City Planning Commission.

And I believe the principal bed and breakfast, that is not required. Let me just double check. Any other questions, in the meantime? OK so let's move on to the last likeness term. What is the difference between an accessory bed and breakfast? Madam Chair, I'm going to move for a denial in accordance with staff recommendations, especially considering that this is a zoning change, it's not just a conditional use. So my motion is in accordance with staff recommendation. OK, do you, oh, one second. OK, just, thank you. Let's go ahead and try to answer Commissioner Poche's question. So an operator is required at both the accessory and the principal, it's just the number of bedrooms that are allowed with each. So the accessory they can have up to five, a principal they can have up to nine. So with this particular zoning, the principal is not allowed. Commissioner Poche, I apologize, I thought she had finished with your question. No worries at all. So we have a motion on the floor for denial from Commissioner Steeke, seconded by Commissioner Josie Kufta. Any questions? All right, then let's vote. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Poche? Yes. Commissioner Koepper? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Josie Kufta? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Wittry, yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Steeke? Yes. OK, so the motion carries for denial. We will move on to Zoning Docket 056-26. Five-eight? Five-eight dash 26, yes. All right. Sorry. Zoning Docket 058-26 is a request for a conditional use to permit the conversion of an existing former office building into an eight-bedroom hotel in the HUMU Historic Urban Neighborhood Mixed-Use District located at 7979 Earhart and 3127 Short Street. The structure contains over 5,000 square feet, which requires conditional use review in addition to the fact that hotels are conditional uses within the HUMU district. The proposal includes a lobby, office, laundry room, kitchen, and dining area on the first floor with guest rooms on the second floor. No parking is proposed or required, aside from one required on-street parking space, which has been provided. The site is along an existing commercial corridor, and the conversion of the structure to a hotel is appropriate for both the zoning and the surrounding area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Zoning Docket 058-26, subject to the two provisos found in your staff report. Thank you. We have three cards. Mr. Glenn Charles, and then Mr. Deshaun Davenport, and Ms. Danielle Britt, please remember to state your name and address. Welcome. Welcome. I'm Deshaun Davenport. I went first because I'm an assistant applicant with it. The owner is seeking to provide a safe and high-quality lodging option for guests who travel from out of state to dine at his multiple establishments and the ability to experience the city. The person acquiring the property only recognizes that the site has great potential as well as a hospitality destination and a traditional office space. With the continued growth of boutique hotels throughout the city, the owner believes that this property is well-positioned to attribute positivity to the local tourism industry. He is fully committed to comply with all applicable city and state requirements, regulations, inspections, and permitting processes necessary to operate this property as a hotel. The goal of this project would provide benefits beyond the owner and its businesses. The proposed improvements to the property would enhance the appearance and functionality of the site and can serve as a catalyst for additional investments in the surrounding area. By encouraging neighboring property owners to pursue permits and improvements for their own properties, the project has the potential to contribute to broader neighborhood revitalization. In addition, the hotel would create new employment opportunities within the community through the hospitality, maintenance, management, and guest service positions. The owner has already demonstrated his commitment to the neighborhood improvement by directing the staff to regularly remove litter and assist with beautification efforts not only around his properties but his adjacent properties. Do you just state your address, please? Oh, 73162 United Church Road, McCoverton, Louisiana. Thank you. You're welcome. If no one has any questions now, then they may after. And then we have two other cards to speak, would they like to? Mr. Glenn and Ms. Danielle, you can speak in either order. I'm just pulling the cards as they come. Hello, good afternoon. My name is Glenn Charles, 622 Puncher Train Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana. I'm the owner of Nice Guys NOLA and Company. We have a couple of locations here in New Orleans. The one on Earhart, this particular building is directly across the street. It's been an eyesore for a while. It's mostly vacant. We had an opportunity to purchase it. We purchased it. We thought it'd be a great idea to do a small boutique hotel there, because we service probably almost 100,000 tourists a year at Nice Guys that's across the street. I think it's a great fit. We're also setting up tours to go downstairs. We have a Bourbon Street location and a Parger's location right across the street with really good food, in case y'all are interested. Headquarters by Nice Guys. Yeah, that's basically it. We got a good opportunity to help beautify the neighborhood, create more jobs, and hopefully bring more businesses to the area. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Danielle? So I have nobody else here to speak in support. I also don't have any opposition. Commissioners, if you have any questions for staff or for our applicant? I'll move approval of the staff recommendation. Which is approval to provisos? Correct. And Commissioner Jordan, you'll second? I'll second. All right, any discussion? If not, let's go ahead and vote. Commissioner Steeg? Yes, and I'm looking at your menu. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Wittre, yes.

Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Kepper? Yes. Commissioner Poche? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. All right, you have nine yeas. The motion carries. Good luck. We'll have zoning docket 059-26. Zoning docket 059-26 is a conditional use request to permit a commercial short-term rental in an HUMU zoning district. The site is located at 1622 Toledano Street, adjacent to the McDonald's in St. Charles and Louisiana, two non-residential properties fronting Toledano, and two residential properties fronting Carondelet. The property was formerly an office building that was demolished in 2023 and redeveloped into a three-unit townhouse-style building. Each unit of the property features a one-car garage and entrance from Toledano. The applicant has already acquired a non-commercial short-term rental license for one of the units, and the applicant is seeking a conditional use to permit a commercial short-term rental in one of the other units. The staff believes that the requested conditional use is compatible with the zoning district and the city's master plan. Additionally, considering the existing low density of short-term rental units in the area, this conditional use would not constitute a disruptive intensification of use for the vicinity. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval subject to two provisos. Thank you. Mr. Dajon Davenport. And then Mr. Gregory Johnson. Dajon Davenport, 73162 United Church Road, Covington, Louisiana. The owner developed the property under understanding that it was located on a commercially zoned lot. Based on that belief, he respectfully requests an opportunity to apply for commercial short-term rental licenses for the structures located at the property. As part of this request, the owner is willing to voluntarily relinquish the existing short-term residential license currently associated with the property and transition the site to a commercial short-term rental operation. The request is particularly important given the increased costs associated when maintaining the owner's affordability housing portfolio. Approximately 90% of the owner's properties are dedicated to providing affordable housing opportunities to the residents in the community. The ability to operate all three structures under the commercial short-term rental license would help generate revenue that could be used to offset the rising operation expenses and support the continued availability of low-income housings in his portfolio. The owner is committed to serve both residents and visitors by providing quality accommodations for tourists and families visiting this great city while continuing his long-standing investment in affordable housing. An approval of this request would assist him in preserving and expanding his efforts to provide safe, affordable living options for members of the community. Thank you. Does Mr. Gregory want to speak? No. Good afternoon. Gregory Johnson, 1622 Toledano. I'm here just to let you know that I'm not an absentee owner. I'm in the area. I am part of the area that I build houses in. I renovate the properties. And I want you to know that I have a stake in the city of New Orleans. I'm not one who is absentee. I pass properties that I own on a daily basis to make sure that it is not negatively impacting our community, because I do say our community because I am part of that. So I would appreciate your approval on the ask for the conditional use. Thank you. Do you all have any questions for Mr. Johnson? These are three units, correct? Correct. And there's parking below? Yes, there is. And then remind me of how many bedrooms and baths there are? We have five bedrooms. In each unit? In each bedroom. Five bedrooms, four bathrooms. But there's no certificate of occupancy yet, right? It's still under construction? Yes. Qualified? There's no certificate of occupancy. No certificate of occupancy yet. OK. I'm finished hammering and nailing, pretty much. We're just finishing with HDLC. Right. Are you putting a swimming pool back there? Two, on the end units. And they're small, so they're not, you know. Oversized hot tubs. It's a luxury. They're luxury units, so it provides a cooling system. They're luxury units, so it provides a cooling spot for our hot summers here. And the property that was there before was demolished. Did you demolish it? I did. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any opposition? I don't have any cards or anything. Anybody else to speak? I have a question for staff. Just in light of the recent commercial STR document that went forward to city council, how would that apply to this particular docket item in the future? Like, as if it didn't get a conditional use, because the conditional use lasts for the life of the property. What would happen in the event that they just went with whatever the future commercial short-term rental guideline is? Are you referencing the regulations that the council has put out but not yet adopted? Correct. I don't know. We haven't done a review against those proposed regulations yet. Any other questions, comments? Staff recommendation is approval with two provisos. If not, then I'd be looking for a motion. I move approval in accordance with staff recommendation. Thank you, Commissioner Sieg. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Hebert. Any discussion? Yes? Yes. I am curious, is this, you know, we've had this conversation about the third tier of commercial short-term rental status. And I'm just curious, like, does this create a provision where this property will be in that third tier that we talked about in the past? We talked about units that have been grandfathered. Now there's the interim, and then there's a question about where we're going to land in terms of permitting status. That is correct. There will be in all of the commercial short-term rental applications that you've received. Some of you have approved.

Some of you haven't approved since that IZD was put into place would basically grant conditional uses for those. And they would be governed by the terms of the conditional use, as opposed to the ones that are grandfathered to be governed under the regulations at the time they were approved, and the ones that would be approved forthcoming once new regulations are put in place. Thank you. Commissioner Stieg made the motion, and Commissioner Hebert seconded the motion. So, yes, Commissioner Flick. Sorry, just make sure I get this right. So just to confirm, if this is approved, it still has to comply with the future commercial SCR regulations? It would be governed? No, in terms of the entitlement, it would be subject to the terms of the conditional use. OK, thank you. So the motion on the floor would be to approve the conditional use of the property. All right, Commissioner Jackson. Yes. Commissioner Poche. No. Commissioner Kepper. Yes. Commissioner Hebert. Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta. No. Commissioner Flick. I'm going to also have to vote no. Commissioner Whitry is no. Commissioner Jordan. No. Commissioner Stieg. Yes. So that is three yeas, six nays. Big math I need to do. Yes. So the motion does not pass. So, sir, you'll have an opportunity to present to city council. Or someone could make a new motion. It's not going to change. OK. So the motion remains, or it is a motion to deny. Yeah. It moves forward as a motion to denial. So, sir, you'll be able to go to city council. Wait, OK. It is a motion to deny, correct? It is not a motion to deny. It is an effective denial, because it did not carry. It did not what? It did not carry with my vote. Oh, right. OK. So it is a motion to? Effectively, it's a motion I didn't carry. We haven't had this before. So it's a motion that does not carry. What is the exact language that I should use? So the motion that was put forward and voted on was a motion for approval. It failed. And so the effect of that is a recommendation of denial to the city council. So it is a recommendation of denial to the city council. An effective denial. An effective denial. Does it make a stronger case to make a motion to deny? Without commenting on the effective, yes, you can certainly do that. But I don't know. I don't speak for the council to be able to say whether that would have more weight or not. Well, I'm going to go for it. I'd like to make a motion to deny whichever zoning docket. We're on. Sorry. 