Landmark building permit details
| Location | 80 WASHINGTON PLACE, MANHATTAN |
|---|---|
| Issue date | February 12, 2009 |
| (?) COFA | COFA 09-7384 |
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 | 09-6577 |
| Historic district | Greenwich Village |
| Landmark name | N/A |
| Expiration date | January 6, 2015 |
| 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 January 6, 2009, following the Public Meeting on November 18, 2008 and Public Hearing on September 23, 2008, voted to approve the proposed work at the subject premises, as put forward in your application completed on December 10, 2008, and as you were informed in the Status Update Letter issued on January 6, 2009 (SUL 09-6479, LPC 09-2481). This approval will expire on January 6, 2015. The proposed work, as approved, consists of altering the front façade to create an at-grade entrance, featuring a new brownstone entablature and pilasters; modifying the existing masonry opening above the new entrance and installing a new multi-light fixed window within the opening; lowering the sills at the parlor floor and installing new multi-light double-hung wood windows; and replacing all existing one-over-one double-hung windows with new multi-light wood windows; and installing a new iron fence and concrete posts at the areaway; and demolishing the existing rear addition and façade, including bay windows at the upper floors, and constructing a four-story brick-and-glass rear yard addition, featuring a central projecting bay; and rooftop additions, consisting of a stair bulkhead, mechanical equipment and glass railings. The proposal as originally presented called for, at the front façade, the removal of the existing one-over-one window, combining the window opening and existing below-grade door opening to create an at-grade entrance, featuring a wood-and-glass door and transom, a non-historic entryway, and one-over-one double-hung windows; and at the rear façade, a full-height, full-width brick, QuadroClad and glass rear addition with balconies; as shown in drawings A-0 through A-16; A-1, A-2A, A-2B, A-3, A-3A, A-4 through A-11; and A-4 dated August 27, 2008, prepared by Clodagh Design and Israel Peles Architects P.C., submitted as components of the application, and presented at the Public Hearing and Public Meetings. In reviewing this proposal, the Commission noted that the Greenwich Village Historic District Designation Report describes 80 Washington Place as a Greek Revival style row house built in 1839 and altered in the early 20th century. With regard to this proposal, the Commission found that the door opening will be consistent with the design of other houses in the district that historically had their stoops removed and new basement entrances created; that the proposed work will provide an at-grade entrance at the building that will relate to the parlor floor window openings and to the scale and proportions of the rowhouse; that the details of the door surround and window opening recall the detail, proportions and configuration of the historic broken pediment; that lengthening the parlor floor windows was a traditional alteration made to Greek Revival style houses in the later 19th century, therefore, the proposed change will relate well to the other houses with tall parlor floor windows in the district; that the proposed multi-pane double-hung and studio windows will reflect the significant early alterations to the building; that the removal of the existing non-historic metal fence will eliminate an unsympathetic element that detracts from the building, the streetscape and the historic district; that the new fence and posts will match the historic ironwork at 78 Washington Place; that the fence and posts will be in keeping with their historic placement at the areaway, thereby enhancing the relationship between the two rowhouses and creating a more uniform streetscape; that the rear façade has been significantly altered and no longer bears a resemblance to the historic rear façade still evident on the adjacent house, therefore, the removal and reconstruction of the rear façade will not diminish the building's relationship to the row; that extensive portions of the existing rear wall of the building are in a highly deteriorated condition, and therefore, its removal and reconstruction is warranted; that the rear façade is not visible from any public thoroughfare; that this group of buildings is surrounded by large buildings, therefore, an addition will not significantly overwhelm the rear facades in this block; that the addition will not project into the rear yard further than the neighboring rear extension and therefore, will not further diminish the central greenspace; that the brick top floor, corbelled cornice and fenestration pattern will be restored, thereby preserving the relationship between this and the other building in the row; and that the projecting bays at the rear facade will recall the existing bay windows at the upper floors, which were part of a 20th century alteration. Based on these findings, the Commission determined that the proposed work is appropriate to the building and to the Greenwich Village Historic District, and voted to approve this application. However, in voting to grant this approval, the Commission stipulated that the design of the columns at the entrance door be restudied in consultation with staff; and that a set of unmounted copies of the presentation drawings and two final signed and sealed copies of the Department of Buildings filing drawings for the approved work be submitted to the staff of the Commission for review and approval. Subsequently, on February 10, 2009, the Landmarks Preservation Commission received final revised drawings T-1, T-2, A-1 through A-6, A-7 and A-8 dated January 22, 2009; D-1 dated November 14, 2008; A-6a dated March 17, 2009 and A-6b dated February 6, 2009, signed and sealed by Israel Peles, RA; revised drawings H-1 through H-11; P-1 through P-8; and SP-1 through SP-6 dated January 22, 2009, signed and sealed by Herminigildo Roxas Marcos, PE; and drawings S-1.0 through S-1.3, S-2.0 through S-2.3, S-3.0, S-3.1 and S-4.0 dated January 16, 2009, signed and sealed by Robert Silman, PE. Accordingly, staff reviewed the drawings and found that the revisions recommended by the Commission have been incorporated and that the work also included additional alterations at the roof, including the removal of one (1) existing stair bulkhead and one (1) existing elevator bulkhead and the construction of one (1) new stair bulkhead; the removal of existing skylights and chimneys; the installation of one (1) new chiller unit and one (1) new condensing unit; the installation of new exhaust fans and flues with masonry enclosure; the installation of two (2) new 42"-high glass railings at the front and rear areas of the roof; and the installation of new roof pavers; at the rear yard, including the construction of a new deck; and the removal of an existing fence and the installation of a new fence; and removing and replacing the existing concrete sidewalk with a new untinted concrete sidewalk with scoring to match existing; and interior alterations at all floors, including the construction of non-bearing partitions and finishes; the installation of new plumbing fixtures; and upgrading mechanical, plumbing, sprinkler and structural systems. With regard to the additional work, the Commission found, in accordance with the Rules of the City of New York, Title 63, Section 2-19, that the rooftop additions will consist solely of mechanical equipment; that their installation will not result in damage to or demolition of a significant architectural feature of the roof; that they will not be visible from any public thoroughfare; and that they will not adversely affect significant architectural features of adjacent improvements; that the work at the rear yard will not result in damage to or loss of any significant historic fabric; and that the work will not detract from the special architectural or historic character of the building or district; PAGE 2 Issued: 2/12/09 DOCKET: 09-6577 and that the concrete sidewalk to be removed is not a significant feature of the building or district; that the new, standard concrete sidewalk, untinted and scored in a standard pattern to align with adjacent sidewalks, will be harmonious with the building and with standard sidewalks found typically in this district; that the work will help to maintain a consistent sidewalk treatment in the district; and that retaining the steel faced concrete curb will preserve this significant feature; and that the proposal approved by the Commission has been maintained. Based on this and the above findings, the drawings are marked approved with a perforated seal, and Certificate of Appropriateness 09-7384 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 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 Caroline Pasion. Robert B. Tierney Chair PLEASE NOTE: PERFORATED DRAWINGS AND A COPY OF THIS PERMIT HAVE BEEN SENT TO: Yolanda Maranga, New York Consultants, Inc. PAGE 3 Issued: 2/12/09 DOCKET: 09-6577 |
Added to EveryBlock on March 28, 2009.
Comments
Other landmark building permits nearby
- Manhattan
- Precinct 6
- Manhattan CB 2
- Greenwich Village
- State Assembly District 66
- State Senate District 29
- Congressional District 8
- City Council District 3
- 10011
- More landmark building permits in New York City
- Subscribe to e-mail updates nearby:
