Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to today's City Planning Commission meeting.

We're going to go ahead and get started.

I'm going to do roll call.

Commissioner Poche.

Commissioner Keffer.

Here.

Commissioner Abear.

Commissioner Flick.

Commissioner Whitry is present.

Commissioner Jordan.

Present.

Awesome.

Thank you.

The City Planning Commission has established certain rules governing the procedures to be followed at public hearings.

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

Each speaker will be allowed a maximum of two minutes.

Opponents will not be able to rebut.

All right, Commissioner uh Josie Gupta, let the record reflect that you are here.

And um I've just been informed that our new system is not up and running yet, so I am going to have to call votes for everyone.

And also um Commissioner Jackson is present as well.

So adoption of the meeting minutes um for June 9th and June 23rd.

Is there a motion?

Commissioner Flick will make a motion for approval for meeting minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Aber seconded, Commissioner Flick uh made a motion.

Is any discussion no, then let's go ahead and vote.

All right, Commissioner Jackson.

Yes.

All right, um Commissioner Jordan.

Yes.

Commissioner Whitry, yes.

Commissioner Flick, yes.

Commissioner Abear?

Yes.

Um Commissioner Josie Gupta?

Yes.

Commissioner Kepper, yes.

And um Commissioner Poche.

Yes.

All right.

The adoption has moved and meeting minutes have been approved.

We're gonna move on to the first um zoning docket, 059-26.

Zoning Docket 5926 affects a uh application for a commercial short-term rental on Toledano Street, um, where the Planning Commission staff recommended approval.

Um this kind of had an extensive back and forth at the July 14th meeting.

Um ultimately after several votes, the Commission uh decided to defer the matter to today's meeting and really had two questions that you as commission were seeking answers to uh between that past meeting and today's meeting.

So the first question is if this is denied, could it be resubmitted once new regulations for commercial short-term rentals are adopted, even if that is within two years?

Normally there is a prohibition on resubmitting that and a denied application within two years.

In this case, should there be, as there probably will be, uh new regulations adopted, that would essentially reset the uh the deck and allow for the application to be resubmitted.

It would not be viewed as the same application because the regulatory structure under which the application was submitted will have changed.

And so it could be resubmitted within two years.

The second question is um, you know, came up during the discussion.

It really got to this question of is it appropriate for the commission to be approving commercial short-term rental uh applications while there's an expectation that there will be a series of uh new regulations adopted such that the ones that are being approved today might have be grandfathered under a different set of regulations than will ultimately be adopted.

And it kind of got to the this question of has the commission generally approved or denied uh commercial short-term rental applications submitted under the interim zoning district that is now in place and which requires them all to be approved by uh conditional use.

And so just to augment that discussion, uh we provided some data as to uh what has been approved and what has not been approved uh in terms of applications that the planning commission has considered under the IZD.

Um in total, there have been 17 applications.

Uh 15 of the 17 have been approved, and then it's broken out by type.

Accessory bed and breakfast, which is the lower intensity bed and breakfast version.

Two of two applications have been approved.

Uh principal bed and breakfast, which is the more intense version of a bed and breakfast.

Uh one application has been received and denied.

Commercial short-term rental applications, the commission has recommended approval of six of eight and denial of two of eight.

And for hotel applications, the commission has recommended approval of six of six applications.

And so again, that's just to kind of give a general sense of the commission's track record here.

Uh the staff is recommending approval of this particular commercial short-term rental application with two provisos.

Thank you, Mr.

Kroll for the explanation.

So we're not gonna have another presentation.

That was Yeah, that is the presentation.

Okay, and I I don't think I have any cards on this item.

Is anyone here to speak on this matter?

Okay.

Can you close us?

Yes, of course.

Can you refresh my memory and tell me how many units are in this?

Yeah, there are um you refresh my own memory.

Um it's uh it's a threeplex, uh, so three side-by-side units.

I'll pull it up real quick.

So after this, yeah, I'd be looking for a motion.

And so those are three individual units with how many bedrooms each?

Five.

So it's a large short-term rental based on our um consultants.

That's the category that we would call under.

Based on our consultants um work.

If there's no more questions, then I'd be looking for a motion.

And as chair, I can't give one, so I'm going to look at my fellow commissioners.

We know this is always a complicated matter, especially because it's been a 10-year study for the city of New Orleans.

Any other questions that maybe commissioners have that could help you in your decision making?

I think in light of the information provided in terms of it not resetting the clock on um an application.

I'm gonna stick with my original thoughts on this, and uh I'm gonna make a motion for denial.

Is there socket 5926?

Pochet seconds.

Thank you.

So we have a motion on the floor for denial from Commissioner Sit a Flick, a second by Commissioner Pochet.

Any discussion.

I mean, uh just to know for the record, I know we are in this in-between phase and we want to make sure I think across I can't speak for all the commissioners, but I could say that there is a sentiment.

I wanted to make sure we don't have uh split policy.

Uh we want to be as thorough as possible, and we're hoping that as we move through this phase of the ICD that we can be more comprehensive in our approvals or denials uh for commercial short-term rentals.

I concur.

Ditto.

I agree.

I think we're giving people or people are getting mixed messages when they apply for short-term rentals and commercial short-term rentals.

But in this situation, um wasn't there a case where the owner of the property was under the impression that they were able to do this, and they put in a sizable amount of investment into this property.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean I don't know about this specific application, but I I will say this is a you know in many cases there were approvals and or there were entitlements in place, and so people had done you know development efforts pursuant to the ability to develop a commercial short-term rental by right, and then when the interim zoning district came in that reset things to require conditional uses where they have weren't previously required.

Yeah, I mean I remember the discussion from last time, and for that reason I feel that I might actually consider this as an approval from my side.

Um, but I understand everybody else's points.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Abear.

When the applicant applies, are they told that there may be an issue with their application being approved?

Or not when an applicant applies for a conditional use, are they told that it means I think we accept every application generally telling people that we at staff level certainly have no crystal ball and they're applying at their own risk.

Um so yes, I mean they're they are informed that it could be approved, it could be denied, and it's ultimately at the you know the the request is before the council, and the council makes the final decision.

You can tell we want to be thoughtful about this, and it's a tough topic.

Um we just want to try to get it right.

All right, so we um have a motion on the floor for denial, a first and a second.

We've had our discussion, and I'll be looking for a vote.

Commissioner Poche?

Yes.

Uh Commissioner Kepper.

No.

Commissioner A Bear.

No.

Commissioner Josie Gupta?

No.

Commissioner Flick?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitry, yes.

Commissioner Jordan?

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson.

No.

All right.

The motion does not carry.

So we can we can do it a second motion.

Um and if we don't do that, then it is a that was a yes, a no, a no, a no, a no.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, 4-4.

Simple math up here.

Yes, 4-4.

I can make a motion.

All right.

I can make a motion to approve.

Um zoning docket 059-26.

Um in concurrence with the staff's um report with the two provisos.

The only reason that I'm even doing this or thinking about doing this is because of economic hardship.

The client uh from based on our last meeting, went through this whole development thinking that they were able to go forward with this plan.

And I think as a commission and as the city, we are giving people mixed messages.

And I think you know, going forward, we need to be extremely consistent from the very beginning of how we even approach this at the commission level when people are flying so that they don't go down thinking that they're going to get something or be approved.

I'll second.

Commissioner Kepler, there is a second.

I just want to make a statement um that I disagree just because I I don't think a conditional use should remain with a property for the life of the property for a short-term rental.

So I will still I will vote against this motion.

Thanks.

Any other discussion?

No.

Commissioner Jackson.

We're gonna vote.

Commissioner Jackson is a yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Jordan?

No.

Commissioner Whittries, uh, no.

Commissioner Flick?

No.

Commissioner Josie Gupta?

Yes.

Commissioner Abear?

Yes.

Commissioner Kepper, yes.

Commissioner Poche?

No.

4-4.

So um the motion does not carry.

In fact, who didn't?

Correct?

Wait, I think no, we might.

What?

Oh.

Did you vote yes or no?

Commissioner Pochet.

Did I ask you already?

No.

I voted no.

Yes.

So is that correct?

4-4?

Okay.

Got everyone looking at me.

My math is not accurate.

So the motion does not carry.

Is that an effective denial?

That's correct.

Okay.

We're gonna move on.

Uh zoning docket 066-26.

Good afternoon, zoning docket 6626 is a request for a conditional use to permit a commercial short-term rental in an HMC2 historic Marini Tremay by water commercial district in the transient lodging interim zoning district.

While the site is in an HMC2 historic Marini Tremay Bywater Commercial District that would otherwise allow a commercial short-term rental by right, this development requires a conditional use as the site is within the citywide transient lodging interim zoning district, which allows such uses only as conditional.

The subject site is currently vacant, and the applicants are proposing to construct a two-story, five-bedroom, approximately 3,000 square foot single-family home.

This request was heard at the June 23rd CPC hearing and was deferred due to the applicants being away on travel.

Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with the master plan and meets the standards for approval in Article 4 of the CZO.

Additionally, staff finds that the proposed use meets the approval standards written into the interim zoning district.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of zoning docket 6626, subject to two provisos.

Thank you.

And I don't have any cards on this.

Is anyone here to speak on this?

Oh please.

And it please come up, state your name and address, and then afterwards, if you don't mind filling out a card, that'd be great.

Welcome.

Catherine Harman, LK Harmon Architect, 6238 Argonne Boulevard, New Orleans.

Thank you.

Could not agree with the staff report more.

This is a lot along a very dense commercial corridor, not conducive to single family residential at all.

It's perfect for short-term rental on the streetcar line, very densely urban.

And to avoid being redundant up.

And beyond.

Thank you.

I I do have a question.

There is one structure there, correct?

And then the rest is vacant lot.

This lot of the the is the subject of this conditional use is fully vacant.

And then there's a vacant lot to the right of it if you're looking, which is the same owner, which is a proposed in those renderings.

You'll see it's a proposed two-story transient lodging also.

Okay.

Which we already have the permit for, actually.

Okay, cool.

Do you all have any questions?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry, you didn't fill out a card yet.

Um Susan Johnson, Historic New Orleans neighborhoods.

I don't know.

Are you in support?

I am in opposition.

Okay, is there anyone else here to speak in support?

All right, then we'll move to opposition.

Thank you.

2822 LePage Street.

I am not paid to be here.

I'm a member of the Strong Coalition at Jane Place Initiative.

We oppose uh commercial short-term rentals.

Um I am speaking on my own accord, however, um, and then not strictly on behalf of strong.

Um also um I happen to speak to a neighbor of this development this weekend.

Um someone within the prescribed uh someone standing.

And she told me, this is just anecdotal, of course, um, that she opposed the uh development, but didn't feel that it was worth trying to do so formally.

Um she doesn't have the bandwidth to oppose it.

Um and so I'm just I know that's not that doesn't have any weight uh as evidence, but I'm throwing that in there.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to speak?

So um you do have an opportunity then to come up since there was opposition um and to share any additional information or to respond.

As y'all all know, there was the NPP meeting as part of the process that's required.

Everyone there was in support, a received phone calls and emails in support.

Um there was no opposition whatsoever, and uh we've met all the criteria.

It's a major urban area.

We're not disturbing any residential neighbors or anything.

In fact, the residential neighbors came to the from behind the site, uh, came to the meeting and were in support.

So I I cannot imagine why this would not be approved as a conditional use based on everything the report says and on the fact that nobody has opposed it in any material way.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for Ms.

Catherine?

Okay, thank you for now.

Staff recommendation is approval with two provisos.

I'll move to approve subject to the two provisos.

Thank you, Commissioner Kepper.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner A Bear.

We have a first and a second.

Any discussion.

All right.

Commissioner Jackson.

We want to hear you.

Yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Jordan.

No.

Okay.

Um I'm a yes here.

Uh, Commissioner Flick.

No.

Commissioner Jose Gupta.

I'm gonna vote yes again to be consistent, but today what I said before, and also because it's a historic property, putting it back to use.

Um Commissioner Abear?

Yes.

Okay.

And Commissioner Capper?

Yes.

Commissioner Um.

No.

No.

Okay, let's see.

One, two, three, four, five.

We have five yes.

And we have four no's three.

So the motion carries.

I I'm just gonna comment since I normally vote no in these situations, but I pass this corridor every day.

It is on the corner.

Um there's um I do feel like this is the right use for this particular um property.

Thank you.

All right, we're gonna move on to zoning docket zero six seven dash twenty-six.

And I have several cards on this matter.

Zoning Ducket 067-26 is a request for a conditional use to prevent a car wash at 4118 South Carrollton Avenue and the MU1 mixed use medium intensity district and EC enhancement corridor design overlay district.

The applicant is proposing new construction of a Tommy's car wash with primary front frontage along South Carrollton Avenue and primary ingress and egress points along two lane avenue.

In 2023, a similar project for a conditional use to operate a car wash at this site was recommended for denial by CBC staff, recommended for approval by the commission, and approved by City Council with one waiver and 17 provisos.

That conditional use expired and the site remains undeveloped today.

Since 2023, three structures on the square have been demolished, and the current request for a car wash proposes a similar footprint as the previous request.

The proposal is in contrast with the intent of the MU 1 mixed use medium intensity district, which aims to create walkable neighborhood centers and corridors with appropriate transitions from commercial uses to lower density neighborhood areas.

The underlying issue is that the use of a car wash is simply not compatible with the neighboring residential properties.

In terms of the incompatibility incompatibility of design or operational nuisances such as noise, they are amplified by the site's surrounding use, which notably includes multiple one and two family residences along Oloa Street.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of zoning docket 067-26.

Should the application be approved, eight provisos should be attached to the approval.

Can you repeat the last sentence?

Staff recommends denial of zoning ducket 067-26.

Should the application be approved, eight provisos should be attached to the approval to the approval.

Thank you.

We have several cards in matter, and we have several that are seated.

Um who would like to speak first?

Mr.

McDonald, if that's the case, then you have four minutes.

Ready?

Uh good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Ethan McDonald, and I am with the Tinford Ventures team.

My address is 6519 Memphis Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

We also have uh Pierre Villory here, my business partner, and Eric McDonald.

Tinford Ventures is a locally owned, hands-on small business.

We intend to operate this Tommy's Express for the long term, and we understand that being a responsible neighbor is essential to the process.

Tommy's is an established national car wash franchise of professional operating standards, modern tech Ford equipment, and strong requirements for site uh maintenance, appearance, and customer service.

Tinford Ventures will be directly responsible for the daily operation, staffing, security, and upkeep of this location.

We intend to have 15 employees on site.

We know the site is close to residential properties and took several proactive steps to enhance the site for them.

The proposed CMU wall will provide a substantial visual, physical, and sound buffer for the surrounding properties.

Together with the extensive planned landscaping, this should be an overall improvement to the property.

The site is designed to be fully fenced and gated with multiple security cameras and remote monitoring.

We also have designed the lighting to minimize glare and spillover into neighboring homes.

Our light study shows no additional light entering residential properties from the project.

We've also made several changes in response to the design review process and engagement with the neighbors.

We removed one of the vehicle access points.

We relocated the ULOA street access closer to Carrollton Avenue to be further away from the residential part of the street.

Revised the building to be a more neutral gray color pallet.

And we removed the canopy in favor of a cantilevered swim design.

I believe these are meaningful changes that reflect our willingness to listen and improve the project for everyone.

Our goal is to transform the property into a clean, attractive, secure, professionally operated business that creates jobs and contributes positively to the neighborhood.

Thank you for hearing our matter today.

We're here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Any questions at this time?

All right, Miss Fournay, great.

Okay.

How's it going?

How's it going?

I'm Scott Tabury.

I'm with the Planner's Design Group at Dress 412 Calhoun Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

I'm here on behalf of the 10 Forward Ventures team.

Um our firm is doing civil engineering, stormwater management, and landscape architecture for the site.

Uh the landscaping plan will meet all the code requirements and then some as we work through permitting, we will work with the city to address any requirements of stormwater management plan to make sure we're meeting the requirement there.

And then as uh a colleague said, the firm uh they relocated some entrances, got rid of one of the entrances to help improve traffic flow around the site to meet the um requests of the neighbors and the staff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think there are a few card seating time to me, but I promise I will not use all of the card seating time.

12 minutes.

Okay, I I will not use 12 minutes, but I appreciate it.

Um Avery Foray, 800 Burrown Street here on behalf of the 104 ventures team.

I just want to begin by thanking the neighbors um who live across the street from the site.

Several attended our NPP meeting and then also met with us after the fact.

Um we were able to make improvements to the site and improve the site design and elevations, which is just truly neighborhood engagement at its finest.

Also, because of those discussions, we actually have three provisos we want to add to the record, whether it's today or um at the council level.

The first is something we've already done, which is to move um, I don't know if you want to go back to site plan, but to move the vehicular emergency exit entrance on Yaloa actually closer to Carrollton.

That puts it across the street from uh parking lot as opposed to from across from the residence, and then creates a more unified, smoother CMU wall for them.

There's also an existing curb cut there, which we are exploring reusing.

So that's a proviso we would like to add.

A second is defining what warrants emergency exit and entrance.

The intent of that ULOA vehicular access was always for emergency purposes, so if there was construction on one of the other sides.

So we created a provisor that sort of defines and puts limits around that.

And then finally, just a commitment to maintaining landscaping on that side of the fence, which just makes good sense.

I did bring those in print if there was an appetite to enter those on the record.

I have those.

Uh and also um the variances we're requesting, just so they are kind of in front of you in one.

Um most of them are covered in your staff report.

Um and I just also want to maybe mention again just so it doesn't get lost.

The second exit entrance on Carrollton was also removed.

So now there's just one per street front.

