Good afternoon.

Happy New Year.

Happy twelfth night.

Thank you for coming this afternoon.

This is our first um city planning meeting of the year.

I can't ask.

And there's probably two things that I just before I take roll call.

Well, actually, we'll go ahead and take roll call.

Commissioner Poche.

Present.

Commissioner Flick present.

Commissioner Jordan.

Present.

Commissioner Ste.

Here.

Commissioner Stewart.

Present.

Commissioner Whitry is here.

So we have a quorum.

We can go ahead and get ready to start.

Um I do want to go ahead and congratulate our mayor and our new council um for their inauguration and celebration yesterday.

Um it is exciting for all of them to start their new term.

And um I sat and listened to the inauguration in my car um yesterday, and I wanted to bring up the the faith, hope, and love, but also gratitude and gratitude today for everybody at um City Hall, um, from working the lights to the screens to cleaning this room to make sure that these meetings go off um as efficiently as possible.

So thank you, uh city staff um and anyway everybody in CPC as well.

Um as we get four uh started, let's go ahead and make a motion for actually I guess I need to read the rules first.

The city planning commission has established certain rules governing the procedures to be followed at public hearings.

Before speaking, each person should give their name, address, and state her he or she is representing.

Each speaker shall be a maxim allowed to talk for a maximum of two minutes.

Proponents will be allowed a period of six minutes for rebuttal, each speaker shall be allowed a maximum of two minutes.

Opponents will not be able to rebut.

No material written photographs, maps, charts will be accepted by the commission or its staff at any time during the public hearing unless the rules are suspended.

This procedure shall be followed um at what time with the approval of the commission members present, extend such time.

This meeting was deferred, and we are going to uh go ahead and vote to defer it to January 27th, but we do have members or um individuals here that are wanting to potentially speak.

Um we are not doing a presentation today.

We are going to wait until the 27th.

Um, but we would like to give you all the opportunity after we vote to suspend the rules to decide about the deferral.

Great.

Um I'll make a motion to suspend the rules.

Is there a second?

All second.

Um screens are working, so do you want to try to see if that perfect?

All right, any discussion.

No.

Okay.

If not, let's vote.

So the motion carries.

So then we would be looking for a motion to move number 19 up to um the first docket item.

Um I'll make that motion to move zoning docket.

I'm sorry.

19.

Uh item number 19, the transient lodging study up on our agenda.

Is there a second?

Commissioner local second.

Thank you.

Any discussion, commissioners?

No.

If not, let's vote.

All right, so number 19 has been moved up to the top.

And there's gonna be no presentation.

No presentation.

Um, I'll just note that the meeting on the 27th will not be in the city council um chambers if it's going to be on the in the conference room on the 21st floor of 1340 Poydra Street.

It will be on all of our documents, but I just want to make that clear for the record.

And the majority of that meeting will be focused on the study.

I believe we only have one or two other docket items.

Right now, there's only one other item on the agenda, it's a subdivision, and unless anything is deferred from this meeting, the transient lodging study will be the primary focus.

So at this time, would we want to invite any of the individuals up that um would like to speak on this, or you're also welcome to come on the 27th?

But since you've come here today, we want to give you the opportunity.

Mr.

Jay Grease Bay Grease Baker.

Oh, you're conceding your time to Eleanor, Eleanor, Eleanor, Eleanor.

Um Miss Graham, you have two, three, four, five.

You have um several individuals um that have conceived have ceded their time to you.

So if you would like to speak, um you have a matter of ten minutes.

I have I I have no issues, especially if are there other speakers beside me because I was gonna briefly speak to number 10.

As far as I know, I don't think anyone else is here to speak on the transient launching study.

Okay, all right.

Well then I will go ahead.

Give me one moment here.

I apologize, I was not prepared to speak so quickly.

Thank you.

Um you know it's being deferred, correct?

I know it's being deferred, but you I'm assuming you're not gonna allow speaking on the 27th.

You want us to speak today?

No, we're encouraging everybody that would like to speak on this matter to come on the 27th.

This is a a very I mean all these items are important, but this is a very big study, um, one that we've been, and so we want to make sure um to allow enough time.

So um we are having that on the 27th to give enough notice to individuals as well to be able to make sure that the majority of the meeting time can be left for comment.

Excellent.

Well, then I will do as my best to keep brief.

That's difficult for me because I'm so passionate about this, but as you enter into a review process for the 27th today, oh while I will speak again on the 27th as well as others, I would like to add a few things of note.

Um, the executive director did not speak with me about your concerns regarding grandfathering.

There is still to date uh a belief or statement suggestive of a presumption.

Uh desire line has punted on the issue uh explaining that they had conferred with city uh attorneys and deferred to see the CD PC staff.

My suggestion is there has not been adequate counsel to the city planning commission for a long time uh on on these kinds of matters directly.

And um I have a particular background to convey to you that it is unequivocal.

If you look at the two pieces that I presented, both for the first time in December and again today, you're going to see an action an accurate recitation of the law on grandfathering.

In short, because there was no vested property right in short-term rental permits, they would not be deemed to be grandfathering.

They do not vest or confer a property right.

The law is very well established in Louisiana and in the federal courts.

If there's no property right associated with particular physical location or land, then of course you're not going to have a typical grandfathering concept.

Also, grandfathering doesn't apply under the restrictive provisions in the zoning ordinance.

I think that's Article 25.

Um it is not presumed, and they're very, very specific criteria for that.

The determination is strictly made by the Department of Safety and permits under those very strict criteria.

This is an apples and oranges scenario.

I cannot convey to you enough that these permits are treated under our law as licenses.

And because they're contributed like temporary licenses, it is impossible for there to be a vested property interest.

It matters not that there might have been significant investment or that there might have been LLCs and groups of property investors that spent a lot of money on contiguous buildings, on an individual building, on doubles, on individual uh condominiums.

Uh it doesn't make any difference.

It's that simple.

And when you understand that and you think of that, that's simply you're on solid ground if you were to remove them as a category.

We also disagree with the notion that there should be a compression of commercial short-term rental and what is considered residential or non-commercial short-term rental as category.

What we have proposed, hundreds of us, is the removal of commercial short-term rental as its own category.

It is nonsensical.

And to simply defer to the council in its wisdom to consider the existing residential or non-commercial regulations despite the misnomer, as I point out under the law.

It's definitely in the snow under the case law.

And let them decide from the bottom up, with their least restrictive provisions, how to add in regulations, if at all, to the base STR regulation that they retain, which is a part of a separate study.

What I believe desire line and the city planning commission has done, perhaps inadvertently, and despite what I think is probably in good faith, they seem to believe that there's a reason to justify the existence of commercial short-term rentals.

When you understand the density of them, giant large homes, contiguous vacation homes, huge percentages in apartments and condominium buildings.

And in many instances, on the edges of our most important vulnerable swaths of mid-city and other areas of the city that never came back fully during Katrina, very large homes that could be either multifamily classic apartment or doubles and triples in quads, okay, depending upon how you look at it.

All right.

So what are they most like?

Under the law, all these STRs are commercial.

But the commercial ones are the ones most like hotels.

And what I have repeatedly said over and over is, and I can assure you of this, what we're screaming for is we do not need them.

I'm telling you, we do not want them.

None of us do in any of our historic districts.

They cannot be regulated with vertical zoning.

The 25% rule and other regulations have not worked.

It is very hard to enforce this, even with the best intentions of our mayor, and by the way, I am all in for New Orleans.

But if I thought for a moment they could be regulated vertically, or the vacation homes could be regulated horizontally, I would be taking a different posture.

You're talking about somebody who did land use long and is living it and moved from uptown and got rid of them.

They're not where I lived uptown.

There's a reason for that.

All right?

We don't want them either in Bywater.

And they're wanting it.

They're not just running the character of the neighborhood.

They are creating a huge voids, dead zones in neighborhoods.

And it doesn't matter that they might be historic mixed use.

I do want to say we welcome the lack and continued uh reception to there being no hotels and no commercial short-term rentals and by water and the other historic corridors, uh, the core districts.

You are asking for more regulatory trouble with the council.

I would suggest to you, our new city council and new mayor need something simple, something that gives them fodder and tools uh to uh bring back our citizenry, improve a fabric of our neighborhoods, increase housing opportunity for all, and unless you eliminate this category, essentially you're not for housing.

You're you're for the function a functional equivalent of a hotel without the building requirements and the other code requirements of the hotel, including on site operation.

And by the way, in my building, we had to call security and management that could not come soon enough for major party, it was incredibly disruptive to our building just two weeks ago.

It goes on.

It is a major concern in apartments and condominiums and in all of our vulnerable neighborhoods.

The nuisances are not minuscule, they are ongoing and significant.

And that's essentially what I have to say today.

There was going to be more bed and breakfast, your limit needs to be five.

Trust me on that.

You get beyond five as a director would suggest, uh, like nine, you're looking at something more akin to a hotel.

So, what I'm suggesting to you is that we not consider neighborhood hotels.

We already have hotels.

We don't need neighborhood hotels.

Nobody in the historic districts or in the neighborhoods have spoken to you, have ever said we need neighborhood hotels.

We just have hotels.

Neighborhood and hotel doesn't go together.

It's that simple.

It's common sense.

Um commercial short-term rental and neighborhoods don't go together.

It's also not just experiential for me, it's common sense.

So I would suggest that you keep it as simple as possible.

Don't buy into the compression idea, which keeps this very elaborate three-tiered c system, which is going to complicate and confuse uh our new council for proposed commercial zoning orders regulations.

And I'm available for any questions or concerns, but that's kind of all I have to say, except for one other thing I just thought about that you need to think about.

Hostels were the subject of the motion.

They should have been part of the study.

They are not.

My colleague at the Marini, uh, Improvement Association program, Marin and myself and others have suggested very deftly, though, that you need to have a definition, you need to look at other uh neighborhood cities, and you need to be thinking that wait a minute, hostels do need to be treated in all respects like hotels, okay?

Because they are the functional equivalent, it's just they look a little bit different, and uh, they're just not no they're not as nice, and they got open kitchens and shared bathrooms and this sort of thing.

Um, and that's it.

Any questions, concerns?

You talk about um nine to five, you mean bedroom count, correct?

Oh, yeah, right.

Talking bedroom count.

And one of the other reasons when I speak to the density of commercial short-term rentals, when you limit them when you propose the three-tiered system, while the council is so carefully tried to propose for regular STRs one per block, and then they provided much to their chagrin, probably now with the fallout uh waivers or exceptions to that, right?

So they need to have an opportunity to consider that separately or build up from there, okay, realizing that we have good strong case law uh right now, calling them all commercial.

I I just don't believe in the three-tiered system because it doesn't adequately provide for the density.

And what is one per block?

Well, they would say, oh, well, it's just one 10-room commercial short-term rental when they already no one really wants a commercial short-term rental next to a hotel that's stuff subject to greater regulations in the C BD5 or anywhere else.

