6 - Update MemoOctober 3rd, 2007
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: James Hewat, Chris Meschuk
SUBJECT: Update Memo
3231 ll~h Street Landmark Designation hearing
Staff has received a request by Michelle and Mike Clements to waive the requirement that the
landmark application for 3231 1 I`h Street be heard in a public hearing between 60 and 120 of the
application being initiated, per 9-11-5(a) B.R.C. and that the application be reviewed by the
Board by a special meeting on October 24, 2007. (see attached)
Board Training Update
See attached notes. Tentative special Board meetings: "procedural issues", October 17`h, 1-5 PM,
"big picture issues", November 14, 1-5 PM.
Chautauqua Roofing Update
The City Council did not support the request to roof the three buiidings at Chautauqua with wood
shingles at the public hearing regarding the item on September 18th.
Draft Letter to Planning Board and Applicant Regarding Z 127-2135 14~h Street.
See attached draft.
Depot Update
Verbal Update at meting.
New and Pending Land Use Review Applications
None.'
Casey School Design Advisory Team
James Hewat has been appointed to the Casey School Development Advisory Team.
Preserve America Application
Staff is revising the Preserve America application for designation of Boulder as a Preserve
America community.
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Stay of Demolition Status Summary, September 5, 2007
800 Pearl Street I c.1875
7/18/20~7 I 12/03/2007
No recent discussions with owner
regarding alternatives to
demolition.
5653 Baseline Rd ~ c.1920
7/18/2007 ~ 11/1412007
No recent discussions with owner
regarding alternatives to
demolition.
ARTICLCS AND INFORMATION:
E-mail fi-oin Michelle Clcments requesting an October 24`~', 2007 spccial Landmarks Board
meeting to review the Landmark designation application for 3231 1 1`~' Street.
Draft letter tc~ Lee Real Estate and the Planning Board regarding 2127-2135 14`~' Street.
Anya Kamenetz, "The Ureen Standard? LEED Buildings Get Lots of Buzz, But 7~he Point Is
Getting Lost". Fnst Cornpany, Ls~s•ite 119, Octobe~° 2007, page 12<Y.
Richard Pyle, (Associated Press). "Wrecking Porn - Old Time Square Theater poomed by
Progress ": Colorac~o D~rily, 9/1 <4/2007
9/27/2007) James Hewat - Re: Special Landmark Meeting' ~/ ~ ~ ' "~
From: Clements Michelle
To: Ruth McHeyser <mcheyserr@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 9/14/2007 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Special Landmark Meeting
CC: James Hewat <HewatJ@bouldercolorado.gov>, Chris Meschuk
<meschukc@boulde...
Ruth,
Thanks for letting me know. I will be at the Oct. 3rd meeting to
hear what the Board says regarding this-in hopes of them agreeing to
hear it again on Oct. 24th
Have a good weekend,
Michel le
On Sep 14, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Ruth McHeyser wrote:
> Michelle,
> The soonest we could schedule it and meet both our legal
> publication announcement timeframe and our staff prep time is Oct 24.
>
> thanks!
> Ruth
>
»» Clements Michelle
> Ruth,
> i forwarded this to you again in the event you didn't not receive it
> when it was initially sent. Please let me know the date you wili
> request for this to be heard again-October 17 or 24. I have to
> travel out of town on business but want to be sure the dates don't
> conflict. Please let me know soon so I can make the appropriate
> plans.
>
> Regards,
> Michelle Clements
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
» From:
» Date: September 11, 2007 433:33 PM MDT
» To: Ruth McHeyser <McHeyserR@bouldercolorado.gov>
» Cc: James Hewat <HewatJ@bouldercolorado.gov>, Chris Meschuk
» ~meschukc@bouldercolorado.gov>
» Subject: Re: Special Landmark Meeting
»
» Ruth,
» Thank you for your response. I thought when we spoke on the phone
» that we discussed trying to email the Board members to see if they
» would be willing to hold the special meeting on October 17th. Is
» it possible to do this or do they have to have a meeting to discuss
» moving the date? If they do have to have the meeting to decide, is
» it possible to hold the meeting on October 17th (considering the
» work Chris and/or James needs to do for this)? Please let me know
» as we are hoping to move this along as quickly as possible.
