New Orleans Historic District Landmarks Commission.

So with that, the staff is recommending it for nomination for study, for landmark nomination. Okay. Is there any public comment, or do either one of you wish to address the commission? No. The only thing I didn't hear there is his association, where he lived on Whitney Plantation. There's a book about that as well, which is – there's a lot of information there that people can look up. He had a great life, and my friend Curtis owns the Dew Drop, which is around the corner, and I'm actually trying to get some of his memorabilia and stuff actually sent there as well. That's wonderful. I would like to say that, like my cousin Joe, I was born on Whitney Plantation in the 50s. Cousin Joe, he lived there, and he worked there, as well as five generations of my people. I'm a direct descendant of Whitney Plantation out there on the River Road. And I've done a lot of research on Cousin Joe. His name was really Pleasant. That's his first name, Pleasant Joseph. My mother's maiden name was Joseph, Vanita Joseph. So I understand that he did a lot of jazz and was affiliated with many great musicians of that time. So based upon those facts, I would like for you all to consider making his home on Washington Avenue, the house he lived there with his wife Irene, for many years. To me, I just don't understand what would the problem be, because this city is known for the jazz history. And along with Muddy Waters and many other great musicians, he was a part of all of that. So I'm advocating that his house be known for those matters. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. That's an incredible history, and I think I appreciate the staff for also their staff report, putting that together. And like many musicians in New Orleans, often they go outside of New Orleans to appreciate their talents. And so we really—that's just incredible. But yeah, thank you. Is there any additional public comment on this application? Yes. Apologies. Johnson, there are a lot of cards up here today, so if I miss anyone, just let me know. Susan Johnson, Historic New Orleans Neighborhoods, LLC, 2822 LaPage Street. I'm not paid to be here. Please support the HDLC landmark nomination of 2315 Washington Avenue. Cousin Joe Joseph, or Pleasant Joseph, was a blues musician who was better appreciated in Europe than in the United States. This fact, this disparity in audience appeal, was noted when Mr. Joseph was in his heyday in the 1970s. On top of this, his autobiography was published in this country by one of the big academic publishers, University of Chicago Press, co-written by a visiting professor at Tulane University. This book, with the title Cousin Joe, Blues from New Orleans, fixes Pleasant Joseph in the New Orleans musical tradition. Mr. Joseph spent much of his life in Europe, but his career began in New Orleans with performances at the famous door in the 1930s in the French Quarter. And then he performed in New Orleans in the last decade of his life, too, when he lived on Washington Avenue. Finally, you'll see from the written public comments that musician Dr. Michael White supports this landmark nomination through Basin Street Records, his recording label. Please, let's show some local appreciation for Pleasant Joseph. Please nominate his last abode at 2315 Washington Avenue for HDLC landmarking. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, I know this is the first of three landmark nominations we're looking at today, so just as a reminder, it's one motion and two seconds. Is that correct for all three? Oh, yes, absolutely. We have one more public comment. Please state your name and address for the record. I am Sandra Stokes. I'm chair of advocacy for Louisiana Landmark Society, 1440 Moss Street. I'm not paid to be here. I'd like to support the nomination. The Landmark Society would like to support the nomination. We don't honor our musicians enough, and we're losing the houses at a fast pace. And these lovely ladies make a great case for it. So thank you very much. Thank you. OK, commissioners, do we have? I'll move to approve the nomination of 2315 Washington Avenue. Thank you very much. Commissioner Hardin, do we have a second? Commissioner Clark, and Commissioner Lupin second. So it moves forward. Congratulations, and thank you both for being here and your diligence and working with the staff on this application. Thank you very much. All right, moving forward to the next item, Landmark nomination of 3809 Clematis Street Is the applicant present for this nomination? I'll let the staff go ahead and make their presentation on this one. 3809 to 3811 Clematis Street is a non-contributing rated structure in the Edgewood Park National Register Historic District, located on lots 14 and 14A of Square 22 in Municipal District D. The building places Clematis Street is backed by Iris Street and is bound by Lavender Street and Jonquil Street. The building was purchased by Allen Tucson in 1973 and became the site of C Saint Recording Studio. In 1973, Allen Tucson and Marshall Sehorne founded the C Saint Recording Studio in a nondescript warehouse in the 3809 Clematis Street. Just a year later, the studio produced Dr. John's Desitively Bonnaroo and The Meter's Rejuvenation, along with Patti LaBelle's Nightbird, which featured the single Lady Marmalade, which hit number one on the R&B and pop charts. In 1975, Paul McCartney recorded the Wings album Venus and Mars at the studio. Other national and international industry heavy hitters, such as Paul Simon, Rod Stewart, and Elvis Costello performed, along with New Orleans locals Professor Longhair, the Neville Brothers, and the Wild Chapatulas. Manny Fresh got his start producing when he interned in the studio in the late 1980s and told Gambit Magazine all the early cash money record stuff. I mixed it and recorded it because of C Saint.

The sheer number of musicians who recorded at C Saint Recording Studio is staggering, and its influence on music, both nationally and internationally, cannot be overstated. The Songwriters Hall of Fame called Alan Toussaint one of the most influential figures in New Orleans R&B. In 2009, Toussaint was awarded the Grammy Trustee's Award for Lifetime Contributions to the Recording Industry in a Non-Performing Capacity. Toussaint's sons have been covered by the Rolling Stones, Linda Rodstadt, the Judds, the Devo, Bonnie Raitt, Robert Plant, the OJs, and the Grateful Dead, among others. And Toussaint has the distinction of being the second most sampled artist in the history of hip hop. Toussaint was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1998. The Historic District Landmarks Commission evaluates the significance of a structure based on the four criteria as established by Section 8422 of the City Code, any one of which can make a building eligible for nomination. The staff finds that 3809 Climatis meets the criteria based on two of the criteria, and that it exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural, political, economic, or social history of the nation, state, and community for its place in musical history, and is identified with an important person in musical history. As such, the staff recommends the building be nominated for study as a landmark. Thank you. Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley, TRC. I have one speaker's card. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley with the Preservation Resource Center at 923 Chapitula Street. The PRC would like to thank Yvette Jett for the Landmark Nomination Report, as well as the nominator for the former C Saint Recording Studio at 3809 Climatis Street. Founded by Alan Toussaint and Marshall Seahorn, the music produced in this building had a remarkable influence nationally and internationally, certainly meeting the HDLC's criteria for significance. Buildings that are architecturally modest but culturally significant can be easily overlooked. For this reason, documenting the history of this recording studio and bringing attention to its cultural significance is a great example of the value a commission like this can serve. We appreciate it, and we fully support this nomination. And we were so glad to see the recommendation from the HDLC staff switch for the last nomination, as well, so that that can move forward to be studied for a landmark status, as well. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any additional comments on this application? OK, no additional comments. Commissioners? No, I just have one question. Is there any other landmark connected with Alan Toussaint? Or is this the first and only? I believe this is it. I would move to approve. Wonderful. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second to that? Commissioner Irvin, Commissioner Carson, thank you. And so with that, this will move forward for study as a landmark. I also just want to say I'm kind of amazed this is the first one we've had for Alan Toussaint. I'm very excited. We have kind of a musical cast of nominations today. But that's incredible. So thank you very much, and thanks to the staff and to the nominator for this one, as well. OK, next application, landmark nomination of 3100 Calhoun Street. This is Ted's Frost Stop Diner. Is the applicant for this present? That is, I believe, that is you. And I believe we have a number of folks from the development team, it looks like, as well. Just state your name. I'm Sandra Stokes with Louisiana Landmark Society. Thank you. And then to the development team, I guess you're just at the ready. OK, great. We'll go ahead and have the presentation and hear comments following. Thank you. 3100 Calhoun Street is located on lot C of square 137 in Municipal District A, located in the Carrollton Local and National Register Historic District. The building sits at the intersection of South Murrow Street and Calhoun Street. It is bound by South Claiborne Avenue and is backed by South Taunte Street. The building was built in 1955 by Ted Sternberg, who eventually went on to own seven Frost Stop locations in Louisiana and Arkansas. The iconic neon-lit root beer mug signage, designed and patented by T.W. Gayness in 1958, graced the building until 2005, when Hurricane Katrina toppled the mug. It sat upside down for years, ultimately becoming a symbol of the city's renewal when it was righted and placed back atop its fold next to the freshly renovated building in 2012. Ian McNulty wrote, long a symbol of post-Katrina defiance, the refurbished sign at Vintage Burger Joint candles the past and points to the future. The drive-in diner is emblematic of 20th century Americana, an architectural typology formed by car culture, fast food, and commercialism. As architectural historian Alan Ness wrote in his 2004 treatise on the drive-in, no modern building unified function, advertising, and urban presence more effectively. These drive-ins express contemporary function and structure in startling new forms. The drive-in was shaped to the radius and use of a car. The concept was invented in the 1920s, the first being the Pig Stand in Dallas, Texas in 1921. The first Frost Stop opened just five years later in Springfield, Ohio. T.W. Gayness opened the South's first Frost Top in 1954 in Kenner, patenting his revolving root beer mug signage in 1958. Copyrighted designs were sold to other Frost Top operations across the US. In 1959, Gayness became president of Frost Top Products Incorporated and directed all national franchising from his headquarters in New Orleans. Ted's Frost Top predates Gayness' patented diner design, but features his iconic giant root beer mug, which was manufactured at Industrial Electric Incorporated at 3227 Magazine Street. In the August 1963 issue of Frost Topics, Frost Top's trade magazine, the mug's already iconic nature is described.

The identity of the Frost Tops has been made quick and easy by the use of the revolving Stein sign. This unique replica of a frosted mug filled with root beer, revolving atop the Frost Top building and catching the eyes of passing motorists as it turns on the pole near the street has become a landmark all over the country. First used in New Orleans, it rapidly caught on. It was copyrighted by Gayness to limit its use to Frost Top operators. Copyrighted designs and patents were sold to Frost Top to be used on a national scale. The signage on Ted's Frost Top is a study in the power of commercialism to drive design. From the mimetic, aforementioned neon root beer mug to the circus-like burgers sign, this is a building meant to sell you something, and it's not pretending to be anything else. Googie was first defined as a style in 1952 by Douglas Haskell in a satirical article in House and Home Magazine meant to decry the lowbrow nature of Southern Californian vernacular commercial style, which was emerging at the time. The style was colorful, fun, futuristic, and most notably, unabashedly commercial. Signs were meant to be seen, easily legible from cars passing by. In 2012, Hess wrote that Googie was an unpretentious aesthetic meant to appeal to the average middle class American. One of the key things about Googie architecture was that it wasn't custom houses for wealthy people. It was coffee shops, gas stations, and car washes, the average buildings of everyday life that people of the period used and lived in. And it brought that spirit of the modern age to their daily lives. The drive-in mostly replaced the drive-through, a typology invented in the 1970s. The drive-in, now a relic of an era when cars were still new enough to be a novelty. At its height, Frostop had 350 nationwide locations. As of 2026, there are nine, only seven of which, including Ted's, are still in their original buildings. The Historic District Landmarks Commission evaluates the significance of a structure based on the four criteria as established by Section 8422 of the city code, any one of which can make a building eligible for nomination. While the building was built outside the period significance for the Carrollton Local and National Register Historic District, Ted's Frostop is a beloved New Orleans institution, as evidenced by the public outcry surrounding the building's proposed demolition. A demolition permit application was submitted on March 24, 2026. As the building is located in the Carrollton Local Historic District, the proposed demolition had to be heard by the Historic District Landmarks Commission and was placed on the April 8, 2026 commission hearing. Public outcry was swift, with media coverage and a large turnout. 137 written public comments were received before the meeting in opposition. The commission unanimously voted to deny the demolition. Preservation and Print, the Preservation Resource Center's bimonthly magazine, dedicated a cover story to Ted's Frostop, using it as a case study on the importance of preserving mid-century commercial architecture. There is, as of the writing of this report, a proposal for the construction of residential units attached to the structure, as shown in figure 13. This building has had minimal alterations. and exhibits special qualities that reflect a distinctive and increasingly rare mid-twentieth-century drive-in commercial typology. It retains a recognizable level of architectural integrity, including its expressive form and integrated signage, and possesses strong cultural significance as a long-standing and widely recognized local commercial establishment. The building also contributes to the broader visual and cultural character of the district. Ultimately, the staff finds that the building meets two of the criteria necessary to nominate a building for study as a landmark, in that it exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural, political, economic, or social history of the nation, state, or community, and embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen. For these reasons, the staff recommends that 3100 Calhoun Street be nominated for study as a landmark. Thank you for that report. Sandra Stokes with Louisiana Landmarks. I'm Sandra Stokes with Louisiana Landmarks Society. I want to thank you for the excellent report. I'm thankful for the support, for the positive, for the nomination. This is truly an iconic building. I don't need to go back through the history since we've just heard it, but it's truly an iconic building with the classic signs are some of the few remaining. We think that they're fabulous. We want to also thank the Commission for denying the demolition of this building just recently, and I think that was a really scary moment for the city. Because this is a cultural icon, I think generations have grown up eating there, enjoying the atmosphere, and living the good life. We encourage the landmark study and hope that it not only encompasses the exterior of the building and make sure that any appendages that are added on are not out of scale or out of character for the, not only the landmark of the building, but also for the historic neighborhood, and also that the diner inside is considered because as you look through the window, it becomes part of that tout ensemble. The interior and the exterior work together to create this classic diner. We thank you for your report and hope that you support nomination study. Thank you. So the owners of the building, if you wish to speak, I think I also have speakers cards from a number of the Robert family. I think I have one, two, and three here. Wonderful. Yeah, thank you. The comment cards can be conceded. No, it's great. Please introduce yourself, state your name, and address for the record. Sure thing. Matthew Robert, 135 Allen Tucson Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70124. And I am here speaking on behalf of ownership. Do you wish to address the Commission? Please.

Well, first of all, thank you to the staff and Commission for being here, for your service, and for the time throughout, you know, the entirety of this, this property's history with the HGLC to date. I'd like to start by briefly speaking to our development process over the past several months for the proposed multifamily addition to the building that was referenced in the staff report. Over the last several months, we have listened to and had upwards of 40 conversations and meetings, and instances of outreach with neighbors, business owners, architects, preservationists, public officials, and other stakeholders in the project who has given us, who have given us valuable insight into our project and proposed development. Based on those conversations and insights, we've thoughtfully revised our plan to preserve the Ted's For All Stop diner in its entirety. So, you know, following the denial of the demolition, we've revised these building plans, keeping the building fully intact and providing a new kitchen for the diner's operation so that it's viable for generations and for years to come. We've additionally incorporated the diner style into the design of the development as a whole to accentuate the diner itself, which we've learned the community has great respect for. And I do see my time is running out. Am I okay with the concession of additional time? Yeah, we can see time from, just let me know, which, from the second or the third? Okay, great. Okay. Great. It should be back on now. Are we on? Great. So furthermore, in response to additional neighborhood concerns, we've reduced the overall occupancy of the proposed residential portion of the development by upwards of 25 percent, decreasing density, and have also made some significant changes to the building elements and landscaping to increase the beauty and function of the building in respect of nearby neighbors. So we want to thank everyone who has given us the feedback that we've been able to incorporate into our plan to date. Our goal is to continue to work with all project stakeholders, including the HDLC, to develop a project that we can all support and a landmark nomination process that we can all support. We understand that a submission for the nomination of this project, the Ted's Frost Top Diner and Sign in its current form, was filed earlier this summer in July. We've subsequently filed an application for the building permit for the proposed new development, which is referenced in the staff report, prior to this nomination hearing. Our understanding is that the application for building permit has therefore procedurally changed the existing diner, the diner for which the submission for nomination was sent. For example, the multifamily portion that has been referenced in the staff report is connected to and made part of the diner. It is included in the building permit that has been submitted, therefore altering the diner building for which the submission for nomination was made. So from ownership's perspective, it's unclear to us at this moment at the nomination hearing exactly what building the nomination affects. Is the nomination meant to affect the entirety of the proposed new development? The newly constructed multifamily building? Suggesting that the HDLC would have control over the exterior of the newly constructed multifamily building that is connected to the diner? Or does this nomination affect the diner in its previous form at the time that the submission was made? Which would then make the nomination no longer effective once the building has either procedurally changed as it has been pursuant to the building application, the building permit application, and then of course taking a step further upon completion of the renovation. We understand that this is a nuanced question and that there's little to no precedent of an example of the HDLC nominating a building for which a building permit has been filed. Therefore we would respectfully request that the nomination of this building be deferred while we can obtain the answers and details as to how this nomination affects the property and which version of that property it's affecting and how it's being affected. And furthermore so that we can continue to work with the HDLC to reach a plan for the development and even for the proposed landmarking of the Frostop building in a way that works for the development as a whole. In the meantime if you all could speak to the nuance of the effectiveness of the nomination, we as ownership would appreciate that and we will of course make ourselves available to discuss any questions that you all may have about the project. Thank you very much. Yeah, I think it's very simple actually and we discussed this with the developers. The report only speaks to the landmark nomination of the historic Ted's Frostop building and the sign. This is not to the site. It is not to the to the parking lot. We recognize the fact that new construction is being proposed that would attach itself to the rear and in a very minimal way to the rear side of the landmark building, excuse me, not the landmark building, but the historic building. So there is no implication whatsoever in our report or in the nomination that the HDLC has interest in being having design control or control going forward of the new construction. We have recognized that this is an unusual situation, but that is the simplicity of this application. And can I ask just a question on this too? Figure 13 that's referenced in the staff report, in the nomination report, as well as what's included in our packet, the new construction, given that typically a landmark, and so it's a little bit of just backing up as to what a landmark is for those that are here, but not for these landmark nomination applications, is that typically you have, we have jurisdiction over anything that touches the air from those. It's not that it's not your typical just view from the street.

So as such, just out of, I want to clarify here, given the new construction permit that was filed, essentially the rear facade, we would have no visibility or control over, but any of the roof and the three sides of the building or anything else that is open, including the sign, would be under that nomination. Correct. And my recommendation, should this go forward, would be to include in the nomination the specifics of the fact that this is not including anything pertaining to the new construction, but it pertains to the exterior envelope of the historic building outside of the proposed new construction that, as you correctly stated, was applied for in a complete, substantially complete application, was received prior to the hearing as per the procedures of the Department of Safety and Permits. To the applicant, does that answer your question? Yes. May I follow up with one additional question of clarification? The, as Executive Director Block has acknowledged, that the building permit has been filed prior to the nomination, suggesting that any, so we're including repairs and some slight changes, as you can see in the permit set, and as we've represented, we're preserving the restaurant in its entirety and its use. But there are, of course, exterior changes included in that permit set, most of which, if not all, are, you know, preserving the structure itself, right? But our understanding is that that permit, right, so those instances of work being done to the exterior of the diner are not under, do not fall under under this nomination. I would have. And I can pause there, yeah. I hear the question, so you have. And there's a brief follow-up too, I'm sorry. So do you want to continue? Do you have another question as well? Yeah, that'd be great. So there is that kind of question, just acknowledging that any work being done pursuant to that application is not affected by this nomination. And then so when we take that a step further and then look to the property being now, excuse me, the building being nominated after the application has been filed and has been made effective, it's unclear exactly what is being nominated, right? So is the building and its four walls as it stands right now being nominated, right? Or like the exterior work that we're doing pursuant to our application, is that work then being nominated? I'm going to look to the staff to clarify. Anything that is in the substantially complete application, which includes there are some small modifications or additions to the sides of the building that are in the drawing, if there are notes that refer to some maintenance, if there is a door opening that's changed, anything that's in that substantially complete application would not be part of the nomination. So I think that we can keep this simple by saying that the historic building, except for anything that's in the substantially completed application, which is here in the slideshow, would not be included in the nomination. And yes. If I could phrase it a different way, there was a long ago court case that established that if a permit has been vested with the Department of Safety and Permits as substantially complete, then any action by the commission cannot affect what has been approved prior to the nomination of the building. So what's essentially happening is any of the work that's being proposed in the drawings that have been deemed substantially complete by the Department of Safety and Permits cannot be affected by the landmark nomination of the building. So all of that work can go forward without any review by the HDLC. If the building is landmarked or nominated for landmark study, then any subsequent applications after the nomination hearing, that work will be under the jurisdiction of the HDLC. As it stands, the staff is recommending that the building, not the site, be nominated for study as a landmark. And the work that's proposed in the drawings that currently exist would not be affected by that landmark nomination. Understood. That seems pretty clear. Yeah. I guess where I'm just, the piece that I'm missing here is that so the nomination, if it were to move forward, it would be nominating a to-be-altered building? Yes, but I would, and I'm- Just the diner itself, not the multi-building. It would be the diner itself and the signage, correct? As it will be altered in the future, we're nominating a building- Yes. And I would, I have not, forgive me, I'm an architect, but I serve on this commission in a volunteer capacity. And I don't believe anyone on our team has had the time since this submission, aside from the staff, that this submission was submitted on Friday to review. Your permit was submitted on Friday with these drawings, is my understanding, or last week. But it does sound like, from your conversations and willingness to work with the neighbors and everyone else and what has gone forward with denying the demolition previously, we would hope and assume that your architect and yourself did this in good faith as well, that you are going to restore the diner, would be the hope. I don't know if you can speak to that. That would be my question. Yes, we are, our plans for development are, as reflected in the filed building application, which proposed to restore the diner and operate the diner, and actually add on to the diner, right, with the new kitchen. And I guess your point about the commission itself not having had the chance to review the plans or kind of work through the logistics of exactly how, because to the development team, nominating a to-be-changed building is difficult for us to understand the effectiveness moving forward and what the effect will have on our property, right, so that we can invest in it. So I would, accordingly, I would respectfully request the deferral so that we can work with you all to understand the implications of. Let me clarify my statement. I assume your drawing set is well over 100 sheets or more.

You know, it's a very thick set if it is substantially complete. We would, even with a deferral, the folks on here that have expertise in architecture are not going to thumb through and or look at your drawing set that's been submitted. The landmark nomination, though, I think that's in front of us, it seems clear, at least to us, but I've looked to the other commissioners on this, that it's effectively, it's a diagram, right? There's the building and the sign itself for nomination and that the back facade, we all understand that rear facade where there's attachment of a ramp to access additional restrooms and a new commercial kitchen, that that rear facade would not be under this nomination moving forward. But I'll look to other commissioners to see if they're, yeah. I have a question that might help clarify this. Let's say the landmark moves forward and the development falls through and it can't be built. The landmark would still stand. Is that fair to say? So the landmark is for the current building, but for the fact that there's this exception for improvements to that building that are kind of granted to you on the fact that you have your permit application in prior to the nomination. That being said, if your development falls through, the landmark is still tied to the building. I just, I don't see a difficulty here in granting the landmark because the small modifications you're talking about are granted to you legally and those won't be part of, that's why I'm hearing, those won't be part of the landmark. So if you're changing the door slightly or if you're changing the type of glass to meet code or something like that. Again, if it was covered in that permit, that would be it. I hear the request for a deferral. I would like to get your questions answered briefly, but I will let you know, I have a, we received 49 comments in advance of this meeting. And then I have a number of speaker's cards beyond yourself who are proponents of the landmark. And so I'm gonna call on them after you, but I wanna make sure we get all of your questions answered. Okay, yeah, I respectfully hear the staff's response and the commission's response. It has not yet been made clear to me how the changes will be affected. The changes to the diner itself will be affected by, once constructed, right, will be affected by a nomination, nor how we can nominate changes that have not been made yet by nominating a building that will be altered. Let me state it one more time. Yes, thank you. This is a nomination for landmarking the historic building and the sign minus anything that is in the set of drawings that is considered to be substantially complete that was submitted last week. It couldn't be simpler. Yeah, to follow up on that, I will say there are a number, I hear the precedent component about nominating after the drawings are in, and that is one question. There are a number of landmarks in town that are embedded into buildings similar to this. I know that several here have worked on such projects. I have, and with that, the nominate, you know, you just file and it is, it's the same thing. So there is a process by which this can happen moving forward. I just, I know it may seem unclear and a little scary, but it is, it's possible. Yeah, okay, understood. Yeah, that's exactly where we are. It's unclear to us right now. I'll say that, and I do appreciate the thoughtful answers and the work to try to explain. So I appreciate the time. I'm assuming you still are requesting a deferral. Yes. Okay, understood. Commissioners, I have a number of proponent speakers cards I'd like to call on, and then just open the floor to public comment if that's acceptable, and then we can do discussion. Thank you. I got all three. We see it all the time, so I think that's great. Folks that I have for speakers cards here. So I have, forgive me, is it Jane Beatty? Please step forward to the mic. Yes. And then if you submitted a speakers card, be ready for me to call on you. Sandra Stokes with Louisiana Landmark Society again. It was my understanding that once the nomination was submitted, that whatever happened after that, it was kind of in a freeze situation. Are you saying that anything they submitted in the last week is allowed? There was an application already in for modifications to the site, and we worked with the Department of Safety and Permits to understand what the implications are. If the owners had already applied for modifications, or in addition to the site that would affect the building, they had up until this hearing to submit what are considered to be substantially complete drawings, and that is defined as 60% of the construction documents. And this is a standard practice memo that was submitted from Safety and Permits. In that way, they were able to submit what they submitted last Friday. And a question to the staff. That was done in discussions with the ownership team? It was done in discussion with the legal department and Safety and Permits, and this information was provided to the ownership team. Correct, thank you. Again, we were under the understanding that the sketches that were submitted prior to the application were what could be allowed, not what was submitted up until today. But thank you very much for the clarification. Thank you. All right, Jane Beatty. I'm in support of getting a landmark designation for this building because it's significant. I also am dealing with 48,000 people in southeast Louisiana who think it is significant. And they're willing to do anything they can to keep this neighborhood in its historic designation, although it's not on paper. I'm very glad to be here today because there have been a lot of people here in the music industry or who own antique houses where musicians lived. We had between 10 and 20 famous musicians who lived on Calhoun Street until Katrina. We want to keep that ambiance because we want Calhoun Street to be a historic area.

