YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → July 2026 CB8M Landmarks Committee Meeting

July 2026 CB8M Landmarks Committee Meeting — Transcript

by Community Board 8 Manhattan · 23,926 words · 3,841 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01for for cont for context and
0:04appropriateness.
0:05After each applicant presents, we will
0:08hear then from the public and after that
0:10from the committee.
0:12We would appreciate comments and
0:14questions related to context and
0:16appropriateness and not to technical
0:18issues regarding building code,
0:21constructibility,
0:23zoning and the like. These technical
0:26issues are handled by other agencies and
0:29are not our purview.
0:32So Jordan Jordan Lee from CBA will
0:36explain how the public can participate
0:38in the meeting.
0:39>> Absolutely. Thank you everyone. Welcome.
0:42If this is your first time joining us
0:43virtually, you will notice that you are
0:45currently muted and everyone will remain
0:47muted throughout the meeting except the
0:49committee co-chairs David and Jane and
0:51any presenters as we move through the
0:52agenda. Following the presentations, the
0:55co-chairs will call on members of the
0:56public wishing to speak. You can
0:58participate by pressing the raise hand
1:00button on the bottom of your screen, not
1:01the wave or thumbs up, as those will
1:03disappear. Only press it once. If you
1:05press it a second time, your hand will
1:07will go back down. If you're calling in
1:09on the phone, it is star plus 9 to raise
1:11your hand and star plus 6 to unmute. Be
1:13on the lookout for a prompt asking you
1:15to confirm unmuting once the co-chair
1:17calls on you. The chat is available for
1:19technical support only to help with Zoom
1:21software problems, not to ask questions
1:23of coaches or the presenters. They will
1:25not see the chats. If you're using an
1:27older version of Zoom, you may need to
1:29find the react menu, participants menu,
1:31or button that says more, where you'll
1:33find the raise hand feature in one of
1:34those. If you plan to speak during the
1:36meeting, it would help us if you would
1:38rename your device with your full first
1:39and last name. Please do not raise your
1:41actual hand or wave at the screen
1:43because we may not be able to see you.
1:45Chat me. I'm here for support.
1:49Okay, we're gonna Oh, go ahead, David.
1:52>> I was just going to say the floor is
1:53yours.
1:54>> Okay, so the first application is 211
1:57East 62nd Street, the Treadwell Farm
1:59Historic District, a no style building
2:03constructed in 187273.
2:06The application is really basically to
2:09change the front entry doors and to
2:11replace the row iron balcony at the
2:14second [clears throat] floor. Is the
2:15applicant here?
2:19Jordan, do you see um
2:21>> I'm not seeing the person that I
2:24specifically corresponded with, but if
2:27you are from if you are representing 211
2:30East 62nd Street, uh please click the
2:34raise hand button there. Okay, I got
2:36one. So, Mary,
2:37>> great.
2:38>> Thank you.
2:38>> Yeah.
2:43Uh, Mary, are you going to do a screen
2:45share?
2:46>> Yes, I can share.
2:48>> Thank you.
2:48>> Yes. And give me just a second to go
2:50ahead and enable screen sharing.
2:55>> All right, Mary, you should be good to
2:56go now.
2:58>> Okay, we're calling it up.
3:02>> Okay, Jordan, can you tell me when you
3:05can see our screen?
3:06>> I can see it.
3:08>> Okay, thank you.
3:09>> If you could speak a little bit more
3:11loudly, it would be great. Is that
3:13better?
3:14>> Yes, much better.
3:15>> Thank you.
3:16>> Okay. Uh, good evening. I am Mary Langan
3:19from O'Neal Langan Architects and we're
3:21representing for 211 E62nd Street. The
3:25building, as you heard, is a described
3:29as a no style uh LPC has described it as
3:33neocclassical to us. The building was
3:36built um as part of a a row of
3:40brownstones. Uh 207, 209, 211, 213, 15,
3:45and 17 were all built by U. Mcerritt for
3:50Thomas Kilpatrick in 1872 to 73. And
3:54this particular building was redesigned
3:57in the 20th century with this brick
3:59facade.
4:00Um, we are seeking a a certificate of
4:05appropriateness to replace the second
4:09floor balcony railing and to replace the
4:13two front door the identical front door
4:16entry uh doors. There's security grills
4:20that have glass um enclosures behind
4:24them. So, we're going to replace both of
4:26those with two identical doors. Next
4:29slide.
4:31Uh this is the location plan. So we are
4:34on 62nd Street just to the east of uh
4:38Third Avenue. Next slide.
4:41The Sandborn map. Next slide.
4:46You can see here the existing facade. Uh
4:49the first photograph number three is as
4:53you approach the building from Third
4:55Avenue. You can see that it juts out in
4:58front of the facade to the west of it.
5:02You can see also the door is open in the
5:04middle of the photograph. The door is
5:06open. You can also see um that there's
5:09two identical openings in the building.
5:12And I'll get to that um when we look at
5:15the historic photos. The windows, I
5:18should add, are being replaced. It's a
5:20separate application that's been
5:22approved by landmarks prior to this
5:24filing. The second floor Juliet balcony
5:28is in significant disrepair. The balcony
5:32itself is rusted out and the the
5:35existing railing is also uh loose and in
5:38disrepair.
5:40Next slide.
5:42This is the uh tax photos. As you can
5:45see in the photo on the right, the left
5:49entry door was uh did not exist and it
5:53was added we believe at some point when
5:56the building was renovated. The building
5:58was converted to apartment build
6:00apartments. Elellanena Roosevelt um
6:03presumably lived in the building at one
6:05point in one of the apartments and at
6:08certain point the second uh entrance on
6:12the left which leads to a service uh
6:16kitchen was added to the building. So
6:18those two the twin doors were added at
6:20some point into the building and at that
6:24point those entry grates we believe were
6:26added. Next slide.
6:29This is a closeup so you can see on the
6:32second floor on the Juliet balconies
6:35those um those medallions. There's one
6:38in front of each of the windows.
6:41Next slide.
6:44These are the uh the south 62nd street
6:49and the north on the lower 62nd street.
6:52And you can see um 211 it uh is a bit
6:58taller than the buildings to the east
7:00and west of it.
7:03Next slide.
7:07On 62nd Street, we've recorded several
7:11of these Juliet balconies that exist
7:13that have similar scroll work and um
7:19railings similar to what we are
7:21proposing. The one that we are proposing
7:24has uh a new design uh that our the
7:29owner would like to uh to propose and
7:32also the grill work on the front entry.
7:35Uh we are showing these as examples that
7:38are similar to what we are proposing.
7:42You can see that a lot of the railings
7:45in this district are fairly uh stock uh
7:50row iron pieces.
7:53This one um slide draw photo number
7:57three is of note. It does have the
8:00medallion in the middle of it which we
8:02thought was quite interesting and also
8:05um in particular to what we were
8:07proposing for our uh jew our railing.
8:12Next,
8:14these are two examples that we worked
8:16with the staff at Landmarks on. They
8:18asked us to look for something because
8:21our building is so different than what
8:25is on 60 61st and 62nd Street. So they
8:28encouraged us to look elsewhere on the
8:31Upper East Side. So these were two
8:34building examples that we found um in
8:38the neighborhood that we thought would
8:39be of interest because they had a
8:42similar brick facade. So, the first one
8:45is on East 65th Street and there's one
8:49on East 63rd Street. And they both spoke
8:52to us in that they had a more ornate um
8:56railing and iron work designs on them as
8:59well as the uh the grill work on the on
9:04the doors. So, we're showing that in the
9:06photo on seven and also the railing on
9:09six and also um the design on two. It's
9:13a little bit more ornate and in keeping
9:16with the facade style here. So we we're
9:19uh showing this so that you might
9:20consider it as a good example with this
9:23type of brick facade which is very much
9:26similar to ours and it's something
9:28that's very different than what we see
9:31on um the facadecape of 62nd Street.
9:36So next
9:39this is uh the facade the existing
9:42drawing number four and drawing number
9:44three is the proposed. So, we are
9:47proposing to put the railing back at the
9:51existing height that it exists. Now,
9:53this drawing is actually got an error in
9:55it. It says 3 foot six, but we are
9:56putting it back at the height that it is
9:59at, which was 2 foot8. Um, we can do
10:03this because you can actually you do not
10:05have the ability to step out on that
10:08Juliet balcony. Uh, there's a sill in
10:11the interior that that prohibits you
10:13from stepping out on that Juliet
10:14balcony.
10:16Next slide.
10:19When we change the doors, we will be
10:22putting new locks on them. So the uh
10:25specification and the finish, which will
10:28be a black finish, are shown on the
10:31slide four.
10:33And then the owner would like to use a
10:37dark bronze for the finish of the new
10:40security grill work on the doors which
10:42is an upgrade from the existing painted
10:46uh iron work. The railing above will be
10:50a painted raw iron
10:53and we are showing here the brick that's
10:56the the Flemish bond brick that will is
10:59being maintained in the building.
11:02the existing stucco which is the uh the
11:05pediment below
11:07that is being maintained and then the
11:10the uh grill work of the the windows
11:13which I had said are part of a separate
11:16application.
11:18Next
11:20this is the detail. So, we are proposing
11:23to include two decorative elements on
11:26the railing above and we are proposing
11:30to move those away from the windows so
11:33that you can see the stained glass the
11:36the leaded glass windows that are being
11:37put back in place in the building. And
11:41then we've taken that motif and repeated
11:44elements of it into the grill work that
11:46we're proposing to use on the on the
11:49doors.
11:51Let me zoom out
11:56next.
11:58Oh, that's our last slide. Thank you.
12:01Thank you very much.
12:04Um Jordan, are there members of the
12:06public who wish to speak to the
12:07application?
12:09>> Let's see. If you are a member of the
12:11public and you have any questions or
12:13comments about this application, please
12:14click the raise hand button at the
12:16bottom of your screen.
12:19Otherwise
12:21I am not seeing anyone.
12:23>> Okay. So we can go to the committee in
12:25alphabetical order.
12:27>> All right then we will start with Bill.
12:33>> All right. Thank you.
12:35I will support this application. They
12:38seem the proposed work is limited to
12:40scope and appear to preserve the
12:43building's overall historic character.
12:46So, I appreciate the modification of
12:49focus on the existing entry door in the
12:51second floor balcony rather than a
12:54significant alteration to the facade.
12:57So, um I don't see an issue. I support
13:00this application.
13:02>> Thank you, Bill.
13:04All right. Next up is Elizabeth.
13:10>> Yes. I I think um
13:14this is good but up up to a point. I
13:16think that the uh second floor balcony
13:21railing fits in very well
13:25at I think regrettably this building
13:29doesn't fit well into uh the tread farm.
13:34Uh, and
13:37uh,
13:39I think perhaps the the current front
13:42doors are too plain, but I'm afraid I
13:46think that these are too decorative
13:49um, for a brick building, which doesn't
13:53fit, this building doesn't fit into the
13:56tread farm, but it probably is
14:01uh, more related to Georgian brick
14:04buildings. And so I think that this is
14:08uh the these doors have to be
14:12uh made more plain, not just total
14:15stripes like they are, but uh I think
14:19that door need doors need a little less
14:23decoriveness.
14:25Thank you.
14:29>> Thank you, Elizabeth.
14:31All right, next up is Michelle.
14:34>> Yes, thank you. Um, can I see the
14:39original
14:41uh design of the balcony railing?
14:47>> Go to the photo.
14:48>> The existing. Yeah,
14:50>> go to the photo. That's probably the
14:52best. Good to
14:55>> um Yeah, we can show you this one.
14:57>> That's this one. Yeah. Is there any
15:00reason why you're not keeping this? I
15:02understand that it's in disrepair and it
15:04needs replacement, [clears throat] but
15:06is there any reason you're changing the
15:08design?
15:10>> Um, the owner wanted to see something
15:12different on the building. They didn't
15:14care for it, you know, as much as
15:17>> So, just for that reason. So,
15:20>> can I go ahead? Sorry.
15:22>> Sorry. The other reason was since we
15:24were taking down this uh big hedge row
15:28behind it to also um showcase the
15:32windows. So we moved the decorative to
15:35in between the the windows.
15:40>> Yeah. Which I think is great. You're
15:41going to show the windows. I think you
15:43would see them on this one as well. If
15:45there weren't any plasters behind them,
15:48>> you would see the full window. This is
15:49just as revealing. Now is can I see the
15:53original front door?
15:55>> Sure.
15:57>> And is there any reason you were
15:59changing that?
16:00>> Same. Um to do something a little bit
16:03more I'm going to say special, a nicer
16:06material being that we wanted to use the
16:08bronze
16:11>> quite frankly.
16:11>> And what are the what are these made out
16:13of?
16:13>> These are rowd iron. These are they're
16:15they're frankly they're you know they're
16:17a lot of stock Julius Bloom.
16:21Well, I I I think it's great that you're
16:24replacing there in disrepair and you
16:26need to for the balcony for sure and
16:28aesthetically if you want to change it,
16:30that's true. But I that's fine. But I do
16:33agree with Elizabeth. I think it's a
16:35little overkill on the doors. And um I
16:40don't really see uh the reason for the
16:43change in design on the balcony either.
16:46And I think you without the planters,
16:49you would see the stained glass behind
16:51it in either case. So I sort of question
16:55that. Um there isn't anything terribly
16:59special about these, but they do go and
17:01the other they they go with the building
17:04and the other one is quite ornate. I
17:07would think there would be something in
17:09between
17:11and I think the others are far too
17:13ornate.
17:15You say that they relate to the balcony
17:17above, but I don't think that they do. I
17:19think that they overwhelm it.
17:22>> Well, the motifs are we we we married
17:27the urns together.
17:29>> You brought an element in. Yes.
17:32>> But one of the concerns that the owner
17:35and we did have is the um the the
17:41design. One of the requests was to do
17:44something that had a little bit more um
17:48shall I say um intricacy in intricacies
17:52in it so that it would provide a sense
17:56of more security and that you couldn't
17:58you know reach your hand.
18:00>> So you mean more coverage of the glass
18:02in other words? Okay. I that makes
18:05sense. I think you can achieve that
18:08though in something
18:10uh less
18:12ornamental that to me overwhelms the
18:15balcony. You may have repeated an
18:18element, but the density and the of the
18:22design I think it overwhelms it. Anyway,
18:24I'm thinking about this. It's I'm Those
18:27are just my comments. Thank you.
18:30[clears throat]
18:30>> Thank you, Michelle.
18:33Okay, next up is Miles.
18:37>> Hi. Uh, thank you so much. I think that
18:40this these changes are are really
18:42beautiful, especially on the door. I did
18:44have one kind of question and comment
18:46though for the diagrams on slide 11 and
18:4912. I think for the balcony, it's
18:53missing its flank for the existing
18:55conditions. It's missing its flanking
18:58kind of um
19:00uh designs for the existing condition.
19:02If you go to the left,
19:04>> go back to the photo.
19:11>> Yeah, because for in in the photo
19:13there's three of those kind of circular
19:14designs, but then in the in the diagram,
19:17there's only the one in the center. So,
19:19I thought that would be important to
19:20point out. And I I appreciate the change
19:23from those kind of three because the two
19:25on the right to me when you're just
19:27looking at it detract from the viewing
19:29of the windows. But moving it to two in
19:32between the windows, I think, is a
19:34really smart decision. And I and I also
19:36empathize with with your desire to have
19:38a more covered door. So, I'll be
19:39supporting this.
19:43>> Thank you, Miles.
19:46All right. Next up is John.
19:49>> Uh, I would support this. I I rather
19:51like it and would support it.
19:54>> Thank you, John.
19:58Okay. And next up is Kim.
20:02>> Hello, and thank you so much for this
20:04presentation. I hear Elizabeth and
20:08Michelle's points about it being too
20:11ornate, but I think I like it anyway. I
20:15I can be swayed, but I as of right now,
20:18this I think this is lovely and I I can
20:20support it.
20:22>> Thank you, Kim.
20:25Next up is Marco.
20:28Thank you for the presentation. Uh, can
20:30I see the the whole facade, the existing
20:34whole facade in a in a in a picture? In
20:36a picture.
20:38>> Yes.
20:38>> That one. That one. That one. Okay.
20:41Leave it right there.
20:43The two Y entrance portics
20:47porticles each featuring a simple
20:51cornice supported by two columns created
20:54an extrone contrast with the dark brick
20:58facade. This composition is complemented
21:02with the delicate
21:05raw iron detailing at the entrance. The
21:08proposed row iron design, however, is
21:12too busy and visually dominant for the
21:16dark brick facade and is therefore
21:20considered inappropriate.
21:22The existing row window fence and Juliet
21:26balcony have a simple design composed of
21:31three elliptic motives each aligned with
21:36one of the three windows in your design.
21:39However, only one elliptical motive is
21:42shown whereas the proposed design
21:46introduces two decorative elements that
21:49defer from the existing pattern. This
21:52alteration is is inconsistent with the
21:55original landmark architectural
21:57detailing and is therefore considered
22:00inappropriate. Thank you.
22:07Thank you, Marco.
22:09All right, next up is Adam.
22:14>> Hi, thank you for your presentation. Um,
22:16I think for a nostyle building that is a
22:19little bit out of scale and character
22:21with the neighborhood that the additions
22:23seem appropriate and I'm likely to
22:26support this.
22:28>> Thank you, Adam.
22:32All right. And then um Christina,
22:37>> yes, thank you for your presentation and
22:40I don't have any further questions.
22:43>> Thank you, Christina.
22:45All right, co-chairs. David, Jane,
22:48>> David, you may go first.
22:53>> As far as the company
22:55that I say,
22:58>> um, we're losing you, David. As far as
23:00the balcony railing goes, I think you
23:02did the right thing. Uh
23:06uh you made the windows transparent
23:09through the railing and uh you put the
23:14uh decorative elements in front of the
23:16peers. Uh I think that's fine. I think
23:19he could have done it either way, but I
23:21think what you did is is fine and uh is
23:24okay for the building. Uh I have uh sort
23:29of two points of view about what you did
23:31with the doors. On the one hand, I agree
23:35with Elizabeth and Michelle uh that I
23:37think it's almost too much for this
23:40building. Uh on the other hand, I can
23:43imagine how hard you work to do that
23:45design and the design in and of itself
23:48is very attractive.
23:51So, at this moment, I am in an internal
23:55debate, and when it comes time to vote,
23:58uh, I'll make up my mind.
