Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/16/2022 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPage 1 Kurt Knierim, Chair Location: Jim Rose, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Margo Carlock in person at Council Chambers, Meg Dunn 300 LaPorte Avenue and Walter Dunn remotely via Zoom Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting March 16, 2022 5:30 PM Historic Preservation Commission AGENDA Pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. This remote Historic Preservation Commission meeting will be available in person at Council Chambers, online via Zoom or by phone. Members of the public are allowed to attend in person. The online meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Online participants should try to join at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. IN PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Members of the public that feel comfortable may appear in person at Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, and address the Commission when recognized by the Chair. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/99525863329. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE: Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 995 2586 3329. Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself. Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Commission for its consideration must be emailed to abrennan@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to abrennan@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission. Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Historic Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:00 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php.  CALL TO ORDER  ROLL CALL  AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items. Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items.  STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA  CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2022. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 16, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately with Commission-pulled items considered before Discussion Items and Citizen-pulled items considered after Discussion Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of: ● Approval of Minutes ● Items of no perceived controversy ● Routine administrative actions Packet Pg. 2 Page 3 2. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 323 S. WASHINGTON AVE Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about that demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for single-family demolition via either a demolition permit or written request with preliminary construction plans. The property is included in the next available consent calendar for the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code.  CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar.  CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed at this time.  DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. REPORT ON STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. 4. THE OVERLANDER AT BALFOUR (3733 E. HARMONY) – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of a five-acre site at the southeast corner of Harmony and Cinquefoil Lane for a senior living community with independent living, assisted living, and memory care. Project includes adaptative reuse of four historic farmstead structures and construction of a 246,040 square-foot new building. Development site is in the Harmony Corridor; the decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Balfour Senior Living, Louisville, CO  CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public will be discussed at this time.  OTHER BUSINESS  ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 Date:Roll CallMargo CarlockMeg DunnWalter DunnEric GuentherAnne NelsenJim RoseVacant SeatVacant SeatKurt KnierimVotePresent Present Present Present Absent Present - - Present6 Present, 1 AbsentConsent Agenda: 1) MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2022 2) 323 S. WASHINGTON AVE - SF DEMO NOTIFICATIONVacant SeatMeg DunnMargo CarlockJim RoseEric GuentherAnne NelsenWalter DunnVacant SeatKurt Knierim - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes - Yes6-0Discussion Agenda: 4) THE OVERLANDER AT BALFOUR (3733 E. HARMONY) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - NO COMMISSION VOTEMeg DunnMargo CarlockJim RoseEric GuentherAnne NelsenWalter DunnVacant SeatVacant SeatKurt Knierim - - - - - - - - - No VoteRoll Call & Voting RecordLandmark Preservation Commission3/16/2022 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 16, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Aubrielle Brennan, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2022 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 16, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC February 16, 2022 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 4 DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 1 [February 16, 2022] Kurt Knierim, Chair This meeting was Margo Carlock held remotely Meg Dunn Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting February 16, 2022 Minutes CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Walter Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Meg Dunn STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Aubrie Brennan Chair Knierim read the following legal statement: “We are holding a remote meeting today in light of the continuing prevalence of COVID-19 and for the sake of the health of the Commission, City Staff, applicants and the general public. Our determination to hold this meeting remotely was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.” AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek stated she will be providing a staff report on the Linden Street project improvements prior to consideration of the Consent Agenda. There were no other changes to the posted agenda. CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW Historic Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 2 [February 16, 2022] Member Rose withdrew Item No. 2, 741 Lindenmeier Road – Single Family Demolition Notification, from the Consent Agenda.  STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Bzdek stated the phase two improvements on Linden Street have recently begun and she provided a brief history of the project noting the Commission reviewed the full project and provided a certificate of appropriateness in December of 2019. She discussed the project to reconfigure Linden Street into a convertible street with parallel parking. She stated the project should be complete by July of 2022 and pedestrian access is being maintained during construction.  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:40 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 19, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the January 19, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Member Carlock seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:43 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. 741 LINDENMEIER RD – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION The purpose of this item is to notify and inform residents of the possible demolition of a single family property over 50 years of age and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. Member Rose questioned whether there are alternatives to the immediate approval and subsequent demolition. He stated the materials provided indicate the home has a significant place in early Fort Collins history; however, he acknowledged the property is in derelict condition without much chance for rehabilitation. He stated he would like the record to more accurately reflect the status of the property as an historical artifact. Mr. Bertolini stated there is no Code structure for mitigation and nothing that would require that of the property owner. He stated demolition permits have yet to be requested and the owner could be asked for additional site access for documentation purposes. He stated securing funding for additional documentation could be an issue. Member Rose stated he would like to see interior photo documentation if possible, but stated he is not attempting to create undue hardship for the owner. Mr. Bertolini replied interior photos are available. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 3 [February 16, 2022] 3. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. 4. 1306 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is a final design review of the applicants’ project, to assess how well it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and to issue, with or without conditions, or to deny, a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the rear elevation of the main building, demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners), Alexandra Haggarty (legal counsel) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) (**Secretary’s Note: Member Guenther withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest as he lives in the home adjacent to the subject property and has submitted comments as a private citizen.) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He discussed the proposed project and noted the homeowner opted not to make alterations to the proposed plan following the conceptual review meeting in January. Mr. Bertolini outlined the role of the Commission as a decision maker for this item and detailed the historic designation of the property. Mr. Bertolini showed photos of the property, renderings of the proposed project, and discussed the proposal. He outlined the staff analysis which indicates the project does not meet all applicable rehabilitation standards, which he detailed. He noted the City is required to utilize the Secretary of Interior standards as its basis for review because they are adopted in the Municipal Code and having the design review based in those standards is a condition of a federal certification for the City’s Historic Preservation program. Mr. Bertolini outlined the public input received on the project and stated staff is recommending the Commission approve two of the proposals, for the egress windows and for the demolition of the non-historic garage and construction of the new two-car garage. He stated staff is recommending denial of the proposed addition. Applicant Presentation Alexandra Haggarty, counsel for the applicant, stated the proposal provides a good balance between historic preservation and promoting and encouraging the continued private ownership and use of historic sites. Brian Berkhausen, owner, discussed the history of his ownership of the property and detailed the proposed project which would retain the front-facing elements of the home while providing a rear addition to accommodate his needs moving forward. He stated the proposal retains 100% of the historic fabric of the house while making appropriate improvements that will sustain and maintain the viability and livability of the home for the next century. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 4 [February 16, 2022] Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction, provided additional details on the proposal and commented on the importance of preserving the open space on the lot between the home and the accessory structures. He also noted aspects of the plan promote City climate-related goals. He outlined the ways in which the proposal meets the applicable Secretary of Interior standards, including noting the reversibility of the addition. He noted the project has received signatures of support from several neighbors in the area. Ms. Haggarty noted the Code does not clarify how many standards must be met, or to what degree, in order to justify approval. She stated staff has found that eight of the ten standards are fully met or not applicable, and the other two are partially met. Regarding standard two, Ms. Haggarty stated the historic character of the property is retained and preserved with the addition and the proposal fully complies with zoning and Land Use Code requirements. Regarding standard nine, Ms. Haggarty stated the new addition is compatible with, distinguishable from, and subordinate to the existing building. She also noted the applicant will agree to a condition of approval that all landscaping remain in place and be replaced in kind if damaged. Ms. Haggarty discussed the ways in which the proposal meets other City goals while still retaining the historic significance of the home. Public Input Michelle Haefele requested the Commission deny the proposed addition as historic resources are irreplaceable. She suggested setback variances could be requested to ensure an addition is not visible from the front of the property. Laura Bailey, daughter of the previous homeowner, requested the Commission deny the proposed addition as its designation should mean the City will protect the home from significant changes in perpetuity. She also suggested the large front tree that will block the proposed addition could not be adequately replaced if it dies and stated the house would not have been designated if such an addition existed at the time. She commented on the number of comments received in opposition to the proposal. Gina Janett requested the Commission deny the addition and stated the house would not have been designated if the addition existed at the time. She stated the proposed addition would dramatically change the character of the home. Kevin Cook discussed Mr. Bailey’s desire to have the house designated so as to ensure the historic value of the structure would be preserved indefinitely. He questioned why the buyers purchased the home with the knowledge of the designation and questioned what credibility the Commission has if landmark status for a property is granted and then it becomes reversible or modifiable with the next owner. Loretta Bailey stated issues for the current owners could be easily solved without needing to make an addition. She also expressed concern the large tree in the front could not be adequately replaced if it dies. Karen McWilliams, former Historic Preservation Manager, stated she worked with Mr. Bailey to get this property designated and requested the Commission deny the proposed alterations to the home as they do a disservice to the memory of Mr. Bailey and to all other owners who have chosen to protect their homes through landmark designation. She commented on historic preservation being a city-wide value recognized by Codes and Council policies. She also disagreed with Ms. Haggarty stating all applicable standards must be met in order for this type of alteration to be approved. William Whitley requested the Commission deny the request for the addition stating the current plan significantly weakens the City’s designation standards, calls into question the City’s commitment to historic preservation, and sets a dangerous precedent. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 5 [February 16, 2022] Shelly Terry requested the Commission deny the request for the addition stating it should remain as it was when it was landmarked in order to represent history for future generations. She commented on her experience landmarking her home and stated allowing this would set a precedent. Asma Henry opposed the proposed project and disagreed with comments by the applicant team that the project promotes equitability and sustainability. Frederick Snyder discussed his experience in landmarking his home and stated landmarking properties is valuable for history. He questioned why buyers would purchase a landmarked home if they wanted to change it. Staff Rebuttal Mr. Bertolini clarified the Code requirement in Chapter 14, Article 4 of the Municipal Code, adopts the full set of standards, all of which need to be met or determined by staff to not be applicable. Regarding precedent, Mr. Bertolini noted the Code clearly states decisions on one property do not affect decisions on other properties. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Haggarty reiterated the property is not on a state registry and the Code only calls for the Commissioners to analyze the standards, not to analyze anything related to the City’s status as a certified local government. She also reiterated the Code does not explicitly state how many or how fully the standards must be met to approve an alteration and the applicant team believes all are met. She also noted any decision would not set a precedent per Code and stated this process exists to ensure that landmarked properties make changes in a reasonable way, not so that they do not change at all. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and all five members were present upon returning.) Commission Questions and Discussion Member Nelsen requested clarification regarding the Secretary of Interior standards and City Code provisions. Mr. Yatabe replied the Code states a proposal must meet the standards in order to be approved and, if a proposal does not meet the standards, it is denied. Member Nelsen asked if both chimneys are being retained in the proposal. Mr. Schneider replied in the affirmative and stated both are brick down to the basement level, which will remain. Member Nelsen asked about the bump out to the east and if it was added to emphasize standard nine. Mr. Schneider replied the design aimed to keep the simplistic rectangular design while meeting the setbacks on the west side and meeting Land Use Code standards related to differentiation. Additionally, the design aims to ensure the addition is differentiated. He noted it is not uncommon for additions to occur on the side of a property to meet Code requirements. Member Nelsen asked about the possibility of hyphening. Mr. Schneider replied that was considered; however, the design seemed to be a detriment to the existing structure. Member Nelsen asked if retaining the open space on the lot is more important than the massing as viewed from the front of the property. Mr. Schneider replied the design does not disrespect the existing structure and the preservation of the open space on the lot is more valuable than having the entire addition behind the home. He stated a narrow row house design would not be aesthetically pleasing and would require a number of Land Use Code variances. Mr. Berkhausen noted they are attempting to create a livable floor plan. Commission Deliberation ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 6 [February 16, 2022] Chair Knierim suggested limiting the discussion to the standards in question, particularly two and nine. Member Nelsen questioned whether the treatment of the addition is substantial enough that standard three would not apply. Member Carlock suggested that standard may not apply as the proposal does not attempt to add anything that one would perceive as historic. She stated the addition is clearly differentiated and is clearly not part of the original structure. Member Rose stated adding anything to this home takes away from the nature of the home being a bungalow and the applicant team has done as much as possible to try to accommodate a larger program of use into a space that is not appropriate. Chair Knierim stated character-defining features of the property include its small size and rectangular shape, and the proposal changes those features. Member Nelsen noted standard two states that the historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. Member Carlock stated the size of the addition is outside of the standards. Member Nelsen concurred and stated the simplicity of form and symmetry of the structure will be altered with the proposed addition. Member Dunn concurred and stated the proposed addition detracts from the original structure. Member Carlock stated she is supportive of the garage replacement proposal and would also support the staff recommendation regarding the egress windows. Member Rose concurred and stated those changes do not modify the character to an extent that the standard is not met. Member Nelsen also concurred and noted the garage that is proposed to be demolished was not part of the historic designation. She also concurred the windows that are planned to be replaced are not character-defining features and their replacement would not negatively affect the historic integrity of the structure. Chair Knierim also concurred. Member Nelsen suggested the Commission may want to further discuss standard nine. She stated massing, size, and scale have been determined to not be met and also stated the roof lines do not seem compatible. She noted the roof plate height is the same height all around which does not feel subordinate to the existing landmarked home. Member Carlock stated she believes the size of the addition is the main concern and that violates standard nine. Members discussed the proper way to make a motion or multiple motions. Member Carlock made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for proposed item two, installation of an egress window and modification of bathroom windows, and for proposed item three, demolition of the non-historic garage and construction of a new garage, at the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that these items meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and that the Commission deny approval for item number one, the addition to the home, because it does not meet the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: two and nine. The Commission further finds that other than the stated standard(s) not met, the denied alteration(s) meet all other applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented at this hearing and from the preceding conceptual review and work session, and the Commission discussion on this item. Member Rose seconded. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 7 [February 16, 2022] Member Rose asked if the items stated by Member Carlock were sufficiently clear. Member Carlock replied the items are numbered per the Staff Report. Member Rose requested the motion include a reference to the items as being in the Staff Report. Member Carlock suggested listing the items by descriptions rather than with numbers. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated the motion was fine either way, as part of the motion involves the discussion on it. Member Nelsen reiterated that part of the Land Use Code and City Code involves the Commission assessing whether or not an alteration meets all of the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. She stated the property was landmarked for design and construction and the Commission agrees the distinctive aspect of the home is the integrity of its form and its small size, and that the proposed alteration so significantly alters that key defining characteristic, that it cannot be supported and therefore the Code is not met. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 8:38 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS o ELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Member Rose nominated Chair Knierim for Chair. The nomination was accepted unanimously. Chair Knierim commended Meg Dunn’s work as Chair. Member Nelsen nominated Member Rose for Vice Chair. The nomination was accepted unanimously.  ADJOURNMENT Chair Knierim adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Kurt Knierim, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 16, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 323 S. WASHINGTON AVE STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about that demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for single-family demolition via either a demolition permit or written request with preliminary construction plans. The property is included in the next available consent calendar for the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code. Historical Background The property at 323 S. Washington Avenue appears to have been built in circa 1922, although no original building permit could be located. There is no detailed survey record for this property. Construction History  1923 – frame addition (7.5’x7.5’), stucco finish & shingle roof; other remodeling  1925 – 18’x18’ frame garage added 9’ west of house w/ stucco exterior & wood shingle roof  1925 – sun parlor addition on south (8’x18’), add fireplace  1935 – permit for masonry work (likely the stone wall on the south end of the lot)  1938 – reroof (partial)  2009 – reroof  2011 - reroof Residents (to 1970)  1922‐1938 – Bertha R. Most, a Home Economics instructor at Colorado Agricultural College (now  CSU) owned the house.   o Ms. Most was on the Home Economics faculty as early as 1915   1940 – Dr. Donald R. DeLeon & Gertrude DeLeon; Dr. DeLeon was an Associate Entomologist at CSU   1948‐1962 – Carl J. & Eleanor Judson – rancher   1963‐1969 – Erich & Gabrielle Plate; Erich is a professor at CSU  o 1966 – Horace & Ruth Tyler; Horace is a graduate student at CSU (tenant?)   1970 – Warren Lovenstein, Christine Pohlman, and Vicki Reid.    Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2   1948 Assessor photo, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/10965/rec/1      1968 Assessor photo: https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/10966/rec/2   Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 ATTACHMENTS N/A Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 16, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES AND OTHER STAFF-ISSUED DECISIONS AND LETTERS, FEBRUARY 4, 2022 TO MARCH 2, 2022 STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. Staff decisions are provided in this report and posted on the HPS’s “Design Review Notification” page. Notice of staff decisions are provided to the public and HPC for their information, but are not subject to appeal under Chapter 14, Article IV, except in cases where an applicant has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for a project and that request has been denied. In that event, the applicant may appeal staff’s decision to the HPC pursuant to 14-55 of the Municipal Code, within two weeks of staff denial. Beginning in May 2021, to increase transparency regarding staff decisions and letters issued on historic preservation activities, this report will include sections for historic property survey results finalized in the last month (provided they are past the two-week appeal deadline), comments issued for federal undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act (also called “Section 106”), and 5G wireless facility responses for local permit approval. The report below covers the period between February 4, 2022 to March 2, 2022. There is a short staff presentation this month regarding the rehabilitation of 255 & 261 Linden Street in the Old Town Landmark District. Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 1201 Laporte Ave Garage stabilization. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 11, 2022 628 Peterson St. Rooftop solar on non-historic (2019) garage. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Report issued – met SOI Standards. February 14, 2022 820 Whedbee St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Report issued – met SOI Standards. February 14, 2022 1006 Laporte Ave. Rear deck installation. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 24, 2022 Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 1201 Laporte Ave Rear door replacement. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 24, 2022 612 S. College Paint exterior. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved March 2, 2022 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision N/A Historic Property Survey Results City Preservation staff frequently completes historic survey for properties for a number of reasons, usually in advance of development proposals for properties. The table below includes historic property survey for the reporting period for any historic survey for which the two-week appeal period has passed. Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved Results? Date Results Finalized N/A National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement from a federal agency. Note: Due to changes in how Preservation staff process small cell/5G wireless facilities, staff does not provide substantive comments on those undertakings (overseen by the Federal Communications Commission) and do not appear in the table below. National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement from a federal agency. Lead Agency & Property Location Description of Project Staff Comment Date Comment Issued N/A Staff 5G Wireless Facility Summary Note: Co-locations with existing street infrastructure, usually traffic lights, is considered a co-location and not subject to denial due to proximity to properties that meet the City’s definition of historic resources (Sec. 14-3) Due to recent changes in how Preservation staff reviews small cell/5G towers, co-located towers no longer receive substantive review except where historic resources would be impacted directly by the tower’s installation. These types of direct impacts would include potential damage to archaeological resources and/or landscape features throughout the city such as trolley tracks, carriage steps, and sandstone pavers. This report section will summarize activities in this area. Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 Between February 4, 2022 and March 2, 2022, staff processed a total of 10 5G/Small Cell tower requests. Of these, 9 were to replace existing street lights, and 1 was for a new, free-standing pole. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 17 1 Staff Decisions – Report on 255 & 261 Linden St Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission Work Session, March 9, 2022 Historical Significance • 255 Linden • Standard Block • Built 1882 • 261 Linden •Stover Drug • Built 1884 2 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 18 Project • Masonry repair • 261 wall cap • Targeted window repair & replacement 3 3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 16, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME THE OVERLANDER AT BALFOUR (3733 E HARMONY) – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of a five-acre site at the southeast corner of Harmony and Cinquefoil Lane for a senior living community with independent living, assisted living, and memory care. Project includes adaptative reuse of four historic farmstead structures and construction of a 246,040 square- foot new building. Development site is in the Harmony Corridor; the decision maker for this Type 2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Balfour Senior Living, Louisville, CO RECOMMENDATION: TBD HPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide a recommendation to the decision maker concerning the project’s compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, specifically regarding the proposed rehabilitation treatment of the historic resources on the site and the design compatibility of new construction with those resources. BACKGROUND: The applicant completed a Preliminary Design Review round, including a tree inventory, a neighborhood meeting, and a historic survey of the property, prior to submitting a PDP application on January 26. The historic survey was conducted by Amy Unger of Pine Street Preservation. The resulting site form for the property referred to as the Oliver Homestead/Webster-Garrett Farm provides an evaluation of the farmstead structures on the site and captures a thorough history of the property in its immediate context. Staff used this information as the primary basis for the official determination of eligibility, which was issued on November 11, 2021. Staff concurred with Ms. Unger’s findings that the property meets the Fort Collins landmark eligibility requirements under Criterion 1 for its association with the agricultural history of the greater Fort Collins area. Established by homesteader John S. Oliver in the 1870s, further developed by subsequent owners, and operated by prominent Fort Collins farmer and sheep feeder Samuel F. Webster and his family from 1922 to 1965, the property’s period of significance is thus 1878 to 1965. While the four contributing structures—two farmhouses, a barn, and a granary—do not individually meet Fort Collins standards for landmark eligibility due to diminished integrity or lack of distinction, as a collection of buildings they comprise an increasingly rare surviving example of a historic farm complex in Fort Collins. The land use code calls for adaptive reuse of historic resources that meet landmark eligibility requirements, even if they are not already designated as City Landmarks or listed in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; therefore, the applicant plans to incorporate the four contributing farm complex structures into the redevelopment plan for the property. Retention of the historic farm complex is a primary driver in the Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 project site design. There are several non-contributing structures on the site—a stable, loafing shed, and corrals—that were introduced between 1983 and 1999. Those non-contributing structures are cleared for demolition to accommodate the new construction and associated site improvements. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES: There are four historic buildings on the site that are contribute to the significance and integrity of the farm complex as a whole. ca. 1899 Late Victorian Farmhouse:  One-story, rectangular plan  painted brick walls with wood trim boards  raised rough stone foundation  rough-faced stone lintels, lug sills and threshold  arched brick lintels  Rear wing with secondary hip roof and small brick chimney (which has been reduced in height)  hip roof; large front-gable dormer with decorative wood shingles  boxes eaves, beadboard soffits and decorative wood trim at fascia  original shed-roof enclosed porch with stone foundation on south wall Note: this structure includes one non-historic portion added in the late 1970s—a gable-roof addition with horizontal wood siding, west of the rear wing. It also has a significant missing feature—the original front porch is gone. Records indicate the missing porch was a twenty-by-six foot, hip-roof porch with Tuscan columns and wood skirting. The historic two-over-two window sashes have been replaced with one-over-one sashes. The east side porch has been enclosed with horizontal siding. ca. 1915 Secondary Farmhouse:  T-plan, one-story wood-frame structure on concrete foundation  Exposed rafters and purloins at the overhanging eaves (east-west building portion only)  Wood drop siding and vertical board siding (on enclosed porch attached to north-south building portion) Note: the window sashes and doors have been replaced and two chimneys removed. The window opening on the west side of the north-south wing has been changed. 1920 Granary:  rare example of a “studs out” type—wood studs and diagonal bracing exposed on exterior; interior side of studs clad with narrow, flush horizontal wood siding  one-story, wood frame  wood foundation  gable ends clad with horizontal wood drop siding that matches the barn siding, supporting record that it was constructed at the same time as the barn.  wide door opening on west wall retains one intact leaf constructed of vertical planks with strap hinges Note: the structure was moved to its current site between 1956 and 1969. There is a modern skylight on the east slope of the roof and the original windows and doors are gone. 1921 Barn:  Two-story, rectangular transverse plan with a central aisle  wood-frame gable-roof with exposed rafter tails and purloins at the overhanging eaves; features a hay hood at the north and a central cupola/ventilator clad in asphalt shingles with wood louvers above, exposed rafters at the eaves and a simple finial at the peak  wood drop siding and cornerboards Packet Pg. 21 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3  Concrete foundation Note: changes to fenestration after agricultural use ended in 1974 and the structure was converted to an antiques store. A pedestrian door was added on the west side and existing window openings enlarged and other openings added. New window sashes were installed in the new openings. The site form notes that closer investigation may reveal that some of the openings of windows and doors retain their historic size. Site features that contribute to the historic setting, feeling, and association include an historic irrigation ditch and open agricultural fields. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to maintain the residential use for the two farmhouse buildings as detached cottages for independent living, repurpose the barn for a community room, and repurpose the granary building for a storage building for outdoor equipment. The barn and the granary will be moved on the site and the two farmhouses will remain in their existing locations. Other than extensive site changes to provide parking, new landscaping, pedestrian walkways, and other required features and amenities, the primary new feature on the site will be a large institutional building of 246,040 square feet that will serve as the main structure for the senior living community. AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY: The “area of adjacency” for the purpose of historic review of the proposed changes is the development site because it contains identified historic resources. There are no additional extant historic buildings abutting the site. REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT: Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site or surrounding neighborhood context. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Complies/Does Not Comply SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The proposed redevelopment of this site includes new uses for the barn as a community room and the granary as an equipment storage building, as well as continued residential use of the two farmhouse structures. These proposed uses minimize or avoid significant changes to the exterior, character-defining features of the four historic resources. Complies SOI #2  The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. It is difficult to meet this standard in the context of intensive site redevelopment, but one appropriate strategy in that circumstance is to retain the historic character of the primary location and immediate setting of the TBD  Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 historic resources on the site. In the case of a farm complex such as this, retaining the original location and spatial relationships, as well as some sense of separate and intact historic character of the setting that stands out from the more intensively developed portion of the site, is often a workable solution that meets the spirit of this standard while allowing for the densification of historic properties in Fort Collins that are not otherwise protected as landmark sites. Because the proposed work includes moving the barn slightly to the west and relocating the granary building to a new location that is most advantageous to the farm complex site design, the Commission should consider whether these adjustments are justified based on the site constraints and potential benefits for both structural concerns and maximization of building reuse potential. Staff notes that the proposed move to the west for the barn is not a significant alteration to the original location and does allow for the applicant to addresses concerns regarding the barn’s structural condition. The proposed move of the granary building is mitigated by the fact that the building has already been moved in the past. SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Moving two of the historic buildings has the potential to create a false sense of history in terms of the spatial configuration of the farm complex and the functional relationship of those buildings to each other. The redevelopment should include visible indicators and/or interpretative signage to document that the buildings have been moved. New decorative barn doors could be falsely constructed as historic features. Commission should provide feedback on proposed design of reconstructed porch on primary farmhouse. The site plan also indicates the addition of building mounted art and sculptural features and site features that interpret or display stylistic accents evoking the property’s agricultural history and context. Certain features, such as the windmills pictured on the included illustrations, could create a misleading or false sense of history if they are not adequately distinguished as modern reproductions. On a site that