Attachment C - HPC Minutes - Z-117-23-7.pdf

Page 1 of 19 
PHOENIX HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 
Final Meeting Minutes 
Date: 
February 12, 2024 
Time: 
4:30 p.m. 
Location: 
Hybrid Meeting: In-person at City Council Chambers & Virtual via Webex 
Commission Members Present 
Staff Present 
Dan Garcia, Chair 
Helana Ruter 
Dan Klocke 
Kevin Weight 
Brenda Thomson 
Desiree Aranda 
Tricia Amato, Vice Chair (virtual) 
Cletus Montoya 
Christina Noble (virtual) 
Emma Collins 
Greta Rayle (virtual) 
Bridget Collins 
Keely Varvel Hartsell (virtual) 
Paul Li 
Jodey Elsner (virtual) 
Crystal Carrancho (virtual) 
Maura Jackson (virtual) 
Commission Members Absent 
Staff Absent 
Taz Khatri 
1. 
Call meeting to order 
Chair Garcia verified that a quorum was established and called the 
meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. 
Dan Garcia,  
HP Commission 
Chair 
2. 
Introduction of Commission Members and Staff 
The Commission members and HP staff made their introductions. 
HP Commission & 
Staff 
3. 
Review of meeting minutes from the monthly meeting held on 
January 8, 2024. 
Action Requested: Approval of minutes 
Chair Garcia asked the Commission for questions or comments about 
the draft minutes from the January 8th meeting. None were posed.  
Chair Garcia then asked the Commission for a motion on the draft 
minutes from the January 8th monthly meeting.  
Commissioner Thomson made a motion to approve the minutes as 
submitted for the January 8, 2024, HP Commission monthly meeting. 
Commissioner Klocke seconded the motion. 
The Commission voted, as follows: 
HP Commission 
ATTACHMENT C

Page 6 of 19 
 
as well as prioritization of projects, cost estimates, and possible grant 
funding opportunity. 
 
Vice Chair Amato thanked Mr. Weight. She said that she was the real 
estate agent for the previous property owners and that they had ideas 
for various community uses of the site. However, due to the pandemic 
and other issues, the previous owners needed to sell the property. She 
mentioned that this property was special to her and that she was very 
happy that Mr. Fabian has plans to rehabilitate the property and restore 
it to a much more usable state.  
 
Ms. Ruter mentioned that the property owner, Mr. Fabian, was attending 
the meeting via phone and he was available for questions from the 
Commission. 
 
Chair Garcia asked the Commission for any questions for Mr. Fabian. 
None were posed. 
 
Chair Garcia verified there were no further discussions or comments, 
and he asked the Commission for a motion.  
 
Vice Chair Amato made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation for 
HP overlay zoning (Application Number Z-116-23-8) for Yaun Ah Gim 
Groceries at 1002 South 4th Avenue. 
 
Commissioner Thomson seconded the motion.  
 
The Commission voted, as follows: 
Chair Garcia – Yes 
Vice Chair Amato – Yes 
Commissioner Klocke – Yes 
Commissioner Noble – Yes 
Commissioner Rayle – Yes 
Commissioner Thomson – Yes 
Commissioner Varvel Hartsell – Yes 
 
Approved 7 – 0. 
 
 
6. 
Public Hearing for Application No. Z-117-23-7, Phoenix Laundry & 
Dry Cleaning (Milum Textile Services) at 333-337 North 7th Avenue, 
a.k.a. 332-334 North 6th Avenue. 
 
Action Requested: Recommendation on Historic Preservation (HP) 
Overlay Zoning 
 
Chair Garcia introduced this agenda item and said that this property has 
come before the HP Commission at the two previous meetings. He said 
that this would be the third case for this property to be presented to the 
HP Commission. He then invited Kevin Weight to give a summary of the 
reason for this case today.  
Kevin Weight,  
HP Staff

Page 7 of 19 
 
 
Mr. Weight said that Case Z-117-23-7 was a request to establish 
Historic Preservation (HP) overlay zoning for the property located at 
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). He said that staff was recommending that rezoning request Z-
117-23-7 be approved but notes the property owners are opposed to the 
request. He then briefly reviewed the following background information, 
which was also shared at the previous Commission meetings: 
• 
Location:  333-337 North 7th Avenue (a.k.a. 332-334 North 6th 
Avenue) 
• 
Property Owner:  Milum Textile Services 
• 
Zoning:  DTC-Van Buren (Downtown Code - Van Buren 
Character Area) with HP overlay pending 
• 
Recommended eligible in 1984 in Historic Phoenix Commercial 
Properties Survey 
• 
In October 2023, owners submitted request to demolish property 
• 
30-day hold began on October 31, 2023 
• 
HP Commission formally initiated HP zoning on November 20, 
2023 
• 
Z-117-23-7 filed by HP staff on December 29, 2023 
 
