Present.

Annie Clark present.

Annie Irvin absent.

Jim Ashby present.

Jennifer Green present.

Shawanda Poor absent.

We have seven members constituting a quorum.

Wonderful.

Sorry.

One, two, three, four, five.

Seven members, yes.

Thank you.

Welcome to the New Orleans Historic District Landmarks Commission meeting of February 2nd, 2026.

We would like to thank everyone for attending and appreciate your support and cooperation with the HDLC.

The HDLC is located in City Hall on the seventh floors at the seventh floor at the city's one stop shop.

Our mission is to safeguard the heritage of the city of New Orleans by preserving and regulating historic landmarks and districts which reflect elements of its cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history.

The full HDLC mission statement can be found online.

The HDLC has written guidelines that outline our policies and procedures.

They are available on the city's website.

We ask that please determine if your property is in an HDLC district or if your repairs on the property or if your property is an HDLC landmark before beginning repairs on the property.

If the work or repairs are visible from public right of way, the work requires a certificate from the HDLC, which is known as a certificate of appropriateness or a C of A.

You must get a C of A prior to beginning work.

Once a C of A is issued, changes must be approved before work can commence on these changes.

If you have any questions about our policies or procedures, we have a highly qualified staff ready to assist you.

We ask that you pay attention to the following meeting rules.

If you plan on speaking and are not the applicant, you must fill out a speaker's card and hand it to the staff before the meeting.

These are located on the table when you walk in.

All speakers must state their name and address for the record.

You have uh two minute uh all speakers must state their name and address for the record.

Our meetings are televised and recorded.

There is a two-minute speaking time limit.

We ask that you turn all cell phones off or on vibrate.

Phone conversations should be conducted outside of this room.

And if your application is denied or there is a no action vote, you have 10 calendar days from the date of this meeting to appeal to city council in writing, and the staff will furnish you with the details of this appeals process.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving forward, um, we've completed roll call.

Uh item two minutes of the Wednesday, January 7th, 2026 meeting.

Do we have a motion?

Commissioners.

Thank you, Commissioner Carson.

Second and by Commissioner King.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

The motion carries unanimously.

Um hello.

Thank welcome.

Um, please let the record show Commissioner Poore has attended as well.

Is in attendance.

Item three CLG review of 3949 uh Euphersine Street.

Thank you.

As a part of our duties related to being a certified local government, um recognized by the National Park Service of the United States.

The HDLC reviews and makes recommendations regarding nominations to the National Register of Historic Places.

This is the CLG Review of 3949 Euphrazine Street.

The Wembley Industries Incorporated Plant at 3949 Euphrazine Street was completed in 1971 as a men's necktie manufacturing facility located in northwest of downtown New Orleans.

It sits on a 3.29-acre site in a historically industrial section that developed during the mid-20th century.

The building is four stories, constructed of steel and concrete, and has a square footprint with a flat roof.

There is a national registered nomination report that was included with this application.

The staff reviewed that uh national register report that was furnished to all the commissioners.

Staff concurs that the Wimbly Industries was a hugely successful New Orleans business and an international pioneer and leader of the necktie industry.

The company's contributions to the evolution of necktie design in the United States is unparalleled.

While the success, growth, and achievements of the company are to be applauded, staff does not agree that the factory constructed at 3949, Euphrazine Street meets the standard for significance under criterion A, that the properties associated with events that have made a significant contributions to the broad patterns of our history.

The City of New Orleans is not necessarily known for being the hub of necktie design, and as such, the building does not reflect the broad patterns of New Orleans industrial history.

Thank you.

Is there any is there any public comment on this?

No public comment.

I believe it will, unless there is a commissioner who wants to move this forward as a recommendation, then there's no action.

You can uh I'm not certain about not doing anything.

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you.

Thank you for clarification on the CLG review.

Commissioners.

I think the staff report is pretty clear.

Uh I agree with it in all respects, so I would make a motion to deny the exploration of this as a or to recommend against it.

Thank you, Commissioner Carson.

Seconded by Commissioner King.

Is there any further discussion amongst commissioners?

All those in favor.

Motion passes.

Is it unanimous?

