Central Business District Historic Landmark Commission Meeting - January 7, 2026

The Central Business District Historic Landmark Commission convened on January 7, 2026, to review the minutes of the previous meeting, approve the consent calendar, and deliberate on a retention application regarding light fixture installation at 412 Girard Street. The primary focus was balancing historic preservation guidelines with the applicant's need for increased security lighting.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of the minutes from the December 3, 2025 meeting.
• Approval of the 716 Iberville Street application on the consent agenda following a request for public comment, for which none were received.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Dr. Vion (Applicant/Owner): Expressed that the original light fixtures at 412 Girard Street had failed five times in two years due to wind damage (winds up to 35 mph), necessitating repeated $1,500 replacements and leaving damaged fixtures dangling for months. She stated this posed a safety risk to pedestrians and employees. She argued the existing dark area in front of the restaurant is a "blind spot" where criminal activity, including truck theft and property damage, has occurred. She noted that neighbors in adjacent condos (Condo Association) expressed support for the new lighting, stating they now feel safer walking the pathway behind the restaurant. She requested permission to retain the current soft white floodlights or find a middle-ground solution, as the original fixtures could not withstand the conditions.
• Commissioner: Expressed appreciation for the increased safety provided to neighbors but voiced concern regarding the intensity and directionality of the current light, noting that "daylight" color would be offensive, while "soft white" is distinct and appropriate for the building texture.

Discussion Items

• HDLC Staff: Explained that the installed floodlights deviate from guidelines, which require sign illumination to be unobtrusive and aimed only at the sign surface, distinct from security lighting. Staff recommended denial and suggested installing fixtures similar to the previous directional "bullet lights" to eliminate only the sign surface, noting that security lighting should be located discreetly, preferably on non-street-facing elevations or via existing wall-mounted fixtures.
• Commissioner: Asked if the existing decorative wall lanterns could be utilized for security lighting. The applicant confirmed these fixtures were electric but, despite being upgraded with brighter bulbs, failed to illuminate the area adequately. The Commissioner suggested the guidelines require sign lighting and security lighting to be handled separately and noted the applicant has existing wiring for appropriate fixtures.
• Commissioner: Proposed that the Commission allow the applicant to work with staff to find a middle-ground option that addresses the safety concerns without reverting to the failed original fixtures or leaving an anachronistic security fixture on the sign.

Key Outcomes

• Motion Made: Commissioners moved to accept staff approval (denial of the retention application) but directed the applicant to work with staff to develop a middle-ground solution that avoids the failed original fixtures while not using a generic safety light on the sign.
• Vote: The motion to deny the retention application and refer the applicant to staff for a collaborative solution passed unanimously (All in favor, none opposed).
• Directives: Staff was instructed to work with the applicant on appropriate fixtures for signage and recommendations for existing sconces or other fixtures to improve security lighting, utilizing existing wiring where possible. The meeting was then adjourned following the ratification of prior committee actions.