Page 3 of 172

200 Bourbon VCC Property Summar y R e p o r t – 200 Bourbon P a g e | 8

ADDRESS: 200 Bourbon OWNER: 200 Bourbon, LLC APPLICANT: Domonique West ZONING: VCE SQUARE: 65 USE: Commercial LOT SIZE: 1784.3 sq. ft. DENSITY OPEN SPACE Allowed: 1 unit Required: 356.9 sq. ft. (20% corner lot) Existing: Unknown Existing: None Proposed: No change Proposed: No change

ARCHITECTURAL / HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION:

Rating: Main building: blue, or of major architectural and/or historical importance. Courtyard infill: brown, objectionable or of no architectural and/or historical importance.

Impressive c. 1831, 3½-story masonry townhouse with fine details, including side gable with round-headed openings; attic frieze windows, and wrought iron balconies. Ground floor was altered for commercial usage in the 1850s, and the courtyard infill was done c. 1890.

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit #20-23277-VCGEN Lead Staff: Erin Vogt

Proposal to add CMU wall extension to screen mechanical equipment, per application & materials received 03/25/2020. [Notice of Violation sent 09/19/2018]

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

This property has been routinely cited for installation of mechanical equipment without permit on the roof of the brown rated courtyard infill for decades. Several applications to screen the equipment have been submitted since 1987, but none have been installed. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing metal rail and decorative arch and build a 42” tall CMU wall to screen the equipment, extending the Bourbon-side courtyard wall above the existing brick corbel, which would be maintained. The CMU extension is shown finished with scored stucco over metal lath, and is installed in the same plane as the historic wall below. A stucco band incorporates the mortar cap, with the roofing membrane extending up the entire height of the wall on the face opposite the street. The extension will be secured to the building below with #5 rebar dowels inserted 8” into the masonry below; since wall extensions of this type are uncommon, staff is unsure if any revisions or additional structural measures should be suggested based on the relative softness of the masonry, and seeks thoughts from the Committee regarding this concern.

Approximately 17 unpermitted HVAC condensers of various ages have been installed on the courtyard infill roof. As no open space exists on the site, staff finds the location to be the only potential location for the large number of units. Staff recommends that the applicant propose to remove any older units that are underperforming, and provide specific information (tonnage, dimensions, etc.) about the remaining units for staff to include in the retroactive permit. [Note: if the equipment is not documented in VCC records, this may continue to be cited as a work without permit violation.]

The proposed scope of work does not include all outstanding violations currently on this property. A permit was issued in February 2019 per Committee approval: to replace the wooden balcony decking with Aeratis synthetic decking, with the proviso that all violations be abated. Staff issued a permit for all work, but the paint, deteriorated millwork (particularly the cornice and eyebrow windows, one of which has been detrimentally altered), gutters and downspout have not been addressed. Since these violations are preservation concerns rather than simply aesthetic concerns, staff feels that the items excluded from the current scope of work must be addressed with more urgency than the HVAC screening. Staff recommends conceptual approval of the wall extension, with the proviso that the permit for this work will not be issued until: • A permit application has been submitted and a permit issued for the demolition by neglect violations that remain on the property, • The work be completed and inspected by VCC staff within 30 days of permit issuance.

Staff notes that all violations cited in case 18-09436-VCCNOP, including the wall extension and the retroactive HVAC equipment documentation, must be abated or the property will return to administrative adjudication.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020

Page 18 of 172

1231 Bourbon VCC Property Summar y R e p o rt – 1231- 3 3 B o u r b o n P a g e | 12

ADDRESS: 1231 Bourbon (Lot F-1) OWNER: Lauricella Bourbon Prop., LLC, Floyd Jay H Jr, Ray Gilliam APPLICANT: Williams Courtney ZONING: VCR-1 SQUARE: 79 USE: Residential LOT SIZE: 3080 sq. ft.

DENSITY OPEN SPACE Allowed: 5 units Required: 924 sq. ft. (approx.) Existing: 2 units Existing: Unknown Proposed: No change Proposed: No change

ARCHITECTURAL / HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

Rating: Green, of local architectural or historic importance

This address features a pair of c. 1830-36 2-story masonry townhouses with an off-center carriageway and a pair of 2-story service buildings facing each other in the courtyard. During the late 19th c., this complex housed a bakery. The property was purchased by La Societe des Dames Hospitalieres in 1942. The rear bake house was demolished sometime between 1940 and 1979, when the property was subdivided and the front portion of the lot was sold in its current configuration. The rear portion of the lot is now associated with 1227-29 Bourbon.

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit #20-27653-VCGEN Lead Staff: Erin Vogt

Proposal to stucco second floor brick wall, per application & materials received 05/08/2020.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

Staff issued a permit to remove elastomeric paint and repair stucco on 05/08/2020. The applicant is proposing to amend the permit to allow for stucco to be applied to the second floor of 1231, stating that the condition of the brick is so poor that it indicates that stucco previously existed. This request was submitted following the deadline and has not yet been thoroughly researched but is being brought before the Committee for preliminary discussion.

