Landmark building permit details
| Location | 65 BEDFORD STREET, MANHATTAN |
|---|---|
| Issue date | December 10, 2007 |
| (?) COFA | COFA 08-5395 |
Certificates of Appropriateness (COFAs) are issued by the landmarks commission when it approves such things as building construction, demolition and visible additions to historic property. The certificates require a public hearing and the entire process can take several months. |
|
| Docket | 08-4306 |
| Historic district | Greenwich Village |
| Landmark name | N/A |
| Expiration date | October 16, 2013 |
| Text |
Pursuant to Section 25-307 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the Landmarks Preservation Commission, at the Public Meeting of October 16, 2007, following the Public Meetings of July 17, 2007, June 12, 2007, May 15, 2007, and March 20, 2007, and the Public Hearing of March 20, 2007, voted to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the subject premises, as put forward in your application completed on February 22, 2007, and as you were informed in Status Update Letters 07-9267 (LPC 07-4676), issued June 12, 2007, and 08-4063 (LPC 08-0354), issued October 16, 2007. The proposed work, as approved, consists of constructing a one-story glass and metal rooftop addition with mechanical units on the roof, set back over 17 feet from the front façade; installing a light gray painted metal mesh rooftop railing set back 6 feet from the front façade; raising the height of the front parapet approximately 2' 3" and installing a new painted wood cornice; raising the height of the third floor window opening on the front façade by approximately 8", installing a steel lintel painted to match the existing brownstone lintels on the lower floors, and replacing the non-original double-hung windows with painted steel casement windows; constructing a new areaway with an iron picket fence, tinted cement entrance stoop with iron railing, and parlor floor entrance with a dark stained wood paneled door, multi-light transom, tinted cast stone lintel, and a wood surround with paneled piers and multi-pane sidelights; painting the new front façade windows, door surround and cornice Benjamin Moore Huntington Beige HC-21; and removing the existing two-story rear yard addition and constructing a new two-story addition, as shown in drawings, photographs, and photo montages labeled A-2, A3, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A11, A13, and A14, dated February 16, 2007, A14, A19, A20 and A21, dated March 7, 2007, A0, A1, A6, A10, and A12, revised September 12, 2007, and A14.1, A14.2, A14.3, A15.1 and A16.1, revised September 24, 2007, prepared by Conklin Costantin Architects LLP, submitted as components of the application, and presented at the Public Meetings and Public Hearing. The proposal as initially submitted to the Commission, featured a higher rooftop addition sloping back from the front façade; a lower front parapet; double-hung windows in the top floor opening; and a less historically accurate door surround, as shown in drawings and photo montages labeled A0, dated March 7, 2007, and A1, A6, A10, A12, A15, and A16, dated February 16, 2007, prepared by Conklin Costantin Architects LLP. In reviewing this proposal, the Commission noted that the designation report states that 65 Bedford Street is a Greek Revival style rowhouse built in the 1830's and later altered; and that the scale, style, details and materials of the building are among the features which contribute to the special architectural and historic character of the Greenwich Village Historic District. The Commission also noted that the third floor was added, and the stoop and parlor floor entrance were removed, in the 20th century; and that the third floor window opening contained a series of multi-pane casement windows at the time of designation. With regard to this proposal, the Commission found that the proposed addition will be set back from the front façade, and will not be visible in conjunction with the front façade from any point on Bedford Street, and therefore, will have no impact on the small scale of the residential streetscape; that the addition will only be visible from a great distance across 7th Avenue South, and will be viewed over only a portion of the facade and between the substantially taller neighboring buildings; that the multi-pane fenestration of the addition is harmonious with both the original multi-pane double-hung windows at the parlor and 2nd floor as well as the multi-pane casements of the early 20th century studio window; that the mesh design and light color of the proposed railing will minimize its visibility; that the height of the raised front parapet will be consistent with the variety of parapet heights on the street, and will help reduce the visibility of the addition from public thoroughfares; that increasing the height of the existing top floor studio window will be consistent with the proportions of this type of early 20th century alteration