OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

City Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2024

City Planning CommissionMonday, April 15, 2024
BodyNew Orleans, Louisiana
SessionCity Planning Commission
DateMonday, April 15, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

Candice Forest present.

0:02

Todd James is absent.

0:04

Tamara Eggins is absent.

0:06

Jose Alvarez.

0:07

Present.

0:08

Ramiro Diaz is present.

0:11

Alfonso Gonzalez.

0:12

Present.

0:13

And Jason Richards.

0:14

Present.

0:14

At this time, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the March 18th meeting?

0:19

So move.

0:21

Second.

0:24

It's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez.

0:26

Second by Commissioner Alvarez, I believe, to adapt the minutes from our last meeting.

0:32

Vote your screens.

0:47

Four yes.

0:49

Four yays, no nays.

0:50

The motion carries.

0:52

Please note that the board will recess at approximately 1 p.m.

0:55

if the meeting has not already been adjourned and reconvene at approximately 1 30.

0:59

As a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by April 25th and sent via email and mail to the applicant as well as posted on the one stop app for other interested parties.

1:11

Requests that the board votes to approve must show compliance with any noted provisos before the case is finalized and granted final approval.

1:18

At the March meeting, the board discussed taking the consideration of the election of officers item out of order at the beginning of the meeting.

1:24

Would the board consider a motion to suspend the rules to take this item out of order?

1:31

I think it might be prudent to wait to the end of the meeting for more commissioners to be present for the vote.

1:37

Okay.

1:42

We will begin with unfinished business for variance.

1:45

Will the chair please read the hearing rules for variances?

1:51

Yes.

1:52

Rules and procedures for public hearings, variance requests.

1:56

The following procedures shall be observed during the hearing.

1:59

Each speaker shall give their name and address prior to speaking on the proposal.

2:03

The applicant or representative will speak first.

2:06

The presentation shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes for each applicant or representative speaker.

2:13

But in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 10 minutes.

2:20

Proponents or persons in favor of the proposal will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker.

2:26

Opponents or persons in opposition of the proposal will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker.

2:32

The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal.

2:36

The rebuttal shall be limited to a cumulative maximum of three minutes.

2:40

For an exceptional case, the time limitations may be extended by the presiding officer with the approval of the board.

2:47

As the board deems necessary, the case may be acted upon at this meeting or deferred for additional information or review.

2:55

If the case is deferred, it will be acted on at a subsequent meeting as provided by law.

3:00

All proper parliamentary procedures shall be followed, including recognition of speakers, relevance of argument, and absolute prohibition of applause or demonstration.

3:11

Standard of review.

3:50

Article 12, section 12.3.1 point E, and Article 12, Section 14.3.1 point F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit a restaurant with insufficient ground floor transparency, visually obtrusive ADA ramps, and insufficient first floor ceiling height.

4:07

Based on this report, the staff believes the requested variance of Article 12, Section 12.3 point B.

4:13

Point 1.

4:14

Ground floor transparency failed to meet criterion 2 of the standards of variance for Article 4, Section 4.6.

4:29

Additionally, based on the report, the staff believes that requested variances of Article 12, Section 12.3.1 point E.

4:37

ADA ramps failed to meet criteria 245 and 6 of the standards of variances of Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive voting ordinance, and that two literal interpretation of the ordinance will not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district.

4:54

4 the variants will confer on the applicant special privileges.

5:00

Five, granting the variance will alter the essential character of the locality, and six, the property regulations will not result in a demonstrable hardship.

5:05

Lastly, based on the report, staff believes that the requested variances of Article 12, Section 12.3.b.1F, first floor ceiling height for the kitchen, and Article 12, Section 12.3 point B.1F floor ceiling height in the bathroom failed to meet criteria two and six of the standards of variance.

5:23

Article 4, Section 4.6.f of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and that two literal interpretation of the ordinance will not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district.

5:34

And six, the property regulations will not result in a demonstrable hardship.

5:39

Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the requested variances.

