Monday, February 4, 2019

Developers of 3 St. Mark's Place are looking to increase the size of their proposed office building at 3rd Avenue to 10 floors with air-rights deal


[Photo from Saturday]

Updated 2/14: The CB3 committee reportedly voted down the air-rights transfer.

This past October, Real Estate Equities Corporation (REEC) filed new permits for 3 St. Mark's Place (the address of the former Papaya King) for a 5-story, 29,030-square-foot building with ground-floor retail.

These plans were actually smaller than the original specs reported for this northeast corner of Third Avenue and St. Mark's Place. According to The Real Deal in November 2017, a seven-story office building was slated for this soon-to-be-demolished assemblage of buildings.

In any event, hold everything on those 5-floor plans.

On Feb. 13, reps for the developer will appear before CB3's Landmarks Committee to discuss transferring the air rights from the landmarked — and under-renovation — Hamilton-Holly House across the street at 4 St. Mark's Place.

With these air rights and approved zoning variance, the Morris Adjimi-designed building at 3 St. Mark's Place would rise to 10 stories. Here's a look at the rendering posted to the CB3 site...



This link will take you to the PDF on the CB3 website with details on the proposal.

Here's part of the pitch, per their overview:

The Applicant is requesting the Landmarks Preservation Commission (the "LPC") to issue a report to the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 74-79 of the New York City Zoning Resolution to facilitate the construction of a ten-story building (the "Proposed Development"! located at 3 St. Mark's Place ...

The special permit would (a) allow a transfer of 8,386 square feet of development rights from the zoning lot located at 4 St. Mark's Place (which is occupied by the Hamilton-Holly House (the "Landmark"), an individual landmark, and (b) modify the provisions of ZR Section 33-432 to allow the Proposed Development to penetrate the maximum front wall height and sky exposure plane within the 20-foot initial setback distance on St. Mark's Place. This waiver allows for a better relationship to the adjacent buildings on St. Marks Place and allows for better office floorplates.

As a condition of the special permit, the owner of the Landmarks Building has agreed to undertake additional work — more expansive in scope than the originally approved work — to restore the Landmark Building to a sound, first-class condition, and to thereafter implement a cyclical maintenance plan for the Building.

These commitments will be set forth in a restrictive declaration, binding upon the owner and its successor and assigns in perpetuity, implementing the approved continuing maintenance program.

[Photo of 4 St. Mark's Place from last month]

The Feb. 13 meeting is the beginning of the review process, which requires an application to the LPC followed by an application to the City Planning Commission for the special permit.

Back to the overview for the plan for more zoning jargon...

In its report, LPC will comment on the restoration work and continuing maintenance plan as well as the manner in which the requested waiver of the otherwise applicable height and setback regulations contributes to a harmonious relationship between the Landmark and the Proposed Development. LPC is not reviewing the actual work on the Landmark because this work has been previously reviewed and approved.

After the special permit application is filed with CPC and certified pursuant to ULURP, the request for 74-79 Special Permit will be referred back to the Community Board for the second step in the review.

So this marks just the beginning of the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). Read this primer on an explanation of the process.

The CB3 Landmarks Committee meeting on Feb. 13 is open to the public (and is open to public comment). The meeting is at the JASA Green Residence, 200 E. Fifth St. at the Bowery. And this certainly isn't the last we'll hear on this variance request.

REEC picked up the 99-year leasehold for the properties — 1 St. Mark's Place, 3 St. Mark’s Place, 23 and 25-27 Third Ave. — for nearly $150 million, per The Real Deal in November 2017.

The Continental was the last business on the corner, with the last call happening on New Year's Eve.

The corner assemblage is owned by the Gabay family.

Previously on EV Grieve:
Exclusive: After 40 years, punk rock mainstay Trash and Vaudeville is leaving St. Mark's Place

4 St. Mark's Place is for sale

More residential units and a 5th-floor addition in the works for landmarked 4 St. Mark's Place

You'll be back: Look at the renovated Hamilton-Holly House on St. Mark's Place

The Shake Shack effect? McDonald's on 3rd Avenue at St. Mark's Place has closed after 20 years

Report: NE corner of St. Mark's Place and 3rd Avenue will yield to a 7-story office building

Demolition permits filed for northeast corner of 3rd Avenue and St. Mark's Place

End is nearing for the businesses on the northeast corner of 3rd Avenue and St. Mark's Place

The Continental gets a 3-month reprieve

New building plans revealed for 3rd Avenue and St. Mark's Place

21 comments:

Neighbor said...

Jesus that building is ugly.

noble neolani said...