59. Thank you. 59-26. I second. Do we need to do anything with the motion that did not pass? No. OK. All right. So we have a motion on the floor to deny by Commissioner Poche and seconded by Commissioner Josie Gupta. I have a question. So the reasoning behind your motion is you want to leave things until the larger issue is settled? Yes. Yes, that's correct. My personal position on this is that unless there's an incredibly compelling reason to consider an authorization of a commercial short-term rental while we're under the ICO, then I won't consider it. And a compelling reason is defined in a handful of different ways, but those standards aren't met for me here today. I personally don't think I have a compelling reason to approve a commercial SCR until we have the regulations in place. And it has no bearing on the owner here, who's clearly a good steward of the neighborhood. And you will have an opportunity to go forward to city council. But that's just how I personally feel at the moment. Yeah, and it's a fairly large commercial short-term rental, which also makes me think that we need to have the regulations in place that are now being put forward and framed as we speak. So I think we need to wait on that before we make special treatment approvals. All right. Commissioner Steeg? I'm convinced by Commissioner Poche's reasoning. And I agree, it's probably not a great idea to be creating an additional category. So I'm in favor of the motion. I vote yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Whittry? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. And Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Kepper? Yes. Commissioner Poche? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. OK. So the motion is to deny. And I had not had a vote like that before. So that's why we had to go ahead, and I needed a little coaching. But it is a motion to deny. We have, as a commission here, we've done a lot of discussions on short-term rentals and commercial short-term rentals. And there's still some grayness out there. And so we're not comfortable right now approving this. But you will have an opportunity to go to city council and to present your docket item. Commissioner, or yes, Commissioner Steeg? I have a question for council, probably. Even if the city council were to deny this conditional use, once the new regulations are passed, they would not be prohibited from reapplying under new regulations. They'd be applying under a different legal framework. So are they precluded by a denial? Are they precluded from reapplying within the two-year period? If the law has changed, then they're applying under a new law. So I think it would be a call for safety and permanency having the chief zoning official about how that would be interpreted in that situation. It basically comes down to being an interpretation of the zoning ordinance. OK. If you all have questions, I'm sure our executive director can answer them, potentially. OK. Thank you. We're going to go ahead, Commissioner Steeg. Sorry to be a dead horse. Mr. Rivers, I don't know if this is procedurally correct. Can we ask either safety and permits or the law department for an answer to the question that I posed for this reason? If we knew that by applying for conditional use while the law was still in flux, that a denial would prevent them from applying under the new law for two years, it might affect our decision. I don't know. It might affect mine, at least.

So can we get some clarification on whether or not that would preclude them, or they could apply again under the new law, having been denied under a previous version? Absolutely. Great. So do we need a motion to ask for that, or? Great. So I'd just like to think we would all like to know that. Thank you. So I'm curious for Council and Director Rivers, what would this do to our ability to, I guess, reconsider the zoning docket? Because it seems like we need additional information, and now we voted in that direction. And so I'm just curious. Oh, I see. What are our next steps? So under the CPC's rules, you can reconsider at this meeting or the following meeting. OK. So if you wanted to wait to the following meeting based on new information that comes up between now and then, hopefully an interpretation, then you could do so. We would get a zoning interpretation from? That would be the ask, yes. OK, so. Can this go to City Council? And if this is clarified, can that be resolved at City Council level, or does it have to be resolved at the Commission level? I'm sorry? If once we get an answer, does this have to be resolved at the Planning Commission level, or can it be resolved at the City Council level, if it goes to City Council? So either, I think, would be. What I would suggest is if you all are considering rethinking the vote, would be to reconsider it and then defer it until the next meeting. Are we on deadline? It's because we have also denied many others on the same exact grounds in the past. And we haven't asked for clarification. So again, what I would suggest is if there is a question about whether you would reconsider your vote, would to do so now, defer it to the next meeting. What we can do also in between this meeting and the next meeting is go through all of the previous similarly situated conditional use applications for commercial short-term rentals under the IZD and give you the numbers about how those votes have broken down, if that would help inform your decision. Thank you. I mean, there's two factors in this particular case, is the density of this particular application. It's a large commercial rental, which was, again, we were talking about a completely different density and a different category. That was one of the questions also. So I don't know if we all feel comfortable about that. So we can make a motion to retract? No, just a new motion. Yeah, a new motion. To reconsider. A new motion to reconsider. Are we on deadline or not? No, the deadline is August 8th. OK. So just to get it on the floor, I'm going to make a motion to reconsider our decision of denial. And tell me if I'm procedurally doing this right? Make a motion to reconsider our decision of denial. And do I do them one at a time? Or can I do them one at a time? One at a time. With the intention to then introduce a motion for deferral. But all this is is a motion to reconsider. I'll second that motion. Commissioner Steeke made a motion to reconsider. Commissioner Jordan had seconded. Any discussion? If not, then let's vote. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Poche? No. Commissioner Kepper? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? No. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Whitry is no. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Steeg? Yes. Okay. So we have three no's and six yays. So now I'm going to make a motion to defer to the next meeting. Two meetings or one meeting? I mean, how long will it take to get the decision from the law department, et cetera? Okay. So I'm going to make a motion to defer for two meetings. And my reasoning is so we can at least know the effect of our denial, even if we were to do it, we would know whether it precludes them from reapplying under the new law and if it's passed or not. So I move for deferral for two meetings. I'll second. I'm sorry, who was that? Me. Okay. Commissioner Kepper, second. Commissioner Steeg had made a motion on the floor. And you're looking for information from a zoning determination and then also from the law department. I don't know where it's coming from. I want to know whether a denial under the circumstances before the new law is passed would preclude them from applying again under the new law, the two year prohibition of reapplying on the same matter would be in effect or it wouldn't because it's under a new law. Thank you. Commissioner Jackson. Yes. Commissioner Poche. May I preface my vote with commentary? I just want to indicate to the applicants I'm standing on a hard line here, not because I don't believe you're a wonderful community member or have good intentions for this property, but because the issue at hand here is incredibly complex. And as one of the other commissioners mentioned, we've denied many applications for commercial short term rentals while we wait in this interim time period to understand what the legislators in the city want to do moving forward, regulating commercial short term rentals. Therefore, I'm staying consistent with my decisions across the board to deny any applications as such. And I hope that the legislation that is introduced regarding short term rentals will address exact matters that you're facing right here in the event that you are denied fully today. So my vote is no. Thank you. Commissioner Kepper. Yes. Commissioner Hebert. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta. Yes. Again, I want to be consistent. I've always denied commercial short term rentals. It's nothing to do with your particular case, you know, it's just that this is a very sensitive situation for many, many people and we have denied it consistently. And I feel that by creating a special situation in this in this scenario, I would be going against what I have been voting for this whole time until this matter is resolved. So that's why I'm going to vote no. That was a no. Thank you. Commissioner Flick. Yes. Commissioner Wittry. No. Commissioner Jordan. Yes. Commissioner Steeg. Yes. So we have six yeses and three noes.