as found on numerous houses throughout the district; that the proposed cornice will add an element to the façade that is commonly found on buildings of this age and style, but its simple design will clearly identify it as a later addition; that the proposed stoop and areaway will restore original features to the façade, creating a more harmonious relationship with the other houses on the block which have had their stoops and parlor floor entrances restored; that the design for the new stoop and parlor floor entrance is based on stoops and entrances found on buildings of similar age and style on Bedford Street that contain stylistic elements that follow a set pattern or type; that the rear of the building has no significant architectural features which will be lost or damaged as a result of the construction of the rear addition; that the proposed rear addition will extend slightly more into the rear yard than the existing, and thus will not significantly alter the relationship of the building to the rear yard; that the first floor of the proposed addition is mostly non-enclosed space, and therefore, the mass of the building will be reduced with the removal of the existing rear addition; that the scale of the rear addition is consistent with other additions within the block; and that the proposed work will not detract from the special historic and architectural character of the building, the streetscape and the historic district. Based on these findings, the Commission determined the proposed work to be appropriate to the buildings and the historic district, and voted to approve this application. The Commission authorized the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness upon receipt, review and approval of two signed and sealed copies of the final Department of Buildings filing drawings for the approved work. Subsequently, the staff of the Commission received drawings A0 through A4, A4.1, and A4.2, revised November 19, 2007, P8, P9, and H1, and H3 through H11, dated November 10, 2007, H2, revised November 30, 2007, and S1 through S11, revised November 26, 2007, prepared by Conklin Costantin Architects LLP, Hage Engineering, and DNV Associates. The Commission reviewed the drawings and noted that the existing rear addition will only be partially demolished and rebuilt on the existing footprint with a small amount of additional space at the first floor; and that new wood six-over-six wood windows will be installed on the front façade at the basement, first and second floors. With regard to these drawings, the Commission found that the rear addition as revised will extend into the rear yard no further than the existing addition, and will maintain the height and scale of the existing; that, in accordance with the provisions of Title 63 of RCNY, Section 3, that the new widows will match the configuration, operation, details, material and finish of the historic windows; and that the proposal approved by the Commission has been maintained. Based on these and the above findings, the drawings have been marked approved by the LPC with a perforated seal and Certificate of Appropriateness 08-5395 is being issued. This permit is issued on the basis of the building and site conditions described in the application and disclosed during the review process. By accepting this permit, the applicant agrees to notify the Commission if the actual building or site conditions vary or if original or historic building fabric is discovered. The Commission reserves PAGE 2 Issued: 12/10/07 DOCKET: 08-4306 the right to amend or revoke this permit, upon written notice to the applicant, in the event that the actual building or site conditions are materially different from those described in the application or disclosed during the review process. All approved drawings are marked approved by the Commission with a perforated seal indicating the date of approval. The work is limited to what is contained in the perforated documents. Other work or amendments to this filing must be reviewed and approved separately. The applicant is hereby put on notice that performing or maintaining any work not explicitly authorized by this permit may make the applicant liable for criminal and/or civil penalties, including imprisonment and fines. This letter constitutes the permit; a copy must be prominently displayed at the site while work is in progress. Please direct inquiries to Lisa Schaeffer. Robert B. Tierney Chair PLEASE NOTE: PERFORATED DRAWINGS AND A COPY OF THIS PERMIT HAVE BEEN SENT TO: Luisa Estrella, AEC Consulting cc: L. Estrella, AEC PAGE 3 Issued: 12/10/07 DOCKET: 08-4306 |
Added to EveryBlock on February 1, 2008.
Comments
Other landmark building permits nearby
- West Village
- Manhattan
- 10014
- Precinct 6
- Manhattan CB 2
- Greenwich Village
- State Assembly District 66
- State Senate District 29
- Congressional District 8
- City Council District 3
- More landmark building permits in New York City
- Subscribe to e-mail updates nearby:
