City of New Orleans Director

VIEUX CARRE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

LaToya Cantrell Bryan Block MAYOR CITY OF NEW ORLEANS DIRECTOR

Notice of Public Meeting TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2020 1:00 PM, WebEx Conference Call (504) 658-7001, Access Code: 996 584 852

NOTE: The below minutes are in draft form and are a summary of actions taken. They are not a verbatim transcription of the meeting.

Minutes of the VCC Architectural Committee meeting of Tuesday, July 28, 2020 – 1:00 pm.

Committee Members Present: Rick Fifield, Toni DiMaggio, Stephen Bergeron

Staff Present: Bryan Block, Director; Erin Vogt, Senior Building Plans Examiner; Nick Albrecht, Senior Building Plans Examiner; Renée Bourgogne, Senior Architectural Historian; Anthony Whitfield, Inspector; Marguerite Roberts, Inspector

Staff Absent: Renée Bourgogne, Senior Architectural Historian

Others Present: Mike Murray, 1236 N. Rampart; Irl Silverstein, John Williams, ** Siddiqui, 715- 19 Bourbon St; Brian Begue, 827 Orleans; Erika Gates, 730 Orleans; Robert Cangelosi, Jr., 1231 Bourbon; Domonique West; Cody Ellis; Gabriel Virdure & Andrea Ford, 619 Royal; Nikki Szalwinski, French Quarter Citizens; Tony Stafford

AGENDA

Prior to the start of the meeting, Mr. Block explained the process for a web conference as follows: after the presentation of the staff reports and a period for questions from the Committee members to the applicant and staff, the Committee would take a 30-minute recess to allow for the submittal of public comments via email at [email protected]. The comments would then be read to the Committee members prior to any motion or vote for each item. There would be a cap on the length of the comments to what could be read within two minutes, and the emails received have been saved as part of the public record.

At approximately 1:00pm Mr. Fifield called the teleconference to order. Mr. Block called roll and all Committee members were present.

Minutes Old Business 619 Royal St: 20-30797-VCGEN; Peer Architects Trapolin, applicant; 619 Royal Street LLC, owner; Proposal to renovate building, including extensive demolition by neglect abatement, new balcony, mechanical equipment, and balcony rail extension, per application & materials received 06/09/2020 & 07/17/2020. https://onestopapp.nola.gov/Documents.aspx?ObjLabel=Permit&ID=846242

Ms. Vogt presented the staff report with Ms. Virdure and Ms. Ford present on behalf of the application. The discussion followed the structure of the items presented in the staff report.

Ms. Virdure stated that they consulted with a structural engineer after the vegetation was removed from the back wall, who recommended that the wall be completely rebuilt. There is considerable settlement and the applicants do not want to add weight to the wall. She added that they preferred Option 1 for the balcony structure as it would be consistent with the balcony on the service ell, although she also mentioned possibly using steel outriggers instead of wood. Mr. Bergeron asked if there was any evidence of a cantilevered structure

being attached to the timber joists on the interior of the building; Ms. Virdure answered that they did not see scarring on the joists.

Mr. Fifield asked what the purpose of the balcony is if no stair is required; Ms. Virdure answered that it was an amenity they wished to provide so occupants could access the second-floor doors. Ms. DiMaggio stated that the 1908 Sanborn reads like a typical wraparound balcony, but that the 1940 Sanborn includes a line that may indicate changes. She suggested that brick scarring may not be present if the wall has been previously rebuilt for any reason and agreed that Option 1 was the most compatible with the existing balconies. Mr. Fifield stated that he also found Option 1 to be the most appropriate, if the Committee entertains installation of a balcony.

Regarding the millwork, Ms. Virdure stated that they wish to infill the windows in the service ell loggia for safety reasons since it is a path of egress, but that they were willing to leave evidence that the windows were located there. Reviewing the proposed carriageway doors, Mr. Fifield asked if they were proposing to rebuild them or if they would be completely new; Ms. Ford responded that they would be new. Mr. Fifield noted that the drawings deviate from the existing conditions, and asked if the applicants were willing to match more of the existing details, panels, profiles, etc. Ms. Ford stated that they kept the existing proportions but wanted a cleaner look, particularly since some of the existing conditions are mismatched. Mr. Fifield asked the applicant to further study the wood and metal panels.