Um variances.

The first one rates to relates to front yard setback.

The odd shape of the site makes two lane actually the front yard, even though the design of the site is oriented to Carrollton, so there is a setback require sorry, setback variance requested there.

Um the second one relates to the first proviso, and that's a primary entrance requirement.

No pedestrian um entrances into the building and and shouldn't be into the site, so we're just simply asking for that one to be removed.

Um the fencing provisa, the CZO requires open fencing for car washes from the very beginning.

We proposed a CMU wall on the Yulowa side.

It's a better buffering condition for the neighbors that's been universally accepted, uh, but it does create a variance of that car wash um requirement for an open fence.

Um, but in our opinion, a better condition.

That's proviso 7C.

Uh and then finally a secondary access point from the rear parking lot.

Uh, again, no pedestrian uh entrance into the building.

Um I think you heard some great points today.

Tommy's really is a step above in its industry.

They're technology forward, they're customer service-based, uh, they always have employees on site, and we have a very hands-on local ownership team here.

So you all approved a car wash in 2023, and we would just ask that you would do that today to allow this development um to put an underutilized site back into commerce.

We have our whole team here.

I'm not sure that anyone else will speak.

Um, but we're all here to answer questions you may have.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

What's the closest car wash right now to this location?

That's actually in the staff report.

The closest one is rich's washed debt on Earhart in Central City.

Thank you.

I have a question for staff.

How are these the proposed um provisos impact the project or if there are any issues that you foresee to the three provisos she mentioned?

Questions.

Are you are you asking the applicant is proposing?

Correct.

With regard to the emergency exit entrance relocation, there's a variance, and I might have missed the third one.

Of the CMU wall.

Right.

I think I think they're proposing the CMU wall just because it makes sense with the design for them.

Um that the open fence wouldn't make as much design as far as uh they're requesting not the CZO fence requirements, but something that makes more sense for the actual site itself.

Um then from my understanding, um they are asking to remove one with a secondary access point, which there is no public access point to the car wash, so that one would would be a logical one.

And I think the last one.

Um sorry, I'll have to ask the the applicant to remind me of the third one that's being requested.

Um Ms.

Fournight, do you have um a copy?

I I I've I can't ask, but it's my fellow committee.

I'll make a motion to suspend the rules.

Oh second.

Thank you.

Um, Commissioner Pochet.

We have a motion on the floor to expand the rules so that we can accept um additional documentation.

Commissioner Kepper.

Yes.

Commissioner Abear.

Yes.

Commissioner Jesse Gupta.

Commissioner Flick.

Yes.

Commissioner Whitry, yes.

Commissioner Jordan, yes, Commissioner Jackson.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

That would be helpful.

In what's being presented, does it have um the explanation for the variances and the additional provisos?

Sure.

The two documents.

One is the three elective provisos we work through with the neighbors, and the second are the a list of the waivers we've requested.

Okay.

And this was after the NPP meeting that you decided to add these additional provisos.

Yes.

Thank you.

While we were doing that question for the staff in 2023, when this was approved on similar site.

Yes.

Um it 4023 was approved with 17 provisos and one waiver.

Um what happened was it wasn't developed, and so therefore they it lapsed and so we have to start the process over.

Was it the same operator or different numbers?

It was not.

But it was a car wash.

Correct.

Good.

Yeah, Mr.

George.

Uh could the applicant speak to what the delay um given right now you're asking for us to reapprove, so could you offer some context there?

Oh, uh, between the 2023 approval.

Um, I actually didn't work on that one, but my firm did, so just being fully transparent about that.

Um from my understanding, it was uh take five car wash uh and similar layout, but obviously different operator, different design.

Um, and then in general, people are familiar with Take Five because they're already in the market.

Tommy's is newer to the market.

Um, but again, in my humble opinion, uh it's kind of a step above operationally.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Um we have one more card, Ms.

Matt Easton.

Oh, Maddie.

I'm sorry.

Is it Maddie?

Thank you.

Please state your name and address.

Yeah, uh, my name is Maddie Eason.

I own my home and I reside on Yaloa Street at 4041 Yaloa.

Um I signed up to speak in support of this project.

Um, and in particular the CMU wall that's proposed along Yillowa Street.

I feel that that um creates a better barrier between the car wash and the residences that reside on Yaloa.

Um, when I first became involved in this project, I had significant concerns about how it would interfere with the residences on Yaloa Street.

I have since worked, and I know other neighbors as well have been in communication and worked with the applicants.

Um as they mentioned, they've gone through several meaningful improvements.

The architecture was refined, the landscape plan was improved, and most important to me, the proposed emergency gate on Yaloa was, as they mentioned, moved further toward Carrollton so that it's across the street from um it's like a parking lot and not residences.

Um I think that those significantly improve this project.

Um it's also my understanding, and I heard them say that they are proposing those three provisos mentioned earlier.

I'm in support of all three of those that were mentioned.

I do have two suggestions for the commission's consideration.

The submitted language states the vehicular entrance on Yaloa Street will be only used when vehicular exits on Carrollton and Two Lane are both debilitated for any reason.

Um I would like the commission to consider more concrete and specific language uh that will constitute like what makes an emergency, um, such as those being blocked inaccessible, those types of things.

Um, second, regarding the landscaping provisos language.

Um, it states that the developers shall regularly and continually maintain the landscaping.

I would also ask the commission to consider adding language requiring the landscaping to be maintained in substantial conformance with the approved landscape plan that I believe you already have access to.

Um, those minor suggestions uh one second.

We're gonna ask you to continue speaking because you've gone or are you?

Yep, could you continue?

Sorry, there's an automatic uh cutoff at two minutes.

So just keep talking.

There you go.

Okay, great.

Other than those minor suggestions, I do want to express my appreciation to the applicant for their willingness to listen to neighborhood concerns and make those meaningful changes.

Um I do believe that this project significantly um was improved and uh poses to be an improvement for the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And do you have these two pieces of paper that Ms.

Fournay passed out to us?

I don't know what this passed out.

The elective provisors and the waivers.

Yes, I have a copy of the provisos.

And what was the other piece?

The waivers requested by applicant.

Um probably give you a copy.

Now I do.

Okay, good.

Yes.

And um thank you.

Thanks.

We have nobody here.

Do you have a question?

Commissioner Fox.

Oh, I was just gonna make a comment for staff to see if we could make those comments regarding the the word for landscape plan and the definition as a just a recommendation.

I mean, that's a being permanent issue, correct?

That's an enforcement issue and not something that we have any jurisdiction over.

Uh they would be tasked with interpreting the verbiage.

I think it might be helpful if the more concrete language we can provide, these are it is for them to interpret.

Um I think what might be helpful for the staff is is if the speaker could perhaps repeat the language you would like attached to the provisos.

Uh taking notes here, but just want to make sure we're kind of capturing the intention.

But is that something that we need to include in the proviso?

Is that just a side situation?

I mean, you can include it.

Um if you do include it, it would be helpful to state the specific language you would like attached to what's written on the document.

But we have purview over that is, I guess what I'm what I'm getting to.

Um we do not have purviews.

Safe stand permits would enforce and they wouldn't use the language written to the ordinances on basis of what to enforce against.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

We have um one more speaker.

Well, we have a speaker in opposition.

Is there anyone here to speak in support?

All right, let's roll to opposition.

Ums Mary Kabula.

It's Mary Mys and Go Ball, sorry.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I know.

319 South Genoa in mid-city.

Um opposed to the Tommy's car wash development on the lot facing two lane South Carrollton and Yaloa Streets for several reasons.

These are just a few.

Traffic is number one.

The intersection at Two Lane in South Carolton is already an extremely busy intersection.

Curb cuts on both of the streets, allowing up to 600 cars per day in and out of the facility, 7 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

averages to 46 cars an hour trying to enter with only a 21 car waiting line.

Has a traffic study been done to show that this is even vaguely acceptable.

Second problem is noise.

There are 13 vacuum stalls proposed, allowing for up to 26 customers to be vacuuming 7 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

seven days a week across the street from an entirely residential block that has recently been beautifully restored.

This is not tolerable for those neighbors.

Third problem is impact on flooding.

This area is already prone to flooding, as you can tell by this past weekend.

There's no reference to any subsurface retention ponds in the plans.

Poor as concrete is proposed, but with plans to vacuum it once a month.

With the amount of traffic that is proposed in this facility, it would probably have to be vacuumed at least once a day.

Additionally, even porous concrete is concrete and will exacerbate the potential for flooding.

Fourth problem is architectural design.

This structure belongs in a suburban environment.

People have been working very hard to improve this area.

We're down to just a few blocks that still need work.

It is part of the mid-city neighborhood and it is the entrance to the developing biodistrict.

This development does not improve the area unnoticed I don't know if it's that was your time unless somebody would like to um allow her to continue speaking she can continue.

Yes any do you have anything else?

Ma'am do you have anything else to add?

No, thank you.

Okay.

Thank you so much for coming.

