Good Neighbors Stay Informed. Great Neighbors Get Involved.


  • Home
  • 621 Elysian Fields Ave
621 Elysian Fields Ave


Join us in protecting what makes New Orleans, well, 

New Orleans:

Our Historic Neighborhoods

Beginning in the Spring of 2023, a group of Baton Rouge based developers came to the neighbors of 621 Elysian Fields (formerly American Aquatic Gardens) with their proposal for a new chain hotel that would require them to build outside the city’s established zoning limits. This building would not only require a waiver for Conditional Use, but also Height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

While the neighbors were encouraged by the potential of development on this site, they pushed back on the requested waivers and demanded that the developers follow the rules laid out in the city’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO). These rules were put in place to ensure that new construction fits within the context of the neighborhood. The City’s Architectural Review Committee, the body that oversees development in the city’s Historic Landmark Districts,reviewed the plans twice and finally stated that the developers needed to receive the approval of the variances first from the City Planning Commission (CPC) and the City Council before they would review the plans again. This response from the ARC, which we have never seen before, was because the variances being requested were so excessive and inappropriate for the project’s surroundings.

In 2024, the developers hired Chris Young and Ike Spears to be their local representatives to help push this project through the city’s various approval processes. In December of 2024, the CPC Staff Report determined that the development did not meet a single one of the Nine Criteria. These Nine Criteria, which all need to be met for a variance to be granted, were created to safeguard residents and the city from projects that are inappropriate for their location. Because of this, they recommended denial of the conditional use and the waivers to the City Planning Commission. The City Planning Commission voted unanimously to accept the staff recommendation. They recommended that the City Council also deny the conditional use and the waivers.

The denial from the CPC, which was based on the lack of quality and appropriateness of the project, was echoed by everyday residents, neighborhood associations, and the various local and state organizations engaged in the protection and preservation of our city’s unique architectural and cultural history. The FMIA, Neighbors First for Bywater, VCPORA, French Quarter Citizens, the Preservation Resource Center, Louisiana Landmarks, and over 600 citizens and counting that all signed our petition opposing the granting of these waivers.

Councilmember Freddie King also opposed the project, up until he summoned us unexpectedly to a meeting a week before the City Council vote. He told us he and the project's developers had reached a compromise that would allow for a 30% increase in FAR (from 2.2 to 2.85), but no Height increase. Per the CZO, Councilmember King must justify his approval of the waivers by stating how this project meets the Nine Criteria.

As you can see when you read his ordinance, he justified the compromise he negotiated with the developer in such a way that it effectively eliminates the usefulness of the Nine Criteria, making a mockery of them by modifying their terms. When the City Council approved Councilmember King’s ordinance they effectively codified these justifications, allowing any future development throughout the city to ignore the city’s Zoning Standards. Of note, in land use decisions, almost without exception, other Councilmembers historically defer to the wishes of the Councilmember in whose district the property is located.

Per the ordinance, if another property in the surrounding neighborhood receives a parking waiver, is held to ADA rules, or if the developer believes its advantageous in order to meet the preferences of a national hotel chain, they are no longer bound to the zoning standards you and I must adhere to. These exceptions are citywide, and it won't be long until other developers use these new standards to ignore the rules in other Historic Districts or any other location in the city.

Imagine a neighborhood business near you being torn down and being replaced with a building like the hotel shown below with variances that would allow it to take over and dwarf your home and your neighborhood. We don't have to imagine. This is what is happening to us right now and is what can happen to you if this is allowed to stand. And for what? 

The real motivation for these waivers as stated multiple times by the developer was to salvage the economics of a project for which the developer, by their own admission, failed to do the proper due diligence. To directly quote NOLA.com on 2/26/25, “their project doesn’t work if they cannot build enough guest rooms to justify the cost of their investment in the property, which they purchased in 2022 for 2.75 million dollars” This was not a surprise to the neighbors as this the primary motivation that was stated several times at meetings. What they are trying to do is reverse engineer the zoning so it will fit a certain number of hotel rooms instead of seeing what the property can support with the established zoning.

