Attachment D - VPC Summary-Recommendation - Z-43-20-4.pdf

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-67-20-4
Date of VPC Meeting 
June 7, 2021 
Request From 
C-2 CNSPD and P-1 CNSPD
Request To 
PUD CNSPD
Proposed Use 
Hotel and other commercial uses
Location 
Northwest corner of 12th Street and McDowell Road
VPC Recommendation 
Deny. 
VPC Vote 
5-4-0
 VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: 
Three speaker cards were received on this item with one in support, two in 
opposition, and all wishing to speak. 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the case as detailed in the published staff 
report including background, the proposal for the adaptive reuse of an existing 
four-story building with an expansion to the north, and the policy analysis 
completed by staff. Staff is recommending approval subject to 11 stipulations 
focusing on technical and editorial corrections, right of way and easement 
dedications, and standard stipulations pertaining to street construction, aviation, 
and archaeology. He concluded by stating that since the publication of the Staff 
Report, the Public Transit Development has identified that their Stipulation (No. 
2) is unnecessary and has requested that it be eliminated; staff is therefore
asking that any motion to approve the request also eliminate Stipulation No. 2.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION 
Mr. Larry Lazarus, of Lazarus and Silvyn P.C., introduced himself as the 
applicant’s representative and then re-introduced the project which was heard at 
the April meeting for Information Only. The development team has been working 
on this project for over a year and has completed extensive public outreach 
including multiple meetings with the Coronado Neighborhood, the Miracle Mile 
Attachment D

Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
June 7, 2021 
Page 2 of 9 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Revitalization Committee, and individuals. The proposed hotel will offer a unique 
stay for families visiting Banner, will create jobs, and will activate and repurpose 
a deteriorating and vacant office building that would otherwise be demolished 
with debris being sent to the landfill. The proposed use generates fewer traffic 
trips than that allowable under its present zoning and previous medical office use 
and reduces the parking demand.  
 
The project includes: complementary building materials and colors compatible 
with the urban environment; pedestrian linkages and outdoor spaces will be 
provided with careful attention to landscaping throughout the site; and a public 
plaza on the McDowell Road frontage. Additionally, the expansion will preserve 
the same setback from 12th Street and not exceed to 54-foot height of the 
existing building and the atrium will preserve and feature the 35-foot-tall 
sculpture. The publicly accessible plaza will be activated with art events and 
other community gatherings. 
 
To promote a graceful interface with the Coronado Neighborhood, the project 
includes the following features toward Almeria Road on the north: a 17 foot 
building setback from the north property line (67 feet from the single-family 
parcels); shaded and detached sidewalks; shade trees; no hotel rooms oriented 
to the north; a prohibition of left turning movements from the 12th Street driveway 
to eliminate cut-through traffic; and a pool located on the south side of the 
building to reduce noise on nearby residences.  
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Jewett commented that many buildings with two entrances – one oriented to the 
sidewalk and one oriented to the parking lot – eventually transition in preference 
to the parking entrance. He asked for clarity on the detail on the interior to 
determine whether this transition is likely.  
• Lazarus responded that there are pedestrian pathways on site connecting 
both the portico entrance along the western side of the building and the 
McDowell Road entrance at the southern edge of the building. The lobby 
will be accessible from both entrances. 
 
Rodriguez commented that the committee provided clear direction at the 
Information Only session that additional collaboration with the neighborhood 
should be completed, regarding architecture and the interface with the 
community. She asked what outreach occurred since the Informational Only 
session.  
• Lazarus responded that the owner and the designers met with Mr. Vigil 
and Dr. Reiner, but that consensus was not reached regarding 
architecture which is subjective. Suggestions included a rooftop pool 
which is structurally and financially infeasible in addition to being more 
intrusive on the neighborhood and for greater height which conflicts with 
the wishes of the neighborhood. The design team had been working on

Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
June 7, 2021 
Page 3 of 9 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
the project for the past year, has met with the neighborhood multiple 
times, has made multiple changes in response to these conversations 
including setbacks which has allayed many communities. At this point, 
there are only two opponents and it is not possible or appropriate to 
incorporate all their suggestions in the design. 
 
Rodriguez asked what changes have been incorporated for greater compatibility 
with the neighborhood such as elements to respect the Coronado and Miracle 
Mile Character. 
• Lazarus responded that additional architectural detailing was added to the 
building elevations, changes in the color of the building, increased building 
setback from Almeria Road, and to alleviate potential parking issues, the 
owner has initiated conversations for overflow parking to be able to utilize 
the parking lot immediately to the west. 
 