Okay.

We'll have time for rebuttal is there anyone else here to speak in opposition?

Ms.

Johnson no just very quickly on stormwater will be fully compliant with this requirements of stormwater plan.

Those details are still being worked out but it like you will include underground storage of um stormwater.

On noise there is a proviso already in the staff report which we fully support retaining for a noise abatement plan.

The team has already hired a noise engineer to come in and study this specific site, the conditions, the CMU wall landscaping, etc to study how the noise is working on the site and then also applying on if any uh mitigation tools are needed to comply with the city code.

There's also muffler systems on the vacuums at Tommy's which they've elected to do and those actually do reduce the sound quite a bit.

On traffic very importantly one of the tech forward features of Tommies is that the cars process through the site very quickly quickly than quicker than anything else in the market um and because they're at an expedited rate that prevents backflow um onto the street which is a very important concern uh within the pay lines it can hold 21 cars so uh that has all been kind of worked into the existing site plan.

Um we also pulled some data that Tommy shows that 70% of users come from within three miles of the site and that even with an average of 600 cars a day that's only about one percent of the cars currently traveling by this site every day.

So those are some general stats that I think um might help alleviate any traffic concerns.

Again happy to answer any questions with our team can you comment on the additional language that the neighbor in support had mentioned about um the emergency blocked maybe a little more definition there and then I don't really know about the maintaining of the the landscaping landscaping is hugely important obviously sound barrier and we want things to look nice as well.

Absolutely fully in support of the two the notes that I took down are that we have more concrete specific language around what emergency exit looks like we are more than happy to work through that between here and a council motion so that might just be really defining like what is an emergency what debilitates the other exit entrances and then keeping the landscaping on that side of the fence in substantial form I think that makes a ton of sense and and should be put in there.

So we agree with both thank you sure commissioners any questions staff recommendation.

I'll make a motion okay I'm going to go against uh the staff report and move approval resonant 6726 subject to the provisos listed in the event that it was approved in addition to the documents that we received as um as part of the meeting and and one more waiver this one extra weapon is there one extra waiver I don't think so I think that's my own is there a second I'll second thank you Commissioner Kepper.

Alright we have a motion um to go against staff recommendation from Commissioner Flick and then Commissioner Kepler second any discussion let's vote Commissioner Pochet I actually have a comment first please I think this is a compelling proposal with a business that has created a thorough plan and has been well intended in good faith with the neighborhood however I think the staff report is uh germane to me today specifically around the use of the neighborhood I would love to see this proposal in a district more appropriate than the one that you're proposing in and as such I will not be supporting.

Thank you, Commissioner Poche.

If there's no other comments, um we'll vote.

No.

Commissioner Kepper?

Yes.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Abear?

No.

Commissioner Josie Gupta.

The motion on the floor, yes to go against staff recommendation.

Yeah.

I'm going um against staff approval.

I mean, again staff.

So you're a yes.

Commissioner Flick, yes.

Is a yes.

Commissioner Whitcher is a yes.

Commissioner Jordan.

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson.

No.

We have yes, we have five yeses.

Um and three no's the motion carries.

Uh.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Let's move on to thank you, neighbors, for coming today down to City Hall and voicing your concerns and support.

Zoning dock is 068-26.

This is a uh proposal to adapt the former Robb Wayne High School site on Cwondillette Street in Central Business District into a hotel.

Um the uh conditional use is required for two reasons.

Number one is there is the citywide transient lodging and zoning district, which makes all hotels conditional uses.

And then secondly, the base zoning, which is uh the C B D 5 district, uh requires additional, also makes it a conditional use and makes consideration of the existing use of the site uh important to the uh proposal.

And so in the C BD5 district, hotels are generally viewed in favor if they're under a hundred rooms, and if they do not represent a conversion of a residential structure to short-term rental.

This is a former institutional building, uh so not a residential building that would be adapted and preserved as part of the hotel conversion, so those weigh in favor of supporting the application.

Uh additionally, the staff generally finds that hotels are better or are generally more appropriate than other types of lodging because they have on-site management.

And so that additionally weighs in favor of approval.

And so for those reasons, the staff recommends approval with two provisos.

Thank you.

Uh do I have anyone here to speak on this matter?

Okay.

Ms.

Fournet.

Sorry, I gave the cards.

I don't think I have a card or maybe.

I'm sorry, I gave it to Steven as he was starting.

Um Avery 48 entered to Brown Street here on behalf of the development team.

This is a very exciting historic rehabilitation project.

Um I'm sure if you've spent any time downtown you're familiar with this building.

It's just a beautiful Art Deco uh historic piece in the middle of downtown, was most formally the international high school.

Um the proposal is for 79 traditional hotel rooms, I'll call them.

So not short-term rental style rooms suites.

This is traditional hotel space.

Um thank you to the staff who found that the proposal does meet all of the criteria for hotels in C BD5, which I think is very important to note here.

Um at the very end of your report, there are some emails of support, which was also nice to see the enthusiasm from the community uh for the revitalization of this beautiful Art Deco building.

So happy to answer any questions.

Thank you again.

Do you already have an operator?

Uh no operator yet, no.

Is there anyone else here to speak?

Okay.

Commissioners.

I'm looking for a motion.

Staff recommendation is approval.

I have just a quick question for staff.

Uh I know often we talk about the density of hotels in C BD5.

But we have just the running number of uh hotels that exist currently in C B D 5.

Um I don't have a number for all the hotel count in C B five offhand.

The interim zoning district does require a consideration of the proximity of STRs and other hotels within about three blocks or a thousand feet.

These can be read very easily, but you'll see that there are a significant number of STRs and then a smattering of hotels in bed and breakfast and the three blocks surroundings.

Thank you.

I can make a motion, please.

Um I'm really excited about the revitalization of this building.

I love it.

So I'm going to make a motion of approval of zoning dockets.

068-26 with uh Commissioner Flickle second.

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

Um discussion.

Commissioner Jackson.

Oh yes.

Commissioner Jordan?

Yes.

Commissioner Whittry, yes.

Commissioner Flick?

Yes.

Commissioner Josie Gupta?

Yes.

Commissioner Abear?

Yes.

Commissioner Kepper.

Yes.

Commissioner Pochet?

Yes.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Mr.

Granderson, I just noticed that there was a card for you to speak on another matter.

Did I skip you?

Okay.

All right.

Well then we're moving on.

Let's go to zoning docket 070-26.

No.

069-26.

Zoning Docket 6926 is a conditional use to permit an indoor amusement facility in a C BD5 urban core neighborhood lower intensity mixed use district.

The site is located at 750 Carondelet Street and is developed with a three-story commercial structure.

The proposal will utilize 4700 square feet of the ground floor space to be used as an indoor amusement facility.

No major alterations or additions to the existing facade are proposed outside of signage and repairs.

Through proper management and staff recommended provisos, staff does not believe the use will negatively impact the surrounding area.

The proposal is consistent with the master plan.

It will bring a site back into commerce and contribute to the walkability of a downtown area.

Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to three provisos.

Thank you so much.

Peace.

Thank you so much.

Laura.

So any groups can go there and do any of the virtual reality games.

I'm excited to get this building back into commerce and um want to thank staff and just here for any questions.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Mr.

Granderson or Mr.

Neville or Mr.

Miller?

69 should have been seven.

70 and 71.

Okay, so on this card, we just have Ms.

Laura Barth, correct?

Okay.

Any anybody else here to speak on this matter?

Nope.

Okay.

Um is there a motion on the floor?

I'll make a motion to approve zoning docket 06926 with three revisos.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Thank you, Commissioner Abear.

Um any discussion?

All right, let's vote.

Uh Commissioner Pochet.

Yes.

Uh Commissioner Kepper?

Yes.

Commissioner Abear?

Yes.

Commissioner Josie Gupta.

Yes, I'm very excited to see a lot of development happening happening along Corondulate Street.

Commissioner Flick.

Yes.

Commissioner Witcher, yes.

Commissioner Jordan?

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

All right.

Motion carries approval.

Thank you.

Now we'll move on to the next item.

071-26.

Zoning Docket 7026.

It uh considers a text amendment to the comprehensive zoning ordinance to allow secondary live entertainment with service of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption at a recording studio as a conditional use.

This would typically apply within the HMC2 district, HMMU district, H UMU district, SLC district, C1 district, C2, C3 districts, M E1 district, MU2 district, C B D 1, C B D 2, C B D 3, and C BD4 districts, as the aforementioned districts permitted use tables allow both recording studios and secondary live entertainment, whether by right or conditionally.

However, they're not permitted in conjunction, thus the reasoning for this text amendment request.

Article 26, Section 26.6, and Article 20, Section 20.3.jj do not currently list secondary live entertainment at a recording studio as permitted nor conditional uses.

So they're there for prohibited.

The applicant for this request is simultaneously applying for conditional use approval for the um secondary live entertainment at a recording facility under zoning docket 7126 pending approval of this request.