24:02>> Thank you, David. I hope you won't have
24:05much time to change your mind. I am
24:07going to support the application. It's a
24:09no style building within the Treadwell
24:11Farm Historic District. The building is
24:15really I think those doorways with those
24:17columns are really not something I would
24:20have ever chosen. So I don't mind the
24:23ornate doors. I don't mind and I think
24:25agree with David about the balcony the
24:28decorative elements changing to just two
24:31and making the lettered windows more
24:32visible. So I will support the
24:34application.
24:38I think we're ready for a resolution.
24:43Kimberly
24:45>> motion to approve as presented.
24:47>> Is there a second
24:50>> backend?
24:51>> Thank you. Uh so I think we can go to a
24:54um vote.
24:56>> All right, perfect. Let me just get
24:57everyone unmuted and pull up the vote
24:59sheet.
25:15All right. So, this is for 211 East 62nd
25:19Street. This is a motion to approve.
25:23Bill,
25:24>> yes.
25:26>> Elizabeth,
25:28>> abstain.
25:29>> Abstain.
25:31Michelle,
25:33>> pass for the moment.
25:35>> Pass. Okay. [clears throat]
25:36Uh, Christina,
25:38>> yes.
25:39>> Miles,
25:40>> yes.
25:42>> David,
25:43>> yes.
25:44>> John,
25:45>> yes.
25:46>> Jane,
25:47>> yes.
25:48>> Kimberly,
25:49>> yes.
25:50>> Marco,
25:51>> no.
25:53>> Adam,
25:55>> yes.
25:55>> All right, back to the pass. Michelle,
25:58>> that was
26:00>> All right, it passes. Thank you.
26:02>> Thank you. Um Jordan, we are going to
26:06move now to number two,
26:10>> 673 Madison Avenue, the Upper East Side
26:13Historic District. This is um an
26:15Italian8 rowhouse constructed in 1871.
26:20The application is for the installation
26:22of facade lighting on both the Madison
26:25Avenue and 61st Street sides of the
26:27building. Is the applicant here? Yes, I
26:31see a raised hand.
26:32Thank you. Um,
26:35are you going to use a shared screen?
26:37>> I am. If you could let uh Algao Boleno
26:40from my office into the meeting uh to
26:42also to be able to share her screen,
26:44that would be very helpful as she is the
26:47project manager on the job.
26:48>> Yes, everybody can share their screen.
26:50>> Oh, okay.
26:53Very good. Uh, good evening, Chairman
26:55Persel, members of the community board
26:58eight landmarks committee. Uh, thank you
27:00for allowing us to present this project.
27:03I am uh, Ted Bodner from Bodner
27:05Architecture. Ooaleno is the project
27:07manager from my office.
27:09>> Just tell me how you spell your last
27:11name. I'm
27:12>> Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know why it
27:14doesn't appear. Bodner. B O D N A R.
27:17>> N A R. Okay, great.
27:19>> The name of the firm is Bodner
27:20Architecture. It should show up on your
27:22application.
27:22>> Yeah, I see it now. I see it. Thank you.
27:24>> Of course.
27:25>> Sorry. Thank you.
27:26>> That's quite all right. We represent the
27:27building owner 673 Madison LLC uh which
27:31are Freedelland Properties as the
27:32underlying building owner.
27:35Just a fast introduction. The building
27:37as I'm sure most of you have seen is
27:39undergoing significant facade
27:41improvements and restorations uh as take
27:44undertaken voluntarily by our client and
27:47new owner. Uh the facade of the building
27:49was in a major state of disrepair and
27:52was damaged badly with safety concerns
27:55and at our client's direction we
27:57undertook the major restoration of the
28:00building
28:02uh that was approved filed and approved
28:04by landmarks and the New York City
28:06Department of Buildings. Work is
28:07ongoing. The object of this specific
28:10application is to install lighting to
28:13highlight the significant aesthetic
28:16ornamental details of the historic
28:18corners, metal corners at this
28:21significant or this notable city corner
28:24and at the very edge and entry to the
28:26east side historic district. Uh it is
28:29our belief that this presentation will
28:32and proposal will help the build uh
28:34improve the building's presence at night
28:36due to its dark nature and would be
28:38inviting and lighting as an entry to
28:40Madison Avenue. Uh I will continue at
28:44this point.
28:49>> Okay. Hi.
28:53>> Good evening everyone. Uh so here is our
28:57presentation.
28:58Uh this uh first uh page
29:02showing the building located uh at the
29:05northeast corner of uh Medicine Avenue
29:08and is this East 61st Street uh right at
29:12the gateway to the upper east side
29:16historic district.
29:18And this photo is showing current
29:20conditions since the uh our facade is
29:23under restoration right now.
29:27The uh second uh page showing
29:31uh the building it's in its broader
29:34context uh including the full medicine
29:37Avenue frontage and uh east uh 61st uh
29:43street frontage.
29:45Um,
29:48it also I mean it's it's under
29:51scaffolding right now, but it also
29:54um illustrates the building's uh
29:56prominent corner location and its
29:58relationship into um surrounding
30:01historic streetcape.
30:05Uh this page number three, uh we want to
30:09show you how the building um facade used
30:13to look before we uh erased our
30:16scaffolding.
30:18Uh here you can see the historic press
30:21metal cares
30:24um that we are proposing um to
30:27highlight.
30:30Page four is for
30:34historical context of the building. On
30:37the left is an um excerpt from the
30:40landmarks designation report which
30:43identifies the building as Italian
30:45rowhouse constructed in 1871
30:49designed by John Prague. And on the
30:51right is a historic photograph from the
30:541940s
30:56uh showing the building at the corner of
30:58Madison and East is 64 street. And uh
31:02the image also clearly illustrates a
31:05prominent pressed metal corners
31:08which remains as important defining
31:10architectural feature and is being
31:12carefully restored as part of our
31:15current facade restoration project.
31:19uh page number five. Um these
31:22photographs show the condition of the
31:25historic pressed metal caris prior to
31:27restoration.
31:29So over the time the corners experienced
31:32significant deterioration
31:35uh including detached and missing
31:37sections you can see um deformationation
31:41of metal panels and loss of decorative
31:44ornaments.
31:45Um, one of the pineapples was missing
31:48when we started renovation.
31:52Um, page number six uh illustrates uh
31:58uh the post restoration conditions of
32:01pressed metal corners.
32:04You can see that um
32:07uh restoration work. Uh
32:10we we reinstalled this uh missing
32:13pineapple at at the corner of Carne
32:18um
32:20and actually returned the car to its
32:22original architectural character uh
32:24while preserving the Romanian historic
32:27fabric.
32:30Page number seven. Uh
32:35uh this shows facade elevation drawings
32:38both Madison Avenue and East 61st Street
32:42with overall proposed lighting locations
32:45uh including the corn
32:48lighting locations. Um so just you can
32:51see the idea that we're also installing
32:53lights at some facade elements but this
32:58uh um is being approved by staff level.
33:06Page number eight illustrates uh the sad
33:10lighting scheme.
33:12We would like to mention that not
33:14necessarily all these lightings will be
33:17used at once and at full capacity.
33:21Um
33:23and the lighting system will be
33:26digitally controlled. Um and it's not
33:29intending to operate at full intensity
33:31simultaneously at all times. We just
33:34show on our drawings how we want to
33:38illuminate the entire facade but not
33:40necessarily it will be
33:42uh simultaneously
33:44um lightening the facade.
33:48Uh page number nine uh these are details
33:52of our proposed uh lighting at the
33:56corners.
33:59Uh here I would like to mention that we
34:02explored different options and we ended
34:05up with this one specifically that the
34:07owner likes the how how the
34:12uh cylinder lights produce the lighting
34:15and also these lights are very um
34:19durable, energy efficient and
34:22longlasting cuz we we explored some
34:26uh a little bit smaller lights and also
34:28for strip lights, but uh those are not
34:32as efficient and in fact they can last
34:35just two to three weeks and then we have
34:38to replace them and it's um challenging.
34:44These lights are very durable and um
34:48reliable performance and long-lasting
34:51solution.
34:52The size of the light is also
34:54considerably small.
34:57um and installation.
35:01So the wire um we will run the wires
35:05inside the um it will be concealed.
35:10Yeah. beneath the Coronis profile.
35:13And uh we have at the base mounting
35:17plate which will cover all penetrations
35:21for
35:23um
35:25for the wire and for two two small uh
35:28screws penetrations.
35:32Um
35:34our
35:36page number 10 is visibility plan. So
35:39we're showing that yes these lights are
35:42visible
35:44but we will show you this is visibility
35:48planet is 64 street and our last page
35:51showing that we performed mockups at um
35:56cornice
35:57and as you can see so we placed two
36:02fixtures real fixture and orange mockup
36:06next to each other and from the street
36:08travel from different points. Uh yeah,
36:12we can see um we can spot orange mockup
36:16light but uh black light, black picture
36:21next to it on every photo is not visible
36:25from the street level.
36:28Um
36:30so yeah in um I'll go back to this and I
36:35want to say that um in our opinion uh
36:39this eliminated cornice is a defining
36:41element of the light and design and it
36:44sources the buildings almost like
36:46architectural crown
36:49uh placed at every meta pair of the
36:51cares at recessed part it emphasize its
36:55historic silhouette and creating an
36:57elegant nighttime composition
37:01um in our opinion. Thank you.
37:05>> Thank you.
37:07Is that your presentation?
37:10>> Yes.
37:11>> Thank you.
37:16Um Jordan, is anyone from the public
37:18present?
37:20>> Um we have Matt Bower.
37:22>> Oh, okay. Matt. Hi, Matt.
37:26>> Hi. Good evening everyone. Uh yes, I'm
37:28I'm at Bower. I'm the president of
37:30Madison Avenue Business Improvement
37:31District and actually a neighbor of this
37:34building. Our office is located at uh 29
37:38East 61st Street. So just two two doors
37:40down. Very familiar with the uh the
37:43intersection has been mentioned a few
37:44times. Uh this is the southernmost point
37:48of the Upper East Side Historic
37:50District. Um and uh so it is really a
37:55very prominent location within our
37:58within our district. Um but also it the
38:02building serves as a very important
38:04gateway to um the restaurant row that is
38:09on East 61st Street between Madison and
38:14Park Avenue. So on that block we have
38:16Saraphina, Laloo, San Ambrose, Kasa Cruz
38:20and of course later down the block uh we
38:23have uh the Lowe's Regency Hotel and I
38:26can say firsthand that the block is not
38:31very well lit and to have the additional
38:34lighting on this building will also uh
38:37create a more welcoming environment for
38:40uh visitors to this restaurant row
38:43coming from uh Madison Avenue. I really
38:47do feel that this is an appropriate
38:48addition uh to the district will make uh
38:52a real c sense of coming to Madison
38:56Avenue uh from um uh into our historic
39:00district. It's also the first block of
39:03our architectural walking tour that we
39:05do every month with AIA New York. Uh so
39:08it's just a a very appropriate and
39:11helpful uh addition to our community.
39:14Thanks so much.
39:16>> Thank you. Thank you for coming.
39:19>> Thank you
39:20>> Jordan. Anyone else from the public?
39:23>> Doesn't look like it.
39:25>> So we can go to the committee in the
39:26reverse order.
39:28>> Perfect. Then we will start with Adam.
39:36>> Thank you for your presentation. I I'd
39:38like to hear what what Matt said. I I
39:41think that um the lighting is important,
39:43especially on corners. So, um I'm likely
39:47to approve this.
39:49>> Thank you, Adam. All right. Next up is
39:52Marco.
39:54>> Thank you for the presentation. The
39:56restoration of the cornis is fine, which
39:59was approved by stop level. The scope of
40:03this review is limited to the proposed
40:07cornis lighting. While the lighting
40:10design has the potential to enhance the
40:13architectural appearance of the
40:14building, I have concerns regarding the
40:17installation of 60 light fixtures
40:21mounted directly to the historical metal
40:25corners. Each fixture is proposed to be
40:29attached with two stainless steel
40:32fasteners and require a conceal low
40:35voltage wiring penetration centered be
40:38beneath the feature. The cumulative
40:42effect of these 60 installations raises
40:45concern about the potential impact and
40:48the integrity of the historical metal
40:52cornis and the underlying brown
40:56substrate.
40:57The number of fasteners and the
40:59penetrations should be carefully
41:01evaluated to ensure that the
41:03installation does not compromise the
41:06historic fabric or create future
41:09maintenance issues. In addition, the
41:12submitted drawings do not specify which
41:16of the available beams angles 10, 30, 50
41:20or elliptical will be used.
41:23This information is necessary to
41:25evaluate the proposed lighting effect
41:28and the overall visual impact on the
41:31architectural features of the building.
41:34Thank you.
41:36>> Thank you, Marco.
41:39All right, and next up is Kim.
41:42>> Thanks, Jordan. And thank you for the
41:44presentation.
41:46I wish that there I mean granted this is
41:48a small enough change that maybe this is
41:50a ridiculous request but just something
41:52that helped contextualize this outside
41:55of a black and white drawing but I think
41:57that this is limited enough in scope
41:59that I can support this but as always
42:02I'm sure the rest of the committee will
42:04point out things that I'm overlooking so
42:05I'm anxious to hear their comments but
42:06thank you for your presentation I can
42:08support it right now.
42:10>> Thank you Kim.
42:12Next up is John
42:16I'd be inclined to support this.
42:18>> Thank you, John. Miles,
42:22>> I would also be inclined to support this
42:24and I appreciate Mr. Bower's comments.
42:26Thank you so much.
42:27>> Thank you, Miles.
42:29Michelle.
42:31>> Yeah, I had a step away for part of the
42:35for an important reason for part of the
42:37presentation. So, I'm not going to
42:39comment on the aesthetics of it, but
42:42what I am concerned about and what I did
42:44hear about and what I'm always concerned
42:46about are attachments and things that
42:49are added to these kinds of buildings.
42:52And I'm concerned about the impact of
42:56the actual installation of these lights.
42:59Um I that I'm not I I would have to be
43:03reassured
43:05that this is the least invasive way
43:10of installing them.
43:13And are the installations are you going
43:16into the um the the grout or mortar part
43:22of the facade of the building or are you
43:25installing into the main facade of the
43:29building into the surface? So that's my
43:32concern about that. And um did I hear
43:36correctly that there are 60 of these
43:38lights being installed? 60.
43:41>> That's correct. They miss burnbomb. They
43:44will not be going into the brownstone or
43:46brick or anything like that. They will
43:48literally be fastened to the cornice
43:50itself. We spend probably two months
43:53with various lighting designers and
43:55contractors with respect to attachment.
43:58This is the minimally most minimally
44:00invasive way to do it. Uh we don't want
44:03wires running on the outside of the
44:05corner so that so that would cross even
44:08more screws would be attached to it. We
44:09spent probably about a month with
44:11Landmarks reviewing this also cuz they
44:13were asking if we could do vertical
44:14attachments, but horizontal attachments
44:16were the best ones and they will be
44:18covered with waterproofing material to
44:20make it as rust resistant as possible.
44:23>> I hope I I'm sorry to interrupt at this
44:26point. I thought there were 31 lights
44:28altogether.
44:29>> Correct.
44:31>> So where is this larger come from?
44:34>> Does each light have two attachments
44:37each lighting fixture?
44:38>> That's correct. Okay. So, that's what
44:40Marco's referring to. Okay. Sorry.
44:43>> Thank you. Sorry.
44:44>> Okay. So, uh when you say the wires will
44:49be covered with a material to prevent
44:53rusting,
44:55but what kind of material would be
44:57appropriate to this
45:00facade of this kind of a building?
45:06He's muted.
45:10Ted. Okay, I'll send it again.
45:12>> Unmute, Ted.
45:14>> There we go. Yeah, I'm sorry. Uh, the
45:16wire itself will be running inside of
45:19the corners, so it won't be exposed. We
45:22were, as I said, we were trying to avoid
45:23having the wire on the outside requiring
45:26additional attachments. So, the wires
45:27will be inside. The screws are literally
45:30small eighth of an inch screws that will
45:33be covered with cocking and painted
45:35black on top.
45:37So in order to get the wiring on the
45:39inside face of the cornice, you have to
45:42drill into the corners and insert and
45:44run the wire. Correct.
45:46>> Correct. From the underside of the
45:47fixture. Right.
45:48>> Okay. And what about the pinningings of
45:50the actual fixture? The affixing of the
45:53fixture.
45:54>> Those are those are two screws on the
45:56side of the fixture. There's no there's
45:58no other way to get the light to attach
45:59to any surface for that matter. But
46:01they're literally two small eighth of an
46:03inch screws that get screwed into the
46:05metal. They would be covered with a
46:07waterproofing coaul and then painted
46:09over with water waterproof uh paint
46:11also.
46:12>> And some of those fixtures will be on
46:15there'll be uplights on a window sill.
46:18Is that correct?
46:19>> For the ones below that Landmarks is
46:21approving. Yes.
46:23>> But different type of lights.
46:25>> Yes. The same actually. Yeah. To
46:27highlight pineapple. Yes. Sorry, I can't
46:31I didn't get what you said, Olga.
46:34>> Uh, you are pointing out to these
46:36lights, right?
46:38>> Yes. The lights that are being actually
46:41mounted on the on what look like a sill,
46:44but I guess it's at the at the uh
46:47corners of the window. Yeah.
46:48>> Yes. Window header.
46:51Yes, that's correct.
46:54>> But Michelle, we're only dealing with
46:56the cornice lights.
46:59Yeah. Well, that's what I'm talking
47:01about. How it gets a fixed. Um, all
47:04right. I'll think about this. Thank you.
47:07>> Thank you, Michelle. And we are joined
47:09by Sarah Chu. And I accidentally skipped
47:11over her. So, Sarah,
47:17>> hi. Uh, thank you for this application.
47:20Um, I I just had one question. But uh it
47:24was really helpful to hear the
47:26explanation about um where the lights
47:28are attached. I don't really have
47:30context for how bright they are. Based
47:33on the sketch, it looks um pretty
47:38moderate to me, but I think that my
47:41colleagues who um are uh who have more
47:45familiarity with the lumens and those
47:48levels can um provide better context um
47:52in their comments.
47:53>> Yeah, if I can answer that quickly, this
47:55will not be super strong lights that
47:57we're proposing. Uh, I actually did
47:59write a note for myself down because I
48:01remember when Baries, which was located
48:02diagonally across from us, did a major
48:05lighting scheme for their build, their
48:06building. I mean, it was extremely
48:08effective, but we're not proposing
48:10anything to that extreme or that effect
48:12for our building. This is literally a
48:14light nice gentle light to highlight the
48:17the corners of the building.
