Attachment B - Staff Report - Z-117-23-7.pdf

City of Phoenix — Formal (2024-09-04)

View PDF Meeting page

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 21148 characters
Staff Report: Z-117-23-7 
February 7, 2024 
INTRODUCTION 
Z-117-23-7 is a request to establish Historic Preservation (HP) overlay zoning for the
property located approximately 450 feet north of the northeast corner of 7th Avenue and
Van Buren Street [333-337 North 7th Avenue, a.k.a. 332-334 North 6th Avenue], known
historically as Phoenix Laundry & Dry Cleaning (a.k.a. Milum Textile Services).  Maps
and photos of the subject property are attached.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION 
Staff recommends that rezoning request Z-117-23-7 be approved but notes the property 
owners are opposed to the request.
BACKGROUND 
The subject property was first recommended eligible for historic designation in 1984 as 
part of the Historic Phoenix Commercial Properties Survey commissioned by the Junior 
League of Phoenix, Inc., and conducted by Janus Associates, Inc.  It is not currently 
listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
In October 2023, the property owners, Craig & Marilyn Milum of Milum Textile Services, 
submitted a request to demolish the subject property.  Because the property was 
commercial and over 50 years old (as well as historically eligible and in the Downtown 
Code area), the request was subject to a 30-day hold, which started on October 31, 
2023.  During the 30-day period, HP staff researched the property and confirmed it was 
eligible for HP zoning, concurring with the previous recommendation of eligibility from 
1984. 
On November 20, 2023, prior to the expiration of the 30-day hold, the HP Commission 
initiated HP zoning for the northern portion of the property.  The Commission agreed to 
exclude the southern portion of the property, in order to allow redevelopment on that 
part of the site.  This action was approved by a 4-1 vote.
Once the HP zoning was initiated, the HP Officer revisited the demolition requests 
under Section 806 of the Zoning Ordinance and denied them, since the property was 
deemed to have historic value.  A hearing was then scheduled, per Section 806.E.3 of 
the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to dispute the historic eligibility of the

Staff Report: Z-117-23-7 
February 7, 2024 
Page 2 of 8 
 
 
 
property or to establish that an economic hardship exists.  The HP Hearing Officer 
heard the case on December 8, 2023, and denied the demolition requests, finding that 
the applicant had failed to establish that the property was ineligible or that an economic 
hardship existed.
The property owners appealed the HP Hearing Officer’s decision, and the case went to 
the HP Commission on January 8, 2024, with the Commission upholding the hearing 
officer’s decision by an 8-0 vote.  The following day, the owners filed an appeal for the 
City Council to hear the demolition request; the City Council hearing is scheduled for 
February 21, 2024. 
Meanwhile, this HP zoning case is moving forward on a parallel track.  The post-
application meeting took place on January 10, 2024, and hearings and meetings before 
the HP Commission, Central City Village Planning Committee, Planning Commission, 
and City Council are scheduled for February 12, 2024, March 11, 2024, April 4, 2024, 
and May 1, 2024, respectively. 
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & HISTORY 
The subject property (as initiated for HP zoning) consists of one parcel in its entirety 
(111-41-028) and portions of two other parcels (111-41-024C and 111-41-029).  The 
gross acreage for the property is 1.31 acres.  The property owned by Milum Textile 
Services extends further to the south and includes 12 more parcels with additional 
structures slated for demolition, but the southern portion of the property was not initiated 
for HP zoning. 
 
Within the proposed HP overlay is a single building that fronts both 6th and 7th Avenues.  
It has an irregular plan and varies from one to two stories in height.  The entire building 
is painted brick, with a roof that is generally flat, although there are two vaulted sections 
with wood lamella roofs.  The primary façade, which faces 7th Avenue, is designed in 
the Streamlined Modern style, while the east façade is representative of early 20th-
century brick commercial architecture. 
 
The building was originally constructed in 1924 by A.H. & G.H. Lawrence as Phoenix 
Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company, which occupied the site since 1909.  However, the 
1924 building was almost entirely rebuilt in 1935 following a devastating fire at the site.  
Portions of the original 1924 exterior walls are extant, and the interior layout is similar to 
the original 1924 layout.  The rebuilt facilities incorporated new wood lamella roofs—a 
roughly 3,000 sq. ft. roof on the 7th Avenue side of the building, and an approximately 
10,000 sq. ft. roof on the 6th Avenue side.
Boyd Milum purchased Phoenix Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company in 1956 and founded 
Milum Textile Services, which first appeared in Phoenix city directories in 1974. Milum 
Textile Services provided textile cleaning services to medical facilities and restaurants.