And the date of deferral is August 8th. Is that right? July 8th. 14. July 14. So we you're going to be we're going to get more information and then to be able to come back. I just have one question. Just one. Just just our executive director can actually speak just because the public portion has been closed. And so you're able to now come back and see. Thank you. Before we proceed, can we can I get clarity on what we're asking of the different items that we're asking of safety and permits? Yeah. You're prohibited from making the same application for two years. So if we were to deny and the city council were to deny, they couldn't come back for two years. But somebody who waited and didn't ask for a conditional use and then the law changed, finally changed, and then they made the application under whatever. They they could they they could apply. And these guys would have to wait for two years because they tried to to get a conditional use on it before the law was settled. Right. And the two year who decided the two year. It's in the law. It's not. But that's why it's nuanced, because it may not be. They may not apply for a conditional use. They may just apply. Yes. That's where I see. You know, it depends what the law is changed. Exactly. So this is I think this is just something that's worth clarifying, even though we haven't addressed it before. But I think it's just we're like, wait a second. What is happening here? And what does this really mean? So I and the reason the reason that I made the suggestion was that it seems a hardship on them that they filed a legal procedure. You can ask for a conditional use. And then by doing that, then maybe if the law were to change and it would be easier for them, they're getting penalized. They have to wait two years and they didn't do anything wrong. They tried to ask for something. They they have the right to ask for maybe. And and if we turned it down under the old law, but if the new law made it easier for them, they'd be they'd have to sit on their hands for two years. That's all. And if they went to city council after a denial and they were approved, then they would have just been approved, correct? Yeah, I suppose so. Yeah. Which is the process other people have gone through. Right. Zoning docket zero six zero twenty six zoning docket zero six zero dash. Twenty six is a request for a conditional use to permit a standard restaurant in the H.U.B. one zoning district. The subject property is developed as a mixed use building with a restaurant on the ground floor. The operator wishes for the restaurant to be reclassified as a standard restaurant to enable the sale of alcoholic beverages at the restaurant. The existing site is classified as a specialty restaurant for zoning purposes, which allows limited food and beverage services and does not allow for alcoholic beverages. This read this request for reclassification necessitates the conditional use approval due to the site's location in the magazine street use restriction overlay district. Given the purpose of the zoning district to allow small businesses, including restaurants and the commercial use of surrounding properties, it is not likely that a standard restaurant with the sale of alcoholic beverages would result in any negative impact for the surrounding residents. This is furthered by the standards imposed on the standard restaurants and the provisos recommended by the staff. The proposal meets the standards for approval in Article four section of comprehensive zoning ordinance and is consistent with the master plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of zoning docket zero six zero dash twenty six subject to three provisos. Thank you. Mr. Liesel, and I'm sorry about your accident. I'm glad to see that you are moving. Thank you. I just get to spend more quality time with my son. So Ron Liesel, one thousand South Norman C. Francis, want to thank the staff city planning staff on here. This is a very small restaurant. If you have not been to this sushi restaurant, which holds 28 seats, it's not very large. They bring in some amazing, amazing fish for for sushi trays. Again, we have no problem with any of the provisos and we thank the staff. Thank you. You're the only card I have to speak on this matter. Is there anyone else here to speak on it? OK, staff recommendation is approval with three provisos. Any questions? I have one point that I'd like to make for the record. The second paragraph of the summary indicates that the restaurant is located in a corridor of magazine that's incorrect on the summary. So on the staff report. So I'd just like to make a note of that. It indicates it's on magazine between Napoleon and Jefferson in the Bullen neighborhood. And it is not. It's in between Washington and Louisiana. OK, I'll make I'll make a motion for approvals of zoning docket item zero six zero two six subject three provisos make a second. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor for approval with three provisos by Commissioner Jordan and seconded by Commissioner Flick. Any questions? Discussion? Mr. Steele. Yes. Mr. Jordan. Yes. Mr. Wittree. Yes. Mr. Flick. Yes. Mr. Josie Gupta. Yes, it is a very good. Yes. Commissioner Hebert. Yes. Commissioner Kepner. Yes. Commissioner Poche. Yes. Commissioner Jackson. Yes. All right. The motion carries. We'll now move on to zoning docket zero six one dash twenty six zoning docket sixty one twenty six is a condition used to request a neighborhood commercial establishment in an H.U.R.D. two historic urban two family residential district. The existing mixed use structure is located at one thirty nine Broadway Street, which is the corner of Broadway and Camp Street. The immediate past two's was a photography studio that operated there for 16 years until relocating in the summer of twenty twenty five.