It was unanimous.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

All right, item four consent agenda.

Item A 439 Elmira Avenue.

Item B, 1800 Pritania Street.

Item C 715 Louisiana Avenue.

Item D, 526 Marini Street.

Item E 3636 St.

Charles Avenue.

Item F 7624 St.

Charles Avenue and Item G, 721 to 23 Louisiana Avenue.

Do we have any public comment on the consent agenda?

There's no public comment on the consent agenda.

Commissioners.

Do we have a motion?

Commissioner Green.

Thank you.

Motion to approve.

Seconded by Commissioner Clark, thank you.

All those in favor.

All those opposed, the motion carries.

If you are here for an item on the consent agenda, you're welcome to leave.

Um you've been approved, so there's no need to stay here any longer.

Um thank you.

Item five, new business work applications, item A 4426 North Rampart Street.

Is the applicant present?

Please step forward and state your name and address, and then the staff will make their presentation.

Okay, my name is Christopher Wright.

I'm here on behalf of Jeffrey David Canton and Jody Leighton, the owner of the home.

Great.

Please state your address as well.

4426 North Rampart Street.

Thank you.

The staff will make their presentation and we'll hear your comments following.

Thank you.

This is the application to install street facing solar panels at a non-contributing rated two-story single-family residential building in full control by water.

4426 North Rampart is a non-contributing two-story building located in Bywater, constructed in 2016.

The applicant proposes installing 10 solar panels on the Kentucky Street set facing roof plane.

Option A, an alternative layout.

Option B places the panels on a non-street-facing plane.

The guidelines state that solar panels should be minimally visible, located on a secondary or rear plane roof plane to preserve the overall character of the neighborhood, character of the neighborhood.

Street facing panels are required, require mission review.

The applicant is requesting approval of option A due to increase system performance.

Option A projects to generate around 10,524 KWH annually compared to the 9,806 annually for option B.

A difference of approximately 718.

The increased output is contributed to the improved solar exposure on the upper roof plane, while option A places the panel on a higher roof plane.

Photos show that the plane that the panels remain highly visible from the public right-of-way.

Option B we would locate the panels on a non-street-facing roof plane and would further reduce visibility consistent with the guidelines.

Although staff acknowledges the energy efficiency benefits cited by the applicant, and staff finds that the proposed street facing panels will remain high visible visibly prominent, and that an alternative less visible location is available.

For those reasons, staff recommend denial.

Thank you.

To the applicant, do you wish to address the commission?

Yeah, I just wanted to talk about option A for a second.

The proposed solar plan and the panel design are discreetly integrated to minimize visual impact, mainly maintaining the character of the area as envisioned by the historical district landmarks commission.

By approving this design, it would not only support the client's commitment to energy efficiency and environmental responsibility, but to also ensure that the neighborhood's historic charm remains preserved.

We respectfully urge the council to consider the long-term benefits of this project, both for the client and the community, and approve the design as originally proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any additional public comment on 4426 North Rampart Street?

Okay, no additional public comment, Commissioners.

Commissioner Carson, this is in Bywater.

Uh I'm sympathetic to the to the applicants in terms of uh the goals of the project.

Certainly, solar panels are encouraged, but uh we we recently upgraded our solar panel uh standards to be as um forgiving as possible while still honoring the historic character of the neighborhood.

I think in this instance where option B from what I can tell on the statistics and the actual roof space um isn't a huge compromise on performance.

Uh I'm gonna make a motion to deny option A and allow option B.

Thank you, Commissioner Carson.

Do we have a second to that motion?

Commissioner Poiri, second.

Thank you.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

The motion carries.

Um you have 10 calendar days from the date of this meeting to appeal to city council in writing, and we wish you the best of luck with your project.

Thank you.

Item B, 1416-18 Dolphine Street.

Is the applicant present?

Please step forward, state your name and address for the record.

Hello, I'm uh Kurt Kappel.

I'm the owner of 1418 Dolphin Unit B.

Great.

Um, please state your address just for the record.

1418 Dolphin unit B.

Thank you.

Staff.

This is a request to install new gates at the top of the porch stairs at a contributing-rated two-story building in full control mariny.

