Landmark building permit details
| Location | 5 EAST 76TH STREET, MANHATTAN |
|---|---|
| Issue date | April 28, 2009 |
| (?) COFA | COFA 09-9018 |
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 | 09-8471 |
| Historic district | Upper East Side |
| Landmark name | N/A |
| Expiration date | April 14, 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 April 14, 2009, following the Public Meeting of February 6, 2007, and the Public Hearing of the same date, voted to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work at the subject premises, as put forward in your application completed on April 3, 2009, and as you were informed in Status Update Letters 07-5641 (LPC 07-4006), issued February 6, 2007, and 09-8911 (LPC 09-8129), issued April 16, 2009. The work, as approved following the Public Meeting of February 6, 2007, consisted of alterations to the areaway and stoop including restoring the areaway to its original depth, resurfacing the stoop cheek walls with stucco tinted the color of bluestone, and replacing the non-historic concrete steps with cast stone steps tinted the color of bluestone; replacing the non-historic front doors with new glass and iron doors, matching the design of the existing historic areaway railing; installing a new gate under the stoop; legalizing the removal of stained glass casement windows and transoms from the rear bay window without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits; and lowering the sills of the existing bay window openings, and installing new French doors with leaded glass transoms that recall the pattern of the historic stained glass. The amended work, as approved following the Public Meeting of April 14, 2009, consisted of legalizing the installation of a gray-blue tinted concrete sidewalk installed without a permit; legalizing the installation of aluminum clad window sash on the front façade, and light fixtures at the main entrance, both installed in non-compliance with Certificate of No Effect 07-3666; and legalizing modifications made to the rear bay window, including reducing the number of window openings from four to three. The original proposal is shown in drawings labeled "Project Context," "Street Entrance Plan & Elevation," and "Areaway Elevations," dated January 31, 2007, A551 and A552, revised November 19, 2006, and A101, revised July 5, 2006, prepared by Fogarty/Finger Architecture, and photographs of the exiting conditions, submitted as components of the application and presented at the Public Hearing and Public Meeting. The proposal, as originally presented to the Commission on February 6, 2007, was to parge the stoop cheek walls, areaway walls and building base with stucco matching the limestone of the upper floors of the building, as shown in a drawing labeled "Areaway Elevations," dated January 31, 2007, prepared by Fogarty/Finger Architecture. The amended work is shown in photographs of the completed work, dated April 2009. The proposal, as originally presented to the Commission on April 14, 2009, was to legalize reconstructing the bay window without replicating original details at its base. In reviewing this proposal, the Commission noted that 5 East 76th Street is a neo-Renaissance style residence designed by Parish and Schroeder and built in 1898; and that the scale, style, details and materials of the house are among the features which contribute to the special architectural and historic character of the Upper East Side Historic District. The Commission also notes that the building's base and stoop were originally bluestone; that the approved work was completed without the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, and in non-compliance with Certificate of No Effect 07-3666, issued November 16, 2006 for the replacement of the front facade windows with new wood windows, and the installation of light fixtures at the front entrance; that several items previously approved by the Commission were not executed as approved; that Notices of Violation 07-0087 and 07-0088 were issued October 11, 2006 for removal of the basement windows, and removal of stained glass at the rear, both without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits; and that Warning Letters 09-0989, 09-0990 and 09-0991 were issued April 13, 2009 for replacement of the sidewalk without a permit, the installation of light fixtures and windows in non-compliance with Certificate of No Effect 07-3666, and alterations to the bay window at the rear façade without receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness. With regard to this proposal as originally approved, the Commission found that lowering the areaway will restore it to its original depth; that the new tinted concrete stoop treads and risers will match the color of the original bluestone steps; that the design of the new ironwork proposed at the entrance doors and stoop gate draw on elements of the existing historic iron fence and railing, and thus will be harmonious with the house's historic ornamentation; that the proposed alterations will eliminate later unsympathetic alterations to the house and restore it closer to its original appearance; that lowering the sills of the existing windows will not remove a significant amount of material from the bay window; that a substantial bulkhead will remain at the bottom of the bay window, retaining the character of this historic feature; that the removal of the simply designed stained glass windows does not detract from the special architectural character of the bay window which will retain all of its other historic details; that the new leaded glass transoms will recall some of the detail and texture of the historic stained glass; that the new railing on top of the bay window will be harmonious with the design of other historic ironwork on the building; and that the proposed alterations to the bay window will not detract from the special historic and architectural character of the rear façade. With regard to the amended proposal, as approved, the Commission found that because the windows are square-headed and have simple configurations, the difference in materials of the sash is not highly evident; that the black baked enamel finish of the aluminum cladding is similar to the black painted finish of the wood brick moldings; that the aluminum sash do not detract from the special historic and architectural character of the building; that, although the number of windows in the bay was reduced, leaded glass has been restored to the transoms and the configuration of the windows is as approved; that the form, dimensions and materials of the bay have been retained; that the presence of the historic bay window has been preserved; that the size of the light fixtures is well scaled to the façade of this grand residence; and that original sidewalks in this historic district were bluestone and the tinted sidewalk blends harmoniously with the bluestone stoop. Based on these findings, the Commission determined the proposed work to be appropriate to the building and the historic district, and voted to approve this application. However, in voting to grant approval as amended, the Commission made its determination subject to the conditions that details eliminated from the rear bay window such as the sill continuing across the entire bay, and the vertical board cladding at the base of the bay, be restored. The Commission authorized the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness upon receipt, review and approval of two signed and sealed copies of the final drawings for the approved work, showing the Commission requested changes to the bay window. Subsequently, the staff of the Commission received drawings T01, A551, A552, A553, A554, and A733, revised April 16, 2009, prepared by Fogarty/Finger Architecture. The Commission staff reviewed the drawings and found that the historic details have been restored to the rear bay window; and that the proposal approved by the Commission has been maintained. Based on these and the above findings, the drawings have been marked PAGE 2 Issued: 4/28/09 DOCKET: 09-8471 approved by the LPC with a perforated seal and Certificate of Appropriateness 09-9018 is being issued. Notices of Violation 07-0087 and 07-0088, and Warning Letters 09-0989 and 09-0990 are rescinded with the issuance of this permit. Please note that the bay window details must be restored by October 14, 2009. Warning Letter 09-0991 remains in force against the property until the work has been completed and inspected for compliance. When the work is complete, please make a written request for a Notice of Compliance and include photographs of the completed work. Please note that this permit contains a compliance date. If you do not complete the work by this date, A Notice of Violation (NOV) originating from the Environmental Control Board may be issued in accordance with Title 63 of the Rules of the City of New York, Section 7 02(c). 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 Lisa Schaeffer. Robert B. Tierney Chair PLEASE NOTE: PERFORATED DRAWINGS AND A COPY OF THIS PERMIT HAVE BEEN SENT TO: Christopher Fogarty, RA, Fogarty Finger Architecture cc: C. Fogarty, RA; K. Tardiff, LPC PAGE 3 Issued: 4/28/09 DOCKET: 09-8471 |
Added to EveryBlock on May 1, 2009.
Comments
- Subscribe to e-mail updates nearby:
- Upper East Side - Carnegie Hill
- Manhattan
- 10021
- Precinct 19
- Manhattan CB 8
- State Assembly District 73
- State Senate District 26
- Congressional District 14
- City Council District 4