Staff reviewed photographs of the building and found several undated photos from the early 20th century which do not show stucco on the second floor (or Gov. Nicholls-side elevation, which has been stuccoed since) but stucco may have been present on the building before these photos were taken. The lintels on the second floor appear to have a similar reveal to those on the stuccoed first floor and applying stucco to this part of the façade will reduce this reveal, but it is unclear if it will be enough of a reduction to be detrimental. Staff also notes that the neighboring building at 1235 Bourbon was previously part of the same parcel as 1231 before they were resubdivided in 2019. Although the buildings are not twins, it may not be appropriate to stucco the second floor of one building and not the other. Staff seeks guidance from the Committee regarding the appropriateness of this proposal.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020

Page 32 of 172

920 St Peter 918 St. Peter P a g e | 2

ADDRESS: 918 St. Peter OWNER: Antonio Carbone APPLICANT: Antonio Carbone ZONING: VCR-1 SQUARE: 89 USE: Residential LOT SIZE: 3,399 sq. ft. DENSITY: OPEN SPACE: ALLOWED: 3 Units REQUIRED: 1,020 sq. ft. EXISTING: 3 Units EXISTING: 958 sq. ft. approx PROPOSED: No Change PROPOSED: No Change

ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION:

Late Victorian double shotgun cottage (c. 1890), which still retains on the lot the c. 1840 detached 2-story service building.

Main Building and Detached Service Building: Green

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit # 20-29443-VCGEN Lead Staff: Nick Albrecht

Proposal to demolish existing brick planters in courtyard, to install new tankless hot water heater, and to install new mini split condensing unit, per application &materials received 05/31/2020.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

The applicant is in the process of renovating the rear building on this property. The current application includes proposed mechanical equipment to service that building and the proposed demolition of some brick planters located in the courtyard adjacent to this building.

The brick planters include two low planters located at the side property line walls and one taller planter located at the rear of the main building. Staff has no objection to the removal of these planters.

The first piece of equipment proposed for installation is a tankless water heater shown on a small portion of wood frame construction infill on the Dauphine elevation of the rear building. Staff notes that there is a portion of masonry wall in front of this wood frame wall and seeks clarification that nothing is proposed for this masonry wall portion. As long as the masonry wall portion remains in place, staff notes that the visibility of this equipment would be limited to within the courtyard space. Staff also finds it beneficial that the equipment would be located on the wood frame construction rather than the more historic masonry construction. Staff finds the proposed tankless water heater potentially approvable.

The second piece of equipment proposed for installation is a condensing unit for a mini-split system. The applicant proposes three potential locations for this unit, all within a small alcove located in the Burgundy and Toulouse corner of the property. The applicant’s first preference is to mount the equipment to the Burgundy elevation of the rear building. Given the alternative options, staff would recommend against the installation of the equipment directly to the historic masonry. Staff questions if the applicant would consider this location with the unit installed on grade or on its own independent stand rather than mounted to the building.

The second option is mounted to the masonry wall that form the property line wall at the St. Louis side of the property. Staff notes that this wall appears to just function as a fence, without interior building space on either side of the wall. This location may be approvable.

The final option shown shows the unit at grade parallel to the rear wall and set 3’ from the rear wall. Staff finds this location also potentially approvable.

Staff recommends approval of the proposed courtyard work including planter demolition, approval of the proposed tankless water heater installation, and requests commentary from the Architecture Committee and applicant regarding the preferred location for the proposed AC unit.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020

Page 46 of 172

823 St Philip VCC P R O P E R T Y S U M M A R Y R E P O R T – 823- 25 S T P HILIP P a g e | 4

ADDRESS: 823-25 St. Philip OWNER: Jay H. Floyd, Jr. APPLICANT: New Orleans Custom Cabinetry ZONING: VCR-1 SQUARE: 77 USE: Residential LOT SIZE: 2489 sq. ft. DENSITY: OPEN SPACE: ALLOWED: 2 units REQUIRED: 746.7 sq. ft. EXISTING: 1 unit EXISTING: 1194 sq. ft. PROPOSED: No change PROPOSED: No change

ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL DESCIPTION OF PROPERTY:

Main building: Blue, of major architectural and/or historic significance.

Although 823-25 and 827-29 St. Philip Street figure today as a separated pair of early 19th-century Creole cottages, originally the cottages shared a common wall and roof. An 1827 inventory of the estate of the cottages' owner, Jean Phillippon, who was financially connected with the Orleans Theatre and Ballroom, stated that the cottages had a flat tile roof and the brick kitchen had round tiles. The adjoined pair of detached one-story kitchens was allowed to deteriorate in the 1950s by the owners (the Matassa Family) and subsequently was demolished.

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit # unassigned Lead Staff: Erin Vogt

Proposal to install gas lanterns, per application & materials received 05/29/2020.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

The applicant is proposing to install two (2) 24” Bevolo French Quarter Yoke gas lanterns in the front soffit, centered between the door and window openings. The fixtures are appropriate and approvable for this property but appear to be oversized, as the Yoke style lantern is 30” tall, not counting the stem. The drawing provided shows that the 24” sconce will drop below the top of the shutters. The overall dimension of the fixture should be limited to a size that will allow the shutters to function unimpeded.

The VCC Design Guidelines recommend that decorative fixtures be centered over door and window openings to highlight architectural features. However, staff notes that the openings in the front façade are not symmetrical, and centering the fixtures over the openings may draw attention to the asymmetry. Staff has no objection to approving the lanterns in the locations proposed.

Staff recommends conceptual approval of the lanterns, with the applicant to provide the dimension between the soffit and the top of the shutters prior to final approval and permit.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020

Page 54 of 172

1022 Burgundy VCC Property Summary Report – 1022 Burgundy P a g e | 9

ADDRESS: 1022 Burgundy Street OWNER: Dr. & Mrs. Ralph Benson APPLICANT: Donald Maginnis ZONING: VCR-1 SQUARE: 84 USE: Residential LOT SIZE: 4128 sq.ft. DENSITY OPEN SPACE Allowed: 4 Required: 1239 sq.ft. Existing: 5 Existing: 1260 sq.ft. Proposed: 1 Proposed: No change

ARCHITECTURAL / HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:

Rating: Main building - green, of local architectural /historical importance Rear service building - yellow, contributory to the character of the district.

C. 1860 2-story brick structure, which has a balcony (shown as a crudely supported gallery in a c. 1945 photo), the original Greek Revival front façade openings, with the exception of the porte-cochere entrance, which was altered during an early 1960s renovation. During this renovation, the rear 2-story frame gallery also was removed. The detached one-story service building dates from the early 1900s. Major alterations were completed in 1942 and 2007.

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit #20-30078-VCGEN Lead Staff: Erin Vogt

Proposal to install synthetic gallery decking, per application & materials received 06/03/2020.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

On 06/01/2020 staff inspected the property and posted a STOP WORK ORDER due to the unpermitted removal of balcony decking. The applicant stated that they intended to install Aeratis decking, which was reviewed by the Committee on 07/24/18 and deferred due to needing additional information. The existing gallery has four stringers which appear to be in good condition but also appear to be spaced more than 16” apart.

The VCC Design Guidelines state that “the VCC requires matching the material, dimensions, size, profile, details and other visual characteristics of the historic component when replacement is necessary. […] The VCC does not allow replacing wood tongue and groove porch flooring with an alternate material or pattern.” (VCC DG: 08-12) Due to the current poor quality of treated pine decking, the Committee has recently made exceptions to approve synthetic decking in certain circumstances, particularly when a building is rated yellow or lower or when a balcony or gallery are uncovered. In this case, the main building is green rated and has an uncovered gallery. The gallery is not original and was converted from a balcony to a gallery during a 2005 renovation, reusing the historic rail.

In the application description, the applicant also proposed to install a “PVC 1x10 fascia board, PVC molding over fascia, and stainless screws.” At this time, decking is the only synthetic material that has been allowed, with exception and in limited applications, by the Committee. Staff has not reviewed any similar applications for PVC trim or fascia and cannot recommend approval of any untested materials prohibited by the Design Guidelines.

Since the existing gallery structure is not historic and is uncovered, the Committee may find this application approvable, with provisos that: • New wooden stringers be installed to ensure that the decking does not span more than 16” O.C., • All other materials, except the decking, must be natural wood, • The applicant may use Aeratis Traditions or Aeratis Heritage, but either option must be painted medium gray on the top and sides and white/off-white underneath.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020

Page 62 of 172

619 Royal VCC P R O P E R T Y S U M M A R Y R E P O R T – 619 R OYAL P a g e | 4

ADDRESS: 619-21 Royal OWNER: 619 Royal Street LLC APPLICANT: Trapolin Peer Architects ZONING: VCC-2 SQUARE: 61 USE: Unknown LOT SIZE: 4,186.5 sq. ft. DENSITY: OPEN SPACE: ALLOWED: 6 units REQUIRED: 1255 sq. ft. EXISTING: Unknown EXISTING: Unknown PROPOSED: Unknown PROPOSED: Unknown

ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL DESCIPTION OF PROPERTY:

Main building & service ell: Green, of local architectural and/or historic significance.

This brick 3-story masonry Creole style building with carriageway, as well as the adjoining twin building at 619-21 Royal, was built by General Jean Labatut, c. 1795. Beginning as a 1-story building, a second floor was added for the General in 1821 by builders Pinson and Pizetta. Then a third floor was added later in the 19th century.