contains original historic structures, complementary accent features on the site or on the new building, including signage, should balance creating a tribute to the site’s history with appropriate differentiation of modern features. Staff recommends further exploration of this issue to share suggestions and expectations for successfully meeting this standard. TBD SOI #4  Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. N/A SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Staff has not identified any detrimental proposed changes to remaining TBD Packet Pg. 23 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 historic materials and features. SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Staff has not identified proposed replacement of existing, historic features. The proposed work does include re-establishing the 1950-era fenestration pattern on the barn, which the Commission should provide comments on regarding suitability of this approach. TBD   SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. No identified concerns to date. TBD SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The site form for this property notes the following: “An archeological investigation of the property was not undertaken; however, farming headquarters of this age typically included privies and trash pits, which can include significant archaeological deposits. Documentation of such features was not found during research and the fields surrounding the headquarters have been heavily disturbed by cultivation. Archaeological significance is unlikely but further research would be necessary to confirm.” TBD Packet Pg. 24 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 6 Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Complies/Does Not Comply SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. There are no concerning aspects of the proposed work that would destroy existing historic materials that characterize the property. The new construction is generally well-differentiated by the sizeable scale, materials, etc. of the building, but its overall size and massing are not technically compatible with a historic farmstead site and they do significantly impact its setting. As with other redevelopment projects that adaptively reuse historic resources that are not designated landmarks, staff recommends reviewing the proposal against this standard only as it relates to the integrity of the farm complex’s immediate setting/environment, i.e. the northwest portion of the site containing the historic resources.   TBD SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With the exception of the slight change to the location of the barn, this Standard could be theoretically met in the unlikely event of the removal of the redevelopment site features and institutional building in the future. As with Standard 9, this standard is of lesser relevance in the context of intensive redevelopment of a site. TBD  Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Complies/Does Not Comply 3.4.7E, Table 1 Massing and Building Articulation 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Discussion Notes: Staff recommends that the Commission provide comments related to the building portions that are closest to the historic farm complex. Planning staff has asked applicant to re-visit building massing along E/SE to address compliance concerns with the general building massing standards for this location. TBD Packet Pg. 25 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 7 Massing and Building Articulation 2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. As noted above for standard 1, further review of this standard will likely be necessary as the project design adjusts to meet Planning staff’s concerns re: the massing strategy for the new construction. As a general note, stepdown of the new building on the west where it approaches the historic farm complex is an appropriate strategy for larger projects such as this. TBD 3.4.7E, Table 1 Building Materials 3. The lower story facades until any stepback (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non-EIFS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. Discussion Notes: The proposed materials include composite materials, manufactured stone, and fiber reinforced concrete log siding vs. real wood and stone products. Discussion of the materials located immediately adjacent to the historic structures is appropriate to consider opportunities to meet this standard that calls for non-simulated materials in the most visible portions of the new construction when historical compatibility is required. TBD 3.4.7E, Table 1 Building Materials 4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building, or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) three- dimensionality; 5) pattern. Discussion Notes: Planning and HP staff have expressed concern about the quantity of white color on the new construction and its contribution to the visual impact of the most sizeable portion of the new building. As color is only one option for satisfying this standard, the Commission may wish to recommend an alteration to this material proposal that would support staff’s concern. TBD Packet Pg. 26 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 8 3.4.7E, Table 1 Fenestration 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) similar window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to- void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Discussion:  Need more information from applicant to explain relationship of fenestration on new construction to historic farm complex. The submittal materials note that the window patterning has been designed to add variety and modulation. TBD Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Complies/Does Not Comply 3.4.7E, Table 1 Design Details 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Discussion: Applicant identifies entry elements closes to the barn as adopting “historical feeling materials, elements, and colors through gambles, cupolas, and timber elements.” Covered porches and corrugated metal roof elements are also notes as creating “a scale relationship that feels historical.” Also noted are the use of dormers that break down building mass. On the east façade, roof forms, a themed architecture base, porches, and building mounted art are noted. In the building portion to the north along Harmony Road, decks, bay window bumpouts, porches, and building mounted sculpture and art are noted. TBD Packet Pg. 27 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 9 3.4.7E, Table 1 Visibility of Historic Features New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. The applicant’s request for a modification for the build-to line requirement on Cinquefoil is a significant enhancement for the visibility and integrity of the northwest corner of the site that contains the farmstead complex. However, the viewshed and visibility of the historic barn that is so prominently visible on the ridge today when approaching the site along Harmony from the east will be compromised significantly by the sizeable new construction on the eastern/northeastern portion of the site. TBD ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation 2. Applicant Presentation 3. DOE and Site Form Packet Pg. 28 1 Historic Preservation Commission, March 16, 2022 The Overlander at Balfour, 3733 E Harmony Development Review Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager HPC Role Provide a recommendation to the decision maker (P&Z Commission) regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the land use code 2 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 29 Project Summary 3 Adaptive reuse of four contributing buildings • Farmhouses (2): independent living cottages • Barn: community room • Granary: storage for outdoor activities New building (3,4,5,6 stories - 246,040 square feet) Site 4 Harmony Corridor 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 30 5 Harmony Community est. 1870 Ziegler Farmhouse, 1905 Preston Farm, 1893-1940 Harmony Cemetery Randleman’s Grove Harmony School, 1931 5400 Ziegler (Fossil Ridge HS) 5117 Ziegler 6 The Oliver Homestead/Webster-Garrett Farm 1899 Farmhouse 1921 Barn1921 Granary1915 Farmhouse 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 31 7 Historic Resource Assessment • Criterion 1: Agricultural History (Farming and Ranching; Sheep Raising) • Period of Significance: 1878 (Oliver homestead patent) to 1965 (Webster ownership ends) • Farm complex with array of 3 building types • See attached survey document 8 Proposed Site Plan 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 32 Elevations 9 Elevations 10 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 33 Elevations 11 Elevations 12 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 34 13 Review Requirements 14 SOI Standards – Historic Resources • Rehab treatment for 4 structures • Move barn slightly west + new foundation • Move granary to new location Design Compatibility: New Construction • Does the design of the new construction comply with all six of the compatibility standards in 3.4.7(E), Table 1? 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 35 Page 1 of 3 U:\2021044.20-Balfour Ft Collins\06 Milestones\2022-0218_Historic Planning Commision Submital\FINAL\2022-0218_Project Narrative-HPC.doc Date: February 18, 2022 To: City of Fort Collins Attention: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 From: DTJ DESIGN, Inc. Re:The Overlander by Balfour- Project Information and Design Narrative Historic Planning Commission Submittal (previously submitted as Balfour at Fort Collins for PDR) 3733 East Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado PDR210011 Applicant: Balfour Senior Living, LLC Greetings, We are very excited to submit our Historic Review Application for this unique project. This submittal follows our PDR submittal on July 7, tree inventory coordination on September 7, neighborhood meeting on October 25, City of Fort Collins Architectural Inventory of historic structures on November 16, multiple meeting with individual city staff along the way to finesse and refine our initial design, and our PDP submittal on January 26. In working with staff to develop the design since our PDR submittal, we have crafted a project that will be rooted in the history of the site and surrounding area while being memorable for the community. This project incorporates a thoughtful integration of site design, technical requirements of Fort Collins, adaptive reuse of 4 historic structures and authentic architectural character. The following is a narrative describing the various aspects of this project. As noted in our PDR submittal, we are very inspired by the history of this area and the historic structures on site. The influence of major trail systems in the west and the bravery of pioneers to settle in areas of northern Colorado is something we want to honor in this development. In fact, even the new project name will nod to these historical influences. We plan to create events throughout the project to celebrate this history with theming and appropriately scaled buildings. The site design for this project is primarily driven by 3 factors: the historic buildings, the setback from Harmony Road, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. We are inspired by these influences and have crafted the design to respond in thoughtful, integrated ways. First, the city’s Architectural Inventory for this site has indicated that individually the existing structures on site are not contributing but as a collection they are important. To reinforce the relationship of these structures, we have created a village feel in the northwest corner of the site by clustering the reused buildings and surrounding them with open space and places for people. Next, we a have created a naturalized edge to the project along Harmony Road to reinforce the agrarian influences of the region. This area incorporates city requirements for water quality and storm water management while incorporating site sculptures relating to the historic roots of the site. This creates events for people meandering along ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 36 Page 2 of 3 U:\2021044.20-Balfour Ft Collins\06 Milestones\2022-0218_Historic Planning Commision Submital\FINAL\2022-0218_Project Narrative-HPC.doc the detached sidewalk that runs parallel to Harmony Road. Finally, to create integrated areas adjacent to the creek, we have significantly stepped the new building west from the creek edge and created outdoor areas for passive and active use. This space will create a naturalized edge for the project where enhanced native landscape will be used. Additionally, we have dispersed the parking for the project into three zones to avoid large parking lot collections. Our initial PDR submittal showed adaptive reuse for 3 historic structures on site: the barn, primary farmhouse and secondary farmhouse. Our current plan shows adaptive reuse for the 2 farmhouse buildings, preserving these residential uses as independent living detached cottages. We also plan to restore a front porch for the primary farmhouse as shown in the circa 1950 photos from the city’s Architectural Inventory and our own research. Since our PDR submittal, our structural engineer has evaluated the foundation of the barn and determined that it is not suitable for new uses and should be replaced due to deterioration and cracking. As such, our intent is to slightly relocate the barn west to a new foundation and keep its current