Mr. Weight reviewed the concurrent timelines of the Demolition Hearing 
and the HP Zoning Hearing, as follows: 
• 
Demolition hearing timeline: 
o 10/31/2023: 30-day demolition hold began 
o 11/20/2023: HP zoning initiated by HP Commission 
o 11/21/2023: Demolition reviewed by HP Officer under Section 
806 (Decision: Denied) 
o 11/21/2023: Demolition hearing scheduled per 806.E.3 
o 12/08/2023: HP Hearing Officer hearing (Decision: Denied) 
o 01/08/2024: HP Commission hearing 
• 
HP Zoning hearing timeline: 
o 10/31/2023: 30-day demolition hold began 
o 11/20/2023: HP zoning initiated by HP Commission 
o 02/12/2024: HP Commission hearing 
o 03/11/2024: HP Central City VPC meeting 
o 04/04/2024: Planning Commission meeting 
o 05/01/2024: City Council hearing 
 
Mr. Weight once again displayed photos and reiterated the property 
description and its history. Then he restated the HP overlay zoning 
criteria, as follows: 
1. Age (at least 50 years old or exceptionally significant) 
2. Integrity (location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, 
feeling, association) 
3. Significance: 
A. Associated with events or patterns of events significant in 
Phoenix history 
B. Associated with persons significant in Phoenix history

Page 8 of 19 
 
C. Represents a type, period, or method of construction; 
represents the work of a master; or has high artistic values 
D. Has yielded or has the potential to yield information about 
Phoenix history or prehistory 
 
Mr. Weight restated the findings from the evaluation of the property, as 
follows: 
• 
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 
• 
Excellent representation of the property type “New Deal Era 
Industrial Architecture, 1933-1942” set forth in the historic 
context report Commerce in Phoenix,1870-1942, prepared by 
Janus Associates, Inc. for the Arizona State Historic Preservation 
Office. 
o This report lists eight examples of this property type, 
including the subject property. However, only two of the 
eight examples remain intact today 
• 
Phoenix Dry Cleaning & Laundry building is also significant for its 
use of two separate lamella roofs 
o 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 
o 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 
 
Mr. Weight restated that the proposed boundary encompasses 1.31 
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 of way, as is customary 
in rezoning cases.  
 
Mr. Weight said that the property owners have not signed an Ownership 
Authorization Form or Waiver of Claims under Proposition 207 for this 
rezoning case and have started their opposition to the proposed HP 
zoning, as it would delay their demolition of the property by an additional

Page 9 of 19 
 
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.  
 
In conclusion, Mr. Weight stated that staff was recommending approval 
of the rezoning request Z-117-23-7 to establish HP overlay zoning for 
the subject property, per 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. 
 
Chair Garcia thanked Mr. Weight. Next, he verified that the property 
owners were in attendance. He invited Mr. and Mrs. Milum to present 
their comments to the Commission. 
 
Mrs. Milum presented photos as examples of damage to the roof. She 
said that they think that mold has gotten into the wood of the roof. 
However, there has not been any investigation of the roof structure for 
the presence of mold, lead, or asbestos. She expressed her concerns 
regarding possible collapse of roof due to damage and possible public 
safety concerns. Therefore, she does not see a viable future for the 
roofs. She said that she has sent reports to Ms. Ruter in the HP Office 
as well as to City Council. 
 
Chair Garcia thanked Mrs. Milum for sharing the photos and comments. 
He said that there would be more time for their rebuttal after the 
Commission discussion and public comments. 
 
Next, Chair Garcia asked the Commission for any questions for staff or 
property owners. None were posed.  
 
Chair Garcia mentioned that the HP Commission had received several 
letters of support for the HP overlay zoning. He read the following 
excerpt from one of the letters that was submitted by Erika Ross 
Lindsay, of the Phoenix Art Deco Society: 
“It seems common for individuals to drive by buildings and 
landmarks without questioning their origins. And this is in part 
because the increasing number of historic properties demolitions. 
Saving these properties saves the connection to our past and 
cultivates a sense of pride, understanding, and community in the 
city, something that Phoenix should value. Without this connection 
to our past and what defines our culture as Phoenicians, a city 
cannot really flourish. Once these buildings are demolished, they 
will be gone forever and with it some of our history.”