Procaccini asked if the development will preserve the block wall along the north 
property and if they would consider a higher wall to better screen automobile 
headlights.  
• Lazarus responded that a portion of the wall will be kept, that a 
substantial amount of landscaping will be added, and that no parking will 
be unscreened from Almeria Road. Procaccini asked Lazarus to verify, 
noting the site plan appears to show unscreened parking. Lazarus 
responded that unscreened parking was depicted in error.  
 
Procaccini asked staff whether trees will be required along the southside of the 
McDowell Road sidewalk in the sidewalk detachment, noting that the renderings 
do not depict trees in this location.  
• Klimek responded that the PUD utilizes the Transit Midtown Character 
Area Standards from the Walkable Urban Code with few modifications. 
Therefore, the public sidewalks will be shaded to 75 percent with trees 
planted in the detachment areas unless utility conflicts exist. 
 
Wagner stated that the project is adjacent to one of Phoenix’s largest and oldest 
historic districts which is protected by a neighborhood conservation plan. From 
the neighborhood, the project will be a monolithic, 54-foot-tall building, at 17 feet 
from the north property line. She asked Lazarus and Klimek if the project was 
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planners at the City of Phoenix for their 
input and ideas. 
• Lazarus responded that the development team did not reach out because 
the building is not historic but that the project is designed to respect the 
integrity of the neighborhood with a 67-foot building setback from the 
nearest residence across Almeria Road. Klimek added all proposed 
zoning actions are routed to the Historic Preservation Division for 
comment when they feel it is appropriate – in this case, the division did not 
provide comment. He added context that the structure is not historic and 
the homes across Almeria Road are not designated historic.

Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
June 7, 2021 
Page 4 of 9 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Acting Chair Bryck noted that at the end of the Information Only presentation in 
April, he expressed that the proposal boiled down to: setbacks from the north; 
architecture; and engagement with the neighborhood. He asked how many 
meetings were held, if the conversations were fruitful, and if meaningful change 
was produced. 
• Lazarus responded that the owner and the design team met with Dr. 
Reiner and Mr. Vigil once, that the discussions were high-level, and that 
Mr. Vigil is looking for a very particular aesthetic that the development 
team doesn’t feel is appropriate for urban Phoenix. The project has 
reduced the number of rooms to increase the project setback, has added 
landscaping, and is much less intense than what is permitted by existing 
zoning. He reiterated that, while the team feels parking is sufficient, they 
have initiated discussions with the Women’s Center to the immediate west 
regarding the potential for a parking agreement if needed in the future. 
• Terrance Plas introduced himself as the owner and explained that he had 
a telephone call with Dr. Reiner and Mr. Vigil. He indicated that he is not 
sure anyone is fully satisfied from the call but stated that he is proud of the 
architecture and that the adaptive reuse of the existing building will make 
this higher quality than simply demolishing the existing building and 
constructing new.  
 
He added that this prototype hotel is unique, much different than suburban 
models, and that the adaptive reuse and expansion are more expensive 
than demolition and building new. He reiterated several of the points made 
by Lazarus regarding the suggestions – such as going five stories, 
creating a rooftop pool, or adopting a more historic aesthetic – wouldn’t 
respect the sensitivity of the neighborhood or make sense in Central 
Phoenix. The development team had been working on this project for over 
a year with more than 8 meetings to date which produced significant 
change in the design. 
 
One of the areas discussed was the desire for architectural compatibility 
along the McDowell Road corridor; however, there is little unifying 
character remaining. While the existing building is not historic, the project 
preserves architectural details such as the scalloped block façade but 
noted that these details are not highly visible in the renderings. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
Mr. Vigil III (registered in opposition) introduced himself as a licensed architect, 
resident of the Coronado Neighborhood, and with accreditation from the 
Congress of New Urbanism. He raised that priorities and guiding principles 
contained in the Coronado Conservation Plan, the Phoenix General Plan, the 
Encanto Village Character Plan articulate the importance of certainty that 
development, redevelopment, and infrastructure supports and reinforces the

Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
June 7, 2021 
Page 5 of 9 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
character and the identity of each unique community and neighborhood. They 
state that new development should enhance the character of each neighborhood 
lifestyle, and then it should be compatible in scale design and appearance under 
the goal for historic districts. They further state that new development and infill 
development should be responsive to the historic surroundings. These themes of 
compatibility were a primary reason for the 1986 Coronado Conservation Plan. 
He expressed that the application does not meet the core criteria for a PUD 
which should create a built environment superior to convention zoning. 
 