The developers should use the same tactics as the Tech Hub used "it will benefit under privileged children" to secure the variance. I knew nobody would build a new office building or any other type of building on an avenue that is just 5 stories high, I was just waiting for the other shoe to drop on this one.

Anonymous said...

Forget the air rights, how about our eye rights? Another hideous bland work of architecture overstepping its function will just be a blight upon our eyesight.

Anonymous said...

Needed rezoning as promised. Commercial development threatening whole neighborhood.

DrGecko said...

Hostage-taking. Nice landmarked building you've got on 4th St. Be shame if we didn't take *extra good* care of it.


"This waiver allows for a better relationship to the adjacent buildings on St. Marks Place" - the developers want more shit to fit in the shit they've already shat.

cmarrtyy said...

3rd Ave was lost long ago. It started with the NYU dorms. Then the Cooper Union dorm and classroom building, Bowery hotel, Moxy hotel, Mt. St. Mary dorm and on and on. The real problem is transportation. The subways won't be able to handle the rush hours and the streets will be more congested with delivery trucks and car services. What a mess! And this is city planning? If CB3 allows the added floors it will make small buildings more vulnerable and deals for air rights more lucrative. And we the residents more miserable. This would not happen in any other community in the city. But our elected officials lack the passion and purpose of their elected office to help the very people they are entrusted to protect from the onslaught of greed, corruption and indecency that are too common in our society. ONE PRTY RULE. ONE PARTY RULE!

Glamma said...

How and where can we protest this!!!

Will said...

This seems like a solid deal to ensure the Hamilton-Holly House is well-maintained in perpetuity, I don't understand why so many above seem to hate it. Landmarked properties should be able to sell their air rights.

Hywel Dda II said...

This happened to me this morning. I'm catching the crosstown bus on 9 St. and 2nd Ave. The sun is shining on my face, there is sunlight on the street, on the sidewalk, on the buildings; I feel its warmth and enjoy the blue sky. I arrive at my eventual destination 28th St. & 7th Ave. I suddenly feel cold and the street is completely shadowed but for occasional small crevices of light. I look around me and realize every building on that block is 8-20 stories side by side. You can only see the sky if you look straight up.

This is where we're headed in the LES if they keep being allowed to build these oversized monstrosities.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect and care, all of can us can protest as much as our hearts desire. Whatever floats your boat. At the end of day, corrupt greed won. Just like the big man always seems to do here in the city now. So, instead of fighting it, we can all adapt to and accept reality. Sad, but what else is there? We can't hold onto the past and hope it will all be different.

NOTORIOUS said...

Not to worry, all of the perpetually vacant ground floor retail space will distract folks from looking up.

NOTORIOUS said...

I think the Bowery Hotel did a pretty good job with fitting into the neighborhood, both inside and out.

Anonymous said...

@Notorious
The Bowery Hotel architect lied about square footage and other rules to gain 3 stories. They're dishonest hacks.

Anonymous said...

Did NYC issue this neighborhood some *special* permit to allow us to be super-fucked-over by the developers (and the De Blaaahhhh-sio "administration" - which I personally think should prosecuted under RICO.)?

Anonymous said...

The building is landmarked, they can't build above it, so why do the owners have air rights? For that matter, why can air rights be sold at all? Just another tool for the developers to destroy neighborhoods.

noble neolani said...

The newish owners of the Hamilton house should be responsible for maintaining their landmarked property and why should we give a concession to the developers of this new office building for a deal that nobody needs?
This is another scam by a developer to build higher than the law allows and justifying it with a charity just like the Tech Hub scam went down.

Anonymous said...

Maybe they can transfer ALL the air rights on St. Mark's Place to this and they can built it 100 stories high. Where/when does the insanity stop?

Anonymous said...

We hate it because it's still another in a wave of poor planning decisions that adversely impact our quality of life. And we feel landmark preservation shouldn't be at that cost.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand how they can transfer air rights from a building that's ACROSS the street. If you can do that, what stops developers from transferring air rights from 3 or 7 blocks away? This is CRAZY and cannot be allowed to continue.

Anonymous said...

Was already renovated. This possibility is for small time folks not these billionaire corporations

Anonymous said...

noble neolani is exactly right as anyone can read through this promissory PDF. All existing/new owners are obligated and responsible forever in any agreement by it's status. They want us to believe that they are the protectors with a fake deal just for air rights under their paternal wisdom.
PS: The SWA contractors match up to the restoration work and now for a new build. Looks like another cheap home depot clean up. Push back the encroachment to the original access/sidewalk by 20 feet on the corner as intended for people to pass into and through.