48:21>> All right. Thank you.
48:22>> Yeah, these these are not going to be
48:23large Broadway holiday lights, uh,
48:26Hollywood lights.
48:29All right, next up is Elizabeth
48:36because uh uh I love this building. Uh
48:44the introduction to the Upper East Side
48:47Historic District is an historic
48:49building and I I think that uh this
48:53building has charm and character and I I
48:58think lighting it is a great idea,
49:03but I'm not a expert at sticking lights
49:08into masonry. So, I I really am
49:13concerned
49:15about uh how you would attach it. But
49:19I'm not going to ask questions because I
49:21don't know how. But I I hope that with
49:25landmarks, you work out something that
49:27doesn't chip away at this.
49:30>> Miss Ashby, just to alleviate your
49:31concerns, this is not being attached to
49:33the brick masonry or the stucco. This
49:35this will be going into the cornice
49:37itself. And as a had pointed out
49:40previously, the cornice had considerable
49:43considerable damage to it. Pieces had
49:45been essentially separated. We did a
49:48tremendous amount of work to to to
49:50reinforce it and make it a better
49:51corners.
49:53>> Mhm. Well, the corners
49:56is why you're doing this and quite
50:00rightly. So,
50:02>> yeah.
50:02>> Uh but it's physical. So if you're
50:06attaching it some way, I don't want it
50:09damaged or
50:12uh
50:13attachments showing. I wanted to see
50:17>> totally agree. The attachments will not
50:18be visible. They'll be they'll be on the
50:20horizontal flat plane of the corners.
50:22Yeah.
50:23>> Okay. Thank you very much.
50:25>> Of course.
50:26>> Thank you, Elizabeth. Next up is Bill.
50:31>> Hi. Thank you and thank you for the
50:33presentation. I would support this
50:36application providing the lighting is
50:38warm and focused on accentuating the
50:41building's architectural details without
50:44creating any excessive brightness or
50:46glare. So, I will support this
50:47application. Thank you.
50:49>> Thank you, Bill. Right. Next up is
50:51Christina.
50:56>> Thank you for the presentation and thank
50:57you, Matt, for your comments and I can
51:00support this application. Thank you.
51:02>> Thank you, Christina. All right,
51:04co-chairs Jane David,
51:07>> can you tell us a little bit about how
51:09you
51:10reinforce the cornice? Cornesses tend to
51:14be sheet metal sometimes and screwing
51:17into sheet metal is not my favorite way
51:20of attaching things.
51:23>> One of the things we had to do was
51:24actually provide structural backing for
51:26the cornice. So we brought in our
51:28structural engineers to reinforce the
51:30cornice, tie it back to the building
51:31more tightly and then reinforce
51:33horizontal and vertical members of the
51:35cornice because I had mentioned we had
51:37had to do considerable welding for
51:39certain parts that had become separated
51:41or disattached. There was uh relayering
51:44of metal for areas that were missing. It
51:47had rusted out and then certain parts
51:49like Alga had mentioned like the
51:51pineapples had completely fallen off or
51:53disappeared. So those were restored and
51:55rebuilt and put back on. So there is
51:57considerable reinforcing within the
51:59underside of the metal of the cornice in
52:01order to be able to do this.
52:03>> When you screw it in, is it being
52:04screwed in through the reinforcing?
52:07>> It's being
52:09there's a reinforcing how would you call
52:11it? Uh member at the underside of that
52:14horizontal. So it'll be being tied it'll
52:16be tied into that.
52:21>> I think the uh idea is fine. Uh I think
52:25that uh tying into the metal is better
52:28than tying into the masonry
52:31uh because if the metal for any reason
52:35uh fails or has problems
52:38uh it's much easier to replicate the
52:40metal than to start uh trying to fix
52:44masonry. So uh I think you made the
52:47right decision on attaching to the
52:50cornice. I [clears throat] think the
52:52idea is fine and uh I certainly will uh
52:56support it.
52:59>> Thank you, David. I too will support the
53:01application and I appreciate Matt coming
53:03and talking about how important the
53:06cornice is in that gateway to the
53:08historic district.
53:10So I think we're ready for a resolution.
53:14Does anybody miles
53:18>> motion to approve as presented? Is there
53:20a seconder?
53:22Bill Angelos. Great. So, I think we can
53:25go to a vote.
53:27>> All right.
53:28>> As per usual, give me just a second to
53:30pull up the vote sheet. Get everybody
53:32muted.
53:40>> All right.
53:45Oops.
53:48Okay. So this is for 673 Madison. This
53:52is a motion to approve. Bill,
53:58>> yes.
54:00>> Elizabeth,
54:01>> yes.
54:03>> Michelle,
54:04>> yes.
54:06>> Sarah,
54:08>> yes.
54:09>> Christina,
54:10>> yes.
54:12>> Miles,
54:15>> oh, Miles is muted.
54:18Yes.
54:18>> Sorry.
54:21>> David.
54:22>> Yes.
54:24>> John.
54:24>> Yes. [clears throat]
54:25>> Jane.
54:26>> Yes.
54:27>> Kim.
54:29>> Yes.
54:30>> Marco.
54:30>> Estain.
54:33>> Adam.
54:34>> Yes.
54:35>> All right. It passes. Thank you
54:36everyone.
54:37>> Thank you very much members of the
54:38committee and we will do our darnest to
54:39do a beautiful job here. So it looks
54:41wonderful for both the restaurant role
54:43but also for the Madison Avenue entry.
54:46Thank you.
54:46>> Very much obliged. Have a good evening.
54:49>> Thank you.
54:50>> Okay.
54:53The next and last application is the
54:56Spence School
54:5858 East 93rd Street individual landmark
55:03and 1307 R9 Madison Avenue expanded
55:07Carnegie Hill historic district.
55:10Sarah Grant AIA partner MBP architects
55:14is supposed to present. Is she here?
55:17Okay, we see you. Thank you. So, I'm
55:21going to read you a long introduction.
55:241307 to 1309 Madison Avenue is neo
55:27Georgian style building designed by
55:29George V. Harvey in 1890 with updates to
55:32the facade by Moore and Lan Sidell in
55:351930. 56 East 30 56 East 93rd Street.
55:41The William Godby and Florence Baker Low
55:43House, also known as the Low Mansion,
55:47was designed by Walker and Gillette and
55:49constructed in 1930.
55:51Application included extension at all
55:53floors into the two buildings, rear
55:55yard, to provide internal connections
55:58into the contiguous lower mansion to
56:01their east, and an improved mechanicals
56:04and an elevator bulkhead. The building's
56:06rooftops will provide outdoor play area
56:09for the lower school. The proposal will
56:11require minimum exterior work on the
56:13mansion, primarily to connect to the
56:16rowouses and its west lot line. The
56:19building's current Madison Avenue
56:21facades will remain in place and will be
56:23refreshed utilizing appropriately
56:25similar materials. The general
56:28organizational scheme and material
56:30composition of the facades will be
56:32retained with the exception of the
56:34existing entrance doors, storefront
56:37glazing, and the added floors, new
56:40rooftop profiles.
56:42So, now that I read all that, we'd love
56:44to hear about it.
56:47>> Okay. Thank you. I will go ahead and
56:50share my screen.
56:56Can you all see that? Okay. And hear me?
56:58Okay.
57:00>> Yes.
57:01>> Okay. Great. Thank you. Uh so first to
57:06visually orient you to what you just
57:09heard. Uh we are talking about the
57:12historic mansion on 93rd Street and then
57:171307 and 139 along Madison Avenue. Um on
57:22this corner as you see here
57:25um you will note of course the uh
57:28recognized role of institutions such as
57:32Spence to the overall character and
57:35street life of the district as called
57:38out in the in the designation report
57:43as well as the mix at the scale of the
57:46blocks of the scale figure and typology
57:50of buildings. within the district.
57:54Spence of course is a long-standing
57:56advocate and steward within the district
57:59and we seek to continue in this
58:01tradition.
58:04Um there are a number of programmatic
58:06needs that we are seeking to fulfill
58:09with this proposed addition. Um the
58:12first is STEM for girls and classroom
58:15space. The second is play and outdoor
58:18space. Uh we do seek to make the new
58:21facility fully um accessible. We also
58:25seek to um upgrade the infrastructure.
58:29The current mechanical system of the
58:31mansion is at the end of its useful
58:35life. And so our proposed mechanical
58:37system will serve both the new rowhouse
58:40edition as well as a replacement for the
58:43mansion itself.
58:46The mansion is of course an absolute gem
58:49and an individual landmark and we seek
58:53to preserve it.
58:56Um the row houses where we are focusing
58:59um the bulk of our addition are very
59:02different in nature. They are more
59:04modest buildings. Um they are stucco
59:07primarily on the front facade and they
59:10have limited or ornamentation.
59:14They were originally part of a
59:16speculative residential development by
59:18Ogden and Sons that was um you know
59:22prolific throughout the neighborhood.
59:26Um but then at a later date they had
59:29their front facades removed in the their
59:32entirety. Uh so what you're seeing here
59:35are their original condition on the left
59:38and then their later their later
59:41condition um here in the t the 1940s tax
59:45photo here.
59:50So they are in fact characterized by a
59:52history of change and what you're seeing
59:54in this series of diagrams is the
59:57extensive changes that they went
1:00:00underwent over the first 40 years of
1:00:02their lives. Um so whether they were
1:00:05articulated as five buildings in the row
1:00:08as they were originally or three or one.
1:00:12Um the actual floor elevations changed
1:00:15as well as uh some vertical additions
1:00:18over the years. Um the most significant
1:00:22of which happened uh immediately
1:00:24following the construction of the
1:00:26mansion.
1:00:28Um so this particular row is in contrast
1:00:32to to some of the other rows in the
1:00:35neighborhood. Um what you're seeing in
1:00:37the upper right is a row for example um
1:00:41that is very much intact in terms of
1:00:44their um original ornamentation.
1:00:48our buildings. In contrast, um once the
1:00:51mansion went up, they lost their
1:00:53daylight from the or a significant
1:00:56portion of their daylight from the rear
1:00:58facade. Um and their original
1:01:00residential use uh became re had to be
1:01:03repositioned in a way and it was at this
1:01:06moment in time uh when the new facads as
1:01:10you see them today uh were in fact
1:01:13created. Um, so we we sit within the the
1:01:17history of this this context
1:01:20um, as well as within uh what you know
1:01:23is a variety of scales along Madison
1:01:25Avenue
1:01:27uh, versus the more residential midblock
1:01:30scale of the mansion uh, which we seek
1:01:34to preserve.
1:01:36Uh the commission of course has approved
1:01:40a number of expansions for institutions
1:01:43within the the district. Some are modest
1:01:46in nature similar to ours. Some are much
1:01:50more significant uh than anything we're
1:01:52proposing and some do include the
1:01:55strategic removal of historic fabric.
1:02:00Um so our first step in seeking to
1:02:02accommodate the the programmatic needs
1:02:05of Spence um was to look at how to best
1:02:08utilize the nonvisible bulk um through a
1:02:13uh strategic renovation of the rowous.
1:02:17Um creating contiguous floor plates with
1:02:20the mansion with efficient floor plates
1:02:23and minimizing vertical circulation.
1:02:28Uh so here you're seeing the interiors
1:02:31of the row houses that are not currently
1:02:34appropriate for institutional use. They
1:02:37are not um accessible or safe. Uh this
1:02:42section to orient you is the existing.
1:02:45We're starting at Madison Avenue. We're
1:02:48cutting through the rowouses and then
1:02:51through the rear portion of the mansion.
1:02:53So this gym in the rear of the mansion
1:02:56exists today and was part of the the
1:02:59earlier um uh Spence um moving into the
1:03:04mansion.
1:03:06Um and so what we're proposing is the
1:03:09renovation of that interior space.
1:03:12You're seeing these contiguous floor
1:03:14plates that align with the mansion.
1:03:17You're also seeing that um in order to
1:03:20minimize the visible bulk, we are
1:03:23proposing to excavate down to the level
1:03:26of the existing Spence gym um to
1:03:30accommodate classroom space. And then we
1:03:33are proposing a geothermal system which
1:03:36will serve um both the row houses as
1:03:40well as the mansion. Um, and this will
1:03:44limit the amount of rooftop mechanical
1:03:46equipment that is necessary for the
1:03:49facility as a whole, taking it down from
1:03:52multiple pieces of equipment to a single
1:03:55piece of equipment. Um, with no cooling
1:03:58tower, which is the the noisiest piece
1:04:01of equipment.
1:04:05Um the second portion of our proposal is
1:04:09in fact a rear yard addition where we
1:04:12are seeking to optimize the use of this
1:04:15um rear yard space. Um it isn't in fact
1:04:19a rear yard at the back of the town
1:04:21houses. There is currently um a onestory
1:04:25extension and what we're proposing is an
1:04:28infill between on top of that one-story
1:04:32extension between the rear of the rowous
1:04:36and the mansion in order to allow us to
1:04:40create these contiguous floor plates and
1:04:42minimize the amount of vertical
1:04:44circulation.
1:04:47Um, so here you're seeing the sidewall
1:04:50of the mansion, the uh utilitarian
1:04:54brick. You're seeing that onestory
1:04:57um roof that is at the rear yard of the
1:05:00the rowous.
1:05:04Um, and then you're seeing the rear wall
1:05:06of the row houses in this photograph
1:05:09that shows the kind of utilitarian brick
1:05:12and the replacement windows that are are
1:05:16currently there.
1:05:19Uh, this is a sighteline diagram taking
1:05:22through 93rd Street and we're cutting um
1:05:26across our our neighbors toward 93rd
1:05:30Street. Um and what you're seeing here
1:05:33is um 1311 the second buildings in rear
1:05:38yard extension
1:05:40and our proposed connection will be
1:05:43visible um through this kind of rear
1:05:46yard um at this location.
1:05:50Um what you're seeing here is the
1:05:52profile of the mansion beyond. And what
1:05:56you're seeing is that we're proposing to
1:05:58step back and shape our um rear yard
1:06:03edition such that we maintain what we
1:06:05know is a a very important element of
1:06:09the mansion itself.
1:06:13Uh so now standing at 93rd Street, I'm
1:06:18showing you the existing and proposed.
1:06:20And what you see first is the the
1:06:23mansion and our our neighbor along 93rd
1:06:28Street. Beyond that, you see that rear
1:06:31yard extension of our immediate
1:06:34neighbor. Beyond that, you see our
1:06:38proposed addition um to the row houses
1:06:42and that at this point now we're 40 feet
1:06:45back from 93rd Street. Um and then to
1:06:49the left of that you see what we're
1:06:51proposing as a this glassy hyphen or
1:06:55link which is an additional 2 feet um
1:06:58set an additional 2 feet back from the
1:07:01street line. And this is the portion
1:07:03that I was saying was shaped um to allow
1:07:06that profile of mansion to continue to
1:07:10read. And you're seeing we're um looking
1:07:13as precedent to that another project in
1:07:16the neighborhood where you see this kind
1:07:18of glassy link set well back from the
1:07:22street and connecting the the historic
1:07:25fabric.
1:07:28Um the next portion of our proposal is
1:07:32uh the the vertical addition at the at
1:07:36the row houses. Um and this is to
1:07:39accommodate the remaining interior
1:07:42program space of the classrooms.
1:07:46Um and so what you're seeing here is um
1:07:49what we're proposing to do is to reset
1:07:53the cornis line of the two buildings to
1:07:57allow for this classroom space that
1:08:00you're seeing here and then a onestory
1:08:03popup above that um that we seek to uh
1:08:08define as a sort of artist Garrett
1:08:10typology
1:08:12um sitting lightly on top of the
1:08:15historic fabric.
1:08:17So, this then is a sighteline diagram um
1:08:20through Madison Avenue. Um and here
1:08:24you're seeing the row houses with the
1:08:26mansion beyond and this is the existing
1:08:30um parapit that's above the pediment
1:08:33um facing onto Madison Avenue.
1:08:37And then what you're seeing here is
1:08:39where we propose to reset that cornice
1:08:42line at this new elevation
1:08:46uh with our uh proposed one-story
1:08:49addition above and then me mechanical
1:08:52and play space which I will um address
1:08:55in just a moment.
1:08:58Uh so looking at here you're seeing the
1:09:00roofs of the two row houses in question
1:09:03where we are proposing this addition
1:09:08um and then from the elevation from
1:09:11Madison Avenue. So while we never um
1:09:14take removing historic material lightly,
1:09:17uh we do believe that in this case given
1:09:20the humble nature of the material in
1:09:22question and in order to achieve the
1:09:26most um harmonious proportions for the
1:09:29overall proposal. We we are proposing to
1:09:33remove that pediment, reset the cornice
1:09:36line uh and then with this one-story
1:09:39popup addition above that that would be
1:09:42articulated in bronze and glass above.
1:09:49Uh so here you're seeing the the side
1:09:52view of this on 93rd Street again set 40
1:09:56ft back from the corner. We are
1:10:00proposing to extend the brick party wall
1:10:02up to the height of our uh new um newly
1:10:07defined cornice line. Uh and then
1:10:10wrapping this Garrett language of the
1:10:13bronze and glass for the onetory pop up
1:10:16above that along this this side
1:10:20elevation.
1:10:23>> I wrote you a note. And then the the
1:10:26last kind of program portion is the
1:10:29outdoor play space that I spoke about.
1:10:33Uh there is of course precedent uh for
1:10:36this by other schools in the district.
1:10:40So looking here at a roof plan showing
1:10:43the existing and the proposed. We are
1:10:46proposing to replace the mechanical
1:10:49equipment um that is currently on the
1:10:53back portion of the mansion roof. So
1:10:55currently not visible with play space on
1:10:58the mansion that is similarly not
1:11:01visible. Um and then with the um other
1:11:05portion of the play space being an
1:11:08enclosed play space on the portion
1:11:11fenced in enclosed um on the row houses
1:11:16with the one piece of mechanical
1:11:18equipment that I mentioned um towards
1:11:21Madison Avenue that will be screening.
1:11:24It will also provide screening for the
1:11:27the play space. So we have the
1:11:29mechanical unit as well as our our
1:11:32bulkheads that wrap that um place
1:11:36rooftop play space.
1:11:38Um so here you see that in section and
1:11:41as with all of the other um elements of
1:11:44our proposal
1:11:46um you know we recognize this kind of
1:11:48lower play space on the mansion um is
1:11:52just surrounded by historic fabric. So
1:11:55the intent is absolutely to keep that
1:11:58mansion um fabric exactly as it is today
1:12:02and to address the need for additional
1:12:04play space by going to this um this
1:12:08rooftop space. So so no changes to that
1:12:11lower play deck really focusing our
1:12:14efforts on these upper portions.
