Unit Development) (259.36 acres), P-2 (Parking) (4.99 acres), R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) (8.22 acres), R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) (Approved R-3)(1.04 acres), R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (9.99 acres), R3-A (Multifamily Residence District) (0.42 acres), R-4 (Multifamily Residence District) (1.42 acres), C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) (0.45 acres), C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) (3.85 acres), and C-3 (General Commercial) (4.34 acres) Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development (294.08 acres) Proposed Use Grand Canyon University Location The area generally bounded by 35th Avenue to 1-17, and Missouri Ave to Camelback Road and 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 VPC DISCUSSION: No speaker card were received. Taylor Earl, of Earl & Curley LLC, and representing Grand Canyon University (GCU), introduced the request for an amendment to GCU’s existing PUD. The PUD was established in 2010 and has been modified three times to expand the campus and clean up the regulatory language; this amendment is for the same purposes. He provided an overview of GCU, its academic merits, its expansion as a campus and educational institution, its role in helping to enhance its neighborhood, and its five-point plan. The five-point plan focuses on 1) job creation, 2) business creation, 3) safe neighborhoods, 4) neighborhood improvement, and 5) neighborhood education. GCU employs 7,500 individuals, has started 10 new businesses which employ 400 individuals, has been a partner with the City of Phoenix Police Department for eight years in a $1.6M crime reduction program, has partnered with Habitat for Humanity through financial and volunteer support, and created programs to engage and educate Attachment C Z-10-3-D-5 INFORMATION ONLY Page 2 of 5 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 students from nearby neighborhoods. In addition to major economic development gains created by campus initiatives and growth, programs have also produced a decrease in violent crime of 12 percent. He then provided an overview of the proposed changes including the addition of approximately 36 acres of land and adding and adjusting permitted uses for additional clarity and flexibility. Another change is the clarification of development standards generally pertaining to landscaping, setbacks and stepbacks, signage, and the Little Canyon Trail. Charles Jones voiced his support for GCU as an institution and asked questions on the following topics: • Is GCU is actively acquiring property near its campus? Taylor Earl responded that GCU is actively interested in acquisition. • Does GCU owns all property or if their purchase agreements are contingent upon zoning? Taylor Earl responded that all property is currently owned or will be owned by the time the request gets to City Council. • Is there a downside to amending the PUD? Taylor Earl responded that the purpose of the PUD is to allow GCU to create a cohesive, beautiful, and functional campus but also to allow for a better interface with its community. The PUD has been in place since 2010 and the amendment is a small change to the overall governing document. Jamaar Williams sought clarification on the $1.6M crime reduction partnership, how it works, and what GCU’s financial share has been. Taylor Earl responded that the partnership is approximately a 50/50 cost share and has provided financial support to the Phoenix Police Department for administrative issues such as overtime pay for additional officer patrols and he indicated that campus growth has cleaned up crime- ridden apartment complexes in the area. Jamaar Williams challenged GCU to focus their resources to come up with a better way of providing community safety rather than traditional incarceration-based policing which is costly and unfairly targets the disadvantaged. An alternative approach would benefit GCU, the City of Phoenix, and the State of Arizona both financially and socially. Elizabeth Sanchez asked a series of questions on the following topics: • Whether GCU can provide crime statistics. She noted that homelessness in high and that crime prevention initiatives should be focused on safety rather than policing for the sake of policing. She then asked for the geographic focus of crime reduction programs. Taylor Earl responded that he would be happy to work with GCU staff to provide crime statistics and he indicated that their geographic focus is predominantly on the core of the campus from Missouri to Camelback and from 35th Avenue to Interstate 17, however, that they regularly extend north and south along 27th Avenue. • Whether GCU facilities such as meeting rooms and gyms are regularly open to neighborhood students and individuals noting the scarcity of such facilities in the area. Taylor Earl responded that GCU regularly opens their campus to tournaments, camps, and other events but is generally closed to the public to provide an exceptional experience for its students. Z-10-3-D-5 INFORMATION ONLY Page 3 of 5 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 • Regarding the reference to the Dark Sky Ordinance, whether GCU has received complaints regarding the bright monument sign oriented to Camelback Road which is a nuisance and intrusion into the adjacent neighborhoods. She asked whether additional signs are proposed and how the issue will be avoided moving forward. Taylor Earl responded that the proposed amendment incorporates the Phoenix Dark Sky Ordinance for the first time and that the proposed revision includes only one additional large sign that will be located on a new building and oriented east, to the interior of the campus. • Regarding safety concerns at the entrance to 31st Avenue noting traffic congestion and pedestrian safety issues including a recent student fatality at the intersection. Taylor Earl responded that the entrance will remain open, but that access north into campus will continue to be limited by a gated fire lane that extends north from the vehicular access. The PUD provides flexibility to potentially reroute the Little Canyon Trail at this