And by the way, uh Jane Place and all of us agree, CBD five should be more residential, more than they're proposing.

Thank you, Miss Graham.

Very well.

Any any questions for our speaker?

Miss Graham, we'll see you on the 27th.

Yeah, thank you so much.

And um, Mr.

Frank.

Um, sorry.

Um, Frank Southwall, Jane Place, uh organized community manager.

So I just really want to thank Elinor for us always giving us a comprehensive overview of the legal, the urban planning and all the other aspects that should go in terms um of shaping good policy around transit and lodging.

Um we have a lot of concerns about this studying what it could potentially do to the area where we develop in.

And so I'm gonna speak today about that.

Um, as you guys know from before the holiday break, we came here and asked for a zoning exception for us building our office and three one bedroom um apartments that will hopefully be priced somewhere in between 600 and 700, um, possibly cheaper.

Um, and one of the things we're seeing is still an explosion of short-term rentals.

I went to go talk with some of my neighbors at my old house.

I used to live at on Palmyra, which is about four blocks up from the street where we developed most of our house and Jane Place Alley.

And there was two short-term rentals, home short-term rentals that had temporarily shut down, um, and now they've resumed operation.

Um, I'm not sure why they shut down.

Um, it took literally seven years, including Brianda Decker uh coming to City Hall to talk about them because I've been involved in this house I formerly lived at for a long time.

Um, but they're back open, right?

And we know that those are about six apartment buildings that could be rented out to long-term locals.

Um, as a mid-city residents still live in mid-city, now I just live on the other side can now.

I'm seeing increasingly more and more unhoused folks.

Um, and on our hotline via work, we're talking more and more unhouse folks who have jobs.

That's always been the case, but there's just an uptick in the mound people who are knee housing.

And given the fact that we're looking for a Trump administration that does have rental assistance, we need to think more carefully about what we're doing around housing policy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll see you on the 27th.

Is there anyone else here to speak on this matter?

If not, then commissioners, any questions?

If not, we need uh a motion to consider deferral until January 27th.

I'll make I'll make a motion for deferral of the Transient Lagend study till January 27.

Second, Commissioner Stewart.

Any discussion?

If not, let's vote.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We'll see you all in the 27th.

And just remember it's at 1340 Poetris.

We will not be at City Hall Chambers that day.

We do need to go ahead and move back and adopt the meeting minutes um for December 9th, 25.

Commissioner Flickle make a motion to approve meeting minutes.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second, Commissioner Stewart.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Not let's vote.

All right, motion carries.

The meeting minutes have been adopted.

Now we're gonna move on to property acquisition.

Property acquisition 00325 is a request for a property swap between the city and Nora, whereby the city would acquire five properties and dispose of one parcel to allow for the development of a public park at the corner of Almira Avenue and Homer Street.

This request was heard at the last CPC hearing on December 9th, 2025, and was recommended for deferral to allow time to determine who is responsible for and how the remediation of the site would occur, which has now been determined.

Therefore, the CPC staff recommends approval of property acquisition 00325, subject to two provisos.

However, the City Planning Commission's rules and regulations state that the city planning commission shall render a decision within 45 days of its first consideration.

The CPC first considered this item at its October 14th hearing.

45 days from that date was November 29th, making a decision today, a conflict with this regulation.

If the CPC would like to move forward with this item, the commission will first need to suspend the rules to act on the request after the 45-day deadline.

And then Miss Rochelle.

And those are the only two individuals I have to speak on this.

Hello.

And I'm here representing Confetti Kids Board, which is a community-driven board in Algiers.

So we've been working on a project for over 10 years to turn this parcel on Elmyra 900 Elmyra into a new Nord park for kids.

So we've been developing the property, um, fundraising.

We acquired an old place structure that's still in very great condition from Harriet Tubman Elementary and have been fundraising to install this structure and develop this property and hand it over to Nord in what is considered a park desert portion of Algiers.

And we're very passionate about this.

We're pretty much have been kind of tied up in this transfer process for over two years now with all the funds and ready to go to install this park to create a new safe place for kids in Algiers.

So we're just hopeful that we could push this forward and hopefully by the summer have a new playground for Nord to be able to pass over to them.

Thank you.

Hello, Rochelle Julik, Office of Community Development 1340 Point Street.

This is a very uh it has been a uh pretty complex uh transaction, but we have been able to um work through all of the questions and uh we'd be very excited to move forward with uh a beautiful new park.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to suspend the rules.

Okay.

Perfect.

A second.

All right, let's vote.

Thank you.

Now we can go ahead and any discussion.

If not, then I'd be looking for a motion.

I'll make a motion for approval subject of two provisos.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Pochet.

Uh Commissioner Steak.

Oh, we'll Plough She know.

Oh, no, Pochet.

All right.

Okay.

Is there any discussion?

If not, let's go ahead and vote.

Congrats.

Motion carries.

Thank you for all of your work on the Browns field.

Yes.

Yes.

Correct.

Now we need to move to the next one.

Yes, 001-25.

So this is the companion application to facilitate the property swap between the city and Nora.

The disposition is specifically for one piece of property on Denil Street.

The City Planning Commission staff recommends approval of this property disposition for the same reasons stated for property acquisition 00325.

If the CPC would like to move forward with this item, the commission will first need to suspend the rules to act on the request for the 45-day deadline.

Would you like to speak again?

Would you?

Mr.

Shell, no.

If not, then is there a motion?

I'll move to suspend the rules.

Second.

Thank you.

Let's vote.

Okay.

The motion carries.

And is there a any discussion or a motion for the Commissioner Flick?

Move approval.

Thank you.

Commissioner Flick.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Steeg.

Alright, any discussion?

If not, let's vote.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

These two items were on our docket for quite some time, so it's nice to see them move on.

Zoning docket 067-25.

Thanks for your patience.

Zoning dock is 6725 as a request for a zoning change from an OSN neighborhood open space district to an H U R D2, historic urban two-family residential district.

The land is currently developed with Harriet Tupman Elementary School and was previously included in the parkland designation along with the adjacent Berman Park, creating a situation where the zoning district and the flum designation were inconsistent with one another.

The Flum designation has been rectified under PD 1202.

This request will rectify the site zoning, which as an OSN district does not allow the current use of a school at the site.

The proposal is not a spot zone, as it would convert two OSN neighborhood open space districts that are not used as parks and are not owned by the city into a residential district, which matches the other properties in the vicinity.

Since the site is surrounded by an HURD 1, two family residential district, the staff believes that designation is more compatible with the zoning of the nearby properties.

And the H U R D1 zoning classification is also the least intensive to achieve the applicant's goals.

Therefore, staff recommends modified approval to allow an H URD1 two-family residential district.

Thank you.

Mr.

Richard Hi, good afternoon, Commissioners.

Uh Richard Cortizes, 201 St.

Charles Avenue, on behalf of Crescent City School Foundation.

First, I want to thank the staff for their work and diligence on this matter.

We're in support and in agreement with the staff's recommendation.

As was stated earlier, this is just correcting a zoning change error that was previously made, which is now consistent with the FLUM.

More importantly, this zoning change will allow the school to make very uh necessary building and infrastructure updates uh to the school and the area.

Um so I just want to simply just say thank you and um thank you for your support and hope that you can uh support the staff's favorable recommendation and we're fine with the recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have any other cards here to speak on this matter.

All right, commissioners, is there any discussion or a motion that staff's recommendation is modified approval?

All right, Commissioner Move approval in accordance with staff recommendation.

Thank you, Commissioner Sieg.

Is there a second?

Second, Commissioner Stewart.

Thank you, Commissioner Stewart.

Any discussion?

Not let's vote.

Motion carries modified approval.

Zoning Docket 001-26.

Zoning Docket 126 is a request for conditional use to allow the operation of a reception facility with outdoor live entertainment as a secondary use at the site.

No modifications or addition to the building footprint are proposed.

So potential adverse impacts such as loadering, litter, obnoxious behavior that may be associated with reception facilities and outdoor life entertainment, can be mitigated with proper management and the enforcement of the required use standards for reception facilities as well as outdoor live entertainment.

Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to four provisos.

Mr.

Myers.

And then Ms.

Coleman, Mr.

Smith.

Please state your name and address.

Earl Myers, 28300 Phillips Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 7013.

And I'm here.

Whatever you'd like to say.

Okay.

I'm here to uh respect respectfully ask you all to your approval for the facility.

Uh we have a lot of support from the neighbors uh surrounding churches for what we're doing and really appreciate your support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Coleman.

And then Mr.

Smith.

Um we thank you for your approval.

And um, oh, I'm sorry, Deedris Coleman is my name.

2325 Phillips Street is where I live.

And we we just want to thank you for your support in um the operation get me started with this uh business.

And if you have any questions, I'm here to answer.

If you have any questions for us, I don't think at this time.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon, Commission Zach Smith 1000 South Norman C.

Francis.

I marked on the card.

I'm paid to be here.

I wasn't actually uh hired for this project, but I've just known the Myers for a long time.

Fantastic people, fantastic citizens in New Orleans, and they're looking to give back to their community and have a great uh space here, and we welcome and appreciate the approval from the the staff and hope that the commission today can again support their project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have anyone else here to speak um in support, but I do have one card in opposition.

Um Mr.

Elliot.

If you would like to come up and speak, you have I'm sorry, I must have put the wrong number on there.

Oh, are you you're here for another docket item?

Yes, okay.

I apologize.

Um are you here for Russell J.

Frank request?

Yes.

Okay, perfect.

So we apologize.

No, we don't have any cards in opposition.

If not, then I'd be looking for a motion unless there's any questions.

All right, we have a motion from Mr.

Jordan.

I'll make a motion for approval.

For and it's um modified.

Yeah, approval with four provisors.

And um, Commissioner Steag.

He seconded.

Okay, any discussion.

If not, then let's vote.

Five years, the motion carries.

Congratulations and good luck.

We are now gonna move on to zoning docket 002-26.

Zoning Docket 002-26 is a request for a conditional use to allow a single family residence in a GPD general plan development district.

The site is currently undeveloped and consists of five distinct lots of record, which are being subdivided as part of the applicant's proposal.

The proposal was designed the front Oliver Street, but subdividing the lots will consequently result in the property uh fronting Rankin Street instead.

The change of front ends uh renders the placement of the driveway and parking pad non-conforming features.

The applicant was informed that they would need a variance for the placement of the parking pad unless they redesign the property so that the driveway and the parking pad are compliant, either by moving it to the other side of the residence or reorienting the building so that it faces ranking street.

The staff believes utilizing the property as a single family residence will have minimal impact on adjacent properties and would be unimpactful to the environmentally sensitive areas in close proximity to the site.

The proposal generally meets the approval standard set forth in Article 4.4.g of the comprehensive zoning ordinance and does not in fear not does not interfere with the master plan.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed single family residence subject to three provisos.

