Central Business District Historic District Landmarks Commission.

Dennis Murphy (presenter) and Troy Dupuis (applicant)

What is the estimate of how much work has been done so far in terms of tuck pointing? Like, do you have a dollar associated with that? Not off the top of my head. Sorry. I said, we've, over the years, we've done, we've tried to do spot tuck pointing. And, but that's all been covered over now with this, this particular one. We have done the whole parapet around the four-story building. We have a two-story building in the back. We have not done the parapet on that yet, but we probably will in the near future. We have a couple leaks there. So, like I said, we found that the parapet, doing the parapet really stops most of the leaks at a minimum. So, yeah, I mean, eventually we'd like to, because the mortar is so far back, we'd eventually like to get the whole building done. But it's just a lot of money and time. Dennis, I have a question for you. On 426, they completed a mock-up, submitted photos, verifying, proposed waterproof coating, no negative impacts. The, their application to tuck point, was that ever actually submitted and approved? And, it was. Yes. There's some approved documents in there as well. Like the first page of it, previously approved, shows just generally how it was approved for very limited, specific areas. Right. And, it was in the approved documents and the C of A, that it had specific requirements for the strength of the mortar, the composition, the color, the tooling to match the incidents. Sure. And, I guess, how do we go from the sample that's approved, then to, you know. Well, so, a waterproofing test was conducted, but if you look at those images that were submitted, none of the inappropriate mortar repairs are visible in that. Sure. Because, that just wasn't aware that the work to that end was being done in this manner. Got it. Yeah, that's not a tuck pointing mock-up. That was a water repellent mock-up. Just to show that it's clear. So, y'all never actually did a mock-up of the mortar? That's correct. No, I think we included previous pictures of the mortar. That, particularly that wall, I think was included with the, hey, we're going to do similar work to this. Because that application was to do the Gagnier Street, you know, top parapet. I believe that was the application. I guess, for you guys, clearly you want to waterproof your building, and everybody should have the right to tuck point. And, I don't think, they don't want you to not tuck point, right? But, I think, you know, do you feel like you have the understanding of the appropriate process when you want to go tuck point in the future to make sure that you have the proper mix, color, sizing, all of that kind of understanding? Yeah, we've been using the same mix for, you know, 20 years now. Well, you can't use the same standard on every building. I mean. No, we work with the PRC. I mean, they own the facade. So, we work with them on what mix to use. And, I say, we've never had a color requirement until this last time. Staff, just a quick question. To avoid this, from this gentleman having to come before us, and the owner of the property to come before us, where's the missing link with all this? I mean, it seems to me that we have a standard that's outlined. You go through a process to get the okay, and that's not including us. And, we're like, after the whoops been made, you know. Just for the future, for the record, just so that individuals are aware that, yes, there is a process, this is what's required, and there needs to be approval before it gets to us. Can you run that down quick? Yeah. Well, absolutely. Any work at the building has to be approved by the HDLC in advance. And, that's the review and the approved documents you can see. But, in this case, it's also owned by the Preservation Resource Center. So, before I could approve any of the work, they also had to review and make sure that all the proposed areas and the, you know, scope of work and means and methods meet their expectations as well. And, I think the issue is just merely that there wasn't communication in regard to the mortar work, where there was, you know, there was coordination and communication before the C of A was issued. They did come back and submit the waterproofing test samples, which were approved. But, it may not have struck them that the mortar repairs were inappropriate to suggest, hey, can you review this? Apparently, you know, it wasn't noticed by an inspector or anything in that area up until the time when we're essentially doing inspections for the building to close out some housekeeping C of A's, basically just confirm if work was done. Gotcha. And, you know, I'm not going to speak of the architect in the past that designed this building, but there's an obvious difference between what's presently there and what was added. What was added, and this is not to criticize your work, it looks like whipped cream just ran amok. And, they should, the modification should match, so that it's not obvious that there's been a modification. I mean, this is like someone, in my opinion, coming along and saying, you know, we want to add a window over here, and not going through the proper channels, because it would have been probably no, because we try to maintain the concept that's in place. Yeah. Can I make a jump on John's comment? So, if there's, I don't understand the complete process, but if there's some type of protocol where, for example, they're sending you samples of what they're going to do waterproofing wise, does it make sense that before someone goes and changes an entire building, that they also do a sample of what the motor might look like? Because, if not, then that basically, you know, brings us to the situation we're in now, where someone could do whatever they want, and say, guess what, it's cost too much for us to fix it, it is what it is.