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit #20-30797-VCGEN Lead Staff: Erin Vogt

Proposal to renovate building, including extensive demolition by neglect abatement, new courtyard stair, mechanical equipment, and balcony rail extension, per application & materials received 06/09/2020.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

The applicant has submitted preliminary drawings for a renovation of this green-rated building, which is suffering from the effects of water intrusion and rampant vegetation growth. Detail drawings will be needed for additional review of construction documents at the Committee level, but the following items require conceptual review prior to additional development. • Portions of the service ell roof will require full replacement. Vegetation and poor flashing will be abated at the parapets of the main building. Staff notes that the parapet adjacent to the neighboring blue rated building at 615 Royal (The Court of Two Sisters) is flashed with a metal cap and is not noted for replacement; staff requests that the applicant propose an alternate detail. The adjacent wall of 615 is in desperate need of repointing and may be contributing to water intrusion issues at both properties. The main roof of the building is not noted for replacement but appears to be a synthetic slate system in poor condition. • The existing unpermitted vinyl dormer windows will be replaced. Staff notes that millwork detail has been stripped from the dormers and replaced with metal flashing, and requests that drawings be provided to show the restoration of all trim, pilasters, etc. • The applicant is proposing to demolish and reconstruct the sunroom on the rear, Bourbon-side elevation of the main building. Given the extensive vegetation growth and photos of the interior of the sunroom, staff agrees that this is likely necessary. Wall and roof sections should be submitted for additional review, as well as millwork and flashing details. • The applicant is proposing to construct a new balcony and exterior stair on the Royal elevation of the rear portion of the service ell. The existing planter bed will be reduced in size to provide the footprint for the stair. No corresponding roof extension is proposed for the balcony, which is shown with angled braces. Staff is hesitant to recommend conceptual approval for this addition until structural drawings are submitted but does not find the proposal objectionable at this time. • New millwork will be installed throughout, mostly to match existing conditions. Alternate doors are proposed on the rear, Bourbon-side portion of the service ell. Staff notes that the millwork is drawn to match existing millwork found on the site that is highly unusual. Two small openings in the service ell loggia are proposed to be infilled, but it is unclear if these are existing window openings or voids from through-wall HVAC equipment. Staff requests clarification from the applicant regarding the openings in the loggia and seeks comment from the Committee on the atypical existing millwork. • New mechanical equipment is shown in three locations, two of which are roof mounted. A platform for three units is shown on the roof of the sunroom (existing equipment location), two units will be installed on the roof between the service ell and main building, and a mini-split is shown at two alternative locations at the back of the property, either below the balcony or under the new stair. Staff notes that the two rooftop locations do not meet mechanical code requirements for permanent roof access or maintenance points and would need to be significantly larger than shown to become code compliant. Staff recommends that the applicant VCC P R O P E R T Y S U M M A R Y R E P O R T – 619 R OYAL P a g e | 5

explore alternative locations, and strongly suggests avoiding or minimizing any installations on the roof due to the complexity of accommodating both the VCC Design Guidelines and mechanical code. • Rail extensions are proposed for both the second and third floor balconies on the Royal elevation of the main building. Notes state that the additional height will be added by welding 4” rail posts to the bottom rails of the existing balconies. Staff is unsure of the existing dimension between the bottom rail and decking, but notes that the rail designs vary, and requests a section of the cathedral-style rail on the third floor for review. • The wooden service ell balcony rails will require replacement, and the applicant is proposing to rebuild the rail at 3’-6”. As the existing balcony posts are not chamfered, staff has no objection to the proposed additional height. • The applicant is proposing to replace the carriageway door on Royal, which is noted as having a smaller embedded single leaf. The doors have been in place since at least 1939, but their condition is unknown. Staff requests explanation for their proposed replacement, and additional drawings will be necessary before a recommendation can be made. • The carriageway concrete slab will be replaced with flagstone. Staff requests a paving plan with all drainage noted but finds the proposed upgrade in materials to be conceptually approvable.

Staff recommends deferral of the overall proposal but notes that a significant portion of the proposed work can be approved at staff level once construction documents are submitted. Staff does not find any aspects of the proposal to be objectionable at this time (except for the rooftop mechanical equipment, due to concerns with visibility, platform size and code compliance) but considers conceptual approval to be premature until structural drawings are submitted for review by the Committee.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020

Page 96 of 172

828 Royal VCC Property Summary Report - 828 Royal St. P a g e | 14

ADDRESS: 828 Royal Street OWNER: Callipygian LLC APPLICANT: Jonathan O’Rear ZONING: VCC-1 SQUARE: 47 USE: Commercial/Residential LOT SIZE: 19'4"x76'2"=1472.5 sq.ft. DENSITY OPEN SPACE ALLOWED: 1 unit REQUIRED: 441 sq. ft. EXISTING: 1 unit EXISTING: 420 sq. ft. PROPOSED: no change PROPOSED: no change

ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION:

Rating: Green: Of Local Architectural or Historical Importance.

This address features a small, 2-story masonry townhouse in the Creole tradition. Its outstanding decorative details are a fine molded cornice and a wrought iron balcony. Research indicated that it predates 1813, when it and the adjoining lot, the site of 830 Royal, were under joint ownership, that of Jean-Marie Nicholas. (See previous reports for additional history).