The applicant is proposing to install new wood guardrails at the lower porch designed to match the existing guardrails above.

To enhance site security at this area, the applicant is also proposing to install new five-foot-tall metal gates at both front corners of the porch and new 36-inch tall operable gates located at the top of both porch stairs.

Well, the new guardrails and proposed alley gates are staff approvable.

The porch skates are considered uh are not considered appropriate as this condition is specifically prohibited by the HDLC design guidelines.

Porches in Orleans historically functioned as visually open semi-public transition spaces between the street and the interior of the building.

The installation of gates at the top of stairs introduces a security element that visually and symbolically diminishes the openness of the porch, alters the historic character of the primary facade, and creates a more closed and less inviting appearance that is inconsistent with the porch's function and the established streetscape's context.

Additionally, staff notes that similar proposals have been consistently denied by the commission in prior cases, and that approval in this instance may encourage additional similar applications in the future.

Based on these factors, staff recommends denial of the request for new porch stairs.

As an alternative, the applicant could consider less visually obtrusive methods of improving site security, such as removable chain barrier at the stairs, enhanced security lighting, or discrete security cameras, which would maintain the historic openness of the porch and are typically approvable at the staff level.

Thank you.

So the applicant, do you wish to address the commission?

Um the reason why we we're requesting the gates is because we're having a real hard time keeping people from sleeping and leaving the stuff on the porch.

Um so we're just trying to make a barrier from the street to basically stop that from happening.

Pretty obsessive.

Thank you.

Yeah.

We we found we're we're the only open porch on the street, so it's the only place that people have room to sit down and lay down.

So that I think that's why they choose our house most of the time.

Sorry, I'm looking at the documentation in our file as well.

I appreciate your comments.

Um this is Marini, this is my district.

I'm very familiar with your property.

I walk by it often.

I can understand the request.

Um so I just want to clarify with the staff we have two items here.

Is that correct?

One is at the porch enclosure and one is gates adjacent or just the porch.

No, it's just the porch seats.

Okay.

Um I would say we've we have had a number of requests in the past along Esplanade Avenue of a very similar request.

Um, and we do often stick with our guidelines on that and upholding the guidelines on that.

Again, it is a very um we understand the concern, but again, we we we work through it with our guidelines.

So I don't know if other commissioners have any other comments on this.

There's any further public, is there any public comment on this application?

No public comment.

I guess I just have one question for staff.

I understand this has been denied in the past on similar circumstances, and it mentions in the report that this is in the guidelines.

Is this I I couldn't quite find that in the guidelines.

Is it in porches or fences?

Uh believe it's on the site elements guidelines and it's uh screenshot it at the top of the report.

So you also say about um there is an alternative and you can approve it at your level.

Um so can you explain to what the alternative is a little bit?

Um sure.

Uh staff, for example, in the past does approved like simple chains.

So like visually the porch is blocked off from the street, but it's a much less intrusive intervention, um, and they can still operate it and close it.

Um, in other instances where uh we've recommended like positioning plants and things like that onto the stairs so that it visually also can't be used, or kind of notes like use the other one, or don't use it at all.

Um but although other than that, you know, we can improve the quality of lighting, security uh cameras, uh things that are less obtrusive that kind of fit within the guidelines.

Um nervous of the precedent that it might set and based on past cases, which is the cross building.

Just want to make sure the applicants are aware of what staff's recommending and uh as an alternative.

Yeah, chain.

A chain or potentially planters and other things.

I know that that's been used in the past, not necessarily something that would require HDLC approval is the planters.

Um, the chain would be probably at staff level.

Um, so again, just something to note that could be done, and is actually less probably less expensive than what's proposed here as an alternate.

They could also have like a small simple sign that says like no loitering or no trespassing, so something, you know, okay, to add on to the security.

Okay.

Yeah, I think you want to take this one.

So just wanted to note those items.

Um, I cannot make a motion on this one, but I don't know if there's a commissioner who's willing to make a motion on this item.

I'm happy to make a motion.

I I will say I I'm not totally clear on that this is reinforcing the guidelines.

Fencing located on porches.

I'm not sure I would call a gate or a guardrail a fence.

And I think it's a little blurry that rule.

Um thing I will say though is precedent matters a lot, certainly setting uh standard.

I also say from a building code, and we don't enforce code here, but I don't think we're allowed to have a gate at the top of a exterior staircase with this number of steps without a landing.

So when we know that something breaks uh code rule, we generally don't support it.

So uh based on the precedent and the code, I would say uh make a motion to deny the gates.

Thank you.

We have a motion on the floor.

Do we have a second?

Commissioner Ashby seconds.

Thank you.

All those in favor.

All those opposed motion carries.

Um think you have 10 calendar days from the date of this meeting to appeal to city council in writing, and the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process.

The staff also offered alternative options, so work with them if you're interested in pursuing those.

Okay.

Thank you.

And good luck with your project.

Old business demolition applications item A 1534 St.

Louis Street.

Is the applicant present?

Is anyone present from 1534 St.

Louis Street?

We have a motion, I believe uh the staff is recommending deferral on this item.

Is that correct?

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Green.

Do we have a second?

Commissioner Clark seconds.

All those in favor.

Um motion carries the agenda item will be deferred for 30 one month for 30 days.

Um I have a speaker's card.

I just want to note that, but that that's noted as well.

Thank you.

Okay, new business demolition applications 2663 Iberville Street has been removed from the agenda.

Item B, 4724 to 26 Daniel Street has been removed from the agenda.

Item C, uh 929 North Georgian Wall Street.

Is the applicant present?

Welcome.

Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Kevin Washington, address 929 North Durja Street.

Thank you for being here, Mr.

Washington.

The staff will make their presentation and we'll hear comments following.

This is the application for a demolition of the consumer rate, two-story single-family residential building to breed and peripheral control to May.

The FEMA survey indicates that the original building was likely constructed in 1850.

The structure does not appear on the fire insurance map until 1895.

At which time it is shown as a two-story single-family residential building.

The estimated construction date places the building within the early portion of the district period of significance.

The building sits on a large lot and is set back from both the street and adjacent property lines, given a prominent presence on the block.

The two-story double gallery structure structure retains most of its architectural features, including but not limited to the Dorx columns supporting the upper gallery.

In the original transom.

While new doors and side windows have been added, the overall historic character of the building remains intact.

The building is in overall poor condition but remains structurally intact.

The structure sits above gray on masonary appears and appears largely straight and plum.

The ash file roof shingles appear to be in poor condition, though a full assessment was limited.

Exterior weather boards show extensive deterioration with several areas missing or detached.

Exposing framing and contributing to weather and water intrusion, wood rot and insect damage.

The building exhibits significant demolition by neglect conditions, which if left unaddressed could lead to further structural decline.

The interior the interior is not habitable and has been fully gutted, exposing the structural framework.

The existing wall assembly is substandard with no sheathing or building wrapping in areas of rot and insect damage are visible.

Despite these conditions, the building remains salvageable as a good candidate for rehabilitation.

Because the building is a contributing and contributing within the historic district and remains a viable candidate for rehabilitation, staff recommends Nile.

Thank you.

So the applicant, do you wish to address the commission?

Yes.

Great.

Please.

Yes, it's a very beautiful home and things like that, but it's not the rehab budget for that project would be in the millions.

Right, but I feel that us putting affordable homes there for uh people is more will we use the property for the land for it.

Trying to restore that property is it doesn't make sense.

And on the January to Fort, you guys had put a sticker on it on the fence for demolition due to neglect.

So if we have a neglect problem, and y'all are gonna come demolition it if I wouldn't be here, I'm willing to demo the demo the house.

Yeah, thank you.

Um demolition by neglect does not mean that the HDLC or the city is going to demolish the building.

It is a citation saying that there are conditions of uh deferred maintenance that are resulting in a de facto demolition of the building.

So we get that question frequently, um, so we're always eager to be able to define what that is.

Thank you.

Um to your comments, Mr.

Washington.

We don't have a purview of this.

This commission does not regulate use or economic hardship in that way, in terms of uh we're here to to review the guidelines that are in front of us and for preservation.

Um, just to clarify that again, if your interest is to demolish this building and replace it with a number of homes or to do something else, yes, that's that is not something that this commission can take into consideration review of the application.

We review the historic fabric that's in front of us.

Um, and so just wanted to note that to you as well.

Okay.

Um it I would say this is in we see a we have a lot of demolition requests in front of us.

This building is actually in um, I would say good to great shape compared to what we've seen um for a lot of the demolition requests that we've had, but do understand that if your request is for use, again that's not a good idea.

Yeah, photos, photos are deceiving until you see it in person and being underneath the structure of the home, you know.

Um which they had your staff had an engineer come out to take a look at the property, and I also had an engineer come look at it on my behalf.

So uh understood here the historical part of it is here.

I lived in that home, right?

Yeah, my grandmother's still alive.

I don't want to knock it down, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Or me as an investor, I understand it is historical and it means a lot to you guys, and it means a lot to me as well.

Understood.

And uh just doesn't make sense.

Just to note this, so again, we are reviewing the case in the same way that we review any of them.

We appreciate you allowing an inspector on site to review the condition of the properties.

Yes, we understand your interest.

Again, we just can't take that up at this commission.

Um, and we do, and our staff looks at that in terms of their report as well and what they're reviewing.

Um, city council is welcome to review it under that if there is a different interest.

Um, but I just again our commission cannot take use into consideration.

Okay.

But understood.

Um, I appreciate you being here.

We appreciate the inspectors being able to get access to the property.

Um, if there was if if you were interested in there was a way to re-rehab this property and allow for multi-family multi-unit.

Um, again, I think that would be a potential proposal for rehabilitation and restoration here, but I again, you know, we can't advise on that for this commission.

Just if that would be an option, that seems like another way that another avenue in terms of renovation.

Um just want to make sure that that's clear.

Yes.

Um, is there any public comment on this application?

There's no public comment, commissioners.

This is in Tremay.

We don't have a commissioner for Tremay right now, so I don't know if anyone wants to weigh.

I make a mission that we uh follow the staff's recommendation to deny the request.

Thank you, Commissioner Green.

Second and by.

Commissioner Poire, thank you.

Um all those in favor.

All those opposed.

Are you opposed?

Okay, in favor.

Um the motion carries unanimously.

You have 10 calendar days from the date of this meeting to appeal to city council in writing, and the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process.

Okay.

Um, thank you for being here.

Again, appreciate you working with the staff to allow them access to the property and good luck with your project.

Thank you.

Item D 703 Napoleon Avenue and 4439 Laurel Street has been removed from the agenda.

Item E 165 Broadway Street is the applicant present.

Please step forward, state your name and address for the record.

Um hi, I'm Alec Adamick.

Uh the address is 3301 Shipwall Street in New Orleans.

Thank you.

This is an application for the demolition of over 50% of the roof structure of a contributing rated one-story single-family residential building.

FEMA research indicates that 165 Broadway Street was constructed between 1920 and 1930, which is within the period of significance for uptown.

The structure appears to have retained much of its original massing and some of its original craftsman details, although the finestration openings on the primary elevation have been altered over time.

The applicant is requesting approval to remove 54.9% of the roof structure to accommodate the construction of a new camel back addition.

Because the proposed camel back is located at least two historic rooms back from the front building wall, as per the HDLC design guidelines.

Staff has no objection to the request for a partial roof demolition.

Thank you.

So the applicant, do you wish to address the commission?

And we'll probably continue to use this uh HTLC guidelines in the design as well.

So thank you.

We appreciate that, even though acknowledging your impartial uptown partial.

Thank you.

Um the staff has a recommendation for no objection.

Is there any public comment on this application?

No additional public comment, commissioners.

I would move to accept the staff's recommendations.

Thank you, Commissioner King.

Seconded by Commissioner Clark, thank you.

All those in favor, all those opposed, the motion carries.

Thank you, and good luck with your project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item F 1208 Second Street.

Is the applicant present?

Please state your name and address for the record.

Peter Wilson, 1208 2nd Street.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Wilson.

I have a number of speakers' cards, so don't worry, y'all would be heard.

Um thank you.

Yeah.

This is an application for the demolition of a contributed-rated raised basement single-family building to grade in the garden district partial control.

The building was constructed between 1910 and 1927 within the period of significance for the garden district.

While not shown on the 1909 sandbourne map, it was listed for sale in the 1927 times PickyU.

The 2002 HDL survey for the districts notes that the structure appears contributing to the scene and its resemblance is similar today.

The structure is one of five structures facing 2nd Street and a fully intact block retaining its original massing.

Originally a two-bedroom raised bungalow with a front porch.

Sometime after 1950, the porch was enclosed with plate glass windows and transoms between wood pilesters and a heavy decorative entablature.

The original brick columns and decorative gable brackets of the craftsman style are intact.

Reconstruction of the building's scrapmanship and original details would be difficult and unlikely.

The structure now is currently a mixture of styles constructed over time.

However, the structure does maintain the rhythm of the street, and demolishing it would enlarge to enlarge the neighboring side yard would create a grab in the urban fabric.

Overall, the building appears to be in very good condition according to uh our inspections conducted on August 14th.

Uh rehabilitation of the interior of the building would not be very costly or particularly difficult, and immediate action should be taken to remove any vegetation directly on or near the building.

While heavily modified on the interior, the building is not a good candidate for demolition.

Staff recommends denial.

Thank you.

Thank you.

To the applicant, assume you want to address the commission.

Yes, please.

Great.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commission, and thank you for your time today.

My wife Rosalind and I, along with our three children, live at 1222nd Street, which is located immediately next door to the subject property.

We purchased 1208 2nd Street, the subject property from the estate of the previous owners last year.

Applying to demolish a building in New Orleans is not a decision that my wife and I make lightly.

As a I'm a past board member of the PRC, I'm a developer of historic properties on Magazine Street, all of which will undergo historic rehabilitations and have advocated on state and national level for preservation legislation and incentives.

Given all of this, we've invested significant time and resources to understand the modifications made to the home over the past 30 years and have done outreach our neighbors and garden district association and engaged landscape architects to help us through this project.

Today you'll hear from historic preservationists who describe how the home no longer contributes to the historic or architectural significance of the garden district.

You'll hear from our neighbors who strongly support the demolition.

Further, the executive director of the Garden District Association would detail her and her association and the Garden District Association's support of the demolition.

I ask that the commission, please take into consideration the facts and research that we'll present to you today.

Most of all, we are not asking to demolish the existing structure in order to redevelop another single family home.

We simply want to create a garden space which would be historically appropriate for the neighborhood.

We want this for our children to be able to play and enjoy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Gabrielle Baggins Hi, I'm Gabrielle Baygay, speaking on 1208 2nd Street.

Can you all see these photos?

Should we move them a little closer or we can see?

Can you please state your address for the record?

My personal address?

201 Coolidge Street.

Thank you.

I am a preservationist, architectural historian, and historic tax credit consultant, and I've been doing this work for 14 years.

In fact, it's how I met the applicant originally, collaborating on historic rehabs.

I'm here today, however, to state that in my opinion, this 1920 single-family raised bungalow does not contribute to the district for three reasons.

Number one, two major exterior modifications have occurred in recent years.

A remodel of the facade, namely the front porch, occurred circa 2000.

This is much more than just a porch enclosure.

Compare the 2002 HDLC survey photo here to the 1990 photo on the left.

You can see that prior to the remodel, it was a modest and appropriately scaled screen porch.

This was destroyed by the addition of a heavy decorative entablature, three large plate glass windows and transoms, and an oversized circular gable vent.

In fact, it's difficult to tell from the street the age or style of this building due to these changes, which are out of scale and grandiose compared to the more modest original facade.

Also this large rear edition was completed in 2017 and is visible from 2nd Street.

In spite of the vegetation.

This is it under construction.

Second reason.

This resulted in the loss of a significant percentage of historic fabric.

And third, remaining interior historic fabric was lost in a 2018 renovation that destroyed the bungalow layout, interior openings, and features and finishes.

Here's the living room with a vaulted ceiling and uh a skylight and an attic space.

The list goes on.

Based on this accumulation of changes, this property no longer resembles a historic raised bungalow, and there is now very little historic fabric left to save.