Regarding the sunroom, Ms. Virdure stated that they proposed two options that were similar to the existing conditions, but that Option 2 adds wood panels below and they were looking for Committee feedback on that proposed change. Ms. DiMaggio commented that she found the existing beaded board impermanent and Mr. Bergeron agreed that it looked temporary, stating that he preferred the option that includes the panels. Mr. Fifield asked if any of the elements would be salvaged; Ms. Virdure responded that they would not, that the entire sunroom was damaged and needed to be rebuilt. She added that the soffit was being proposed to better insulate the sunroom, as it currently rests directly on the balcony structure. Ms. DiMaggio agreed with staff concerns that adding the soffit would change the relationship with the balcony structure. Ms. Vogt requested a drawing showing the extent of the soffit, where wraps and returns to the building and how it interacts with the rest of the structure. Mr. Fifield asked how the soffit would be vented; Ms. Virdure stated that they would study it further. Ms. DiMaggio noted that the interior of the main building steps down into the sunroom, and that the floor level of the sunroom could possibly be built up with insulation instead of adding it to the bottom and creating a soffit. Ms. Virdure indicated this may be a possible alternative.

Regarding the screened porch, Ms. DiMaggio agreed with staff’s comments in the property report, particularly about moving the screen to the interior face of the posts and rails. Ms. Virdure stated that they would look closer at the detailing. Mr. Fifield noted that, despite being an addition and not original to the building, the porch has gained significance over time.

Ms. Virdure stated that they had consulted a mechanical engineer who was confident that they could meet code compliance for three units on the roof of the sunroom. Ms. Vogt asked for clarification regarding the need for another mechanical platform on the roof of the screened porch; Ms. Virdure stated that the second platform would not be necessary and that they would be studying the conditions further.

The Committee members agreed that the balcony rail extension is appropriate and minimal.

Regarding the skylights, Ms. Virdure stated that the owner asked that they be included in the proposal. Ms. Ford stated that they proposed a ridge skylight to provide the best possible light in the space and due to interior height conditions. Ms. DiMaggio asked for additional information about how this would affect the fire rating. Ms. Ford stated that the loggia stair would only have to be rated for 1 hour if the third and fourth floors were connected within the tenant space. She added that additional light is needed to provide quality of life and make the space financially viable, and that the skylights were not being proposed for egress purposes. Mr. Fifield stated that he was disinclined to approve skylights unless further study showed that attempts have been made to meet the Design Guidelines.

Mr. Fifield stated that the project and site conditions are complex and difficult to review by teleconference under current circumstances. He asked if the Committee would be interested in a site visit to become more familiar with the property; both Ms. DiMaggio and Mr. Bergeron agreed. With no further discussion, Mr. Fifield moved on to the next item on the agenda.

1236 N Rampart St: 19-06343-VCGEN; Rick A. Fifield, applicant; The Rampart Church LLC, owner; Review of lighting plan and fixtures, per application & materials received 03/06/2020 & 07/21/2020, respectively. https://onestopapp.nola.gov/Documents.aspx?ObjLabel=Permit&ID=795576

[Mr. Fifield recused himself from the discussion prior to the presentation of the staff report, handing the role of Chairperson to Ms. DiMaggio]

Ms. Vogt presented the staff report with Mr. Murray present on behalf of the application. Mr. Murray stated that they were hoping to receive conceptual approval with final decisions at staff level, and that all fixtures would have a CRI of 80+ and 3000K color temperature. Ms. DiMaggio asked if the lighting at the planters would be considered uplighting. Mr. Murray stated that the fixtures can be dimmed and that they were intended to be ambient light. Mr. Block asked if the photos were true representation of the light’s appearance in person, pointing out the appearance of a hotspot; Mr. Murray stated that it did look better in the field. Mr. Block stated that he had no objection to finalizing the light output in the field. Ms. Vogt stated that the Guidelines only allow monumental uplighting for buildings that are of particular significance (usually Purple rated), and other uplighting is discouraged in most other situations. She stated that, in her interpretation of the Guidelines, ambient uplighting in the planters would be an approvable method of discretely lighting the site. She suggested that the limited number of fixtures around the chapel building itself could be brighter and more monumental those elsewhere on the site, considering the chapel is the most significant, and forward-facing, part of the complex. Ms. Vogt stated that she would work closely with the applicant on mockups and finalization of the fixtures in the field.