Staff recommends approval of zoning docket 7026.

Thank you.

I have several cards here to speak.

Um Mr.

Granderson, are you or who would like to go first?

Hello and thank you.

My name is Jeff Miller.

I live at 17 Richmond Place uptown, part-time, and I live in California as well.

Um I'm a builder and a lover of music.

I love this town.

And I love the music.

I bought that firehouse, and what we want to do is build a world-class, one of a kind studio for both audio recording, video recording, podcast studio, live streaming to help the local musicians maximize their income streams because recording selling recorded music isn't really a moneymaker too much anymore.

It's gonna be a collaboration center where young can work with old.

And uh and it and I get to restore great beautiful firehouse in the process.

That's why I'm here.

Did you get the Banksy as well?

Yeah.

The Banksy left with it left.

Okay.

But stay tuned.

All right.

Sir, can you talk a little bit more about um your plan to have an alcohol permit and have guests at I I I don't quite get the business concept around the the studio with a bar in it.

So uh this place is gonna be we're reaching out to music fans, specifically people who love New Orleans worldwide, that are money that will be we're gonna offer a membership to them to help support this place because we need money from outside of New Orleans to support this.

Um in exchange for that money, they're gonna get access to both the recording to be on site, meet musicians, um, so it's a symbiotic thing where they get what really drives them, and the musicians get the money in the facility.

So in ex and part of that will be, you know, they're coming to town to and there's a there's a facility they can have, so they'll be able to have a cocktail or drink while they're there.

So primarily is this uh uh a music production and recording studio?

Is it a bar?

Is it a music club?

Is it open to the public?

It is not necessarily open to the public.

Well, it's not open to the public unless by invitation, but it's there for recording.

So there's recording studio upstairs and a basically a live recording studio downstairs.

It has a stage.

So for video production and live streaming, you can have that whole live kind of concert feel to these recordings.

Also, if artists are like in residence there, they could maybe showcase some of their music on the stage, but it's um it's not open to the public and a bar or a club.

And maybe to be a little more specific on that, the one that the alcohol note is put in there just to make sure that it's clear, you know, that's not unclear everything else that has live music as a secondary use has alcohol allowed.

So rather than have it be something that is you know assumed or implied, we wanted to put it out there.

We had a uh and we had we mentioned it in the uh NPP meeting at a second one just to make sure that was very clear.

Um the vision of it might include so you know uh Jeff mentioned members, you know, a lot of them frankly might be in town as well, too.

The uh idea, one of the visions is there's recording going on behind glass like this.

You're sitting there, and as you're sitting there watching the recording happening, you may want a cocktail or a beer while it's happening.

Also, there may be a situation where you know maybe Ivan does an album and then maybe as part of that album, there's a I'm playing the album straight through, and then obviously if you're there, probably a lot of people might want a cocktail or something like that.

So we're making sure it's uh covering all that.

And I'll address that a little more uh in my comments, but just want to answer your your question.

Thank you.

I just want to say I just wanted to make a statement that this is not the first time we've seen this property um in front of us, and so I wanted to thank you for coming up with a really great idea and concept that isn't as um invasive as previous proposals we've seen for that for that property.

I'll actually say on that note and on your question.

Um we've actually very specifically wanted it not to be a bar.

The state ATC has actually asked us to make it simple on them and make it a bar, and we're saying we don't want to scare any neighbors and we don't want to put forth something that is different than what we're trying to do.

So we're actually very specifically trying not to be a bar and don't want to even be classified that way to the ext to the highest extent we can avoid it.

Would you like to start your four minutes because you have um Miss Virgis had seated her time to you?

Well, I'll try not to run that long, but yeah.

Umes Granderson 800 Barone.

Um look, we're here because this is a unique vision, first off.

We want to thank staff for the recommendation for approval on both the text amendment and the conditional use that's associated.

Um, because this is such unique vision that I appreciate that they were uh sort of able to see that and go go with it.

Um at the end of the day, as we just discussed, this is a lot more than a recording studio.

You know, it's a member supported, largely creative workspace, uh pub and sanctuary for musicians and artists.

Uh part of the vision is to have limited live entertainment, kind of how we just discussed.

Um it'll be part of an outgrowth from the recording studio, which is the centerpiece of what this is.

Um, you may watch an album, you may watch a recording happen, you may uh watch the album played straight through, you may uh high school band may come and use the space for practice.

You know, you may have musicians might find support there from other musicians.

There's a sort of big vision that what might happen in this space, and so we're just trying to kind of account for all of it and everything that can happen.

Um and with this, of course, we needed a unique zoning approach to allow this to happen.

Um, our CSIO is a good one, but it is a very specific and rigid one.

So anytime there's a unique idea, somebody's got to come forward with something like this, unfortunately.

Um also, of course, we have the associated conditional use coming next, which we also ask your support for.

Um I also want to note something also real quick is we had two meetings uh with the neighborhood association.

We had a couple of informal, I mean not new association, MPP meetings.

We had a few unofficial meetings and phone calls and emails, and for the most part it's actually been pretty uh pretty positive.

I think they appreciate, as Commissioner Flick said, that this is not the previous iteration of what was going to happen here under private o private ownership or prior ownership.

Um everything is looking pretty good in that sense.

However, um, you know, they do have some concerns where they want to make sure that there's no back door to that, that this isn't you know a bar or a full-fledged live entertainment having five shows and night, you know, five shows a week, yada yada, which is not what we're trying to do here at all.

So you know, we uh have agreed with them that what we'll do, and I think the concerns are maybe the uh we've agreed with them that we would discuss between now and council have uh at least one more, and however many we need more meetings to go ahead and actually formalize some some stuff that makes that that clear that this can't be what it's not gonna be.

Um and the part of part of the reason why I included, I understand the language is a little loose, but part of why I included the language in the text amendment to say uh that the live entertainment is directly or indirectly associated with the recording is because we want to make sure that it's clear that this is not um a backdoor to anything else that we're saying.

So I think uh we can talk to them.

I think they'll probably mention uh all the positives and concerns that I just mentioned, and I think we'll we'll be in a great place uh at the end of the day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Neville, would you like to speak?

It is such an honor to have you in chambers.

Thank you.

My name is Ivan Neville.

I'm living 2209 Corondolin Street.

And um, yes, I support this project absolutely, and I intend on being an important part of uh you know developing along with some of my colleagues who have maybe been around as long as myself and other musicians who were coming up to have a safe space to create in a state-of-the-art studio, recording studio, which as many musicians as this city produces.

We don't have a lot of uh recording studios that are actually up to par.

And this being uh a space like that would be amazing, and then having the interactive aspect of it, which limited audiences and things of that nature to develop different projects, also along with just recording, and um I think it's uh a great opportunity for a lot of people, a lot of younger musicians and and old musicians like myself.

And I don't so I have um I have no other cards in support, but I have some cards and information only for a Jacqueline case, and then Mark Redding, you have two cards to use so that you could speak for six minutes.

And then Mark Redding, you have two cards to use so that you could speak for six minutes.

That's a hard act to follow.

Yeah.

Hi, I'm Jacqueline Case.

I live at 517 Saraparu Street.

Um we're about I live about two blocks from this site.

Um I have lived in that area for 20 years.

I'm an architect.

I've renovated over 13 uh properties in that immediate two or three block radius.

So I'm really invested in the neighborhood from really a heart place, and um we'll be moving to Phillip Street, even closer to this site.

So um sound is a little bit of a concern for me, but we've worked um with the property owner and representation to really ensure that what they want to do is really going to be good for the neighborhood compared to previous applications.

Um I would also like to say that I'm the founder of Raphael Village, which is a nonprofit two doors down from this site that serves about 50 um adults with disabilities every day.

Um we're concerned about the normal things, trash, people hanging out on our property, beer bottles left behind, because we get there at 7 o'clock every weekday morning.

So cleanliness is really important to us.

Um we're actually very open to working with the applicant.

Primarily, we would like any provisos create it to be worked out between the applicant and the neighbors before going to city council.

And we would like to request specifically that I'm gonna get my words tangled around, but that the approval is tied to the actual business and not the owner, so that this just can't transfer in the future and become a bar with live music and an alcohol permit.

So I think that's our main concern is that it's specific to this bill uh business and not um the property owner for future development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Staff, can you comment on that for a second?

It's above my pay grade.

Yeah, so the the entitlement goes to the land use, uh, not specifically to a business or specifically to a property owner.

So you know, the I think part of this is where the for the next item where the provisos come in is is making sure that they are written in a way that clearly um captures what the proposal is and and perhaps doesn't allow for deviation from that proposal because if and when it's approved another recording studio could operate the same space in the same way.

So again, it's it's for the land use, not for the individual.

Right.

Ms.

Case, did you hear that?

Oh the main concern is that if it goes to someone who's not a recording studio who has the same mindset of um just small kind of live music performances for recording purposes and such, and it doesn't become a recording student studio that wants to have you know a a weekend concert every weekend of the year.

