Landmark permit issued for 48-60 BEACH STREET, MANHATTAN in TRIBECA WEST
Landmark building permit details
| Location | 48-60 BEACH STREET, MANHATTAN |
|---|---|
| Issue date | April 26, 2007 |
| (?) COFA | COFA 07-7650 |
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 | 07-5333 |
| Historic district | Tribeca West |
| Landmark name | N/A |
| Expiration date | October 24, 2012 |
| 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 24, 2006, following the Public Hearing of the same date, voted to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the subject premises, as put forth in your application completed on September 28, 2006. The proposed work, as approved, consists of removing existing modern infill at the ground floor and installing new metal and glass infill within the existing masonry openings at the ground floor; installing a marquee, lighting and security cameras under the marquee; rehabilitating the existing loading dock; installing aluminum segmental-head windows on the rear façade; demolishing a portion of the rear façade, and reconstructing the rear façade wall; constructing a one-story rooftop penthouse and installing mechanical equipment at the roof, as shown in current condition and historic photo documentation photo presentation boards, material samples, on-site rooftop mock-up, and twenty-eight (28) presentation boards featuring drawings labeled L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5, L-5A, L-6, L-7-8, L-8A, L-9, L-10, L-11, L-12, L-13, L-13A, L-13B, L-14, L-15, L-15A, L-16, L-16A, L-16B, L-16C, L-16D, L-16E, L-17, L-18 and L-19-5, dated last revised October 10, 2006, prepared by H. Thomas O'Hara, and submitted as components of the application, and presented at the Public Hearing and Public Meetings. In reviewing the proposal, the Commission noted that the Tribeca West Historic District Designation Report describes 48-60 Beach Street as a neo-Renaissance style warehouse designed by Charles C. Haight and built 1905; and that the building's style, scale and materials are among the features that contribute to the special architectural and historic character of the Tribeca West Historic District. With regard to this proposal, the Commission found that the removal of the modern ground floor infill will eliminate features that detract from the special historic and architectural character of the building; that the design of the proposed ground floor infill will allow for the retention, repair, and restoration of the ground floor brick piers and gray brick decorative infill, thereby returning the base of the building closer to its historic appearance; that the design of the proposed ground floor infill will relate well to the windows above and the infill at the other ground floor bays which feature the brick arches, thereby creating a harmonious treatment for the base of the building; that reproducing the historic marquee and utilizing the historic escutcheons will restore missing significant historic and architectural features to the base of the building; that the metal and glass materials of the canopy will be compatible with the industrial character of the historic district; that the security cameras and lighting fixtures will be concealed within the structure of the canopy ; the intercoms well scaled, and located on the returns of the brick piers; and the light fixtures at the entrances, scaled to the entrance ways, and therefore will not be obtrusive and call undue attention to themselves; that the deteriorated condition of the wood windows and brick molds on the rear facade warrants their replacement; that the proposed aluminum windows will match closely the profile, dimensions and details of the historic windows; that the arched panel detail in the upper sash will replicate the arched panels in the wood windows and fit neatly within the curved profile of the historic wood frames; that the proposed factory applied finish for the windows is based on a paint analysis and therefore will match the historic finish and is in keeping with the color palette of the building; that because of the proposed finish, the deeply recessed location of the windows, the simple one-over-one configuration and the details, the change in material will not be perceptible; that the construction of the proposed addition and mechanical equipment will not result in any damage to, or demolition of, any significant architectural features of the roof; that the penthouse addition will be set back from the facade, and therefore, will only be minimally visible from great distances over a small portion of the primary façade, in conjunction with other rooftop mechanical bulkheads, and will not adversely affect the streetscape; that the mechanical equipment will be minimally visible over the secondary facade, and will be seen in conjunction with other rooftop mechanical bulkheads, and will not adversely affect the streetscape; that the materials and neutral color palette of the proposed rooftop additions will help the additions blend with the surrounding roofscape; that the proposed work at the rear façade will not be visible from any public thoroughfare; that the removal of the one-story rear addition, which is constructed of plain brick with simple punched openings, and a shed roof, will not remove any significant architectural feature from the building or from the streetscape; and that while the proposed new glass wall will be set within the building and back from the original rear façade, the existing historic masonry piers will be retained preserving this historic fabric and maintaining scale and rhythm at the base of the building. Based on these findings, the Commission determined that the work is appropriate to the building. However, in voting to grant this approval, the Landmarks Preservation Commission made its determination subject to the condition that the owners legal council present this scope of work to the loft board prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness; that the iron screen detail for the concrete loading dock replicate the existing detail; and that two sets of final signed and sealed drawings showing the approved proposal, which will be filed with the Department of Buildings, be submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for review and approval. Subsequently, on April 13, 2007, the Commission received two sets of final stamped and signed drawings labeled A000, Z01, Z02, Z03, A001, A002, A003, A004, A101, A101.1, A101.2, A102, A102.1, A102.2, A103, A103.1, A103.2, A104, A104.1, A104.2, A105, A105.1, A105.2, A106, A106.1, A106.2, A107, A107.1, A107.2, A108, A108.1, A108.2, A109, A109.1, A109.2, A110, A110.1, A110.2, A201, A202, A203, A204, A204.1, A204.2, A204.3, A205, A206, A207, A208, A209, A209.1, A210 through A218, A301 through A306.1, A307 through A309, A500 through A511 and A601 through A609 and A700, dated May 5, 2006; last revised (100% scope construction documents) December 29, 2006, prepared by Henry Thomas O'Hara, R.A. and S-001, S002, S003, S100, S101 through S109 and S201, dated October 27, 2006,; last revised December 29, 2006, prepared by Andrzej Okolski, P.E. and M-1 through 26, P-1 through 18, SP-1 through SP-13, FA-1 through FA-11, dated June 2, 2006;last revised December 29, 2006, prepared by Michael Gerazouns, P.E. The Commission staff noted that the drawings included additional work, including a full restorative program for cleaning, repointing and repairing the masonry facades in-kind; restoring and or replacing decorative masonry elements in-kind at select locations; and the rehabilitation of architectural details at all facades and at the roof. Staff finds that the proposed work will restore the building closer to its historic appearance and will aid in the long term preservation of the building; and that the proposal approved by the Commission has been maintained. Based on these and the above PAGE 2 Issued: 4/26/07 DOCKET: 07-5333 findings, these drawings are being marked approved by the Commission with a perforated seal, and this Certificate of Appropriateness is being issued. This permit is issued contingent upon the Commission's review and approval of cleaning samples, brick and mortar samples, patching samples, and all shop drawings for windows, door replacement, canopy, loading dock design and detail, rooftop skylights and all other work noted on drawings, all prior to the commencement of work. Please contact the Landmarks Preservation Commission when the samples are ready to arrang 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 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 Kim Valente. Robert B. Tierney Chair PLEASE NOTE: PERFORATED DRAWINGS AND A COPY OF THIS PERMIT HAVE BEEN SENT TO: Higgins and Quasbarth cc: Barbara Hair, Cozen O'Connor Attorney's; ; H. Thomas O'Hara Architect, PLLC; Higgins and Quasbarth; William Neeley, Deputy Director of Preservation; Mark Silberman, Counsel LPC PAGE 3 Issued: 4/26/07 DOCKET: 07-5333 |
Added to EveryBlock on January 16, 2008.