We want to keep Tutts Frost up just the way it is. We don't want to see a concrete behemoth of any sort because it would be dangerous for the community at that spot. We've been talking to DOTD, a land bridge, any kind of giant concrete structure that you could not see around at that point on Claiborne would be dangerous. So there are a lot more considerations to these massive buildings. We are very content to live with a nomination for historic landmark designation. It is historic. The whole street is historic. Eventually we have people that are residents for the last 60 years that we've just found by accident who remember the neighborhood from, say, 1940 to 1985. They lived there. And so we're going to be getting a list of all the places that were there that contributed to Tulane students in the neighborhood, the residents of the neighborhood. And so we want to see Tutts Frost because it is a beacon for the whole part of this city. I'm going to cut your mic because you're at two minutes. Can we turn the mic back on just for a moment? Procedurally I have to do one thing. I appreciate all the comments, Ms. Beatty. Can you state your name and address for the record? Yes, absolutely. It's Jane Batty, 3313 Calhoun Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70125. Thank you, Ms. Batty. Apologies for that. We think this is going to be a moneymaker for the city to have that kind of ambiance, the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, and on. And we think surrounding it with concrete is not going to work. Yeah. Thank you for your comments. I've let you go over time, but appreciate them and they are heard. Thank you. Thank you very much. Jim Goodwin, please state your name and address for the record first, and then you'll have two minutes. Jim Goodwin, 537 Ferrette Street in Algiers Point. I'm here. I admit I have some confusion about the status of the exterior now, so I guess that will take reviewing the drawings as they were submitted in the past week or so, because I thought also that it was going back. Full disclosure, I am a member of the Board of Louisiana Landmarks. I'm on the board of the Old Algiers Main Street, former president of Algiers Point Association, but I'm here on my own behalf. So anyhow, I think the architectural significance of the building has been already stated, but I would also like to speak on behalf of myself and many other Tulane students. I went to Tulane in the 60s and 70s as an undergraduate and graduate, as did my wife, and in my family we have over 20 degrees from Tulane. And all of us have been at one time or other clients of Ted's Frost Top, and it has a great deal of emotional significance also to, I think, many of the students. And I would think and hope that the developers could leverage that into making it an even more profitable as well as beautiful historic structure, and make it profitable not only literally but figuratively also, to enhance the neighborhood and to enable sentimental people like myself to go back and revisit Ted's Frost Top in a new and improved version of the historic building. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm just going to put a reminder as public comments are coming forward, as I'm hearing a couple from the public, the nomination of this landmark is for the architectural fabric of the building itself. We don't control the use. And if it continues as Ted's Frost Top or not moving forward, I just want to remind everybody that. So if you can please just keep your comments to the nomination and the architectural fabric, that would be helpful. Thank you. If I might also add, we also don't have any jurisdiction over the new construction. So that isn't to be part of this conversation either. Thank you for the reminder. Yes. All right. Kirk Bergeron. Please state your name and address. And you have two minutes. My name's Kirk Bergeron. I'm the Homeowners Association representative, 3509 Calhoun Street. I had 100 signatures that want to designate Frost Top as a landmark. I'd like to give this to you. You can provide that to the staff. This is a neighborhood restaurant that has a lot of history. My family lived on Calhoun Street for 140 years. We had a dairy, Bloomingdale Dairy, track on Calhoun Street. And this is a unique restaurant that's in place like a puzzle in a neighborhood. People were raised there, their family was raised there, went to school there as a child myself. I attended St. Rita. I had my seventh year birthday party there as a Boy Scout, Cub Scout actually. This is a unique building to where it's a part of the neighborhood. It's like a piece of the puzzle. If you move this or change this view, it's not going to be the same landmark that it is today. The people that gave me these signatures wanted it to remain the same just like it is because that's what the landmark is. It's significant, it's unique, and it's a piece of this puzzle, which is a neighborhood that I've lived in all my life. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for providing this to us as well. Nick Musser? This is Nick Musser. My address is 1470 Urania, and I'm actually the architect on this project. I just wanted to add a few things to kind of expand on what Matthew mentioned. This is a great example of gooey architecture. Most examples in this sort of era are in L.A. where the climate is mild. The building, this building here in New Orleans, is tired. The roof is failing, the kitchen is constrained, and the entire building is 18 inches below sea level. So what we've proposed is what we see as the best way to help and support Frost Top Thrive for another 70 years by providing a new kitchen above base flood and supporting it in that way, providing the repairs that we've described. We've looked at the archives at Tulane and looked at some of the drawings from the prototype buildings, and we've looked at the fascia and are trying to really study how to repair this and meet the design intent, if not exceed that.

So we are excited about that opportunity, and we think that this is really going to – I know when you look at the elevations, it looks like a big building, but that elevation is 85 feet set back from Miro. We think it can work well. This is not an unusual typology where an expressive restaurant fits with a residential building. That's common from this era. And I think in 70 years, you will look at this and say that they were meant to be together. So I'm in the neighborhood, and I'm excited about this project, and we're excited to progress this with your office. Thank you. And just to clarify, you are a proponent for the nomination? I'm sorry? I'm sorry? You checked four on the nomination card. You are for nomination? I am opposed to the nomination today. I apologize. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I just had you in the four pile. I wanted to make sure we clarified. Susan Johnson? Please state your name and address for the record, and you have two minutes. Susan Johnson, 2822 LePage Street, Town of Carrollton. Watch. I am not paid to be here. For seven years, I've been monitoring private dorm development in the university area as governed by the university area overlay since 2020. And not to get into zoning, but I think you can see from the testimony, from the public outcry against the demolition, from our petition that garnered over 3,000 signatures against the demolition back in April, that we, in the university area where I grew up going to the Frost Top, we love Ted's Frost Top and love L-O-V-E. This principle did not make it into the National Register federal guidelines in 1966, but local feeling for a neighborhood landmark, it means a great deal to us, and it's really the power behind these petitions and signatures, and as Mr. Goodwin indicated, this is part of our culture, the neighborhood culture, as Mr. Bergeron also said, and that's about it. We're willing to fight for Ted's Frost Top. Thank you. Thank you. Mary Noel Nolan-Wheatley with PRC. Good afternoon, Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley with the Preservation Resource Center, 923 Chapatula Street. The PRC enthusiastically supports the nomination of Ted's Frost Top for study as a landmark. We'd like to thank Yvette for her report and also Louisiana Landmarks for the nomination. Yvette's research outlines the architectural and cultural significance of the 1955 building. Notably, the report references a 1963 issue of Frost Topics, great name, where the restaurant's iconic root beer mug is described as a, quote, landmark all over the country. The author could not have predicted the additional significance Ted's mug would assume decades later when its restoration after Katrina became a citywide symbol of resiliency. Ted's Frost Top is New Orleans' best, if not only, example of Googie-influenced architecture. Even after the term Googie was coined in 1952, the style was unsurprisingly never taken particularly seriously in the design world. But in recent years, demolitions of these buildings have spurred a renewed appreciation for their value. In 2024, an article in the New York Times described Googie buildings as a, quote, endangered species facing redevelopment, demolition, and restrictive design codes. PRC's June-July issue of Preservation in Print pictured Frost Top on the cover and declared it the architecture of joy. Advancing Ted's Frost Top for study as a landmark is a necessary next step in ensuring New Orleans protects this architecturally and culturally significant site. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Are there any further comments on this nomination? I think we've heard from a lot of folks today and received a lot of comments on this. I'm just going to ask one more time. Are there any further public comments on the nomination of 3100 Calhoun Street, Ted's Frost Top Diner? Okay. Seeing as there are no further comments, I just want to remind everyone this is a nomination, so we need one nomination and two seconds. Oh, yes. You may. Please step forward. State your name and address, and you'll have two minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Ruth Bilby, and I'm a resident of the neighborhood. I live at 44 Versailles Boulevard. And I not only appeal to you to keep Ted's Frost Top as a historic building, but also to consider the ramifications of what could happen to our neighborhood should they go forward in building this large building. I can't say it now. We just requested and asked, I just want to be very clear, the nomination for this building is only for Ted's Frost Top itself. We cannot discuss and will not consider comments about the new construction component, but it's for the sign and the historic, not historic yet, but Ted's Frost Top, yes. Well, in that case, I have many reservations, and my neighbors do, but our biggest concern is that it remains a historic building that we can all continue to enjoy and use for our families and for our friends. Thank you very much. Okay, I'm just going to ask, thank you very much for your comments. Are there any additional public comments on the nomination of 3100 Calhoun Street, Ted's Frost Top Diner? Okay. I don't see anybody else. Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify, for this to move forward for study, it will require one motion and two seconds. If we don't receive that, then it does not move forward. Commissioner's discussion. Can I just ask one question of staff? We're now looking at the new construction. Is this partial control, though, above and beyond? Currently, it is partial control demolition only. So to be fair, we're now looking at the new construction, but if this becomes a landmark or studied for landmark, we would, this would still come before us when the new construction is proposed for any demolition work, if it exceeds 50%. That's right. But below that, it won't. However, if it's, because it'll be a landmark, that puts it under, just the historic building under full control.

So, yeah, so for the, to clarify, for the work that's, because the application has been filed that's substantially complete for work, that work will not come in front of us for review. I'm going to look to them to, my understanding is it will not come in front of us. I'm speaking of going forward, like if they decide that they want to do work on the building, the historic building, and it's nominated as a landmark, it is under full control of the HDLC, like any other landmark. Understood. But the work proposed to date didn't trigger the demolition rule, and therefore, it didn't come before us. Anybody else have questions? I'm happy to just sit here until we answer questions on this one. We've heard, this is our second, for those out there, we've had a long meeting previously regarding the demolition for Frostop, so Commissioner Hackenberg. Yeah, I will make a motion to nominate the structure inclusive of the work within the substantially complete application. That the work is inclusive as a landmark. I think it would be cleaner to not include the work that was applied for through safety and permits, and keep this motion to the landmark nomination of the building as it is today. Is that? Okay. But the reason, can I ask a question? I don't want to answer it all. Huh? You asked, yeah. Okay. Alright. Does the staff feel that is the best way to proceed on this motion? The staff is recommending the nomination of the building, not the site, as a landmark. Including the sign. I can't make a nomination. But my understanding of that is that in the event, if the development doesn't move forward, or if something else happens, that currently we are making the nomination. We can only consider what we have in front of us, which is the nomination of the building. Yeah. Alright, so the motion being made, if this is nominated, the work that is in the substantially complete application is permitted to proceed. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Thanks for everyone involved. I will make a motion to nominate the building and the sign at 3100 Calhoun Street for landmark. Yeah, make a landmark, nominate, or study as a landmark. I would also like to just add a request that the applicant consult with staff on changes that are made to this building. This is a fully optional just request. They have a lot of expertise in buildings and can be a great resource to you. Let's make sure we get this all done right. Great. So we have a nomination for study of 3100 Calhoun Street for the building and the sign that is there currently. Okay. We have a nomination on the floor. We have two seconds. Commissioner Carson, Commissioner Hardin, second. Therefore, it moves forward to be studied as a landmark. And just to be clear, any applications that were made to the Department of Safety and Permits prior to this landmark nomination going forward, if deemed as 60% substantially completed by the Department of Safety and Permits, may go forward regardless of the jurisdiction that has now just been placed on it. Thank you for clarifying. I assume that this can be appealed either way to City Council. Is that correct? And I need to read the 10-day. Sorry, we don't often have these appealed to City Council, but I'm looking procedurally. I need to read the 10-day. So your application has been approved for study, but for those who may not be happy with that, you have 10 counter days from the date of this meeting to appeal to City Council in writing, and the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process. Thank you, and good luck. We hope to see Ted's Frost Stop move forward. And as much as we love it, wish you the best. So we've spent a lot of time for Ted's Frost Stop over the last several meetings. But thank you all. Pardon and pardon. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, everyone. We're moving forward. And thank you to all who are in the audience. We just completed the nominations. This is unusual. It's about an hour that we've spent on those nominations. So everyone get ready to move and be up here for your applications that are up next. So consent agenda, I'm going to read through these items. And Commissioner Hackenberg needs to recuse himself from item D. Yes, I am the professional of record. Thank you. Okay. Consent agenda items. Item A, 819-21 Belleville Street. Item B, 813 South Carrollton Avenue. Item C, 802 Third Street. And item D, 832-34 Washington Avenue. Do we have any public comment on these items? I don't have any comment cards. I appreciate everyone's comments. But if you could take them outside of this room and into the corridor, please. Jenny? Yes. I have one question about one of the items. Okay. If I could ask the staff. 802 Third Street, I know we dealt with the demolition of what was there or what is there now, but it's intended to be torn down. And I noticed that in the design at 802 Third Street, the parking is in the front, yet this is a corner structure. Would it have been better or is there some kind of directive as far as requirements that the parking not be in the front? Not on the front yard? Parking is allowable as it's shown in this drawing, as long as there is enough space for the car to park beyond the front edge of the building. So this is a typical arrangement, not unusual. That's in zoning, and so we do always make sure that there is enough space for a car to be parked beyond the front of the building. I just thought being that it was on a corner, and I guess this is something for the Architectural Review Committee, as far as what the design... That's correct. It was reviewed and approved by the committee. Okay. All right everyone, I hear no public comments, or have not seen any hands for public comment on the consent agenda. Commissioners? Mr. Lupin. Move to approve the items on the consent agenda. Thank you. Commissioner Carson seconds. All those in favor, raise your hands please. All those opposed, the motion carries unanimously.

Commissioner Hackenberg can return to the room, and for those who were here for consent agenda items, feel free to enjoy your afternoon and leave. Thank you very much, and thank you for working with the staff. New business work applications, item A3607 Magazine Street. Is the applicant present? Yes. Emily Bullock with SMM Landscape Architects, 1631 State Street. Thank you. This is an application to request to install new pavers at the front yard of a landmark commercial building. The HDLC guidelines requires any new paving at a significant rated building to be reviewed by the commission. The landmark site has existing paving at the entire front yard, as well as a parking lot on the Foucher Street side. The applicant is requesting to replace the existing medley of concrete, brick, and gravel with new gray concrete pavers in a checkerboard pattern. Staff feels that this is an appropriate proposal to clean up the existing paving and appreciates the removal of the less than appropriate parking. Staff recommends approval of the application. Thank you. To the applicant, do you wish to address the commission? I think this is a pretty straightforward request. We are removing the unsightly parking from the side yard to expand outdoor seating at this restaurant. And the paving is tone-on-tone gray paving. There will be planting along the edge of this, so again, not super visible from the street. Thank you. Are there any public comments on this application? Public comments? Commissioners, this is a landmark building, so very similar to what we just discussed previously, which is why it's in front of us. Do we have a commissioner willing to make a motion? Yes. I actually walked past this a couple times a week, and while I miss Harry's Ace, I'm very kind of glad to see their terrible diagonal parking being taken care of and cleaned up. I'll make a motion to approve the application. Thank you, Commissioner Hackenberg, seconded by Commissioner Lupin. All right, all those in favor, raise your high. Legals ask us to do so. Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you, and good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. Item B, 617 8th Street, this application has been withdrawn. Item C, 1238-42 Magazine Street, is the applicant present? Please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Micah Ferris, 1238 Magazine Street. Thank you. The staff will make their presentation, and we'll hear your comments following. This is a request to remove the ridge tiles and install a ridge vent at a contributing rated one-story single-family residential building in the lower garden. The HDLC guidelines state that ridge tiles are visually important features of a historic building that accentuate the changes in roof slope. Much like requests to remove chimneys, requests to remove ridge tiles are becoming more prevalent. As such, the guidelines encourage retention of ridge tiles and requires a commission appeal to remove them. The applicant is requesting the removal of the English V ridge tiles at this house for the installation of ridge vents. Staff does not approve the reinstallation of ridge tiles on top of ridge vents as it creates a non-continuous surface and shadow lines that do not match the historic profile. However, there are other approvable options for attic venting, like low-profile vents and intake edge vents. Staff recommends denial of the request to remove the ridge tiles for a ridge vent and encourages the applicant to explore the other venting options. Thank you. To the applicant, do you wish to address the commission? Yes. Great. Thank you. You have two minutes. So we got the fortified roof grant program from Louisiana, and we had roofer after roofer tell us that the ridge vents are going to be the best way to go for this property, the best roof, you don't have stuff blowing off, and so we just want to be able to move forward with their recommendation, getting the fortified roof approved, which means they can't have the roof tiles with the ridge vents. Thank you. To the staff. Is there an existing vent already there? It's one in the back that just kind of... In that picture there, yeah. Yeah. And those blow off in hurricanes, they said they're not recommended. I'd like to, Commissioner Harden, I'm going to ask the staff a question, because we do see a lot of fortified roof applications, can you speak to this instance? There are fortified roofs. They require a lot more attic venting than most of our houses typically have existing, but that is why we have approved the edge vents. I don't know if you guys remember those. Those are the ones that are along the eave, they're about one to two shingles up, and they can take the whole line of the eave on both sides as well. That is something we do approve, along with the low profiles, gable vents, many other options, which is why this is, staff is recommending against this one. And those other options are also allowed through the fortified roofing program, correct? Correct. Yes. Oh. Significant cost, and they said we weren't, the roofers said that it wouldn't be possible to do the eave vents, which you're talking about, and we're just asking for the same exemption. We took a quick walk, if I can show you all these, the same exemption that countless houses have in the area, there's virtually none that have the ridge tiles, the new construction, and I invite you all to take a walk around the neighborhood and see that many people have got this exemption somehow.