5:43

At its February 19th meeting, the Board of Zoning Adjustments deferred this matter 60 days at the request of the applicant to allow the applicant the opportunity to appear in person before the board.

5:53

Since February 19th, there have been no revisions submitted for this request.

6:03

Good morning, board.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████67%
Flood Management█████8%
Procedural████6%
Public Engagement████6%
Parking Management████6%
Affordable Housing███5%
Public Safety1%
Code Enforcement1%
Summary of Proceedings

City Planning Commission Meeting – April 15, 2024

The New Orleans City Planning Commission (CPC) met on Monday, April 15, 2024, at 10:00 AM in Council Chambers to consider multiple variance requests, appeals of the Director of Safety and Permits, and the election of officers. The board voted on nine docket items, approving deferrals, granting one variance with conditions, and denying one appeal. The meeting adjourned after the election of officers was deferred to the July meeting.

Consent Calendar

  • No consent calendar items were presented.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • BZA007-24 (5022 Bienville Ave.): Randolph Waits (311 City Park Ave.) and Alice Gonzalez (4918 Bienville St.) spoke in opposition, citing safety concerns, overgrown property, and the need for a dumpster. Mr. Waits supported the 90-day deferral requested by the applicant.
  • BZA109-23 (2319 George Nick Connor Dr.): The applicant (Irma Plummer) addressed the board, explaining her efforts to remove concrete and the financial hardship of further removal. Commissioners discussed the 40% impervious surface limit and stormwater runoff.
  • BZA001-24 (5505 Music St.): Kaisha Lyman (applicant’s representative) requested a 90-day deferral to consult with a landscape architect. The board discussed the need to demonstrate that parking cannot be placed in the rear yard due to tree roots.
  • BZA022-24 (531 S. Tonti St.): Ron Savell (applicant’s representative) outlined the timeline of the parking lease agreement. Zach Smith (for the owner) argued that the reliance on city staff created a hardship. The board questioned the enforceability of leased parking but approved the variance with provisos.
  • BZA023-24 (7417 Burthe St.): The applicant did not object to a 30-day deferral. A neighbor (from 618 Audubon St.) opposed, stating that the site could provide legal parking.
  • BZA016-24 (7417 Burthe St. – appeal): Zach Smith requested a 30-day deferral, intending to withdraw the appeal after addressing the front-yard parking issue. Deborah Howell (1538 Adams St.) and Keith Hardy (618 Audubon St.) opposed, arguing that the parking was not legally non-conforming and that the property had a grandfather deficiency.
  • BZA024-24 (7417 Burthe St. – appeal): Deborah Howell delivered extensive testimony against the permit, alleging misrepresentation of bedroom counts, improper application of the overlay instead of the Interim Zoning District (IZD), and work done without a permit. Keith Hardy and Susan Johnson (2822 LePage St.) also spoke in opposition. The applicant (Zach Smith) argued that the permit could be reissued under current law.

Discussion Items

  • BZA007-24 (5022 Bienville Ave.): Staff recommended denial of variances for ground floor transparency, ADA ramps, and ceiling height. The applicant requested a 90-day deferral due to delays in the owner’s estate. The board granted the deferral (5-0).
  • BZA100-23 (1834 Second St.): Staff recommended denial of four variances for an after-the-fact multifamily expansion. The applicant requested a 30-day deferral to complete revised plans. The board granted the deferral (5-0).
  • BZA109-23 (2319 George Nick Connor Dr.): Staff recommended denial of variances for impervious surface (40% max, applicant had 68%) and driveway setback. The applicant requested a 90-day deferral to remove additional concrete. The board granted the deferral, suggesting consultation with nonprofits (5-0).
  • BZA119-23 (2320-22 S. Derbigny St.): Staff recommended a 30-day deferral because revised plans were incomplete. The board granted the deferral (5-0).
  • BZA001-24 (5505 Music St.): Staff recommended denial of a variance for front-yard parking but approval of a variance for zero off-street parking. The applicant requested a 90-day deferral to consult a landscape architect. The board granted the deferral (5-0).
  • BZA022-24 (531 S. Tonti St.): Staff recommended denial of a variance for insufficient off-street parking (1 space provided, 3 required). The applicant argued reliance on the city’s guidance. The board approved the variance (5-0) with two provisos: (1) a lease agreement for two parking spaces, and (2) a site plan approved by CPC staff.
  • BZA023-24 (7417 Burthe St.): Staff requested a 30-day deferral to analyze additional variances added by Safety and Permits. The board granted the deferral (5-0).
  • BZA016-24 (7417 Burthe St. – appeal): The applicant appealed the director’s determination that existing parking spaces could not satisfy overlay requirements. The applicant requested a 30-day deferral; the board granted it (5-0).
  • BZA024-24 (7417 Burthe St. – appeal): The applicant appealed the director’s determination that one off-street parking space was required. The department argued the overlay was correctly applied; the appellant argued the IZD should govern. The board denied the appeal and upheld the director’s decision (5-0).
  • Election of Officers: The board deferred the election to the July 2024 meeting (voice vote, unanimous).