So we'll have to be very specific about the how the provisos are worded and enforced.

I think enforcement of provisos is a concern.

We hear that often, thank you.

Yes.

And with that concern, the the secondary use would be tied to being a recording studio.

If a bar were proposed that would go through the conditional use process and begin with the NPP.

Okay, so there are some guardrails there.

And is it Dragonfly Cafe?

Is that the cafe that you have?

It is.

Yes, okay.

It's very good.

Come by and stop and see by stop by and see us.

Thanks.

All right.

So um Mark Redding, you have six minutes.

And that's the last I have.

I'm certain I'll be less than that.

Thank you, counselor, for letting us speak on behalf of this project.

Mark Redding, uh currently 517 Sorapru, but with Jackie, we are moving a block closer to the project.

Um while everyone who went to the NPPs was in favor of this project, um, it's a fool's errand to go against a project like this.

I'll make that clear to y'all that we're not opposed to this.

We just have certain concerns after meeting with the neighbors, which I'm speaking on behalf of.

Um I do have a sm a short letter from the Irish Channel Neighborhood Association of which I am the uh chair of the land use.

Um we do understand what the initial plan is and to have live music in coordination with the recording studio.

Um but given the studio uh the right to unlimited live music events with lean hours of operation and alcohol permit seems ripe for a lot of different things to happen.

Pay for events, live music, receptions, parties, what have you.

Um the permit uh use of the studio allows for most of the operations to happen currently.

We're changing that so that we're we want them to be able to do what they want to do, but that always it it's a gateway to a live music club, which is not something we're consenting to.

We want to and we have trust we've we've we've spoken with Miles, Mr.

Granison uh regarding this, and we will work out some provisos which allays those concerns on behalf of the neighbors on behalf of the neighborhood association and such.

Um it's a big S for us to just let them have that ability, but the trust that they won't.

Um not so much for the current operators as they have presented to us, but as Ms.

Case said, for future operators to have that same grant.

It's it's just a lot for us to ask after we've spent quite literally our lives developing this neighborhood.

Um for those reasons, uh we think that we need to have some operational requests for ISOs which allay those concerns.

Um I could go into some of them, but I think that's something we could take care of at another time.

Um I would like to let you all know that uh although it was late, our president was out of the country at the time, uh asked the same thing uh that we asked that CPC um in its current form, give us some ability to speak at another time with this about with Miles and his parties regarding the provisos.

Um I would like to have one comment about the uh parking in the area, and I know there's nothing because of the size of this area, but um I I think staff need to recognize that because of the uh racquetball place which was created across the street.

The buses can't even go down the street most of the time.

And when they put those reports out, they sh they need to recognize those factors in what they're doing and not just say parking is not a problem in a neighborhood.

The entire block across the street is not developed, and once that is developed, there will be significant problems.

There's a occupancy load that the architect mentioned of about a hundred, and those things are a concern for Raphael Village because they have a parking lot behind this, which they had to create for their population.

But um I thank you, and we hope to work out all these details later.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to speak?

I don't have any other cards for this particular docket item, and since there wasn't any opposition, there's not a rebuttal.

I have a question for staff.

Um I know this property, which I'm delighted that we're working towards rehabating a historic property, and especially this one.

Um it's an H UMU.

Is it was there a reason that you added all these other districts in this text change?

Like did we cross-check all of these other districts that you have listed?

Yeah, so they're listed because those are where within the permitted use tables they have both uses listed as either conditional or um permitted by right.

There are some districts that don't allow a secondary recording or uh secondary live entertainment as conditional or permitted, so they were left out of the districts that this change would affect.

And if I can add something, I think the two cases have been conflated a little bit.

Um there's been some conversation that pertains more to the conditional use for this particular establishment.

This what what we have up now is a text amendment and generally saying that music uh lab secondary can be used as a secondary use in recording studios, which it isn't right now.

And I think that's where some of it and we understand that.

Oh I think um it's um it's just a service of alcoholic beverages.

You're not selling them.

You're servicing them.

I think that's important to note that it's not a business of selling alcohol as in a bar or a restaurant or a music club or a nightclub.

That's what I'm understanding from this.

I want to thank you for adding that context, though.

It's it's helpful in moving forward as we discuss.

Yes, you have a I'd like to move approval.

All right, 70 26.

Commissioner Flickry is approval.

Is there a second?

All right, Commissioner Jordan, any discussion?

All right, Commissioner Pochet, way down there.

No.

Okay.

Commissioner Kepper, yes.

Commissioner Abear.

Yes, and I'll like your name.

Commissioner Um Jesse Gupta.

Yes, um I'm in favor of expanding our music industry.

It's um it's an amazing um gift that we have in New Orleans that we can share with the world.

And I think you're doing something wonderful with that building.

So I'm really excited to see what happens.

Commissioner Blake.

Yes.

Commissioner Whitry, yes.

Commissioner Jordan.

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

All right, the motion carries.

Let's move to the next zoning docket, which is 071-26.

Thank you.

Zero seven seven one zoning docket 7126 is for the, and I'm glad that was approved because the approval of that one was is going to predicate whether we can move on to this one.

It's a request to allow the operation of a recording studio in an existing uh well, it's a request for conditional use to permit secondary live entertainment and sale of alcohol directly for on-site consumption at a recording studio in an HUMU Historic Urban Neighborhood Mixed Use District.

This request will allow the operation of a recording studio in an existing form of fire station, no extensive extensive modification modifications or additions to the building footprint or facade are proposed.

A recording studio is not what was not currently well is not currently a business where live entertainment is allowed as a secondary use, but as just mentioned, it was predicated on the approval of zoning docket 7026 that uh will be considered at council next.

Live entertainment with alcoholic beverage sales would be consistent with the use uses in the surrounding area, which include restaurants, Walmart cultural facilities, training centers, and training centers.

The proposed use is also generally consistent with the purpose of the HUMU district, which is primarily for commercial uses as service focal points in neighborhood centers.

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

For these reasons, staff recommends approval subject to two provisos.

So Mr.

Randerson.

Yeah, I'm not gonna repeat a whole lot because we obviously got into both the last time, but just the quick note and follow-up as to conversation with with the neighbors.

Like I mentioned, we've had really good conversations.

We didn't uh communicate a lot leading up to the last few weeks with this.

I think there's a little miscommunication.

Uh I sent an email back that they didn't get, so it's it's all good.

We're gonna communicate, and I think we've had an agreement with uh Mark and with the neighborhood association president to uh uh allow not let them speak for themselves, but for this to move forward today as is, and that we communicate continue the communication before council and uh earlier this morning sent an email to uh council member Harris's office to that effect.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Miller, did you want to say anything?

No, I think I'm gonna thank you.

Mr.

Neville, you want to sing for us?

Would you like to say anything else?

All right, and then neighbors, you're welcome to come back up because you do have um you filled out cards for both, so are you Mr.

Olsen?

I am.

Okay.

I am another really quick.

The uh we're really excited about this opportunity, this idea, this concept.

Uh and we've held numerous oh I'm John Olson, I live at 525 Phillips Street.

Forgot that part.

This is kind of within the same block, and we're we can see the firehouse from our backyard.

And uh we've had m multiple meetings, two meetings with residents in the same block, good friends of ours, neighbors, and uh every one of us is excited about this the way we understand it.

Uh the way we understand it, it sounds like it's pretty great.

You know, we're gonna be supporting music, which is important to our city.

We're gonna be supporting musicians and and doing something on an area that needs a little more traffic, you know, it needs more recognition and more things going on.

I totally support everything that Mark has done in the neighborhood with regards to some remodeling and and and certainly a lot of improvement.

But every discussion devolves to the same exact thing.

I'm not so sure it's not going to turn into what they say it's not gonna be.

So for instance, you know, in fact, we all put ourselves in the position of owner of that building, and we say to ourselves, well, what if it's not working?

We need to add a little more get a little more money coming in.

Well, our rules say that we can start to do some things like run it more openly to sell things more openly or you know, they've said that we're going to be a membership, but it's quite possible that they decide, hey, let's um we might need to change this a little bit in order to make sure that the money stays uh coming in and it makes sense.

And so that's why I'm in support of continued work with these guys to get the provisos that we would like to see to ensure that that isn't the direction that it ends up going or is allowed to go in the future.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

What are the what are such provisos that you're referring to?

That's for the gentleman who just spoke.

Thank you.

I turn my time over to Mark to be specific on that.

He's the member of the Irish Channel Neighborhood Association and has been working more directly with that.

Mr.

Redding, you'd have to come up here so we could hear you to answer Commissioner Poche's question.

Am I asked to make specific provisos at this time?

Because that's what we want some more time to do.

You can provide a general overview of what you guys are thinking.

I I think I think there's a uh a range of things which we're looking for.

Uh hours of uh operation of live music.

Uh obviously we don't care what time they record.

Um we would be looking for.

I have a list uh that I can think.

But those the live music is a is which we believe the the problematic thing which could uh be deteriorated to the quality of life for us living right behind the property.