So we can't use, you're welcome to submit the photos, we can't utilize them because they're precedent, or we don't know the history of each one of those cases, essentially, but I do know that, and I will say, I'll look to the staff on this, because we do consider, and we very much want to have fortified roofs on our building stock, historic building stock in New Orleans, and so I look to the staff because I know we see a number of these applications, and so I just want to make sure that they clarify that we do have details that work through this. Yeah. I'm just trying to make this affordable. Understood, again, we see this often, and have a number of details that we've worked through. I'm just letting you know that, that that is part of it, so, yeah. Can I make a statement, because I live in the house as well. Please state your name and address for the record. Sue Buser, 1240 Magazine Street. Do you mind speaking into the microphone? Either one of them. Sue Buser, 1240 Magazine Street. Thank you. We have, my husband and I have lived in the house for about 10 years now. After the hurricane Ida, we, there was damage to the roof, the roof was replaced. We put as many of those tiles back as we were able to, but some of them fell and fractured, and in addition to that, and in spite of the ledge, the whatever you call those, roof tiles, there was considerable damage in the, inside the house because of the damage to those tiles on the roof, and the fortified roof would, in effect, remove that as an obstacle because the next time there's a hurricane, if the same tiles are up there, we're going to have the same problem, and it was about a $20,000 repair job, and we really would not like to do that again, so we want to do it in the way that the roofers are telling us that it should be done. Thank you for your comments. Any further comments? Just to add, there are fortified roof approved ridge tiles as well, and they are also on our standard sheet that we've been giving everyone because this has come up quite often. Robert Ferris, 1240 Magazine Street. One thing I don't quite understand is we have ridge tiles on the house, but we're told we can't use those. We have to get a new ridge tile at a cost of $1,700, and someone tell me why those ridge tiles are not adequate. There are a couple missing, but our architect said he could duplicate those for nothing, practically. I'm going to let the staff speak to this. Like Wendy said, there are ridge tiles that are approvable for fortified roofing. It looks like the ones that are on this roof are the barrel style terra cotta roof tiles, and those unfortunately are not approvable as per specifications for fortified roofing. Ones that are approvable are the English V of a particular type, so yes, that's correct that they would need to get a different kind of roof tile. I do want to just also, I think that the commission understands this, that financial hardship is something that the commission can take into account in their motion. Thank you. Just a question for staff. We're seeing two ridge tile types on the same roof, right? So reasonably, one of these wouldn't be original, is that fair to say? Based on the sister house next door, I believe the barrel tiles are the ones that are not original, that the English Vs that are on the main ridge are the ones that are original, but regardless, the historic ridge tiles do not meet fortified, which is why they're being told that they have to replace all of them regardless. Commissioners, this is in the Lower Garden District, which is a full control district. I'll look into my Irish Channel commissioner maybe, because he's nearby, unless anyone else wants to. Is there any public comment on this application? No public comment? Anyone's willing to take this one? I don't have a commissioner for Lower Garden District. Start the ball rolling. I mean, I move to support the staff recommendation. And that's the motion. But I'd also ask that the staff work with the fortified roof program and find out why barrel exit barrel type ridge tiles are not acceptable. We already have worked with him on that, and it's just the the geometry of that type of tile can't be connected to the roof the way that the English fee tiles can be. So that's why they're not. They're not approvable for fortified. To be clear, and I've dug into this a little bit as well. Each thing on a fortified roof needs to be tested. So it's up to manufacturers to go and test the tile to make sure that it doesn't get blown off in the wind. So my understanding is someone's got to come along and invent a barrel ridge tile that they go and test to get it approved. That doesn't happen, and it doesn't. But there are other options that are approvable. I mean, if we've already set a standard, and we just can't make exceptions. So you have a motion on the floor? I support the staff's recommendation. Thank you, Commissioner Harden. We have a second to that motion. Commissioner Hackenberg seconds that motion. Is there any further discussion on the motion from Commissioners? If not, all those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. You have 10 counter days from the date of this meeting to appeal to City Council in writing, and the staff will furnish you with details of that appeals process. Thank you and good luck with your project. Okay, item D is 2526 St. Thomas Street. This application has been withdrawn. New business demolition applications, item A, 711 to 13 Montague Street. Is the applicant present? Great. Please state your name and address for the record. Jordan 6101 Royal Street. Someone left their phone. I don't know if it was... Can I catch them real quick? I don't know if we... Thank you. Sorry, we've got a missing phone, if anyone's looking for one. We'll wait till he gets back and then read the staff report. Oh, thank you. No, no, appreciate you noticing. No one wants to lose their phone. Thank you very much.

Do you mind stating your name one more time with your address? Yeah, Jordan Pollard 6101 Royal Street. Thank you very much. This is the application for the deconstruction of the existing facade and demolition of the remainder of the contributing rated one-story single family residential building to grade. FEMA survey research estimates at the building date of constructions between 1850 and 1860, and it first appears on the 1893 Sanborn. The applicant initially sought to renovate the existing building. However, the extent of deterioration and structural damage makes rehabilitation impractical. The exterior walls are excessively damaged by wood destroying insects and are not assembled to modern construction standards. Rehabilitation will require complete reframing and restructuring of the exterior walls, including new wall sheathing, building wrap. Given the extent of the required work, the applicant proposes to reconstruct while retaining and reusing as much as original historic material and architectural details as possible. Overall, the building is in very poor condition due to the significant insect damage and deterioration of the exterior wall assembly. Rehabilitation requires extensive reframing and reconstruction of the walls, effectively necessitating the near-to-total reconstruction of the building. For those reasons, staff recommends approval of the demolition with the condition that all salvageable historic materials, including original doors, windows, transom, and decorative cornices, exterior trim, and other character-defining features, be carefully salvaged and reused on a new building. The proposed reconstruction will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee. Thank you. To the applicant, do you wish to address the Commission? Yes. When the owner purchased this house a little less than a year ago, and I started working with her, you know, she loves the house, the front of the house, and what's there. Our concern was just the safety of the house and how bad it is. We talked to the HDLC and had Mr. Alex Nassar come through and do a walk through with us. Just years and years of deferred maintenance, it's in pretty bad shape. It has holes in the roof and the roof is collapsing inside the attic, and there's the front of the house, the termites have eaten all the way through the front face of the house, and if you push on the front wall of the house, the whole thing, like, moves. Now, when she removes the house, we are wanting to rebuild the very front part of the Creole Cottage to what was there. She's not interested in changing that. We're currently working with the HDLC on an addition on the back, the lean-to's that are currently there. We do not want to rebuild in the same manner, but we are working right now with HDLC. They want us to kind of rework the massing on the back, but yeah, her intention isn't to tear it down and build something that isn't there. It's just the nature of how bad the house is right now. It's dangerous, and so we just want to make sure that it doesn't fall on anything in the neighborhood. Thank you for your comments. Is there any additional public comment on this application? No additional public comment. Commissioners, this is in bywater. I make a motion to approve the demolition with the proviso that demolition permit not be granted until approved plans for the renovation or for the rebuild have been granted by the HDLC. Second. All those in favor, raise your hands. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you and good luck with your project. Thank you. Item B-739, I'm sorry, Item B-739, A-Line Streets. Is the applicant present? Please state your name and address for the record. Ricardo Tenorio, Spectrum Designs, 1929 Jutland, Harvey, Louisiana. Thank you. FEMA survey research indicates that the subject property was constructed between 1885 and 1895 as a single shotgun residence, a building typology characteristic of the uptown local historic district. Although the rear portion of the structure has evolved over time, the building retains its general form and massing as viewed from the public right away, including its hipped roof and deep front overhang, which contribute to its historic character. An exterior and interior inspection of the property was conducted on October 21st and found the structure to be in overall poor condition. The structure is the single shotgun wood frame residence elevated on masonry piers beneath the original front rooms, with later additions supported by a mixture of CMU and masonry piers. The exterior of the building has been significantly altered over time, resulting in the loss of many original architectural features. The wood weatherboards, negative brackets, transom over the front entrance and the original door and windows have been removed. The front facade has been resurfaced with stucco and brick veneer, while the side elevations are clad in the best deciding, and only the rear elevation retains the wood weatherboards. Many windows and door openings along the sides have been boarded over, and the only visible windows belong to later additions rather than the original building. Several additions extend beyond the original structure and appear to be in substandard construction, with notable discrepancies in the floor elevations. The piers consist of a mix of brick and CMU blocks, and portions of the wood seal show clear signs of termite damage. The wood floor joists are generally in fair to good condition, although some have been reinforced or sistered with newer members. Some areas of the flooring remain intact, but other sections are completely missing. Vegetation surrounds the most recent rear additions, where there's signs of a partial roof collapse. HCLC staff recommends approval of the application for demolition due to the building's overall poor condition, significant loss of original architectural materials and detailing, and the deteriorated condition of its structural system.

The HCLC staff takes no objection to its demolition. Thank you for that report. To the applicant, do you wish to address the commission? I would simply just like to reiterate the same things that he discussed in it. This was a very interesting thing to me when I first visited this house that only it seems like the front room is like the only original part to this. The roof actually steps down four times behind the front room, and that's I was actually interested in the Sanborn maps to kind of understand how it shows it like that when it literally steps down. But yes, it is collapsing, it is in very poor shape, it is not even accessible inside because it is to the ceiling in order, but we do hope to build a nice new home and it will be a single family in this district. Thank you. A question for the applicant. The second building, are you planning on renovating that or keeping that? The shed next door? There's sort of two with identical, I mean the facades are both redone identically. You had the fence running between it? The one to the right, that's after, not at this time. Okay. Is there any public, an additional public comment on this application? No public comment, commissioners? I'd like to make a motion to approve the demolition of this house. Thank you, Commissioner Lupin, seconded by Commissioner Hackenberg. All those in favor? Raise your hands. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you and good luck with your project. All right, item C, 3101 St. Peter Street. Is the applicant present? Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. Please state your name and address for the record. Alondrina Robertson, 3101 St. Peter, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70119. Thank you. The staff will make their presentation and we'll hear your comments following. FEMA survey research indicates that the subject property was constructed between 1920 and 1930 as a corner store with an attached dwelling, a building typology characteristic of the Parkview Local Historic District. The structure retains its original massing and form and represents a historically significant neighborhood commercial use. further emphasized by the declining prevalence of its neighborhood stores making the property a notable reminder of the district's historic development and mixed-use character. An exterior and interior visual inspection of the structure was conducted on October 21st and the building appeared to be in overall fair condition. The simple wood frame single gable building consists of a dwelling attached to a traditional commercial space. The residence is elevated on a masonry piers while the corner store is constructed on a slab-on-grade foundation with masonry cheek walls. The exterior of the building retains several important architectural features associated with its historical character including the traditional corner store entrance, wood weatherboards, and original wood windows. Although the weatherboards are generally in fair condition, some are missing and the exposed studs visible in those areas appear to remain in good condition. The roof, however, is clad in asbestos shingles and is in poor condition. The interior of the corner store included beadboard ceilings and walls which remain generally intact. The concrete foundation and the portion of the building exhibit significant cracking likely attributed to foundation movement. Some of the wood seals and wood studs show minor termite damage, however, the framing remains in generally good condition. The interior of the residence retains original wood trim at the windows and door openings and original wood floors except for areas where tile has been installed. It's possible the original flooring remains under those new finishes. That flooring is generally in good condition with only minor water damage in the rear bedroom below a missing section of the roof. The walls and ceilings are composed of plaster and sheetrock with cracking evident throughout. Also, likely associated with some foundation settlement. Overall, the inspection revealed no evidence that the building is beyond rehabilitation. Although the structure requires some re-leveling and re-roofing to restore the building envelope and prevent further water intrusion, these issues do not compromise the building's potential. Given the building's intact historic features and is significant as an example of traditional New Orleans neighborhood commercial architecture, the structure is not considered a suitable candidate for demolition and staff recommends the denial. Thank you. So the applicant, do you wish to address the commission? No. Do you wish to address the commission? Yes, I do. Yes, wonderful. Please state your name and address for the record. Renola Robinson, 1631 North Robinson. Great. Listen, I know to y'all, y'all want to save everybody, save all these houses that y'all call old and good for the city, but this house is deplorable. We have to go in this house, we have to walk this property to see that this property is no longer good for us because we cannot afford to fix it up. If someone will come in there and give us the money, learn us the money to restore it, it would be beautiful. But for us to just have it and try to restore it, it's not reachable. Now, if y'all trying to take the house so y'all can sell a house to someone else, some rich company come in there, okay, well, give us our little share that the hard work we put in there for the time we had it. The house has been deplorable since Katrina. We didn't get no money on that house to restore that house. So for someone to come up in there, which I walked with them in that, through that house, if you push that house, the house might come down. As far as what they're talking about was the storage, the solid basement, the foundation to that is crackling, it's buckling. The roof that they're seeing in there is a large hole where the floor is rotting from the rain going in there for two years.

