HomeMy WebLinkAboutINVERNESS INNOVATION PARK FIRST FILING (ROCKY MOUNTAIN INNOVATION INITIATIVE) - PDP - 30-09A - CORRESPONDENCE - HISTORIC PRESERVATIONPage 1 of 1
Shelby Sommer - FW: IMPORTANT: Inverness site has historic significance
From: "Kelly Peters" <kelly.peters@rmi2.org>
To: "'Shelby Sommer"' <ssommer@fcgov.com>
Date: 07/21/2008 9:47 AM
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT: Inverness site has historic significance
FYI ... see below.
From: Michael Bello [mailto:mbellol0@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:06 AM
To: 'Curt Richardson'; mfreeman@fcgov.com; 'Mike Jensen'; 'Kelly Peters'
Cc: 'Michael Bello'
Subject: IMPORTANT: Inverness site has historic significance
Importance: High
I met with Karen McWilliams and Alyson McGee on Friday, both Preservation Planners with the City's Advanced
Planning department. We discussed the proposed site plan for our project (both Curt's plan and the
Incubator/spec office plan) and its impact to the Inverness property. Karen pointed out that the main building,
the out building to the east, and the property itself are historically significant. The significance is local only, not
state nor national. Since it has been designated as historically significant redevelopment associated with the
house and the property or development on adjacent properties has to comply with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use
Code. I've copied and attached that for your reference. Look at section F in particular.
The outcome is Karen is pushing for the property to be preserved and limiting any development on the property,
as well as, putting limits on what can be done next to the property (Mike Jensen's land). Her paraphrased
comment was: We had a nice development with the residential proposal previously submitted, this project is
not as good and may not be the right development for Mike's property.
She stated that there would have to be good reasons or justification for why compatible development couldn't
be built to get approval for something that doesn't comply with the Land Use Code criteria. She also stated that
she had the ability to put pressure on other departments to bend their requirements if it lead to more
compatible architecture for the neighboring property and the preservation of the historic property.
I spoke to Curt. I believe his position is a valid one, that being the house and property have no economic value
unto themselves. If it isn't incorporated in a project like we are proposing the building will just sit there and rot.
I believe what Don Bundy has designed is very sensitive to the existing main structure and landscaping and our
position should be that this is the best solution for this property's preservation, even if it takes out the out-
building.
I think we need to meet (phone conference or face-to-face) to discuss what steps we should take as this impacts
everything we are doing right now. Let me know your thoughts and what you'd like to do next. BTW, Karen is
gone on vacation for a week, but Alyson is in town.
Michael
file://C:\Documents and Settings\ssommer\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 07/21/2008