Thank you.

The birds.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Isaiah Bird, uh 3625 Sam Street.

And we uh grateful and hopefully that everything goes well, and this project will improve the neighborhood and it also will increase revenue for the city.

So thank you for your this matter.

Thank you.

Would Mrs.

Byrd like to speak or okay?

I don't believe I have any other cards on this matter, so um if there's no discussion, or if there is, yes.

Oh, sir.

Sir, did you submit a card?

Um, I don't really know the procedure crowd of cards you were looking for.

Okay, we will get one for you, but are you here to speak on this matter?

Yes.

Okay, are you in support or opposition?

Opposition right now.

If you could please state your name and address, we'll get you a card to fill out.

And you have two minutes.

Mr.

Sandy Williams.

Uh my address is 1707 West Homestead Drive, New Orleans, Louisiana, and IGS.

Okay.

Did you for the 3350 street?

Um, yes, I'm in opposition for it right now because I have some other siblings that involved that the system has to be made with them and and concerning uh conditional use permit.

I don't I have uh understanding a little bit what that includes, but uh I think I need to meet a little more with the other party for to get a a little more further detail and um get some more clearance um who did you want to meet with to be able to get uh get a better understanding?

Uh I like to meet with the um the individuals that want to use the property for uh conditional did you meet with the birds at all?

Yeah, we met we met one time before.

Okay, yeah.

And so you want to meet with other people that are I like I like to meet with the birds again.

Okay.

I'd like to probably may maybe go ahead and uh once I meet with the other siblings, just completely uh sell the property rather than a conditional use.

So sir, do you so do you have a you don't want us uh a single family house on these lots?

Well it's okay if you put it on on their lot but not on my lot.

Okay, so I think they're we'll hear from them on the rebuttal, yeah.

Do we have so we'd like to hear we'll ask them in rebuttal whether I it's my understanding they're putting it on their lots?

Are you live next door or something?

Well, my lot uh is in the I think it's attached to their lot, and so I need to um we I think we need to get together one more time and get some definite uh clearance on how far is my property from from their property because it's uh stating um on here about other lots that's involved uh lots of 50 through 54.

Right.

And what's do you know the number of yours?

So Mr.

Young.

Um square 71 lot number 50, and I don't know.

Oh well, no, they got uh square 71.

Staff, could you look in that to that please?

I don't know what the number of their lot is would we be um out of place if we asked the birds to respond during his testimony, so I have a feeling we could clear it up.

Is that legit?

Okay, all right.

Okay, so ma'am, we'll wait until rebuttal to talk to you.

Okay.

So you you're you're under the understanding that this single family home is being built on your lot as well.

Is that correct?

Well, yeah, because uh they asked for conditional use of my lot.

Steph, can we get verification on which lots?

So the the site encompasses yeah, lot 50 through 54, according to the assessor's website, which is the data we verify when we take in an application, those five lots are all owned by um uh Mr.

and Mrs.

Byrd.

Um yeah, sir.

Can you see up here?

Um well, I guess it's hard to where do you um where's your house?

Excuse me.

Yeah, what's your address?

The address for this lot.

Oh, the air and the address I just gave you my home and my residence, but I'm giving the address the address for the lot uh 3350 Oliver Street.

3350.

So 3350 that's the address of the application.

Yes, that's correct.

So are you are you saying that you own this lot?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm gonna defer to so let me um so do you own you own a lot in this area, right?

Yes.

And do you know the address of the lot that you own?

3350 Oliver Street.

Okay.

Because that's the address of the 3350 Oliver Street.

Okay, give us a second to look it up and it's just it's just say Frank Williams care of Sandy Williams.

If you pull up the assessor site and you can use if he owns this lot or the lots surrounding are you Mr.

Williams, you're Mr.

Williams, right?

Yes, Sandy Williams.

Well also the deceased.

Okay, Mr.

Williams.

Frank Williams.

Frank Williams.

Can we also give Mr.

Williams a card to complete in the meantime?

Commissioner Flink.

Only because I'm so Sandy Williams pulls up an address on West Homestead Drive.

Um there are multiple Frank Williams.

Is it is your middle initial A or No?

Okay.

I see a Williams tax.

Williams Frank there of Sandy Williams.

If you look up two lots from the the lot in question, that's the lot that he actually owns.

That's right.

It's north.

And so then yes, north.

Sorry, the number, the number I'm seeing.

Is it 3308?

Oh listen location addresses 858901 Oliver Street.

Oh, yeah.

Yes.

Yep.

Staff, do you see the lot of record that Mr.

Williams owns?

47 is owned by Frank Williams.

And that's indeed two lots of from the subject site.

Mr.

Williams, it it looks like from our um research on the tax rolls that your lot is actually above the lots of record where the application is.

So maybe um staff could actually show you um that we want to make sure we get it right.

We know this is sensitive.

Correct, yes, absolutely.

Um we're just gonna have the birds come up in the meantime, and and maybe they have some additional information to share.

Good evening.

My name is Angie Unita Bird.

Um the property that we're um talking about is 3350 Oliver.

It's a vacant lot.

We just recently was assigned that address at a zoning commission, and we did explain to Mr.

Williams because when we had the meeting where the neighbors are concerned citizens wanted to come and voice whatever opinions, we did speak with him because he stated then that he thought we were building on his property, and we explained to him you know this property that we own.

So um again, we think it would be a property has been surveyed, and we basically have met the guidelines that the zoning commission has met.

And we're you know, we were just hoping that it would be an enhancement to the community, which is really just uh um you know a rural area.

Okay.

Um okay, thank you.

I think before we have a motion, I just want to make sure that this is accurate.

And this is the survey that you all have.

This is your survey.

You all have any questions for the birds?

Okay.

Thank you.

Um you can, but I just want to make sure that um right.

I just want to make sure.

Okay.

Okay.

So Mr.

Williams, you're you're aware that this property is the one that has the application is is not yours based on the information that you've received.

Please just from what I just got is plain.

Um, depending on the bill in that area to need permission from all the property owners in that area.

And from what I see on what I would just show that my lot is uh above the area, but this but is in my area.

I don't have no problem with them building in in the area, but I don't want to in the bill on my property.

Correct.

We don't want them to build on your property.

No put in a type of debris on my property.

Okay.

Already there.

No, I have no problem with them building that area.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

And yes, we like for a motion.

Make a motion to approve zoning docket two-26 subject to three provisos.

Second Commissioner Stuart.

Any discussion?

If not, then let's go ahead and vote.

Motion carries.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate staff helping us with that.

Okay.

Uh we are moving on to zoning docket um 003-26.

Good afternoon.

Um zoning docket 003-26 is a request for a waiver to permit the expansion of an existing neighborhood commercial establishment in an HURD2 to family residential district.

The site consists of one consolidated lot totaling approximately 7,540 square feet, and is currently developed with a 2,700 square foot structure which contains a bakery in the front and an office in the rear.

These uses were approved in 2018 per zoning docket 126-18, or excuse me, conditional use docket 126-18.

The applicant has constructed an after-the-fact camelback addition that adds a second floor office space of approximately 970 square feet, which increases the total floor area beyond the 3,000 square foot limitation allowed for neighborhood commercial establishments.

Excuse me.

Uh the request is necessary due to the fact that the applicant will require essentially a variance in order to permit this expanded uh square footage.

While the underlying uses remain the same, the staff finds that and that the proposal is consistent with the master plan and serves the purpose of the zoning district still.

It does not meet several of the approval approval standards for variances.

Thank you.

Is there anybody to speak on this matter?

Okay.

If not, then there's a motion on the floor for deferral.

I'll make the motion for deferral.

All right, is there a second?

What's the date again?

That would be for the February 10.

February 10th.

Okay, I'll make it to make a deferral to February 10th.

Commissioner Flick will second.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Sir, who seconded?

I'm sorry.

Uh Commissioner Flick.

Thank you.

We are waiting for one commissioner to vote.

Oh.

Basic math I'm trying to do up here.

Okay.

Thank you.

The motion carries it's been deferred to uh February.

All right.

Zoning docket 004-26.

Zoning Docket 00426 is a request to permit a plan development for the adaptive reuse of an existing brewery over 10,000 square feet in the floor area as an amusement facility, indoor and outdoor in a C1 General Commercial District, and an HU MU Historic Urban Neighborhood Mixed Use District.

Zoning Docket 00426 is also a request for the residue of ordinance number 28,218 zoning docket 04619 and ordinance number 28,601, zoning docket 08920.

Applicants propose to convert the former zoning mesh brewery project historically known as the gym theater into an indoor and outdoor amusement facility with indoor batting cages, simulation and virtual reality rooms, a bar and dining space, and a private party rooms.

This conversion consists of the reuse of the existing buildings along with the addition of an outside amusement area, bicycle parking, as well as site work.

Current proposed plan show on street parking and additional bike parking to be counted towards the total requirement.

The use of the structure as an indoor amusement facility is permitted by right.

However, the use of the exterior area as an outdoor amusement facility, excuse me, amusement area is not allowed in the district, necessitating this application.

The proposed use as an indoor outdoor amusement facility is compatible with the commercial character of the broad street corridor as similar uses exist in the commercial neighborhoods.

While the intended use as the potential to increase traffic, parking demand and noise during evening and weekends, these impacts are not anticipated to significantly significantly exceed those from the site's previous commercial use.

Therefore, stack staff recommends approval of zoning docket 004 00426, subject to two exceptions and two provisos.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Smith, um, you have time that's been ceded to you, so you would have four minutes.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh good afternoon again, Commission Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman C Francis.

We shouldn't need any of that extra time.

Uh this was a fantastic case.

Uh sometimes there's projects we love, and there's sometimes projects we really love.

This is a great project about bringing something and more and greater activity for children in the city of New Orleans.

This fundamentally is going to be a facility for children to expand their sports uh capacity with indoor batting cages, and of course, at this point, expanding into the outdoor ability to host those events.

A lot of times people continue to complain.

We have to go out of the city, we have to go to Jefferson, we've got to go to St.

Bernard.

We love those places too, but we always love to see things for our folks right here in the city of New Orleans.

Uh with that, thank you to the staff for a great uh review.

Uh Mr.

Ritter here is here in case there's any questions, but we're gonna give away all the rest of the time because we know y'all's time is important and the great volunteering y'all do.

So we're here for questions.

Thank you very much.

Can you have your applicant change the name of the applicant?

I know I was gonna ask what what inspired the name of the LLC.

Look, there's only been a new mayor for two days, okay?

There's only been a new mayor for two days.

So he can change it now that there's there's there's a new direction.

I love New Orleans LLC.

Mr.

Ritter, would you like to come up and uh just a question?

Oh, yeah.

All right, is there any um questions?

I don't have anyone else here to speak on this matter.

And there seems to be no opposition.

So, commissioners I'll make the motion uh for approval.

Um, I'll make the motion for approval subject subject considered name change in the future.