1:12:18Um this is showing that sight line
1:12:20through 93rd Street to the mansion
1:12:22itself. This is the existing um rooftop
1:12:26equipment here.
1:12:28And then this is our proposed play
1:12:31space, replacing it with a 10-ft high uh
1:12:35code required fence for safety, but
1:12:38again set back from the street in that
1:12:40back portion of the mansion
1:12:43um roof. So this is as it as it is
1:12:46today. and then showing the um bulkhead
1:12:50extension of one of the stairs on the
1:12:52mansion. Um our play space fencing which
1:12:56will be the vanishing coil is what we
1:12:58are proposing. Um the play space on
1:13:03extending onto the the taller portion of
1:13:06the play space extending onto the
1:13:09rowouses.
1:13:11um that mechanical screening which is
1:13:13proposed to wrap our um our stair
1:13:17bulkhead and our elevator bulkhead and
1:13:21to be of a same the same bronze material
1:13:24but in screen form um as the as the
1:13:27portion below.
1:13:31Um the last element of our proposal is
1:13:34the um store the facade restoration
1:13:38along Madison Avenue.
1:13:41Um so this is as it exists today and we
1:13:45are proposing to um restore the stucco
1:13:50to replace the windows with historically
1:13:52appropriate windows including um at this
1:13:56new row of punched openings at this
1:13:59level. um as well as at the the
1:14:02storefront itself. Um currently there
1:14:05are no um we don't believe there are any
1:14:08historic materials at the actual
1:14:11storefront. We are referencing
1:14:13um the LPC's um master plan for the work
1:14:18in this area. We are also conducting
1:14:21probes to explore whether there is any
1:14:24material to be to be salvaged um aside
1:14:28from the uh the columns here. Um but in
1:14:33any case we are proposing to put back um
1:14:36historically appropriate storefront in
1:14:39this portion of the facade. Um and then
1:14:43beyond that storefront system um as a
1:14:47kind of interior art piece and screen we
1:14:51are proposing um this kind of uh finned
1:14:55system that is uh will be designed both
1:14:58to allow daylight um into the classrooms
1:15:03as well as to um provide for the kind of
1:15:06visual interest um and street life along
1:15:10Madison Avenue. Um the intent here is
1:15:13both to provide for um safety and
1:15:16security along Madison Avenue um with
1:15:19some lighting um as well as to allow um
1:15:23daylight and activity um of the
1:15:26classrooms within.
1:15:29Uh so these final pages show kind of in
1:15:33summary each elevation. So the the
1:15:36Madison Avenue elevation as it exists
1:15:39today and as it is proposed.
1:15:43Um the 93rd Street elevation as it
1:15:46exists today and as it is proposed.
1:15:50And then the one elevation that I
1:15:53haven't spoken about is the the rear
1:15:55yard elevation
1:15:57um as it exists today. Um and then with
1:16:02our proposed addition. So you this
1:16:04portion of it just in the upper left
1:16:06here um would be visible where we are
1:16:09proposing to wrap a similar treatment
1:16:12and then the the work at the rear of the
1:16:16the mansion here. We are proposing two
1:16:19new openings in a section of wall that
1:16:21is um relatively recent from 2002
1:16:26and then otherwise continuing the kind
1:16:28of brick and glass treatment in the new
1:16:32um rear wall of our um proposed
1:16:36extension.
1:16:37Um the materials I've I've spoken about
1:16:40largely. Um but we uh do have the new
1:16:45steel storefront at the um Madison
1:16:48Avenue storefront. We do have the kind
1:16:51of brick and glass um edition as well as
1:16:55the the bronze edition. And we do have
1:16:58the vanishing coil um mesh at the play
1:17:02spaces which is intentionally designed
1:17:04to be as as um transparent to the eye as
1:17:09possible.
1:17:10Um and then we do have a series of
1:17:13street views to show the um uh what this
1:17:17is intended, what the design would look
1:17:19like from different angles throughout
1:17:21the neighborhood.
1:17:23Um so here you're seeing that um reset
1:17:27cornice line and the uh one-story
1:17:31Garrett addition. You're also seeing the
1:17:33strategy of you know really
1:17:36accomplishing the the bulk that we need
1:17:39as far from the mansion as possible. So
1:17:43really making it possible to um preserve
1:17:47uh the sightelines of the mansion.
1:17:51I'm here from a slightly different angle
1:17:53where you're seeing how we're stepping
1:17:55away from the mansion in more detail.
1:17:59Uh looking back down 93rd Street um past
1:18:04the mansion.
1:18:06Uh looking in that kind of slot of the
1:18:09rear yard that I spoke about, what would
1:18:12be visible over the neighbor's rear yard
1:18:15extension.
1:18:17Um and then you know standing directly
1:18:19across Madison Avenue
1:18:23um as well as looking down Madison
1:18:25Avenue um toward the addition. Um so we
1:18:30we do have a mockup in place and uh
1:18:33these are additional additional points
1:18:36that we have have looked at with um and
1:18:39that is that is the extent. Thank you
1:18:41very much.
1:18:43Uh David, I'd like I'd like to pick up
1:18:46where Sarah left off if that's okay.
1:18:48>> That's fine, Shelley.
1:18:50>> Thank you very much. Um good evening and
1:18:53uh we're happy that Sarah had an
1:18:55opportunity to show you the the
1:18:57landmarks application first, but we have
1:18:59some brief remarks from others on the
1:19:01Spence team. Um which hopefully will put
1:19:04this into into uh more context for the
1:19:07members of the committee. My name is
1:19:09Shelley Freriedman. from land use
1:19:11council to the spent school.
1:19:12[clears throat]
1:19:13Um just for uh
1:19:16background purposes, this is an there
1:19:19are two applications here. One is a
1:19:21certificate of appropriateness for to uh
1:19:24to what actually an amendment to the
1:19:26certificate of appropriateness issued in
1:19:282002
1:19:30for the um for the mansion. Um several
1:19:34of you will recall that it was once
1:19:36something called the Smither's Clinic
1:19:37and in 2002 Spence purchased the
1:19:40property and converted to its lower
1:19:42school. um we have a uh a certificate of
1:19:45appropriateness for that that
1:19:46conversion. And uh if you will recall
1:19:50for those of you who were there um one
1:19:53of the the strongest messages that we
1:19:55received from the community and from the
1:19:58preservation advocacy groups and
1:20:00ultimately from the commission itself
1:20:01was that we should do very little uh to
1:20:05change the overall character of the
1:20:07mansion as a freestanding historic
1:20:10residential mansion as an individual
1:20:11land.
1:20:13And um that is how the school has uh has
1:20:17dealt with this property in a in a its
1:20:20stewardship has been I think quite
1:20:22impressive over the years to maintain
1:20:24that most important element it it's its
1:20:28appearance as a freestanding uh former
1:20:31residential mansion. Uh and so that in
1:20:332025 when these two properties on
1:20:36Madison Avenue 1307 and 1309 became
1:20:40available, uh the there was great
1:20:43enthusiasm about seeing if it we could
1:20:46connect um those two properties at at
1:20:50their rear yards to the mansion itself.
1:20:53And that's what you have just seen by
1:20:56way of this application. Um the the
1:20:59second aspect, the second application is
1:21:01therefore a new application for
1:21:03certificate of appropriateness for the
1:21:06adaptive reuse of these two buildings
1:21:08that will now tie in to the the mansion
1:21:13at its rear yard and along the sideline
1:21:15of the the side wall of of the mansion
1:21:20itself. Um, as Sarah pointed out, that
1:21:23requires a realignment of all the floors
1:21:27in the in the two row houses. And um,
1:21:31that is is is also reflected in the work
1:21:35that you see to maintain the spirit of
1:21:38of of these uh, row houses if they've
1:21:40been changed through the years, but in a
1:21:42manner that will permit the Spence
1:21:44School to achieve its programmatic uh,
1:21:48its programmatic needs. a quarter
1:21:50century after moving into the lower
1:21:52school in a way that is true to its
1:21:54original commitments with regard to the
1:21:56mansion and is appropriate to these two
1:22:00brownstones. With regard to the
1:22:02programmatic necessity for this change,
1:22:05I would like to turn it over to Felicia
1:22:07Wilk who is the head of dispense school.
1:22:10She will then turn it over to Eric Zer
1:22:14who is the director of teacher and
1:22:15learning at the lower school. And then
1:22:17the final speaker in our presentation
1:22:20will be uh uh Kimberly Kravis, the new
1:22:24chair of the board of trustees of the
1:22:26Spence School. And then u we'll all of
1:22:29course come back to answer whatever
1:22:30questions you may have. And I I'll be
1:22:32happy to answer any other questions you
1:22:33have about about the history of these
1:22:35certificates um and and how we come to
1:22:38this point. So if with no with the with
1:22:41your permission, David, I'll turn it
1:22:42over to Miss Will.
1:22:44>> All right. Thank you, Shel. Thank you,
1:22:47Shelley. Thank you, David. Um, and good
1:22:49evening, everyone. My name is Felicia
1:22:50Wils and I'm the head of school at
1:22:52Spence. Um, and as you know, Spence has
1:22:55been has had the privilege of being a
1:22:57part of this historic district since
1:22:591929 when the school engaged John
1:23:02Russell Pope to design our flagship
1:23:04building, which is still on East 91st
1:23:06Street. Since then, the school has
1:23:08expanded through the restoration and
1:23:11adapted use of two other landmark
1:23:14buildings, the Low Mansion, which we
1:23:16just discussed, and 17 East 90th Street,
1:23:19which is now connected to our 91st
1:23:22Street building. As I hope you can see
1:23:24in our presentation, the incorporation
1:23:26of the two Madison Avenue row houses to
1:23:29the Low Mansion represents a
1:23:31generational opportunity for our school.
1:23:34It will allow us to better fulfill our
1:23:36mission as a girl school while creating
1:23:38very very much needed space to enhance
1:23:40the educational experience of our
1:23:43youngest students. I'm the graduate of a
1:23:45girl school myself and I have to say
1:23:47that this project of aligning our
1:23:50facilities with our programmatic needs
1:23:52is absolutely missionritical.
1:23:55And throughout this planning process,
1:23:57which has included our entire community,
1:24:00from trustees to parents to teachers,
1:24:03we've really been guided by our deep
1:24:05commitment to preservation of these
1:24:08landmarked properties. We've worked
1:24:10closely with our architects at MBB, our
1:24:12board of trustees, and school leadership
1:24:15to take really, really great care to
1:24:17ensure that the design preserves the
1:24:19defining architectural character of the
1:24:21low mansion. and our goal of building a
1:24:25connection um to these row homes while
1:24:28making modest additions to the Madison
1:24:30Avenue buildings themselves that will
1:24:32serve our educational program. Many of
1:24:35our trustees are also alums um who grew
1:24:39up in Carnegie Hill and are now raising
1:24:41their own families in the neighborhood
1:24:42and our board chair Kimberly Kravis who
1:24:45you'll hear from in just a moment is one
1:24:47of those people. So, thank you so much
1:24:49for your consideration. Um, while we
1:24:52absolutely have students from all over
1:24:53the metropolitan area, we consider
1:24:55ourselves a Carnegie Hill neighbor and
1:24:58with your support throughout this
1:24:59project, we will continue to seek to
1:25:01engage with our neighbors and the
1:25:03community. So, next, my colleague Eric
1:25:05Zer, who's the director of teaching and
1:25:07learning at Spence, will share a few
1:25:09words about the curricular needs that
1:25:11have shaped our design.
1:25:14>> Thank you, Felicia, and good evening,
1:25:16everyone. So uh this proposal is the
1:25:18result of a really carefully considered
1:25:20planning process including trustees,
1:25:22administrators, faculty, parents,
1:25:25architects, engineers. Throughout that
1:25:27process, we've grounded ourselves in
1:25:29really a simple question, which is what
1:25:30spaces do children need to learn well?
1:25:33Not just for today, but for decades to
1:25:35come in our next quarter century. Um I'm
1:25:37Eric Zer. I'm the director of teaching
1:25:39and learning at Spence. I've been part
1:25:41of the Spence community for the past 24
1:25:43years. Um during that time I've had the
1:25:45privilege of watching our educational
1:25:47program evolve within this vibrant
1:25:49neighborhood. Um throughout those years
1:25:51the footprint of the lower school has
1:25:52really stayed remained the same. Um and
1:25:55we've worked very hard to make every
1:25:57square inch of the building serve our
1:25:59students well and we've reached the
1:26:01point where creativity alone is no
1:26:03longer enough. Um we're really beyond
1:26:05the outer limits of what our building
1:26:07can hold. Um my job is to think about
1:26:09how children learn and what teachers
1:26:11need to help them thrive. From that
1:26:13perspective, I can tell you that this
1:26:15project is not about just adding
1:26:17amenities. It's about giving children
1:26:18the spaces they need to learn. Um, young
1:26:21kids learn by building, by
1:26:22experimenting, by creating, by asking
1:26:25questions, by working together. Um, and
1:26:27they're growing up in a world where
1:26:29engineering, computing, and design are
1:26:30increasingly important. Um, our nine new
1:26:33proposed classrooms will provide
1:26:34dedicated space for engineering and
1:26:36STEM, science, art and music subjects
1:26:39that too often compete for spaces that
1:26:41are not uh suitable for them um in their
1:26:45increasingly specialized work. As an
1:26:47example, right now our STEM STEM lab is
1:26:49really half a classroom, which is
1:26:51inadequate to housing our program,
1:26:53especially given changes in technology.
1:26:55[snorts] The proposal also addresses
1:26:57practical needs that affect students
1:26:59every day. Um, right now some of our
1:27:01students eat lunch at 10:45 in the
1:27:03morning because we don't have enough
1:27:04dining space. And perhaps some of you
1:27:06have seen the pasta that gets shuttled
1:27:08up Madison Avenue by our kitchen team
1:27:11given the current uh kitchen that's
1:27:12really too small to prepare at 93rd
1:27:14Street. Um, finally, the project creates
1:27:17critically needed outdoor learning and
1:27:19play space that you heard Sarah talk
1:27:20about. For young children, those spaces
1:27:23are essential to their learning and
1:27:24development. places to explore,
1:27:26collaborate, imagine, and develop
1:27:28confidence and physical skills.
1:27:30Ultimately, buildings don't educate
1:27:32children. Teachers do, but the spaces
1:27:34that we provide for that learning really
1:27:36matter. Um, this project will give our
1:27:38students learning environments that
1:27:40match the quality of the education we
1:27:42strive to provide every day. Um, and
1:27:45I'll turn it over to KK.
1:27:56Thank you. And thank you, Eric. And good
1:27:58evening, everyone. I'm Kimberly Kravis,
1:28:00a proud alumni and a parent in the
1:28:02school. And tonight, I speak on behalf
1:28:04of the board of trustees who look to the
1:28:06Madison Avenue project as a generational
1:28:09opportunity that is both strategic and
1:28:12thoughtful. On a personal level, I've
1:28:15grown up in this neighborhood. I was a
1:28:17student during the addition to the 91st
1:28:20Street building that transformed the
1:28:22school and I've been a parent and a
1:28:24trustee during the recent projects. What
1:28:27remains a constant expense is it
1:28:29thoughtful, strategic and
1:28:31community-minded approach. As a parent,
1:28:34I've experienced the joyful place of
1:28:36learning that we have created in the
1:28:38lower school. And for the trustees,
1:28:41putting students and program at the
1:28:43center of every decision is a high
1:28:45priority.
1:28:47The trustees are stewards of this fine
1:28:49institution, and we take our job to care
1:28:52for this school, its mission, people,
1:28:54and resources very seriously. We are
1:28:57committed to engaging in this process
1:28:59with good care and a thoughtful approach
1:29:02to our neighbors and our community.
1:29:04Thank you.
1:29:06>> Thank you.
1:29:09Anda Shelley, I assume that's the end of
1:29:11the presentation.
1:29:13>> We're happy to answer your questions,
1:29:15Mr. Chairman.
1:29:15>> And I have one question. Are we
1:29:18considering an amendment to the 2000 to
1:29:22the original certificate of
1:29:24appropriateness as well as a new
1:29:26certificate of appropriateness
1:29:28>> or just one?
1:29:30>> You no, you're considering you're
1:29:31considering both.
1:29:33>> Okay. There are two applications in the
1:29:35modifications. The 2002 certificate of
1:29:38appropriateness will cover the the
1:29:40actual connection connection between the
1:29:43buildings at the uh at the side and rear
1:29:45lines which are not which are not
1:29:47visible um but but nonetheless touch
1:29:49upon touch upon the the structure of the
1:29:51designated of the designated landmark.
1:29:54The uh play space that you see will be
1:29:57partially on the um the the mansion. And
1:30:01thirdly, the rearrangement of the
1:30:03mechanical space, the removal of of a
1:30:06lot of the mechanical space on on on the
1:30:08two row houses a and the relocation of
1:30:11it on the on the mansion due to the
1:30:14introduction of of of the geothermal
1:30:16plant that Sarah described also requires
1:30:19a modification of the 2002 certificate
1:30:23of appropriateness.
1:30:25what everything that was explained to
1:30:27you with regarded to row houses will be
1:30:29in the format of a new certificate of
1:30:31appropriateness um applicable to those
1:30:34two two uh row houses. Without getting
1:30:38too far into the weeds, unless unless
1:30:40you prefer the weeds tonight, um these
1:30:43these are going to be uh all merged into
1:30:45a single zoning lot, but from a landmark
1:30:48standpoint, they're two individual lots
1:30:50and need to be treated that way. We're
1:30:52only interested in the landmarks aspects
1:30:55tonight. Shelley, we leave the rest to
1:30:57you. And um but it was important for us
1:31:01to understand that we're voting on two
1:31:05conditions, not just one, which is the
1:31:08way it came across uh in the um
1:31:12description to us. So we will take that
1:31:15into consideration as we go forward.
1:31:18Now I'm going to
1:31:21leave it up to Jordan uh to figure out
1:31:25who has raised their hands in what order
1:31:29and uh to take each person from the uh
1:31:33community uh in order.
1:31:37>> So Jordan, I will put it in your hands
1:31:39for the moment.
1:31:40>> Sounds good. And then David, um just a
1:31:42quick question. Do you
1:31:45see a future in which these are being or
1:31:47these are will be two separate motions?