»
» Regards,
» Michelle Clements
'9%27%2007) James Hewat- Re: Special Landrriark Meeting ~~ ~~ ~
» On Sep 11, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Ruth McHeyser wrote:
»
»> Michelle,
»>
»> Thank you for the email. Yes, I committed to you on the phone
»> that we will ask the Landmarks Board at their regularly scheduled
»> meeting on October 3 if they would be willing to waive the
»> requirement to hold a hearing on the designatlon no sooner than 60
»> days and to schedule a special meeting to hear the item. The
»> soonest they could do so and still meet public notice requirements
»> would be October 24, however. I appreciate your concerns for our
»> limited staff resources as moving the hearing date up will be a
»> challenge. Chris and James have indicated that they would re-
»> shuffle priorities to meet the memo deadlines if the Board chooses
»> to hold a special meeting. As we discussed on the phone, the
»> effective change would be that the item would be heard 2 weeks
»> sooner than would otherwise be the case.
»>
»> Your other route as we discussed is to meet with the landmark
»> design review committee to pursue the issuance of a landmark
»> alteration certificate in which case you could go forvvard with
»> your building permit. f understand that wifl be meeting with the
»> committee next week and I appreciate you considering this route as
»> well
»>
»> Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns
»> (303-441-3292 or via email).
»>
»> Regards,
»> Ruth
»>
»>
»»» Clements Michelle `~/2007 1.22 PM »>
»> Ruth,
»> This is to follow-up on our conversation last Friday, September 7th
»> regarding a Landmark meeting on October 17th. In our conversation
»> you stated that it would be possible to have the requlred
»> information
»> ready to present to the Landmark Board on October 17th, if the Board
»> was agreeable to holding a special meeting in an effort to expedite
»> our "case". Please let me know the status of this so that we can be
»> prepared.
»>
»> I understand your staffing issues and appreciate any expediency that
»> can be given toward moving our situation on to the City Council
»>
»> I can be reached via email: msclements@mac.com or cell:
»> 205.566.9902.
»>
»> Regards,
»> Micheile Clements
»
>
MEMORANDUM
October 3~d, 2007
TO: Boulder Planning Board, Lee Real Estate Development, LLC
FROM: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
RE: Re-development of the property 2127-213514~' Street
CC: Boulder City Council
In February of 2007, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board reviewed an
application to demolish the buiiding at 2127-213514~" Street. Finding that the building
was an important intact example of historic residential terrace architecture constructed
by a localiy significant architect, located in an identified potential historic district, and
that there was "probable cause' to consider that the building may be eligible for
designation as an individual landmark, the Board chose to impose a stay-of-demolition
on the property for a period not to exceed 180 days (June 17"', 2007) in order to explore
alternatives to the demolition.
On June 12~', 2007 Lee Real Estate Development formally withdrew the application to
demolish the building stating that their intent was to "re-use the historic building as an
integral part of the proposed project." At the June 13w, 2007 hearing, the Landmarks
Board discussed initiating landmarking of the property. The Board agreed that the
building is a very important historic resource. Specifically, the Board extensively
discussed the degree to which the building's preservation could be assured through the
Site Review process as preservation of this building was a vital concern. Though the
Board chose not to initiate the process for landmarking at that time, they expressed the
utmost importance of sensitively rehabilitating the property and requiring landmarking
at the eariiest time possible in the Site Review process to ensure appropriate boundaries
are established.
_ - ~
9/27/2007) James Hewat - Fast Company LEED article.doc
~'TJ1 ~l~u~
The Green Standard?
LEED buildings get lots of buzz, but the point is getting lost.
From: Issue 1 l9 ~ October 2007 ~ Page 128 ~ By: Anya Kamenetz
When this magazine moved to 7 World Trade Center this past spring, we were pleased to
be settling into the first New York office tower to score a"gold" for environmental
sustainability from the United States Green Building Council, or USGBC. Buildings
account for 7l% of America's electricity use and 38% of all greenhouse-gas emissions,
according to the Department of Energy. Anything that cuts those numbers--as USGBC-
certfied buildings do, by an average of 25°lo to 30%--is sureiy a plus.
But what does the plaque on the front of a$700 miliion glass tower really mean? Asking
that question exposes some serious cracks in the world's bigges[ green-building brand
name--Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED--as well as a very
human tendency to reach for easy solutions to difficult problems.
As alarm over the environment intensifies, LEED has been in the right place at the right
time. Two federal agencies, 22 states, and 75 localities from Seattle to Boston have
instituted policies to require or encourage LEED; in New York, the new rules are
expected to affect $12 billion in new construction in the next few years. A host of major
New York projects, induding new luxury condos in Battery Park City, a 2-million-square-
foot skyscraper on Bryant Park in midtown, and the rest ofthe buildings around the
World Trade Center site, have ali sought the counciPs stamp of approval.
But critics say that the LEED standard falls short of what's possible in terms of saving
energy. While a 25% ro 30% improvement in energy use over conventional buildings
sounds impressive, it pales compared wi[h, say, the 50°/a target adopted by the dozens of
firms that have signed on to the Architecture 2030 initiative. Assessing LEED is further
complicated by the business growth ofthe Green Building Council. Awarding gold--and
silver and platinum--certification has been a gold mine far the nonprofit organization.
Once a small operation with seven paid employees, it now fields a 1 l6-member staff and
earns 95%of its $50 milfion armual budget.
Which raises another question: Could the council's financial success be standing in the
way of cutting-edge green-building standards?
The Green Building Council started 14 years back with an unlikely alliance between a
real-estate developer, David Gottfried, and a senior scientist for the Natural Resources
Defense Council, Rob Watson. "The great majority of environmental organizations had
invested in keeping companies on the other side of a fence," says Richard Fedrizzi, the
curcent CEO of the council. "David [Gottfried] thought that we could do things
differently. If we could invite business to the table, we could develop standards relative to
building performance, buy in at the very top, and be able to transform the marketplace
__, .~w. ._ .. _ .._ .~ __ _ . ._ _.. .. . _ , .. ~~vu~,~.
(9%27/2007)',laines Hewat - Fast Company LEED aiticle.doc
toward sustainable buildings."
The result, introduced in 2000, was LEED. The LEED rating system is simple in concept.
Architects and engineers shoot for points in six categories: siting, water use, energy,
materials, indoor air quality, and "innovation in design." Once a building is complete, a
representative from the Green Building Council reviews the documentation--plans,
engineers' calculations--and awards points out of a possible 69: certified (at least 26
points for new wnstruction), silver, gold, or platinum (at least 52 points).
Watson says the point system was specifically constructed to entice builders and drive the
market in a green direction. "One definable action equals one point," he says. Bike racks,
one point; recycling room, one point. "We threw a few gimmes in there so people could
get into the low 20s ... and say, 'We can do this."'
And it worked. Power-suited developers and hard hats have signed on. More than 6,500
projects have registered for LEED certification since 2000, and new categories such as
commercial interiors and existing buildings have been added to [he original LEED for
new construction. Forty-two thousand people have paid $250 to $350 and passed exams
to become °LEED-accredited professionals."
The council's revenue has been growing at 30% or better a year, with close to 20%
coming from certification. Getting the LEED plaque is not cheap. [n February, the mayor
of Park City, Utah, told a building-industry publication, "On the Park City Ice Arena
[$4.8 million project cost], we built it according to LEED criteria, but then we realized
that [certification] was going to cost $27,500. So we ordered three small wind turbines
instead that will power the arena's Zamboni."
Much of this growth is credited to Fedrizzi, a former marketing executive for an air-
conditioning company who became CEO in 2004. "We realized we were getting the
messaging wrong, leading with the environmental story," he says. "We had to lead with
the business case."
The business case isn'tjust that green building saves tnoney on energy. It's that LEED
certification sells buildings to high-end clients and governments, gets architects and
builders sparkling free publicity, and creates a hook for selling new products, materials,
and systems to builders. IPs a whole new commercial ecosystem. "Here in DC," says
architect Russell Perry, who's active in the Green Building Council, "for a speculative
developer to go out and advertise their property as being Ciass A[the highest-quality
commercial building], they've got to have a LEED rating. The brokers need that as part of
their pitch. People who would have been ambivalent about that as a moral issue are
finding that it's a commercial necessity." Perry also cites the mushrooming of markets for
products and services such as less toxic paints.
Fedrizzi is now talking to holders of multibilliomdollar real-estate portfolios, such as
Cushman & Wakefield and Transwestern, about the possibility of trading carbon credits
from green buildings.
Even skeptics recognize the council's achievement. "There's nothing else out there. LEED
is what's for dinner," says Auden Schendler, the director of environmental affairs at
Aspen Skiing Co. and the author, with Randy Udall, ofa much-discussed 2005 article in
;9/2712007) James Newaf ~- Fasf Compsny LEED article.doc ~ ~ ~ ~
,
Grist, the online environmental magazine, titled "LEED Is Broken: Let's Fix It." "Plus, it's
a good idea. Previously, nobody knew what a green building was."
But, Schendler adds, "one of the reasons you'll find very few critics out there is that lots
of folks make money on LEED. And it is a bit of a cabal--iYs Iike criticizing d~e pope in
Rome. People don't want to a(ienate themselves from this great emerging movement."
The limitations of LEED proceed from its design. The categories aren't weighted,
meaning that bike rack, to use an oft-cited example, can get you the same point as birying
50% of your energy from renewable sources. And [here are no regional adjustments;
saving water earns a point in Seattlejust as it does in Tucson. What's more, says
Schendler, "until recently, you could certify a building to LEED with no energy
measures." Now beating a widely accepted international baseline (ASHRAE/[ESNA) by
l4% is required. But is that enough? "All l0 points [in the LEED energy category} should
be mandatory," Schendler asserts. That would mean beating the ASHRAE baseline by
42%--which, he says, "is achievable and frankly isn't even enough to solve the climate
problem."
The temptation for developers and builders is poin[ mongering--picking one action from
column A, another from column B. "[ think people have the idea that sustainability isjust
a coilection of exciting ideas that you can peel and stick onto your building," says David
White, a climate engineer with the Gennan firm Transsolar. "Unfortunately, the
exuberant creative stuff--the expensive buzz words such as'geothennal,"photovoltaic,'
'double facade,' and'absorption chiller'--only makes sense when the basic requirements,
such as a well-insulated, aiRight facade with good solar controi, are satisfied."
Jerry Yudelson, who has written five books on LEED and marketing green buildings,
highlights the peel-and-stick method in his forthcoming book Markeiing Green Barilcfing
Services: Strategies for Success. He calls solar panels and green roofs "two of the most
important emerging green technologies." Yet most eng+neers say that sotar panels have
limited applications on large buildings, and reflective roofs can save as much energy as
"green" ones covered with plants. But Yudelson wri[es, "Nothing beats publicity like
having your project, with its green roof, PV [photovoltaic, or solar, power] system, and
LEED Gold plaque highlighted as a lead story on the b o'clock or 10 o`clock network
news station in your city. You'II get on camera; dozens, possibly hundreds of clients,
prospective employees, and others in your industry wiil see it, almost guaranteed."
New York architect Chris Benedict--whose residential buildings use only I 5% as much
energy for heat and hot water as the typical New York apartment building--says, °Cve
spent hours explaining my systems-based approach to a newspaper reporter, and at the
end, the photographer asked me, 'Do you have a solar panel or something [ could
photograph?"' W ith her design partner, Henry Gifford, a former boiler mechanic,
Benedict delves into the infrastrucwre of buildings, incorporating basic factors such as
heavy-duty insulation, radiant heating and cooling, room-by-room temperature controls,
and thicker glass.
One of the reasons you91 find very few critics out there is that lots of folks make money
on LEED, says one environmentalist.
Benedict, who works outside the LEED structure, says that environmental constraints free
______ . _ _.. . _ . _
_.~_ ._... ..
(9/27/2007) James Hewat - Fast Company LEED article.doc
her creativity, citing a building in the Bronx where dramatically deep sills shade the south-
facing windows. Certain clich8s of modem architecture, like the glass curtain walls of
One Bryant Park, the future headquarters of USGBC board member Bank of America, are
another story. °It's preriy frustrating that there's going to be a LEED platinum-rated glass
building," Benedict says. "IPs going to use obscene amounts of energy. At times, it wili
need to be heated and air-conditioned at the same time."
Jordan Barowitz, director of external affairs at the Durst Organization, the developers of
One Bryant Park, counters, "You could make a building thaPs very energy-efficient by not
having any windows in it and having only one elevator, but this is not a building that
people are going to want to work in."
So what should define a green building? It's not necessarily shiny or pretty, and it starts
from the minute the site is chosen. LEED began with the goal of getting attention for
energy-efficient building. Now that it is dominant in the marketplace, it could be adjusted
to better reflect--and exploit--its newfound power.
Rob Watson, the so-called father of LEED, seems to agree. "Over the last 10 years, the
gravity of the global environmental situation has bewme more obvious," says Watson,
reached in China, where he's consulting on green buildings for the govemment and
private developers. "And so I think, if anything, we need to redouble our efforts, and not
only go for areater market share but increased stringency at the same time."
Feedback: kamenetz@fastcompany.com
*
Copyright O 2007 Mansueto Ventures LLC. All rights reserved.
Fast Company, 7 World Trade Center, New York, NY 10007-2195
~GLa.~rr-do 7~R-i~ , 9/~8~~~
~
.
re~
~~
OLD TIMES SQUARE THEATER
DOOMED BY PROGRESS
ny we~~n vns recent rescue of M.uiliattan's 74-
A~xivtaJPm~lVnrct y~,il•-nl<1 Muunilxncc Diner. 'Che
pened in 1916 as a vsud~ neighborhuoJ icon esc;iped ~lemo-
c th~aler called die ldeal and libon when :t cuuple bou},ht it olt the
ised a few weeks ago as the Internet.uid ntuved it 2.100 milcs to
rypen, a seedy porno empo- a new houie iu western Wyoming.
im on the ragged rim of But there appcu•s little or no
ball despite a last- ing to the Playpen, which ~was
to rescue it. doomed when p,utncrs h~:~ded hy
~ta[ers da6ng from Tishman Rc.dty Corp. acyuircd [he (;ortunission."
centun+siill in exis- property on 3th Avenuc at <i4~h The ciry's 6andmarks g
' f oth~m's oldest Strt~et in Jtilv, rt~urtcd(v fi~r x n~yv ~'«-'~~tion Commi.~ion aLso stud- li
houlcln't I~e sacrificecl for the sake
pro~mss,"s~idltichaelPerltmw, high-rise huilding. The~group .yd
Thursciayil«as"~1utt~ntlyccploring ~~~ ~e isnie:md decieted ihe build-
'ng "~~ not meet three necess:try iry photographs" of the facade anc
otLer nou~bie features, to be dis~
elf-appointedpmsena6onist~tifio developmentoptions." cri~eria - architecwcil features, playediuthenewbuilding1lobbya
mt~c to keep the builcling's Beaux Unlikr odiec historic Ihratf:rs in history and ctiltura! conlributions a link to the p:ut, f.evln s:ud.
ffacade-withiLscurvedcen[ral tt~e area that have betin ~aved :u~J 1O~'eciry,"s:udthe:~enc}'sspokes- "It's a charming ~~c,~stige of the
; h, pilasters, st:uues and odier renovated, the Hlaypcn ~ti:~s never 1YOm:ui, (.isi de Bourhon.
' old 8di Avenue but not ~he most dis-
n:ue[tawres-byincoqwcarinn given otticial landmark sunus that ~u'~ ~crl th:u is a major pourt; unctivepiece~>ftl~r.iterhiswry;'she
nto a nc~v building, or moving it would pre~ei~t ils b~ng ~le'siroyeeL ~~~'~'t ~~a~ been landmarked wc said in a phonc intcniew.
:mod~er localion. "IX%e gave it the old culfege try,,' ~~O1ld ha~~e felt clitTerenttyabout it,'. Durin}; i~s nu~r cemury of li(e,
Tliis is a"culWrally a~d archi- saidAnnal,evin,whoch.drs ihelex:d s~~ ~shma~~ spok~5man Ricliard U~e brick-[ronteJ ilireier ~~per.ited
tur:tlly significant structure, and wmmuniry bo:trd's l;u~J use com- ~clar. under.u Ic.tst eight ilitTrrellf 0:11TICti,
hope to presecve d~is gem for mittec. .,7'his was looked at three Ati it is, he said, the company is incluJing F~quire. Squire (hvice),
uregeneraG~ms," hesaid times but ~ve were cnmpletely Preservlugsome"architecnu~alele-
" Cinecitta, New Cameo, C:uneo :u~d
Perlmanplayedakeymleiuthe rehuffed by the City E'lanning ments
from inside the building, Adonis,eacl~reflccungapa~~ticul.~u
. kind of scrc~en farc - fmm Itali:in
~C4~'NC
~ 2O
~~ ~~ and Rt~sslan leoguagc fihns t~~
Hollywaxl t~mu~~es, k~.mdinavian
swn flicks and gay movicw.
In the l9'tOs, a p:utial ceiliug
cvllapse injured 1~) people but
~ according to The 1ew York Tunes,
arnl unnotlceJ by patrons in the
~ front rows, who thought 1he noise
was just "wcird sound effects" of
"Dr. Tcrtor ti Houu~ of Horrors.,,
~~f'~~'cr roe r++ j0*~ I.ocatcd on the frin~e of the
'Iimes Syuaie district, the thcater
Re
ister Your Fl
t:
h ~s:u erctuded from aii extensive
g
oa
www,cu
omecoming.com t~~~x~~ ~~o~ea ;n ~t~i~~ch .~r~~k neti~-
Thursday, Septem6a 21 ~
.bpanese6fusicanaOanczRearal 7;10pm GrasinN~,.~s~cH,iO ItOiL'153n~ feOU~:~ltx1 l}lt;ltl•n Lr.lll~-
formed the midtuun hl~~cks «h~•m
sec sh0[lti iUl(
World War If era.
`I'he effort, sprnrtreaded by then-
Mayor Rudoiph Giu]iani, was
praise~c! by ~me 1'ew Yorke~ as a
rebirth of Times Squaze, but criu-
cized by olhers :~s a "Disney~i~tioti '
that destroyed iis trulition~l char-
acter. Disney decided in the mid-
199Us [o renovate the New
AmstenL•uii Th~atre. ILt succes,e with
the du ster, first as the l~ome ~~f ,..Che
Liun King" and now housing "M1tarv
Poppins," brought other family
entertvnments to West 42nd Str~~et,
incliiding Mad.une 7Lssauds anJ
uvertl large movie chains
13oth sentunenu were apparent
ln responses to a recent Times story
on d~e demise aF the Yla4nen. with
under the guise of 'famity (riendli-
ness,"' one person wrote. Said
another, "Make aay tor another
tourist orie~ted w~holesome enter-
prise. 1'd take Billy's Topless any
~y....,
.,People~.. cha.efised a third. "IPs
a dump."
including pl;~ster c:un~~ figures uf ities had flourished since the post-
Landmarks Board Training Session with Maro Zagoras
Wednesday September 12, 2007
- Government spends more than 25% of its time in meetings
- Role Clarity - leadership - preventing decision-making process form
holding board hostage.
- Importance of listening.
- Board and chair conflicts are common - sometimes chairs stay neutral in
decision-making process, sometimes not.
- Clearly define what board/staff roles are.
- Have short discussion at beginning of ineeting to lay out ground rules of
meeting.
- Stay away from board getting into too much detail.
Follow-Up:
Board will hold two, half-day meetings in October/November to discuss:
a) Procedural issues.
- Board/chair/staff roles
- Delineate- any weighting to criteria
- Come up with definitions in our code of how we handle potential
landmark- process
- Demolition definition
b) Big picture issues
- What longer range issues the board wants to focus on
- Public image- how to get public
- Benefits of our board to the city as a whole
- Allocation of resources
- Proactive vs. Reactive- linkages with other city goals
- Develop criteria for initiation over an owner's objection