Ms. DiMaggio commended the applicant on the lighting diagram, stating that the various layers and consideration of the complex as a whole would result in a much more successful result. Mr. Bergeron stated that he agreed completely, and that the only obvious outstanding items were the scale and final placement of some of the fixtures. With no further discussion necessary, Ms. DiMaggio moved to the next item on the agenda.

901-915 Iberville St; 201-223 Dauphine: 20-28080-VCGEN; Rachel Scroggins, applicant; Hyman-Moses Properties LLC, owner; Proposal to construct new 20’ tall first responders cell phone antenna tower on roof of existing parking garage structure, per application & materials received 05/13/2020 & 07/21/2020, respectively. https://onestopapp.nola.gov/Documents.aspx?ObjLabel=Permit&ID=843237

[Mr. Fifield returned to the meeting as Chairperson following the discussion of 1236 N. Rampart]

Mr. Albrecht gave the staff presentation with Ms. Scroggins present on behalf of the application. Ms. DiMaggio inquired if a new mockup was available. Ms. Scroggins responded that she was told that updated drawings should be sufficient and noted that the building’s landlord requested the installation of bollards around the base of the structure. Mr. Fifield noted that any bollards could be worked out with the staff. With no further comment necessary, Mr. Fifield moved on to the next item on the agenda.

715-19 Bourbon St.: John Williams Architects, applicant; 715-17-19 Bourbon Street LLC; Proposal to demolish existing stoops and lower door sills by 18”, per application & materials received 10/08/19 & 07/06/2020, respectively. https://onestopapp.nola.gov/Documents.aspx?ObjLabel=Permit&ID=850727

Mr. Albrecht gave the staff presentation with Mr. Williams present on behalf of the application. Mr. Williams noted that part of the inspiration for the application is that they want to create a stoop that’s not comfortable. Mr. Williams continued that with the existing stoops one cannot traverse the sidewalk when Bourbon St. is full and the existing stoops are a hotspot for drugs and prostitutes. Mr. Fifield noted that the Committee would look solely at the architectural merits of the overall proposal and that issues of hardship would need to be heard by the Commission.

Mr. Silverstein, an attorney representing the owner, stated that the Committee cannot overrule the ADA requirements. Mr. Fifield responded noting that the proposal would not be ADA compliant. Mr. Williams stated that lowering the building will allow for easier ADA accessibility in the future. Ms. DiMaggio stated that it would be beneficial to see the proposed ADA accessibility as a part of the overall proposal. With no additional comments, Mr. Fifield moved on to the next item on the agenda.

New Business 1231 Bourbon St: 20-33107-VCGEN; Cangelosi, Jr Robert, applicant; Lauricella Bourbon Properties LLC, Floyd Jay H Jr, Bourbon Maison LLC, owner; Proposal to add rear dormers, modify courtyard elements and install equipment closet in carriageway, per application & materials received 07/02/2020. https://onestopapp.nola.gov/Documents.aspx?ObjLabel=Permit&ID=848657

Ms. Vogt presented the staff report with Mr. Cangelosi present on behalf of the application. Mr. Cangelosi stated that he intends all detailing on the rear dormers to match the front. He added that the flagstone will be new, the existing conditions are brick and date to the 2010 renovation. The enclosure in the courtyard will be used for storage, and possibly a generator in future. The carriageway cabinet will match the existing conditions. The gas fixtures are at the owner’s request and more information will be submitted to staff.

Ms. DiMaggio asked if there was any indication on the interior that rear dormers existed on this building at any point. Mr. Cangelosi stated that they had not removed wall board to examine the roof structure but that photos show an absence of dormers on both buildings. Mr. Fifield noted that removing the skylight should be a top priority, as its location is poor and will lead to water intrusion. Ms. DiMaggio agreed strongly. With no further comment necessary, Mr. Fifield moved on to the next item on the agenda.

730 Orleans Ave: 20-33276-VCGEN; Erika Gates, applicant; 730 Orleans Real Estate LLC, owner; Proposal to replace existing carriageway gate with new wooden door to match historic photo, per application & materials received 07/02/2020. https://onestopapp.nola.gov/Documents.aspx?ObjLabel=Permit&ID=848838

Ms. Vogt presented the staff report with Ms. Gates present on behalf of the application. Ms. Gates stated that she would work with staff on final details and approval. Ms. DiMaggio stated that she agreed with the comments in the staff report. With no further discussion necessary, Mr. Fifield moved on to the next item on the agenda.