He then shared and provided observations of a series of architectural images to 
highlight elements of good and bad design: generic corporate designs; erratic 
and random design elements; permeable storefronts featuring shops and 
pedestrian entrances; and charming design elements such as arcades, 
storefronts, and homages to regional architecture. He concluded by summarizing 
his opposition as: the project not being walkable; lacks architectural character; 
and that an 8’ wall at the intersection of 12th Street and McDowell Road ruins the 
street interface. 
• Rodriguez asked if, as a subject matter expert, he provided any designs 
to the applicant for consideration. Vigil III responded that the conversation 
was very general in nature and that he didn’t want to design their project 
but instead wanted to provide some guidance on the appropriate form of 
the building. He added that the purpose of a form-based code is to design 
buildings to respect transitional scales, such as that from single-family to 
multi-level commercial with a gradient. He added that other developers are 
looking at this case and, if approved, will pursue greater intensity. 
 
Dr. Donna Reiner (registered in opposition) introduced herself and stated that 
she hopes all members read her letter which was included in the packet. She 
stated that she met with the owner and some items were discussed but then 
never heard anything about whether changes were being made. She 
summarized her involvement in a historic survey of the Miracle Mile Corridor and 
explained that it does have character but that you must know what you are 
looking for, nothing that much of its character is 1 – 2 stories in scale. The 
corridor has architectural character including the Goldberg addition to Good Sam 
and the Bruno Clinic.  
 
She stated that as a pedestrian without a car and dependent on public 
transportation, this project is not compatible, will loom over the neighborhood at 
four-stories, and that the project does not contain adequate shade. She 
concluded by stating that other developers are waiting for this to pass with flying 
colors so they can step in with their own high-intensity proposals.  
• Wagner asked if there were any stipulations to propose that could 
ameliorate concerns for the project or if her position was in support of a 
“no-vote.” Reiner responded that she feels the project needs more work 
before a vote to approve and that it is being pushed forward too quickly.

Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
June 7, 2021 
Page 6 of 9 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
She stated that the one virtual meeting held since the April presentation 
does not constitute an earnest effort to work with the neighborhood.  
 
Tracy Kouns (registered in support) introduced herself as owning one of the 
homes directly across Almeria Road from the subject site stated that she must 
look at this building every day and it is an eyesore in its current condition. She 
stated that the proposal is not for the most beautiful building in the world but that 
she appreciates that the project will activate the site and that the design team 
has been considerate of the neighborhood by no placing the pool on the north 
side of the building or on the roof and not orienting guest windows toward her 
home. She expressed concern regarding the rendering which depicts vehicle 
parking toward Almeria Road without a screen wall.  
 
She noted that site will continue to deteriorate and become a worse detriment to 
the neighborhood and that she is hopeful the additional landscaping along 
Almeria Road will soften the height of the expanded building. She expressed 
concern over the parking supply and that overflow parking will spill out in front of 
her home. She expressed concern over the potential for northbound egress onto 
12th Street and asked if that turning movement will be prohibited and, if so, how. 
She expressed support for a mural and greenery along the north side of the 
building to soften the scale of the building.  
• Lazarus responded that all parking will be shielded by a low screen wall 
and that there will be signs to prohibit northbound egress onto 12th Street 
and, subject to approval from the Street Transportation Department, 
options for physical diverters.  
• Rodriguez noted that staff indicated that she had registered in support of 
the project but that there was hesitancy on some things and not strong 
support but, instead, a desire to see community dialogue and 
engagement. Kouns responded that there is a bit of ambivalence. She 
noted that she is more on the side of support of the project but that the two 
previous speakers made good points. She added that she is trying not to 
get hung up on the aesthetics of the building because the building already 
exists which limits options for the project. She concluded by stating that 
she wishes the building could be prettier but that’s not worth an opposition 
vote.  
 
APPLICANT RESPONSE 
 
Lazarus responded that the development team had been working on the project 
for over one year, that many meetings have been held with different 
neighborhood groups, that the team went door-to-door, and that many 
compromises have been made from these conversations. There are only two 
opponents who both have very specific visions for the project and its aesthetics; 
in the last meeting with Mr. Vigil, he was going to provide some sketches, but 
nothing was ever provided.

Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
June 7, 2021 
Page 7 of 9 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
The project balances the priorities of the neighborhood with the priorities of the 
McDowell revitalization committee. The following design decisions were 
integrated for compatibility with the neighborhood: the pool situated on the south 
side of the site; the enhanced setback; the prohibited access onto Almeria Road; 
and enhanced landscaping. The following design decisions were integrated to 
enhance the pedestrian environment along McDowell Road: shaded and 
detached sidewalks; a public lounge area accessible from McDowell Road; and 
benches, bicycle parking, and a bicycle fix-it station. 
 
At added cost but significant environmental benefit, the development team is 
proposing to adaptively reuse the building. The architecture preserves some of 
the original materials and is uniquely Phoenix which is more appropriate than the 
examples raised by the opponents. He then introduced the following team 
members to address the committee in the response: Marci Rosenberg 
(community outreach and Jeff Pawlowski (architecture). 
 
Rosenberg introduced herself as a Coronado Resident, member of the 
McDowell Road Revitalization Committee, and a consultant to the development 
team focusing on community outreach. She indicated that since Summer 2020, 
she had been knocking on doors and supporting meetings hosted by the 
development team. In two meetings with the McDowell Road Revitalization 
Committee, the group was supportive of activating this vacant building once 
again and neutral on design with a general feeling that the building is compatible 
with the corridor. To date, the committee has received many letters of support 
and there are only two opponents. Throughout the community meetings, 
architecture was not a sticking point. 
 
Pawlowski introduced himself and explained that the existing building has very 
strong design elements and the project will integrate some of these same 
elements such as the fluted block. This building pays tribute to its location and 
that it wouldn’t make sense to incorporate architecture from Santa Barbara or 
South Carolina. The development team reached out to Mr. Vigil for another 
conversation as requested, was promised sketches to articulate his expectations, 
but these were never provided.  
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE 
 
DISCUSSION:  
 
Procaccini stated that he appreciates the project overall including the inclusion 
of existing architectural elements and that it is infill development. He stated his 
desire for the following: 
• enhanced architecture on the north elevation 
• a mural oriented to the north on the north elevation or on the screen wall 
that would be responsible for artist selection

Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
June 7, 2021 
Page 8 of 9 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
• a requirement for soft lighting in the stairwells that will be visible to the 
north, noting that stairwells are often illuminated by harsh white lighting 
• that all parking facing Almeria Road should be screened by a 5’ screen 
wall 
• that tree maintenance be specified in this PUD to reflect the committee’s 
desire from the recent text amendment.  
 
Searles stated that he likes the idea for adaptive reuse and a hotel at this 
location but will be voting in opposition to the project because there have been 
differences of opinions of how much public outreach was completed and because 
the design does not align with the Coronado Neighborhood’s character. 
 
Benjamin indicated that he will be voting to support the project because it is a 
good land use, is adaptive reuse, and doesn’t have significant opposition. He 
added that he would be supportive of Procaccini’s request for a 5’ screen wall on 
the north where adjacent to parking.  
 
Wagner voiced concern over design compatibility and that the parking supply at 
0.67 spaces per room will likely produce on-street parking when the hotel is at full 
occupancy. She added that the conservation plan should carry weight because it 
took a lot of effort to create and that engagement remains relevant. 
 
Acting Chair Bryck stated that a hotel is a good use at the location but that the 
VPC had asked for additional outreach with the neighborhood to generate 
greater compatibility but that has not occurred. He added that the applicant is 
asking the community to absorb additional height and intensity and that he feels 
this trade-off warrants a more comprehensive discussion on design. 
 
MOTION:  
 
Rodriguez stated that communities with regulatory character plans such as 
Scottsdale, they get projects that are special. While Phoenix doesn’t have that 
level of regulatory requirement, this area does have a Conservation Plan which 
should have been taken seriously, but the developers’ efforts have been 
disingenuous. For example, Mr. Vigil never indicated that he expects the project 
to look like Savannah but only used those examples to highlight design elements 
in good projects. She concluded that simply holding meetings does not produce 
meaningful collaboration and that the applicant is asking the VPC to lower the 
bar beneath the expectations of the Coronado Historic Neighborhood 
Conservation Plan.  
 
Rodriguez motioned to deny the request on the basis that the project does not 
exhibit a character compatible with the spirit of the conservation plan. Searles 
seconded the motion to deny.  
 
DISCUSSION:

Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
June 7, 2021 
Page 9 of 9 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Klimek noted a vote in support of the motion is in opposition to the project. 
 
VOTE 
5-4-0; motion passed with Matthews, Rodriguez, Searles, Wagner, and Acting 
Chair Bryck in support; Benjamin, Jewett, and Procaccini in opposition; and none 
abstention. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS 
 
None.