Um but this is like a great project for for uh for more neighborhood commercial activity.

I know often there's always the conflict between business and residential areas, and I'm always going to be a champion for business on broad.

So uh a gray conversion after the loss of a gray site.

So thanks.

Just to clarify, is the motion for approval in accordance with staff recommendations?

Always.

Thanks.

Any other discussion.

If not, then let's vote.

Got six YA's motion carries.

Let's move to zoning docket zero zero five-26.

Zoning Docket 005-26 is a request for a zoning change from an HMR1 Historic Marini Tremay Bywater Residential District to an HMC Historic Marine Tremay Bywater Commercial District and a conditional use to permit outdoor live entertainment, secondary use in conjunction with a hotel and bar.

The applicant seeks a waiver to permit operating hours of 9 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

on weekdays and 10 a.m.

to 12 a.m.

on weekends.

This request will expand the permissions of the existing Blue Crawfish hotel and bar, allowing for live outdoor entertainment to take place in and around the pool and deck areas.

This includes a request to change the zoning of lot 11 from HMR1 to HMC2, which does not align with the goals and intents of the master plan.

The applicant also requests a waiver of standard operating hours for outdoor life entertainment, secondary uses at hotels.

However, the project does not meet criteria for granting said exception.

While live entertainment generally could have a negative impact on any surrounding residential area, this may be mitigated through the proper management and application of standard use or sorry of U standards as recommended recommended and stock provisos.

No modifications or additions to the building footprint or facade are proposed.

However, the applicant does also ask to resubdivide the complex into one lot of record, including the ancillary HMR1 zoned lot 11.

Given the conflict of lot 11's current zoning and future land use designation per the FLM with the applicant's request, staff recommends granting the subdivision request with the exception of lot 11.

In conclusion, staff recommends denial of both the requested waiver and zoning change from an HMR1 to HMR or HMC2 district and approval of the conditional use to permit outdoor live entertainment, secondary use in conjunction with the hotel, subject to three provisos.

Thank you.

Mr.

Frank.

Afternoon.

You want to state your name and address, and I understand you're the applicant.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Russell Frank, um 1622 Main Street.

Thank you.

I'm just here in support.

I'm actually the owner.

Um I did request for the live music uh for exterior um permitting for music.

Um it fits right in with the neighborhood, and I do appreciate the staff um recommending that I do get that.

I also um the only thing I did want to add, uh can appreciate them um looking out for the neighbors in regards to the time frame going from midnight.

Um so not really gonna detest that, but I do uh want to bring up the fact that 1608 Dumain Street was originally a commercial property um that I want to turn in back into a commercial property.

Um it's been an empty lot for 30 years, I believe, and or 1980 something, and I just want to put that lot in with the rest of the hotel as I purchase it all.

It's not a spot zoning thing, so I just wanted it to be approved so I can actually do something with a lot of parking or something else down the road with the hotel to add on to it.

Um, and that's about it.

And I appreciate you guys' time as well.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Bank?

No, just a question for the staff if we could talk about the origin of the land use of the the lot that was mentioned.

So the applicant mentioned the historic nature of the side being the site being commercial.

You speak to that.

Um the the site is vacant uh right now, so that's why we can't um um recommend an approval of the zoning change for that portion um from residential to to commercial and the the flum designation for that lot is um is residential as well, which doesn't allow commercial version unless there is an existing um commercial structure.

Yeah, but uh in your research and putting together this zoning docket, was there any evidence of any commercial activity prior to the empty lot?

That uh I don't know, were you able to um to find any previous commercial structure on the site?

Um so when I was when I was looking at this and looking at um, I think it was a sandboard map as well as uh historic Google imagery.

I did see that there was at least some kind of greenhouse structure on there for several years on and off, I think, um, after Katrina.

Okay.

Um prior to that though, I'm not I'm not aware of what the structure would have been.

Okay.

Question for the applicant, can you speak kind of more to what's the actual plan for that?

You said parking, then you say future uh future commercial space.

Right.

Um, it is attached to the hotel, and we don't really have too much parking in that area, so it's a 30-foot lot, so we were gonna hold it for our uh employees just so they don't park in front of the neighbors because parking is a big thing, and we try to eliminate uh parking in front of the neighbors' houses because they we respect their spots, but it's not always easy.

So we just want to have that as a commercial lot or possible parking for our employees, possible storage, um, and that's pretty much it.

But in the future, down the road, if we decide to expand the hotel, it's only a 10 bedroom um boutique hotel.

We may want to put something on the side or something like that, so it's not in the immediate plans or anything like that.

We just that's how we're looking at it.

Because it's we I purchased it in hopes that I could go commercial because it's next door and it wouldn't be spot zoned.

I didn't think it was gonna be an issue.

Um so the prime primary purpose of it would be for parking right now as a and then future expansion.

All right.

What are you currently using it for now?

It's an empty lot, and we have turf um currently when we do uh we currently we have a dumpster on there because we don't really have anywhere to place it other than clay barn, like not a dumpster, but food.

Um but I I want to get it so it's zoned correctly so I can actually do that legally.

I want to say at the present moment because as a restaurant and bar, we have to have a dumpster because the city doesn't pick it up, so I have to pay for a dumpster per month.

Um, and we really don't have too much space in this uh facility for someone to pull out and dump the trash either.

So that's like the one lot space that's available without it being in full view of the neighborhood in the front, also.

And there's three requests on the zoning docket, right?

There's the zoning change, the conditional use, and a waiver.

Okay.

So it could be three different votes potentially.

Any other questions for Mr.

Frank?

No.

Is there anyone else here speaking um support?

Um Mr.

Frank, please stay because you'll be able to rebut.

And we have um three cards in opposition.

Um Mr.

Elliott Thank you.

I got the right one this time.

Um Thanks for your time.

Uh thanks for taking the time to listen.

I I'm just gonna read a statement.

I'm not really good at your name and it's oh yeah, sorry, Todd Elliott, 823 North Robertson.

I'm just gonna read this.

I'm not very good at speaking extemporaneously, so I'm gonna uh stutter my way through this.

Um I read the preliminary report.

It looks like um you're overall recommending not to allow this stuff.

Um my wife and I moved to the city during the height of COVID uh at a house which is in the backyard of the blue crawfish.

When we moved there, it was a vacant lot.

Um we chose the treme for its proximity to a lot of the stuff in New Orleans that we love and kind of the vibrant community there.

Um the blue crawfish says it's a hotel, but really it's effectively an event venue.

Loud parties are thrown there, some lasting until the small hours, and it's proven to be really really disruptive to the point that it's effectively driven us out of our own home.

Um giving Mr.

Frank the ability to have extended operating hours and live music in what is my backyard effectively is the house of directly abuts the back of the blue crawfish, would just make an untenable situation worse.

Um he built on my land uh about five feet and refuses to compensate me for it.

Um I just like to say I didn't move next to a bar and then complain that the bar is is operating.

A bar was built behind me and it operates without my consent.

Um you know I don't understand the zoning laws.

I don't know why a event venue is allowed uh surrounded entirely by residences, but it is, but I ask that we not give it any more uh space to disrupt.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Stelle.

Good afternoon.

My name is Philip Stelley.

I live at 1821 Dumain Street.

I'm I rise in opposition to this docket item on behalf of myself and my wife, Amy Stelley.

We submit that the preliminary staff report fails to recognize that the petition property abut the residential use at 1622 Dumain Street.

Proviso 3 and Standard 8 are in play here.

Provisal 3 states that in accordance with Article 20, Section 20.3 WWW of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, the applicant shall meet the following standards.

A 30-foot buffer area shall be maintained between the outdoor live entertainment area, as indicated on this map.

It should be maintained to a 30-foot buffer should be maintained between the outdoor live enter entertainment area and a residential district or use.

The buffer should be redrawn to protect the quiet enjoyment of the adjacent residential use at 1622 Dumain Street.

That property has been a residential use for many years according to the assessor site, and every effort should be made to protect that.

Moreover, students at LSU School of Public Health have measured daily noise levels generated by the traffic on Clayburn Avenue at or near more than 80 decibels, and that's due to the presidents of Interstate 10.

Consequently, at a minimum, the subject site would have to exceed 80 decibels to be heard.

This level of noise is both disturbing and damaging to hearing.

Additionally, the waiver to extend operating hours should be denied.

The parcel at 1608 Dumain Street should not be rezoned to HMC 2 to allow commercial uses.

The request is intrusive and damaging to the residential character of the historic Tremain neighborhood.

Therefore, staff's recommendation of denial should be supported.

It is your time unless um You can you can continue if we have a few more words.

That that's the conclusion of my opposition here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me, I have a question for you.

Um so would would you be opposed to the parking?

Would that relieve parking in the area if that that lot is used for parking?

Um I wouldn't be opposed to it be used for parking, but we have to be careful about how this is going to be developed.

Um I'm more concerned about the uh respecting the right of residence first and controlling the noise level.

That's certainly going to be increased, uh, which will prevent the quiet enjoyment of our properties.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Deli, I have a quick quick question for you.

Um over here.

Um could you tell us about your engagement with the residences at 1622 Dumain?

Do you yeah, because you you voiced it as a as a public health concern and for respect for the residential line.

Can you talk about any negative feedback that that's come from that site?

I can only give you my personal experience.

I've visited the site.

Um there was a meeting there.

Uh it was held in the open area.

It was very difficult to hear.

Um the noise from the interstate made it nearly impossible.

So that's a major concern.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Crack.

Can I ask staff a clarification before the next speaker?

So give us staff recommendations again.

The zoning change was recommended for denial.

Yes.

Um, the conditional use was recommended for denial.

No, the conditional use was recommended for approval, but it does not apply, but not applying to lot 11.

So essentially what we did approve would not be including lot 11.

So we are denying any requests pertaining to lot 11 as well as the waiver of operating hours.

So the the waiver was recommended for denial.

Yes.

And the conditional use excluding lot 11.

Yes.

Now parking would not be allowed unless the zoning were changed.

That is my understanding, but if staff wanted to clarify, yeah.

Okay.

Great.

I'm sorry.

Sorry to interrupt your time.

I mean, your time, I didn't interrupt, but interrupted before you, but I wanted to get click clear on on what staff had recommended to us.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Craddock.

Please state your name and address, and you have two minutes.

Lord Craddock, 1731 Dumain Street.

Before I begin, uh, just in response to the question that Mr.

Jordan asked Mr.

Stelley.

Uh, the resident at 1622 Dumain Street wrote a letter uh of opposition and it was filed onto the uh the site.

And so it they I think uh Jessica Knox is the resident there, and she thoroughly described uh her feelings about being adjacent to the property, just so you know.

Okay.

Uh again, I'm Ord Craddock.

Uh I own the property at 1731 Dumain Street along with my wife, Annette Fortune Craddock.

Uh, the property has been in my wife's family since uh 1936, and we are heavily invested personally and financially in this location.