1:31:50>> I think we have to see how the uh
1:31:52discussion goes but I think if there are
1:31:54two C two C of AS we have to vote on two
1:31:58C of AAS. It seems that it's fairly
1:32:02simple. I mean, we can keep it fairly
1:32:04simple for ourselves in terms of the
1:32:07enlargement of the mansion,
1:32:11which is horizontal. Correct me if I'm
1:32:14wrong, Shelley, and the vertical
1:32:17enlargement of the uh row houses. But
1:32:22with with your invitation, David, the
1:32:24the role the the mansion is not being
1:32:26expanded horizontally as much as at the
1:32:29point of its property line where it
1:32:31meets the the rear yard of the two row
1:32:34houses. It's being there's going to be a
1:32:37uh these are going to be now
1:32:38interconnected. It's the interconnection
1:32:40not the not the increase of the
1:32:42footprint of the uh the mansion that's
1:32:45part that that is that application. The
1:32:48interconnection is is the is the
1:32:51amendment. Is that correct?
1:32:53>> The interconnection is is the amendment.
1:32:56Um and the certificate of
1:32:57appropriateness, the new certificate of
1:32:59appropriateness for the
1:33:01>> row houses um includes expanding the two
1:33:05rear yards to the mansion wall.
1:33:13>> Very very little for the mansion.
1:33:16>> Yes. As I the mansion is about the the
1:33:20rooftop, the structural integrity of the
1:33:23of the interconnection and the move and
1:33:25the relocation of mechanicals.
1:33:30>> Okay.
1:33:34So with that understanding, let's move
1:33:37forward.
1:33:40>> All right.
1:33:41So, um, now it's time for members of the
1:33:44public to, um, ask questions or make
1:33:47comments on this application. How we're
1:33:49going to do this is I will go down in,
1:33:51uh, order from who raised their hand
1:33:53first. So, um, first come, first serve,
1:33:55we'll go down that order. Um since we
1:33:58have quite a few hands raised um for the
1:34:02interest of uh clarity and making sure
1:34:07everybody can get their comments in,
1:34:08please avoid as much uh cross talk as
1:34:10possible as I unmute you. All right. So
1:34:12then first as we um first on the list
1:34:15will be Bill Brothers
1:34:22there. My name is Bill Brothers. I'm a
1:34:24co-chair of the LAN use committee of
1:34:26Civotas and uh and also on the executive
1:34:29board of Civotas. We reviewed the
1:34:32presentation last week uh and uh we have
1:34:36we prepared a document or a a simple
1:34:39summary of our comments.
1:34:42Civotas respects and supports the
1:34:44overall educational mission of the
1:34:45Spence School recognizes and supports
1:34:48its desire to enhance its academic
1:34:51facilities. However, the proposed
1:34:53expansion as currently presented
1:34:55reflects a design that inflicts
1:34:57permanent harm on street level vitality,
1:35:01community security, and the visual
1:35:03historic character of Carnegie Hill. The
1:35:06proposed buildout involves
1:35:09the institutional conversion of 1307 to
1:35:131309 Madison Avenue, two critical
1:35:15mixeduse buildings located directly
1:35:18adjacent to the school. The primary
1:35:21purpose of this application is to absorb
1:35:24those non-institutional
1:35:26neighborhood properties into upgraded
1:35:29private academic space within the
1:35:31expanded Carnegie Hill historic
1:35:33district.
1:35:35This proposal directly threatens our
1:35:37local economy by completely removing
1:35:40active street level retail. In urban
1:35:43planning, active storefronts are the
1:35:45lifeblood of the neighborhood. They draw
1:35:47foot traffic, keep sidewalks
1:35:49illuminated, provide what Jane Jacobs
1:35:51famously called eyes on the street. The
1:35:54natur the natural passive security
1:35:56provided by daily shopkeepers and
1:35:58patrons.
1:36:00Replacing a vibrant food market and
1:36:02local services with a closed private
1:36:05institutional facade creates a dark dead
1:36:08zone on the block after dismissal hours.
1:36:11This deactivated street front
1:36:14compromises
1:36:16pedestrian safety and diminishes
1:36:18community safety.
1:36:20Moreover, the visual violation of the
1:36:23historic roof line fails to respect the
1:36:25intent of the special ma ma Madison
1:36:28Avenue's reservation district.
1:36:31The proposed one-story vertical addition
1:36:34disrupts the uniform scale and historic
1:36:36rhythm of the classic rowhouse block.
1:36:40The addition will be explicitly visible
1:36:42to pedestrians looking up from Madison
1:36:45Avenue and 93rd. What the community will
1:36:48see from the street is an
1:36:49industriallooking profile that is
1:36:52entirely incompatible with historic
1:36:54district.
1:36:56And the enduring character of the Upper
1:36:57East Side relies on preserving both the
1:37:01active small shops and its consistent
1:37:03historic scale. This project fails but
1:37:06on both fronts. It deepens our
1:37:09streetscape.
1:37:11It deadens our street, I'm sorry, and
1:37:13incompatible architectural profile with
1:37:16plain wood. To protect our
1:37:18neighborhood's historic fab fabric,
1:37:21incentivize Spence to include mandatory
1:37:24retail space on the ground floor and
1:37:26improve its design by voting no to this
1:37:28proposal as currently presented. Thank
1:37:31you.
1:37:33>> Thank you, Bill. All right. And then um
1:37:36next who has their hand raised is Ariel.
1:37:39Ariel.
1:37:40>> Hi. Thank you. Um as a former student,
1:37:43alumni, current parent and trustee,
1:37:45Spence has been a life part of my life
1:37:47since I was 5 years old. Um my
1:37:50long-standing connection to the school
1:37:51really allows me to speak with great
1:37:53confidence about Spence's deep
1:37:55commitment to its history, its legacy,
1:37:57its students, and the surrounding
1:37:59community. I can also speak as a
1:38:01prospective neighbor as I live just a
1:38:02few blocks away on Madison and 90th
1:38:04Street. Spence's stewardship of historic
1:38:07buildings and prior landmark work
1:38:09reflect its commitment as well as the
1:38:11ethos of its of the school rooted in
1:38:13Clara Spence's vision of educating women
1:38:15who contribute and engage meaningfully
1:38:17in the world around them. I'm one of the
1:38:19many alumni who have returned to and
1:38:21invested in this community and I
1:38:23strongly believe that the proposed
1:38:25expansion will allow Spence to continue
1:38:27its legacy and providing it with the
1:38:29resources needed to continue to educate
1:38:31future generations of women who will
1:38:33become active and engage members of this
1:38:35neighborhood and the broader community
1:38:36beyond.
1:38:40>> Thank you, Ariel. All right, next up we
1:38:43have Bryce.
1:38:48Thank you. Uh, good evening. My name is
1:38:50Bryce Marcus. I live on 80 81st Street
1:38:53and I'm the father of three Spence
1:38:55girls. All three started Spence in
1:38:57kindergarten. So, I spent the better
1:38:59part of the last 20 years walking my
1:39:01daughters to school through this
1:39:02neighborhood. I'm also on the Spence
1:39:04board, but I'm here tonight speaking for
1:39:06myself really as a parent and a
1:39:09neighbor. I live right around the corner
1:39:11from PS6 and one of the things I've
1:39:13always loved about living here is having
1:39:15a school as part of the neighborhood.
1:39:17Kids walking to school, parents on the
1:39:19sidewalk, teachers and staff coming and
1:39:21going. It brings energy and joy to the
1:39:24block. And I think it brings a safe
1:39:26sense of safety, too. A school is full
1:39:28of people who are present and who care
1:39:30about what's happening around them. I've
1:39:33come to believe schools add something
1:39:35uniquely positive to a neighborhood like
1:39:37ours. They bring life to the streets.
1:39:39They create community. And their
1:39:41presence gives an institution a very
1:39:43real stake in caring for the blocks
1:39:45around it. I think about Spence the same
1:39:48way. At Spence, we instill in our girls
1:39:51passion, purpose, and perspective. And
1:39:53as we discussed this project around the
1:39:55board table, I kept coming back to those
1:39:57three words. Passion is something I've
1:40:00watched nurture in my three daughters
1:40:02and in generations of all our girls. But
1:40:05how girls learn continues to evolve. Our
1:40:08spaces need to evolve, too. Giving
1:40:10teachers and students the room to
1:40:11explore, to play, to create, and
1:40:14discover what excites them. Purpose is
1:40:17taking care of what we already have. Our
1:40:19lower school, as we've discussed, is a
1:40:21beautiful landmark building. It's also
1:40:23an old building that needs real work and
1:40:26ongoing maintenance. This project gives
1:40:28Spence the flexibility to do that
1:40:30thoughtfully and responsibly. And
1:40:32perspective is recognizing that being a
1:40:34good steward doesn't mean freezing
1:40:36something in time. You have to think
1:40:38about what you inherited, but also about
1:40:40what you're leaving behind. I've walked
1:40:43my three little girls through the doors
1:40:44of the lower school. They're definitely
1:40:46not so little anymore being that one
1:40:48graduated. And I hope that decades from
1:40:50now, parents are still walking their
1:40:51daughters down these streets to Spence.
1:40:54I think this project will make sure they
1:40:55can. I strongly support it and I hope
1:40:58the community board does as well. Thank
1:41:00you. Thank you, Bryce. All right, next
1:41:03up we have uh Carolyn.
1:41:07>> Hello. Can you hear me?
1:41:09>> Yes.
1:41:09>> Yes.
1:41:10>> Hi. Um I'm I'm a neighbor directly
1:41:13across the street from the from the
1:41:15Spence Lower School on 93rd Street. Um
1:41:19and um an owner of a unit and I was also
1:41:21asked to speak not only on behalf of
1:41:23myself but also on behalf of our board
1:41:25president of our building um at 55 East
1:41:2893rd Street. Um, we love having the
1:41:31Spence School as a neighbor. Um, we
1:41:34fully support the efforts of the Spence
1:41:36School to meet the evolving needs of
1:41:38their students, but we have concerns
1:41:40about anything that might interfere with
1:41:42the historical nature of the building
1:41:45and our neighborhood. Um, one one of the
1:41:48things that's not clear to me in this
1:41:50proposal, that's not clear to us
1:41:52actually, is whether the facade of the
1:41:55building, the Spence lower school
1:41:57mansion, will be visibly changed in any
1:42:00way when you look at that building from
1:42:02the street, when you look up at that
1:42:04magnificent structure of that building.
1:42:06Can can somebody please um address that
1:42:08for us?
1:42:11>> Sarah can address that please.
1:42:15David, no no no aspect of of the
1:42:17applications uh call for any work on the
1:42:20facades of the fence building of the of
1:42:22the mansion.
1:42:24>> So when you look at the front of that
1:42:25building, will anything different be
1:42:28visible above that roof line? Um
1:42:30anything at all about the front of the
1:42:32building?
1:42:33>> I think we can David if you want to if
1:42:36if you want to make this iterative. Uh,
1:42:37I can ask Sarah to go back to show the
1:42:40elevations and you can see
1:42:41>> I think I think the question is
1:42:43important enough that Sarah should
1:42:44please show us the elevation.
1:42:46>> Okay, let's let's
1:42:49>> or let let me just flip to that
1:42:52elevation.
1:42:55I'll flip to the the overall elevations.
1:42:58Well, first as a sighteline. So, the
1:43:01portion of the work that is on the
1:43:04mansion um during that prior renovation
1:43:08when Spence first took ownership of the
1:43:11mansion, we understand that um this
1:43:15front portion of the roof is visible um
1:43:19and was not considered an appropriate um
1:43:22location for mechanical equipment. And
1:43:25so we really focused on this back
1:43:28portion of the roof where the mechanical
1:43:30work is or mechanical units are
1:43:33currently and that is where um the new
1:43:37play space and um bulkhead will be. Um
1:43:43so what you're seeing in this kind of
1:43:45partial elevation is that nothing on the
1:43:48the front of the mansion itself that
1:43:51front facade uh will remain exactly as
1:43:55it is today including the kind of slate
1:43:58roof and the clear stories into the
1:44:01classroom um from that earlier
1:44:04renovation. And then set well back from
1:44:07the street uh is the new uh rooftop work
1:44:11that I that I spoke about. So in terms
1:44:15of the overall elevation
1:44:18again you know all of this portion
1:44:21remains entirely unchanged.
1:44:24Um and then really it is this setback
1:44:27portion of the roof uh where that that
1:44:31limited work happens on the mansion
1:44:34manion
1:44:35>> and that work will not be and that work
1:44:37will not be visible from from the the
1:44:40typical viewpoint across the street. Is
1:44:41that that's correct Sarah?
1:44:43>> Correct.
1:44:44>> Yeah.
1:44:44>> Okay. Because that that's one of our
1:44:46concerns is that is that nothing be done
1:44:48to alter the beautiful historical nature
1:44:50of this of this mansion. Um, and I I
1:44:54also appreciate I mean I appreciate all
1:44:56the comments and the efforts that are
1:44:58being made to provide for this the
1:45:00wonderful school and the students who
1:45:02attend. Um, and and we really do support
1:45:05that. I do share some of the concerns
1:45:07also that were raised by the first
1:45:09speaker about the materials that would
1:45:11be used for this portion that would be
1:45:13connecting the rowouses to the um to the
1:45:17mansion and whether they they may seem
1:45:20um dissonant with the historic nature
1:45:23and beauty of the neighborhood which
1:45:25we're very invested in along with
1:45:27supporting the educational mission of
1:45:29the school. So th those are some of the
1:45:31concerns that we have. Thank you very
1:45:33much.
1:45:34Thank you, Carolyn. All right, next up
1:45:37is Robert.
1:45:39>> Hi, everybody. Um, so I'm Robert Fallon.
1:45:42Uh, friends and neighbors call me Bobby.
1:45:44Um, I live with my wife and daughters on
1:45:47Carnegie Hill. We're actually at 13 East
1:45:5094th Street, which is, um, you know,
1:45:53Madison and n and 94th. If you, you can
1:45:55actually almost see the lower school
1:45:56from, uh, from our window from the
1:45:59window behind me. And, uh, I've enjoyed
1:46:01this meeting a lot. I wanted to show you
1:46:02guys something. So this is this is my
1:46:04copy of Carnegie Hill Architecture. So
1:46:07I'm an enthusiast and so it's been fun
1:46:09to see behind the curtain a bit um here
1:46:12and um and I I like to look walk around
1:46:14and look at the wonderful landmarks and
1:46:16thank you for preserving and growing our
1:46:18area. Um so I'm lucky enough to have two
1:46:20daughters at Spence and and I'm honored
1:46:22enough to be a trustee. Um and so I
1:46:25wanted to chat about the project because
1:46:26I'm really enthusiastic about it. Um,
1:46:29Spence is on year 134, I believe. Um,
1:46:33and we've only grown modestly over the
1:46:35years. I think it's a hundred years now
1:46:37on 91st Street. So, we've been in the
1:46:39neighborhood for a long, long time. And
1:46:41I will tell you, we've always tried to
1:46:44do so thoughtfully and grow it
1:46:46thoughtfully. And um, and it's our goal
1:46:48and and that's our priority in this
1:46:51expansion application. Um we want to
1:46:54grow our footprint um because it's
1:46:56really necessary for the girls and to
1:46:59provide our students with a world-class
1:47:00education. We've incorporated all the
1:47:02stakeholders, faculty um you know every
1:47:05consideration has been about um you know
1:47:08uh with the education in mind. Um I I
1:47:11wanted to give you a few reassurances in
1:47:13case they're helpful. Um so I'm behind
1:47:15the curtain on the process. We meet very
1:47:18often um and we're constantly discussing
1:47:20the neighborhood impact. Um so we talk
1:47:23about the appearance, we talk about the
1:47:24flow of people, we talk about the
1:47:26construction project and how that will
1:47:28progress. Um it's been a full effort uh
1:47:32to ensure we go about this in the least
1:47:35intrusive way possible for our
1:47:36neighbors. I'm one of them. Um, and
1:47:39then, you know, I wanted to chat a bit
1:47:41about the the retail space discussion
1:47:43because I can relate like you know,
1:47:45Patrick Murphy's I I could see it. Um,
1:47:49the the quality of life and the
1:47:50streetscape is really important and
1:47:53we've chatted about a lot and and we're
1:47:55going to miss Patrick Murphy. So, I want
1:47:56to be super clear about that. So, I can
1:47:58relate. Um, but we really we really need
1:48:02this space and it's it's really more
1:48:06important and I want to make sure I
1:48:08express that as a neighbor and someone
1:48:10who walks by. Um, and the the alternate
1:48:14the the uh alterations to the front
1:48:16facade, they make they will be well lit.
1:48:19They are going to be beautiful. Um, this
1:48:21isn't just going to be some dark
1:48:23storefront that goes away and like a
1:48:25dead space in the neighborhood. That's
1:48:26not the plan at all. Um really what we
1:48:29have to do is we have to prioritize
1:48:31security and the the flow um for
1:48:34students and so for that reason we have
1:48:37to sacrifice the retail space and again
1:48:39it's not our first choice. It's just we
1:48:42need the basement and we need that that
1:48:45first floor and also we have to we have
1:48:47to line up all the floors so they're in
1:48:49sync. Um, and so there are some
1:48:51adjustments that I that um I think we
1:48:53showed um on uh on how the step down
1:48:57would work and so retail space just it
1:49:00just wouldn't work unfortunately. Um we
1:49:02also are a not for-profit uh entity as
1:49:05the schools are and so becoming a
1:49:07landlord and having a retail tenant I
1:49:09think that that creates some other
1:49:10problems. Um, and so I wanted to close
1:49:13out by just saying, hey, we're a big
1:49:15part of the community and neighborhood.
1:49:17Um, and we take that responsibility
1:49:19really, really seriously. I will say
1:49:21that when people move uptown, uh, a lot
1:49:25of times because their kids are coming
1:49:26into school, um, I tell them, "Hey, go
1:49:29walk around Carnegie Hill at 8:30 a.m.
1:49:32Go see how many people you meet and see
1:49:34and wave hello." and just the drop off
1:49:38um from all the schools and all the the
1:49:40great vibes on Carnegie Hill. Um we we
1:49:43respect that and we're part of it. Um
1:49:45and so thank you again for your
1:49:47consideration and also for your
1:49:49stewardship of the neighborhood.
