1622 Toledano St.

District: Garden District - Partial Control

Owner: Three Gsi LLC

HDLC Staff: Dennis Murphy

Rating: Contributing

Applicant: Garret Willis

Permit #: 24-09920-HDLC

Description: New construction of a 10,300 SF three-story, multi-family residential building including demolition of a Contributing rated, one-story, single-family residential building to grade.

HDLC Design Guidelines:

Section 12, Pages 23-24 of the Guidelines for New Construction, Additions and Demolition states that the demolition of all or portions of historic resources within a local Historic District or Landmark site are considered drastic actions, since they alter the character of the area. Once historic resources or buildings that contribute to the heritage of the community are destroyed, it is generally impossible to reproduce their design, texture, materials, details and their special character and interest in the neighborhood. When reviewing demolition applications at properties located within a Historic District or at a Landmark site, the HDLC uses the following criteria in its evaluations:

The historic or architectural significance of the building or structure as designated by its “rating”: Contributing
The importance of the building or structure to the tout ensemble of the area: Sanborn map and newspaper research indicates the current building likely replaced a previously existing 2-story structure no later than 1933, within the period of significance for the Garden District local historic district (1832-1959). The building also appears to have retained most of its original scale, massing, siting, roof form, and footprint to this day.
The alternatives to relocation that have been explored by the applicant: None are known.
The special character and aesthetic interest that the building or structure adds to the local Historic District: The single-story residential Bungalow appears to have retained much of its original exterior character-defining features and details, which appear to be influenced by both the Craftsman and Edwardian styles. For example, the building's relatively simple overall form and detailing include some subtle embellishments of Colonial Revival, such as a wood 8-over-8 window, bracketed wood barrel-vault entry awning, and decorative side entry door trim. It also retains its horizontally-oriented massing, rectilinear window bay, several 4-over-4 and 6-over-6 wood windows, wood weatherboards, gable-on-hip roof form, central masonry chimney with decorative terra cotta flue, asbestos shingle roof and ridge tiles. It is unclear if the building may have been altered after it was originally constructed, however, the current footprint and lack of a front porch matches the 1950 Sanborn map, and the current location and rhythm of door and window openings and foundation piers appear to be original.
The difficulty or impossibility of reproducing such a building or structure because of its design, texture, material, or detail: Based on the size of the building's footprint and minimal exterior architectural elements, it would likely not be more expensive or difficult to reproduce the building today rather than maintaining it in its current form. It is not readily apparent what percentage of original material may be salvaged during a renovation. Using equivalent materials in contemporary construction may be costly, but the overall form and detailing is relatively simple and could be replicated.

The condition of the building or structure: HDLC Inspector Daniel Syal performed an interior and exterior visual inspection on July 30, 2024, and determined the overall building to be in fair condition. At the exterior, the weatherboards, windows, soffits, and trim are mostly in good condition. The roof shingles are deteriorated, particularly at the rear and should be replaced. Large notches were observed in floor joists where at a central girder that will likely require sistering. Framing around the central chimney appears to be sagging, likely indicating the roof is not weathertight at this area. Extensive termite damage was observed at the front entry stair. At the interior, spaces were mostly dry, however, the sub-floor was soft and severely damaged in multiple locations. Extensive termite damage in the flooring suggests the building may be infested. There may be additional wall framing damage that was not visible during the inspection. Additionally, the floors were not level, suggesting deficiencies in the piers and/or foundation settlement, or due to damaged floor joists. The attic spaces appeared mostly dry but were not inspected in detail. There was not extensive evidence of water instruction at the interior plaster or flooring. Overall, it would be feasible but costly to bring this building back into commerce.

Staff Recommendations:

The current residential building is considered Contributing rated, however, it does not appear to be an example par excellence of either the Bungalow typology or the Craftsman and Edwardian building styles. The current building condition is considered fair because it suffers from extensive termite infestation and will likely require relatively substantial work to address foundation framing and settlement issues. As noted in the inspection report, it would be feasible but costly to bring this building back into commerce. This particular building may potentially be considered a candidate for demolition due to the erosion of its surrounding historic context, in that the proposed new form, massing and materials may be more contextual with the current adjacent context of non-historic, multi-story buildings with predominantly commercial uses. Additionally, this particular site has a unique potential for increased residential density that is contextual with the surrounding historic districts and compatible with the City's goal of increasing the overall housing stock. The HDLC Guidelines typically do not recommend approval for demolition of Contributing rated structures, however, based on the above, Staff has no objection to the request for demolition to grade and recommends the Commission vote to ratify the ARC recommendation for conceptual approval of the proposed redevelopment massing and site plan, with the final details to return for additional ARC review once further developed.