Staff Report: Z-117-23-7 
February 7, 2024 
Page 3 of 8 
 
 
 
Boyd’s son, Craig Milum, took over as president of the company in 1985 and is the 
current owner of the property, along with his wife, Marilyn.  Milum Textile Services 
remained in operation until 2020. 
 
Over the years, several improvements have been made to the property.  Permit records 
show a concrete block addition in 1937, a new show window in 1939, and a brick 
addition in 1941.  Awnings and canopies were installed in 1939, 1949, and 1954.  It is 
unclear when the addition to the north was constructed or when the second vertical 
element at the front of the building was added, but they are present in a 1957 oblique 
aerial.  The inventory form photo from the 1984 Historic Phoenix Commercial Properties 
Survey shows a canopy at the front of the building, which has since been removed, and 
an infilled window at the north end of the original building, which remains filled in today. 
 
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA 
The eligibility criteria for HP overlay zoning and listing on the PHPR are set forth in 
Section 807.D of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. To qualify, a property must 
demonstrate significance in local, regional, state, or national history, architecture, 
archaeology, engineering, or culture, according to one or more of the following criteria:
A. The property is associated with the events that have made a significant 
contribution to the broad pattern of our history; 
B. The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method 
of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, 
or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may 
lack individual distinction; or 
D. The property has yielded or may likely yield information integral to the 
understanding of our prehistory or history. 
In addition to the significance requirement, the property must also be at least 50 years
old or have achieved significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional 
importance. The property must also possess sufficient integrity of location, design, 
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to convey its significance.
EVALUATION
In this case, the Phoenix Dry Cleaning & Laundry property qualifies for historic 
designation under Criteria A and C.  It is significant for its association with commercial 
development in early Phoenix and for its architectural style and method of construction.
 
It is an excellent representation of the property type “New Deal Era Industrial 
Architecture, 1933-1942” set forth in the historic context report Commerce in Phoenix,

Staff Report: Z-117-23-7
February 7, 2024
Page 4 of 8
 
 
 
1870-1942, prepared by Janus Associates, Inc. for the Arizona State Historic 
Preservation Office. The following information is taken from the historic context report:
As the economy of Phoenix slowly recovered from the Depression during 
the latter half of the 1930s, new businesses and industries related to rail 
transportation increased. 
 
While the number of new businesses rose significantly, especially at the 
end of the decade, the number of buildings constructed was comparatively 
small.  Many businesses occupied subdivided portions of earlier 
warehouses and industrial buildings.  This is particularly true of produce-
related wholesale and shipping businesses.
 
The physical characteristics of industrial architecture from this period are 
distinguished by their design, use of building materials, and location.  
Masonry included brick, hollow clay tile, and the newest material, concrete 
block. Walls were rarely stuccoed, instead painted surfaces were 
common.  Steel truss roof systems almost completely replaced the use of 
wood trusses, and sheet metal, either corrugated or crimped, was the 
dominant roof sheathing. 
 
Cast-in-place concrete continued to be used as a structural system, 
primarily as columns and beams.  Experiments with pre-cast wall panels 
were rare but can be found. 
 
The designs for the industrial architecture of the 1930s and early 1940s 
were distinctively progressive.  The buildings no longer reflected the 
eclectic period images popular in the 1920s.  Rather, their designs were 
based on the concepts of modernism that dominated the era.  Modernistic 
and Streamlined Moderne Styles were most frequently used, with simple, 
smooth walls and facades, punctuated by groupings of steel casement 
windows.  If no reference was made to the contemporary styles, the 
designs were utilitarian.  The location of warehouses and other industrial 
buildings of the period is another distinguishing characteristic.  Some 
buildings were built as infill in the already dense warehouse district 
between 5th Avenue and 5th Street.  The majority, however, were located 
on the fringes of the district and along outlying major thoroughfares.  The 
New Deal Era buildings can be found outside of the original townsite 
boundaries along Jefferson, Buchanan, and Lincoln Streets, as well as 
north and south 7th and 19th Avenues. 
 
Interestingly, the Commerce in Phoenix, 1870-1942 report lists eight examples of this 
property type, including the subject property.  However, only two of the eight examples 
remain intact today.

Staff Report: Z-117-23-7
February 7, 2024
Page 5 of 8
 
 
 
 
The Phoenix Dry Cleaning & Laundry building is also significant for its use of two 
separate lamella roofs.  The following is an overview of lamella roof construction: 
Lamella roof construction had a relatively short life.  It began with Friedrich Reinhart 
Baltasar Zollinger, who was Town Building Advisor at Merseburg, Germany from 1918 
to 1932.  It was widely adopted in both its timber and steel form, but by the 1950s it had 
effectively become history. 
 