1:49:50>> And before we go further, I just want to
1:49:53say that we provided a great deal of
1:49:56latitude in terms of uh ability to speak
1:50:00about this project. As I said earlier,
1:50:03what we're talking about as a landmarks
1:50:05committee is context and
1:50:07appropriateness. Um, I also certainly
1:50:11think that the issue of use is part of
1:50:14that certificate of of appropriateness
1:50:16with respect to this building. But to
1:50:19the extent that you can talk about the
1:50:22design and its context and
1:50:24appropriateness, it would be
1:50:26appreciated. I think you've made a very
1:50:29strong case for why you need the
1:50:32educational space. Now the question is,
1:50:35is what you want to do appropriate? So
1:50:38with that in mind, uh we look forward to
1:50:42uh continuing comments.
1:50:45>> Thank you, David. All right, next up we
1:50:48have Jeff.
1:50:57Jeff, you're unmuted.
1:50:58>> Uh, okay, great. Oh, let me uh How about
1:51:02video? Well, of video or not. So, I
1:51:06appreciate uh David's comments. Thank
1:51:08you to the board as well. Clarifying the
1:51:11charge of the uh uh committee, which is
1:51:14one of examining the architectural
1:51:17harmony or or not relative to the
1:51:20external um aspects of the building. uh
1:51:25everybody appreciates the school and its
1:51:27use. Uh however, the charge of the board
1:51:30is um the appearance of the exterior
1:51:34part of the neighborhood. Another uh so
1:51:36I'd like to address two things. One is
1:51:38administrative. The other is
1:51:39architectural. Uh my understanding of
1:51:42the code uh or uh related to the
1:51:45committee is that postings and notice
1:51:47are to be done at least a week before.
1:51:50Uh that was not done here. I don't know
1:51:53if that um affects your hearing or the
1:51:57vote, but I would like like that to go
1:51:58on record that uh it was not posted and
1:52:03noticed as uh is required by your code.
1:52:06On the substandard level, I'd like to
1:52:09address the fact that the design as
1:52:13proposed is disharmonious on two
1:52:16accounts. one design and two scale both
1:52:21uh from 93rd Street and Madison Avenue.
1:52:25Uh for the record, I live at 1305
1:52:28Madison Avenue, one of the adjacent
1:52:30buildings. uh design-wise those
1:52:34three units uh 1307
1:52:38uh 1309 and 1305
1:52:41are joined by a pediment um that
1:52:47connects the two of them very
1:52:48harmoniously.
1:52:50Uh and yes, that building has gone uh
1:52:54through some changes, but the last
1:52:56change uh by your proposal is 1930.
1:53:01That's nearly a 100 years old. So uh
1:53:04yes, things change, but that does not
1:53:06negate the historic aspect of something
1:53:09that's nearly 100 years old. Um
1:53:13so the design that you proposed uh
1:53:17breaks up that harmony, changes the the
1:53:20look of of of the buildings and breaks
1:53:22the unity of that. Uh the same could be
1:53:25true of the view from 93rd Street uh
1:53:29which is uh broken up significantly by
1:53:34the way in which it's joined and that
1:53:37then is directly related to the scale
1:53:40both from 93rd Street and Madison
1:53:42Avenue. The scale of the additions are
1:53:45overpowering.
1:53:47an additional floor,
1:53:49uh, a gym that rises above. Um, having
1:53:54been on a review board in another
1:53:56community, I understand there's a
1:53:58difference between what the codes allow
1:54:02in terms of square footage. So, it might
1:54:04all be allowable, but the scale is
1:54:07disharmonious. It overpowers
1:54:10uh the view from Madison Avenue and uh
1:54:13as well from 93rd Street. So, I'd like
1:54:16the board to consider uh both of those
1:54:18things, the small administrative matter
1:54:21uh and the disharmonious nature of the
1:54:24design and scale. And again, thank you
1:54:27very much.
1:54:29>> Thank you, Jeeoff. All right, next up we
1:54:31have Nishant.
1:54:35>> Hi, everyone. Nishant Nadella, I'm a
1:54:38trustee, a parent at Spence and a
1:54:41neighbor in the community on on 85th
1:54:43Street. And David, I apologize earlier,
1:54:45but uh I think your audio, at least on
1:54:47my end, was cutting out, but um I
1:54:50[clears throat] think you were
1:54:51specifically asking for uh discussion of
1:54:56uh the building itself or
1:55:00u
1:55:02asking for discussion of the design of
1:55:05the buildings as they are being treated
1:55:09and enlarged. And in the in in the in as
1:55:13we discussed earlier context and
1:55:16appropriateness
1:55:17uh we what I did say is that we think
1:55:20that Spence has certainly made the case
1:55:22for the educational program and that's
1:55:25not our purview but we've given you a
1:55:27lot of latitude to do that and I think
1:55:30you've made the case. The issue now is
1:55:33is it appropriateness?
1:55:35Is this is this building or is this
1:55:38design and the two pieces of it
1:55:40deserving of certificates of
1:55:41appropriateness?
1:55:44>> Thank you for that uh clarification. So
1:55:46um I I won't uh you know harp too much
1:55:49in the points that were made by uh
1:55:51others speaking on behalf of Spence. Um
1:55:53I'll just say you know the trustees care
1:55:55deeply about balancing uh the needs of
1:55:58the school with the concerns of the
1:56:00community. I think you know the amount
1:56:01of effort that the MBB team and the
1:56:04administration uh has in you know making
1:56:08sure that the girls get what they need
1:56:10not just for you know my girls will
1:56:12probably never see this but for future
1:56:13generations while at the same time you
1:56:15know making sure our neighbors needs are
1:56:17addressed is very real and and hopefully
1:56:20we can uh leave something that the
1:56:22community uh can find harmonious for
1:56:25future generations.
1:56:27>> Thank you Nishant.
1:56:28>> Thank you. [clears throat] All right, we
1:56:30have Low next.
1:56:39>> Low, I sent you a prompt to unmute. I'll
1:56:41send another one.
1:56:43>> I got it.
1:56:45>> Okay. Can you hear me?
1:56:47>> Yes.
1:56:47>> Yes.
1:56:48>> Great. My name is Lo Vanderbolt. I'm
1:56:50representing Carnegie Hill Neighbors.
1:56:53Um,
1:56:55there's so many aspects to this project.
1:56:57One of the one of the difficulties is
1:57:01that the grade level of the 93rd Street
1:57:05entrance and the grade level of Madison
1:57:08Avenue seems to differ by about four or
1:57:10five feet, probably closer to five. And
1:57:14the school wants the floors to be all
1:57:16the same. And that has resulted in their
1:57:19need to effectively destroy the uh the
1:57:24shopping the shopping uh story first
1:57:28story where the shops uh were and they
1:57:31can never return once this project has
1:57:34taken place. Those stores can never
1:57:36return.
1:57:38Uh, and that's that's a real loss
1:57:40because Madison Avenue is known to be a
1:57:43shopping area. And even as far back as
1:57:46in 1973
1:57:48when the um when the U Carnegie Hill uh
1:57:52special district was when the Madison
1:57:55Avenue Special District was created,
1:57:57emphasis was placed on shopping. Um, so
1:58:02but so that's one aspect. I just wanted
1:58:05to highlight the um the other is
1:58:09sometimes you you you cite examples of
1:58:12other schools that have made huge
1:58:14additions and I know that Bamford
1:58:16Nightingale falls under that
1:58:18classification but it is not on Madison
1:58:21Avenue and also Nightingale was not in
1:58:25the historic district when the changes
1:58:27were made. So I think I and and I think
1:58:32we will we will site u the closest to
1:58:35Madison Avenue that you can come as an
1:58:37as a as a u as an educational
1:58:41institution is St. David's. They had a
1:58:44huge um renovation back in I think 2017
1:58:50and um they kept their their small store
1:58:55on Madison Avenue
1:58:57and uh they made very modest changes. I
1:59:01think for a seven seven to eight story
1:59:03building they added only one floor and
1:59:05it's hardly visible. Of course they had
1:59:08to go through two iterations. The first
1:59:10time they came before the landmarks
1:59:12commission um the commission was not
1:59:15happy and said we know you can do better
1:59:17go back and do a better design and they
1:59:20did that and they came up with a better
1:59:22design. So, so there's still hope for
1:59:24this project if I if I may say so
1:59:27because uh we we agree with so many
1:59:31people that have spoken first of all
1:59:33that Spence is a is a wonderful
1:59:35educational institution makes a huge
1:59:38contribution to our neighborhood and uh
1:59:42we are not contesting that at all. But
1:59:44we are contesting what they are trying
1:59:46to to do here and uh we we we think they
1:59:50can do much better. Um one of it's been
1:59:55cited before but the proposed addition
1:59:57disrupts the historic scale of this part
2:00:00of Madison Avenue in the Carnegie Hill
2:00:02historic districts. Um,
2:00:05and it the addition will be far more
2:00:08visible than is typical in the historic
2:00:11district of institutional buildings.
2:00:15And three, the project changes the
2:00:17rhythm of the block. And that block is
2:00:20consists of row houses, no three and
2:00:23mostly four stories. Uh, the rhythm is
2:00:26special. It's been there for more than a
2:00:28hundred years. it neighbors of course uh
2:00:32Hotel Wells now a condominium very
2:00:35attractively redone. Um, but that that
2:00:40half of the block has a special rhythm
2:00:42and a special character. And thank God
2:00:45there's still shops left, but we are
2:00:48losing 40 feet of frontage of of
2:00:52storefront. And I know that you are
2:00:55going to make strong arguments that you
2:00:58have to do this. Um, I won't comment
2:01:01further on that. I recognize what you
2:01:04say. Um, also the proposal weakens the
2:01:07architectural integrity of of historic
2:01:11buildings and historic districts. And it
2:01:13and in this case, for example, we know
2:01:16that that this site occupies two
2:01:20historic buildings that form a group of
2:01:23three with the pediment in the center at
2:01:27the at the uh current top floor. Um
2:01:31these uh these were cited these three
2:01:35buildings and the pediment were cited in
2:01:38the um Carnegie Hill uh historic
2:01:41district designation report and often
2:01:45people refer back to the designation
2:01:47report uh which gives you at the
2:01:50landmarks commission gives you authority
2:01:53to speak of to speak to defend existing
2:01:58fabric if it's sight Ed in the historic
2:02:00district report which on page one 102
2:02:04and 103 it is definitely and they are
2:02:07identified as a group of three and the
2:02:09pediment is also cited.
2:02:12Um moving on
2:02:15Madison Avenue's commercial character
2:02:18should be preserved and and this it's
2:02:21regretful what is happening now with the
2:02:24elimination of these shops. Uh but that
2:02:28nevertheless is still a great wish in
2:02:31this community and uh of people that are
2:02:34concerned about historic and
2:02:36architectural character, but also of of
2:02:40of a blending of the commercial uh
2:02:43character, the shops in in Carnegie Hill
2:02:47with the rest of the community.
2:02:49Um,
2:02:51also institutional expansion should
2:02:54respect the historic district and and we
2:02:57think uh we think I cited earlier St.
2:03:00David School did this and uh there are
2:03:04no examples of any other uh school that
2:03:09has uh that has that is building or has
2:03:13built on Madison Avenue. So this is a
2:03:16first and as a first we we would hope
2:03:20that they take very special care to
2:03:23preserve the historic and architectural
2:03:27character. Um, this decision that the
2:03:32landmarks commission will make will set
2:03:35a precedent and it will invite future
2:03:39institutional expansions and and and and
2:03:43that is that is a great regret of what
2:03:46is going what is being sought here if
2:03:49it's successful without any any changes.
2:03:53Um,
2:03:57also we want to say that this is about
2:03:59compatibility. It's not about opposing
2:04:01spouse.
2:04:03There should be a way to create a more
2:04:06compatible structure. And um one of the
2:04:10most elementary things that that that
2:04:12that we see is the preservation
2:04:16of of an existing cornis line and and
2:04:19and also what landmarks value so much is
2:04:23that when there is a well-defined cornis
2:04:26line that you set back appropriately
2:04:30and and and and this will produce a more
2:04:33modest building. uh but it can still
2:04:37satisfy your needs. Maybe your
2:04:39classrooms won't be as big as before,
2:04:41but you can work around that. But some
2:04:45of the classrooms now are are truly
2:04:48huge. Um so in closing, I I just hope
2:04:52that uh that you will reconsider before
2:04:57you before you proceed or that at some
2:05:00point you will reconsider. some point
2:05:03the board will say can't we do this in a
2:05:05slightly different way. Um and and that
2:05:09is our hope and and and is up to you. Uh
2:05:13we can't force it. Um thank you. Thank
2:05:17you very much.
2:05:19>> Thank you, Lo.
2:05:21>> All right. And then next up we have
2:05:23Katie.
2:05:27>> Good evening everyone. Um my name is
2:05:29Katie Day. I live directly across from
2:05:32the school at 93rd in Madison. We are in
2:05:35one of the historic buildings on the
2:05:37corner. Um I just wanted to say we've
2:05:40lived here for over six years or about
2:05:42six years now. Um and we've found it
2:05:45actually um very joyful and very vibrant
2:05:48to be living across from the school. We
2:05:51do have two children that are there now.
2:05:53But I can tell you that Spence has been
2:05:55an incredibly respectful neighbor um to
2:05:58the community, to the neighborhood, to
2:06:00the safety in the community. I cannot
2:06:03say that about every other
2:06:05um retail shop and neighbor that's in
2:06:09this community. So, I very much value
2:06:11living across from the school. Um, I
2:06:15also think that it's important to note
2:06:17that Spence is um
2:06:20they take their duty as being a good
2:06:22neighbor um very highly and the fact
2:06:25that they didn't shut down the streets
2:06:26after CO like all the other schools did
2:06:29um is very telling of how much they're
2:06:31involving the neighborhood um and
2:06:34wanting to involve us in the planning
2:06:36and the decision making and being very
2:06:38thoughtful neighbors. Um, I feel like
2:06:42this renovation is quite modest in terms
2:06:44of what they actually need. Um, and I
2:06:48would also say I'm not really sure whose
2:06:50sight lines are being affected besides
2:06:53ours with the renovation. I mean, we're
2:06:55directly across from the new
2:06:56development. The scaffolding, the
2:06:58proposed um, new sight lines and heights
2:07:02are up with the scaffolding um, which we
2:07:06can barely see outside of our windows.
2:07:08So, I do find it minimally invasive. I
2:07:12do feel like they're being very
2:07:13thoughtful about the renovation and only
2:07:15doing as much as they need. Um, and we
2:07:18are very happy to be a part of the
2:07:20school community, but also as a um
2:07:23neighboring Carnegie Hill. So, I greatly
2:07:26appreciate um I greatly appreciate
2:07:29everybody's comments. Um, but I'm very
2:07:32much in support of of this renovation.
2:07:35>> Thank you, Katie. Next up is James
2:07:40Thank you. And um I'm James Sadori. I'm
2:07:44a [clears throat] resident of the Wells,
2:07:46also a board member at the Wells
2:07:47condominium right on the corner. Um I
2:07:50think it's a incredible opportunity that
2:07:53Spence has to combine and I for one
2:07:57don't think a school ever has enough
2:07:59space. So congratulations to all those
2:08:01involved. I know I'm sure it was a big
2:08:02undertaking one to acquire it and
2:08:04propose uh such an ambitious project. Um
2:08:08I I don't think anyone would disagree
2:08:09that schools should have more space and
2:08:11every student should have bigger
2:08:12classrooms. So congratulations on
2:08:14acquiring the new space and uh looking
2:08:17at ways to combine it. My concern is
2:08:21with just the the plans that were kind
2:08:22of set forward and and looking at it
2:08:24just from the impact on the historical
2:08:26nature of the block. Just two things
2:08:28that stand out to me was the I I think
2:08:31there was a a view line um going back
2:08:33and and one of the things um
2:08:35[clears throat] Miss Sarah Grant
2:08:38presented which was really cool was yes
2:08:40the part of the facade you you showed
2:08:43kind of has changed over the 40 years
2:08:45but when you look back at kind of those
2:08:46changes the the sort of height of all
2:08:49those buildings has not changed and that
2:08:50historical nature of the block has kind
2:08:53of been maintained there. I am in full
2:08:56support of the uh combination but in a
2:08:58way that preserves either the uh setback
2:09:01or sort of the uh scale as it's
2:09:05currently proposed definitely kind of
2:09:07sets a a precedent that is um very
2:09:11comprehensive as far as the additional
2:09:14sort of uh rooftop building and the
2:09:16connection. Um but that was only my my
2:09:19two points on it. I wish you guys the
2:09:21best of luck with the project.
2:09:24Thank you, James. All right, next up is
2:09:27Joan.
2:09:30>> Um, my name is Joanne Haberman. I live
2:09:33directly across from Spence at 55 East
2:09:3693rd Street. Um, one issue that, um,
2:09:41nobody else has mentioned is the open
2:09:44play space. During COVID, the children
2:09:48were allowed to play on the street. I
2:09:51live in a 28 unit sixstory building and
2:09:55the noise from the little girls
2:09:58screeching voices was overwhelming to
2:10:02us. We had to close our windows. It
2:10:06compromised our quality of life
2:10:09and we could not work or take naps.
2:10:12Um, with the addition now of these play
2:10:15of the play state on the roof, those
2:10:18voices, those little voices will again
2:10:22be heard in our building and again we'll
2:10:25have to shut our windows and our life
2:10:29will be compromised and that's a great
2:10:32concern for me
2:10:34and um for the people in my building.
2:10:39The other thing that I would like to say
2:10:42since I'm now looking at Spence,
2:10:46um, the addition to the roof, um,
2:10:50Carolyn asked who lives in my building
2:10:52asked about the addition to the roof.
2:10:54There is a significant addition to the
2:10:56roof
2:10:59and granted there's a setback, but I
2:11:01certainly can see it.
2:11:04And as as Jeff mentioned,
2:11:07the construction is massive
2:11:11and it will take away a lot of life a
2:11:14light for me and for the rest of my
2:11:17building.
2:11:18Furthermore, this is a cohesive lovely
2:11:22neighborhood.
2:11:24And I wonder what this construction,
2:11:26which will take a long time and will be
2:11:29extremely disruptive,
2:11:31will do to our beloved corner bookstore,
2:11:36our beloved restaurant island,
2:11:40and the rest of the quality of life
2:11:42around the street.
2:11:45And
2:11:47in addition,
2:11:49the architecture of the addi of of
2:11:52Spence's addition is so dissonant
2:11:56from the rest of the block
2:12:01that it is really un unattractive and
2:12:04disruptive.
2:12:07And if anything happens to that
2:12:09bookstore,
2:12:11it would be a tragedy.
