Landmark permit issued for 108 WEST 76TH STREET, MANHATTAN in UPPER WEST SIDE-CPW
Landmark building permit details
| Location | 108 WEST 76TH STREET, MANHATTAN |
|---|---|
| Issue date | February 12, 2007 |
| (?) COFA | COFA 07-5856 |
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 | 07-5214 |
| Historic district | Upper West Side - CPW |
| Landmark name | N/A |
| Expiration date | January 23, 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 January 23, 2007, following the Public Meeting of January 16, 2007 and the Public Hearing and Public Meeting of December 5, 2006, voted to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the subject premises, as put forward in your application completed November 9, 2006, and as you were informed in Status Update Letter 07-5256 (LPC 07-2068), issued January 24, 2007. The proposed work, as approved, consists of modifying the first floor window openings by shifting their placement upwards without changing the overall opening size; recreating previously removed decorative brownstone banding at the base of the projecting bay and below the first floor window; extending the decorative brownstone banding above and below the first floor windows; creating new decorative brownstone detailing, including rusticated bands, window surrounds and lintels at the basement level; widening the basement entrance and replacing a single door with new paired wood and glass doors, featuring a dark stained finish, within the enlarged opening; installing light fixtures; and replacing an existing areaway fence with a brownstone planter/wall. The proposed work also includes demolishing the existing rear facade and extensions; and constructing a new rear facade, featuring screen walls at the fourth (top) floor and a four-story addition. The proposal, as initially presented, included raising the front facade parlor floor windows higher; reducing the volume of the western portion of the third floor by rebuilding the rear wall further from the rear yard; and rebuilding the rear wall of the fourth floor without the screen walls. Subsequently, the proposal, as presented at the Public Meeting of January 16, 2007, included rebuilding the fourth floor of the rear facade to align with the western neighboring property. The work was shown on presentation boards, labeled A-1, dated November 6, 2006; A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, and A-13, dated November 28, 2006; A-10, dated November 2, 2006; A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12 and A-13, dated January 2, 2007; and A-8, A-9, A-10, and A-13, dated January 17, 2007, all prepared by Torborg Architects LLP, and consisting of drawings and photographs; a finish sample for the doors; and a model (modified twice), all presented at the Public Hearing and Public Meetings. In reviewing this proposal, the Commission noted that the Upper West Side-Central Park West Historic District Designation Report describes 108 West 76th Street as a Renaissance Revival style rowhouse, designed by John C. Burne and built in 1891-1892; that the stoop was removed prior to designation; and that the building's style, scale, materials and details are among the features that contribute to the special architectural and historic character of the historic district. With regard to this proposal, the Commission found that the proposed alterations at the front facade will not eliminate any original historic features or significant later alterations; that the recreation of decorative banding below the first floor windows and at the bottom of the projecting bay will be based on a historic photograph, thereby returning original historic details to the facade; that extending the proposed decorative banding below the former parlor floor entrance location and creating a second band above the former parlor floor will help this altered portion of the facade to harmonize with the style of the building, without prohibiting the possible restoration of a parlor floor entrance in the future; that the modifications at the basement level will be well related to the Renaissance Revival style of the building and will support the traditional hierarchy of floor levels; that the light fixtures are typical in placement, small in scale and simple in design; that the areaway wall/planter will recall the massing and solidity of the previously removed historic box stoop and harmonize with the box stoops remaining throughout the streetscape; that the removal of the existing stucco-clad three-story extension and one-story cantilevered extension on the rear facade will not eliminate significant features of the building; that the wood detailing at the one-story projecting extension is in a state of disrepair and is not a significant feature of the composition of the rear facade; that the proposed addition will not rise to the full height of the building, project beyond the additions at the neighboring properties, or decrease the overall amount of central open space; that the height of the proposed four-story addition will be in keeping with the height of existing four-story additions at neighboring properties; that the size and placement of the proposed rear facade masonry openings will be in keeping with the scale and character of an individual rowhouse; that although the upper portion of the rear facade will be rebuilt and the new top floor rear wall will be set back from the plane of the existing historic facade, the third floor will be rebuilt in its existing plane and the new screen walls at the top floor will be built in the planes of the historic rear facade and sidewalls, with materials, masonry openings, and a corbeled cornice to match the original rear facade, thereby maintaining a reference to the original form, volume and character of the building; that the building was built independently from its neighbors and does not match them in massing at the rear facade, therefore rebuilding the upper floors will not disrupt the unity of the row; and that the small portion of the rear alterations visible from a public thoroughfare will be barely perceptible from a distance through an alley. Based on these findings, the Commission determined the work to be appropriate to the building and the historic district and voted to approve the application. The Commission authorized the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness upon receipt, review and approval of two sets of signed and sealed Department of Building filing drawings showing the approved design. On September 15, 2006, January 29, 2007 and January 30, 2007, the Commission received final drawing BD-2, SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4, SR-5, and SR-6, dated September 8, 2006; drawings BD-1, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11, and A-12, dated revised January 24, 2007; drawing A-10, dated revised October 20, 2006 and prepared by John Stephan Torborg, RA; drawings M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-8, M-9, M-10, M-11, M-12, M-13, M-14, P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-8, P-9, and P-10, dated September 8, 2006 and prepared by Paul Andrew Collins, PE; and drawings S-1, S-2, S-5, S-6, S-7, S-8 and S-9, dated September 8, 2006 and prepared Mark Hage, PE. Accordingly, staff reviewed these materials and noted that they include additional work, consisting of replacing the existing wood, one-over-one, double-hung wood windows and white-painted storm windows at the first floor of the front facade with black-painted, one-over-one, double-hung, wood windows. With regard to this additional work, staff found that the proposed replacement windows will match the configuration, operation, details, and material of the historic windows; and that the black-painted finish of the windows will be in keeping with the color palette of buildings of this type, style and age. Additionally, staff found that the design approved by the Commission has been maintained. Based on these and the above findings, the drawings have been marked PAGE 2 Issued: 2/12/07 DOCKET: 07-5214 approved with a perforated seal, and Certificate of Appropriateness 07-5856 is being issued. PLEASE NOTE: This permit is contingent on the facade work being performed when the temperature remains a constant 45 degrees Fahrenheit or above for a 72 hour period from the commencement of the work; and upon the Commission's review and approval of field samples of the replacement brownstone and brownstone patching mortar prior to the commencement of the work. Please contact the Landmarks Preservation Commission staff when samples are ready in order to arrange a site visit. Also, as the approved work consists of subsurface work, the applicant is required to strictly adhere to the Department of Buildings TPPN 10/88 governing in-ground construction adjacent to historic buildings. It is the applicant's obligation at the time of applying for their permit to inform the Department of Buildings that the TPPN applies. This permit is being issued in conjunction with Certificate of No Effect 07-5857 (LPC 07-5478), issued February 12, 2007, for work including facade patching; cornice repairs and painting; replacing windows and areaway and sidewalk paving; removing light fixtures, conduits and wiring; installing HVAC equipment, fencing vents, flues, exhausts fans, a fresh air intake, a hydrant, and a dryer duct; and interior alterations. 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 Bernadette Artus. Robert B. Tierney Chair PLEASE NOTE: PERFORATED DRAWINGS AND A COPY OF THIS PERMIT HAVE BEEN SENT TO: John Torborg, RA, Torborg Architects LLP cc: Caroline Kane Levy, Deputy Director of Preservation/LPC PAGE 3 Issued: 2/12/07 DOCKET: 07-5214 |
Added to EveryBlock on January 16, 2008.