I tried to keep the drafts up for a while. The city came through there and did some work on the street, put some kind of drainage in there, and now the side of the house is, I mean, I stopped doing it. The house is not fit for an animal to sleep in. So we want to demolish it and then maybe keep the lot up and then we can come back with a small house or something to put up there. Don't tell us it's hysterical and you won't learn there's no money or give us anything in the hysterical so that we can fix it up. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I'll let the staff, do you want to address any of those comments to the staff? Is there any public comment on this application? Please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm missing all my cards. Good afternoon, Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley with the Preservation Resource Center. Since the HDLC inspection for this property in the Parkview Historic District found that the building is not a suitable candidate for demolition, the PRC encourages the owner to explore alternative solutions. In New Orleans, as was mentioned, corner stores serve as architectural and cultural anchors within neighborhoods. And although corner stores were ubiquitous at one time, New Orleans has lost many of these iconic typology. This building is located in the National Register District, which provides an opportunity to pursue Louisiana state and federal historic tax credits. And this could be a potential path forward. The building's neighborhood commercial use is particularly suitable for using historic tax credits, which are limited to income producing properties. As a note, even if only part of the building remained income producing, let's say only the corner store, historic tax credits could still be used on that portion of the building, offsetting up to 45% of qualified construction costs for the owner. There are a lot of examples around the city of corner stores that have used this financial incentive, and I'd be happy to provide my card to the owners if they're interested. Thanks. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment on this application? There's no additional public comment. To the applicants, I would just say, I just want you to know this board is a volunteer commission that reviews the guidelines and we review all buildings. You know, we look at everything and we see a lot of building requests for demolition. And so we look at those, I would say if there is a way to connect with the Preservation Resource Center, as they just noted, the building, because it's in the National Register District, is eligible for historic tax credits. You're welcome to speak. So I know the young lady just said 45%. I mean, if I go get someone to try to fix that house up, you know how much they're trying to ask us to remodel something like that? It ain't no chump change. It's not even $90,000. I mean, to remodel it or to fix it back up, they want to charge you into the twos, the threes, $100,000. We don't have that. 45 is still $107,000. Understood. Understood. I mean, demolish it. I'm going to move this, we're going to move this forward. And as I've noted with other folks, we'll see how, I don't know what, how the commission will vote. Commissioners, does anyone else wish to make comments or weigh in on this application? This is in Parkview and our commissioner who's typically for Parkview is caught up in at work today. Yeah. Unfortunately, construction costs are high for new construction or renovation work. Sympathetic to that. We rely on our inspectors to decide which buildings are good candidates for demolition or not. I would make a motion to deny the request for demolition. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Carson, seconded by Commissioner Lupin. All those in favor, please raise your hand for this one. All those opposed. It's okay. Please raise your hand. Oh, okay. That's fine. No pressure. Please be respectful in the commission, to the commission. I will just add one more comment. Even when we do approve demolition, usually on a project like this, we would insist on a replacement design to be in place prior to allowing a demolition to occur because an empty lot typically doesn't serve a neighborhood either. Excuse me. We have a motion on the floor and we're taking a vote currently. I would just appreciate everyone keeping order. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Your motion to, okay. So we have, please note that Commissioner Lewis is in favor. So that's a unanimous vote to uphold the staff's recommendation of denying the demolition for this application. Your application has been denied by HDLC. You have 10 calendar days from the date of this meeting to appeal to city council in writing and the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process. Thank you and good luck with your project. And again, connect with PRC if you're interested. Thank you very much. Okay. Moving forward. Item D, 711 to 13 Napoleon street, or I'm sorry, Napoleon Avenue. Please state your name and address for the record. I'm Calvin Galleon, the architect with Studio Rise at 2723 South Prada Avenue. Thank you. FEMA survey research indicates that this property is constructed in the 1980s as a Victorian residence. The 1896 Sanborn fire insurance map confirms that the building retains its original form and massing. Renovations completed in the early 2016 restored the building's exterior cladding, including its fish scale shingles in the front gable and the, sorry, in the shingles between the first and second floor facade windows, as well as restoring the windows and doors. The front porch columns and open frieze were also reconstructed, restoring key architectural features, characteristic of the Queen Anne style. The applicant proposes to remove or obscure approximately 53% of the primary facade materials by removing existing windows, shingles to accommodate a new two-story porch extending across the full width of the facade.

The facade demolition criteria is included in the HDLC guidelines definition of demolition, specifically proposals of this nature. The proposed window modifications and porch addition obscure the irregular building envelope and wraparound porches characteristic of the Queen Anne style. The HDLC commands the authentic restoration completed approximately a decade ago and cannot recommend alterations that would compromise the building's restored architectural character. HDLC staff recommends denial. Thank you. So the applicant, do you wish to address the commission? Yes. Good afternoon commissioners, thank you. I want to thank everybody for their time into this project and the comments supplied. We do agree that the 2016 renovation that included the removal of the ironwork and then replacement with wooden spindle work and the railings brought authenticity back to the structure. We also understand that this proposal has been recommended for denial due to the removal and obscurement of the previously restored facade. We do also understand that the owners have been great stewards of this project and even even gone to the lengths of retaining the contractor from the original renovation. During their ownership they've gone through the correct channels for previous additions and renovations and they did so in this instance as well when they approached us to create a more enjoyable outdoor space along the front facade. They understand that the property is on a main thoroughfare and within HDLC partial district and would need extra steps to achieve the increase of porch and balcony space. We even went as far as to get a zoning determination to make sure that we were within the required setbacks of a double gallery. The current design is a double gallery that alters the window locations and scale siding but we believe that the double gallery incorporates the wraparound porch and balcony is common enough within Queen Anne style buildings that it should be considered in this application. The double galleries are also common within the city, it would not seem out of place. With porches in particular we believe the style and nature of the railings and columns play a large role in these Queen Anne styles and if approved we're more than willing to work with the HDLC and staff and ownership and bring in the correct architectural elements to this addition to recreate the Queen Anne style. If approved we're willing to readjust the footprint slightly on the double gallery to create a more irregular building envelope as mentioned in the staff comments and as part of these concessions we would look at including railing, wooden spindle work, columns, brackets, stepping the gallery facade as mentioned or a complete or partial removal of the intended roof design. Maintaining the windows in certain locations of the windows as well as preserving siding are also considerations that we'd be willing to accommodate with owners approval. Thank you for your time as well as hearing us and any comments. Thank you for getting through that in two minutes. Are there any additional public comments on this application? Sorry we have a lot of comment cards today, I'm just trying to make sure I get them all. I have one for 711 Napoleon, yes please state your name and address for the record. Hello my name is Chris Flurry, 731 Napoleon Avenue. Thank you for your time. I'm speaking today against a demolition application for 711 713. Five of the, I'm going to show you a picture here, five of the seven homes on the 700 block of Napoleon have similar setback of approximately 20 feet which is appropriate and consistent along the avenue which has a large oak lined neutral ground. Additionally five of the seven homes on the 700 block of Napoleon share similar architectural details characteristic of the transitional period between built of Victorian homes built in the early 1900s in the period between Victorian and craftsmen. This style is prevalent on Napoleon Avenue and contributes greatly to its feel. I'm concerned because two years ago the HDLC approved modifications to the facade of 737 Napoleon and the resulting work changing the portion windows is extremely out of character with the block much like the plans for 711 Napoleon. This damage has already been done but it is not too late to prevent it from being done to 711 Napoleon. I believe this allowing this demolition and subsequent additions would negatively affect the coherent architectural theme and character of the block. And here's another photo for you guys showing a view towards the property in question. As you can see all the homes have the large peaked gables and fish scales there's a very nice coherent feeling to it. And then here is a picture I can email these to you as well if you'd like but showing this is just a Google Earth view that on the seven and eight hundred blocks of Napoleon the setbacks are pretty consistent and this would violate that. Thank you. Thank you. I have another speakers card from Brett Babineau. My name is Brett Babineau and I was the original contractor on that job and I hope to be the one to do this one also. I think what they're trying to do is going to be both pleasing to the eye and it's going to be practical. I mean a double gallery with a roof on top is much more usable than one without. I think it'll it'll only enhance what we had there already and all the work that I put into the house and it was it was quite a job. It was a really bad state when I first started it but it's it's it's beautiful now and I think what we're going to do next is kind of make it more so. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is there any additional public comment on this application? Please step forward to the mic and state your name and address for the record. I'm Ann Dematwison 719 Napoleon Avenue. I'm an adjacent neighbor to this property. In addition the neighbor on the other side of this property contacted me last night.

They had just received their postcard yesterday so they would send y'all a letter this morning because they are physically not able to come in. Do you want me to read the letter into the record or? I believe I'll check with staff. You can use your two minutes however you wish. You're at about 1.30. Our neighbors, our family are the adjacent neighbors at 705 707 Napoleon Avenue will be directly impacted by the requested demolition of the original historic front facade of the house at 711 713 Napoleon Avenue. The original structure was heavily damaged by Hurricane Katrina as well as a tree falling across it. The current owner which is really was Brett because he was one who bought it. If I'm correct was allowed to build a new structure but with the stipulation that the historic front facade still in good condition had to remain in place. Napoleon Avenue is a busy street with several schools nearby so parking and noise as well as demolition dust will greatly impact many immediate neighbors. We therefore request the demolition and rebuilding larger of 711 713 Napoleon Avenue be denied. Thank you Charles McKinley, Elizabeth McKinley, and McKinley. All right so I'm on the other side of this property. Actually what happened in our neighborhood is we came together as a neighborhood when the building was in horrible repair after Hurricane Katrina and please allow for a little more time okay all right I'm just and asked had to go against that neighbor because he was second generation they had owned that house since 1923. He was second generation we had to go against him and say if you can't repair it you're gonna have to sell it. He sold it to Brett. Brett did the repair. Now when Brett did that repair he greatly increased the size of the building and this would further increase the size of the building with this two-story porch so it would then be a massive building on that lot. So it saddens me to have to go against my own neighbor who I generally have a good relationship with but I cannot support this. I want the facade to remain as is. Thank you. Are there any additional comments on this application? Yes please step forward and state your name and address. My name is Paul Bell 5949 Magazine Street. I grew up on this day in this neighborhood and the addition he's putting on totally destroys the historic character of that house. I've been renovating old houses all my life. I try to make sure things fit in if it's Craftsman or Victorian or whatever make it the same. This does not fit on the front of this house. Thank you for your comments. Any additional public comments? I'm going to take all comments and then we'll have commissioners discuss. Okay no additional public comments commissioners. This is in Uptown. Commissioner Lupin. I know you're organizing cards over here. Thank you. And any commissioners if anyone else wants to speak. Yeah I'm feeling somewhat sympathetic to the neighbors on this one and I'm just going to go ahead and move to deny the request for the removal and obscuration of more than 25% of historic materials on this. Okay we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second to that motion? Commissioner Lewis seconds. Any further discussion amongst commissioners? Okay all those in favor raise your hands. Mr. Lewis do it one more time. Thank you. I got in trouble the other day. All right the motion carries unanimously. Your application has been denied by the HCLC. You have 10 counter days from the date of this meeting to appeal to City Council in writing and the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process. Thank you and good luck with the project. Yeah thank you. Okay moving forward item E 3622 Toulouse Street. Is the applicant present? Please state your name and address for the record. Dina Chevalier and it's 1453 Boyd and Mere Drive. I'm having a voice problem. Mandeville, Louisiana 70471. I'm the owner's representative. Okay thank you. The staff will make their presentation and we'll hear your comments following. Sanborn maps indicate that this warehouse was constructed between 1940 and 1950 within the period of significance of the Mid-City Local Historic District. During the immediate post-World War II period the Mid-City neighborhood experienced commercial, industrial, and institutional development and the district boundaries reflect this architectural and historic significance. However the subject building lacks the character-defining architectural features typically associated with the brick and metal clad warehouses of the period. An interior and exterior visual inspection of the structure was conducted on October 21st. Building appeared to be in overall poor condition. The wood frame structure rests on concrete slab on grade foundation and is clad in oriented strand board panels, which are in fair condition overall. However, missing and separating panels expose the original deteriorated wood siding and reveal termite damage to the underlying wood wall framing. Although not visible from the public right away, the low slope roof appears to be clad in metal panels. Sections of the roof have collapsed due to extensive damage from wood destroying insects, necessitating the replacement and reinforcement of ceiling joists with newer wood members. The exposed wood trusses spanning the large open warehouse space represent the building's most architecturally significant feature and appear to be in good condition. Given the loss of historic exterior materials and architectural detailing, coupled with the significant deterioration of the structural framing, HDLC staff does not object to the demolition of the mentally contributing warehouse building. Thank you. To the applicant, do you wish to address the commission? Just want to say that I agree with the staff that the significance of the building has been diminished and hope the commission will agree. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this application? No public comment.

