|
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TESTIMONY LPC-25-09048 4695 Independence Avenue – Greystone Gatehouse – Individual Landmark CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A Picturesque style cottage attributed to James Renwick Jr. and Joseph Sands and built in 1863-68. Application is to construct an addition and replace roofing materials. Architect: HAL A. DORFMAN ARCHITECT HDC finds the proportions and massing of the proposed addition to be appropriate. The designation report for the Greystone Gatehouse mentions the irregular massing as being an important architectural feature, and this addition maintains that condition. The designation report also mentions the polychrome slate shingles as being a characteristic feature, therefore, we believe that the applicant should use real slate to match the original roofing materials. Action: Unanimously approved. |
![]() |
|
LPC-25-07440 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Architect: Cosmo Veneziale Architect, P.L.L.C HDC finds the majority of this masterplan to be appropriate. We find it commendable that the applicant is returning the historic arched window back to this building, however we would like to see a 3 over 3 or 3 over 1 window configuration – either approach would help this building conform more to its original appearance by recalling the 3 over 3 hopper windows. Action: Unanimously approved. |
![]() |
|
LPC-25-05796 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Architect: MURDOCK SOLON ARCHITECTS HDC finds this proposal to be appropriate and commendable. The porch addition is beautifully designed and increases the aesthetic appeal of the north and east elevations. Additionally, we find the material choices for the facade to be modest and appropriate. Action: Unanimously approved. |
![]() |
|
LPC-25-09497 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A Renaissance Revival style store and loft building designed by Frank Wennemer and built in 1892-93. Application is to install a painted wall mural. HDC is unclear about the rules and permanence of such a mural as it depicts a work of art and not an advertisement, but we believe that it is inappropriate in scale. We feel that the size of this mural dominates the view of this historic district and are concerned about the precedent of such a large scaled piece of art. Action: Unanimously approved. |
![]() |
|
LPC-25-04392 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HDC finds this legalization to be inappropriate. We regret that the opportunity to alter the storefront was not used to restore the historic storefront. We believe that if this proposal had come before the commission it would not have been approved. We ask the commission to deny this application. Action: Unanimously approved. |
![]() |
|
LPC-25-00834 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Architect: ab architekten HDC finds the rooftop to be appropriate, but we find the 3rd-floor extension to be inappropriate. HDC’s typical stance is to maintain the top two floors in an extension; therefore, this extension is one story too tall. We are also concerned that the bulk of the extension eliminates the entire rear yard. Action: No action. |
![]() |
|
LPC-25-11234 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Architect: bwd ARCHITECTS HDC supports the majority of this proposal, but we believe that the use of flat arches on the ground floor would be a more appropriate choice and would aid in the restoration of this building. We encourage the applicant to take the opportunity to restore these arches. Action: Unanimously approved. |
![]() |