To protect all of our homes, our quality of life, and our property values, all of which are essential to the survival of our neighborhoods and the historic districts that align with them, we have found ourselves with no choice but to file a lawsuit against the City of New Orleans. We simply cannot stand aside in light of the overwhelming, far-reaching and potentially permanent damage a precedent like this will not just allow, but will encourage.

We encourage you to read more about this issue, and how it may impact you in the future. We also encourage you to stay informed about this, get involved, and most importantly DONATE to our Legal Defense Fund in order to protect the culture that we all cherish.


Why Are We Fighting?

  • For the city to follow the law.
  • For developers, out-of-town or otherwise to respect our laws, historic districts and culture.
  • For citizens to be able to buy property with the assurance that the rules will not be changed for the convenience of others.
  • For City Hall to know the rules apply to them too.

 

Please join us and the hundreds of people including the 600+ people who have supported our cause through our petition.

Make a donation to protect the interests of all of us. 

Donate

Every little bit helps!


WHY IT MATTERS

The granting of waivers should not be taken lightly. Our historic districts are, in part, what brings people to New Orleans to visit and live so maintaining the integrity of them is paramount.

Although the council denied the 50% height waiver (from a maximum of 50 feet to 75 plus feet) they granted the increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) but reduced it from .81 to .65 whiich is still over the limit.

The purpose of the FAR is to make sure the massing of the buidling (size) is not out of scale in comparision to the buuldings around it. Changing it and/or the height only increases that possilbity and causes more problems that make the situation worse, not better. And for what? 

WE ARE NOT ALONE IN THINKING THIS PROJECT IS WRONG FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OVER 600+ PEOPLE AGREE AND COUNTING!



The Architecutral Review Committee (ARC) denied the current design for the proposed hotel. Recommended changes include the large windows on the front of the property to more consistent with the surrounding area, and the Royal Street side of the building and back wall of the project being brought down in high so it blends better with the surrounding area.  



What was approved by the City Council is a blatant violation of the CZO.   IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!

  • The CZO states a variance must meet all 9 of the “9 Criteria” approval standards.  The CPC (City Planning Commission) Staff Report states that the developer does not meet a single one!!!  The CPC concurred and voted unanimously 5-0 to recommend to the City Council that they DENY the application.  

  • Granting a variance in the absence of meeting all 9 of the 9 criteria is a VIOLATION OF THE LAW.  

  • To approve the FAR variance would undermine the entire purpose of the CZO, and would set a precedent where maximizing the developer’s profits would be sufficient to grant zoning variances.  We have repeatedly asked the developer if their variance request was for any reason other than profit, and they have consistently responded that they requested the waiver because “otherwise, the numbers just don’t work.”



Read the Letter to the City Council

Please Oppose the Overturning of the CPC Decision for ZD 105/24

Dear Councilmenbers,

For nearly two years, Baton Rouge based developers have been meeting with neighbors to build an overly large hotel at 621 Elysian Fields. From the very beginning, neighbors stood against the project, as it completely violates the tout ensemble of our neighborhood. Especially here, where it would abut one story homes, which are most prevalent in the Marigny. The neighbors want the property developed, but they want it to fit within our Historic District (aka follow the rules). The Architectural Review Committee shared this same sentiment, as they instructed the developers to gain approvals from the CPC for a 48% Height Variance (50 ft to 74 ft) and a 37% FAR Waiver (2.20 to 3.01), before they came back to the ARC asking for design approval. 

The developers were then denied unanimously by the CPC (5-0) in support of the Staff Report, which said that the project met NONE of the Nine Criteria for Zoning Variances, as well as violated the Master Plan, due to increased traffic in the area. So, it was not only out of scale for our Historic District, but to grant the variances would be ILLEGAL. This decision was also supported by over 550 people that signed our petition. 