Appeals and Violations 827 Orleans Ave: 20-28640-VCGEN; Constance Day, applicant; Max J Begue, owner; Review of engineer’s report and proposed stabilization plan, in response to retention application & materials received 05/20/2020 & 07/21/2020, respectively. [Notice of Violation sent 01/24/17] https://onestopapp.nola.gov/Documents.aspx?ObjLabel=Permit&ID=843980

Ms. Vogt presented the staff report with Mr. Begue present on behalf of the application. Mr. Begue stated that he wanted more time to look at other options with the contractor, and that he was very concerned about avoiding roof damaged since Fire Free is not available for replacement. Mr. Fifield asked if he was satisfied with the detail as proposed by his engineer; Mr. Begue stated that he was, that he trusts his engineer and contractor but needs more time as he would prefer to stabilize the chimneys from the alley and avoid the roof entirely. He requested another 30 days, but restated that he considered the proposal to be a good plan. Ms. DiMaggio asked the applicant to clarify whether the proposed work would be left in place permanently or if it was emergency bracing. Mr. Begue restated that he wanted to explore other options. Ms. DiMaggio asked for confirmation that the work in the drawings would be permanent; Mr. Begue agreed that it was and that he did not believe emergency shoring was needed. Mr. Block was concerned that the engineer’s report states that two of the chimneys are “critical,” and warned against any unnecessary delays if alternatives are to be considered. Mr. Begue stated that the engineer did not seem immediately concerned. Mr. Block responded that the Committee had deferred the proposal for 14 days, but staff had allowed him to defer for two additional meetings to work on the evaluation and proposal, and that it was very important the existing conditions not be allowed to drag. Mr. Begue stated that he turned the proposal around as quickly as he was able.

At approximately 2:45pm Ms. DiMaggio moved to recess the meeting for 30-minutes for public comment. Mr. Bergeron seconded the motion. Mr. Fifield announced that the meeting would be reconvened at 3:15pm.

At approximately 3:15pm Mr. Block called the roll. All Committee members were present, and Mr. Fifield reconvened the meeting.

Old Business 619 Royal St: 20-30797-VCGEN; Peer Architects Trapolin, applicant; 619 Royal Street LLC, owner; Proposal to renovate building, including extensive demolition by neglect abatement, new balcony, mechanical equipment, and balcony rail extension, per application & materials received 06/09/2020 & 07/17/2020. https://onestopapp.nola.gov/Documents.aspx?ObjLabel=Permit&ID=846242

Public Comment: French Quarter Citizens is thrilled to see this long-overlooked building finally getting a much needed renovation. I personally toured this building in the early 1990s at which point the upper floors had already long been vacant. I still remember rays of sunlight peeking through the roof as we entered the top floor. I realize your task at hand is a challenge. I believe this was the location of the Zachary Taylor Restaurant many years ago. The 12th President of the United States resided in this building at one point. Regardless of any opinions one may have about the man it is an interesting detail as he was a very successful and respected military figure. All this being said I think given the relatively low acquisition price of this building in 2007, the owner is in a position to restore the structure more accurately in the process.

1. The rear balcony did not exist in the 1876 and 1896 Sanborns and we support eliminating this element so the building more closely mirrors the adjacent sister structure.

2. Sunroom. We support eliminating this poorly built addition since the main and rear buildings were built detached. Perhaps a loggia would be appropriate in some form.

3. HVAC please consider a location that can be permanent even with equipment changes.

4. Front balcony. Is it possible that the height of the deck was changed due to the intense settling on the downriver side of the building.

We agree that a site visit could help the committee greater understand the project and its challenges.

Nikki Szalwinski FQC

Discussion & Motion: Ms. DiMaggio moved to defer the proposal to give the applicant time to respond to staff and Committee comment and for the Committee members to schedule site visits. Mr. Bergeron seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

[Mr. Fifield recused himself from the discussion prior to the discussion of this item, handing the role of Chairperson to Ms. DiMaggio.]