Dennis Murphy (presenter) and Troy Dupuis (applicant)

I don't know how feasible that is in reality, but it seems to me that if two square feet of sample tuck pointing is done for the HGLC to look at and give the thumbs up before 30% of a building is changed to colors and style, it might be helpful. Not to be the voice from the past, after Katrina, we had several buildings come before us that were the Philadelphia brick concept, and because the back of the building had blown off, this is off of Canal Street. They decided, well, we're going to put thicker mortar across the back. It wouldn't, it didn't float our boat, it didn't work. That, it was obvious that that back wall had been altered instead of going with the Philadelphia concept. And that's what we try to, I try to avoid, is that the look is maintaining the original character of the building, and it doesn't look that way at this point. Yeah, and we weren't, we weren't under the HGLC during Katrina. I think we were added in 2012 or 2016 or something. Part of the, you know, to control all the heights in the area, that's when the HGLC, to get that we had to include IRA into the HGLC. Thanks, sir. Eleanor, you have a comment? I just wanted to add that, you know, the issue wasn't that the certificates weren't applied for and that the work to tuck point isn't approved. You know, there's a spectrum of craftsmanship in terms of repointing buildings where you can get repointing that is very well done during the process of it and is not as visually disharmonious with what's existing. And you also get this kind of craftsmanship in terms of tuck pointing, which is obviously not the standard that the HGLC is expecting. I think it's a great idea to have a test patch so that the craftspeople who are working on it have an understanding of what kind of results we're looking for, for a tuck pointing, and we'll make sure to integrate that into the process going forward. Sounds good. Thank you, Eleanor. Is there any other comment from the commission? I would also like to clarify that, just for the public listening to this, that the HGLC has always required color matching the mortar. As each building is different, the mixes have always been different. That's something we've always required. Thank you, Wendy. And I guess that was my last question. Just sorry to beat the horse here. Is that this, is the mortar, is it because it's stained, like it has been stained and aged over time, like what would be the fix here or what would have been the appropriate process for a stained mortar to match what is existing or better craftsmanship? Because you have two things that have happened here. One, expanded scope, and then two, it's either lack of craftsmanship or a color change. And I'm just, just wanted to clarify the issue. Yeah. We include the NPS brief on how to do tuck pointing for that very reason, because sometimes when you have a difficult mortar to match, you do have to do testing. And it's usually the aggregate that gives it the specific color. Yeah. There's just, just so you know, there's probably just stock, there's just like grout. There's 15, 20 different mortar colors you can get off just the shelf. And then you can make custom mortar colors to infinity. So, and then on top of that, there's different types of tuck pointing you can do, i.e. like in this that we're seeing there, it's almost flush with the brick. There's like six different types of ways that you can actually tuck point. So, I think it's just a combination of different variables that got us here. Do we have a before and after kind of deal? No side-by-sides, I don't think, huh? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that's, you know, over 100-year-old mortar. I see. That's a lot more tailored than the new work. I mean, sorry if I'm being critical of you, but there's a significant difference. The width. There you go. See, right there. I mean, is the person that did this work here? Yes. This company, yep. And like I said, the mortar here, the existing mortar is really deep. You walk around, it's probably the deepest in the whole neighborhood. I mean, all the buildings across the street, they're close like this. And there's another building in the neighborhood doing essentially what we're doing right now, but they are rubbing charcoal in the white, I think, to try to get the color. So, it's not even in the mix. They're just doing it after the fact, so. all been approved I guess by here and PRC. Understood. Anyone else from the Commission? Well there was a suggestion that you wanted to do the rest of the building. I'm hoping that you don't want to do it the same way and that you would abide by the guidelines and my other question is I would assume that the contractor who's here knew the guidelines and why did we decide to do it differently? I'm just a little puzzled and no one has addressed that. Yeah this this particular wall was done a few years back and this other permit still open here is for additional work and I believe we sent a picture of that wall as an example of what was going to be done and it was approved so but yeah I mean we're we'll definitely we still need to come get additional permits for a future work so that coordinated yeah. So you will follow the guidelines for the rest of the building? Yeah yeah I mean we'd love to have the building one color but yeah we'll follow the guidelines. Thank you sir. Alright so the staff has no objection to the request for retention provided that all future mortar repairs of the building match the historic mortar and composition color texture joint profile and tooling. Would anybody like to make a motion on the floor? Are there any other public comments? Sorry I did not ask that. I'm seeing none. There are none. And I'm sorry I know I probably ask this every single time this something like this comes up. Is this a case where failure to abide by the guidelines results in a fine or? We can only fine for retention of demolition. Anyone care to put a motion on the floor? I don't think we have another choice.

