CB3 hearing: 10/19/2020
LPC hearing: 11/10/2020 – No Action
LPC Meeting: 12/17/2020
Between Avenue A and Avenue B
—- APPLICATION INFORMATION —-
1) From the CB3 agenda: Application is for new front steps, replacement of 3 steel gates with glazing above, restoration of the front facade, a mezzanine floor extension.
3) View the 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 view the video from 11/10/2020, click HERE and to view the video from 12/17/2020, 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) View the LPC Permit: Available in PDF.
6) LPC designation report: Read this property’s architectural/historical description.65) 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.
12/17/2020: At today’s public meeting, this application with only Commissioner Goldblum voting against.
11/10/2020: At today’s public hearing no action was taken. The applicant was asked to revise the application and return to present as a future public meeting.
Commissioner Goldblum said that, assuming there was no historic evidence of infill on the second floor, the proposed infill should stay back 18 inches from the inside wall of the facade. He also urged the applicant to return to their analysis of the c. 1940 tax photo. He stated that the spandrel should align with the spring line of the arch, the grid should have a tripartite division vertically and maybe carry down, and the areas below the frieze could be less dense. He said that a modern interpretation of the c. 1940s tax photo could create shadow, depth, and detail that would suggest the articulation shown in the tax photo. He also stated that the stairs should be granite. Commissioner Devonshire agreed with this, and said that the steps should be curved with a tighter arc, as they are shown in the tax photo. Commissioner Gustafsson agreed, stating that the individual landmark status should raise the standard for the application. Commissioner Chen agreed, but said the proposal was fine. Commissioner Jefferson said the proposal was elegant, but needed more toughness as Commissioner Goldblum suggested. Commissioner Bland said the proposal was fine, but that iron might be a better material to use than steel. Commissioner Lutfy said the proposal was elegant, only stating that the steps should be solid. Commissioner Shamir-Baron said that the gate should have more expression, be lighter, and use different kinds of scale to evoke its historic version. Commissioner Holford-Smith agreed with Commissioners Goldblum and Shamir Baron.