CB3 hearing: 02/13/2019
LPC hearing: 03/19/2019 – laid over
LPC hearing: 04/09/2019 – no action
LPC meeting: 06/18/2019
Click HERE to send a letter to city officials in opposition to this proposal
Between Second Avenue and Third Avenue
—- APPLICATION INFORMATION —-
1) From the CB3 agenda: Review of continuing maintenance plan and harmonious relationship with proposed recipient of air rights at 3 St Marks Place.
3) View CB3 Resolution: Available in PDF.
4) View the video: A curated list of LPC videos of these presentations from March 2014 onward can be found on our YouTube page. To see the video from April 9, 2019, click HERE. Please note that the LPC posts these videos about a week after the presentation. Videos include the applicant’s presentation, public testimony (for hearings only), and deliberation by the LPC commissioners.
5) LPC designation report: Read this property’s architectural/historical description.
6) Receive updates by email: Please click here if you would like GVSHP to email you when there are updates to the status of this application.
—- STATUS OF THIS APPLICATION —-
This section provides updates if there are changes to the hearing dates listed above, which includes instances when an application has been laid over (aka postponed). If applicable, LPC public meeting dates for this application will also be tracked here. Please note that public testimony is taken at public hearings, but not at public meetings.
Please note: All LPC public hearings and public meetings are held at the Municipal Building, 1 Centre Street, 9th floor north, public hearing room (unless otherwise noted).
STAY UPDATED! Click here for our e-alerts to be updated on this application as soon as we find out more.
06/18/2019: At today’s LPC public meeting, this application was approved. Here are the notes from the meeting:
Approved (Commissioner Goldblum was the only commissioner present who voted in opposition). HDC, the East Village Community Coalition, Council Member Rivera, and Manhattan Borough President Gail Brewer sent letters opposing the proposal. 390 campaign emails were sent in opposition to the proposal as well.
Chair Sarah Carroll began by clarifying that the cyclical maintenance plan for the landmarked building is the primary focus of the bulk waiver regulation, rather than the altered streetscape. Historically, she said, the consistency of the new/altered buildings’ base with the height of the street wall has been enough to classify that new/altered building as being contextually harmonious with the landmarked building from which it gets its air rights.
Commissioner Goldblum said he was troubled by the proposal. The zoning regulations suggest that they intend to support a harmonious contextual relationship between the landmarked building and the building that takes its air rights, but in this case the proposal for 3 St. Mark’s does not enhance its contextual relationship with 4 St. Mark’s – even though it does make the relationship “better” than the as-of-right proposal would. He determined that the degree of restoration to 4 St. Mark’s was not great enough to warrant the LPC approving the building at 3 St. Mark’s. He said: “I don’t want our fingerprints on this.” However, he was in full support of the alterations to 4 St. Mark’s. Commissioner Chen also expressed concern about the design of the building, but ultimately voted in approval of the proposal.
Chair Carroll replied that, by definition, this zoning mechanism intends to facilitate the transfer of air rights. She emphasized that only the portion of the building above 85 feet was regulated by the bulk waiver regulation, and therefore only this portion of the building is required to have a harmonious relationship with the landmarked building. She repeated that the regulation importantly allows the landmarked building to be maintained in perpetuity. She also said that there is almost no relationship between 3 and 4 St. Mark’s because they are rarely visible within the same sight line.
Commissioner Bland supported Carroll’s claims, arguing that in order to control the restoration of a landmarked building, and “get it right,” the commission would need to approve this proposal. He said: “This is a trade-off. Let’s get the landmark.” Commissioners Holford-Smith and Lutfy agreed. Mark Silberman told the commissioners that the zoning regulation is more than transactional, and emphasized the way that it supports the owners of isolated landmarked buildings.
Commissioner Shamir-Baron had “no comment” on the design of 3 St. Mark’s. She did not think the zoning regulation’s claim to support a harmonious contextual relationship between the two building was a legitimate possibility. She argued that the landmarked building was in good shape without this proposal, but the proposal did enhance it. She said she has come to accept the changes that are more generally underway in this area around Cooper Union, and that this particular proposal seems strangely out of the LPC’s control.
04/09/2019: At today’s LPC public hearing, the applicant was asked to make some modifications to the design for 3 St. Mark’s Place.