location to reduce points of potential vehicular conflict subject to approval by the Street Transportation Department. • Whether there are any plans to acquire Little Canyon Park? Taylor Earl responded that there are no active plans. A proposal was considered years ago, but the dialogue with the community stalled and GCU moved onto other priorities. • Whether there are still homeowners and non-GCU residents within the core campus area generally described as Missouri to Camelback and 35th Avenue to Interstate 17 and, if so, how many? Taylor Earl responded that there are still non-GCU residents within the area but that he does not have an exact number. Of the roughly 400 acres contained in the geographic boundary described by Ms. Sanchez, approximately 300 acres are owned by GCU. • Noting previous conflicts between GCU and adjacent residents, she asked if any issues remain? Taylor Earl responded that they have held one community meeting for this zoning case and that one additional meeting will be held. Many residents have asked if GCU would like to purchase their properties. A long- standing issue had been on-street parking which has generally been resolved through additional parking on-campus and no parking zones on adjacent streets with painted curbs. Tanairi Ochoa-Martinez stated that she had lived in an apartment building that had been “cleaned-up by GCU” and that neither the landlord nor GCU expressed compassion toward the refugees and immigrants who were displaced. Further, the property taxes in the area have nearly doubled. When facing temporary unemployment, she noted that she had been denied for GCU and Habitat for Humanity housing assistance. While supportive of education, it is hard to view this entirely as a positive with the history of displacement which is likely to continue. She stated that she wants GCU to be thoughtful and compassionate regarding gentrification and to be more open to community dialogue. Additionally, through displacement caused by the expansion of GCU, the school district lost 500 students causing a school to close. She requested additional information regarding crime statistics and echoed the concerns expressed by Jamaar Williams. Chairman McCabe stated that despite the obvious value of GCU as an institution that its growth has created multiple unintended consequences which warrant follow-up. Z-10-3-D-5 INFORMATION ONLY Page 4 of 5 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 Jak Keyser echoed the comment about the importance of considering unintended consequences and asked a series of questions on the following topics: • Noting that the Little Canyon Trail has been designated historic and is a community asset, he asked whether the Little Canyon Trail is located within the PUD? Taylor Earl responded that, yes, while the Little Canyon Trail is physically located with the PUD it continues to exist through easements. Jak Keyser asked if the Little Canyon Trail is closed at night because previous discussions had highlighted the importance of keeping the trail open to serve second and third shift workers in the area. Taylor Earl responded that the trail is open 24 / 7. • Whether the ownership will produce property tax deficits which will negatively impact school budgets? Taylor Earl responded that there are two entities that own property on the campus including a small portion owned by a for-profit and a not-for-profit which owns the remainder of the campus. He stated that not-for- profits are exempt from property taxes in the state of Arizona but noted that the development activity generated by GCU creates other tax revenues. Jak Keyser responded that those other taxes are not distributed to school districts in the same way that property taxes are allocated. Further, he noted that there is some resistance in the community to this proposal as a way to protect property tax revenues. Chairman McCabe asked staff if any member of the public expressed a desire to speak on the agenda item in advance of the meeting. Nick Klimek responded that no group or individual expressed their desire to speak in advance of the meeting as required by the virtual meeting policy. Elizabeth Perez expressed a concern regarding the virtual process noting that those individuals in attendance at the meeting should be allowed to speak. Taylor Earl stated that the PUD process requires two neighborhood meetings and one had been completed prior to this meeting, that this item is being brought before the committee for discussion and “information only,” but no action at this time. Jak Keyser expressed concern with the virtual meeting format noting that requiring advance notice from speakers is a likely violation of Open Meeting Law which requires spontaneous and bi-directional communication with the public. Further, he asked whether the committee would be informed of the next neighborhood meeting as they had requested previously. Chairman McCabe asked staff to elaborate upon the process moving forward and whether neighborhood meetings are virtual or in-person. Nick Klimek responded that the virtual meeting format and the policy requiring advance notice for individuals wishing to speak on an agenda item has been approved by legal staff. A PUD requires additional public input including two neighborhood meetings instead of one and two VPC meetings instead of one. Moving forward, the applicant will make revisions to their submittal based on staff and VPC comments, host another neighborhood meeting, and then return to the committee for a recommendation. At the next committee meeting in approximately two months, the committee will have a staff report and recommendation. Taylor Earl invited any member of the public in attendance or interested in the case to contact him directly by phone (602.265.0094) and indicated that speaks some Spanish but it better in English. Z-10-3-D-5 INFORMATION ONLY Page 5 of 5 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 Chairman McCabe stated that there is no need for individuals with concerns or comments to wait until the next committee meeting or neighborhood meeting to speak-up noting they should contact the village planner and/or Taylor Earl to begin dialogue as soon as possible.