District: Faubourg Marigny - Full Control
Owner: Chris Edmundson
Rating: Contributing
Applicant: Melissa I Garcia
Description: Retention of removal of ridge tiles, installation of new standing seam metal roofing, removal of two (2) masonry chimneys, and installation of new covered rear porch at a Contributing rated, one-story, two-family residential building without a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Roof Ridge Tiles:
Standing Seam Metal Roofing:
Chimney Removal:
Rear Porch Addition:
HDLC Guidelines:
Removal of Roof Ridge Tiles: Section 5, Page 8 – Guidelines for Roofing
Installation of Standing Seam Metal Roof: Section 5, Pages 4-5 – Guidelines for Roofing
Removal of (2) Chimneys: Section 5, Page 9 – Guidelines for Roofing
Rear Covered Porch Addition: Section 12, Pages 14-19 – Guidelines for New Construction, Additions and Demolition
Retention Items:
Removal of Roof Ridge Tiles: No recommendation
Installation of Standing Seam Metal Roof: No recommendation
Removal of (2) Chimneys: No objection
Rear Covered Porch Addition: Denial and recommendation that applicant return for additional ARC review and complete recommended modifications
Staff Recommendations:
Roof Ridge Tiles: Ridge tiles are decorative and sometimes functional elements that help define the profile of a roof against the skyline and complement the building’s style. They are also visually important exterior architectural features, accentuating the changes in roof slopes, and the HDLC Guidelines encourage their retention. Staff would not have recommended approval for their removal if this work had been requested in advance. Because the installation of the standing seam metal roof precludes the reinstallation of these tiles, Staff has no recommendation and leaves approval for the request at the discretion of the Commission.
Standing Seam Metal Roofing: A previous application for work at this address in 1993 confirms the original roof material was likely slate and the hipped roof is highly visible from several points in the public right of way, including at the rear on Marigny Street and on Chartres Street in the direction of street traffic. As per the HDLC Guidelines, standing seam metal roofs are typically not appropriate for highly visible roof slopes or where the original roof material would have bene slate, especially on higher style buildings. If the applicant had requested this roof material in advance, Staff would have recommended denial based on these factors and because the work also requires removal of the existing roof ridge tiles. Staff would also have requested a proviso that the roof be specified in a darker and less reflective finish, had the Commission reviewed the request in advance. Based on this, Staff has no recommendation and leaves approval for the request at the discretion of the Commission.
Removal of (2) Chimneys: Chimneys were typically designed to complement the style of a building and its period of construction. The rhythm and placement of chimneys typically reflect the interior organization of a building and represent an important exterior architectural building feature. The applicant has noted that the two rearmost chimneys were damaged by a fallen tree during Hurricane Ida and subsequently removed without HDLC approval. Based on street view images, the chimneys appear to have been removed between February and November 2021. To date, no documentation on the condition of the chimneys prior to removal has been submitted. If this scope had been requested prior to removal, Staff would have thoroughly investigated the condition of the chimneys to determine if they were structurally deficient and/or beyond repair or reconstruction. However, since these chimneys have already been fully removed from above the roof down through to the foundation, Staff has no objection to the request for retention.
Rear Covered Porch Addition: The applicant has noted the previously existing rear lean-to porch roof was not damaged during Hurricane Ida, however, it was deteriorated and was subsequently reconstructed in a new configuration without HDLC or Safety and Permits approval. While the porch addition is at the rear of the building, this area is highly visible through an adjacent vacant lot on the Marigny Street side. The ARC reviewed the rear porch at the January meeting and deferred the application for additional review so the applicant could work with HDLC Staff to refine options for modifying the porch roof and columns to be more compatible with the Guidelines for these types of additions. ** However, the applicant has confirmed they do not wish to follow the ARC recommendations and prefer the Commission consider their request for retention of the porch roof as currently installed. While there would be a cost associated with making the recommended changes, this intervention would help make the rear porch appear more subordinate to the main building and with a roof form, detailing and materiality that is more consistent with similar rear additions in the area while maintaining the square footage and functionality the applicant desires. Based on this, Staff recommends denial of the request for retention and recommends to applicant continue to work with the ARC and Staff to refine options for modifying the rear porch to be more consistent with the HDLC Guidelines.
Case History:
01/05/2023: HDLC Inspector observes that exterior work has been completed at the property without a building permit or CofA issued. HDLC posts a Stop Work order. The applicant submits renovation application (after-the-fact) for work already completed at property.
01/17/2023: The ARC reviews the rear covered porch addition and votes to defer the application for additional review to allow the applicant time to work with Staff to further refine options for modifying the rear covered porch. The ARC also agreed that:
The porch roof should be made discontinuous from the main building roof, so it appears more as a new and subordinate additive element. This can be achieved by reducing the height of the existing porch structure down approximately 1’-0” or by shifting the existing roof to the left such that the ridgeline is centered above the new rear door opening, or a combination of both.
The last bay of the roof is too low and creates an awkward condition where the roof appears to die into the ground. The applicant should consider eliminating this portion of roof covering, replacing the solid material at this location with a transparent roofing material, or decreasing the pitch of the roof at this location, so it appears more like a typical porch roof from the street.
The porch columns appear diminutive in size relative to their height and the applicant should consider increasing their size/dimensions. This could potentially be achieved by boxing out the existing columns, for example.
01/25/2023: Applicant confirms they do not wish to follow the ARC recommendations for modifying the rear porch and prefer to request retention approval for this addition to remain as-installed.
Previous Condition
Current Condition
Previous Condition
Current Condition
Previous Condition
Current Condition
Previous Condition
Current Condition