The applicant proposes to find a new tenant and resume commercial operations as one of the seven permitted uses under the neighborhood commercial establishment category while maintaining the same footprint. The proposed commercial use is allowable under the master plan, which allows for businesses to be reestablished in non-residential structures. Overall, staff consider the reuse of this commercial space of this commercial space to be reinvestment not only on the property itself, but the quality of life for residents of surrounding properties. We are recommending approval subject to three provisos. Thank you. I have several cards in support, Ms. Weber and Mr. Morales both checked they were the applicants. Good afternoon, Nicole Weber, 2131 Bienville Street. We do have Mr. Morales here, the property owner, and I would just like to add that this property has been in commerce as a commercial use for over a hundred years and well-documented not only in a staff report but also on its non-conforming use status. We also have the future, if we get approved, future tenant who will operate a dog grooming business outside of this long-standing commercial business or building. Because we have so many speaker cards in support, if you all are okay with it, if the commissioners are okay with it, we do not have to have everybody come up and speak. We would just like it noted that these individuals are here in support of the Neighborhood Commercial Establishment and we're here to support the staff's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Morales, would you like to, please remember to state your name and address. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Joe Morales and I'm the applicant for the Neighborhood Commercial Establishment designation at 139 Broadway. I want to begin by thanking staff for their thorough work on this case and for their recommendation of approval. The research confirms that this property has functioned as a neighborhood business site for well over a century. The building was constructed in 1912 with a storefront design intended for commercial use and city directory records document a grocery operating there by 1916. Since the mid-1970s, the property has continued to serve the neighborhood through small-scale community-oriented uses including an arts council, a long-running picture frame shop, an art gallery, and most recently a photography studio for the past 16 years. My family has owned the property since 1923 and its role in the neighborhood has remained consistent across generations. I grew up across the street. I own property immediately adjacent and I remain actively involved in this area. I'm in New Orleans often to manage the property and to support my brother who lives nearby and has a disability and I maintain a consistent hands-on presence here as both an owner and a member of the community. This area has become increasingly vibrant with nearby destinations like Audubon Park, the Batcher, the Riverbend area, Magazine Street, shops and restaurants, and a range of residential developments including high-rise and assisted living communities. In that context, the continued use of the property as a neighborhood business will have a negligible impact on overall activity while contributing to the character of the neighborhood. This request recognizes what has existed for generations and allows it to continue. Thank you again for your time and consideration. I respectfully ask for your approval to allow the property to continue doing what it has done for over a century, quietly, consistently, and as part of the fabric of this neighborhood. Thank you. So I have five cards in support. You all are welcome to speak or you can just raise your hand and we can see that you're here. Okay. Would you like to come up and speak? Is there any opposition? Can I ask a staff a quick question? So they lost their non-conforming use by being vacant for six months or not in use for six months? They do not currently have the neighborhood commercial establishment conditional use. I believe what they were grandfathered for was specifically for a photography studio, which obviously limits the possibilities. Oh, so the non-conforming use was for a specific use and then by getting the zoning, the commercial establishment would be broader? It would be a little bit broader. It would allow essentially personal service establishment, retail, or specialty restaurants, but it would not allow anything like full-scale restaurants or bars or anything like that. Good question. Any other questions? If not, there's a motion. I'll move approval subject to staff report. Second, Commissioner Posey. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor for approval from Commissioner Flick, seconded by Commissioner Poche. Any questions? If not, we'll vote. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Poche? To the Moraleses, thank you for being such good stewards of this property over the time. I firmly vote yes. Commissioner Kepper? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Please go back into commerce. I like seeing historic properties go back into commerce and a viable use. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Whitry? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Seeg? Yes. I'm glad to see you guys continue. Motion carries. Good luck. We're gonna move on to 062-26. Zoning Docket 062-26 is a request for a zoning change from an HURS Historic Urban Single-Family Residential District to an HURD2 Historic Urban Two-Family Residential District. This request would enable the applicant to develop a two-family dwelling on a currently vacant parcel. While the zoning change would expand the permissions of the site, the proposal would not, from a land-use perspective, generate negative impacts on the surrounding residential properties, which are a mix of two and single-family dwellings. The proposed HURD2 district allows two-family developments by right.