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit # 20-31666-VCGEN Lead Staff: Nick Albrecht

Proposal to install additional angled support brackets under balcony on the Royal St. elevation, per application & materials received 06/16/2020.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

The applicant proposes to strengthen the existing balcony with the addition of three (3) new angled metal braces to supplement the existing outriggers and four (4) existing angled braces. The proposal is to have one brace under each of the seven (7) outriggers. The submitted materials include a letter from a structural engineer which states, “that in order to ensure that the original and existing balcony framing supports can safely support the code prescribed 100 PSF live load requirement, you should enhance the original support system.”

In regard to similar applications to strengthen balconies, staff typically prefers that the existing outrigger system be repaired or strengthened if possible rather than new structural elements be added. Although there are existing outrigger braces in this location, staff prefers that three new additional supports not be added. The addition of new supports would further crowd this under balcony space that is intended to be void of any structural elements.

Staff questions if there are alternative methods to provide a safe balcony and seeks commentary from the Architecture Committee regarding this proposal.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020

Page 107 of 172

921 Chartres VCC Property Summary Report - 921 Chartres St. P a g e | 8

ADDRESS: 921 Chartres Street OWNER: Multiple Owners APPLICANT: Paradigm Investments ZONING: VCR-2 SQUARE: 48 USE: Residential LOT SIZE: 12,172 sq. ft. DENSITY- OPEN SPACE- ALLOWED: 20 Units REQUIRED: 3,651 sq. ft. EXISTING: 24 Units EXISTING: 2,397 sq. ft. PROPOSED: No Change PROPOSED: No Change

ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION:

Rating: Green - Of Local Architectural or Historical Importance Orange - Extreme rear building - Unrated 20th Century Construction

From the early 1800's, there was a complex at this address that also housed a bakery, and later a livery. Since there was a two-story store on the property as early as the 1820's and since there is an 1841 contract to remodel the roof by the addition of an "a la Francaise roof" and two dormers, it is possible that the existing large 2-story brick double building, divided by a large carriageway, is an earlier building that was remodeled in the 1840's. It today has a Greek Revival appearance, including pilasters on the ground floor and granite lintels on the upper floors. There are still attached stable wings which create the large inner court but the historic rear stable (at the extreme rear of the property) has been replaced by 20th c. construction.

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit # 20-21350-VCGEN Lead Staff: Nick Albrecht

Proposal to retain work completed in the courtyard without benefit of VCC review or approval, including railings, gutters, shutters, and an A/C access door, per application & materials received 06/09/2020.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

Staff posted a Stop Work Order on this property last August when work was observed taking place on a rear balcony without benefit of VCC review or approval. That decking has been addressed and permitted separately but during the site visit VCC staff observed several other issues of concern including the balcony railings, gutters, shutters, and a glass door used to access mechanical equipment.

Earlier photographs (1998-1999) show that the balcony railings previously had a closer spacing of balusters, that the connections at the top and bottom of the balusters was different, and that the top railing was smaller and simpler. The previously existing railings were similar to the “Square Post Balustrade” shown in the guidelines as an approvable railing design. Staff is concerned that the current railing is similar to the “deck” balustrade which is specifically noted in the guidelines as being not approvable. (VCC DG: 08-7) Although similar, the existing balustrade is slightly more refined as the balusters are notched at the top and bottom rails rather than being simply applied. Staff finds the existing balustrade falls somewhere in between the “deck balustrade” and the “square post balustrade.”

The gutters are currently rectangular style with an incorporated leaf guard and with rectangular downspouts, but photographs show that these were previously half round gutters with round downspouts. Staff does not find the change approvable.

The shutters on the extreme rear orange-rated buildings were observed to be inappropriate “z” style shutters. This shutter type is specifically noted in the guidelines as being inappropriate for the French Quarter. Staff suggests that the diagonal board could possibly be removes from these shutters leaving more appropriate board and batten shutters. Staff also recommends that these be painted an approvable shutter color.

The access door is located in the gable ends of one of the two extreme rear orange-rated buildings. The door is only accessible from the roof of the lower structure between the rear wing of the green-rated building and the orange-rated building. Staff has no objection to an access door in this location but finds the existing door, which is nearly entirely glass, atypical and unnecessary for this location. Staff recommends the use of a simple solid door, or a removable panel, in this location rather than the existing glass door.

