1940 Saint Claude Ave.

Staff Recommendations: 

Inappropriate Roof Shingle Color:

The asphalt shingle roof on this building was installed recently as part of the overall renovation and new rear addition to the structure, as previously approved. While the HDLC-approved documents specifically indicate that new roof shingles must be selected from the included list of pre-approved shingle brands and colors, a brown shingle roof was installed instead. The applicant has acknowledged that this was an oversight on their part.

The HDLC Design Guidelines note that asphalt shingle colors in New Orleans should simulate the appearance of slate, typically in shades of dark gray to gray. Brown roof shingles, by contrast, simulate wood shingles and are not considered appropriate.

However, because the roof ridge tiles were salvaged and reinstalled on the new roof, the overall building has been substantially improved and brought back into commerce, and the brown shingles are expected to weather over time to a darker overall appearance, Staff has no objection to the request for retention. However, if approval is granted, Staff recommends the proviso that an appropriate shingle color be installed when roof replacement is requested in the future.

Exposed Electrical Raceway at Signage:

As part of the overall building renovation and addition, new signage for the business was installed on the front St. Claude Avenue elevation without a sign permit and without HDLC approval. While the signage is generally considered to be an appropriate channel letter sign, it includes a visually prominent electrical raceway between the wall and the channel letters. The applicant is requesting retention approval for the signage to remain as currently installed, with the electrical raceway painted to match the wall color to further reduce its visibility.

The HDLC Design Guidelines specifically prohibit exposed electrical raceways at signage when visible from the public right-of-way because they appear as prominent elements of signage and visually distract from the building’s architectural features and details. However, the applicant has noted the building’s 14-inch thick masonry walls complicate removing the raceway and re-mounting the channel letters directly to the building wall, as would typically be required. For example, they have indicated the current signage needs only 10 mounting points and one through-wall power supply penetration, whereas wall-mounted letters would require 24 mounting points and eight penetrations for power, and are concerned about the effect this may have on the structural integrity of the building. While Staff agrees that this option may be more difficult or costly, it is not infeasible. Additionally, Staff has noted an alternative option in which the raceway is replaced with a thinner backer panel sized for the existing channel letters, which could be approved at the Staff level (and contingent upon meeting CZO maximum sign area requirements).

Based on these factors, and to maintain consistency with previous requests for raceway retentions that were denied, and because this work was completed without a sign permit or HDLC approval, Staff recommends denial of the request for retention and recommends that the signage be corrected so that the raceway is removed or replaced.