Central Business District Historic District Landmarks Commission Meeting - September 2, 2026
Central Business District Historic District Landmarks Commission Meeting - September 2, 2026
The meeting was held on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, at 10:00 AM in the City Council Chamber. The commission approved the previous meeting's minutes, the consent agenda, and a retention application for inappropriate mortar repairs at 1111 S Peters St with conditions, and ratified ARC and staff actions. A commissioner voiced disappointment about a prior retention decision.
Consent Calendar
- 750 Carondelet St: Renovation of a Contributing-rated two-story commercial building including new storefronts. Approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
No public comments were made during the meeting.
Discussion Items
- Minutes of August 12, 2026 meeting: During consideration, an unnamed commissioner expressed disappointment about the commission's decision on a retention application from the previous month, arguing that the precedent argument was flawed and that the commission should consider each case individually. Other commissioners acknowledged the discourse but defended the decision. The minutes were approved unanimously after the comment.
- 1111 S Peters St – Retention of Inappropriate Mortar Repairs: The applicant, George Upui, president of the Bakery Condominiums Homeowners Association, presented for the retention of mortar repairs completed on a Contributing-rated four-story residential building. Staff reported that the work deviated from the approved Certificate of Appropriateness, which required mortar matching the historic in strength, composition, color, and tooling. The repairs were expanded in scope without approval and are visually incompatible. Staff had no objection to retention provided that all future mortar repairs match the historic mortar. The applicant explained the leaks drove the need for extensive tuck pointing and that they had used the same mix for years without prior color requirements. Commissioners discussed the need for test patches, proper craftsmanship, and coordination with HDLC and the Preservation Resource Center. After a roll call vote resulted in a 3-3 tie, the commission suspended to discuss ramifications. Upon resumption, the motion to approve the staff recommendation carried.
Key Outcomes
- Minutes of August 12, 2026: Approved unanimously.
- Consent Agenda (750 Carondelet St): Approved unanimously.
- 1111 S Peters St Retention: Motion to approve staff recommendation (retention with condition that all future mortar repairs match historic mortar) passed after a tie vote (3-3 initially, then approved after further discussion).
- Ratification of Architectural Review Committee and Staff Actions: Approved unanimously.
- HDLC Reports: Announcement of the New Orleans HDLC's 50th anniversary open house on September 18, 2026 at the New Orleans Public Library, and a celebration on September 30, 2026 at the Preservation Resource Center.
Meeting Transcript
Thank you. And to start us off today, if we can get a motion to approve the minutes of the Wednesday, August 12th, 2026 meeting. Thank you, Whitten. Second, I'll just go. Oh, you got a comment from last week from last month. We'll suspend that motion to hear the comment. Yeah, I just wanted to kind of express like a little bit of maybe like disappointment with the retention application from last month. I mean, we said in the notes that you know the commission discussed the comments say that you know we were concerned about a legal or a precedent that we were setting. I mean, we this commission is not a court of law. We're not judges, we're not bound by starry diseases or anything like that. And I think that you know, just not being able to distinguish one set of facts from another, and then being going down kind of a rabbit hole of hypotheticals of situations that were just not before us was a little bit of inappropriate. And I mean our our job is you know to to also enhance the environment of the CBD, you know, and and I think we we had something that was you know, not to say that it's it's not gonna it's gonna be removed because maybe hopefully they filed an appeal, but something that enhanced the area and because of uh you know uh a technicality, we're gonna potentially put someone through the ringer and make them you know go through this process again and put them in front of a political body of the city council, and who knows what could happen. Uh I think we just need uh take a step back when we're looking at some of these retention matters, because each situation is different. And that that building was on the you know on Choppa Toolis, and it was brick, and the art, the mural was facing a certain way, and so you know, to to go through hypotheticals and say we don't want to set a precedent, I think is just a little disingenuous of this commission if we're just not gonna approve any retention matters because if we're worried about precedent, then you know we could we could say that well, you know, any time that somebody does anything that is a retention matter should potentially not be you know approved. So I just wanted to like I mean that was just something that I just felt that the discussion kind of got a little unwieldy. I mean everybody's entitled to their comments and their opinions, and you know the vote was the vote, but I just think like on these retention matters, especially stuff like that, like let's just like kind of step it take a step back and think about kind of the the purpose. So uh I'll second that motion to approve the minutes. No, that's fair. I mean I'll I'll comment. I mean, look, I think it's a fair take. The if if for what it's worth, I think the staff had recommended for retention. Um but I think that's the beauty of the the body here is to have a a discourse back and forth, and everybody does have their own opinions on specific matters. Uh you know, um they can appeal to the city council and they can you know follow the next steps. I I think I think that's kind of part of our the reason why we're here is to kind of go through these um these these discourses whether or not I think not everybody's gonna always approve. Yeah, you know. I yeah, I mean the discourse certainly, like I said, everybody entitled to a position. I just think I just think the the logic of the decision of a precedent was just kind of fundamentally flawed and and and honestly, had I I thought for a second that that was not going to be improv approved, I would have spoken up and voiced these comments uh last month, and I apologize for not doing so because I really thought it was kind of a layup for the commission, but um but you know, like you said, that not trying to chill the the discourse or anything like that. I just wanted to kind of for us to all think about you know, really kind of the real you know, uh a step back from you know these retention matters, you know, and and and what a precedent what what a precedent really means in terms of when someone comes before us, what does that really mean? Um that's all I I would agree with your comment completely. I left the the meeting last month very disappointed in the decision that the committee made uh putting uh as someone who is trying to better the city uh with the prospect of paying thousands and thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars to clean up that building. So I appreciate appreciate your con your comment. Uh because I felt the same way, so I'm glad I heard it out loud and it's been mentioned in here. Thank you. Anyone else? Do we need to change any of the minutes? Are we we're good there? Yeah, no. Okay. So uh back to the motion to approve those minutes of the Wednesday, August 12th, 2026 meeting. We have a f uh uh motion on the floor from Wooden. Second. And a second? And all in favor to approve those minutes? Any opposed? I'm seeing none. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. Um next up we have the consent agenda. Um the address is 750 Crondalette Street.
openpublica.com