1118 Desire St.

Staff Recommendations:  

In May 2015,  an HDLC Violation (#15-03520)  was issued for the installation of an inappropriate leaded glass door on the front façade and inappropriate flush-mounted vinyl windows at the front and side elevations. Although a Certificate of Appropriateness (CofA) was issued in April 2015, it did not include approval for door or window replacement. The unapproved work remained unresolved until 2021.Following Hurricane Ida, a non-structural renovation permit was submitted that did not list exterior work, and no HDLC sub-permit was created. In May 2022, it was discovered that exterior work had occurred, and an HDLC sub-permit was opened after-the-fact. At that point, the work including installation of a new inappropriate leaded glass door, plexiglass at the sidelites, and a large plexiglass window at the front façade was already complete. For context, the building suffered a major fire in late 2005 and remained vacant for years. It appears that work completed between 2007–2011 led to the conditions cited in the 2015 violation. The property also received a Rebuilding Together grant in 2015. 

A 2007 photo shows what appears to be a ganged pair of two-over-two wood windows at the front façade. While the current plexiglass is not an approved material, it is a visual improvement from the 2015 vinyl windows.

 At the August 26 ,2022  meeting the Commission voted to Approve the application for retention of inappropriate flush-mounted vinyl windows at the side elevations with the proviso that when changed in the future, the windows will be reviewed and approved by the HDLC. In addition, the Commission voted to approve the front façade window with the proviso that trim be installed to mimic an original ganged window appearance. The Commission noted that upon replacement, all non-glass material at the front façade should be replaced with glass. Lastly, the Commission voted to deny retention of the inappropriate leaded-glass front door and noted that an HDLC-approved door should be installed at a height to match the original opening and trim.

At this time, the applicant is requesting retention of the inappropriate leaded glass front door and the existing front façade window configuration due to financial hardship. The applicant has indicated they are unable to afford a replacement door or to install the recommended trim at the window. While staff cannot recommend approval of the current front door as the oval window and modern leaded glass designs are not historically appropriate, we recognize the applicant's financial limitations. The front window, made of non-approved Plexiglas and lacking proper glazing and trim detailing, also remains unchanged due to cost concerns. Given these circumstances, staff leaves the decision to the discretion of the Commission.

Recommendation:  Discretion of the Commission.