1622 Toledano St.

Description: Appeal of previous ARC recommendation for denial of installation of garage doors as part of a previously approved new construction of a 10,300 SF three-story, multi-family residential building.

HDLC Design Guidelines: 

Section 08, Page 20 of the Guidelines for Windows and Doors, and Section 12, Page 9 of the Guidelines for New Construction, Additions and Demolition state that the rhythm and pattern of principal façades of new construction should reflect and maintain neighborhood patterns. Additionally, it is generally appropriate to install stylistically compatible windows and doors at new construction with those found on existing neighboring buildings and it is generally inappropriate to install window or door types that are incompatible with the surrounding local Historic District or setting.

Staff Recommendations: 

When this new construction application was first submitted, the drawings included garage doors at the ground floor of each of the three townhouses. At the first review meeting on May 14, 2024, the ARC deferred the application and noted that “the prominence of the garage doors at the front elevation is too suburban in character and not considered appropriate for St. Charles Avenue or the Garden District.”

The drawings were revised to address other ARC comments; however, the garage doors remained in the proposed design. At the second review meeting on June 18, 2024, the ARC again deferred the application, stating that “the building’s overall massing, architectural detailing, presence on the street, and ground-floor treatment (including the proposed garage doors) are still too suburban in character and do not appear compatible with the surrounding historic context.” The ARC further noted that “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.”

The drawings were revised again in response to these recommendations, and the garage doors were removed in favor of open-air carports with fences and gates along the front property line. Based on this updated design, the ARC found that “the proposed front yard fencing and gates appear appropriate for the overall site plan, particularly as this allows for the removal of the previous garage doors and enhances the ground-floor pedestrian experience.” The ARC then recommended conceptual approval of the massing and site plan, with final façade and fencing details to return for further review.

Now that construction is nearing substantial completion, the applicant is requesting approval to install new windowless garage doors to enhance security and deter trespassing and loitering. 

Highly visible garage doors are uncommon within the surrounding local historic district and are typically located at rear accessory buildings rather than as prominent elements of a primary façade. Moreover, the ARC has previously reviewed and consistently found garage doors to be inappropriate for this building and its context. Given this, and because building security can be effectively achieved through approved front yard fencing, gates, lighting, or discreet measures such as cameras, Staff recommends denial of the request and recommends maintaining the open-air carport condition, or using simple metal gates that preserve the visual character of an open-air carport. If garage doors are approved, Staff recommends a proviso that they be simple/plain sectional doors without windows that complement the contemporary design of the new construction. 

• Staff Recommendation: Denial

Case History & Previous ARC Recommendations & Commission Actions: 

09/05/25: Applicant requests reconsideration of installation of garage doors. Staff notes that the ARC previously recommended denial of the garage doors so installation requires Commission approval as an appeal of the previous ARC recommendations.

10/21/24: CofA for demolition and new construction issued.

09/17/24: The ARC voted to recommend conceptual approval with the final details to be worked out at the Staff level. The ARC also agreed that all previous ARC recommendations have been addressed and the revisions made since the previous review have improved the overall proposal.

09/04/24: The Commission voted to grant 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, and to approve the request for demolition to grade of the existing building, with the proviso that the CofA will not be issued until the new construction CofA is also ready to be issued simultaneously. 

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.

04/08/24: Application submitted for demolition of an existing Contributing rated one-story, single-family residential building for the new construction of a 10,300 SF three-story, multi-family residential building.

Context Photos:

Proposed Garage Door Information:

Supplemental Information - Submitted by Applicant:

Previous Drawings - 09/17/24:

Relevant ARC Recommendation:

• The ARC agreed that all previous ARC recommendations have been addressed and the revisions made since the previous review have improved the overall proposal.

Previous Drawings - 07/23/24:

Relevant ARC Recommendation:

• 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.

Previous Drawings - 06/18/24:

Relevant ARC Recommendation:

• 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 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.

• 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.  

Previous Drawings - 05/14/24:

Relevant ARC Recommendation:

• 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.

Street View: