The Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to remove consideration for landmark designation of the former "Dakota Stable" building at 350 Amsterdam Avenue from its calendar today but various commissioners expressed outrage that the building, how shrouded, has recently been stripped of ornamentation as part of plans by The Related Companies to redevelop the site for a residential condominium building.

Commissoner Richard Olcott said the proposed designation was "a huge failure of imagination on the owner's part" and that the building "was worthy of designation, but not anymore" because of the stripping.

Before voting on the Dakota Stable building, which is on the southwest corner at 77th Street, the commission unanimously voted to designate as a landmark the former New York Cab Company stable building one block south on Amsterdam Avenue.

Although many commissioners remarked that they were greatly concerned that the city's landmarks process was being sidestepped by developers who obtain alteration permits from the Department of Buildings, all but one voted to approve a resolution put forward by Chairman Robert B. Tierney to remove the "Dakota" building from its calendar.

The dissenting commissioner, Roberta Brandes Gratz, read a long statement in which she said that "Sadly, this is one more example of the Landmarks Commission being tested as to how firm we will defend our city's landmarks," adding that "It is clear today that when property owners recognize the landmark potential of their building, they go for a permit to strip."

"Only designation of the Dakota Stable can send a signal that the Commission will no longer let this strategy work as a designation-ducking device," she continued, adding that "even a defaced landmark does not totally lose its inherent quality."

"I have argued repeatedly of late," she declared, "that a critical element of our internal standard of deciding whether to consider calendaring a building is erroneous - that is, the degree to which it has been compromised....if a designated landmark, any new project on the site must come before us. And, indeed, we can require something be incorporated in the design that reflects the architectural, historical, cultural and social importance of the last landmark....We should not assume these stables were omitted from the historic district designation because of the lack of worthiness. We all know too well how many important buildings were purposely left out of districts all over the city because they were potential big development sites....It is not enough to designate the one and think we have done enough. Preservation is not, and should not, be about the last, the best, the only, etc. The field is way past that kind of thinking."

Chairman Tierney said that the vote to remove the building from the calendar was "bittersweet, mostly bitter," adding that "we're discussing options" about these "truly important public policy issues." "We're grappling mightily with it right now," he said, adding that a suggestion that the Department of Buildings "red flag" permits of older properties might have "unintended consequences" and create an "avalanche" of work for the commission's staff.

Commissioner Libby Ryan said that the developers of the "Dakota" project "should be ashamed of themselves."

Commissioner Stephen Byrns did not support designation of the building, maintaining that while "its architectural merits?were very good," individual designations require "greater significance."

The Related Companies have commissioned Robert A. M. Stern and Ismael Levya to design a mid-rise, residential condominium building with about 130 apartments to replace the attractive, red-and-brown-brick building and another mid-block low-rise building just to the south.