502 Frenchmen St.

District: Faubourg Marigny - Full Control

Owner: 500 Frenchmen St Inc

HDLC Staff: Dennis Murphy

Rating: Significant

Applicant: Heather Cooper

Description: Demolition of more than 50% of the roof structure to accommodate new third-floor roof forms and construction of new rear addition at a Significant rated, three-story, mixed-use building.

Previous ARC Recommendations & Commission Actions:

04/06/23: The Commission voted to deny the request to appeal the ARC recommendation for denial because the existing roof form is still intact, is visible, and continues to read visually as a historic roof from several points in the surrounding public right of way. Additionally, the proposed amount of roof demolition is not considered appropriate based on the HDLC Guidelines and the Significant rating of the building. City Council appeal submitted.

03/14/23: The ARC voted to recommend denial of the application. The ARC agreed the existing historic building’s roof forms and parapets are visible from several areas in the public right of way, particularly along Esplanade Avenue, and the proposal involves too much destruction of the Significant rated building’s roof structure and historic building fabric. The ARC also noted that the proposed addition appears to be handled well architecturally, but the amount of overall roof demolition is too high and cannot be recommended for approval based on the HDLC Guidelines.

02/01/23: The ARC voted to defer the application for additional review to allow time for the applicant to coordinate a site visit with Staff and ARC members present. The ARC agreed the removal of the previously proposed rooftop penthouse was a positive development, however, they expressed concern the proposal still entails the demolition of most of the existing Significant rated building’s historic roof structure. The ARC also agreed that:

While the current roof may have been modified in the past and may pose challenges for contemporary waterproofing and usable interior square footage, the form of the roof is still intact, is visible, and continues to read visually as a historic roof from several points in the surrounding public right of way, particularly from Esplanade Avenue.
The proposed parapet modifications for the increase in third-floor floor-to-ceiling height may also be partially visible from Esplanade Avenue.
A section drawing or additional photos demonstrating the constraints at the third floor and additional 3-D perspective views to better illustrate the proposed rear addition and its visibility from Esplanade Avenue should be provided for the next review.
The ARC also agreed a site visit would be helpful to better understand the current condition of the roof and the visibility of the roof and proposed rear addition from Esplanade Avenue.

09/07/22: The Commission voted to deny the request to appeal the ARC recommendation for denial of the new rooftop penthouse addition because the existing roof form is directly related to the historic use and typology of the building and the proposed addition would eliminate this historic condition, would negatively impact the significance and visual integrity of the building, would be highly visible from multiple points in the surrounding public right of way, and because the HDLC Guidelines specifically prohibit rooftop additions on Significant rated buildings.

08/03/22: The Commission voted to defer action on this application until the following meeting, per the applicant request.

07/19/22: The ARC voted to recommend denial of the application. The ARC also agreed that the design revisions presented were an improvement over the previous iteration. The additional setback of the penthouse helps to decrease its overall visibility, but it remains a highly visible addition from various points in the surrounding public right of way. The ARC also noted that the existing roof form is directly related to the historic use and typology of the building and that the proposed addition would eliminate this historic condition. The ARC also agreed the proposed penthouse addition does not retain the character-defining feature of the roof form, would negatively impact the significance and visual integrity of the existing building. Additionally, the ARC noted they cannot recommend approval for the penthouse because it does not meet the HDLC Guidelines which specifically prohibit rooftop additions on Significant rated buildings.

04/06/22: The Commission voted to deny the appeal request. Applicant submits City Council appeal of Commission denial. City Council requests applicant revise proposal to meet previous ARC recommendations and re-submit for re-review.

03/09/22: Applicant submits appeal of 11/16/2021 ARC recommendation for denial. The Commission voted to defer action on this application until the following meeting, per the applicant request.

11/16/21: The ARC voted to recommend denial of the application because the installation of rooftop additions on significant rated buildings is prohibited by the HDLC Design Guidelines. The ARC also agreed that:

The location of the relocated HVAC equipment is an improvement and it does not appear that they will be visible from a surrounding public right of way.
The door and window openings on the rooftop addition are vulnerable to the elements and a small canopy or overhang at this location could be useful in keeping them protected from water intrusion. Additionally, it is preferred that this type of element be integrated into the overall penthouse design now rather than added in the future as this may also increase the overall visibility of the penthouse. The ARC recommended installing a simple 18” projecting horizontal element above the doors and windows for this purpose or by further recessing the windows and doors more deeply into the wall depth.
In terms of the color and materiality of the rooftop addition, darker colors are better than lighter colors and a less reflective surface is preferable. The ARC also recommended considering an alternative material other than stucco for the rooftop addition so that it is further differentiated from the existing historic structure, for example, metal panels.
The rooftop addition should be further set back from the Esplanade Avenue side so that it becomes less visible from the Avenue.
The ARC reiterated that they believe the rooftop addition will be highly visible from both Elysian Fields Avenue and Decatur Street and that as such it was not an appropriate addition to the existing Significant rated structure.

10/19/21: The ARC voted to defer this application for additional review. The ARC agreed that the proposal had been improved by setting the penthouse addition further back on the existing historic structure. The ARC also recommended:

The mechanical equipment indicated at the roof of the penthouse may be visible from the surrounding streets and should be relocated to the lower roof such that they are not visible.
Wind-driven rain could pose a problem for the penthouse door and window openings and the ARC recommended considering simple awnings or an overhang for cover.
Reducing the 11'-9" overall height of the penthouse addition so that it is less visible from the surrounding streets.
The applicant should include some additional analysis of the view from Chartres Street for the next design review.
The ARC reiterated that they cannot make a recommendation for approval for the proposed work because the HDLC Design Guidelines prohibit the installation of rooftop additions on Significant rated structures and this application will require additional review and approval from the full Commission.

12/15/20: The ARC voted to defer this application for additional review. The ARC noted they cannot make a recommendation for conceptual approval because the Design Guidelines (12:13) do not permit the construction of rooftop additions on Significant rated buildings. They recommended the applicant consider revising the design such that the rooftop addition is not visible from any surrounding public right of way, and as such would not require HDLC approval. The ARC also requested the applicant receive NPS (application Part 2) comments and feedback before returning for additional design review.