Page 10 of 19 
 
Chair Garcia said that he shared the above excerpt as a counterpoint 
to demolition. 
 
Next, Chair Garcia said that one request was submitted by Julia 
Taggart for public comment on this item. He invited Ms. Taggart to the 
podium for comment. 
 
Ms. Taggart said that she is a Board Member of the Sunnyslope 
Historical Society as well as a member of the Phoenix Art Deco 
Society. She agreed with the comments in the excerpt of the letter that 
Chair Garcia had shared. She feels that an HP overlay needs to be 
placed on the subject property, especially since the city has already 
lost a lot of art deco buildings, such as the Fox Theater. She said that 
it is important to save the Art Deco building on the subject property. 
She also believes it is as important as it is plausible to rehabilitate and 
save the roof structures and these buildings. She urged the 
Commission to approve the HP overlay zoning to save this part of 
Phoenix history for present and future generations. 
 
Chair Garcia verified that there was another request from Roger 
Brevoort for public comment on this item. He then invited Mr. Brevoort to 
the podium to share his comments.  
 
Mr. Brevoort said he contributed to the 1983 survey of the subject 
property. He mentioned that at that time, there was a discrepancy on 
whether the building was commercial or industrial and how to define 
those two types of structures. He said that if the survey was expanded, 
at that time, the property would have been nominated. He agrees that 
the property still meets the eligibility criteria. He mentioned that the 
lamella roofs are only components, they are not the sum total of the 
property. He thinks that there could be viable options for adaptive reuse 
for the north portion of the property, especially applying private sector 
funding and Federal Reinvestment Tax Credits.  
 
Chair Garcia verified that there were no further public comments on this 
item. He then invited Mr. and Mrs. Milum for their rebuttal. 
 
Mrs. Milum said that this property has been vacant since 2019. She also 
said that nine out of ten developers have declined purchasing the 
property due to Historic Preservation requirements. She said that they 
have spent years trying to sell the property and it continues to be a 
burden on them to pay for maintenance and taxes on the property. She 
said that this property was an industrial laundry that exposed the 
structure to hard chemicals for many years. She reiterated that they 
have done their due diligence and they just want to move on with their 
lives. She said that they would be open to selling the property to the city 
of Phoenix. Otherwise, they want the property to be demolished. 
 
Chair Garcia asked the Commission for any further discussion or 
questions for staff or property owners.

Page 11 of 19 
 
Commissioner Thomson referenced the report mentioned by Mrs. Milum 
and asked staff what the report was and has staff reviewed it. 
 
Ms. Ruter said that it was a thesis-style document on the study of 
lamella roof structures, which was submitted by Mrs. Milum to the HP 
Office. It was not included in the rezoning case. However, portions of the 
report would be included in the economic hardship case going before 
City Council. 
 
Commissioner Thomson then asked staff for clarification on the earlier 
comments that no one had examined the roof structures for integrity or 
possibility of collapse. 
 
Ms. Ruter responded that she was not aware of the property owners 
contracting any structural engineers to assess the property. She also 
stated that the city had not contracted any structural engineers. 
 
Chair Garcia verified there were no further questions. He then closed the 
floor to public comments. 
 
Chair Garcia commented on the challenge set before the HP 
Commission, where there are claims against the structural integrity 
versus the historical integrity of the property. He stated that the HP 
Commission previously voted to initiate the HP overlay on the subject 
property, and an approval today would complete that process. He also 
referenced the possibility of a Proposition 207 claim and the implications 
upon the city if the HP overlay zoning would be approved today. He then 
asked the commission for any further discussions. 
 
Commissioner Thomson felt that a critical piece of information was still 
missing since there was no structural assessment provided as part of 
the overall consideration of the integrity and value of the property. 
 
Chair Garcia said that there have been previous cases where there have 
been compelling claims of integrity. He said that without having 
documentation demonstrating structural deficiencies, it was challenging 
for the HP Commission to decide based only on the available 
information. 
 
Vice Chair Amato said that if the property owners had an assessment 
done on the property and provided that report to the HP Commission, 
then the Commission would have had an opportunity to review the report 
prior to deciding. However, she suggested that the Commission look to 
the previous agenda item, pertaining to the request for HP overlay 
zoning on the Yaun Ah Gim Grocery Store, which is in much worse 
condition than the Phoenix Laundry & Dry Cleaning buildings. She 
stressed that the condition of a building does not lessen the historic 
significance of a property. She said that it was important for the 
Commission to consider the significance of a property and see its value 
to the community regardless of its condition.