2:12:15So, thank you for hearing me. And uh
2:12:17that's it.
2:12:19>> Thank you, Joanne.
2:12:22Next up is Cheryl.
2:12:31>> Cheryl.
2:12:34>> Yes. Um
2:12:36the um presentation I thought was
2:12:40terrific as a first iteration. Um I
2:12:44think the um Spence people spoke very
2:12:47passionately about their needs and they
2:12:51were very um thoughtful about their
2:12:53program and the architects delivered it.
2:12:57Um but we need to put in this in balance
2:13:02with the concerns of the community and
2:13:05particularly the diminishment
2:13:08of streetscape
2:13:09um and what it does to reduce the
2:13:13vitality of the community. I think if
2:13:15you put this problem or this issue to a
2:13:19group of Spence girls and ask them to
2:13:23review both sides, they would come up
2:13:26with a splendid solution. Um, so I think
2:13:30you can all work together to come up
2:13:33with something that will be more
2:13:35amendable to the community and that will
2:13:37balance Spence's needs which now are
2:13:41expressed in a maximalist way. Of course
2:13:44you want everything. Everybody wants
2:13:46everything. But to balance that with
2:13:52what we also need to preserve as as Lo
2:13:57Vanderval said, preservation of that
2:13:59cornice line is absolutely essential.
2:14:02Um, and I think that there are a lot of
2:14:06factors here, but again, my confidence
2:14:09is in the SPA Spence girls to work out
2:14:12something that preserves their ambition
2:14:17of their school and also the vitality of
2:14:20their neighborhood. Thank you.
2:14:23>> Thank you, Cheryl. All right, last up we
2:14:26have John.
2:14:30>> Hi, this is John. I live in uh 1295
2:14:33Madison as well. Um and Cheryl nicely
2:14:37sort of uh did a intro to what I was
2:14:40going to say. Um and so I um actually
2:14:45want to ask the board and the land
2:14:48preservation commission to rec require
2:14:50the re revised design of the
2:14:53architecture because I think it's a
2:14:55little abrupt and u massive and um I I
2:15:00don't think we have any um disagreement
2:15:02about Spence being a great school and
2:15:05nice uh member of the community, but um
2:15:08it just seems a little too much. Um, and
2:15:11so, uh, from the rooftop, uh, expansion,
2:15:16um, I want to see a little bit more
2:15:19detail. Um, I was also concerned about
2:15:21the sound issue. Um, and, uh, wanted to
2:15:26see what it exactly is being put forth
2:15:29there and the height, uh, that's coming
2:15:32up. um the recess doesn't quite uh uh go
2:15:37consistent with the architectural
2:15:39integrity of the neighborhood. So I want
2:15:43to sort of u see a better more refined
2:15:47redesign that is more aligned with what
2:15:50will be expected of the neighborhood uh
2:15:53the Carnegie Hill. Um so I think uh I I
2:16:00can also see that uh the school will
2:16:02need need uh as much space as possible.
2:16:04I understand the school has about 270
2:16:07students and uh also being a parent I
2:16:10also am aware of a lot of uh other
2:16:13schools with uh even more students but
2:16:16with much smaller space and so I think
2:16:19it can be done um and um not
2:16:22unreasonable to request uh downsizing of
2:16:25some of the massive u proposals that's
2:16:29out into play. And so it would be uh
2:16:33good to know the sort of uh details of
2:16:36what's coming up uh on the expanded
2:16:39rooftop as well as u uh finally the
2:16:43timing. What what are we talking about
2:16:45in terms of u the overall completion of
2:16:48this project?
2:16:54>> Thank you Mr. V.
2:16:57So,
2:17:00I'm assuming that this is the end of uh
2:17:04of uh comments from the community and
2:17:08we're going to
2:17:09>> Yes. So, I'm not seeing any other hands
2:17:13up.
2:17:14>> So, we'll now go to the to the to the to
2:17:18the board. I think we'll just take take
2:17:21it in order starting with Elizabeth
2:17:25>> or starting with Bill actually.
2:17:27>> Starting with Bill. Sorry, Bill. You're
2:17:29new to the committee.
2:17:35>> Hi. Thank you. I like to thank you the
2:17:38um the applicant for the presentation
2:17:41and also like to thank you for the uh
2:17:44community. We hear your concern,
2:17:47comments and concern.
2:17:49I do have concern as well regarding the
2:17:52u the appropriateness of the building
2:17:56and I would like the uh applicant perhap
2:18:00to evaluate excuse me evaluate the added
2:18:03floor that resulted in increase in root
2:18:06pipe and see whether or not they could
2:18:09come up with another proposal that might
2:18:12be subordinate to the historic buildings
2:18:14and minimally visible from the public
2:18:17perspective.
2:18:18So that's my opinion on this and I like
2:18:23to hold my
2:18:25judgment until hear the rest of the
2:18:27board members.
2:18:29>> Thank you, Bill.
2:18:31>> All right, next up is Elizabeth.
2:18:38Uh yes, I I I think
2:18:42uh that this is an application for
2:18:46certificates of appropriateness,
2:18:49>> right?
2:18:50And um
2:18:54while I think that admire the school, my
2:18:59niece went there,
2:19:02um I think that uh they're good
2:19:06neighbors in many many ways. But the the
2:19:10question is these proposals
2:19:14um appropriate and I think you only need
2:19:18two eyes to look at them to know that
2:19:20the answer is no. I'm afraid they are
2:19:23not and I think uh
2:19:28uh I I cannot support a certificate of
2:19:32appropriateness for this proposal.
2:19:37>> Thank you, Elizabeth.
2:19:39Next up is Michelle.
2:19:42>> Thank you. Thank you for the
2:19:44presentation.
2:19:45What is the actual
2:19:48overall height, the maximum height of
2:19:50this?
2:19:54>> Send another prompt to Sarah.
2:19:57>> You for unmuting me.
2:19:59Um
2:20:01and so our intent with the new roof line
2:20:05is to match the height of the mansion.
2:20:09Um so that is a total of 70 ft above our
2:20:15mean curb level and then the mechanical
2:20:19screen and bul gauge are above that
2:20:23height. So for a total of 89 ft um to
2:20:27the top of the the screen the fenced
2:20:30screened area
2:20:31>> from the street from the street.
2:20:33>> Yeah. From mean curb level. Yes.
2:20:35>> Right. Okay. And um the the middle
2:20:41connection that you have of glass
2:20:45that's connecting the two structures.
2:20:49How far set back from the street is that
2:20:52connection?
2:20:54So that's 42 feet um from set back from
2:20:5993rd Street.
2:21:02Yes, it's on 93rd. Right. So it's
2:21:05recessed between the two buildings.
2:21:09Uh and the buildings themselves sit back
2:21:12what about 10 ft 12 feet?
2:21:16>> Uh would you like me to go back to the
2:21:20to the plan? Sure. If that's easy, makes
2:21:23it easier.
2:21:26>> Let me just find the correct page here.
2:21:37So that that 42 foot that link that
2:21:41glassy piece is here and this dimension
2:21:45here is that 42 feet from 93rd Street
2:21:49>> from the curb.
2:21:51Uh, no, sorry. From the from the street
2:21:54wall,
2:21:56from the face of the buildings.
2:21:58>> Oh, okay. So, it's 42 ft recess from the
2:22:02building.
2:22:03>> Yes.
2:22:04>> And the building itself, what's the
2:22:06street frontage there? About 12 ft or
2:22:10>> uh Are you asking about this dimension?
2:22:14>> Yeah. Not not horizontally, but from the
2:22:17curb to the to the building wall.
2:22:22Uh, so the the face of the mansion is
2:22:25kind of at the street line here.
2:22:29>> Is that the curb? Is that the curb line?
2:22:32>> Uh, no. The curb line the is beyond
2:22:36that.
2:22:37>> Yeah, that's what I'm asking.
2:22:42You have how many feet from the curb to
2:22:44the front entrance of the mansion?
2:22:47Oh, so that that is all as it exists
2:22:50today. There are no
2:22:51>> rightos
2:22:53there.
2:22:55>> No, I understand. But so that 42 ft
2:22:58recess is in addition to whatever that
2:23:01is. And is there anything else on the on
2:23:04the facades of either of these
2:23:07structures that relate to the glass that
2:23:09you're proposing on the connection?
2:23:15Uh so there there is glass that is at
2:23:19the top portion of the mansion. Um but
2:23:23our intent with the glass is really to
2:23:27um maintain the integrity of the mansion
2:23:30as an individual building. So to um
2:23:34clearly separate from it because the um
2:23:39history of the mansion is one of in
2:23:42which I believe this um group as well as
2:23:46the landmarks preservation commission
2:23:49felt it was of utmost importance to
2:23:52maintain the integrity of the mansion as
2:23:57as the mansion. So our intent with that
2:24:00glassy link is is not to
2:24:03um you know be a part of it but to def
2:24:07be differential to it
2:24:11to define it as a difference. I think we
2:24:13all want the mansion
2:24:16to exist as it exists today. Can you
2:24:19show the street, the line of the
2:24:22mansion,
2:24:24the um connection
2:24:26and the other building?
2:24:35>> Is this for sure?
2:24:37>> Yeah, you have another one that I think
2:24:39is more
2:24:40>> shows more frontage
2:24:44call.
2:24:53Is it from from this view where we're
2:24:56showing it's okay? It it was an actual
2:25:00picture I think with that as an
2:25:02illustration in the middle.
2:25:03>> Oh, the the full elevation.
2:25:06>> Yeah, I think um All right, let me now
2:25:10and the additions at the top. This will
2:25:12do. The additions at the top you said
2:25:14are of [clears throat] the brownstones
2:25:17you said are bronze.
2:25:20Are they bronze like slats
2:25:22to allow for ventilation of the
2:25:24mechanicals? Is that what I'm looking at
2:25:26at the top floor
2:25:28>> or this portion? Yes, that's correct.
2:25:30>> That's what I'm looking at. Okay. And
2:25:33that is that we're looking at on the
2:25:35right the actual alignment of the
2:25:37windows
2:25:40in in the proposed north elevation. That
2:25:43is the alignment.
2:25:47>> Uh the lower port the lower portion of
2:25:50this picture right where the marker is
2:25:53now.
2:25:54>> So this this is the existing corner
2:25:57building as it exists today. This is the
2:26:00second building in from the corner as it
2:26:03exists today, including its rear yard
2:26:06extension. And then our proposal is the
2:26:10the third building in from the corner.
2:26:13>> And that's where you're that's where
2:26:15you're building up
2:26:19including mechanicals to go to 89 ft. Or
2:26:22is that the building beyond it?
2:26:25>> Uh no, that that is the top of our play.
2:26:28>> Um at our elevator over overrun.
2:26:34>> It as I look at it just my reaction is
2:26:37it has too many elements. There are
2:26:40there are just it's bulky and there are
2:26:42too many things happening
2:26:45different kinds of material. I know it's
2:26:47a it's for some architects it's a
2:26:50philosophy to def different
2:26:52differentiate very clearly what's
2:26:55historic and what's new but that's a
2:26:58very difficult thing to do and to get it
2:27:01to all exist in a harmony and I don't
2:27:04see that here
2:27:06um so that's of concern to me let me
2:27:09also go to I know we're talking about
2:27:11appropriateness but it is important
2:27:13information to have how long do you
2:27:16reject your construction period here if
2:27:18this were to go forward as presented.
2:27:23>> Um, so we we don't have a full
2:27:26construction schedule that we are
2:27:28prepared to share at this point.
2:27:33Uh, we are working on developing that
2:27:36>> at some point. Will you share that with
2:27:37the community and the neighbors
2:27:41>> and your your [snorts] proposals for
2:27:43what your street needs are going to be?
2:27:46street closures, do you need a lane, all
2:27:48that kind of thing so that the neighbors
2:27:51know?
2:27:52>> No, Michelle, this is not part of our
2:27:55perview.
2:27:56>> You're right, David. It is
2:27:57>> and they're not ready to do it yet and
2:27:59it becomes a separate discussion, not
2:28:01with
2:28:02>> Okay. Not noted. Noted. All right. Um,
2:28:06I'm concerned about the dissonant
2:28:09components of this and the bulk. So,
2:28:11I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.
2:28:13>> Thank you, Michelle.
2:28:16All right, next up is Miles.
2:28:19>> Hi. Um, thank you. Thank you all. This
2:28:22has been an incredible presentation. Um,
2:28:25from my perspective, I try to support
2:28:28our schools in our in our district as
2:28:30often as as I can. And I believe that
2:28:32should be the philosophy of the whole
2:28:34board. And in that regard, I would be
2:28:36more than willing to approve and vote
2:28:39yes for the uh for the a change of a of
2:28:43appropriateness for the existing
2:28:45structure if that is going to be a
2:28:47separate motion, which I assume it will
2:28:48be. Um, however, I have to echo what uh
2:28:52my fellow board members and what uh
2:28:54public members have said is that I
2:28:57believe in in in the purpose of this
2:28:59project. However, I think a lot of the
2:29:01visual and uh contextual parts of this
2:29:04is lacking. For me, it's the the
2:29:06horizontal bronze beams to me is very
2:29:09jarring uh in regards to the contextual
2:29:11landscape of of the surrounding
2:29:13buildings. Um so, in that regard, I
2:29:16think that uh a difference in design
2:29:18would be important. However, as I said
2:29:20before, I'd be for uh the other uh uh
2:29:25alteration to the contextual
2:29:27appropriateness. So, thank you.
2:29:29Thank you, Miles. Next up is John.
2:29:35I
2:29:35>> I think [clears throat] I'd like to
2:29:36withhold judgment at this point. I mean,
2:29:38I've heard good arguments on both sides.
2:29:41I'm inclined to think that that the
2:29:44project is is too much for the the
2:29:45neighborhood and in fairness to the
2:29:47neighbors, uh, that really should be
2:29:50taken into consideration, but I would
2:29:52have to withhold judgment until I hear
2:29:54some more arguments.
2:29:56>> Thank you, John.
2:29:58Next up is Kim.
2:30:01>> Hi, thank you so much for this
2:30:03presentation, especially the detail and
2:30:06how well like visually it was depicted.
2:30:09The change in the Madison Avenue side of
2:30:13um the streetscape impacting that part
2:30:16of the school. Um I think that was
2:30:18probably the best in at least in my
2:30:20experience on this committee that I've
2:30:22seen. Um so thank you for that. I
2:30:24appreciated that history lesson. I'm
2:30:26going to echo what Miles and a few
2:30:28others have said in that this feels
2:30:31specifically that rooftop edition feels
2:30:34incredibly jarring to me. Um that's my
2:30:37overall comment is for me that that is
2:30:40kind of the deal breaker. Um, I have a
2:30:44question for the architect, but I first
2:30:46have a procedural question for David and
2:30:49Jane. Given that this is a joining of
2:30:54two historical landmarks, but one is an
2:30:57individual landmark and one is a part of
2:31:00the extended Carnegie Hill historic
2:31:03district.
2:31:05How is this does this affect where this
2:31:09addition is linking everything together?
2:31:11Does that impact
2:31:14how we view this? Is it part of the
2:31:16Madison Avenue side or is it part of the
2:31:19individual? Am I getting too esoteric
2:31:21with this question? But it's something
2:31:22that I just didn't understand for this
2:31:24application.
2:31:25>> I understood correct from Shelley and
2:31:27correct me if I'm wrong. The addition is
2:31:30part of Madison Avenue.
2:31:31>> Madison Avenue. Okay. Um, thank you for
2:31:34that, David. And then for the architect,
2:31:37um the question I had related actually
2:31:39to the ball cage. Um and I I live next
2:31:43door to MS 114 aka East Side Middle
2:31:47School and every single day, including
2:31:48today, I have to throw back a soccer
2:31:51ball that has come my way. When we say a
2:31:53cage on top of the building, do we mean
2:31:55it's essentially a cube on top that
2:31:57would keep the balls in?
2:32:00>> We we do. And that that's actually
2:32:02required by code. So the the portion on
2:32:06top of the mansion will not have a a lid
2:32:09and no ball play would be allowed in
2:32:12that portion. And then the portion on
2:32:16top of the um row houses is intended to
2:32:20have a lid and be a ball play space.
2:32:24>> Okay. And I guess it's on the staff of
2:32:26this Ben school to enforce that. I mean,
2:32:28they can only do as much as they can,
2:32:30but as someone who's lost a planter or
2:32:32two to errant soccer balls, um, as also
2:32:36that's at an elevation like that, that
2:32:37could be concerning. Thank you for
2:32:39answering my question.
2:32:41>> Thank you, Kim.
2:32:44All right, next up is Marco.
2:32:48>> Thank you so much for the presentation.
2:32:49Can you put the the slides especially uh
2:32:54the massing of the pro of the proposal?
2:32:58I think have several severals of them
2:33:01would anyone.
2:33:08No, the other one in it does is an
2:33:11axiometric proposal
2:33:16>> uh from the from the corner.
2:33:19>> No, you have a an aometric uh every time
2:33:24that you you change the topic, you put a
2:33:26massive
2:33:27>> ah that one. That one. Yeah.
2:33:28>> Yes.
2:33:29>> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much.
2:33:31Thank you for your presentation. It was
2:33:33very clear and very focused in in the in
2:33:36in your in your uh in your point.
2:33:41This is my statement. Although the
2:33:43proposed riyard additions, internal
2:33:46connections and building renovations are
2:33:49general acceptable, the rooftop addition
2:33:52is excessively bulky and out of the
2:33:56scale with the traditionally carne
2:33:58historical buildings and the surrounding
2:34:02row houses context. The sidelined
2:34:05analysis of the north facade demonstrate
2:34:08that the addition remained visually
2:34:11prominent and does not adequately
2:34:14recede from public view. The comparison
2:34:19with other neighborhoods, larger
2:34:20buildings and other proposal is not an
2:34:23appropriate precedent as several appears
2:34:26oversized and like and were likely
2:34:29constructed before the designation of
2:34:31this historical district. They should
2:34:34not be used to justify the proposed
2:34:36rooftop massing which overwhelms carne
2:34:40historical
2:34:42roof line and alter the established
2:34:44proportions of the buildings within the
2:34:47streetscape.