VCC Property Summary Report - 921 Chartres St. P a g e | 9

Staff: • requests commentary from the Architecture Committee regarding the existing balcony balustrades • recommends denial of the retention of the existing gutters and downspouts • recommends denial of the retention of the “z” style shutters but suggests they could be easily modified to an approvable shutter style • recommends denial of the retention of the glass mechanical door but suggests a solid door or panel would be approvable.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020

Page 124 of 172

837 Royal VCC Property Summary Report - 837 Royal St. P a g e | 7

ADDRESS: 837 Royal OWNER: Troy Brouillette et. al. APPLICANT: Skip Wyatt ZONING: VCC – 1 SQUARE: 58 USE: Residential LOT SIZE: 5,071 sq. ft. DENSITY- OPEN SPACE- ALLOWED: 8 Units REQUIRED: 1,521 sq. ft. EXISTING: 12 Units EXISTING: 850 sq. ft. approx. PROPOSED: No Change PROPOSED: No Change

ARCHITECTURAL / HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION:

Main building and service ell – Blue, of major architectural and/or historic significance

This address includes one-half of a well-detailed double residence with attached 3-story kitchens, which was constructed c. 1833, as described in a building contract of that year between Joseph Peralta, builder, and Paul La Croix, owner. In many ways the building is a classic Creole style building with a central passageway, arched ground floor openings, narrow wrought iron balconies and curved dormers. Especially fine and unusual, however, are the second floor arched openings, which are distinguished by their delicate detailing.

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit # 19-13290-VCGEN Lead Staff: Nick Albrecht

Proposal to retain and modify brackets to structurally reinforce existing balcony on the Bourbon St. elevation, per application & materials received 04/29/19 & 06/17/20, respectively.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

The existing brackets were cited and ultimately denied for retention in 2019. The applicant has submitted a revised design for the brackets. The new design eliminates the struts in favor of a triangular shaped wood and steel bracket under the roof. The brackets project out parallel from the wall with the bottom of the bracket above the bottom of the fascia. Staff finds the appearance of this design to be preferred over the existing struts.

Only three (3) brackets are now proposed, compared to the series of six (6) struts which were previously installed. The brackets are proposed to be located with one at each of the three balcony columns. These locations would align with the existing architectural features and would slightly reduce the visibility.

Staff finds this proposal an improvement over the existing unpermitted conditions but still suggests that the overall size of the supports could be greatly reduced by utilizing a completely metal system rather than the mix of wood with metal brackets currently proposed. Staff recommends deferral of the application to allow the applicant to explore these alternatives but requests commentary from the Committee regarding this proposal and a possible metal alternative.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020

Vieux Carré Commission Meeting of 12/04/19

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 12/04/19 Permit # 19-22947-VCGEN Lead Staff: Bryan Block

Proposal to structurally reinforce existing balcony on the Bourbon St. elevation, per application & materials received 04/29/19 & 10/07/19, respectively.

VCC Property Summary Report - 837 Royal St. P a g e | 8

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 12/04/19

Following the deferral of this application at the 09/24/19 meeting the applicant submitted revised materials that take into account some of the recommendations of the Committee and staff. The revised detail proposes to use a 2” x 2” steel tube rather than the previously shown 2x8s. Staff appreciates the “lighter” detailing of the metal brackets but is still concerned with some of the detailing, particularly the connections between the wall and brace.

As mentioned in the previous review, staff questions if a material change at the roof to a lighter material such as standing seam metal would solve the problems of deflection without adding additional structural elements underneath the roof. Alternatively, staff questions if metal flat bars could be introduced through the masonry wall to connect the balcony roof framing with the framing of the main roof. Staff believes this could significantly reinforce the balcony roof without the need for further interventions below the roof.

Staff had an opportunity to visit the property on 10/22/19 and that inspection revealed that the previously proposed braces and other elements had been installed along with what was called a temporary column at the ground floor. Although the Architecture Committee noted that if temporary shoring was needed that the applicant should go ahead and install that, there was no indication that any work had occurred prior to the inspection. Seeing the previously proposed elements installed it is even more evident that this type of work is not approvable.

Staff requested commentary from the Architecture Committee but recommends that the applicant explore a much more minimal and less visible treatment as what has been installed is not approvable, especially for this blue rated building.

At the 10/22/2019 AC meeting, Commissioner DiMaggio asked the applicant if he knew whether or not the property owner had looked into a change in the current roof material. Mr. Fifield stated that that the building was very important and that nothing that had been done was appropriate.

Ms. DiMaggio moved to deny the retention of the structural reinforcements as executed.

VIEUX CARRÉ COMMISSION ACTION: 12/04/19

MINUTES TO BE COMPLETED.

Architecture Committee Meeting of 10/22/19

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 10/22/19 Permit # 19-22947-VCGEN Lead Staff: Nick Albrecht

Proposal to structurally reinforce existing balcony on the Bourbon St. elevation, per application & materials received 04/29/19 & 10/07/19, respectively.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 10/22/19

Following the deferral of this application at the 09/24/19 meeting the applicant submitted revised materials that take into account some of the recommendations of the Committee and staff. The revised detail proposes to use a 2” x 2” steel tube rather than the previously shown 2x8s. Staff appreciates the “lighter” detailing of the metal brackets but is still concerned with some of the detailing, particularly the connections between the wall and brace.

As mentioned in the previous review, staff questions if a material change at the roof to a lighter material such as standing seam metal would solve the problems of deflection without adding additional structural elements underneath the roof. Alternatively, staff questions if metal flat bars could be introduced through the masonry wall to connect the balcony roof framing with the framing of the main roof. Staff believes this could significantly reinforce the balcony roof without the need for further interventions below the roof.