My wife and I support business development in Tremay, and we shared uh this uh in our December conversation with applicant Russell Frank.

We didn't get satisfactory answers from Mr.

Frank about noise control and outdoor live music operating uh 9 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

weekdays and 10 p.m.

to midnight on weekends.

Uh this is why I'm in opposition uh today.

We strongly believe that outdoor live music with these hours damage the quality of life for residents nearby, and it sets a bad zoning precedent for the future.

Our property is one block away, and we can hear live music from the hotel's outdoor venue.

It's important to note that the outdoor venue faces North Claiborne and the I 10 overpass, uh which has the Orleans Avenue down ramp.

Sound under the I-10 overpass gets amplified and carries to my front door and farther down to Main Street.

Those of us who have grown up around the bridge know that the bridge, what the bridge does with sound, it makes it louder.

Additionally, the location will attract people to park under the bridge and listen to the free music.

The potential nuisance this creates for residents is overflow parking, trash and noise, uh, and noise levels that exceed that extend to 10 p.m.

weekdays and to midnight on weekends.

This area of Tremay often draws music in crowds for second lines and other complimentary programming uh of the community program.

However, these events are organized, normally scheduled on weekends, uh, with end times about 6 p.m.

Random crowds under the bridge uh during late hours with no security, it can be problematic.

Uh the permit is bad for resident life in Tremay, and especially at this location across from the bridge, uh please deny the permit request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have one question for the speaker before he leaves.

So right now there is outdoor live music.

Is that right?

I and other residents have heard outdoor live music.

It's just not been frequent.

It's been on occasion that I will pick it up uh as it comes from that location to the bridge to my house.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

No, thank you.

And before the rebuttal, can I ask staff is outdoor live music at all allowed right now?

I mean, they're asking for a special event permit.

With a with a special event permit, okay.

Mr.

Frank.

Yes, ma'am.

You um have some time to rebut and um so I I did hear uh some of the concerns and operate until midnight a bit late on the weekends.

We do have a total of four residential properties that are but the property.

There's a bar directly behind us, there's a restaurant that touches our property as well.

It's on clay bar, it's uh highly commercial area.

Um there's second lines that pass through there all the time, live music.

That's actually why people enjoy the neighborhood.

Um we don't operate live music at the present moment.

We have speakers, it is a hotel, we have a pool.

Um, there has never been a live entertainment uh concert at this location.

Uh we have received, I think, three permits prior to this for live entertainment for the Super Bowl.

So we did have music and a performance at that time, which was approved by the city council.

I think we had something for the National Caucus, which we did have live entertainment there, and that was approved.

Um but we do have speakers on the outside of the property.

Um and the bridge is very noisy, which is another reason why we're applying for this because it does exceed 80 decibels.

So with our speakers, um, that is totally permissible and legal currently uh now.

We are applying for just music because that's what the neighborhood is.

The second line, so a second line would actually require a live entertainment exterior license.

I already have the interior live entertainment license that came with the hotel, and this is approved um secondary use, I believe, that needed permission from you guys, and that's why we're here.

Did you ever sign a good neighbor agreement?

I believe when the bar was opened, I had to sign paperwork stating that we would pick up trash.

We had to make sure nobody was congregating in the front of the property, which we kind of do a very good job.

We have security on staff all the time.

Um we have a security in the front of the property, um, and the security in the property.

We always have people on staff.

And this is a hotel, mind you.

Um, so we do have weddings and events like that at this property already because that's permitted, and we've kind of do what we're a business, so I'm trying to operate within the law.

You know, it's always sensitive in the historic neighborhoods.

Tell me, um, and this was a vacant lot, correct?

You've built these hotel from the ground up.

Correct.

I purchased the property from Lambert Basier a few years ago as a originally, I think a funeral home, a Lambert Basier, Charbonnet, um, it burned down, then it was apartment complexes, it burned down, and then it went vacant for uh 20, 30, 40 years, I'm not exactly sure.

Then it was a um outdoor garden um on all of these lots.

So it's six lots, and four of them are actually on Claiborne Avenue.

So it is those five lots that are purchased are actually commercial already.

HMC2 is just the one lot that we're inquiring about as well to the left.

What questions do my commissioners have?

Uh so Mr.

Frank, can you do this?

I think you kind of mentioned it, but currently you can't have outdoor music, you just have to have it permanent each and every time, correct?

Um correct.

Okay.

Which is a exponential cost if we were to apply for that because I believe karaoke falls under the outdoor live music if we have a second line.

If we had someone just to play jazz, which happens in that neighborhood every day, um, we would have to apply for that.

Um I think that costs might be a few hundred dollars every time, so you'd be talking about thousands of dollars monthly just to have a saxophone play.

We have four pianos on the property.

Um with that being said, we like people to play piano if the door was open, we'd have to apply for an outdoor live entertainment or a special permit, which would get considerable to do that.

What's your vacancy rate right now?

Or what it was in 2025.

I don't know that answer.

Um I don't know that answer.

But we actually probably I'd assume we were booked up 48 weekends out of the 52 times three.

So we probably had a hundred and fifty bookings last year at that property.

All right, um, Mr.

Franklin.

I think this is my last question.

So you have a pretty complex uh application that has different variables.

Um so I think you already stated that the most important is basically having that auxiliary uh additional parking, correct?

I would like to have the property to the left uh commercially zoned and the exterior live entertainment.

The hours aren't really as important to me because I do hear what the neighbors are saying, and going to midnight on the weekend and 10 p.m.

on a weekday um could get loud for them.

So I appreciate that and I respect their recommendation to not approve that.

So what what times would you be conducive to the operation of your hotel?

9 p.m.

is the current standard on the weekday and 10 p.m.

is the current standard on weekends, I think citywide.

Um, generally because the bridge is so loud between four and six, or so I was actually trying to increase that so I could have time to do if I did a live entertainment, but we're not requesting this to do concerts, um, although they do always happen under the bridge and right around there, but we're just trying to get within the law because if I want to do karaoke at the pool, that requires a outdoor venue, uh outdoor live entertainment license.

If we wanted to do have a comedy show, that requires outdoor live entertainment license as well.

They all requested Mr.

Charbonnet, um we had a neighbor who was here earlier, but he couldn't wait.

Um I think the time out of card, do you know?

I don't think he did, but he was sitting right there and he left.

I mean, there's only four neighbors, I want to say.

So we've got Mr.

Elliott, uh Corey, and two other houses that but abutt to the property that are residential.

Everything else is commercial, which you have three other properties.

Did you go to the neighborhood association at all to ask for their support?

Hifta?

Um they haven't been beaten as much, and I did I've gone over this.

Uh Mr.

Adolf Bynam and Miss Niger did support me previous uh when I requested to put stucco on the front of the building.

They wrote letters and um, you know, a lot of everybody's kind of in support, uh, but I do respect what they're saying about the noise because they are right there, but we I don't think we go late, and everyone has my number, and um I try to respect the neighbors as much as I can fellow commissioners, or do you have a question or no?

I have a motion if we're ready for it.

I think well, I have a question for staff.

So is that second lot 11?

The one that's excluded, which is which lot is the lot 11 that wasn't included.

Lot 11 um is excluded, and that is it's a lot on the furthest end of Dumaine into the residential area.

I think it's it's not 1608, but what is the is that the one that's used for the the additional parking that we're talking about?

Yeah, right to the left of the building.

Yeah, that's the lot that's shown in yellow on that map.

Yeah, 1610 to 1608 is domain is the address.

Okay.

Um so I just have a question before the for staff before Commissioner Steve.

What I guess what is the most restrictive um way that the applicant can actually achieve uh parking uh for that lot.

And the reason why I said that I know it's a hardship for for the residents in the area if that hotel is actually having activities for additional parking.

It would be the HMC, sorry, it would be the HMC one zoning district as opposed to HMC2.

Um as far as our analysis for such a zoning change, it would be essentially the same.

Um still be a master plan issue and uh um commissioner C so um my motion is to accept the staff recommendation of denial of the zoning change to accept the staff recommendation of denial of the waiver and to go against staff and deny the conditional use uh entirely.

Um having heard the neighbors, it seems like the operation of the hotel is um significant enough and it's a viable hotel, but to see it expanded to have outdoor live entertainment um on a regular basis seems too too much to me.

Doesn't seem to satisfy the standards for conditional use, so I think that should be denied as well.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

Can I bring something up?

Is that possible?

Yes, four lots on the opportunity, yeah.

Any discussion?

Commissioner Steve.

If not, we'll go ahead and vote.

Repeat it.

So commissioner uh commissioner stewart asked me to repeat the motion.

So tell me if I don't say the same thing again.

Except staff recommendation of denial of waiver.

And instead of staff recommendation of approval of conditional use excluding 11, instead deny conditional use entirely.

Any discussion?

I'm gonna support the motion.

You have a robust business happening already.

I do feel like there's parking on Claiborne for your staff already, but I feel like this is just too much for the historic district right there, especially since this is new construction and those are all historic buildings on those particular um block right there.

If there's no other comments, then we need to vote.

So what zoning would lot eleven remain the same?

Okay.

And it's a vacant lot, right?

Yes, correct.

It's really tough to have parking lots in vacant in historic neighborhoods.

Yeah, the other side.

I so I just want to stay for the record I'm gonna go against uh Commissioner Steve's motion only because I know this is a bit complex, not just for the rest of the dental side, but we have to recognize that we are in Claiborne and the the bridge is not being removed tomorrow.

So you're still gonna be dealing with the the noise and the commercial traffic intensity being on that corner and the reality of residential units being built on that clayborne face is like highly unlikely.

Um be it not for that, I would I would maybe be in support of Commissioner Stees.

And and I share those same sentiments with the addition of uh just making sure that the residents had some relief for parking um in the residential area with the hotel.

Uh so for the event that lot 11 could actually hold some parking, so I'm not gonna support the motion either.

How many people actually drive to your location?

Aren't most of the individuals taking ride sharing services?

Well, we have a bar, so we have locals that don't that walk there?

No, they drive.

Okay.

I mean any locals are gonna kind of use their vehicle.

Um people come in town from out of state, they obviously take an airport a plane and then they Uber there and they don't have cars, but uh we have about eight members that are on the staff that come there every day and just uh there's already a few uh parking issues already, so it's just that's just me purchasing a lot to alleviate some of that issue for some of the neighbors, so I don't have to go out there and police parking um all the time.

Yeah, I mean we're we're so we can't have any more testimony.

I see it we see you with your hand, but we can't reopen the testimony.

Oh I didn't just need to finish the vote.

Oh Commissioner Flick and Commissioner Busher.

So four y's, two nays motion does not vary, nothing.

So unless there is another motion so your motion did not um go forward.

Commissioner Stewart, do you have a motion or does it do you want to modify yours?

Okay, so at this point this goes recommendation so for the edification of everybody that goes as a no decision up to the city council?

That's correct.