2:34:49The proposed Madison Avenue glass facade
2:34:52is incompatible with the Carneg's
2:34:54architectural character and that of the
2:34:57surroundings row houses. Its extensive
2:35:01glass lacks architectural compatibility
2:35:04with the historical context. However, I
2:35:07commend the applicant the school for inc
2:35:11incorporating a geothermal system as it
2:35:14represent a sustainable design feature
2:35:17given the pres given the recent
2:35:20legionella outbreak in our community. It
2:35:23is also encouraged to see the use of
2:35:26geothermal systems that may reduce
2:35:28reliance on conventionally cooling
2:35:31towers which has been associated with
2:35:34leonella risk when not properly
2:35:37maintained. The drawings lack sufficient
2:35:41sufficient dimensions and information to
2:35:44fully evaluate several rooftop elements
2:35:48based on the submitted plans. The
2:35:51proposed volage appears excessively tall
2:35:55and contributes unnecessary to the
2:35:57overall rooftop massing. While the rear
2:36:00addition and the renovations are
2:36:03supportable, the rooftop addition should
2:36:06be reduced in high and bulk to achieve
2:36:09compatibility with the historical
2:36:11district. And thank you so much and
2:36:13thank you for your presentation.
2:36:16>> Thank you, Marco. All right, next up is
2:36:19Adam.
2:36:26>> Thank you um for the lengthy and
2:36:28detailed presentation. Um I'm still
2:36:32mulling it over. I kind of share a
2:36:34similar position with John and and Miles
2:36:37about um design versus scale versus um
2:36:43impact on neighborhood. So, I guess
2:36:46we're we're all still thinking about it
2:36:48or some of us are still thinking about
2:36:49it.
2:36:51>> Thank you, Adam. All right, next up is
2:36:54Christina.
2:36:59>> Thank you. Well, this is a dilemma.
2:37:03Shelly, remember I was on the landmarks
2:37:06committee in [clears throat] 2002 and I
2:37:09live at 93rd and Park for the past 50
2:37:11years. So I knew Carnegie Hill when it
2:37:14was very sleepy and everyone said don't
2:37:17buy above 86th Street. So we're very
2:37:21lucky to have all these schools and a
2:37:23vibrant neighborhood.
2:37:26But um in 2002,
2:37:28Spence was actually too small when they
2:37:31bought it because they wanted K through
2:37:34six and they wanted to add an addition
2:37:37to the mansion. and the landmarks chair.
2:37:40Jennifer Rab was chair at the time. Um,
2:37:44and the neighbors, that's when the
2:37:45neighbors got involved, um, did not want
2:37:48to add the addition. So, it went back to
2:37:51K through five. I don't know what this
2:37:53new addition will bring with the nine
2:37:56new classrooms. They want to go back to
2:37:59K through six. But [clears throat] every
2:38:02school has expanded. Every girl school's
2:38:04expanded. Berley and Chapen both
2:38:07expanded.
2:38:08Um,
2:38:10and the site is the site. That's where
2:38:14um, Spence happens to be. They have one
2:38:17school, one place, and then they bought
2:38:18the mansion and they want to expand. So,
2:38:22I'm in support of schools expanding
2:38:24because they all have to, and they all
2:38:26have,
2:38:28and they all have to get permission from
2:38:31landmarks and from this committee. So,
2:38:34[clears throat] it's not a perfect
2:38:36solution.
2:38:37Maybe there can be um changes, but I
2:38:43think we have to realize that um this is
2:38:47the community. It we're going to have to
2:38:49sacrifice Patrick Murphy. Um there are
2:38:53always compromises
2:38:55when you expand schools. So I'm quite
2:38:58taunt torn. My daughter happened to go
2:39:00to Brley even though I live a block
2:39:02away. So I understand how schools have
2:39:06to maintain their excellence
2:39:10and Spencer certainly falls in that
2:39:12category.
2:39:13So um
2:39:15I'm undecided but I am certainly in
2:39:19support of Spence and what they need to
2:39:22do.
2:39:23Thank you.
2:39:25>> Thank you Christina.
2:39:27All right co-chairs to you David and
2:39:29Jane. Well, I will speak first since I
2:39:32know David will be so eloquent. It's
2:39:35interesting to me that the two major
2:39:37notforprofits who have such a vested
2:39:39interest in our
2:39:41Carnegie Hill geographic area, Civas and
2:39:45Carnegie Hill neighbors, have both
2:39:47suggested that maybe Spence could go
2:39:50back to the drawing board. I agree with
2:39:52Christina that these schools are
2:39:54excellent. They give Carnegie Hill the
2:39:57reputation that it has. Parents fight to
2:40:00get their children in so that they can
2:40:02get a first class education. Schools do
2:40:05have to modernize. I of course work in
2:40:08an inner city school in Washington
2:40:10Heights that will never be modernized.
2:40:13But I do agree especially that Spence
2:40:15can do a little better on this. And I
2:40:17think my I cannot vote to support this
2:40:20application. My two girls did go to
2:40:23Nightingale. I had a son who went to
2:40:24collegiate.
2:40:26I believe in independent school
2:40:28education. They provide the leadership
2:40:30our nation so sorely needs. But I
2:40:34strongly strongly feel that this
2:40:37application given the context and
2:40:39appropriateness of that huge rooftop
2:40:42addition and the streetscape at the
2:40:45ground level as you walk by is totally
2:40:48out of context and inappropriate. I know
2:40:51that Spence can do better. They have a
2:40:53brilliant board of trustees, a wonderful
2:40:56new head of school, and let's see what
2:40:58else they can come up with. Thank you,
2:41:04>> Dane. You are particularly eloquent. I'm
2:41:06not sure I can match that, but
2:41:11um
2:41:12I think we would have been helped by two
2:41:15other
2:41:16uh
2:41:18two other important ways of of providing
2:41:21information.
2:41:22Number one, I understand you're putting
2:41:25up the mockup, but it's not there yet.
2:41:28If I when I looked at the building, I
2:41:31did see the beginning of a mockup, and
2:41:33that beginning of a mockup is beginning
2:41:36to look quite large, and I am concerned
2:41:40about the size of the uh addition.
2:41:44I [clears throat] also think some plans,
2:41:46not to spend a lot of time on them, but
2:41:50it would give us a better understanding
2:41:51of how the building works. And I
2:41:54understand that we're looking at
2:41:57the massing of the building and that the
2:42:01uh certificate of appropriateness has to
2:42:03do with the massing of the building. But
2:42:06in terms of my own understanding of
2:42:08what's happening, it would have been
2:42:10helpful to have had some floor plans and
2:42:13to see how the buildings really connect
2:42:14and how they really work together. And I
2:42:17think it would have helped make your
2:42:18case.
2:42:20Um, [clears throat]
2:42:23I would also
2:42:25say to the newer members of our board,
2:42:28you do not have to make a decision
2:42:29tonight. you can make the decision
2:42:33to vote against if you choose to
2:42:37because we have often had
2:42:41uh
2:42:42we've often had applicants come back uh
2:42:46if they have felt that our reservations
2:42:49were appropriate. And I'm not saying we
2:42:51have them at this point. I'm only saying
2:42:54to the newer members of the board,
2:42:57you can think about
2:43:00possibly
2:43:02voting no in the hope that they would
2:43:05come back or you can vote yes. And if we
2:43:09vote no, it can still go directly to the
2:43:11Landmarks Preservation Commission. It
2:43:13doesn't necessarily have to come back to
2:43:15us.
2:43:17I just want the newer members to
2:43:19understand all the options that are
2:43:20available.
2:43:24I would also say there's always more
2:43:26than one way to achieve a goal and I
2:43:29think that from what I've seen uh
2:43:32there's been a lot of innovation a lot
2:43:34of uh really good thinking
2:43:38and uh I understand how you came out
2:43:41where you did on the other hand u I
2:43:46think I have to uh align myself with
2:43:49Jane and uh say that I'd love to see you
2:43:53take another crack at it and see if you
2:43:56could make it just a little bit more
2:43:58modest.
2:44:00Lastly,
2:44:01uh having looked at that block,
2:44:05sometimes you do have to introduce a new
2:44:08scale
2:44:10into a situation. The question is
2:44:13whether the new scale we've introduced
2:44:14is with this that you that you are
2:44:18proposing to introduce is in fact the
2:44:21right scale. When you look at it against
2:44:24the apartment house
2:44:26maybe it's pretty good. But when you
2:44:29look at against the corner building it
2:44:31really is massive. So I for one would
2:44:35like to see uh another iteration
2:44:39and uh that would be my position as we
2:44:42go into voting.
2:44:45So
2:44:48as I understand it we have to vote on
2:44:51two different uh certificates of
2:44:54appropriateness.
2:44:56Uh the mansion is the simpler one.
2:45:03I do see hands up. Normally at this
2:45:06stage we do not
2:45:08uh open open this up again
2:45:12to uh to anyone.
2:45:15If you have a point of information, I
2:45:18will take it. If you have a speech, I
2:45:21will not. Kimberly.
2:45:25>> Oh,
2:45:26down it goes.
2:45:28Um, it does look like uh part of the
2:45:31application uh Shelley is raising his
2:45:33hand again.
2:45:34>> I'm going to get to Shellyley because I
2:45:36want him to be perfectly clear for all
2:45:38of us.
2:45:40>> Um, and then Kimberly did raise her hand
2:45:41again. So, I will go ahead and
2:45:44>> and I'm so sorry to be disruptive, but I
2:45:46wanted to call out that a member of the
2:45:48board, Sharon Pope Marshall's on the
2:45:49line, and I don't know if she wanted to
2:45:51add a comment.
2:45:55>> No. Okay. Yeah, she's she's on behalf of
2:45:57Civas tonight.
2:45:58>> Oh, okay.
2:46:05>> Has Sharon been listening to this whole
2:46:07meeting?
2:46:09>> Yes. But really as a member of the
2:46:11executive director of Civas
2:46:14and she can't really civas has had its
2:46:17opportunity.
2:46:18>> Yes, she
2:46:19>> wears two hats. I think at this point my
2:46:22understanding was that she was not going
2:46:23to comment and I would like to keep it
2:46:26that way.
2:46:27>> That's correct. Thank you, David.
2:46:29>> Thank you. All right, Shelley, I would
2:46:32appreciate your helping one more time to
2:46:36clarify the few issues that relate to
2:46:40the mansion and then obviously the
2:46:42balance relates to the Madison Avenue uh
2:46:45buildings.
2:46:47I I'll be happy to, David, but I I
2:46:49raised my hand for a point of
2:46:51information, no argument, but simply to
2:46:53explain um that the mockup that you see
2:46:57there now is the mockup that was
2:46:59approved by the landmarks staff in its
2:47:03entirety. And that is because you know
2:47:06the the the work involved was was such
2:47:09to represent the the mass deeper into
2:47:13the site that we agreed that and that
2:47:17they agreed that you know what we would
2:47:19show are you know the the planes of of
2:47:24portions of the addition. So there's
2:47:26nothing more coming. Um and and that is
2:47:30but that is what the the landmarks
2:47:32commission asked us to do. Well, I think
2:47:34that that's in many ways that's
2:47:38sufficient together with the drawings
2:47:40>> to your second question or go clarity.
2:47:43I'll I'll certainly try. Um
2:47:48there are two the the the the mansion
2:47:52and the two row houses are on separate
2:47:56tax lots and therefore that alone
2:48:00requires um applica separate
2:48:03applications to the landmarks
2:48:05commission.
2:48:07The mansion already has a certificate of
2:48:10appropriateness from 2002
2:48:12that needs to be modified in the three
2:48:15areas that I defined. One is simply the
2:48:21the visible or not the the the
2:48:24structural work of connecting the the
2:48:27row houses to the to them uh to the
2:48:30mansion requires that there be new
2:48:33drawings and new inquiries into whether
2:48:36there's any question about the
2:48:37structural integrity of of the mansion
2:48:39being compromised by virtue of the the
2:48:44engineering the the actual connection.
2:48:47um as well as to show that there are
2:48:50additional excavations involved. I did
2:48:52not mention this the first time to
2:48:54accomplish the geothermal plan. Um
2:48:59because there are changes in the
2:49:00originally approved mansion, we go back
2:49:03to landmarks as an amendment to the 2002
2:49:06certificate of occupancy and also for
2:49:09the the playroom. So it's it's actually
2:49:12four four different changes. One is the
2:49:16play roof. Two is the additional
2:49:18excavation
2:49:20for the geothermal.
2:49:23Three is the removal of a significant
2:49:26amount of of aged out
2:49:29um HVAC equipment that will no longer be
2:49:32necessary because of the geothermal.
2:49:36And the last is this issue of are there
2:49:39any structural issues that need to be
2:49:41investigated when one knocks through the
2:49:43sidewall of the mansion to connect them
2:49:46to to connect those floors to the row
2:49:49houses. The row houses on a separate tax
2:49:52lot are your standard new certificate of
2:49:55appropriateness for for as you said at
2:49:58the beginning context and
2:50:00appropriateness. Those these are new
2:50:01questions being raised with regard to
2:50:03these two row houses and that that is a
2:50:06new a new application. It is it is one
2:50:08project but broken into those two
2:50:10components because of the configuration
2:50:13of the real estate.
2:50:15>> Kelly thank you. So
2:50:19I think just for clarification on the
2:50:23excavation work um
2:50:27is this are these standing column wells
2:50:30that are going in or is it something
2:50:32that requires a lot more excavation?
2:50:34>> I need to refer to Sarah for for that
2:50:37for that response.
2:50:43Sorry, let me
2:50:46>> needs to be unmuted.
2:50:47>> I sent I sent her a prompt. Um, send you
2:50:51another one, Sarah.
2:50:53>> Um, thank you. Uh, so there the
2:50:57excavation work in the mansion is
2:50:59limited to the drilling of the wells.
2:51:02there's no further excavation work
2:51:05beyond that in within the mansion
2:51:08property.
2:51:10>> Well, I think that's a positive for a
2:51:12number of reasons. Um, for anybody on
2:51:16board who might have been on the
2:51:18committee who might have been concerned
2:51:19about it uh because we have had concerns
2:51:23about structural work on historic
2:51:26buildings previously.
2:51:28Michelle, I'll take a point of
2:51:30information but not a comment.
2:51:34Michelle,
2:51:37can you unmute? Michelle.
2:51:38>> Yeah.
2:51:39>> Thank you. I'd like to move to
2:51:41disapprove.
2:51:43>> You don't even know what we're
2:51:44disapproving yet. Um,
2:51:47>> the plan is presented.
2:51:49>> Well, I'm going to break it into the two
2:51:51tax slots. The first we will
2:51:56first we will vote on the amendment to
2:51:59the certificate of appropriateness
2:52:03for the mansion.
2:52:06So I need a resolution on that.
2:52:10Jane
2:52:11>> move to disapprove.
2:52:13>> Oh
2:52:14>> move to disapprove.
2:52:17Do
2:52:17>> I have a second?
2:52:20second.
2:52:22Okay. So,
2:52:25please call the roll.
2:52:27>> All right. And then, um I'm sorry. Is
2:52:29this for um
2:52:30>> This is for the This is the disapproval
2:52:35of an amendment of a positive amendment
2:52:38to the current certificate of
2:52:40appropriateness from 2002.
2:52:43>> For which address? Between the Madison
2:52:45and the 56.
2:52:47>> 56. 56. Okay.
2:52:50All right, let me just get everyone
2:52:55unmuted.
2:53:07Okay.
2:53:18All right. So, this is for
2:53:21>> a yes is a no.
2:53:23>> 56 East 93rd. Um, this is a motion to
2:53:27disapprove
2:53:29and as David said, a yes is a no. Um,
2:53:32Bill,
2:53:33>> yes.
2:53:34>> Elizabeth,
2:53:36>> yes.
2:53:38>> Michelle,
2:53:39>> yes.
2:53:40>> Christina,
2:53:41>> abstain.
2:53:44>> Miles,
2:53:45>> abstain.
2:53:47David,
2:53:48>> no.
2:53:51>> John,
2:53:52>> yes.
2:53:53>> Jane,
2:53:54>> yes.
2:53:56>> Kim,
2:53:58>> abstain.
2:54:00>> Marco,
2:54:01>> no.
2:54:03>> Adam,
2:54:04>> abstain.
2:54:07>> It failed.
2:54:11>> We need a resolution
2:54:14for Madison Avenue. All right.
2:54:22>> Do I have somebody want to make a
2:54:23resolution?
2:54:26>> Oh, I will.
2:54:27>> Jane, you might as well. We know what's
2:54:28coming.
2:54:29>> I move to disapprove.
2:54:31>> Second.
2:54:33>> Have a second. Thank you.
2:54:34>> All right. So, this is a disapproval for
2:54:38Madison. Um, once again, a yes is a no.
2:54:42Bill,
2:54:43>> yes. Elizabeth,
2:54:46>> yes.
2:54:47>> Michelle,
2:54:48>> yes.
2:54:50>> Christina,
2:54:51>> abstain.
2:54:52>> Miles,
2:54:53>> I'm stayain.
2:54:55>> David,
2:54:57>> yes.
2:54:59>> John,
2:55:00>> yes.
2:55:02>> Jane,
2:55:03>> yes.
2:55:04>> Kimberly,
2:55:05>> yes.
2:55:06>> Marco,
2:55:07>> yes.
2:55:09>> Adam,
2:55:10>> yes.
2:55:11>> That one passes.
2:55:14Okay,
2:55:15>> Jordan, could I change my vote for the
2:55:17previous previous one? I meant to say
2:55:19pass. I want to be a no on that. Thank
2:55:21you.
2:55:23>> Uh, it still fails.
2:55:27>> So, it's important for individuals to
2:55:29have their opinions.
2:55:31>> In any event, thanks to the committee.
2:55:33Thank you to everyone from Spence.
2:55:35>> Thank you. Thank you for your time.
2:55:37>> Wish you well with the project, however
2:55:39you choose to proceed.
2:55:42And uh
2:55:44>> oops.
2:55:44>> Now I think we need to know if there's
2:55:48any old business to talk about, any new
2:55:52business.
2:55:54I guess it is.
2:55:55>> Um David, could I just make one
2:55:56editorial comment here? Is that allowed?
2:55:59>> Sure.
2:56:00>> Because you know it's through the city
2:56:01of Yes. that schools are now allowed to
2:56:03be in locations like this where the
2:56:06former Patrick Murphy's was. It's all
2:56:09part of the city of Yes. Thank you.
2:56:14>> Well, without the laboring it, this is
2:56:16not the first issue that we have found
2:56:18with the city of Yes. with respect to
2:56:20landmark issues. So, um, we should be
2:56:24looking carefully at that. In any event,
2:56:27again, thanks to everyone. See or when
2:56:30the state

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of July 2026 CB8M Landmarks Committee Meeting by Community Board 8 Manhattan, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 23,926 words across 3,841 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.