John literally lives right behind the property.

I could throw a baseball from the studio to his place.

Um that is the the crux of what we're trying to get at.

Um we think there's some other things which uh could could possibly worked out um, but the major the major problem is that having live music played right.

So are you all hoping for uh uh deferral of this matter so that you can negotiate this with the We think that we can do this before City Council.

We've worked many times before with uh Council Harris's office, Council B's office, um, and the neighborhood association when uh businesses trying to do this.

Um develop lots of properties, businesses in the neighborhood, and I know that uh time is sometimes of the essence.

I don't need to defer this.

We uh uh I think we can do this uh with the gentleman handshake right now.

Thank you.

I I can speak.

There's a provisal that is that exists that I could speak to that as it stands, live entertainment as a secondary use has to be operated within the hours of the establishment.

So if it's a bar, if that live entertainment is a secondary use comes in conjunction with the bar, it has to be within the hours of the bar.

If it comes in a restaurant, it has to be within the hours of the restaurant.

So if your primary concern is the live entertainment as a secondary use being outside of the hours of the recording studio.

I understand that.

It's just the opposite concern that we have.

So we know that the studio will be there when they're doing the live music.

So they're in conjunction with one another.

You can't divorce the studio from the live music.

It's the converse that we uh are and and part of this is because y'all remember what we were here about last time when they had the parties and raves and stuff for the last applicant for this building, um, once bitten twice shy.

I mean, it's just goes with the territory.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

I don't does anyone else want to speak that had a card.

Okay.

Um missioners, any additional questions?

Just uh uh a question, a question for the applicant.

If you could just lightly uh address some of the general concerns around hours out of operation.

Yeah, that would be possible.

And also quickly before I forget to note um the one of the provisos is the use standards as Ava mentioned for live entertainment secondary use.

Uh, one of the things obviously in the text amendment would tweak those use standards a little bit because right now that for example they don't mention recording studios, they would mention recording studios.

So this proviso I assume would would ultimately reflect the the as passed if this were to pass uh use standards for uh in in the text amendment.

So that's just one note.

Um and then the second to answer your question directly about the um about the times.

I think as a general note, um the way this is looking to be operated is not in that offensive way, and in terms of times, I think that's gonna be fairly limited.

So I think the reason why uh Mark was able to sit up here and say we're they're willing to go forward and not asking for a deferral is because I think we all have kind of a general understanding.

I think the part that's a little weird as this is unique, so it's kind of hard to exactly put on, especially on the spot, like well, what's it gonna be?

But I think we have a general concept that this is going to be something that uh uh where it's not we don't actually expect this to be very difficult to come up with the final product with the neighborhood association.

I don't think they do either, hence the willingness to move forward.

Do you think we should have something or uh I think is that what you're referring to?

Like if there's any private events, no things of that nature.

So my question was just to get a general sense.

It seems like that the parties have you know, unlike our kind of current precedent, they have a good working arrangement and are willing to resolve it between now and council.

Uh so uh if there aren't further questions, I'm willing to make a motion on this item.

And that what is this motion?

So I'll make the motion for approval of zoning docket uh 07126.

Uh is there a second?

Yeah.

I'm seconding this motion.

Okay.

And any discussion?

Questions.

Good luck.

Comments?

All right, let's vote.

Commissioner Jackson.

Yes.

Commissioner Jordan.

Yes.

Commissioner Whitry is a yes.

Commissioner Flick, yes.

Commissioner Josie Gupta?

Commissioner A Bear?

Yes.

Commissioner Kepper?

Yes.

Commissioner Pochet.

Yes.

All right, the motion carries.

Good luck.

Continue to work with the neighborhood.

We appreciate seeing that on the side.

Yeah.

Uh very much so.

And um, Mr.

Neville, any time you want to come back to City Chamber, City Hall Chambers, please let us know.

Thanks for everything you do to the city.

We appreciate it.

All right, let's go to Oh, it looks like we have two deferrals on zoning dock at 072-26.

Right, I think those are the requests.

But people, Mr.

Lazo is here to speak potentially.

Um we have staff gonna present.

Come on down.

Hey there.

Sorry about that.

Uh zoning docket 072-26 by City Council motion number M-26-177 is to amend Article 5 to allow the inclusion of new structures as part of the adoptive reuse of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional structure within a planned development, and to make recommendations for any other amendments deemed necessary.

This text amendment would enable a specific plan development proposal for 720 Henry Clay AV considered under the following docket item ZD 073-26 that would provide a zoning entitlement to other projects also seeking to include new structures.

The motion essentially asks that zoning ordinance explicitly state that planned developments employing adoptive reuse are not limited to only existing structures.

They may also have new construction elements, either through the expansion of an existing building or through the construction of entirely new buildings on site.

Because the current regulations do not explicitly allow new construction, the Department of C team permits has determined that this is not currently permitted under the regulations.

The proposal would address this by explicitly allowing for new construction for adoptive reuse projects, plan development projects.

The staff recommends a modified version of these regulations, which would restrict the overall size of new construction elements, ensuring that they are in secondary in size and design to the original structure, such that the original structure remains a visual focal point of the development.

Staff also recommends including a definition of adoptive reuse for consistency.

Therefore, staff recommends modified approval of zoning docket 7226.

Thank you.

How are you feeling?

Tell us that first.

Thank you very much.

I'm actually doing great.

I can't wait to put weight back on the flood.

So it's uh been a journey, and let me tell you our city is not handicapped accessible.

And uh every crack in a sidewalk can make you flip over.

It's gives you a whole different light on what other people deal with every day.

So I more much more empathetic.

Thank you so much for asking.

Yeah, of course.

Of course, we're happy to see you.

Uh please state your name and address.

Ron Ron Lazal 1000 South Normacy Francis.

Um I want to to thank CPC staff for this report.

This is one of the the best written reports I have.

It's very succinct and very much to the point.

Just kind of a little background on where this came from.

This is coming from the poor Claire's redevelopment at 700 Henry Clay.

We had worked closely with safety and permits with CPC with zoning and multiple meetings to try to get to a point where this plan development would work on these structures.

So basically just to put it in layman's term.

Right now you'd you couldn't have an additional building on that plan development.

What this does then allows those extra buildings to support the renovation.

You know, you can't you think of the poor Clares, that's a whole city block.

You can't just you know renovate that for use.

It will never never make it.

It needs the additional structures to support it.

So uh speaking with the council member, that's where this motion comes from.

Next at the next CPC meeting is when we'll um have the conditional use for this plan development in front of you.

Again, very well written report uh uh highlights that this would provide a clear path forward for developers looking to restore the original footprint of any given historic site or to expand on them in a manner appropriate and referential to the current and pre-existing structures on the property.

So it's a great addition, not just for this project, but throughout the city.

I had a previous project years ago where we had to do a zoning change on one half to get the building in order to support the redevelopment of the school into affordable housing for seniors.

This just makes it easier, it's clear, and will help uh renovation on other projects.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to speak on this matter?

And I must have had my notes wrong, so the next items deferral, this one is approval is staff recommendation.

Yes.

Okay, okay.

I just had correct notes.

All right, any questions?

I have a question for staff.

Are there any other implications that we're not seeing that we should be concerned about with making this change in general?

Like I understand it as it relates to this specific the context of this specific project.

But is there something we're not seeing?

Um well as I as I kind of stated in my script, um, this would open up an opportunity for other plan developments to um have new structures constructed as a part of that project.

Um obviously granted review from staff because the way that the uh the way that the amendment is written is that it's it makes sure that it again it doesn't detract from the original structure.

So it does obviously open up the possibility of adding new structures or new construction elements.

And this is really like if it was on a large site that you would want to add additional buildings versus let's say a building downtown that has a small site and the majority of the building is the site.

Obviously, you know, you could add on to that building, right?

As part of that adaptive reuse.

Would that fall under this or would that currently be allowed?

Well, actually, um Steven, do you want to respond to this one?

Yeah, I'm uh you know, for example, if you took the orpheum and wanted to put an additional level on it.

Um, assuming you are using a plan development tool, you could not do that today because the Department of Safety and Permits reading of the regulations, which are silent to additions.

Uh they've interpreted that it doesn't allow any addition, be that a new structure or any vertical addition.

Um so in either case, um to allow old churches, institutional buildings, and the like to be adapted for new use.

Um it's it's going to be helpful to have the tool of allowing additions and perhaps new construction as well.

Thank you.

Great question, Commissioner Flick.

Any other questions?

All right, let's vote.

Or let's make a motion.

I'll make a motion for staff recommendation.

Second, O'Shea.

Thank you.

Motion on the floor for approval.

Commissioner Flick, then Commissioner Pochet.

Um, let's go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Pochet.

Yes.

Commissioner Kepper.

Yes.

Commissioner Abear?

Yes.

Commissioner Josie Gupta.

Yes.

Commissioner Flick, yes.

Commissioner Whitry, yes.