Staff finds that while the proposed zoning change would not conflict with the future land-use map and is compatible with the surrounding current and historic uses, it would ultimately result in a spot zone and does not meet the historic non-conforming use policy, which requires a history of non-residential use. In conclusion, staff recommends denial of the requested zoning change from an HURS Historic Urban Single-Family Residential District to an HURD2 Historic Urban Two-Family Residential District. Thank you. Mr. Beard? How you doing? I'm James Beard. Will you state your address, please? 2657-2659 Treasury Street. My purpose is to change the single-family residential into a two-family residential. First off, it's not my first time I've built a home in that area, and I'm also a... lives in that same area, so I'm never gonna do anything to mess that area up. I'm gonna take good care of it. It was once before, when there was a structure on there, it had a multi-family on there, so I'm just kind of trying to revert it back to that, and I honestly think that me reverting it back to that would also encourage other people to also build in that same area, because there's a lot of empty lots in that area, and since, like, 2010, there's never been nobody's building in that area, and if there's somebody to see one, it'll start encouraging bringing more affordable homes for people to live more in New Orleans. So, that's about it. Sir, can you tell us, on your actual street, are there any current doubles? There's only one... on my actual street, there's only one home, period. Yeah. So, there's just lots. So, there's nothing. I saw on the zoning map yesterday, I couldn't... it was hard to tell. Yeah. Okay. It's also like a conditional use, like one corner, one block away from it, so... And that's for a double? No, it's not for a double, it's for a big factory or something over there. Thank you. If you don't mind just filling out a card, too, because I don't think I got one. Is there anyone else here to speak in support? If not, I have three cards in opposition. Ms. Desiree Washington. Good afternoon. My name is Desiree Washington. My address is 3122 Hill Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. 70122. Our community is a very small community. There's no double houses. It's single homes. We have a lot of elderly people stay in our community. When it's hurricane time, we have a difficult time getting out because it's a one-way in, one-way out. We have, on the corner, there's this club, and it's horrible. They party and call us all around the way, all over the place. We don't have anything against them building, but we ask that you not change the zone for a double or single or how many complex, because it's horrible, and it's dangerous out here in the world, and we have a lot of elderly people in our community, and we would like to keep it that way. If he can build a single home, that's fine. We all agree with that, but not a double, not a complex, not stacked on top of one another in this small property. So that's what we ask for. Is the conditional use that the applicant was mentioning, is that the club? No, the club is actually on Franklin, and when it's football time, when it's nighttime, it's no way in. So can you imagine if we build this full complex, and I often would be with them, mixed up with the other crowds. So, I mean, it's fine if you build a home. I want to see people come home and live, but not to change our zone to something different right now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Miss Priscilla Lapis? Good afternoon. Thank you guys for hearing our petition this afternoon. I'm Priscilla Lapis. I'm president of Edgewood Heights Association. My address is, I have several houses out there. I was, been out there since I was a child. Raised my kids and everything. My mother, mother-in-law, on and on. So it really, really means a lot to me when these different investors come in, because we have seen investors come in on, in buses, because they knock down a lot of our old historic houses. Our homes were built, and when, beginning part are historic, World War II, and it was built for military, just the doubles that was in the front. But afterwards, they put them back, because their little community is like a cul-de-sac, and they put it back to singles. We do have a lot of single, widows, and we have a lot of people, seniors, in that neighborhood, and it'll be very devastating because they can't get in and out, they can't get out. Now what she was saying about the bar, it's called Culture Club, and it's on Franklin and Abundance, and they, for some reason, I don't know how they got a police, they got police escorts escorting the traffic, and they don't have the parking. So even for people to get out, we have had problems with seniors, with ambulance not able to get in, it's just a lot of things going on in that little community. The commercials all around, we are like a little hole, like a little bowl in that community because we got this big sewage and water board on one side and they're continually growing, and then we got all these here, other infrastructures kind of squeezing us out. So we're asking not to change the zoning for the HUR-S to HUR-D2 because that allows... Thank you. Would you like to continue to speak? Yes. Commissioner Jordan's going to ask you to continue. Yeah, do you mind continuing? Just finish your comment, if you don't mind. Uh-oh, sorry, the mic, is it, oh, it's just, got it, could you, is it possible to reset it? Oh. Well, I could speak loud. Oh, there you go. Is that okay? There you go. It's working now. It's working now. The mic gets shut off temporarily. Well, we asked that, but one of the problems that I have is that we had, now, as you can see, this is a notice made February 2nd, okay, but then we had the NPP moisture 6. We were notified. We sent in our opposition then. We sent in all the paperwork then.