At Merseburg in 1918 Zollinger was faced with a crisis in house building.  No houses 
had been built during World War I, and the area saw the arrival of thousands of new 
laborers for the new ammonia works and the coal mines.  In 1922 Zollinger planned a 
new town area and founded the Merseburg Building Company, which constructed 1,250 
residences.  The residences were built using the “Zollbau Lammellen Dach” (timber 
lamella), for which on October 3, 1921, he had applied for a patent in Germany. 
 
This construction method, as stated by the American Institute of Timber Construction, 
comprises: 
 
A roof frame consisting of a series of intersecting skewed arches, made 
up of relatively short members, called lamellas, fastened together at an 
angle so that each is intersected by two similar adjacent members at its 
midpoint, forming a network of interlocking diamonds.  This network of 
lamellas forms a structure of mutually braced and stiffened units, arching 
over the structure between supports; with the sheathing it forms a 
diaphragm for resistance to vertical and lateral loads. 
 
Lamella roofs proved beneficial for their ability to span great distances without requiring 
obstructive supports in the form of columns or trusses.  They also allowed for the 
advantageous use of short lengths of wood in their construction.  Because the system 
relied on a great number of small elements, generally mass-produced, rather than a few 
large ones, assembly could be accomplished through simple hand-and-tool techniques, 
such as bolting. 
 
In November 1924, German engineer Hugo Junkers applied for his own lamella patent.  
Junkers’ patent was for lamella roof construction utilizing steel elements arranged in a 
network of triangles rather than diamonds.  A year later, Junkers also applied for a 
patent in England. 
 
In 1925, the technology was introduced to the United States and, as in Europe, it was 
governed by a proprietary system.  Holding the United States patent was the Lamella 
Roof Syndicate in New York City.  Two firms sharing the name Roof Structures, Inc., 
though unrelated, were major lamella promoters located in New York City and St. Louis,

Staff Report: Z-117-23-7
February 7, 2024
Page 6 of 8
 
 
 
while Summerbell Roof Structures, of Los Angeles, and Timber Structures, Inc., of 
Portland, Oregon, were the primary distributors on the West Coast. 
 
Between 1925 and 1942, lamella roofs appeared in many different types of buildings, 
including hangars, factories, garages, ice rinks, sports arenas, and market halls.  The 
system would become widely used in Europe, America, and elsewhere for arched roofs. 
One of the most remarkable buildings in the United States constructed with a lamella 
roof was the St. Louis Arena, which opened in 1929.  The architect for the project was 
Gustav R. Kiewit, with the Boaz-Kiel Construction Company as general contractor.  
Kiewit’s design called for a lamella roof upheld by 20 cantilevered steel trusses. The 
lamella design consisted of Douglas fir ribs, 3.75 inches thick, 17.5 inches wide, and 15 
feet long, fitted together diagonally giving the appearance of fish scales.  The huge 
structure was completed in just over a year.  At 476 feet long and 276 feet wide, it was, 
next to Madison Square Garden, the largest indoor entertainment space in the country.  
The arena was demolished in 1999. 
 
The Ralph’s Grocery Company chain began using lamella construction as early as 1929 
and would continue to incorporate that construction method into their new buildings in 
southern California through at least the early 1940s.  The Los Angeles Times reported 
on the advantageous nature of Lamella construction in a 1939 article describing Ralph’s 
newest market: 
 
One of the most unusual architectural features in the new Ralph’s market, 
and one that has proven its worth in other Ralph’s outlets, is the Lamella 
trussless roof which eliminates both view-obstructing columns and 
unsightly trusses.  Its high-arched character makes for greater clearance 
and imparts an air of roominess to the interior.  Secret of this novel roof 
construction is the diamond-shaped bracing formed of short lengths of 
lumber so arranged as to brace each other against forces from any 
direction.  These roofs are said to be unusually resistant to wind and 
earthquake stresses.  Nearly all Ralph’s markets incorporate this type of 
roof construction. 
 
A 1931 article appearing in Architect & Engineer stated that hundreds of timber-framed 
lamella roofs had already been built in the United States.  It further stated that this type 
of construction was highly economical, offering “a remarkably low fire hazard, damaged 
members being easily replaced.” 
 
Steel-framed lamella construction was also utilized in the United States.  The first 
structure to incorporate a steel-framed lamella roof on the West Coast was a warehouse 
for the Coca-Cola Bottling Works in Los Angeles, debuting just five years after timber-
framed lamella was first used in the area.  While lamella construction utilizing steel had

Staff Report: Z-117-23-7 
February 7, 2024 
Page 7 of 8 
 
 
 
advantages over timber, namely in fireproofing, the steel shortage brought about by 
World War II increasingly stimulated the use of lamella construction in wood.
However, in the years following World War II, the wooden lamella technology was no 
longer utilized.  A more versatile technology was glued laminated timber, which 
according to architectural historian Andreas Jordahl Rhude, “may have helped to ease 
lamella into the extinct genre.”  And improving upon steel-framed lamella construction 
was the geodesic dome, patented by R. Buckminster Fuller in 1947. 
 