Key Outcomes

  • BZA007-24: Deferred 90 days (5-0).
  • BZA100-23: Deferred 30 days (5-0).
  • BZA109-23: Deferred 90 days (5-0).
  • BZA119-23: Deferred 30 days (5-0).
  • BZA001-24: Deferred 90 days (5-0).
  • BZA022-24: Approved with two provisos (5-0).
  • BZA023-24: Deferred 30 days (5-0).
  • BZA016-24: Deferred 30 days (5-0).
  • BZA024-24: Appeal denied; director’s decision upheld (5-0).
  • Election of Officers: Deferred to July 2024 meeting (unanimous voice vote).

Meeting Transcript

Candice Forest present. Todd James is absent. Tamara Eggins is absent. Jose Alvarez. Present. Ramiro Diaz is present. Alfonso Gonzalez. Present. And Jason Richards. Present. At this time, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the March 18th meeting? So move. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez. Second by Commissioner Alvarez, I believe, to adapt the minutes from our last meeting. Vote your screens. Four yes. Four yays, no nays. The motion carries. Please note that the board will recess at approximately 1 p.m. if the meeting has not already been adjourned and reconvene at approximately 1 30. As a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by April 25th and sent via email and mail to the applicant as well as posted on the one stop app for other interested parties. Requests that the board votes to approve must show compliance with any noted provisos before the case is finalized and granted final approval. At the March meeting, the board discussed taking the consideration of the election of officers item out of order at the beginning of the meeting. Would the board consider a motion to suspend the rules to take this item out of order? I think it might be prudent to wait to the end of the meeting for more commissioners to be present for the vote. Okay. We will begin with unfinished business for variance. Will the chair please read the hearing rules for variances? Yes. Rules and procedures for public hearings, variance requests. The following procedures shall be observed during the hearing. Each speaker shall give their name and address prior to speaking on the proposal. The applicant or representative will speak first. The presentation shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes for each applicant or representative speaker. But in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 10 minutes. Proponents or persons in favor of the proposal will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker. Opponents or persons in opposition of the proposal will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker. The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal. The rebuttal shall be limited to a cumulative maximum of three minutes. For an exceptional case, the time limitations may be extended by the presiding officer with the approval of the board. As the board deems necessary, the case may be acted upon at this meeting or deferred for additional information or review. If the case is deferred, it will be acted on at a subsequent meeting as provided by law. All proper parliamentary procedures shall be followed, including recognition of speakers, relevance of argument, and absolute prohibition of applause or demonstration. Standard of review. Article 12, section 12.3.1 point E, and Article 12, Section 14.3.1 point F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit a restaurant with insufficient ground floor transparency, visually obtrusive ADA ramps, and insufficient first floor ceiling height. Based on this report, the staff believes the requested variance of Article 12, Section 12.3 point B. Point 1. Ground floor transparency failed to meet criterion 2 of the standards of variance for Article 4, Section 4.6. Additionally, based on the report, the staff believes that requested variances of Article 12, Section 12.3.1 point E.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com