I believe it would go as denial for lack of a legal majority.

Oh, sorry, there is a new rule.

Oh that a uh it would effectively be a denial.

Um and I think the way we would represent it in our staff or in our minutes would be a um what's the term that we used?

Effective denial for lack of denial.

Okay, so then so madam chair, I don't want to prolong this, but I want to ask uh a question to the opposition, and just by show of hands.

If you were in opposition for the last document and you believe that the parking makes a difference in the neighborhood, just raise your hand.

No parking?

Doesn't make a does parking make a difference.

Would you like to see that lot develop into parking?

Just show of hands.

Okay.

That's the main thing because I think that's what we should know about.

That's that's was that a show of hand for parking?

Parking makes a difference, yeah.

Okay.

So so Stephen, is is this on deadline?

No.

Okay.

This is not on deadline.

So madam chair, I'll make another uh motion that I move that zoning document 00526.

Um comes back in 30 days, and in the meantime, I would like for the applicant and for the residents to discuss parking, and if that is relevant to the to the opposition and also to the applicant that that we come back and work with staff um to move this application forward.

So I think we have to first uh Commissioner Steag, I hear you, but Commissioner Sieg went ahead and removed his motion before we knew about the new rules, so we have to clean that up first.

Well, there's a new rule.

I didn't remove it.

Oh I made a motion it was voted on.

I didn't remove it.

Okay.

So the new rule is that when there is a um no legal majority, it gets transmitted to the council as a denial, as an effective denial.

So that's if the vote stands as it is, then that's what will be transmitted.

There's another motion that has been I'm sorry?

Yeah, there's another motion.

I don't know if it's been seconded.

I'll second.

Uh Commissioner Stewart, could you repeat your your motion uh for staff?

Um my motion is for deferral for zoning docky 00526 for 30 days.

Um in that deferral time I would like for the opposition and for the applicant to meet to discuss the parking issues uh for that lot that was actually excluded to see if they can be meaningful dialogue with that and for this to come back and at that time we'll we'll we can move the application forward there is a second so I'm gonna ask for clarification since we went through this show of hands.

Um to me the only reason for a deferral would be if we're asking the opposition um if they're gonna trade their opposition for some relief on parking.

But I'm seeing uh uh I'm seeing at least the three people, I'm seeing uniform like heck no.

So anyway, I guess because of that I'm gonna uh not vote for the um motion, I'm gonna vote against it because I think the reason four of us voted for for the for the other motion was um uh if we could give the the gentleman parking with nothing else, I'd be in favor of it, but I don't but I don't think we can because we've heard that parking requires a commercial zoning, whether it's HMC one or HMC2, and the opposition seems that it's definitely not worth it to them to get parking if they have to put up with the extra noise and the and the entertainment.

So I don't see any reason for a deferral.

I could clarify that if that was what you decided, you could vote to approve the zoning change.

Without approving the conditional use that allows the outdoor life entertainment for the rest of the site, I'm not sure that that is what's the intent, but that's an option.

So let me make sure I understand that so if the zoning were changed, he could park on it.

Yes.

And if the conditional use were denied for the whole thing, there'd be no outdoor music except special event permits that he applies for.

And if the waiver were denied, he'd have to stick with the hours under the code.

Correct.

So but what other what other uses does HMC either one or two allow?

Retails, restaurants, uh just neighborhood commercial type of.

Okay.

So the parking could eventually be an extant expansion of the hotel, correct?

That's correct.

Correct.

So it could be used temporarily as parking and then expanded.

Okay.

So maybe so the idea.

Okay.

So then if we were to de were to defer, then they could discuss that.

That's a possibility.

To discuss what whether the applicant just only changes to C1.

Whether whether the applicant to get his parking would be willing to take a change, maybe not to C2, but to C1, which is a little less permissive, but would concede to the neighbors the denial of the conditional use and the denial of the waiver.

In other words, no live entertainment and no lower hours to get parking.

Yeah.

So there are four lots on Clay Barn that are attached here.

So the hotel is at 1620 Dumain, and there's four lots on Clay barn.

There's a pool that's about 40 to 50 feet wide that's gives a buffer to the neighbors behind me.

Um they would be the lob entertainment would be near Claybourne.

It wouldn't be right on the neighbors per se because it's five different lots, and there's a pool that no one could perform in, so I'm just throwing that out there.

And the parking we do have one neighbor who's attached to me, and um he's behind us on the blocks of the parking is kind of irrelevant to him, but the neighbors who live on the side of me and in front of me, um, there's about eight cars that park on that street every day.

And if we have uh customers, sometimes they take their spot, and they're pretty I mean that's important to them because they live there.

Um I'd again respect the fact that the lob entertainment I don't need the extra time to go deeper, but there's four lots on Clayborne in this particular neighborhood is like four law music.

It's supposed to be the the place that this is from.

And I do apologize for bringing that up, but 828 Clayborn 816 Clayborn is on actual Clayborne Avenue.

Right.

Um and there's a it's it's not near the neighbors, so the approval for that wouldn't it's not on them, and even in the write-up, it suggested where we would be toward the back on Clayborn.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I'm just gonna say for the record, Laura uh Commissioner Flick before you go, that I don't think there's an enough chance of anything happening to be worth a deferral.

Um they can still talk.

We don't have to mandate it, but they can still talk uh before it goes to the city council.

So I'm against the deferral.

I'm with I'm with Commissioner Steeg.

I think this is a you know, you have a a neighbor communication problem and neighbor relationship problem that I don't think anything deferral is gonna is gonna change that.

I think it's it would be worth it for you to you know come to an agreement with your neighbors whether it be where's the stage?

This is where it's gonna be, and and you know, have that that commitment, and you you know you need to do that with with your neighbors.

There's only one neighbor that attaches here, there's everyone else, the gentleman who spoke lives eight blocks away.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so we have a motion on the floor for deferral and a second.

Um if there's no more discussion, we'll vote on that.

Okay.

So same vote in reverse, correct?

So are both of these getting transmitted.

So this matter will be unless there's another motion.

No, I think we're moving on.

Then it'll be transmitted to uh the council is in effective denial due to lack of a legal majority.

We we want businesses here and we want you to thrive, and you obviously have a success with successful business model, but being in these historic neighborhoods really need to be able to have a good neighbor agreements and to be able to talk to them because they all came in opposition.

So please just take that to note.

Um thank you.

Zoning docket 006-26.

Council motion.

Uh zoning docket 006 26 is a request for a text amendment to Article 19 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to create a new interim zoning district to be named the transient lodging interim zoning district.

The IZD will require conditional use approval for transient lodging uses, which are currently outright permitted, including bed and breakfast, accessory and principal hostels, hotels, motels, commercial short-term rentals, and timeshares.

The proposed text amendment would affect properties and zoning districts citywide that permit these transient lodging uses.

The proposal included additional evaluation criteria and appeal criteria in reviewing the proposal.

Staff found several of the criteria to be either too subjective or too difficult for CBC staff to accurately supply information for.

So staff recommends the removal of several of the criteria recommended in the motion.

The removal would not be detrimental to the overall intent of the request.

The transient lodging IZD will be in place for one year while the council considers the recently completed transient lodging study and moves through the process to amend the zoning ordinance accordingly.

Staff recommends modified approval.

Thank you.

Mr.

Ron.

Ron Lazel 1000 South Norman C.

Francis, I am not paid to be here by any client.

I guess I'm paid to be here, but not by any client.

However, this one's a little different, and that's why I'm in support of it.

First of all, um the funding for the study, transit lodging study, took forever.

Second of all, we had to go through three RFPs in order to finally get someone to do the study for the transient lodging study.

Um the length of negotiations with them, and obviously the length of the study, as this had hoped to be done under the last administration.

Um what I will say uh on here is that there are some things where conditional uses work very well, and on principle and accessory bed and breakfast.

Um those have been in place for years.

Everyone understands it, the neighbors understand it, people have a chance to discuss it.

So the use of a conditional use for bed and breakfast as accessory and principal is something uh that I highly support, and um ask for your consideration on that down the future.

One last thing I just want to say, you guys all handled that situation earlier with that person who really didn't understand the system and cards and all of that.

How you handled that was just perfect.

You you know, there are people like me you push away because you're done with it.

We understand the rules.

I understand, but I've always had the utmost respect for the staff and the commissioners, and giving that person the extra time that they needed is just shows that you're uh really compassionate and good people.

So thank you.

We don't have any more cards in support, but we do have one in opposition.

Oh Ms.

Graham, I didn't have a card for you on this one, but it is it's there, it says number 10.

It's at the very top, all scratched out because I got the docket numbers wrong.

And Mr.

South Hole, I believe, might have tried to present an additional piece of paper, and he wanted me to speak for him if he did, but I thought he sent something over there.

But you don't see anything for the Jane Place representative.

There should be something there.

He had to walk out.

Uh he could not give his time to me.

Were you thinking for yourself or for uh I I'm really speaking for NFB.

You need to know something on the record, uh, as well as if you will allow me to speak briefly for Mr.

South Hall who have to leave if you found the card for him.

Um we only we want you to know we were on the record as opposing this when it was at the previous composition of the council.

You use some initials, but we don't know who that is.

I'm Elinor Grant.

Oh no, no, I know you're oh neighbors first for by water, excuse me.

I did not mean to use acronyms.

That's terrible.

I yes, neighbor, I'm always here for neighbors first for by water, and of course, our Saxony condominium, the largest condominium in the historic districts.

I represent them.

Um I also am to the extent you will allow me very briefly.

There's two things that Mr.

South Hall is opposed to.

Um I just want to say we oppose the motion.

You need to know that because we're against the expansion citywide of the use of the conditional use process.

And in fact, unlike the gentleman here, we don't think it's necessary since it appears you're going to limit commercial short, I mean, gonna limit bed and breakfast to five, and there would be truncated um both the staff and desire line agree not to have principal and accessory bed and breakfast.

We don't need it.

Um we also I will want to convey this to you based on my knowledge from that city council meeting.

The city council voted it as an interim measure for fear there was going to be an open floodgates in the Department of Safety and permits for a variety of applications in here.

Of course, if this is passed, conceivably it goes down to the new council for consideration.

The opposite is most likely going to be true.

There'll be floodgates of conditional use applications for every conceivable use.

Ironically, we actually are opposed to that because it is an exceptional burden upon the city planning commission and staff as well as Department of Safety and Permits who get called upon to provide input, as well as us who track these matters.

We will be here constantly trying to figure out what to agree with, what to propose, who to agree with on neighborhood agreements.

Instead, I would propose this.

You consider not accepting it and deferring it, or you bring it to the council as a rejection.

Um and if you may, I'll tell you why.

Uh for the reasons I just told you, as well as the following.

The desire line, I mean excuse me.

Uh Jane Place, pardon me.

Jane place, as well as the neighbors in the historic districts, my neighborhood specifically.