orientation to Harmony Road. This structure will be adaptively reused as a community room, an extension of the social spaces at the first level of the new building. Since our PDR review, the city’s Architectural Inventory has also indicated that the granary structure should be preserved. We have revised our original design to incorporate the granary into the northwest corner village of buildings and plan to adaptively reuse this structure as storage for outdoor activities. We are proposing to relocate the granary closer to the other historic structures since the city’s inventory indicates the granary has been moved in the past. Our preliminary treatment plan for each structure is included in the individual building elevations of these structures. As part of this submittal we have also included structural plans for stabilization. The new building for this site is designed in a way to relate to the adaptively reused structures. In material, form, color and scale this building is intended to give the feeling of a campus extension from the northwest corner village. We have intentionally manipulated the edges, colors/ materials, window patterning and height to add variety and modulation. The overarching goal is the portion of the new building closest to the village feel like the working portions of a homestead (and relate to the reused barn) and the elements further away feel like the living quarters of the homestead (and relate to the cottages). The design intent is to evoke a feeling of a collection of buildings versus a large complex. Entry elements closest to the barn adopt historical feeling materials, elements, and colors thru gambles, cupolas and timber elements. At 3 stories in height, these portions of the new building are significantly below the 6-story allowable and create a scale relationship that feels historical by including covered porches and corrugated metal roof elements. To break down the building mass further, we have included dormers in a variety of shapes and proportions. Additionally, stepping the new building back further from Harmony and away form the barn allows for visibility of the historic features from both west and east bound lanes of Harmony Road. The portions of the building further from the northwest corner play off this intent while reinforcing the feel of a farmhouse through gable elements and base building materials. Portions of the new building are intentionally ambiguous on height and form to create a visual variety of building mass. The vast majority is below the 6-story allowable, with only a small portion of the project in the southeast corner at 6-stories. As the building steps toward Harmony Road, it also steps down to three and four story forms on the east side. On this east façade, we have enhanced this area of the building with roof forms, a themed architecture base, porches and building mounted art. To create variety along Harmony Road, we have also separated this portion of the building from those noted above with a one-story bridge. This creates a visual break while suggesting depth to the southern portion of the project (across a courtyard). Throughout this portion of the new building we have broken down the scale thru a variety of elements such as decks, bay window bump outs, porches, and thematic elements such as building mounted sculpture and art. Together the east and north facades create an integrated, visual experience on the corner as the project is approached from I-25. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 37 Page 3 of 3 U:\2021044.20-Balfour Ft Collins\06 Milestones\2022-0218_Historic Planning Commision Submital\FINAL\2022-0218_Project Narrative-HPC.doc The intent of the landscape design is to reflect the native plant community, provide year-round seasonal interest, and decrease water use & maintenance. Additionally, the landscape design will contribute to, and extend, the existing habitat along the Fossil Creek Feeder Ditch and contribute to the Harmony Road landscape goals. Plant material will be used to create intimate spaces within the site plan, provide shade and help scale down the building form. The management of storm water has been integrated into the overall landscape design and is address by providing for primarily underground systems with some naturalized above ground components. We appreciate the ongoing dialogue with the city to create a thoughtful project for the community of Fort Collins. As hopefully apparent in our submittal, we have put a tremendous amount of thought and craft into creating what is presented in our PDP. Collaboration is truly a necessity for projects of this complexity. We appreciate the city’s time and valuable input so far and look forward to advancing this project with the city’s continued input and guidance. Thank you for your consideration of this submittal, Lee Payne, AIA, NCARB, LEED A.P. Owner + Principal | Director of Architecture ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 38 Page 1 of 2 U:\2021044.20-Balfour Ft Collins\06 Milestones\2022-0126_PDP submittal\Comment Response and Narrative\2022-0124_Build to Line Modifcation Letter.doc Date: January 26, 2022 To: City of Fort Collins Development Review Center Attention: Brandy Bethurem Harras 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 From: DTJ DESIGN, Inc. Re:The Overlander by Balfour- Build to Modification Request Letter (previously submitted as Balfour at Fort Collins for PDR) 3733 East Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado PDR210011 The following is a narrative describing the request for modification to the requirements of Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings, 3.5.3 (C) (2) of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code along Cinquefoil Lane for this project. The primary reason for this request is the adaptive reuse of two historic buildings in the northwest corner of this site. Our design plans on preserving these building in their current location and surrounding the buildings with open space/ activity areas to create a residential and village feel. Preservation of this area for historic reasons is important for the city, as is modifying grade around these structures for improved handicap accessibility. For these reasons, we suggest no modifications in this area to comply with this portion of the code. The area noted above constitutes about 40% of the buildable frontage along Cinquefoil Lane since the northern most portion of this western edge is not buildable (80’-0” Harmony setback). Some edges of the historic structures are complaint with the 15’-0” maximum setback from the ROW, but for the most part are non-compliant. To reinforce the idea of edge along this portion of the site, we are introducing a fenced activity area and signed gateway to the project. To accentuate the historic structures and defer to their residential scale, we have stepped the new building back further from this edge. This places emphasis on the historic portion of the project and allows the new building edge to step down to a low, single-story porch. In front of this portion of the building is a small parking field of approximately 20 parking spaces. To avoid large expanses of parking lots, we have separated the requited parking into three zones, placing one along Cinquefoil to connect the fields and our two required curb cuts onto Cinquefoil. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 39 Page 2 of 2 U:\2021044.20-Balfour Ft Collins\06 Milestones\2022-0126_PDP submittal\Comment Response and Narrative\2022-0124_Build to Line Modifcation Letter.doc To screen this parking area and reinforce the edge along Cinquefoil, we are proposing an agrarian styled fence with landscape integration. This fence will match in style and finish fencing in other parts of the project and the activity enclosure further north along Cinquefoil. We believe these stylings and scale are more in keeping with the historic uses of the site and more in keeping with the spirt of exceptions noted in the land use code. We feel a larger building mass along Cinquefoil to reinforce street front would degrade the pedestrian experience along this street and significantly block view to the preserved area of the site for vehicular, bike and pedestrian users north bound on Cinquefoil Lane. Thank you for your consideration of this request. DTJ DESIGN, Inc. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 40 CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGSHEET INDEXNOTE: RENDERING IS FOR PRESENTATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS7+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)2853733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTALJANUARY 26, 2022PROJECT DIRECTORY$33/,&$17$5&+,7(&7'7-'(6,*1,1&3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301tel. 303-443-7533email. lpayne@dtjdesign.comContact: Lee Payne %$/)2856(1,25/,9,1*//&183 S. Taylor Ave., Suite 155Louisville, CO 80027tel. 303-895-7376email. csmith@balfourcare.comContact: Chris Smith/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7'7-'(6,*1,1&3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301tel. 303-443-7533email. gwhite@dtjdesign.comContact: Greg White &,9,/(1*,1((50(3(1*,1((5%2:0$1&2168/7,1*1526 Cole Blvd., Suite 100Lakewood, CO 80401tel. 303-801-2901email. dduncan@bowmanconsulting.comContact: David Duncan,0(*&RUS7600 E. Orchard Road, Suite 250-SGreenwood Village, CO 80111tel. 303-796-6000email. craig.a.watts@imegcorp.comContact: Craig WattsVICINITY MAPNorthPROJECT LOCATIONE. HARMONY ROAD CINQUEFOIL LANE (;,67,1*=21,1*HARMONY CORRIDOR DISTRICT)/225$5($5$7,2BUILDING AREALOT AREAFLOOR AREA RATIOTHIS PROJECT WILL OPERATE AS A MEMORY CARE, ASSISTED LIVING, AND INDEPENDENT LIVING COMMUNITY. INDEPENDENT LIVING RESIDENTS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO COMMON AMENITIES AND MEDICAL SERVICES AVAIALBE TO ALL RESIDENTS.PROJECT INFORMATION 352-(&7'(6&5,37,21MAIN BUILDING:• CONSTRUCTION TYPE IIIA• SPRINKLERED -FULL NFPA 13PRIMARY FARMHOUSE• NOT SPRINKLEREDSECONDARY FARMHOUSE• NOT SPRINKLEREDBARN -COMMUNITY ROOM• SPRINKLERED -FULL NFPA 13&2'(6800$5<%8,/',1*+(,*+7MAIN BUILDING:• 86'-4" (MAX)• 3, 4, 5 & 6 STORIESPRIMARY FARMHOUSE• 21'-3"• 1 STORYSECONDARY FARMHOUSE• 13'-3"• 1 STORYBARN -COMMUNITY ROOM• 25'-9"• 1 STORY249,500 SF5 ACRES X 43,560 SF217,800 SF1.15$5&+,7(&785(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785('7-'(6,*1,QF,ULV$YHQXH6WH%28/'(5&27ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'5$:1%<&+(&.('%<352-(&712,668('$7(5(9,6,2166+((7180%(5&23<5,*+7$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&k /DVW6DYHG 'UDZLQJ6+((77,7/(127)25&216758&7,21&?8VHUV?PDQGHUVRQ?'RFXPHQWV?%DOIRXU)W&ROOLQVBPDQGHUVRQ%<='UYW 30 *&29(50/$(-556/337+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NUMBERNAMEGENERALG000 COVERCIVILC1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLANC2.0 OVERALL GRADING PLANC3.0 OVERALL UTILITY PLANC4.0 EMERGENCY ACCESS PLANLANDSCAPEG001 GENERAL NOTESL100 OVERALL SITE PLANL101 HARDSCAPE PLANSL102 HARDSCAPE PLANSL200 SITE DETAILSL201 SITE DETAILSL202 SITE DETAILSL203 SITE DETAILSL204 SITE DETAILSL300 PLANTING SCHEDULE & NOTESL301 LANDSCAPE PLANSL302 LANDSCAPE PLANSL401 PLANTING DETAILSL501 HYDROZONE PLANSL502 HYDROZONE PLANSARCHITECTUREA200 OVERALL ELEVATIONSA201 ELEVATIONSA202 ELEVATIONSA203 ELEVATIONSA204 ELEVATIONSA205 ELEVATIONSA206 ELEVATIONSA207 ELEVATIONSA208 ELEVATIONSA209 ELEVATIONSA210 GENERATOR ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS & PLANA211 TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS & PLANA212 EXISTING PERSPECTIVESA213 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVESA220 MATERIALS BOARDELECTRICALE001 SITE PLAN - PHOTOMETRICS - ELECTRICALE400 ELECTRICAL DETAILSE401 ELECTRICAL DETAILS ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 41 6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?