Since that time, we have met with Councilmember King (on January 27), and were under the impression that this proposal would be denied due to neighborhood opposition and the adamant denial from the CPC. This was consistent with the denial for the Crescent Park Hotel in December. However, on February 20, CM King informed us that was no longer the case. He decided to strike a “compromise” in which the applicants would be granted their hotel, but only with a FAR Waiver of 2.85 (30%) but not a height waiver. While compromises are not uncommon in Land Use decisions, that is not allowed here, and is unquestionably illegal:

  • In March of 2023, the New Orleans City Council directed the CPC to conduct an omnibus study of all lodging in the City. To grant a Conditional Use for such a large hotel, after the CPC denied it - partially due to the fact that it would “change the character of the immediate vicinity, which is one- and- two story small scale residential”- would be hypocritical. Why allow such a substantial hotel before the CPC provides the report you’ve been waiting on for almost two years? 
  • The rules and regulations have been in place for years before these developers. The residents of the Marigny have bought their homes with the assurance that infill development would be done appropriately, and that any variances would meet the strict standards of the Nine Criteria. Allowing the developers to bypass the rules that everyone else follows would be granting a special privilege to wealthy developers that can afford the high prices demanded by consultants.
  • Section 4.3.E.4 of the CZO states that you may grant a variance, “However, the City Council cannot waive or modify any approval standards of this section (4.6.F)”
  • Section 4.6.F  (the Nine Criteria) requires that an applicant must meet all nine standards in order to provide for a variance. While most all recommendations from the CPC provide the Council discretion, there is no discretion when it comes to the Nine Criteria. All nine must be adhered to. 
  • The Nine Criteria do not allow for leniency depending on the size of the variance being asked for. Therefore, the removal of one variance (height), and the reduction of another (FAR), doesn’t lessen the requirement to meet the Nine Criteria. 
  • The CPC’s statement that ALL Nine Criteria were not met demonstrates that there is no legitimate logic for granting these waivers. Most obviously, numbers 6 and 7, which state that the variance shouldn’t be based on mere inconvenience to the owner or the desirability of profit or convenience.  For what other reasons would a hotel need more square footage, than convenience, profit or desirability? 
  • The granting of this proposal would allow for the undermining of the Zoning Standards of the Marigny, Bywater and Treme. Criteria Number 2 would allow for a variance “commonly enjoyed by other properties”.  While many people dismiss “slippery slope” arguments, this criteria would legalize the “slippery slope”. Allowing the variance at 621 Elysian Fields would allow other developers to be entitled to the same variances. 
  • We have included our analysis, and the analysis from the Staff Report, which addresses why this applicant should be denied any variances at this property. 
  • Furthermore, we have included excerpts from Judge Hutubarrat’s decisions in the lawsuit regarding the proposed Trader Joe’s on Tulane. In her decision, in which she decided that the variances were granted improperly, she goes further than asserting that all Nine Criteria must be met. She stated that, “The record does not reflect that the board properly considered all nine criteria for each variance nor does it reflect that each variance meets all required nine criteria. The landlord fails to provide competent evidence, and the board does not document its reasoning for approving the variances. The board has a duty to create a factual record justifying its decision. But, in this instance, it did not evaluate the variances in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the boards action were contrary to its own rules and staff recommendations rendering its decision arbitrary and capricious and not entitled to deference”. The developers appealed the decision, and on February 13, she restated her position, “ The board had an obligation pursuant to their own rules and regulations to clearly articulate the reasons for disagreeing with the staff report recommending the denial of variances. However, the rationale by the board failed to adequately address all nine criteria as established in Kaltenbaugh versus Board of Supervisors, the boards failure to adhere to its own procedural requirements renders their decision arbitrary and capricious.” 

In order to grant these variances you would have to state why you disagree with the Staff Report on all Nine Criteria. Secondly, you would need to explain how you could grant a  30% FAR Waiver where all Nine Criteria weren’t met,  when you denied a 5% Height Waiver for the Crescent Park Hotel, with six of the Nine Criteria not met. The non compliance to the Nine Criteria is so blatant that to grant these variances would clearly be Illegal. 

We apologize for presenting this to you so late in the process, but we were not made aware of this “compromise”, until February 20.  We have also tried to make this as concise as possible, but could not do so, without eliminating information crucial  to you. We thank you for your careful consideration, and look forward to any questions you may have.

Sincelrely,

Faubourg Marigny Improvement Association


Attached Supporting Documents

FMIA Analysis.pdf

CZO Relevant Sections.pdf

Excerpts from Judge Hutubarrat’s Decisions.pdf


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software