2277-2279 Saint Claude Ave.

Staff Recommendations: 

This property was cited by the HDLC for a Working Without a CofA violation in May 2022 after an HDLC Inspector observed the installation of inappropriate and excessive signage without HDLC or Safety and Permits approval. Although the current owner purchased the property in January 2023, the cited violation pertains to the same signage that remains installed on the building. Since that time, the owner has completed additional exterior work without required approvals, including the installation of more inappropriate signage, wall- and window-mounted LED strip lights, and floodlights installed beneath the street-facing eave along Mandeville Street. The applicant has stated their intent to correct the HDLC violations and has already removed several of the previous inappropriate signs and temporary banners. However, they are now requesting retention approval for the remaining items.

Inappropriate Signage:

There are currently two (2) wall-mounted signs on the building—one fronting St. Claude Avenue and the other fronting Mandeville Street. The Zoning Department has confirmed that “only one sign (whether wall, window, or projecting) is permitted for each business” and that “no sign may exceed 8 square feet in area.” Based on this, the applicant will likely need to obtain a BZA variance for one or both signs to remain, in addition to HDLC retention approval.

The sign facing St. Claude Avenue measures 96" x 24" (16 SF). This internally illuminated channel-letter sign includes an inappropriate electrical raceway located behind the lettering. However, the sign could potentially be brought into compliance with the HDLC Design Guidelines by removing the raceway and re-mounting the channel letters directly to the wall, ensuring that all conduit and junction boxes are concealed.

The sign fronting Mandeville Street measures 100" x 32" (22.2 SF). This internally illuminated channel-letter sign is mounted on an opaque black metal backer panel. The portion designed to mimic a cell phone functions as an inappropriate internally illuminated box sign, and there are instances of visible conduit and an exposed junction box. Nonetheless, the sign could be modified for compliance by de-powering the cell phone component so it does not illuminate at night and by removing the visible junction box and conduit.

Although all signage on the building was installed without HDLC or Safety and Permits approval, the applicant has worked cooperatively with Staff and made good-faith efforts to improve site conditions and move the property closer to compliance. Given these efforts, and because the modifications described above could bring both signs into compliance with the HDLC Design Guidelines, Staff has no objection to the request for retention, provided that both signs are modified as noted and that all necessary Zoning/BZA approvals are also obtained.

Wall & Window-mounted LED Light Strips:

The LED light strips installed along the building walls and windows are only approvable as temporary seasonal lighting displays (90 days or less) and are not considered an appropriate decorative lighting type for historic buildings or within the context of the surrounding historic district. Additionally, the light strips may conflict with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which states that “flashing or blinking lights, or other illuminating devices that have changing light intensity, brightness, or color, or traveling, chasing, or blinking lights are prohibited.”

Given that the light strips are not an appropriate fixture type, their high visual prominence along the heavily trafficked historic St. Claude Avenue corridor, and the fact that the applicant did not request HDLC approval prior to installation, Staff recommends denial of the request for retention.

Floodlights Installed at Eave:

The applicant has stated that they previously installed three (3) new floodlight fixtures along the Mandeville Street eave to provide additional security lighting for this area. However, the HDLC Design Guidelines note that security lighting should balance sufficient illumination to create a sense of safety with compatibility to the neighborhood context, and specifically prohibit the use of floodlights at street-facing elevations.

Staff noted that additional ambient lighting could potentially be provided in this area by removing the current floodlights and installing a limited number of simple recessed eave fixtures to illuminate the building wall and sidewalk. However, the applicant proceeded with implementing changes without approval, and the floodlights were have been installed into the underside of the eaves. While the fixtures are no longer visually prominent from the public way, they remain highly visible at the underside of the eave. They have also not been properly installed, with oversized rough openings, exposed foam insulation, and visible conduit and junction boxes. 

While the HDLC supports the applicant’s desire to provide enhanced security lighting, the selected fixtures and installation method are not appropriate for the building or its context. Given the inappropriate fixture type and poor installation, Staff recommends denial of the request for retention and recommends that the floodlights be removed and/or replaced with appropriate recessed fixtures that comply with the HDLC Design Guidelines.