**HQHUDO1RWHVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION*(1(5$/127(6*BOTTOM OF FOOTINGB.O.F.BOTTOM OF STEPB.O.W.C.I.P.CLRCJC.M.U.CONT.DIA.FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONFINISHED GRADEF.G.FIELD VERIFYHIGH POINTINSIDE DIAMETERI.D.INVERT ELEVATIONINV.JOINTJTLINEAR FOOTLFCLMAXIMUMMINIMUMMINMANHOLEMHNOT IN CONTRACTNOT TO SCALEON CENTEROCOUTSIDE DIAMETERO.D.PLANTING AREAPAVEMENTPOLYVINYL CHLORIDEPROPERTY LINERADIUSRADREINFORCEMENTREINFRDSHTN.T.S.PLSPECIFICATIONSSTEELTOP OF BANKVERIFY IN FIELDT.O.S.TYP.WWMPOINT OF BEGINNINGLANDSCAPE GRADING NOTES(APPLY TO ALL LANDSCAPE RELATED FINE GRADING ONLY - SEE ALSO LEGENDS,SPECIFICATIONS AND CIVIL PLANS)1. Geotech ReportThe Contractor shall obtain and review the Summary Report and Recommendations prepared bythe geo-technical engineers and fully understand the existing soil conditions encountered prior tosubmitting bid. The Contractor shall comply with all recommendations made by the geo-technicalengineers, civil engineers, structural engineers and Owner's Representative, as designated in thesoil report, on these drawings, specified, or as directed during field observations and inspections.If a "Soils Investigation" on this project site has been performed it will be considered as a separatecontract to the owner.2. Inspection and Testing All earthwork operations will be subject to full inspection and regular testing by a qualified soils andmaterials engineer and this Contractor shall be responsible to coordinate scheduling, notificationand procuring test results and documentation as required - see Specifications. The Contractor shallnotify the Owner's Representative of any subsoil conditions encountered, which vary from thosefound during previous soil investigations and/or that may not have been known during design. Anyfailed tests which must be retested will be at Contractor's expense.3. Scope of Earthwork OperationAll earthwork operations shall be conducted in strict compliance with the project specificationsincluding but not limited to:a. Full locating, investigation and protection of ALL existing utilities to remain.b. Removal of any organic materials or debrisc.Stripping and stockpiling of all topsoil in approved location(s) - coordinate with Civil Plans.d.Smooth transition from proposed grades to existing grades.e.Replacement of topsoil after grading changes have been accomplished4.Moisture and Compaction See, and comply with, all specifications for depth of moisture density treatments, controls andcompaction requirements.5.Verification of ExistingSee "Legend" defining proposed grades, existing grades, and designed grades for adjacentconstruction by others. Contractor shall verify all existing grades to remain and all adjacent newconstruction grades for compliance with those shown, prior to bid and construction. All deviations orconflicts with proposed work shall be reported immediately (with written follow-up) notice within 24hours to the Owner's Representative for direction to proceed, but will not be considered as basis foradditional payment except as allowed in change order process per General Conditions andSupplementary Conditions under the existing Owner-Contractor Agreements/Contracts".6.Temporary BenchmarksThe plans may call for specific temporary benchmarks to be transferred to the site by a certifiedsurveyor and accurately established on site as a part of this contract. Contractor shall verify allbenchmarks and information used in design and compare to existing conditions.7.Positive DrainageIt is this Contractor's responsibility to provide proper positive drainage throughout this contract area.Field conditions shall be verified in conjunction with the proposed elevations to ensure thatadequate drainage is provided. Report deviations or conflicts to Owner's Representative.8.Max and Min Slopes Unless otherwise indicated, minimum slope for paved surfaces shall be 1% and minimum slope forsoftscape areas shall be 2%. Slope away from all structures at a slope designated by geotechnicalengineer. Maximum ground slopes to be 4' horizontal to 1' vertical, unless specifically shownotherwise or approved in advance.9.Finished GradeAll design elevations shown are "finished grades" unless otherwise indicated. Contractors shallrefer to drawings, details and specifications regarding depth of subgrade required to addimprovement thicknesses, etc. - see also "typical earthwork sections" detail, if provided.10.TopsoilAll topsoil and/or drainageway muck excavation shall be saved and stockpiled in approved locationsfor future use. All areas, unless slated for pavement or structures, shall receive a minimum of 8" oftopsoil respread and other soil preparation - see also specifications and soil amendmentrequirements, if provided.LANDSCAPE LAYOUT NOTES(APPLY TO ALL LANDSCAPE RELATED LAYOUT REQUIRED FOR IMPROVEMENTS - SEE ALSOLEGENDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND SHEET NOTES)1.Verify Survey InfoAll shown control points, baselines, benchmarks, property lines, setbacks, existing conditions toremain, and newly built adjacent construction (by others) shall be verified by a professionallycertified surveyor (PLS.) as a part of this contract. Any deviations from information shown orconflicts with proposed improvements shall require the Owner's Representative to be notifiedimmediately with written follow up (within 24 hours), describing any deviation or variations from theproposed layout as described in these plans. Written approval to proceed must be obtained fromthe Owner's Representative prior to any demolition or new construction.2.Field StakingAll work shown shall be field staked or otherwise denoted and subject to field verification, review,and approval by the Owner's Representative prior to any construction or demolition. Field staking ofall proposed work and adjacent construction (even if future work by others) may be required by theOwner's Representative prior to approval of all improvements and adequate stakes shall beprovided by this Contractor's Surveyor.3.AutoCAD Design FilesTo expedite the layout of the site, "layout coordinates and/or grids" may have been established asshown. For elements designed with CAD, Drawing files (.DWG) will be provided to the surveyor forstaking using surveyor established control points and benchmarks. These points shall be fieldstaked by the surveyor as a part of this contract at the contractor's expense. The layout of thesestakes shall accurately occur in locations as determined by the Owner's Representative and shallbe maintained throughout the duration of this project. The establishment of these points shall bereviewed and approved by the Owner's Representative prior to any construction in those areas andwill assist the Contractor in the layout of all site improvements as shown on drawing or otherwise.4.Dimension TolerancesThe construction tolerances for this project are minimal and the dimensions shown are to be strictlyadhered to.5.DimensionsComputed dimensions shall take precedence over scaled dimensions, and large scale over smallscale drawings. Dimensions shown with (+/-) shall be the only layout information allowed to vary,and may only vary to the tolerances given or to +/-1" if no dimension is given.6.Complete ProjectThe Contractor is responsible to provide "complete-in-place" systems and a complete project, andany intermittent or periodic approvals received for portions of work, stakes, grades, or forms (by theOwner's Representatives, architects, engineers, or others) shall not waive the Contractor'srequirements to comply with the intent of any and all portions of this contract.7. StakingAll locations for walks, roads, swales, walls, curbs, structures etc. shall be staked by a registeredland surveyor. All layout information is based on "Ground Coordinates" and the Contractor shallmeet with the Owner's Consulting Surveyors and Engineers to clarify all datum, benchmark, controlpoint requirements, walk, wall and other specific site improvements. Centerline layout informationwill be provided to the contractor by the engineer/landscape architect as CAD Drawing files (.DWG).See planting notes for tree staking.8.Curvilinear ImprovementsIt is the intent and requirement of this contract to provide curvilinear walks, walls and curbs withsmooth transitions and arcs (both horizontal and vertical). Straight segments and abrupt transitionswill not be accepted unless shown as such on the plans. Wood curving forms may be required toobtain the proper effects. All walk, edgers, paving edges, and other curvilinear forms must beapproved in field prior to installation.LANDSCAPE GENERAL NOTES(SEE ALSO ALL OTHER CONSULTANT/ENGINEER NOTES ANDDOCUMENTS FOR ALLRELATED INFORMATION)1.Owners Rep.These drawings and documents are submitted to the Owner for reviewand approval, prior to any release for bidding or construction.Contractors shall receive all bid information, instructions, bid forms,general terms and conditions, and all other required clarifications fromthe Owner's Authorized Representative administering this project.Unless otherwise indicated, the "Owner's Representative" for thisproject shall be a specifically designated by the owner. The contractorwill also be required to coordinate and correspond with other landscapearchitects from DTJ and other key consultants involved on the project.2.Project Manual DiscrepancyThese drawings supplement the other contractual informationcontained in the "Project Manual" and/or Bid Instructions(Specifications), if provided. Anything mentioned in the ProjectSpecifications and not the drawings, or vice-versa, shall be of like effectas if shown on or mentioned in both. In case of discrepancy indrawings or project specifications, the matter shall be immediatelysubmitted to the Owner's Representative; without his decision, saiddiscrepancy shall not be adjusted by the Contractor, save only at hisown risk and expense. The Contractor shall not take advantage of anyapparent error or omission on the drawings or in the specifications. Inthe event the Contractor discovers such error or omission, he shallimmediately notify the Owner's Representative. The Owner'sRepresentative will then make such clarification and interpretations asmay be deemed necessary for the Contractor to fulfill the intent of thecontract.3.Complete Project IntentThe "intent" of these Improvements Drawings, details and associatedspecifications is that the Contractor provide the Owner with acomplete, accurate, functionally and technically sound project asgenerally described in the documents. The drawings are diagrammatic.In most cases, unless explicitly noted otherwise, drawing symbols areused to represent complete-in-place systems to be provided, as part ofbase bid. All elements shown or implied by the drawings, if notspecifically detailed or specified, shall be installed per Uniform BuildingCodes, manufacturers recommendations, State Highway DepartmentStandards, City Standards and Specifications, standard industrypractices, as approved by the Owner's Representative.4.Conform to CodesAll work on this project shall conform to the current city of WestminsterBuilding and Zoning Codes, Ordinances, Standards and Specificationsfor Construction of Public Improvements, as well as all other applicablegoverning regulations in effect.5.Survey Control PointsAll range points, ties, benchmarks or other survey control points whichmay be encountered during construction, must be preserved ormodified/recorded by a registered surveyor at the contractor's expense.Immediately upon discovery, the Contractor shall notify the Owner'sRepresentative of any survey control points found and obtain directionprior to proceeding.6.PermitsThe Contractor shall coordinate and obtain all permits which arenecessary to perform the proposed work. Owner to pay for allconstruction permits unless otherwise indicated in the ContractDocuments. Contractor shall obtain, at his expense, all specialtypermits needed for specific items included with the work, unlessotherwise indicated in the Contract Documents. Contractor shallcomply with all notification and inspection requirements.7.TestingUnless specifically noted otherwise in the Contract Documents, theContractor shall obtain and coordinate all technical tests and reports bya certified independent laboratory or agency as outlined in thespecifications or these drawings. The Owner may, at the Owner's solediscretion, provide separate testing and/or inspection service, and theContractor is required to fully coordinate with thoseconsultants/contractors. Owner to pay for all soils and materials testing.8.Existing Condition SurveyAn Existing Condition Survey has been provided to the Owner byregistered surveyors under separate contracts for the basis of design.It is not to be considered as part of these Design DevelopmentDocuments. The survey information has been reformatted and includedin this set for general information only and intended to assist thecontractor in the general orientation of the site. The Contractor isrequired to visit the site, verify information, conduct any exploratoryresearch, and become thoroughly familiar with all existing conditions aspre-requisite of this bid submittal. Without exception, any deviations oromissions found between these plans and existing site conditions shallimmediately be brought to the attention of the Owner's Representative,but will not be considered as basis for additional payment except asallowed in change order process per General Conditions andSupplementary Conditions under the existing Owner-ContractorAgreements/Contracts".9.Utility LocatesExisting (or proposed by others) utility information shown isapproximate only and for general information only. It is not intended todepict exact locations of all utilities. The Contractor shall notify all utilitycompanies to stake and field verify the locations including depths of allutilities (existing, proposed by others, or currently under construction),prior to commencing any related operations. Contractor shall maintainutility locations/structures during all remaining phases of work. TheContractor shall report to the Owner's Representative any utilities thatmay conflict with proposed work. This Contractor shall explore,understand, and coordinate (with subcontractors and others) all utilitiesimpacts prior to submitting bid and shall be responsible for anymodifications or damages to utility lines, structures or injuriestherefrom. For existing utility information, contact Colorado "CallBefore You Dig" (Call 811) with minimum notice of three full businessdays in advance of location needs is required.10.Safety, Means, MethodsThese drawings do not specify safety materials, staffing, equipment,methods or sequencing, to protect persons and property. It shall be theContractor's sole responsibility to direct and implement safetyoperations, staffing, procedures to protect the Owner and hisrepresentatives, new improvements, property, other contractors, thepublic and others.11.Contractor/Owners Rep MeetingsThe Contractor shall meet periodically with the Owner's Representativeto determine marshalling areas, on-site storage, Contractor staffparking, security issues, construction sequencing/phasing, scheduling,and maintaining public, emergency, handicapped or operations accessbefore starting the related