Demolition to grade: No Objection with proviso that the CofA will not be issued until the new construction is also ready to be issued
Ratification of ARC recommendation for conceptual approval of massing and site plan with details to return for additional ARC review: Approval

Previous ARC Recommendations & Commission Actions:

08/07/24: August Commission meeting cancelled due to lack of quorum.

07/23/24: The ARC voted to recommend conceptual approval of the massing and site plan, with the final details of the façade composition and fencing to return for additional ARC review once further developed. The ARC also agreed that:

The overall appearance of the building has improved, and the current design appears more subdued and more compatible with the surrounding context.
The proposed front yard fencing and gates appear to be appropriate for the overall site plan, particularly because this allows for the removal of the previous garage doors and enhances the ground-floor pedestrian experience.
- - However, the picket metal fencing appears to be too traditional for the overall building design and could be more contemporary in appearance and detailing. The ARC noted that a shorter version of the proposed horizontally banded gates could work.
The composition and proportions of the façade should be further studied and developed so that there is more balance and symmetry.
- - The vertical columns on the façade appear to be a bit too wide, and the horizontal beams a bit too tall (particularly at the top parapet), giving the overall building a “squatty” appearance. The proportions of these elements should be further refined.
  - The applicant should consider opening the right-side balconies in the same manner the left-side are shown so that the open and closed spaces of the façade are more balanced.
  - The applicant should consider installing simple metal screens at the sides of the left and right-side open balconies. These simple screens can mimic or relate to the proposed contemporary fencing at the front yard, so that this material and design element are more integrated with the overall building.
An updated context drawing, and renderings should be provided for the next ARC review.

06/18/24: The ARC voted to defer the application for additional review. The ARC also agreed that:

The building’s overall massing, architectural detailing, presence on the street, and ground floor treatment (including proposed garage doors) are still too suburban in character and do not appear to be compatible with the existing historic context.
- - The building is also prominently visible from St. Charles Avenue, not just Toledano Street, and so it must relate to all its surrounding contexts.
The ground floor treatment should be reconsidered and revised to mitigate the impact of the proposed garage doors and to better relate the building massing and detailing to the pedestrian experience. For example:
- - The building massing could be pulled forward and closer to the front property line, with the garage doors recessed further back to reduce their visibility.
  - The front entry doors could be shifted forward in plane so that they have increased visual prominence over the garage doors.
  - The garage doors could be replaced with simple metal gates, so the area reads more as an open-air carport than as a typical enclosed garage.
  - A small entry porch or increased prominence of the entry doors (such as a simple metal awning covering) would be more contextual and provide additional visual interest.
The overall building massing and the dynamic nature of the bold, colorful, articulated-stucco shapes of the design are quite aggressive and appear too distinct and incompatible with the types and styles of buildings commonly seen in the surrounding historic districts.
- - The applicant should reconsider and refine the massing and architectural expression of the building so that overall, it is more subtle and subdued.
  - The multiple stepping at the roof line is too busy and fussy and should be simplified.
The applicant should look at other successful new construction projects in the area for reference and should document some precedent examples of similar nearby buildings that feature contemporary designs and visually prominent garage doors to better clarify how the proposal is compatible with the surrounding context.

05/14/24: The ARC voted to defer the application for additional review. The ARC also agreed that:

The 3-story massing could be considered appropriate here based on the existing adjacent context; however, the overall details need to be further studied and refined.
The building’s overall proportions appear a bit too squatty, and the applicant should increase the first-floor floor-to-ceiling height.
The prominence of the garage doors at the front elevation is too suburban in character, is not considered appropriate for St. Charles Avenue or the Garden District and will likely require a variance for multiple curb cuts.
- - The applicant should investigate alternative ways to accommodate parking on the site, such as utilizing a single garage door that can provide access for all units.

The recessed front entry door condition may cause the garage doors to appear more visually prominent at the first floor and should be reconsidered to enhance the pedestrian experience.
The side elevations appear too flat and commercial in character, and the openings should utilize operable windows that are installed recessed into the wall depth.
The proposed material palette and details should be further developed and refined.
- - For example, stucco control joints should be indicated on the elevation drawings to demonstrate their relationship to the window openings.

The applicant should provide additional 3D perspective views taken at street level, including the view from St. Charles Avenue, to better demonstrate the building’s scale, massing, and context.
The applicant should refamiliarize themselves with the HDLC Design Guidelines for new construction and should meet with Staff to refine the drawings prior to the next ARC meeting.