Commissioners, this is the Mid-City. Commissioner Clark. I will make a motion to allow the demolition. Thank you. Do we have a second? Commissioner Lupin seconds. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you and good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. Item F, 4025 to 27 Bowdoin Street. The applicant present? Please state your name and address for the record. Good afternoon, Molly Vigar, 909 Poydras. Great, thank you. This application is the third for this building being presented to the commission. So the building is a one-story double shotgun residence located in the Mid-City Historic District. The estimated date of construction is around 1890, placing it within the period of significance. Currently, the building maintains its original form and several original features. Although the front porch was reconfigured between 1908 and 1940, the front facade includes original doors with transom, full-height windows, and drop-lap siding. The front-facing gable also maintains original fish scale siding. Another notable original feature of the building's side porch at the rear, excuse me, at the right side elevation. Although this area is no longer served the building for that purpose, the jog wall form remains. Overall, the building remains a good example of a turn-of-the-century double shotgun residence with enough historic integrity to be important to the district. On October 22nd, an interior and exterior visual inspection was performed, approximately one year after the commission voted to deny the demolition request. At the time of the most recent inspection, the building was found to be in significantly deteriorated condition. During the previous inspection, the building appeared to be in generally good structural condition. However, the roof was in poor condition and allowing water intrusion contributing to interior deterioration. Additionally, improperly boarded windows are missing and deteriorated weatherboards and missing soffit boards have left the building envelope vulnerable to further deterioration. Based on this observed condition, it appears little or no effort has been made to weatherproof the building envelope since the October 2025 commission meeting. The building now exhibits signs of slight structural leaning, potentially resulting from continued differential sediment of the foundation. Overall, the building does not appear to be in imminent danger of collapse. However, the feasibility of rehabilitation has become increasingly complex due to the continued deterioration and what appears to be a pattern of neglect by the property owners. As emphasized during the commission's previous review approximately one year ago, HCL staff reiterates the immediate need to waterproof the building envelope to prevent further deterioration. As previous noted, returning the building to a habitable condition will likely require raising the structure and reshoring the foundation. Although these methods are not common, they are not prohibitively expensive. Nevertheless, given the building's historic character and the structural integrity has not been entirely compromised, HCL staff recommends for a third time denial of the request for full demolition to grade. Thank you. To the applicant, do you wish to address the commission? Yes, please. Thank you so much. So I'm here on behalf of the owner, Seattle Charters Property LLC. The staff's report did note there was no effort to show a cost or efforts to redeem, but I will point you toward included items with the application in terms of cost estimates for the house elevation, 170,000. If I have copies, if y'all need this. Rehabilitation cost of 356,000. And because I didn't see any pilings work included in the house elevation estimate, I asked the owner, do you have any piling estimate? That would be a bit over 45,000. So quick math has this over 572,000 to get it elevated, rebuilt properly. The reason it is in this condition is there have been squatters that come in. There's been illegal drug use. The owner has made efforts over and over and over to secure the envelope, to put up heavy panels, have them screwed in. There was evidence of someone using an ax to take it down at one point. This property was bought after Katrina to put into use for rental property. It was renovated after Katrina. Due to tenant damage, it had to be fully renovated a second time. And then Hurricane Ida brought additional damage. So the owners, and there's been some change of owners, but three full renovations in approximately 15 years. They have done everything possible. The roof was tarped at one point. You can see some of the tarp strings, I guess you might call them. So due to the cost, this property would probably sell for 380,000 at the very most. Thank you for your consideration on approving a demolition. Thank you. Are there any additional public comments on this application? I'm sorry, there are. Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley, PRC. At least I have one. Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley with the Preservation Resource Center. The HLC staff report noted that in the months since the commission last denied demolition for the same property in just October, 2025, the building has significantly deteriorated. The HLC report goes on to indicate that there appears to have been little to no effort in the last year to weatherproof the building or make any substantial improvements. The case history for the property shows that the two LLCs that have owned the property in recent years have applied four times to demolish the property, letting the property fall further into disrepair with every passing year. And of course, costs raise with each year that passes. Rewarding a pattern of property neglect would set a problematic precedent. We respectfully ask the commission to deny this application and ask the owner to secure the building. Thanks. Thank you. Any additional public comment? Yes.

Please step forward and state your name and address for the record. My name's Paul Bell, 5949 Magazine Street. As I said before, I renovate old houses for a living. A blue tarp is not a permanent roof. It is not a fixed house that has leaking roofs. The owner of this has been totally neglectful. You told him to at least secure it last time he was here. So he can just donate it to the city or something. It's that big of a problem to him. Get rid of it, get out of it. Don't tell me how much it costs. And the numbers I heard, good God. Thank you for your comments. Any additional comments on this application? No additional comments, commissioners? Mr. Clark. Sure. In the interest of moving us along, I think the public comments provided really resonate with the board, with the commission. We do not want to reward owners for simply neglecting their properties over and over again. When time after time, we have told people how they can secure their properties. This really seems intentional in this neglect to be able to push through a demolition. So I'm going to make a motion to deny request. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? We have a second from Commissioner Lewis. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. You have 10 counter days from the date of this meeting to appeal to city council in writing, and the staff will furnish you the details of that appeals process. Thank you and good luck with your project. All right. Item G, 2833 to 35, General Perishing Street. Is the applicant present? Please state your name and address for the record. John Beckman, 824 Dakin Street in Jefferson. Thank you. And I'm with Ruby on the construction company that's doing the mitigation, the elevation of the property. Thank you very much. The staff will make their presentation and we'll hear your comments following. FEMA survey research indicates that the craftsman-style raised basement bungalow was constructed between 1920 and 1930. It first appeared on the sandboard insurance maps until, excuse me, 1950. The building contains many of its architectural detailing, such as its jerkinhead roof, exposed eave rafters, knee brace wood brackets at the roof cables, tapered wood columns resting on stucco pedestal, as well as the stucco-clad building base and concrete steps. The original front porch has been enclosed and the exterior walls have been clad in vinyl siding. The applicant proposes raising the building to create code-compliant habitable space on the ground floor. The property owner has received a grant from the city of New Orleans to elevate the building for flood protection. The HTLC guidelines classify the raising of a building to create additional space as demolition, specifically addressing proposals of this nature that substantially alter the building's historic raised basement configuration and overall massing. Historically, the raised basement building typology provided a degree of flood resistance by elevating the habitable living space above grade, while the lower level functioned as a sacrificial space during extreme flooding events. This arrangement helped protect the primary living areas from floodwaters while allowing the lower level to sustain flood damage. By converting the basement into livable space, the building must be raised even further. When appropriate, the HTLC can recommend approval for raising of a building when it minimally impacts the overall height of the building. This proposal does not meet that criteria. Number one, the proposal increases the floor-to-ceiling heights from approximately. six foot six to nine foot eight. HDLC recommends ceiling heights between seven and eight feet. The proposal also increases the new ground floor level from at grade to six feet because of the grant guidelines require that the first two, excuse me, that the first habitable floor is at base flood elevation plus two additional feet. The simple code requires one additional foot. HDLC staff recommends exploring options to minimize the overall height increase. Alternately, if additional square footage is desired, staff recommends maintaining the current main floor height above grade and expanding the footprint of the building into the rear yard. A rear addition within the demolition thresholds described in the design guidelines would not need commission review. Thank you. To the applicant, do you wish to address the commission? They did all the correspondence through email with the staff and we're doing this through the New Orleans Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to elevate it. The additional floor height for the lower area was just to meet code requirements because right now I believe it's at six feet ceiling height and they're going to be increasing it to over seven to meet whatever code requirements we have. Thank you. I just would like, I know this we had a thorough staff report, but can you just read the part about the why of the like the height of it and just. Yeah, do you want to know the criteria or the reasoning where? The reasoning for the recommendation for denial. Yeah, it's because so the HDLC design lines have a very thorough demolition definition that's seen in the staff report and it specifically relates to the historical nature of the raised basement typology providing a degree of flood resistance by elevating the habitable space above grade while the lower level function as sacrificial space. Thank you. Okay, is there any public comment on this application? No public comment? Commissioners? We have a I think a precedent that since I've been on it, the commission we've done that in terms of the raised basement we like to see if there's an improvement or something done to the raised basement for that typology to remain and I think, you know, in raising this the way that it is, it creates a unicorn basically.

It tries to create a something from the raised basement that doesn't really exist in the typology in the city and so, you know, what I would suggest is that, you know, look to where this has been done successfully and, you know, as was suggested that the owner add on to the back or do something that doesn't actually, you know, create that uniform that unicorn front that we try to push back on when we do this. So I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and make a motion to deny unless you have something that's really pertinent because we've been here a long time. The whole process that initiated the house having any work done is its acceptance into the yeah that doesn't affect us at all. That doesn't affect us. And okay, no that's fine. I mean we just we rule on what's historical or not historical. Yep. So I mean I'm sympathetic to that. I'm glad the city has that program but that's not what we're here to do. Doesn't govern what we decide. So understood. Thank you. I just wanted to add there in that flood mitigation program there are several ways to raise a building to make it more resilient or abandon the ground floor so that it becomes the floodable space with additional square footage in the rear. So we definitely support raising buildings to make them more resilient in a flood prone environment and we support the hazard mitigation grants given by the city. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to do what they're proposing. I'll also point out that and it doesn't relate to what we're saying but in the new design the stairs do not meet the zoning code. So FYI. So we have a motion on the or we almost had a motion on the floor. We have so I'll repeat my motion which is to deny the demolition. Yeah. Okay. Deny the demolition. Do we have a second to that motion? Commissioner Irvin. Second. I just want to ask one question here of staff. I heard a lot of comments but there is a note on the elevation that says recommended ceiling height of eight feet versus the nine foot eight as drawn on their plans. Is that your note? Is that the staff's note? Right. So when we do approve elevating buildings and getting that to a habitable code some you know code requires seven. We sometimes require eight because we understand that seven is a bit low. So that is just me showing how to get a few extra feet or so. This building down still does not really solve the overall issue of the height. Yeah and I this might not be quite on point. I don't want to drag it out but the things that I think actually are kind of successful about this is that the porch maintains a strong connection to the street which is a historical feature and I think if we simply ask people to when raising homes to connect the stair up to the original floor but we effectively raise the building four or five feet you end up with really exceedingly tall front staircases and so I think there are some things that work well about this that speak to the original relationship of the porch and that volume that pushes forward towards the street. I'm not saying that moves the needle fully for me but I'm sympathetic to homeowners that have an entire story that effectively has to be abandoned. You know we're basically asking people to give up 2,000 square feet of space because right it seems to me the guideline really encourages the abandonment of the ground level. Yeah but well and if I may just to kind of push back a little bit on that I mean the original intent of these substandard floors were really to provide flood mitigation. They weren't really intended to be used as habitable space and so what we find and what led to this you know inclusion in the definition of demolition is situations like this where you know now we're used to using some sort of substandard space for maybe rental space or storage and now we want to lift that up above base flood elevation and while we're doing it let's add another three or four feet so we can have a nice you know eight foot ceiling for habitable space. So it's not that we're having people abandon typically you know habitable space where this is something that they've gotten used to and now they want more. There's also nothing wrong with let's say maintaining the front adding to the back and putting interior stairs that go from that entrance up to what then becomes a principal floor. So I would just suggest the owner don't necessarily give up but maybe try again. And I think as the staff pointed out on this there is a way to do this and working with the staff through that this application is just in excess of that. I just want to get back to we do have a motion on the floor so I have a motion from Commissioner Lupin and a second by Commissioner Irvin. Do you want to modify those motions based on the conversation that just happened? No. Okay. So with that I'm going to call the vote. All those in favor? Raise your hand. Okay motion carries unanimously. Your application has been denied by HDLC. You have 10 counter days from the date of this meeting to appeal to city council in writing and the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process. Thank you. Thank you. Old business retention applications. Item A is 1118 Thalia Street. Is the applicant present? The applicant is not present. We already deferred this application I believe one month. The applicant is with jail. Is that correct? The applicant you've been in contact with them? Okay we're going to go ahead and hear this application. This is an application for the retention of the modifications to the front porch at a new construction two-story single family residential building in deviation of the C of A in Lower Garden. The new construction building is currently mid construction and issues have arisen at the front porch with the removal of the access stair. The HDLC guidelines requires new construction buildings to have a main entrance located on the principal facade.

In cases where the owner wishes to reconstruct or construct a reproduction of a historic building type or style the guidelines also require that all dimensions, profiles, details, and materials match the historic building and style. As such the ARC and staff regularly recommend adding access stairs to front porches of new construction buildings. While the door is not required to function as the main entrance it should appear as a main entrance to meet the guidelines and fit within the context. The applicant is requesting retention of the enclosed front porch in deviation of the approved drawings due to setback issues from the front property line. However the applicant was made aware of the access requirement to the front porch prior to the first ARC meeting by staff. The ARC recommended approval of the new construction with the front porch access option. The HDLC approved drawings also included the front porch access stair. Further discussions with the applicant during construction were had regarding the stair and the issue with the setback. Staff recommended looking into leasing the air rights for the stair or having the architect design a modified porch that allowed a side access stair. The applicant did not find these options doable and construction proceeded in deviation of the drawings. As the applicant was aware of the access stair requirement from the beginning of the project there were multiple conversations on the reason for the requirement. Staff recommends denial of the retention. Staff also recommends the applicant work with staff to find a solution that provides access to the front porch. Thank you. Are you representing the applicant? Wonderful. Please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Nicole Weber, Weber Consulting, 2131 Bienville Street. Thank you. Do you wish to address the commission? Yes I would. So if there are documents that I had provided back in September if we could share that on the screen that would be great. What we did was we looked at the setback initially from the front of the front porch, which that door leads to a bedroom. The main entrance is actually the setback entrance, or the setback beyond the driveway. That's the front door. That's essentially the front door. But this front porch area, when it initially been submitted to HGLC into safety and permits, only allowed for a three foot setback from the property line, which is inadequate for the stairs. So I had, thank you, that's what I was looking for. So if you scroll a little bit further down on that image, looks like it got broken up. So what we looked at is, because it's only a three foot setback and it would run into the gate that is needed, it's a security gate. We're located in between Magazine and Camp Street. We looked at applying, taking the recommendation of staff and listing or putting the gate, or excuse me, not gate, putting the steps on the side yard. That wouldn't work because then it abuts the property line. And it's not a three foot setback that's required. It's actually three foot eight inches, which is another image that I have in this document. So it wouldn't work on the side yard. On the other side of the porch, which is that image below that we were just on, it would run into the driveway, obviously, for the off street parking. So it won't work on either side. Now, with the gate being there and the gate approved and the stairs, obviously, encroaching into the gate and into the public right away, it just simply wouldn't be possible. If we can look at the third image, please, that we have. All right, there was another document. But needless to say, I think I've belabored the point in that we looked at all possible ways to incorporate the steps. So it was built to the specifications. But it was simply missed by the architect. It was simply missed in plan review. And the fact that they didn't set the front of the building back far enough in order to accommodate the steps without it running into the gate, the front gate, without it running into the public right away. And there are no alternative areas to locate the steps. So it's not a matter of not wanting to have the steps. It's a matter of, it's just not physically possible. I hear those comments. That makes sense. But the gate is not required, right? So I think what's in front of us, at least the way I see it, is that the steps were approved. The gate is on the site plan. The architect didn't coordinate the two things. But the gate is not required. And to that point is that we would have a significant amount of the steps that have to go into the public right away. I did contact property management. I have not heard back on this, whether they would be OK with a lease agreement. It would be a minimum of eight inches that would go into the public right away. Is that OK? Sorry, go ahead. Can I ask a question to staff? I mean, if you were to flip the door and just flip the door to the other side, could the stairs not sort of be built into the side of the porch? Is that acceptable? That was one of my recommendations as well, because they don't have the room on either side because of the parking and the property line that we approved many that are set into the porch as part of the porch. To me, that's the easiest solution is that you just flip the door and the window on the first floor, and then you have the stairs coming in from the driveway side. And then you don't have to worry about encroachments or setbacks or anything. You're just losing a little bit of the front porch to the stairs. Yeah, so the building was built to the approved plan review. So you're saying cutting into the porch, the existing porch that's already been flipped. From the driveway, from the left side, and you flip the door from the left side to the right side. It's just, I mean, to me, it's a very easy detail that you can coordinate with staff and then be done and move on with the construction.