work. The Contractor shall meet any"Construction Criteria" or requirements shown on any ContractDocuments, construction documents, phasing plans or or any imposedplans by the Owner's Representative as a part of Base Bid.12.Coordination with Other WorkSome of the work of this contract may occur concurrent with work byothers. Phasing, sequencing and coordination, with work by others, andon-going facility operations in and around the site area is a part of thisContractor's responsibility. See other drawings, specifications, anddiscuss with the Owner's Representative for additional information.13.Period of PerformanceThe Contractor will be required to complete all the work of this projectaccording to these proposed drawings or subsequent clarification. Astrict period of performance, including dates of substantial completion(for all and/or portions) and liquidated damages may be an integralelement of this contract - see drawings and specifications.14.Removal / DisposalAny site improvements requiring removal under this contract shall beproperly and legally disposed of off-site or, at the Owner's option,surrendered/stockpiled in an approved on-site location per the directionof the Owner's Representative.15.As Built DrawingsThe Contractor is required to maintain a complete and "up-to-date" setof all Contract Documents, including clarifications, change orders, etc.,in good condition, at the construction site at all times. This set ofdocuments will be made immediately available for review by theOwner's Representative and/or authorized Consultants upon request.Complete "As-Built" drawings and document submittals are also arequirement of this contract - see also specifications and city ofWestminster, Jefferson County, State of Colorado Standards, ifprovided.16.WarrantiesMaintenance, warranties and performance guarantees may be arequirement of this contract - see specifications. Notes and details onspecific drawings shall take precedence over general notes and typicaldetails. The Contractor shall refer to all other Division Notes, SheetsNotes, Drawings and Project Contract Documents for additionalinformation.17.Other Related DrawingsContractor shall refer to "other related drawings" forall other related improvements that will impact thisproject and require coordination.B.O.S.BOTTOM OF WALLCAST IN PLACECENTERLINECLEARCONSTRUCTION JOINTCONCRETE MASONRY UNITCONTINUOUSDIAMETEREXPANSION JOINTEJDOWELED EXPANSION JOINTEJDFACE OF WALLF.O.W.F.F.E.F.V.FLOWLINEFLGALVANIZEDGALV.HANDICAPPEDHCHPMAXN.I.C.PAPLATEPVMTPVCP.L.ROOF DRAINROUGH OPENINGROSAW CUT JOINTSCJSCORE JOINTS.J.SQUARE FACE FOOTSHEETSTDSPECSTLSFFSTANDARDTOP OF CURBTOP OF STEPTOP OF SLABTOP OF WALLTYPICALT.O.B.T.O.C.T.O.W.V.I.F.T.O.SLWATER ELEVATIONWELDED WIRE MESHW.E.TOP OF ROCKT.O.R.ABBREVIATIONSPOBA PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES ORSHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED, OR REMOVED IN THEPUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATIONAND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OFTHE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAYALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATEOF OCCUPANCY.1. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONSAND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGESTRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSEDTOPOGRAPHY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS.2. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOREXACT LOCATIONS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALLEASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHERSURVEY INFORMATION.3. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE FINAL PLANS. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANS MUSTBE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THEIMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS.4. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICALEQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROMADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS. IN CASESWHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOT ACCOMPLISHSUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREENWALLS MATCHING THE PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THEBUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOREQUIPMENT SUCH AS CONDUIT, METERS AND PLUMBINGVENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCHSURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES.5. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUSTBE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN ISSHOWN WITH THESE PLANS.6. A MODIFICATION TO SECTION 3.5.2(D)1) ORIENTATION TO ACONNECTING WALKWAY HAS BEEN APPROVED AS PART OFTHE PDP.7. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITHTHE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OFTHE LAND USE CODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLYSHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE WITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITYSO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE ANDUNNECESSARY DIFFUSION.8. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THISPLANNING DOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BYSEPARATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY.9. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIREAUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE ANAPPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM.10. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLYANCHORED.11. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITYSTANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED ATALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALLDESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSIBLEPARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANYDIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NOMORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NOMORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE.12. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING WITHINRIGHT OF WAYS, STREET MEDIANS, AND TRAFFIC CIRCLESADJACENT TO COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE REQUIREDTO BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER13. OF THE COMMON AREA. THE PROPERTY OWNER ISRESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENTSTREET SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPENSPACE AREAS.14. DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF ALL PARKWAY/TREE LAWNAND MEDIAN AREAS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. UNLESS OTHERWISEAGREED TO BY THE CITY WITH THE FINAL PLANS, ALLONGOING MAINTENANCE OF SUCH AREAS IS THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER/DEVELOPER.15. THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT ISRESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL STREETSIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT.16. PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS(CC&R'S), OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTIMPOSED ON LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT,MAY NOT BE CREATED OR ENFORCED HAVING THE EFFECTOF PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE INSTALLATION OFXERISCAPE LANDSCAPING, SOLAR/PHOTO-VOLTAICCOLLECTORS (IF MOUNTED FLUSH UPON ANY ESTABLISHEDROOF LINE), CLOTHES LINES (IF LOCATED IN BACKYARDS), ODOR CONTROLLED COMPOST BINS, OR WHICHHAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF ANYINDIVIDUAL LOT BE PLANTED IN TURF GRASS.17. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTINGPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS,SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGEDOR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS18. PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OFFORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSEPRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETEDIMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THEFIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.19.FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BEREVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL PRIOR TOTHE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, APPROVEDSIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES THAT INCLUDE THEWORDS NO PARKING FIRE LANE SHALL BE PROVIDED FORFIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCHROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THEMEANS BY WHICH FIRE LANES ARE DESIGNATED SHALL BEMAINTAINED IN A CLEAN AND LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALLTIMES AD BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARYTO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY.20.PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: AN ADDRESSING PLAN ISREQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITYAND POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OFANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE PRIVATEDRIVE IS NAMED, MONUMENT SIGNAGE MAY BE REQUIREDTO ALLOW WAY-FINDING. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVEADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVEDBUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT ISPLAINLY LEGIBLE, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROADFRONTING THE PROPERTY, AND POSTED WITH A MINIMUMOF SIX-INCH NUMERALS ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND.WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD AND THEBUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, AMONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BEUSED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE.SITE PLAN NOTES:ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 42 FFE 4904GROUND FLOOR FFE 4891MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102 PARKINGAREA 3PARKINGAREA 2PARKINGAREA 1HARMONY ROAD.CINQUEFOIL LANE DOG PARKNEW BUILDINGGENERATOR ENCLOSURE(SEE ARCHITECTUREDRAWING)FOSSIL CREEKRESERVOIR INLET DITCHTRASHFIRE LANEPRIMARYFARMHOUSEGRANARYBARN(RELOCATED)SECONDARYFARMHOUSEPICKLEBALLCOURTMC GARDEN8' HARMONY SIDEWALKFIRE TURN AROUNDSERVICECORTYARD40' BUILDING SETBACKPOTENTIAL COTTAGE80 HARMONY CORRIDORSETBACK30' PARKING SETBACK5' SETBACK19'-0"19'-0"6.00'5'-0"8'-0"BIKE LANECINQUEFOIL LNPARKINGPARKINGBANNER MEDICALCENTER PARKINGAREAWALKWALK1L100392.41117.8485.1416.8691.23122.10 64.86 157.6263.27 61.13 49.378.008.8519.045.00EXISTING BARNLOCATION (TO BERELOCATED)L1001N.T.SPARKING SCREENSECTION6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?/2YHUDOO6LWH3ODQGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION29(5$//6,7(3/$1/0'30'60'1 = 30'90'NORTH5280MATCHLINEPROPOSED 1' CONTOURPROPOSED 5' CONTOUROVERALL SITE LEGENDLIMIT OF WORKPARKING AREA BOUNDARYEASEMENT / SETBACK LINESPROPERTY LINETREE REMOVAL PERMIT:A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THECITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES ORSHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN AREPLANTED, PRUNED, OR REMOVED IN THEPUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THIS INCLUDESZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THISPERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATIONAND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TOOBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THECITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TOCITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSORESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATINGTREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 43 8.00 8.005.005.00SITE SCULPTURE (TBD.)HARMONY ROAD.CINQUEFOIL LANE NEW BUILDINGPRIMARYFARMHOUSEGRANARYBARN(RELOCATED)SECONDARYFARMHOUSEENTRYPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAMAINLAWNCOURTYARDSERVICE26.0026.0026.0026.005.0025.8826.04 26.00 PAPAPAPAPAPAPORCHMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102 #4#5#1#2#9#36.00 PICKLEBALLCOURT5.00 5.00 PAPAPASITE SCULPTURE TYP.(TBD.)PEDESTRIAN ENTRY ARCH 5L202SITE FENCE 2L201BIKE RACK3L202HITCHING PSOTTYP.1L202SITE STAIRS 1L201BOARDFORMCONCRETE WALL7L200SITE STAIRS1L201EXISTING BARN LOCATIONTO BE REMOVED AS SHOWNPOTENTIAL COTTAGESITE FENCE2L201MAIN ENTRY ARCH 4L202BUILDING OVERHANG BARNCONNECTIONBOARDFORMCONCRETE WALL7L2006+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?//;;+DUGVFDSH3ODQVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION+$5'6&$3(3/$16/0'20'40'1 = 20'60'NORTHMATCHLINE(SEE KEY MAP)LIMIT OF WORKRIGHT OF WAYEASEMENT / SETBACK LINESPROPOSED 1' CONTOURPROPOSED 5' CONTOURHARDSCAPE AND FINEGRADING LEGENDLANDSCAPE EDGER(SEE DETAIL 8/L200)PROPERTY LINENOTES:1. ALL WALKS TO MAINTAIN A CROSS SLOPE OF 2%.2. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR FINAL GRADING ANDDRAINAGE.3. ALL SITE SCULPTURES TBD.4. ALL EXISTING TREES ARE, APPROXIMATELOCATIONS BASED ON AERIAL IMAGE, ALLEXISTING PLANT MATERIAL TO BE LOCATED UPONRECEIVING A PERFORMED CIVIL SURVEYCONCRETE PAVING (SEEDETAIL 1/L200)CRUSHED GRANITE (SEEDETAIL 4/L200)PATHWAY BOLLARDSCULPTURAL ELEMENTS (TBD.)PAPLANTING AREASITE FENCE (SEE DETAIL 2/L201)SITE BOULDEREXISTING TREES TO REMAINEXISTING TREES TO BEREMOVED#TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THECITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES ORSHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN AREPLANTED, PRUNED, OR REMOVED IN THEPUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THIS INCLUDESZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THISPERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATIONAND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TOOBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THECITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TOCITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSORESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATINGTREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 44 8.00HARMONY ROAD.DOG PARKNEW BUILDINGFOSSIL CREEKRESERVOIR INLET DITCHFIRE LANEENTRYPAPAPAPAPA PA PAPAPAPACOURTYARDSERVICE26.00PAPAPAPORCHMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102 PAPAPA26.00 26.025PAPAPASITE SCULPTURE (TBD.)SITE STRUCTURE SEEARCHITECTURE DRAWINGSDOG YARD ARCH6L202STACKED STONESLAB WALL6L200STACKED STONE SLAB WALL6L200BOARDFORM CONCRETE WALL7L200BOARDFORMCONCRETE WALL7L200BOARDFORM CONCRETE WALL7L200SITE STAIRS 1L201SITE STAIRS1L201BOARDFORMCONCRETE WALL7L200TRASH ENCLOSURE (SEEARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS)FIRE TURN LANESITE FENCE2L201SITE SCULPTURE (TBD.)6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?