Dennis Murphy (presenter) and Troy Dupuis (applicant)

I move to approve the staff's recommendation to keep to retain the the work and with with the note that any future work is closely monitored by the HGLC with the building owner and done appropriately. Thank you brother. Is there a second on the floor? Whitten with a second. All in favor? I'm seeing one aye. Bradley Whitten. I'll do a roll call vote. Yeah please. Bradley Becknell. Raise your hands again for aye. Whitten. Say yes. Whitten. Yes. Aye. Daryl Demestry. Yes. John Boyd. Against. Tim Sradd. Aye. Yes. Gregory Curtis. Against. That is three to three so the chairman. Great. Again. Can we suspend to discuss while you before you vote or does he need to vote? That's a question for the attorney. I think you can suspend. We can suspend to to discuss. I just wanted to understand what the ramifications are if the vote fails just so everyone understands here. They if the motion fails it's a de facto denial and they would have 10 calendar days to appeal to the City Council where they could correct the mortar or at least do work to ameliorate the extent of the condition. Understood. Thank you Eleanor. Can I ask the question what is the fix here? I mean how do you fix this to match the rest of the building? They would have to route it out with tools and then re-mortar it to match. And they've given us a cost on that what it would cost or they outsource I mean have they? We have not requested a financial disclosure of how much the repair would be. I mean this this looks bad you know it really does you know what is the fix though? There are examples of the paint factory building I believe on Chapatulas near Jackson had a similar issue with their mortar and they were required this wasn't a HDLC requirement it was a SHPA requirement for tax credits to redo the mortar job that had been done because it was deemed as unacceptable to be eligible for tax credits. So there are examples where mortar has been corrected but there is a financial hardship associated with that. And to be clear if I understand correctly is this going to is this would a potential denial only cause them to repair part of the changed buildings as opposed to all of it? Am I understanding that there's been multiple scenarios over the years where they've done different parts of the building or is every mismatch thing that I'm looking at on the building part of this application? I'm not quite certain the CFA was issued about three years ago I believe so it may be that they sort of piecemeal gradually expanded or I'm not familiar with the timeline of when the work was specifically done. I guess that's kind of like my kind of overarching concern is that like we're talking about doing future work and the future work looking more consistent with what this work which is not appropriate. So if what we're saying is that future work that gets approved would be more consistent it's not going to match with the work that we've just approved for retention right? So essentially they have to fix this in order for future work to be approved and done right. Or you would have kind of like what you see now right you'd have a building that would be well well tuck-pointed well done and appropriate and then you'll just have your corner patch that just won't ever look right for 15 years. It will improve as the mortar ages and dirt accumulates. Right. So it won't be as glaring. Time. White. Yeah it is glaring because it's fresh there's no doubt about that. And is the pediment at the top also part of the corner that has been repointed? Correct. That was part of the water that was part of the water. Yeah that's not so noticeable it almost looks like it's part of the design at least on that first slide. So if they were to proceed then the remaining part would be maybe in keeping with which what is also there instead of what's on the corner there. And the one on the corner is a temporary situation it will age I'm sure. Is there anything that would be that we're aware of that would get us kind of instantaneous results to match? No. Okay. Thank you. Was the building pressure washed before the mortar? Is that is that kind of why the bricks look so clean and fresh? It's just the mortar. It's color. It's color theory, literally, purely color. Got it. Yeah, it just messes with your eyes. Do we have to make a motion to resume the voting? Yes. I'd like to make a motion to resume the final vote. Got a first from John, second. Do we have all in favor to resume the voting? Is there any opposed? No? Okay. I'll follow the approved camp with Bradley's motion. Staff's no objection of the request for the retention provided that all future mortar repairs of the building match the historic mortar and composition, color, texture, joint profile, and tooling rather than these recently completed repairs. As Bradley mentioned, hopefully they're working directly with HGLC so it's done appropriately. Thanks. That motion passes. Motion passes. Got two exciting ones. Back-to-back weeks here, y'all. Or back-to-back months. All right.