OK, yeah, I would have to look at in terms of the piling, structural, the foundation, everything that may be hindered or disturbed by doing that. Yeah, I think that's the easiest way. We have, I just want to remind everyone, this is an old business retention applications. This item was deferred for a month because no one showed up for the application. That went very fast that day. Sure, I think there's lots of folks here sitting here today for this. But I will just say that all those things, I'd like to move this one forward today so that they can continue. And I'm sure you want to get construction moving again as well. And I think that could be detailed and agreed upon with a denial of the retention. So is that a motion? I'm moving to deny the retention of the construction as is, upon board construction. We have a motion on the floor. I just want to make sure that I called for any additional public comment. OK, there's no public comment. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Commissioner Carson seconds. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. You have 10 counter days from the date of this meeting to appeal to city council in writing. And the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process. Thank you, and good luck with your project. New business retention applications, item A, 5818 Patton Street. Is the applicant present? Wonderful. Please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Sure, I'm Chase Thordor. My address is 61 Thunderbird, Covington. I'm the contractor on the job and here with the applicant. Here with the homeowner, excuse me. Thank you. This is an application for the retention of demolition of more than 50% of the roof and exterior wall structure to contribute a rated one story residential building and deviation of the certificate of appropriateness in uptown partial control. FEMA research indicates that the property is a Creole cottage constructed between 1885 and 1895, making it one of the older structures within the uptown local historic district. At the March 2026 meeting, the commission approved demolition of over 50% of the roof structure because the proposed renovation retained the original structure and demolishes the non-historic rear addition. The new addition was set back from and subordinate to the historic structure as per HDLC guidelines. On October 16, HDLC staff was alerted that the historic Creole cottage was partially demolished in deviation of the drawings approved by the HDLC and the Department of Safety and Permits. The applicant is requesting the retention for the demolition of the rear portion of the original structure. The proposed new addition required a full demolition of the remaining rear wall, partial demolition of the left side wall, and a significant portion of the rear roof slope. At the visual inspection from the public right away, staff has discovered that over half of the side exterior walls and roof structure was demolished. On October 28, staff performed an on-site inspection with the contractor and found the remaining original bargeboard construction in overall good condition. Some deterioration at the foundation seals and window openings was discovered, typical wood members of its age. It is reasonable to assume the demolished portions of the building was in a similarly good condition, despite the applicant's claim to the contrary without evidence. HDLC staff recommends the existing portions of the historic structure remain. Additional wood framing on the interior side of the existing walls can be added as needed, typical renovations of similar bargeboard constructed residents in the area. Staff is confident in the structural integrity of the original building because on June 25th, an HDLC inspector visited the site after the council member for District A received a complaint that demolition occurring at the subject property was in deviation of the approved plans. At that time, the inspector found that the demolition was within the approved thresholds and the structural integrity of the historic structure remained stable. During the initial review of the PRO's scope of work, staff and the architect slash applicant at that time discussed the full demolition of grade of all the structures on the site. Staff noted that the recommendation for a full demolition of the Creel Cottage was highly unlikely and that the proposed re-addition was the appropriate proposal for such a contributing structure in the historic district. HDLC staff recommends after the fact approval the partial demolition of the Creel Cottage, recognizing that once the historic structure's demolished, its original fabric is permanently lost. Revised drawings shall be submitted, demonstrating that the building's overall form and massing will be reconstructed. Because staff would not have recommended the demolition of the historic structure had the applicant followed the proper review process and obtained approval prior to commencing work, staff recommends the imposition of a tier three fine. Thank you. For the applicant, do you wish to address the commission? Yes, so essentially what happened here, we started to demolish the rear end of the property. On the Creel Cottage, when we got there, it was discovered when it was gutted that there was some rotting members. All the essential floor joists that supported the structure was in serious damage. They were deteriorating. I actually personally stepped through two of them. The sills, the way it was built and constructed, it's a six by six sill. It had significant termite damage on it. I had a video, and I don't think it was submitted, but I actually was taking my fingernail and scratching the wood, and you can see it pulping already. So there was some concern there with that construction. The barge board, as he mentioned, wasn't in decent shape, but that's not actually what was supporting the structure.

At that time, I had the engineer come back out and take a look at the property. He ended up having to re-engineer the entire project. At that time, we were counting on some existing piers for support, and we no longer could count on those piers. So we had to add in an entire grade beam and pier system that was on the backside of the current pier beam, and that is what required us to remove some additional wood. In one of those pictures, you actually see right there the additional grade beam and piers that were added where those sills were. Additionally, I have a statement from the engineer that I would just like to read so you all can hear it. He said, the existing barge wall construction and foundation sill beams exhibit significant deterioration and termite damage and have exceeded their useful structural service life. Even with supplemental support or reinforcement, the deteriorated materials would remain within the gravity and lateral load paths, presenting a continued risk of compression, displacement, and subsequent damage to building finishes. Additionally, retaining these materials may provide pathways for pest intrusion, potentially resulting in further deterioration of the structure and adverse conditions for future building occupants. And then what I would like to additionally add to that is the plan that was. approved we're not deteriorating from the plan from architectural standpoint the the plan actually that was approved shows hardy siding going back the facade was already changing as it was we were just making sure that the wall was structurally sound so there's no from what the permit was approved there's there's going to be no change in construction from an architectural standpoint thank you thank you we have additional comments from hey how are y'all doing Luke Dela Luz 351 West Lincoln simply cemetery just again want to preface that we are not changing anything on the exterior it's going to look the exact same as what the plan was submitted we are literally just trying to replace wood that would have been in between the exterior siding and the interior sheetrock I see it's very very important for y'all to consider so there was a recommendation for a pretty high fine for this but again we are not doing anything and I know it's part of the old mission is to make sure the area New Orleans stays a certain look and that's a big point of what the website says y'all are here to do and we are not deviating from that so I just want to make sure that was on the record and very clear thank you I'd like to yeah I was gonna let them all finish and then we I've got yeah we're yeah please state your name and address for the right Kim Martin I'm 5721 st. Charles Street I am husband I own the property at 5818 Patton just wanted to say that I both my husband I respect all the HDLC efforts in preserving the historical significance of New Orleans previous to purchasing 5818 my husband and I live at 1450 State Street for over 20 years we bought Patton because of the charming neighborhood as well as the historic Creole cottage while adding an addition to meet our family's needs we strongly believe in the historic structure of the beauties of this city in fact my husband and a business partner won the 2023 Louisiana landmark award for a complete restoration at 937 Domain Street in the quarter we also are big contributors and members of the humor green a house Association we plan on salvaging the unusable barge for the usable barge boards excuse me to another location in the home and we want to preserve as much of the Creole cottage while providing a safe and sound structure for our family for many future generations thank you any additional comments do we have I just want to make sure I went through everyone so Kim Martin I have you okay great chase I believe chase that are you okay and Luke wonderful are there any additional public comments on this application okay no public comments yeah I just wanted to take this opportunity to say you know we appreciate when our property owners you know understand what we're here for but we're here to preserve and protect the historic resources not necessarily replications of them so when you know you have a property and you as you get into it and you get into your renovation and you determine that there is a lot of deterioration and the historic materials perhaps need to be removed that's when you get in touch with the HDLC staff and alert us to the situation so that we can inspect and we can all come to an agreement instead of cutting half of a building off and then we discover it after the fact and then we realize that you know yes maybe your intention is to replicate what was removed but we don't have any indication or we don't have any record necessarily that this was the correct choice and path forward and that's why we get into these situations possibly resulting in higher fines than would not be necessary thank you you have a comment they state your name and address for the record Susan Johnson 28 22 the page Street town of Carrollton watch historic New Orleans neighborhoods I am NOT paid to be here I don't see anyone from the neighborhood organization at this meeting and I'm not sure if anyone has written in with a public comment from the organization but I do know that there was a problem with notification people were contacting me about this situation a few days ago not knowing what was going on so I tried to notify people and it's just very hard to take in I have to say this looks like a on one level a major major catastrophe so I just want to say that from a an advocate's point of view it's it's very hard to take in what has happened here at at the last minute and I hope that neighbors have written in with comments because there was quite an outcry from what I could hear on the drum via the drum as we say thank you please state your name and address for the record I'll take this comment and then take Paul Bell 5949 magazine Street I live

right around the corner I walk my dog past this beautiful little Creole cottage for years now and when I saw this happening I could not believe that they tore it down if you look at the picture of on Zillow the man says it was a terrible shape terrible shape I renovate old houses when you find a bad sill you replace a bad sill when you find bad wood this house was totally totally savable as is they had permission to do some work but when they run across a problem they need to call staff and say come see this needs to go will you please let us do it and that's the way it's done the way they did it is just not right and y'all should hold them their feet to the fire as best you can thank you thank you you wish to address the Commission sir and then I'm gonna see if there's any other public comments my name is my name is Ray Martin I'm the owner of the house with my wife our neighbors have Donald Link is our neighbor our neighbor next door has written you guys a letter that we're gonna be in full cooperation we number one I don't I don't want my family to be in any jeopardy we paid a lot of money for the house and that's most of a lot of its unsafe so that's why I have these guys with construction and I just wanted to state that I'm not trying to do anything to make anything look abnormal I wanted my family to be safe in a house that we're trying to build appreciate the comments I'm gonna ask one last time if there's any public comment because I'm gonna lose quorum today because we started late today just due to getting council chambers so is there any other questions I'm just gonna try and get through all these applications as well today um I just want to say I echo mr. blocks comments on this I think the case history is well outlined from the staff and appreciate that in here this is the second time we've seen this project at Commission previously we saw this project for the request for the demolition over 50% and again I just want to reiterate for anyone who's watching this or is you you know I just don't want there to be any confusion from both the contractor comments this is filed under new business retention applications because it's in deviation of what was approved on the drawings it's clear that's why there's a stop work order on the property and again we're here to review the demolition of it and all we have purview over is because this is a partial control is the review and approval of the percentage of demolition and the tier structure just to note for everyone we did a subcommittee several years ago to make the fine structure more transparent in the interest of everyone and so this tier 1 tier 2 and tier 3 fine is what's reflected in here and so we appreciate it we as everyone knows and I'm just stating this for the record we do not have to go with the tier 3 fine it is just a suggestion from staff and is on that rubric so you can see if it's contributing was a CFA issued the documentation of the existing conditions submitted the structural integrity and condition of the structure the demolition of the primary facade walls roof and or roof and the percentage of demolition approved and so that's what makes that up I just want everyone to understand how that's being reviewed and why there is a tier 3 fine being recommended by staff as we review this so with that I am going to turn this over to commissioners Commissioner Lupin this is an uptown unless other commissioners have comments as well this is a house that's very close to my house and that I've walked by for 28 years and I was very upset when I saw what what you guys had done and so there's a lot that I'd like to say but we have a lot of things going on so I'm just going to go ahead and move that we approve the retention of the demolition with a fine of $25,590 and deny any additional demolition that's my motion I also want to say that you know there was some confusion about the amount of what has about the amount of that that demolition as a result at that fine as a result of the assessed value and I'll just say that the owner is lucky that that amount is based upon the certified amount before the demolition occurred and not the uncertified amount of what's coming up for 2027 so I think they effectively got off a little easy okay we have a motion on the floor do we have a second to that motion from commissioners Commissioner Carson seconds that motion any further discussion amongst commissioners not I'm going to take a vote on this one please raise your hands and if we need to go to roll call we'll do that so all those in favor of the motion please raise your hand motion carries unanimously you have 10 counter days from the date of this meeting to appeal to City Council in writing and the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process we've allowed for the retention with the fine of $25,590 was the motion that passed thank you and good luck with your project all right moving forward item B 1412 fluid Street is the applicant present please state your name and address For the record, I'm not the applicant, but I'm stepping in place for the applicant. My name is Hannah Roberts. I'm 1420 Josephine Street, apartment 1B. I work for Legacy Construction, who is the contractor for this house. Thank you. And in the interest of time, because I am aware I'm going to lose commissioners and quorum at five, is it possible to abbreviate this to read your report? This is just the retention of wood, grain, fiber, cement, weatherboards installed at the property, and staff is recommending approval due to the fact that this house is contributing, but it is highly altered. And the applicant has worked through other deviations that happened at the property with the staff. So we recommend approval. Thank you. Do you have any comments? The staff is recommending approval of the retention of the wood grain siding. No comments.