No Public Comment

Discussion & Motion: Mr. Bergeron moved to conceptually approve the proposed lighting plan, with further review at staff level prior to final approval. Ms. DiMaggio seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

[Mr. Fifield returned as Chairperson following the motion.]

No Public Comment

Discussion and motion: Mr. Bergeron moved to approve the project as proposed. Ms. DiMaggio seconded the motion. Mr. Fifield asked if the motion includes the review of bollard installation at the staff level. Mr. Bergeron accepted that amendment

to the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

Public Comment: French Quarter Citizens opposes the proposed application for the many reasons noted in the staff report. We note that both of these buildings have already had window alterations under the current ownership and this proposal would completely change what previously existed. We refer to the comments a few months ago by Commissioners Lawrence and Gasperecz on a different project proposal in which they noted a building should not be changed to suit a use but rather use should follow what exists. We agree. We request that the committee deny any further changes and loss to this structure.

Nikki Szalwinski French Quarter Citizens

Regarding this matter my client is suffering due to the continuing blocking of the entrance to this building by (1) sitting on the stoops or (2) by blocking the entrance. We have attempted to resolve this issue by meeting with then Councilmember, Nadine Ramsey, and her staff arranged a meeting with the commander of the NOPD district which is only blocks away. For a few months, the police responded, but with the overall crime increase in the French Quarter that police stopped responding, and the crime continues. Recently, we contacted the current councilmember, but no activiity. While I appreciate that this is not a pure architectual issue, it does affect quality of life and the life of this business which is suffering by this and also by the impact of the pandemic.

Irl R. Silverstein The Silverstein Law Firm, APLC

Life Safety -limited social distancing

Quality of Life- swearing and harassing locals and tourist Sleeping on the steps Selling mardi gras beads in place then drugs Human trafficking Kicking bottles from the steps causing broken glasses

Sid Sid

Discussion and motion: Mr. Bergeron moved to deny the proposal. Ms. DiMaggio seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

No Public Comment

Discussion and motion:

Ms. DiMaggio moved to conceptually approve the proposed work, forwarding review of the dormers to the Commission. Mr. Bergeron seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

730 Orleans Ave: 20-33276-VCGEN; Erika Gates, applicant; 730 Orleans Real Estate LLC, owner; Proposal to

replace existing carriageway gate with new wooden door to match historic photo, per application & materials received 07/02/2020. https://onestopapp.nola.gov/Documents.aspx?ObjLabel=Permit&ID=848838

No Public Comment

Discussion and motion: Ms. DiMaggio moved to conceptually approve the new wooden doors, with final review to be handled at staff level prior to permit. Mr. Bergeron seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

No Public Comment

Discussion and motion:

Ms. DiMaggio agreed with Mr. Block’s emphasis that remediation must not delayed unnecessarily, and was wary of the engineer’s use of the word “critical,” since it is not clear how emergent the situation is. She stated that if better solutions are possible she wants the Committee to see them, but not if that means further delays. Mr. Fifield shared her concerns, stating that this matter has taken a long time to resolve. He asked Mr. Block for clarification on procedure; if the violation should be cited again or the application denied. Mr. Block answered that, if the Committee is not comfortable with the specific details of the proposal, they could deny the appeal to retain the existing unstable conditions but defer approval of an exact repair solution for a specific amount of time. Mr. Fifield informed the applicant that the next meeting is in two weeks and asked if he could submit for that meeting. Ms. Vogt noted that the deadline for submittal for that meeting is in one week, and Mr. Fifield asked if seven days was enough time to submit a revised proposal. Mr. Begue stated that he was unsure as he was out of town, and asked if the Committee will allow more time if the engineer clarifies his meaning of the word “critical” and the urgency of the repairs.

Ms. DiMaggio moved for denial of retention of the existing conditions with the willingness to entertain an alternate stabilization proposal, with deferral conditions as follows: that a modified proposal be submitted for the deadline of the next VCC AC meeting in two weeks [deadline in 1 week], unless a written statement by the Structural Engineer is submitted clarifying the wording of his report does not indicate emergency stabilization. If that is submitted, the AC grants a deferral of 30 days for the applicant to propose alternate stabilization proposal[s]. Mr. Bergeron seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

With no items left to discuss, Mr. Bergeron moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 3:33pm. Ms. DiMaggio seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.