We have not, at least I have not, association president, received a notification from the zoning about this. Now, they say they melted, but we got several houses and several, we had one person receive notice about this meeting. So you have quite a few people was not able to get their opposition in, but after I had talked to several people and my council person or whatever, they did send something June 1st, but opposition was ending June 1st. So we, you know, I just, I'm just bringing it to your attention. So we, the next time that, it's so many months away from February 2nd all the way to June, I don't understand why it takes so long, you know, for to get a, get to get the zoning meeting because you're dealing with seniors. I mean, really, they're like 90, 80, 70 years old in that, in that, in that area. And we need notice to be able to give our opposition, which is, you know, I think everybody should be able to do that in communities, but thank you guys for listening to us. I did write everything down. If you didn't get a copy, let me know, I can give you, you know, so you can make a copy because it is quite long. I just have, just let us know. I don't know if you need to make changes about these NPP meetings, because the thing is, if you have a NPP meeting, a person should know within a month, no later than two, whether or not they're going to go head on with what they're going to do. They shouldn't have to wait four and five months. So I mean, that's the only problem, that situation that I have. Thank you guys. You're very kind. Thank you. We appreciate that. We've, we've definitely had discussions about NPP process and how to better utilize it. Mr. Brian Lopez. Good afternoon. My name is Brian Lopez, 36, 16 Deer Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70122. That neighborhood that we discussed, and I've been back there since 1970, owned property back there. My mother owned the property. I own four properties back up into that neighborhood, and other people, I heard him, the, Mr. Barrett say that there's no single houses on Treasure. There's one on the corner of Treasure and Deer. There's another one on the corner of Treasure and Eads. So there's single dwelling homes being built. They got a brand new home being built on Sage Street, single dwelling home. So they have a lot of single dwelling homes in that area. Ms. Desiree, she built her brand new home right on Deer Street, right behind this property he's talking about. Across the street from there, they have another brand new home that was built there, up on stairs. You know, they built them up off the ground, higher. But I'm in opposition of changing any zone to that community. Because I believe once you change zoning, that allow other people to come into the community and build other type of projects. Because we looked at that letter, that when you're going to change it to that zoning that he's desiring to do, you were able to put townhomes in there, six-unit townhomes. And they got a lot of vacant properties in this area at this time here. From my understanding, I know because I bidded on some properties, NOAA was selling these properties for $4,000. These tenants, these people who purchased these properties, supposed to have put buildings on these properties within the year. All these properties are still vacant. I believe they're waiting to change the zoning in our area and start putting these type of, I call them townhomes, because they got them across the bridge. I looked at them. They're trying to put these into this community. We want it to stay the way it is, six-unit townhomes. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here to speak in opposition? If not, then Mr. Beard, you have a chance to come up and rebut or rebuttal, if you'd like. I'm going to keep it short. One of the points that she had made— Could you speak into the mic? We want to be able to hear you. My bad. Now we can hear you. One of the points about the exit to the streets, there's also another exit on Peoples Street where you can vacant that neighborhood from there. But a lot of times, I think we had spoke about this before, that it's often a train track that's blocking it. And I spoke about it where it's more so it's not a city issue, it's more so a train track issue where you have to contact those people to get them to stop leaving their tracks blocking that area. So I've already spoke to them about helping them out with that. When it comes to what I'm trying to do, I'm just trying to build three bedrooms, two family homes. I'm not trying to do nothing else, nothing more. That's all. But as a double, correct? That's a double. That's correct, ma'am. Thank you. Any questions? I have a question. Oh, go ahead. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Hebert, Commissioner Hebert. I have a question, Mr. Beard. Have you considered building a single family home in that community? I considered it, but I don't think that would be the best thing for that area, honestly. Why not? Well, because one … housing right now is just extremely expensive. So for me, as an investor, if I'm building a single family house, I got to think about who's going to be my buyer. So my buyer, generally, with the cost of material and labor, et cetera, et cetera, like that, and the surplus of a lot of housing supplies, it's going to be very difficult for somebody to afford housing right now. So in my opinion, if you want to do a housing for the person that want to buy a house, it's best to buy a house with … get some supplemental income alongside of that. So I'm not just thinking about just what I want to build, stuff like that. I'm thinking about my buyer also, if that makes sense. So if you had a double, would it be rented out? Excuse me? Say that again? Would you rent the double out, if it's a two-star? So if it's a double for the school course I'm building, I'm just going to build a multi-family, a double, like you said, and just rent it out. I currently have one in that area, that's across the street from Franklin.

And that's going to also rent out at affordable rent, too. So you wouldn't consider building a single family and renting it out? No, ma'am. No. Okay. I have a question for staff. Yes. Okay. Please. So what's the maximum number of dwelling units that can be built in HURD2? Two. Okay. And that's what I … I just wanted to get that on the record. That was the easy question for you. And in the lot size of this, so he's proposing to build a three-bedroom, two-bath on each side. Can you calculate the maximum number of bedrooms, et cetera, that could be put in a double? The number of bedrooms, that would be hard to calculate. We could calculate … Yeah, I realize that's … That's a hard question. Yeah. Okay. But the limit is two dwellings. Two dwellings, yeah. Okay. Thanks. You're saying if he adjusted his plans, then he could potentially build what he wanted? No. He wants to build a double, and the zoning would allow him to build the double, but no more. So, I mean, I've been hearing a lot of discussion about a project, et cetera, but he's limited to two dwellings. Right. Any other questions? If not, is there a motion? No, so just to clarify, does that mean he can still do what he wants? No, Commissioner Steeg was mentioning if we had approved this zoning docket item, it would limit him to two dwellings. Is there a motion on the floor? So, I'll go ahead and make a motion, which I fully expect to be defeated. So, I'm going to make a motion against staff recommendation for approval because the most he can do is build two dwellings, and I hear the neighbors, but it seems to me that the bulk of the problems are coming from this nightclub, not from adding one extra family on the street. I mean, he's limited to two families, and he could do it for one family, and he could build a big house that had, you know, more bedrooms, so I just don't see the addition of one extra family. I don't see the effect on the neighborhood, so my motion is to approve the zoning change. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner Koeppker. So there's a motion on the floor to go against staff recommendation and to approve this zoning change. Questions? I'm sorry, the public portion is closed so we can only converse with the commissioners right now. I don't write the rules. By changing the zoning of this one plot, I mean, wouldn't it be spot zoning and special treatment just for this property? I'm not understanding why creating a single family home is not viable in this neighborhood. Yes Commissioner. So the vote is to approve a double? To do a zoning change in this particular plot, yes. So it would be just a spot change in between the yellow, I guess? So I'll jump in here and just say, you know, since we're in the discussion portion, I'm going to unfortunately vote, I would be in opposition to go against staff recommendations only for the sake of the zoning change. I do hear the developer's desire and understand that actually he's very valid in the cost of construction in order to get a single family home right now. It requires very deep subsidy to make a whole bunch of homeowners right now and the market is insane and a lot of the issues that have been brought up today are really about transportation and about roadway access than they are about the development. I do hear the density challenge, but what I want staff to make a note about is as we go through future land use considerations, obviously very soon we'll go into, in the next year or so, go into master planning, that this be a consideration, this location be a consideration to kind of figure out how we deal with other conditions like this, because this won't go away. So your vote is a no? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Wittry, I am a no as well. Commissioner Flick? No. Commissioner Josie Gupta? No. Commissioner Hebert? No. Commissioner Koepper? Yes. Commissioner Poche? Today I'm going to vote no. Today I'm going to vote no on this motion, but I also would like to speak to the applicant in that I'd encourage you, as this goes in front of the City Council, to really research and understand what spot zoning means and when it might be appropriate to advocate for a spot zone, because as Commissioner Steeg mentioned, the opposition presents challenges that aren't necessarily exacerbated by the property that you're proposing, whereas if you could demonstrate the inherent value according to the community, then you may be able to whip some more votes on your side if you'd like, whereas today I'm going to align with the motion here and vote, or sorry, I'm going to vote against this motion. Mr. Jordan, would you like to add anything? No. So we have seven nos, two yays. The motion does not carry, it's an effective denial, so we can move forward at that point or there can be a new motion. Okay, thank you. Zoning docket 063-26. Zoning docket 063-26 is a request for a conditional use to permit a bed-and-breakfast accessory at 1428 Carondelet Street, located within the HUMU Historic Urban Neighborhood Mixed Use District and the Transient Lodging Interim Zoning District. The subject property is an existing two-family residential dwelling that the applicant proposes to convert into a single-family residence. The applicant would like to operate a bed-and-breakfast accessory with a total of four guest rooms. Bed-and-breakfasts are conditional uses in the HUMU District and remain as conditional uses in City Council Motion M-25-530. The proposed use will operate within the existing structure, involving only modifications to the façade. Three off-street parking spaces are required, two off-street parking spaces are provided in the garage, and the applicant is requesting a waiver for one off-street parking space. Staff finds that the proposed use meets the approval standards of Article 4, Section 4.3.F of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.

The use is consistent with the intent of the Master Plan and the HUMU Zoning District, complies with applicable use standards subject to recommended provisos, and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal is not anticipated to adversely impact long-term housing availability, public health, safety, or welfare, and is located within close proximity to public transit. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of Zoning Docket 063-26, subject to one waiver and four provisos. Mr. Davenport? DeShawn Davenport, 73162 United Church Road, Covington, Louisiana. The owner is seeking to provide a safe, comfortable, and highly quality lodging experience for guests traveling from outside the state. In support of this goal, Mr. Wells has made the personal decision to open his home to visitors, offering a unique and authentic experience that allows guests to experience a side of New Orleans that many tourists never have had the opportunity to see. As a lifelong resident with deep roots in the community, Mr. Wells is passionate about sharing the culture, history, and character of the city he loves. He is actively involved in several businesses throughout the New Orleans area and believes that combining lodging and a local experience with amenities can create a valuable package for visitors while contributing positively to the city's tourism industry. Guests staying with Mr. Wells will have access to various amenities and local recommendations that reflect the authentic New Orleans experience. Few people are better positioned to serve as ambassadors for the city than individuals who were raised in the community, continue to live there, and remain invested in the city's success. Mr. Wells has demonstrated his commitment to New Orleans through his businesses, investments, community involvement, and ongoing efforts to support economic growth. He is willing to continue to do this part to help strengthen the local economy, attract visitors, and invest in the future of the city. Mr. Wells respectfully requests the consideration and support of this application. He believes this personal proposal aligns with the city's goals of promoting tourism, supporting local businesses, and encouraging responsible investment in the community. Approval of this request would allow him to continue contributing to the city's economic vitality while providing visitors with a safe, welcoming, and unique New Orleans experience. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak? And I have no opposition, okay. Any questions? This is a similar application to before, except this is an accessory bed and breakfast, whereas the other one was not. And the client's aware of the waiver and provisos? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I'll move approval of zoning docket 6226 subject to one waiver and four provisos. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. We have an approval on the four by Commissioner Flick. Seconded by Commissioner Kepper. Any discussion? Questions? Yeah, I just wanted to ask if the owner-operator is going to be living on site? Yes, ma'am. This is his personal residence. And he is going to be residing there? Yes, ma'am. That was part of the provisos for him. This is where he's already licensed and everything's in his name there, so he currently resides. Okay, thank you. Just a question to Commissioner Flick, if you can just give a little bit more context to your motion. Just move it in favor. In terms of the reason for moving it in favor? Yep. You know, basically, the applicant is already at the property. There's no reason to not move forward with that zoning docket item, given the location? I don't see any issue? Is there something? No, just curious. Yeah. Thank you. Any other discussion? All right. I think it's a little bit different, because the owner-operator is living on site and it is a bed-and-breakfast, and not a commercial, short-term rental. I think that's the differentiating factor from the previous. All right, we have a motion on the floor, and I'm going to ask for a vote. Commissioner Steeve? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Wittrino? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Koepper? Yes. Commissioner Poche? Just to be clear, this is a motion for approval? Correct. Yes. And Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Okay. The motion carries. Good luck. Next, the last order is subdivision ratifications. Mr. Kroll? There's just these four that are displayed on the screen for your consideration. So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. I'll second. Sorry. Commissioner Flick made the first. Commissioner Jordan made the second. Any discussion? Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Poche? Yes. Commissioner Koepper? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Wittrino is a yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Sieg? Yes. Okay. And then I'd be looking for... Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. I'll second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Everyone have a great afternoon. Thank you.