Staff had an opportunity to visit the property on 10/22/19 and that inspection revealed that the previously proposed braces and other elements had been installed along with what was called a VCC Property Summary Report - 837 Royal St. P a g e | 9

temporary column at the ground floor. Although the Architecture Committee noted that if temporary shoring was needed that the applicant should go ahead and install that, there was no indication that any work had occurred prior to the inspection. Seeing the previously proposed elements installed it is even more evident that this type of work is not approvable.

Staff requests commentary from the Architecture Committee but recommends that the applicant explore a much more minimal and less visible treatment as what has been installed is not approvable, especially for this blue rated building

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 10/22/19

Mr. Albrecht read the staff report with Mr. Chautin present on behalf of Mr. Wyatt and the application. Ms. DiMaggio asked the applicant if he knew whether or not Mr. Wyatt had looked into a change in the current roof material. Mr. Fifield stated that that the building was very important and that nothing that had been done was appropriate. Ms. DiMaggio moved to deny the retention of the structural reinforcements as executed. Mr. Fifield seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

Architecture Committee Meeting of 09/24/19

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 09/24/19 Permit # 19-22947-VCGEN Lead Staff: Nick Albrecht

Proposal to structurally reinforce existing balcony on the Bourbon St. elevation, per application & materials received 04/29/19.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 09/24/19

See Staff Analysis & Recommendation of 05/14/19.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 09/24/19

Mr. Albrecht read the staff report with Mr. Wyatt present on behalf of the application. Ms. DiMaggio asked the applicant if he was open to the complete removal of the balcony. Mr. Wyatt stated that he was not. Mr. Fifield asked what the load was on the current balcony. Mr. Wyatt stated that the load was on the two balconies below which were cantilevered and that the balconies began to deflect when the balcony roof was replaced with natural slate. Mr. Fifield stated that he could not imagine a dead load weighing more than what the balcony could support. Mr. Wyatt explained that this roof was the only one with problems. Mr. Fifield asked if the applicant could strengthen the cantilever. Mr. Wyatt stated that he could consult with a structural engineer.

Mr. Fifield stated that the proposed supports appear as temporary construction rather than an architectural feature. Mr. Block suggested that the applicant might consider a metal roof which would be lighter. Ms. DiMaggio stated that if any emergency shoring was needed that it should be addressed. Ms. DiMaggio moved for a deferral in order for the applicant to consider different options. Mr. Fifield seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

Architecture Committee Meeting of 05/14/19

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 05/14/19 Permit # 19-22947-VCGEN Lead Staff: Nick Albrecht

Proposal to structurally reinforce existing balcony on the Bourbon St. elevation, per application & materials received 04/29/19.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 05/14/19

The proposed work is located on the rear of the main building where the applicant proposes to install a total of six struts at the third floor level to add support to the existing balcony overhang. The submitted VCC Property Summary Report - 837 Royal St. P a g e | 10

plans note that the roof over the balcony where these new brackets are being proposed was not part of the original design. The plans continue that they suspect the roof was added during a 1984 renovation of the building. Staff located a photograph dated April 24, 1990 which shows the rear of the main building with the balconies but without any roof covering. Unfortunately, staff was unable to locate any drawings or additional information regarding when and how exactly this roof covering may have been installed.

The applicant notes that they suspect the roof element is not cantilevered and is dependent on the balconies below for support. Over time this has caused deflection of the balconies and led to the current proposal to reinforce the roof with six new brackets. Five of the proposed struts, noted as strut 1 on the plans, are of the same design. They would be composed of 2 – 2x8s sandwiching a new wall mounted metal bracket at the building wall and sandwiching the existing overhang beam on the underside of the overhang. The brace is noted as angling out from the wall at 60 degrees and the wall mounted portion would be slightly below the bottom of the fascia. The proposal also features new Simpson ties at the top and bottom of the existing overhang structure.

One other bracket, noted as strut 2 on the plans, is proposed for installation closest to Dumaine St. This brace features the same sandwiched 2x8s as strut 1 but also features a second set of sandwiched 2x8s mounted approximately 2-1/2’ lower on the wall and rising up to the overhang at a steeper angle. Staff notes that this structural intervention would obviously be visible from within the courtyard space of this property as well as from the neighboring 841 Royal courtyard but that otherwise there is virtually no visibility into this space.

Typically when it comes to reinforcing structural elements, staff and the Architecture Committee recommend repairs or bulking up the existing elements rather than adding additional bracing or secondary elements. In this instance, as the balcony roof was a later addition and likely applied to the rear masonry wall rather than being cantilevered, reinforcing the existing elements would likely not achieve the desired result. Staff believes that either the roof could be reinforced with new brackets as proposed, that the roof could be completely reconstructed to feature cantilevered elements, or that the Architecture Committee may be open to the complete removal of the overhang roof as it is a relatively recent addition.

The addition of the proposed brackets is certainly the least intrusive of these three options and given the conditions may be considered as a viable option by the Architecture Committee.