We really believe that the criteria for housing is not subjective as an evaluation criteria.

Um we believe that it actually, you know, we believe that it really is not subjective at all.

It that's your time, Miss.

Yeah, I understand.

Okay.

And then we don't have any issues with safety and permits being consulted.

That's what the new administration is.

I don't have anyone else here to speak on this matter.

Staff recommendation is modified approval.

Um, could staff tell us what the implications would be if we didn't approve the IGD today.

So if the um if the IZD ultimately is not approved by the council, then um the regulations revert to the pre-IZD regulations, which essentially allow commercial short-term rentals by right in many commercial districts and mixed-use districts.

So basically go back to where we were.

And I'll just note that the ICD is in effect right now.

Um, when council passed the motion for this, it may went into effect immediately.

Is there a motion or any more discussion?

I think we're just trying to see the link between the transient study and the ICD.

Yeah, so I mean, effectively there was an IZD.

Um, because the study took as long as it did to get contracted and completed, um, that IZD lapsed.

November.

And so this is a um an IZD that offers protection beyond that initial ID IZD in a different way to allow for the council to ultimately consider the study and staff and CPC recommendations and come up with new regulations on transient lodging uses.

Um and basically this kind of interim measure is um intended to um allow for things to move forward but not in a by-right fashion.

Understood.

And presumably once new regulations are codified, the this ICD would be rescinded.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, so I move approval in accordance with staff recommendation.

I hear the concern that there'll be a lot of conditional use applications, but I think that's worth it foreclosing the loophole that makes it permitted right now.

And I'll second that for the same reason.

Is there a second?

Oh, Commissioner Jordan, correct.

Any discussion?

All right, let's vote.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

We're moving on to zoning docket 007-26.

Zoning Docket 726 is a request by City Council motion M25567 to regulate shipping container dwellings in the SRS suburban city family residential district.

The motion asks that CPC staff one amend Article 26 of the CZO to define dwelling shipping container as a dwelling constructed wholly or partially from one or more repurposed shipping containers.

Two amend Article 13, Table 13, 1, permitted and conditional uses to permit shipping container dwellings as by right or conditional uses in the SRS suburban single family residential district and others as appropriate.

Three, prescribe use standards for shipping container dwellings in Article 20.

The suggested language for the use standards focuses on an aesthetic outcome.

The shipping container would need to be clad in a permitted material as well as covered with an additional roof structure so as not to be visibly identifiable as a container.

The staff recommends denial of the proposed text amendment for four main reasons.

One, the zoning ordinance should not make a use distinction between stick-built residences and residences constructed from prefabricated structures such as modular homes or shipping containers.

The use as a single family residence is the same.

Two, restrictive design guidelines have the possibility to stifle creativity.

Shipping containers can be utilized in aesthetically pleasing ways.

This does not include materials.

And finally, four, the staff recently completed a land use barrier study aimed at decreasing regulatory hurdles to development.

The proposed motion would over-regulate a minute percentage of new construction, thus undermining recent policy decisions.

Thank you.

The staff recommendation is denial.

I'll make a motion to follow staff recommendation and denial.

I don't think we should get into the business of identifying materials for buildings and the standards will flush themselves out.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um discussion?

Just a question for staff.

The origin, if you can talk to us about the origin of the motion, how it got to us.

Yes, there was a SRS district on the West Bank, and recently within that neighborhood, a container home was constructed, and people opposed that one development, finding that it wasn't in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood character.

Was it about volume or aesthetics?

Or like the materiality.

It was about materiality and the way the anesthetics both.

And just the reality is that the you know the building department, you have to it still has to meet the code.

So regardless of what the material is, if it's metal or wood or you know, paper, um, as long as it meets the building code, should be allowed.

All right.

Let's vote.

All right, the motion carries zoning docket 008-26.

Zoning Docket 008-26.

It was a request to allow the operation of a reception facility in exist in an existing commercial building that is within an H B1.

No modifications or additions to the building footprint or facade proposed.

A reception facility facility will be consistent with the uses in the surrounding area, which include restaurants, a grocery store, and the RTA headquarters.

The proposed use is also generally consistent with the purpose of the H B1 district, which is primarily for commercial uses that serve the needs of the neighboring residential areas.

The staff finds that the proposed proposed use meets the standards for approval of Article 1, Article 4 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and is consistent with the master plan.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of CD 00826 subject to supervisos.

Thank you.

I don't have any cards.

Unless anyone's here to speak on this matter, no.

Okay.

So I'm looking for a motion.

I'll make the motion.

Thank you to approve zoning docket 00826.

Is there a second?

Questional flickle second.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Questions?

Comments?

All right, let's go ahead and vote.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Let's move on to zoning docket 006-26.

009-26.

Zoning Docket 00926 is a request for conditional use to permit a standard restaurant in an AUB1 historic urban neighbor neighborhood business district.

The request was originally approved in 2021 under zoning docket 00121, but that approval expired.

The sites located near the intersection of Magazine Street and Louisiana Avenue in the Turo neighborhood.

This portion of Magazine Street has always been a commercial corridor surrounded by residential uses, so it is not likely that a standard restaurant would result in any negative impact for the surrounding residents, especially given the use standards imposed on standard restaurants and the provisos recommended by the staff.

A restaurant is an appropriate neighborhood serving commercial use where a missed mixture of commercial and residential uses predominate.

It meets the standards for approval in Article 4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the master plan.

Therefore, the staff recommends approval of zoning docket 00926, subject to three provisos.

Thank you.

Is it Mr.

Pochet?

Yeah, Porsche.

All right.

Um you're the applicant.

Yes, I am.

Please go ahead and state your name and address.

Yeah, two minutes.

Oh, yes.

Yeah, I'm here on behalf of Grace 999 LLC for the second location of Lily's, and she just hopes for y'all's blessing, and that's it.

All I got to say.

Open up the standard restaurant.

Shouldn't we approve this?

Yeah, yeah, I did, and then I think she's bad with the clerical work, so I re-initiated and did it to follow through with it.

So that's it.

Okay.

Great.

Um I'm looking for a motion.

Okay.

All right, I'll make a motion for approval.

Zon A Docket 00926.

Is there a second?

Yes.

We just clarify.

I think um there's a I think she said three provisos.

There are actually four, I believe.

We have three.

Do you want to just clarify?

Uh I originally wrote the wrote the report with four provisos, but Steven reminded me that there's one that we no longer impose on these kinds of uh conditional uses.

So it's just three.

Okay.

So I think if you don't mind just stating your motion that we have three provisos.

I'll make the motion to approve zoning docket item 00926, subject three provisos.

And seconded.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

If not, let's vote.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Zoning Docket 01026.

Right.

Zoning Docket 01026 is a request for an amendment to ordinance number 8046.

Uh MCS zoning docket 5180 for a conditional use to permit a motor vehicle dealership small in a CBD for exposition district for a property located at 333 Canal Street.

The specific site in question comprises an individual retail suite and approximately 50 parking spaces on the ninth floor of the garage in Canal Place, the multi-story shopping center at the foot of Canal Street.

The applicants proposed converting a retail suite on the first floor of the shopping center into a gallery for the dealership with approximately 50 parking spaces on the ninth floor of the parking garage used for storage for vehicles prepared for delivery to customers.

The motor vehicle dealership small requires a conditional use as the site is in a CBD for exposition district, which allows such uses only as conditional uses.

The proposed small motor vehicle dealership would be situated within an existing commercial space with minimal build-out.

As indicated on submitted plans, cars would be featured on the display full floor, and rear areas would be used for office space.

On the application, the project description states that all vehicle purchases will uh transactions will take place online from the customer's device, and that no transactions will take place inside the mall.

It is the vehicle storage and delivery that are the primary triggers for the motor vehicle dealership small conditional use, as the applicant would maintain an inventory of the vehicles for sale or lease, either on site or at a nearby location.

The dedicated parking areas will be clearly marked in the otherwise pay-to-park garage.

Only the areas designated in final plans would be subject to the conditional use.

The proposal will fill a vacancy in the shops at Canal Place, maintaining high-end retail presence on a corridor that has struggled with attracting premium tenants.

This use complements other upscale tenants in the shopping center.

The staff finds that the proposed use meets the standards for approval in Article 4 of the CCO and is consistent with the master plan, subject to two provisos.

Thank you.

Miss Rebecca.

Good afternoon.

Becca Geiger, 800 Barone Street.

Um, as Jenna just explained, this is simply a tenant renovation within Canal Place, just a small space on the ground floor within the mall, and then about a third, probably less than a third of the ninth floor of the parking garage.

This isn't your traditional motor vehicle dealer establishment.

It is simply a place to go view the vehicles, speak to staff, and then go home and choose to purchase if you would like.

Thanks.

There's gonna be retail on the first floor.

So within Canal Place, there's an empty tenant space.

No, it's it's vacant.

It's a space right now.

If anyone's been in Canal Place recently, it's the space right next to Louis Vuitton on the ground floor.

Interesting.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um any other cards.

It's a cool concept, that's all.

Yeah, should we have okay?

Um is there no?

I don't think we have any other cards.

Well then uh we'll go anyone else here to speak on this matter?

No.

Okay.

Well, then I'll go ahead and make the motion uh for zoning docket item 01026.

Uh motion for approval.

Is there a second?

With provisos?

Yes.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner O'Shea.

All right, any discussion?

If not, let's vote.

Motion carries.

Good luck.

Now we're going to move on to zoning docket 01126.

All right.

Zoning Docket 1126 considers a text amendment to the comprehensive zoning ordinance to classify contractor storage yard, outdoor storage yard, and warehouse as conditional uses within the MMU Maritime Mixed Use District.

Article 8, Section 8.2, specifically Table 81 does not currently list contractor storage yard, outdoor storage yard, or warehouse as permitted uses nor conditional uses.

So they are therefore prohibited in the MMU maritime mixed use district.

The applicant is simultaneously applying for conditional use approval for the aforementioned uses under zoning docket 1226 pending approval of this request.

If approved, this text amendment would allow contractor storage yards, outdoor storage yards, and warehouses as conditional uses in the MMU Maritime Mixed Use District, or Article 8, Section 8.2 table 81 of the CZO.

Staff recommends approval of zoning docket 1126.

Thank you.

For fair clarification, um, I think I'm not certain who Lawrence ceded their time to.

Is that to you?

Who is that?

Oh yeah, they're here, they're not needing to speak.

Okay.

Um, but they meant they said they wanted to seat their time, but they didn't mention a name.

I'm assuming it's you.

Okay.

So then you have um six minutes.

Uh Ron Lazel 1000 South Normancy Francis.

Um, you'll see the zoning docket and the next zoning docket kind of go together on here.

So to speed things up.

Uh first of all, I want to thank both staffers for writing a great report.

Uh Corvus Real Estate Holdings is applying for the text amendment and the conditional use and a variance for the 10-foot fence around the property located at 1901 Chefman Tour Highway.