Constructed in 1935, the lamella roofs at the Phoenix Laundry & Dry Cleaning building 
were among the earliest in Arizona.  They predate the Cattle Barns (1936) and 
Agricultural Building (1938) at the Arizona State Fairgrounds, and the gymnasium at 
Chandler High School (1939), which also utilize lamella roofs and are the only such 
structures remaining in Maricopa County.  According to the Arizona State Historic 
Preservation Office, only one other similar building is known to exist in Arizona (in 
Kingman), making these structures significant at the state level. 
Despite the aforementioned changes, the property retains a relatively high degree of 
historic integrity, still resembling its 1930s appearance. It remains sufficiently intact to 
convey both its historical and architectural significance.
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION 
Section 807.E states that, when applying the evaluation criteria in Section 807.D, the 
boundaries of a historic district should be drawn as carefully as possible to ensure that: 
1. The district contains documented historic, architectural, archaeological, or natural 
resources; 
2. The district boundaries coincide with documented historic boundaries such as 
early roadways, canals, subdivision plats or property lines; 
3. Other district boundaries coincide with logical physical or manmade features and 
reflect recognized neighborhood or area boundaries; and 
4. Other non-historic resources or vacant land is included where necessary to 
create appropriate boundaries to assist in meeting the criteria in Section 807.D. 
The proposed HP zoning boundary encompasses 1.31 gross acres.  As mentioned 
previously, only the northern portion with the rebuilt 1935 building has been included in 
the proposed boundary, with the southern portion excluded to allow redevelopment on 
that part of the site.  The proposed boundary contains the documented historic building
and follows parcel lines and street monument lines as much as possible.  It also 
includes the adjacent portion of the right way, as is customary in rezoning cases.

Staff Report: Z-117-23-7 
February 7, 2024 
Page 8 of 8 
 
 
 
OWNER OPPOSITION
The property owners have not signed an Ownership Authorization Form or Waiver of 
Claims under Proposition 207 for this rezoning case and have stated their opposition to 
the proposed HP zoning, as it would delay their demolition of the property by an 
additional year.  They have further stated that they plan to file a claim for loss of value 
under Proposition 207 if the HP zoning is approved. 
 
CONCLUSION
The rezoning request Z-117-23-7 to establish HP overlay zoning for the subject property 
should be approved for the following reasons:
1. The property meets the significance, age, and integrity requirements for HP 
overlay zoning set forth in Section 807.D of the Zoning Ordinance; and 
2. The proposed boundaries meet the eligibility criteria outlined in Section 807.E. 
However, the owners’ opposition to the case and their stated intention to file a 
Proposition 207 claim if it is approved may have financial impact to the City. 
Writer 
K. Weight
2/7/24 
Team Leader 
H. Ruter 
Attachments: 
Sketch Maps (2 pages) 
Aerial Photo (1 page) 
Historic Property Inventory Form (2 pages) 
Historic Newspaper Articles and Photos (4 pages) 
Site Photos (2 pages)

Z-12-12
Z-1-10
Z-92-17
Z-51-22
*
*
DTC-
Van Buren
HP
C-3
C-3 CMOD 
ACOD
DTC-Van Buren
C-3 HP*
TAYLOR ST
VAN BUREN ST
POLK ST
VAN BUREN ST
MC DOWELL RD
JEFFERSON ST
BUCKEYE RD
LOWER BUCKEYE RD
I - 10
I - 17
CENTRAL CITY VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7
I
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-117-23
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
1.31 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
*   Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
DTC-Van Buren
DTC-Van Buren HP
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
285
285
*   UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
N/A
N/A
City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Commission
DATE:
12/20/2023
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 11-27
ZONING MAP
F-8
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: DTC-Van Buren ( 1.31 a.c.)
TO:
DTC-Van Buren HP ( 1.31 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-117-23.mxd
Z-117-23
0.03
0
0.03
0.015
Miles

I

Phoenix Laundry & Dry Cleaning
333-337 North 7th Avenue (a.k.a. 332-334 North 6th Avenue) 
 
Proposed Historic Preservation (HP) Zoning Overlay shown in purple

View from 7th Avenue, 10/20/2023 
 
View from 6th Avenue, 10/20/2023

Interior view, 10/20/2023 
Interior view, 10/20/2023