On the design of the brackets, staff questions if simple metal brackets may be preferred to the proposed wooden ones as the same or greater strength could likely be achieved with much more slender elements. Additionally, the visible Simpson ties are highly atypical and staff requests commentary regarding this element.

Given the circumstances, staff finds something similar to the proposed brackets may be worth considering, however, staff request commentary from the Architecture Committee regarding the various elements and details of the design as well as the overall concept.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 05/14/19

The application was deferred as there was no one present on behalf of the application.

Page 146 of 172

827 Iberville ADDRESS: 827-831 Iberville OWNER: Canal Street Development APPLICANT: Robin Roussel Corp. ZONING: VCC-2 SQUARE: 68 USE: Commercial LOT SIZE: 4,389 sq. ft. DENSITY- OPEN SPACE- ALLOWED: 7 Units REQUIRED: 1,317 sq. ft. EXISTING: Unknown EXISTING: 0 sq. ft. PROPOSED: No Change PROPOSED: No Change

ARCHITECTURAL / HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Front facades of three c. 1850 townhouses, which were incorporated into the 1966 design for the new Holmes building and parking garage. Kessels-Diboll-Kessels, architects, with Koch and Wilson, associated architects. [N.B: This parking garage building sits on 3 lots: 829, 831, and 833-835 Iberville.]

Green Portion of Building: Front façades Material: Masonry

Orange Portion of Building: Rear addition Material: "Frame special" • Note: assumed bldg. material

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit # 20-20259-VCGEN Lead Staff: Nick Albrecht Violation Case #19-10919-VCCNOP Inspector: Marguerite Roberts

Proposal to retain work completed without benefit of VCC review or approval, including modifying an exterior door to add glazing and stenciling doors and windows with decorative scrollwork, per application & materials received 02/27/2020.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

The work in need of review is all located at a ground floor commercial location where several things were done without benefit of VCC review or approval and were cited by VCC staff. The applicant is proposing to retain these items. The first item in need of review is at the ground floor door where several things were done. The existing six panel door was modified by removing the upper four panels and installing one piece of glass above the remaining two panels. The glass features a stencil with the name of the business and the door features a decorative scroll handle.

Photographs indicate that the solid wood doors were installed in 1966 as part of the construction of the surrounding buildings. Prior to the 1966 construction of the surrounding buildings and renovation of 827 Iberville, the building features a variety of door types, some of which were similar to the one now proposed for retention.

The stencil of the business name on the door may be approvable provided that this is the business’ only sign. If there are any other signs, such as a hanging sign, the applicant would need to eliminate them so that the business has only one sign.

Staff does not find the decorative scrollwork handle to be appropriate and recommends a smaller and more traditional door hardware be installed.

The next item in need of review is the ground floor windows which have been painted to feature a decorative border at both the top and bottom sashes. Staff does not find this decorative painting on the window appropriate and recommends that it be removed.

The final element in need of review is at the base of the door surround where staff believes granite elements were painted over to match the door color. The VCC does not recommend painting previously unpainted granite and staff recommends that the paint be removed from the granite.

Staff requests commentary from the Committee regarding the door modification, notes that the sign on the door could be approvable if the door modification is approved and there are no other signs, and recommends denial of the scrollwork handle, the painted decorative border, and the paint on the granite.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020

Page 162 of 172

812 Bourbon ADDRESS: 812 Bourbon OWNER: JWL Number Sixteen LLC APPLICANT: Wayne Leone ZONING: VCR-2 SQUARE: 58 USE: Residential LOT SIZE: 5,440 sq. ft. DENSITY- OPEN SPACE- ALLOWED: 9 Units REQUIRED: 1,632 sq. ft. EXISTING: Unknown EXISTING: 2,840 sq. ft. PROPOSED: No Change PROPOSED: No Change

ARCHITECTURAL / HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

Rating: Green, or of local architectural significance.

This circa 1840 2 ½-story porte cochere structure, which has square-headed openings on its front facade. Its wrought iron balcony has an added cast iron canopy and supports

Architecture Committee Meeting of 06/23/2020

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: 06/23/2020 Permit # 20-31228-VCGEN Lead Staff: Nick Albrecht

Proposal to retain two (2) Bevolo electric copper light fixtures installed without benefit of VCC review or approval on the Bourbon St. elevation in place of existing electric fixtures, per application & materials received 06/15/2020.

STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: 06/23/2020

Staff observed the installation of the decorative Bevolo figures on 06/12/2020 and posted a Stop Work Order at that time. The applicant seeks to retain the fixtures as installed. Staff notes that these fixtures replaced previously existing, small, decorative fixtures. The previously existing fixtures were significantly smaller than the new fixtures, with the new fixtures measuring just over 14” tall.

Staff notes that similar decorative fixtures have been located within the carriageway since at least 1982. Although there were previously existing decorative fixtures in this same location, staff questions the appropriateness of these new, larger fixtures.

Staff requests commentary from the Architecture Committee regarding the proposed retention of the decorative fixtures.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION: 06/23/2020