Uh, Commissioner Jordan.

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson.

Yes.

Great.

Okay.

Um the motion carries.

Now we're moving on to zoning docket 073-26.

Zoning Docket 073-26 is a request for a plan development to permit the adaptive reuse of a monastery in into a multifamily dwellings in the H U R D2 Historic Urban Two Family Residential District and the CPC Character Preservation Corridor Design Overlay District.

Since this application was filed, the applicant has submitted revised plans and supplemental materials.

Staff is requesting a deferral to the July 28, 2026 regular meeting to allow additional time to complete its review of the revised submittal.

With that, staff request a deferral for additional time to complete its review of this proposal.

Thank you.

Is um anyone here to speak?

Ms.

Johnson.

Um hi.

I'd like to it's deferred, right?

Or we haven't for deferred.

We haven't voted yet on the deferral.

Okay.

I just would like to make a an information only statement, please.

Okay.

Um Susan Johnson, 2822 LePage Street, Historic New Orleans neighborhoods.

I'm not paid to be here.

I'm also on the board of the Friends of St.

Alphonsus in the Irish Channel, a vacant, disused church building belonging to the Redemptorist Order based in Chicago.

Um it is impossible to say how difficult it is for for New Orleans to watch the dissolution of its original Catholic tradition and culture through the ongoing desacralization, sale, and secular redevelopment of its churches, rectories, schools, convents, and monasteries.

And yet for the individual religious as also for the religious orders collectively, what is most important is not the material culture of Catholicism, its buildings, and even its art and architecture, but the Catholic mission to the people of New Orleans.

Thank you, Ms.

Johnson.

Anyone else?

Okay, if not, um Commissioners.

Motion to defer.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Commissioner Jackson, thank you.

All right.

Um let's go ahead and vote.

This is a motion on the floor for deferral by Commissioner Poche, seconded by Mr.

Commissioner Jackson.

Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

All right.

Commissioner Um Jordan.

Yes.

And what's the deferral date again?

The July 28th.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Whitry, yes.

Commissioner Flick?

Yes.

Commissioner Josie Gupta?

Commissioner Abear?

Yes.

Commissioner Kepper?

Yes.

Commissioner Pochet?

Yes.

All right.

The motion carries deferral July 28th.

We're going to move on to our second to last zoning docket item, 073-26.

And I just have one card to speak on that after the staff report.

Subdivision Docket 067-26 is a request for a major subdivision in the first municipal district bounded by Convention Center Boulevard, South Peter Street, and Andrew Higgins Drive.

The applicant requests to resubdivide four lots and a portion of the transecting street into two lots of records to accommodate the development of the Omni Convention Center Headquarters Hotel.

Specifically, the applicant proposes the subdivision of squares 12A, 24A, 25, 26, and a portion of John Churchill C Street into lots P in Square 26A and lot H and Square 25A.

The applicant proposes no change to the current footprint nor use of Heritage Park on proposed square 26A or lot P through the proposed Omni Hotel.

And expand out onto a portion of John Churchill T Street.

The proposal is not in conflict with the policy D approval criteria nor the master plan.

However, the proposed subdivision would move the property line past the current zoning boundary lines, creating a discrepancy between the lot zoning and the map boundary.

As a result, the staff recommends approval of SD 067-26 subject to two provisos.

The first to ensure compliance with the relevant city agencies and subdivision regulations, and the second to shift the zoning and future land use map boundaries to coincide with the new common lot line between the two proposed lots via minor map adjustment or other appropriate maneuver.

Thank you.

I just have one card to speak on this matter.

Two cards, maybe?

Mr.

Granderson.

So we want to thank staff for the approval recommendation and uh the notation that it's consistent with resub uh regulation policy.

Um obviously as we all aware, we're all aware of the convention center Omni headquarters hotel project.

This is just a piece of it that is required to make this necessary.

There's been a lot of work that's gone into this from the convention center to AMI to the city of New Orleans, all working together to to make this happen.

The site, as kind of mentioned, is largely the former sugar mill site.

Um also include portions of John Hill, a portion of John Churchill's Chase Street, uh and a little piece of the sidewalk up to where the fence is for that park right now.

Um ultimately city regulations, as do most places, require lots to be de or development to be on a single lot of record, so this is uh allowing that and creating that circumstance for the development to happen.

Um so that's really the purpose of why we're here.

I in quick note there was a note in the uh as a proviso uh for there to be a flume amendment.

Uh and that is perfectly something that makes sense because as a default, uh the zoning lines are drawn down the center of the street, and with John Churchill's chase being incorporated into the hotel along with the two feet of sidewalk up to the fence, it's necessary to rectify that circumstance to bring that other half of the street and those two feet into the uh zoning that's not park zoning, and then the park will stay as park zoning.

The neighbors appreciate that.

Um there's a opposition.

I think we have somebody in support too.

No, no one else here is talking support.

Okay, Ms.

Johnson.

Susan Johnson 2822, LePage Street Historic New Orleans Neighborhoods.

I oppose the subdivision and oppose this development generally.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak?

Yes, please.

And if you don't mind, I don't think I have a card.

Maybe you could fill one out after.

Yeah.

They're in opposition.

Correct.

We we had one card in support, and Ms.

Johnson's in opposition.

And yes.

Um this is my first experience of meeting, so thank you for letting me and my neighbor uh attend.

Um I didn't fill out a card because I didn't know I was supposed to.

Yeah, please fill out a card, but will you I'm I'm Bonnie Boohacker.

I live at 900 South Peters, um, which is one block from where the Omni Hotel is to be built.

Um first, I feel like we were not aware of all that was going on.

We were not given sufficient information to be able to attend meetings uh when the discussions first began.

But now it's already a done deal.

We're just concerned about traffic, parking.

Um we're a very small building.

Um, we're we uh I've lived there for 16 years, and my neighbors live there much longer than that.

So we there are 20 units in our building, and we just feel like we're being overwhelmed.

So which building are you in again?

900 900 South Peters.

Okay.

Can um staff, can you remind us on the notification um requirements?

Because I don't I know this is close to the site, but I don't know if it is um the 250 feet or whatever the radius is.

Can you there's one block in between our building and the sugar mill?

Okay.

Yeah, it's um for the the zoning uh piece of this in particular, which is previously gone through CBC and uh council.

There is a notification requirement that's a 600 foot radius of the site, so about a two-block radius.

So it's a 600, and I I don't know the math of 900 South Peters is, but that is the requirement.

Um you can also sign up on Notice Me, um Notify Me, Notice Me, um, on the city app to be notified of and of any changes within the media neighborhood as well.

Okay.

We know this is a huge project that's gonna impact you know the neighborhood.

And so it's been in front of us several times and also in front of council uh several times too.

So I'm glad that you're being informed and coming to speak today.

All right.

It matters.

Are we aware when the the construction will begin?

I mean, does anybody know that?

Because I'm not aware.

No, I'm I'm not privy to that.

I don't know if you're not gonna be able to do it right.

No, I'm not, you know, they are working through design documents now, and they are the developer is hoping to apply for permits soon.

Uh but I don't know if that's a matter of months or weeks or days.

We we don't know.

Um maybe Mr.

Granderson can let you know if there's another opportunity um to come and speak.

Um I'm sure there's gonna be more things that come up.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, please.

Please fill out a card that will.

Anyone else here to speak?

Okay.

If not, um commissioners, do you have any questions?

Appro uh staff recommendation is approval with supervisors.

I'll move approval.

Thank you, Commissioner Fick Flick.

And is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Poche, there's a first and a second for approval with two provisos.

Any discussion?

If not, all right.

Commissioner Pochet?

Yes.

Umer?

Yes.

Commissioner Josie Gupta?

Yes.

Commissioner Flick?

Yes.

Commissioner Whitry, yes.

Commissioner Jordan?

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

All right.

The motion carries.

I'm sure we'll see you again on this item at some point.

Um this project, rather.

All right, subdivision ratifications.

Um, Mr.

Kroll.

Yeah, just uh two-page list of ratifications of items that we at staff level find to be administratively approvable, and you would be ratifying that determination.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Or first?

Is there a motion?

Motion.

Yeah.

Second.

All right.

There is a motion on the floor for approval and uh by Commissioner Flick, seconded by Commissioner Pochet.

Any discussion, questions?

If not, let's vote.

Uh Commissioner Jackson.

Yes.

Commissioner Jordan?

Yes.

Commissioner Witcher, yes.

Commissioner Flick?

Yes.

Commissioner Josie Gupta?

Yes.

Um Commissioner Abear?

Yes.

Commissioner Kepper.

Yes.

Commissioner Poche?

Yes.

All right.

The motion carries.

I don't believe we have anything else here except Spain is up to nil.

Sorry, Miss Sabine.

I know.

I know.

Um, then I'm looking for a motion to uh adjourn.

Motion.

All right.

Seconded.

All in favor?

Yes.

Aye.

Thank you, everyone.

We'll see you in two weeks.