I know there were a couple other items that we had failed for on the inspection, one being a roof turbine, which we're planning to change to the low grade. And then the window trim, which when we spoke to Ms. Michaela Daniels, indicated that as long as it wasn't, if it's limited visibility from the street, that we don't need to. There is an exception. We're asking for an exception for those. Yeah, there was only three, like, seals we needed to add to the windows that were visible. The other ones, they weren't visible from the street. So they could. Great. So to the applicant, thank you for working with the staff on correcting those deviations that were noted in the inspection. Just continue to work with the staff on that. The only item that's in front of this commission today is retaining the wood grain siding, which she's recommending approval on. And so I'm going to see if there's any public comment on this. Is there any public comment on this application? Seeing there's no public comment. Commissioners, this is in Bywater. Commissioner Carson. Make a motion to allow the retention. Thank you. We have a second. Seconded by Commissioner Hackenberg. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you and good luck with your project. All right. I want to remind you, we have two items left. We're going to do it. Item C, 935 Frenchman Street. Is the applicant present? Please state your name and address for the record. Brian Jill, Jill Architects, 810 Union Street, Suite 330. Thank you. This is an application for retention of inappropriate window units installed at a contributing rated one-story commercially used residential building in deviation of a C of A and full control marriage. The installed units are not considered appropriate because their sash and frame dimensions, proportions, and profiles do not replicate those of the previous wood windows. Most notably, the frames have multiple raised edges and recessed channels along the head and jams, creating a pronounced stepped appearance and a series of parallel shadow lines. Additionally, the units have integrated nailing fins that prevent deeper installation, leaving the window frames projecting beyond the face of the surrounding trim. The applicant proposes replacing the existing trim with thicker fiber cement trim to make the windows appear more recessed. However, this approach is generally not recommended because it alters the traditional relationship between the siding and trim, creating an excessive amount of friction between the window frames creating an excessively projecting surround without correcting the window units' inappropriate profiles or depth within the wall. Additionally, fiber cement trim is not typically approved as a replacement for wood window trim. Although the right side windows are somewhat more visible, all four windows are readily visible from the public right-of-way. Given the visibility, their status is the only four remaining windows in the historic structure, their installation without prior staff review, and the inability to recess the units further into the wall, staff recommends denial of the request for retention and installation of appropriate replacement windows. Thank you. Is it my turn? It is your turn. I'm so sorry. I'll speak quickly. This is a simple matter. A residential client of mine approached me over a year ago about helping her do a building in the Faubourg Marigny over for her son to run a doggy daycare from. We did the drawings necessary. She found a contractor who I thought was knowledgeable about the HDLC and a full control district, and they set about doing construction. He selected weather-shield windows, which were actually detailed in our drawings, originally down the sides of the building. The front was kept the way it was historically left, and he created a couple of stoops out front. Unfortunately, he didn't get the brick approved, but Dennis and I have been working through some of that, and that has been approved. And then there were some rooftop units that were added, and those were supposed to be a low profile, and they were done. So I think we are down to just the window, first window on the left and the right of the building. And my suggestion was to simply put slightly thicker trim. He put three-quarter inch trim because the right and left walls have to be one hour rated. They're less than five feet from the property line. So we have sprinklers inside, and we have hardy cement siding and trim around the windows because it's a one-hour rated wall, and that's part of the assembly. So I'm just asking to put slightly thicker trim on the front right window and left window so that the weather-shield trim or extrusion is not proud of the trim, but the trim is proud of the extrusion. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this application? Seeing as there's no public comment, commissioners? I mean, you're talking about just doing that on the first windows or all of the windows running down the side? To just the first two windows. I wasn't clear that it was the first two windows. I thought that was a proposal for the four windows that are adjusted or replaced that are visible. I was going to say, if you're going to do it, I mean... That's fine. It would look better if you just... because there aren't a lot of windows running on the... No, no, no, no. I understand. I thought maybe I misunderstood. Maybe it was the first two windows on each side. I thought it was the first two windows. Commissioners, does anybody want to make a motion on this one? Sorry, this is in Maroney, and I can't make a motion. It's a very well-drawn set of drawings. We have trouble now with this issue because we've looked at other ways of remedying this, like putting provisions on it that they have to be replaced the right way next time, but we can't put those limits on the property anymore. We've learned that lesson. So, unfortunately, I don't see how we can support this.

They're very visible. I would make a motion to deny this remedy and that they be reinstalled per the original detail. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second to that motion? Commissioner Hardin seconds. All those in favor of the motion? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Your application has been denied by HDLC. You have 10 calendar days from the date of this meeting to appeal to City Council in writing, and the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process. Thank you, and good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. Item B, 905-907 Elysian Fields Avenue, was an incomplete application and will not be heard today. Item E, 2438 St. Claude Avenue and 1026 Music Street. Is the applicant present? Wonderful. Please step forward. In the interest of time, I'm going to go ahead and have the staff start their presentation, and we'll hear your name and address after. Thank you. This is an application for attention of inappropriate speakers, oscillating fans, and associated exposed conduit and junction boxes, along with visually prominent roof-mounted mechanical equipment installed at a contributing but altered rated two-story commercial building in deviation of a C of A in full control marrying. For the speakers, fans, and their junction boxes and conduit, these appear to have been installed between January 2023 and December 2025 without a C of A issued. The guidelines note that entertainment devices, such as speakers and fans, may enhance the enjoyment of exterior spaces. However, they can negatively affect the building's character, its appearance in the public right-of-way, and the surrounding streetscape. The number of devices and their prominent placement across the building will further increase their visual prominence. These devices would be more appropriately located in a rear yard or another area where they'd be minimally visible or not visible from the surrounding streets. Exposed junction boxes and conduit are also not permitted in highly visible locations. Based on these factors, and given the building's high visibility from St. Claude Avenue, staff recommends denial of the request for attention. For the visually prominent mechanical equipment, sometime between October 2025 and April 2026, a new, large mechanical unit was installed on the building's rear roof without a C of A or mechanical permit. The unit is located approximately 5 feet 3 inches from the edge of the building, and thus does not meet the CZO requirement, which has a minimum 6 foot setback from the roof edge. In addition to the setback distance issue, the unit is considered visually prominent from Music Street. The guidelines note that mechanical equipment is a necessity of modern life. However, its design and location can have a significant negative effect on the historic integrity of a building or area. To reduce the equipment's visibility, the applicant proposes installing metal louvered screening, which would also act as a required guardrail for the unit in lieu of the required setback. However, screening is generally less preferable than locating equipment in a more appropriate, less visible position. Although the applicant has identified constraints for relocation, additional roof space appears to be available that could accommodate the unit being located further from the edge to eliminate or reduce its visibility. Based on these factors, staff recommends denial of the request for retention and recommends that the unit be relocated on the roof to reduce its visibility. If retention is approved, staff recommends that metal screening painted a neutral color be installed and that compliance with all other applicable code and zoning requirements be confirmed prior to issuance of the CMA. Thank you. To the applicant, please state your name and address for the record. Katherine Harmon, 6238 Argonne, LK Harmon Architects. In brief, we would just like to be able to do the screen to make it visually more acceptable to keep the unit where it is. It's very impractical to move it. And I would like to add it's not visible from St. Claude, only on music. And Larry Morrow, the owner of the business, is here to speak more about that and about the fans. How y'all doing? I'm Larry Morrow, owner of Morrow's and seven other locations, with three opening soon in New Orleans. And, you know, as far as the ceiling fans, it's hard to operate a restaurant in New Orleans with 100-plus degree weather and, you know, a condo. day guests and you know run an operation and not being able to put fans. In order to have fans you got to have an outlet and so you know obviously we had to put the outlets in order to install the fans but you know it really wasn't anywhere else to put them. You know it's extremely hot, we have a lot of guests, I mean anybody who's familiar with Romaro's, you know at any given moment you may have 20, 30, 40 people standing outside so that was something done to accommodate our guests. You know as far as the the AC, like Ms. Catherine said you can't see it from St. Claude. You know it's something that you know we need in order to you know in this old building ensure that the floors don't sweat. We accommodate our guests you know in this heat. We received a few lawsuits due to guests falling because the floors are sweating due to not enough AC and so yes we're asking to you know you know we're asking for retention on that and to put a screen around it especially with it not being visible from St. Aug and messing with the integrity of HDLC district. And we have retroactively applied for the mechanical permit as well, not just HDLC and safety and permits. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment on this application? No additional public comment. Commissioners, apologies this is also a marrony. I cannot make a motion on this one but I'm looking to others to see if you can. We have two items in front of us.

It's retention of speakers, fans and associated junction boxes and conduit and the second item is visually prominent mechanical equipment. As noted the applicant is willing to put up a screen and the staff also notes that if the retention is approved that a screen is provided. Can the junction boxes be screened? Not the junction boxes, this would just be the mechanical equipment. HVAC on the top? The HVAC on the top, correct. Two different items. But the electrical equipment on the side of the building, is there any remedy for that to remove that or replace it? I think painting them may help it blend in more. Outside of that, you know, I can't see anything that can possibly be done. If there is something that, you know, you guys suggest we would love to do it but, you know, we've exhausted all ideas to really just find another remedy. Mr. Murphy. I'm gonna let the staff, let's ask the staff on that one too. I think the first question is will the Commission allow the retention of the fans at all? And if you do, then we could potentially make sure that the conduit and the junction boxes are installed in a way that is less obtrusive, like if they're lined up against the, you know, the fascia or the corners of where the soffit comes into the wall, etc., and they can be painted out. So it's just a matter of a more, you know, discrete installation. But first you have to decide whether or not you can keep the fans. And is the, I just want to ask, is the applicant willing to make adjustments to locations of fans and conduit if that's allowed for retention? Yeah, I would say that, you know, we're willing to make adjustments. You know, I just know that we need fans. It's like we've dealt with, you know, in this industry it's tough, you know, restaurants are closing every day and when we can't accommodate the guests, you know, we can't essentially maintain our business. So we can make adjustments, but if you have any great ideas that can help us in this process, you know, we'll be definitely willing to look at it. I think we can paint out the conduit and locate the junction boxes higher up right under the gallery. It would be an easy fix. Thank you. To staff. Any kind of equipment that's movable, like fans or heaters that can be, at the end of the day, moved into the interior that don't, aren't permanently affixed to the building, don't require HDLC approval. So there are ways that some sort of air circulation can be provided up there that isn't wall-mounted and requiring conduit and junction boxes. Understood. Thank you for the comments. Commissioner Lupin, I think you might be ready to make a motion. The last one of the day. I'm very sympathetic to the fans and, you know, I'm very, I think, you know, I have a lot of respect for you Mr. Morrow and the things that you've done. So here's my motion in this particular case. I would like to deny the retention of the speakers. I will approve the retention of the fans and the caveat that you work with staff to minimize the all the associated junction boxes and conduits on the exterior in order to, can I not do that? Madam? I just wanted to add that we don't think there is a case where we, the HDLC has approved the fans, the type of which are installed on the second floor. In fact, we've made several people remove those. Okay. From similar instances. So I just want the Commission to be aware that that would be a change from precedent and previous cases up until this point and it's a barn door, just so that you're aware of that. You might see an increase in the incidence of these types of fan installations across the city in historic districts. Okay. How about I withdraw that and what I would like to say is I'm going to reject the retention of the speakers and those particular fans. I'm not going to include the associated junction boxes and conduits. I would like to allow for the cleaning up of the associated junction boxes and conduits, work with staff on that, and then with regard to the mechanical equipment, I'd like to move to, for retention of the mechanical equipment, but that the screening be painted in neutral color and installed in compliance with other acceptable code and zoning requirements. Details be worked out with the staff. Wonderful. I just want to clarify with staff on the first motion. I believe we need to deny the speaker spans and all associated junction boxes and conduits servicing those items because if there's a change in installation, right, that would require review by staff. So can we just be clear that that is all denied under this request? I want to make sure staff isn't put in an impossible situation where the junction boxes, their servicing fans are allowed to stay and be cleaned up but not the the fans themselves have to be removed. So just remove the junction boxes as well. Yeah. I think we have to fully deny. They don't serve any purpose without the fans. Well, I guess my assumption is that there may be some, Mr. Morrow might want to work with the staff on another cooling element or possibility up there, you know, that would work with him. There are also fans underneath the gallery that were installed without approval that were approved after the fact at staff level, but they also have some wall-mounted conduit and junction boxes that can be cleaned up sort of along the lines of your initial motion. Okay. I mean just a general comment that any any junction boxes and conduit need to be installed in a way that is non-obtrusive and has to get also approved by the electrical division. So that's just a general statement. All right. Can I just speak to the overall aesthetic here though? I think we approach every project on a case-by-case basis. I look at all the improvements made to this building. I look at the way the building was before he did the full renovation. I think it looks quite good.

Although this fan type hasn't been approved previously, it's black, it's relatively unobtrusive, it's relatively consistent with the kind of fan that might have existed a hundred years ago. I just, I don't, it doesn't bother me. Along with the ironwork, it blends in with the color scheme. I just, I don't find it offensive. Okay. So we have a motion that's proposed by Commissioner Lupren. Do I have a second to that motion? Commissioner Hardin seconds. Appreciate the comments. Commissioner Carson, do you want to revise? I'm just sorry, I'm just trying, I really want to be, I have a feeling this one's going to get appealed anyway, so I'm just trying to send it with as clear a direction as possible. Yeah, get it. Or we resolve it here. I mean, I would love to be able to resolve it here. I just, I think that there's some, maybe that there's a happy medium that can be made by working with staff a little bit on some of the details of it, but those particular fans, I think, might have to be removed in the process. So the ones upstairs or down? The one upstairs. So, you know, I'm a little stuck. Okay, I appreciate the comments. I want to be mindful of our folks who have already been waiting five minutes after this meeting. Yes. All right, so we have a motion on the floor. I have a second. Let's call a roll call, please, or let's just do a vote. All those in favor? Hands up. All those opposed? Hands up. That motion fails to pass. No action vote. Okay. All right. In the interest of time, we're split. I think it's a no action vote. Okay, so with that, moving to the next item, item F, 2001-03 St. Claude Avenue. That item has been removed from the agenda. Ratification of Architectural Review Committee and staff actions since Wednesday, October 7th. We have a motion? Commissioner Hackenberg. Motion second by Commissioner Lewis. All those in favor? Motion passes. HDLC reports and communications. Great. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you, and thank you, everyone, for your patience, for letting us run over a few minutes. We got started late. Thank you all.