Page 12 of 19 
 
Commissioner Noble agreed with Vice Chair Amato’s comments. She 
also referenced the report on the previous agenda item that the burden 
of proof is on the property owners. She understands that the subject 
property owners have expressed the financial burdens on them, and that 
they have opted out of providing the proof. She said that since that 
information is not available, then the focus of the HP Commission should 
be on whether the subject property has historic significance and value. 
She also mentioned that this case would move on to other commissions 
to consider other factors. 
 
Commissioner Klocke addressed Mr. and Mrs. Milum and said that he 
recognized that this situation is painful for them as property owners. He 
said that he previously had gone through a similar situation, and he 
understands how difficult this is to go through. He also said that the HP 
Commission has been very conservative in terms of pushing these kinds 
of cases forward. In fact, there have been cases that were not pushed 
forward when the public wanted those outcomes. He stated that since 
Proposition 207 was established nearly 20 years ago, there has only 
been one claim filed against the city. He said that this Commission does 
not take this situation lightly. He believes that the Phoenix Laundry & 
Dry Cleaning buildings are very special because of their history in the 
community. He said that they are very valuable and worthy of saving 
and said that he would be voting in support of the HP overlay zoning.  
 
Chair Garcia said he appreciated Commissioner Klocke’s comments. He 
also mentioned that this situation exposes pain points in historic 
preservation where there is a strong desire by the city and citizens in the 
community to preserve buildings that are significant without having to 
pay to preserve the buildings. He said that it is important to support 
preservation of significant buildings and opportunities for funding 
preservation efforts.  
 
Next, Chair Garcia asked the Commission for a motion on this item. 
 
Prior to making a motion, Vice Chair Amato expressed her appreciation 
to Commissioner Klocke and Chair Garcia for their comments. She 
agreed that it was a difficult situation. 
 
Vice Chair Amato made a motion that the HP Commission approve HP 
overlay zoning on Application No. Z-117-23-7 for Phoenix Laundry & Dry 
Cleaning (Milum Textile Services) at 333-337 North 7th Avenue, a.k.a. 
332-334 North 6th Avenue.  
 
Commissioner Klocke seconded the motion.  
 
The Commission voted, as follows: 
Chair Garcia – Yes 
Vice Chair Amato – Yes 
Commissioner Klocke – Yes 
Commissioner Noble – Yes 
Commissioner Rayle – Yes

Page 13 of 19 
 
Commissioner Thomson – Yes 
Commissioner Varvel Hartsell – Yes 
 
Approved 7 – 0. 
 
 
7. 
CLG Review of the National Register Nomination for Dr. Bertram 
Snyder Residence (8122 North 10th Avenue). 
 
Action Requested: Recommendation to the Historic Sites Review 
Committee 
 
Chair Garcia invited Crystal Carrancho to present this item. 
 
Ms. Carrancho briefly reviewed the staff report on the CLG Review of 
the National Register Nomination for the Dr. Bertram Snyder Residence, 
located at 8122 North 10th Street, as follows: 
• 
MAR 2023: Subject property was listed on the Phoenix Historic 
Property Register 
• 
JAN 2024: Phoenix HP Office received National Register of 
Historic Places (NHRP) draft nomination from SHPO 
o Courtney Widmer, current owner, requested NRHP 
nomination for subject property; Nomination was 
prepared by Vincent Murray 
• 
FEB 12, 2024: HP Commission scheduled to review subject draft 
nomination pursuant to Phoenix CLG Agreement and forward its 
recommendation to HSRC for review at next meeting 
• 
MAR 8, 2024: HSRC scheduled to review subject draft 
nomination 
 
Ms. Carrancho said that staff had reviewed the draft nomination and 
found that the documentation is generally accurate and complete. She 
mentioned that staff had noted minor edits on the draft nomination form. 
 
In conclusion, Ms. Carrancho stated that staff was requesting the HP 
Commission to recommend that the draft NRHP Nomination be 
forwarded to the HSRC for approval subject to the noted edits on the 
nomination form. 
 
Chair Garcia thanked Ms. Carrancho for the report. He then asked the 
Commission for questions or comments on this item. None were posed. 
 
Chair Garcia verified that there were no requests for public comment.  
 
Then Chair Garcia verified that the Commission had no further 
discussions or comments, and he asked the Commission for a motion.  
 
Commissioner Klocke made a motion that the HP Commission 
recommend to the Historic Sites Review Committee, the CLG review of 
Crystal Carrancho, 
HP Staff