Um, there was no opposition.

We had to have a virtual meeting for the text amendment and then uh in-person and virtual for the conditional use.

Uh we had uh one gentleman there that had some questions and may have written you'll also see support letters within the packet.

This is uh a company that uh um has a national presence uh in events, and this is their storage yard.

This is out there, I've been out there a few times.

There's there's not much out there.

Um, and it's very intricate uh to their distribution to have this location, and I'll hear I'll answer any questions.

I believe we have a Mr.

G um Dufran James.

No, so there's no other um cards in support or opposition.

Commissioners, do you have any question for the applicant or a motion?

I'd like to move to approve zoning docket 011-26.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

All right, Commissioner C we have a motion on the floor in a second.

Any discussion?

Not let's vote.

The motion carries approval.

Zoning docket.

Um, oh, subdivision docket.

Uh we're on zoning docket 12.

So this is a companion application to the previous matter.

It's the site-specific application that motivated the text amendment.

Um the proposal is affects this property zoned MMU at the location of Ridgeway Boulevard and Chef.

Um, the proposal, it's currently used for open air storage.

The proposal is for it to be a contractor storage yard eventually with uh a warehouse constructed.

Um generally the staff finds it to be appropriate given the mixed use nature and and really there's a bit of a uh industrial context to this portion of chef.

So given that character, the staff finds it to be appropriate.

Um there is a variance included in the application.

The the normal requirement for fence height is seven feet.

Uh this exceeds that limit at 10 feet, and so there's a request uh within the application for a variance to allow the 10-foot fence.

Um the analysis of of the variance is really based on site-specific card ships that prevent compliance with the regulation.

There's nothing inherent to the site that precludes this from being modified to be a seven-foot fence or replaced with a seven-foot fence.

So basically, in sum, we're in support of the conditional use, but denial of the waiver that is attached to the application.

Thank you, Mr.

Krull.

Ron Lazel 1000, South Norman C.

Francis.

Um, in regards to the conditional use, thank you.

A fence having a 10-foot fence over there is extremely important.

There are there is not much there in order to keep that um alleyway on both those roads from people being able to see in and what's happening there for security reasons.

It's extremely important to have that fence uh at that 10-foot height.

You had two cards seated to you, and then a Mr.

James and a Miss Elise.

And I don't have any good afternoon, Elise Norn 25511 Chef Montor Highway.

I'm fully in support uh of this uh development of that property is wonderful, and uh I agree with the high fences for security.

And I agree with the high fences for security.

So I'm in support.

Thank you.

I have no cards in opposition.

Commissioners.

A motion or questions?

Commissioner Fuck will move approval, subject to a staff report.

Commissioner Poche, second.

Okay.

Uh, for clarification, is that it including the rejection of the fence height.

It would be a good idea.

No, no, we're okay with the waiver.

Okay.

Let's vote.

Motion carries.

I know.

Isn't that very good?

We'll move on to 12625.

Subdivision docket 12625 is a request to reconfigure four existing irregularly shaped lots.

There's three trapezoids and one triangle, one triangle, such that each one of those becomes less irregular in shape.

Each of the four proposed lots will still be irregular, but their trapezoidal states will be closer to being rectangular.

The proposals being evaluated under policy D of the said subdivision regulations and it meets all the policy D approval criteria.

Each of the proposed lots meets the dimensional street frontage and other requirements in the MU zoning district.

There's no development proposed for the subject property at this time, but given its location and zoning classification, the proposal presents no threat or impediment to public health, safety, or welfare.

Future development would be in accordance with all subdivision and zoning regulations, as well as all building and life safety code and health department requirements.

The proposal is consistent with the master plan, therefore the staff recommends approval of subdivision docket 12625, subject to one proviso.

Thank you.

And it it doesn't look like I have any cards on this matter.

Oh, okay.

Please.

Oh, I see you at two.

Yes, I got you.

Elise Noran 25511, Chef Montora Highway on behalf of the applicant, Brian Gonzalez.

Uh I'm in support.

It's just a redrawing of the property lines.

Um the only question that I have was it mentioned provisos uh in a tentative approval is not really understanding that process.

So I would assume this was just a full approval, but understanding what that means.

So the first one is just uh, you know, the fact that the application shall fulfill the uh administrative requirement of the subdivision process, so that's part of the review that's uh just a standard proviso.

Uh actually there's only one, so uh the applicant doesn't have anything specific to do essentially.

Did you hear that?

No.

Okay.

It looks like there's just one provisal, but there's nothing specific that you need to do.

Um this time when it's not at this time.

Uh instruct her as what to do so we can stamp the subdivision plan.

Right.

She was and I think she was asking what what's the difference, why it can't be in approval and why it's a tentative approval right now.

Is that correct?

That's what I read in the tentative and not proposed.

So uh you are hearing this while the uh review of the subdivision is potentially still pending in front of some of the reviewing agencies 15 permits, Resa and records.

Uh so if they have comments that need to be resolved, those would have to be resolved before we can stamp the plans.

So not all of the departments have actually approved the resubdivision.

That kind of depends on the you know one case to another.

I'm not sure about the status of this one.

Okay, yeah.

Um the applicant is just looking um and is so not all of the um departments have approved the resubdivision, so we're looking at it and recommending a tentative tentative modified approval.

Thank you.

And that um once the other departments that are finished looking at it, they may have some other questions that need to be responded to.

Okay.

It's it's strictly procedural.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

So, madam chair, I'm always in favor of turning trapezoids into rectangles.

So I move approval.

Thank you, Commissioner Seek.

Is there a second mathematician out here?

Okay.

Commissioner Jordan will second and enjoy the trapezoids.

Okay.

Commissioner Jordan, a second it is there.

Any discussion or a motion?

Uh motion carries, it's been approved.

Oh and staff will keep you up to date on what needs to happen.

So we have zoning docket 001 26.

Subdivision.

Isn't it so?

Subdivision.

What did I say?

Subscope.

This is a proposal for the former Lindy Boggs complex.

Uh, there's a redevelopment uh proposal that's coming down the pipeline.

Um, but part of it and situating the property for potential future development is um subdividing off uh or subdividing the the buildings so they're on separate lots.

Um this requires planning commission approval simply because the lot is over two acres, but uh you know, aside from the technicality of that, it's it's totally consistent with zoning subdivisions and and other regulations can't uh guiding land development recommendation of approval.

And we have a card, Mr.

Richard.

And I'll be very brief because it's I think it's the last item.

So Richard Cortes is 201 St.

Charles Avenue on behalf of Marcy Partners.

We're in support of the staff's uh recommendation.

Hope that you can support the staff as well.

Um I'm just gonna add real briefly.

Um this subdivision will further allow the redevelopment of the property and to be put back into commerce, right?

Um it also will um enable the property owners to work with the city on a very necessary public benefit project that will uh enhance the ability to mitigate flooding uh in that area.

So it's a very positive all-around.

And and as a staff mentioned, the owners want to bring this property into uh compliance with the zoning regulations and the subdivision regulation.

So we support the staff's report and hope that you will agree with the staff's recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we do have um, I believe two cards.

Would you all like to speak?

Please state your name and address.

I'm Mary Mys in Gubala 319 South Genoa Street, and I'm on the mid-city neighborhood organization board.

Um I'm very disappointed that due to the recent changes of rules, there was no NPP about the resubdivision of the Lindy Bog site.

Our neighborhood has dealt with the condition of this property since 2005.

Since Woodwood Investments acquired the property, MCNO has been a regular irregular contact and provided numerous opportunities for Woodward to keep our neighborhood informed about the plans and status of updates.

We had no knowledge of this redesubdivision of the demolition, et cetera, until it appeared in the newspaper and at the CPC agenda.

We have two questions.

One, how will this affect the bond funds that the voters approved and that the neighbors were promised would be used for a water retention project designed to relieve flooding in the neighborhood?

Two, what is planned to be constructed on this resubdivided site?

Is there any way I could get answers to those questions?

I'm going to um ask our chair or our executive director.

So uh to your first question about the the bond funds.

Um I believe this would facilitate the use of the bond funds.

Um the development um as I understand it, um, the basement of the hospital is gonna be retained, and that's gonna be a stormwater management or stormwater storage um facility that the bond funding will be used to um help develop in context of the larger development.

Um as far as the larger development goes, my understanding is there is going to be um the those plans it may not be finalized yet, and I'll let the applicant speak to that.

But there my understanding there is either going to be a plan development application or an overlay district application, but either of which will need to go through City Planning Commission, City Council um process, so there'll be a public process around either of those to review the the development plans.

Given that the resubdivision is dividing the lots, a where the current Lindybogs facility is, B, where St.

Margaret's is and C where the parking area for St.

Margaret's is.

Can I assume that the we are still planning for the retention project to be at the site A where the Lindy Boggs facility was that is my understanding because the basement that is going to be repurposed for that stormwater facility is in the is on lot A.

I think they're they're separating them just to um the development team, I guess, is gonna have or the developer um site is gonna have a different ownership structure.

Um I appreciate that.

So they need the second thing on my second question about what's planning to be constructed there, given that this resubdivision already occurs if when you all approve this.

Will there be an NPP required for whatever they are proposing to go into that site of what's being designated as a lot A?

So for either of the scenarios that I spoke to, either a plan development or a overlay district, e both of them would require an NPP.

It would, yes, okay, and we would be notified in the public debate.

If you're within the uh the the group the organization would definitely be on that list if you're um recognized in the neighborhood engagement offices list of homeowners associations, yeah.

Um then you will get a notice.

Thank you.

Appreciate Charles Health very much.

Did you have any questions for me?

Okay.

Staying all this time.

Do you would like to make any comments?

No, I'll just go on the record that the executive director was absolutely correct with the facts that he presented and from the ownership and developer side.

That is while the plans are not finalized, whether it be a PUD or a um overlay, um, we're still finalizing that, but but notice will be presented to the neighbors.

And I'm I'm sorry that um you didn't receive the notice, but my understanding is that the ownership has been meeting regularly with the mid-city neighborhood association.

I think they have bi-weekly meetings, if I'm not mistaken.

Well, I think that they discussed it in the meeting, so I'm sorry that that wasn't caught, but anyway.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

If not, then um Commissioner Frick will make a long overdue motion for approval.

And Commissioner Jordan will second.

And this is tentative approval with one proviso.

Correct, tentative approval, one proviso.

All right, we have a first and a second.

Any more discussion?

If not, let's vote.

Uh motion carries.

We have one last item.

The subdivision ratifications.

Yes, uh, these are subdivisions that are eligible for administrative approval in the staff's view, and you as a commission would be uh ratifying that that determination.

Is there a mat?

Is there a motion?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second, Commissioner Poget.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

If not, let's vote.

Thank you.

And our next meeting, just a gentle reminder, is not in City Hall Chambers, it's at 1340 Quadras Avenue, floor 21 at 130.

Thank you.

A motion to