//;;+DUGVFDSH3ODQVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION+$5'6&$3(3/$16/0'20'40'1 = 20'60'NORTHMATCHLINE(SEE KEY MAP)LIMIT OF WORKRIGHT OF WAYEASEMENT / SETBACK LINESPROPOSED 1' CONTOURPROPOSED 5' CONTOURHARDSCAPE AND FINEGRADING LEGENDLANDSCAPE EDGER(SEE DETAIL 8/L200)PROPERTY LINENOTES:1. ALL WALKS TO MAINTAIN A CROSS SLOPE OF 2%.2. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR FINAL GRADING ANDDRAINAGE.3. ALL SITE SCULPTURES TBD.4. ALL EXISTING TREES ARE, APPROXIMATELOCATIONS BASED ON AERIAL IMAGE, ALLEXISTING PLANT MATERIAL TO BE LOCATED UPONRECEIVING A PERFORMED CIVIL SURVEYCONCRETE PAVING (SEEDETAIL 1/L200)CRUSHED GRANITE (SEEDETAIL 4/L200)PATHWAY BOLLARDSCULPTURAL ELEMENTS (TBD.)PAPLANTING AREASITE FENCE (SEE DETAIL 2/L201)SITE BOULDEREXISTING TREES TO REMAINEXISTING TREES TO BEREMOVED#TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THECITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES ORSHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN AREPLANTED, PRUNED, OR REMOVED IN THEPUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THIS INCLUDESZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THISPERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATIONAND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TOOBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THECITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TOCITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSORESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATINGTREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 45 COMPACTED SUBGRADE (PERGEOTECH)1" 4"JOINTING4" THICK STANDARD CONCRETEPAVING. SEE MATERIALSCHEDULE FOR COLOR ANDFINISH SPECIFICATIONS.ADJACENT SURFACE(SEE PLANS)NOTES:1. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIFICATIONS WITH REGARD TO ACCESSPATHS, THESE DRAWINGS ARE ONLY FOR REFERENCE OF COLOR, FINISH, AND LOCATION.2. CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH BROOM FINISH PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW OF TRAFFIC. ALL FORMWORK SHALL BE REVIEWED / APPROVED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO POUR.3. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE OFF WALKS/PAVING AND AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES IN ALLLOCATION / CONDITIONS. ADJUST ADJACENT GRADES AS REQUIRED TO PROPERLY DRAIN.CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM ALL PATHWAYS HAVE A 2% CROSS SLOPE MAXIMUM, AND MEET ALLLOCAL AND FEDERAL ADA REQUIREMENTS. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR GRADING AND SPECIFICATIONINFORMATION.4"CRUSHER FINESSTEEL LANDSCAPE EDGERADJACENT SURFACE(SEE PLANS)LANDSCAPE FABRIC ANDANCHOR AS SHOWN.CARRY EDGE TO WITHIN 1"OF SURFACE, PIN DOWNEVERY 12" O.C. (SEEMATERIALS SCHEDULE)COMPACTED SUBGRADE(PER GEOTECH)4"NOTES:1. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIFICATIONS WITH REGARD TO ACCESSPATHS, THESE DRAWINGS ARE ONLY FOR REFERENCE OF COLOR, FINISH, AND LOCATION.2. ALL SOFT SURFACE AREAS WILL BE FIELD STAKED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THEOWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.3. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE OFF ALL LOCATIONS. ADJUST ADJACENT GRADES ASREQUIRED TO PROPERLY DRAIN. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.4. 3/8" CRUSHER FINES 4" THICK, LAID IN 2" LIFTS, SLOPED TO DRAIN. COMPACT EACH LIFT.5. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE VERTICAL CHANGE BETWEEN PAVING TYPES DOES NOT EXCEED1/4" CLEFT.6. CONTRACTOR TO ADD A PATHWAY STABILIZER TO THE AGGREGATE PAVING. SEE MATERIALSCHEDULE6"4"CRUSHER FINESADJACENT PAVING (SEEPLANS)LANDSCAPE FABRIC ANDANCHOR AS SHOWN. CARRYEDGE TO WITHIN 1" OF SURFACE,PIN DOWN EVERY 12" O.C.COMPACTED SUBGRADE(PER GEOTECH)APAVING TYPE 3 AT CONCRETEBPAVING TYPE 3 WITH STEEL EDGERCNOTES:ϭ͘WZKs/KEdZK>:K/Ed^W/E'Yh>dKd,t/d,K&d,t><ͬdZ/>;ϭϮΖK͘KDyͿ͕KZ^Kd,Zt/^/Zdzd,KtEZ^ͬKZ͘1/4 THICKNESS OF SLAB SAW CUT JOINTCONCRETE PAVING38"NOTES:1. NO JOINT MATERIAL ABOVE SLAB LEVEL WILL BE ALLOWED.2. NO EXPANSION JOINTS WIDER THAN 1/2" WILL BE ALLOWED.3. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL EJ'S REQUIRED TO AVOID CRACKING OF PAVEMENT SURFACE.ANY ADDITIONAL JOINTS REQUIRED TO AVOID CRACKING OF PAVEMENT SURFACE TO BEPROVIDED WITH PRIOR APPROVAL BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.4. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SAMPLES OF CAULK/COLOR AND JOINT MATERIAL TO LANDSCAPEARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPROVAL.1/2"CAULK 1/4" BELOW SURFACE1/4" R 1 / 4 " T Y P .REINFORCED CONCRETE PERGEOTECH12" ASPHALT IMPREGNATEDEXPANSION JOINT MATERIALWITH BACKER ROD OR EQUAL1/2"1/8" CHAMFERCOMPACTED SUBGRADE(PER GEOTECH)$%28/'(5$'-$&(17723$9,1*%%28/'(5,1/$1'6&$3(ADJACENT LANDSCAPE,SEE PLANSNOTES:1. BOULDER MATERIAL TO BE LEDGE STYLE COLORADO BUFF SANDSTONE. SEE CHARACTER PHOTO FOR MATERIAL INTENT.2. SELECTION, LOCATION, AND ARRANGEMENT OF BOULDERS SHALL BE STAKED IN FIELD BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND APPROVED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT.3. A PORTION OF THE BOULDER CLUSTER(S) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A MOCK-UP SECTION. THE MOCK UP SHALL BE REVIEWED BY AND ADJUSTED PER THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. THE MOCK UPSHALL PROVIDE A VISUAL REPRESENTATION AND ACT AS A GUIDE FOR CONSTRUCTING ALL BOULDER CLUSTERS. A BOULDER CLUSTER SHALL INCLUDE AN EQUAL MIXTURE OF BOULDERS IN HEIGHTS OF12", 24" AND 30" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE GROUPED TOGETHER CREATING A MASSING (TOUCHING).4. BOULDER ORIENTATION AND POSITION TO BE APPROVED BY OWNERS REP. PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL AND ADJACENT IMPROVEMENTS. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN FINALGRADE ORIENTATION TO ADJACENT IMPROVEMENTS.5. ALL BOULDERS NEED TO AESTHETICALLY SATISFY THE TEXTURE, COLOR, AND GENERAL SHAPE FOR THE BOULDER CHARACTER IMAGES PROVIDED ON THIS SHEET.CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE WALLFINISHED GRADE, SURFACEVARIES, SEE LAYOUT ANDGRADING PLANCONCRETE FOOTINGAND REINFORCINGPER STRUCTURALVARIES - SEE GRADING PLAN SECTION / ELEVATIONSECTION - AVARIES - SEE LAYOUT PLAN1/2" CHAMFER- TYP.(ALL CORNERS)VARIES - SEE GRADING PLAN 12 TYP.4"BEHIND WALLDRAINAGESYSTEM, TIEINTO CIVILAL-5016"FGTWGRADE BEYONDWALLFGFG2% M IN. (VARIES) 4"MIN. 12" MIN.8 124" MIN.BURY 1/3 HT. OF STONE SLAB FOR BOTTOMCOURSE OF STONE.COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE,DEPTH AND MATERIAL PER GEOTECHCOMPACTED SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHAGGREGATE BACKFILL MATERIAL PERGEOTECHPROVIDE DRAINAGE SWALE ABOVE WALL INUPHILL CONDITION TO DRAIN STORM WATERAND IRRIGATION RUN-OFF AWAY FROM WALLADJACENT LANDSCAPE SLOPE TO DRAIN, SEEPLANSDRY STACKED SANDSTONE SLABSFILTER FABRIC4" PERF. PIPE IN FABRIC SOCKNOTES:1. STONE SLAB MATERIAL TO BE MASONVILLE BUFFSANDSTONE WITH NATURAL CLEFT FACE FINISH ONALL EDGES. LAY STONE WITH STRIATIONS PARALLELTO THE HORIZONTAL PLANE.2. INSTALL BOULDERS FROM BOTTOM OF SLOPEUPWARDS. BUILD FROM BOTTOM UP SECURINGBOULDERS WITH COMPACTED BACKFILL, PACKINGAGGREGATE BASE, TIGHTLY CHINK ALL BOULDERS(SIDE TO SIDE & TOP TO BOTTOM) TO ENSURE NOVOIDS OR SOIL FAILURE. FILLING VOIDS WITH SMALLSTONES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED.NO VOIDS WITHSOIL FAILURE WILL BE ACCEPTED.3. SELECTION OF BOULDERS SHALL BE FIELDAPPROVED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIORTO PLACEMENT.4. BOULDERS SHALL VARY IN SIZE. GRADATED FROMLARGER SIZES (BOTTOM OF WALL) TO SMALLER(TOP OF WALL).5. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY BASE STONEREQUIREMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER6. ALL SUBGRADE AND BACKFILL MATERIAL TO BEREVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STRUCTURAL ANDGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.MASONVILLE BUFF SANDSTONE WALL INTENTT.W.6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?/6LWH'HWDLOVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION6,7('(7$,/6/L20011" = 1'-0"CONCRETE PAVINGSECTIONL20041" = 1'-0"CRUSHED GRAVEL SURFACESECTIONL20023" = 1'-0"CONTROL JOINT - TYPYCALSECTIONL20033" = 1'-0"EXPANSION JOINT - NON-DOWELLEDSECTIONL2005N.T.SSITE BOULDERSSECTIONL20071" = 1'-0"BOARD FORM CONCRETE WALLSSECTIONL20061" = 1'-0"STACKED STONE SLAB WALL - IN LANDSCAPESECTIONITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 46 12"1'-0"TREAD(TYP.)6" RISER (TYP.)ADJACENT PAVING(SEE LAYOUT/PAVING ANDCIVIL GRADING PLANS)STAIR DEPTH ANDREINFORMCEMENT(PER STRUCTURAL / GEOTECH)CONCRETE STAIRS(SEE LAYOUT/PAVING PLANS FORSPECIFIC COLOR AND FINISH)2'-10"1'-8"1 12" HSS HANDRAIL (TO MATCHARCHITECTURE).6"1'-0" MIN.INTERMEDIATE POST TO BECENTERED BETWEEN TOP ANDBOTTOM SUPPORT POSTS(PROVIDE ADDITIONAL POSTFOR STAIR RUNS EXCEEDING 6STEPS, SPACE EQUALLY)6"6" 6"PARALLEL GROVES AT¾” ON CENTER AND 1 ¼” FROM STAIR NOSE,AND EACH GROOVE ¼”DEEP WITH ½” RADIUSSTEP LIGHT, SEE MATERIALSCHEDULE FOR TYPE.(SEE ELECTRICAL PLAN FORSPECIFIC LOCATIONS;COORDINATE TYPE & POWERWITH ELECTRICAL PLANS (TYP.))1'-3"NOTE:1. REFER TO GRADING PLAN FORNUMBER OF RISERS ANDRAILING LENGTHS.2. PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS FORALL RAILING FOR APPROVALPRIOR TO FINAL INSTALLATION.3. SEE PLANS FOR CHEEK WALLEXTENT AND LOCATIONS.2'-10"1'-0"VARIES1'-0"1 12" HSS GUARDRAIL (TO MATCHARCHITECTURE)CONCRETE STAIRS(SEE LAYOUT/PAVING PLANS FORSPECIFIC COLOR AND FINISH)PLANSECTIONSLOPED CONCRETE CHEEKWALL, COLOR AND FINISH TOMATCH ADJACENT STAIRS ANDPAVEMENT (SEE PLANS)SLOPED CONCRETE CHEEKWALL, COLOR AND FINISHTO MATCH ADJACENTSTAIRS AND PAVEMENT(SEE SECTION BELOW ANDLAYOUT/PAVING PLANS)COMPACTED SUBGRADE(PER GEOTECH)ADJACENT COMPACTEDAGGREGATE BASE(PER GEOTECH)5"(TYP.)2'-10"1 14"3"34"1 12" HSS HANDRAIL (TO MATCHARCHITECTURE)1 12" HSS GUARDRAIL (TO MATCHARCHITECTURE)3'-6"NOTES:1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MOCK-UP IN FIELD OF GATE SECTION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.2. ALL WOOD TO BE #1 GRADE WESTERN RED CEDAR, AND STAINED, SEE MATERIALS SCHEDULE FOR STAIN/SEALANT.3. ALL LUMBER SIZES CALLED OUT ON PLANS ARE NOMINAL SIZES, ACTUAL SIZES MAY VARY BASED ON INDUSTRY/SUPPLIER STANDARDS.4. ALL FASTENERS AND HARDWARE TO BE EXTERIOR GRADE SUITABLE FOR SPECIFIED APPLICATION. GATE LATCH AND HINGES PER FENCE CONTRACTOR, COLOR TO MATCH ALLOTHER FENCE HARDWARE.5. FINISH GRADE ALONG SOLID FENCES SHALL BE AT LEAST FOUR (4) INCHES BELOW THE BOTTOM OF SUCH FENCES FOR DRAINAGE WHERE LOT LINE DRAINAGE SWALES EXISTOR AS REQUIRED BY ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS.6. ANY WARPED AND/OR BOWED HORIZONTAL RAILS WILL BE REJECTED. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 2 SCREWS OR NAILS PER BOARD AT EACH POST.7. POST FOOTING PER FENCE FABRICATOR OR FENCE CONTRACTOR. FENCE CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF FENCE FOOTINGS TO OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVEFOR REVIEW PRIOR TO PROCURING MATERIALS & FENCE FABRICATION.8. 2" X 2" MESH FENCING TO BE WELDED WIRE MESH GRID. EXTEND 6"-9" BELOW GRADE (MIN. 6") TO EXCLUDE VOLES. INSTALLED PER SELECTED MANUFACTURERRECOMMENDATIONS.FRONT ELEVATIONREFERENCE IMAGERY2 SCREWS OR NAILS PERHORIZONTAL PANEL, EACH SIDEFINISH GRADE2" x 2" WIRE MESH GRID(2) 2" x 6" HORZ. CEDAR TOPRAILSGATE LATCH, PAD LOCKABLE2" x 6" HORIZ. CEDAR RAILS6"4'-0"1"6"2" x 8" HORIZ. CEDAR BOTTOMRAILNOTES:1. METAL (2" x 2") MESH TO BEINCORPORATED IN DOG YARDFENCING AND PICKLE BALLFENCING.578"578"6"1'-712" 3'-1114"6'-0"6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?/6LWH'HWDLOVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION6,7('(7$,/6/L20123/4" = 1'-0"SITE FENCESECTIONL20113/4" = 1'-0"SITE STAIRSSECTIONITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 47 6'-0"3'-6" 6" 3'-0"4'-0"6'-0"FINISHEDGRADE6" SQ.STEEL POST6" WOODRAILELEVATIONPLAN6" WOODRAILNOTES:1. SEE MATERIALS SCHEDULE SHEET L300FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDINGCOLOR, MATERIALS, AND FINISHES.2. INSTALL ALL FURNISHINGS PERMANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS ANDDETAILS.NOTES:1. SEE MATERIALS SCHEDULE SHEET L400 FORMORE INFORMATION.2. REFER TO MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONSFOR INSTALLATION AND SPACING.2.5' MIN.BIKE RACK,SEEMATERIALSSCHEDULE2' MIN.2.5' MIN. SEE PLANS ADJACENTSIDEWALKBIKE RACKSURFACEMOUNTEDTO PAVINGTYPE 1BIKE RACK CHARACTER REFERENCE IMAGERY8"3'-6"BIKE RACK,SEEMATERIALSSCHEDULEPAVINGTYPE 110'-3"7'-5"1'-0"FINISHED GRADE1'-1138"1'-838"(2) 2"x6" TUBE STEELTOP/BOTTOM RAIL(2) 6" SQ STEEL TUBEPOSTFCO STEEL LETTERS1'-218"5'-0"1'-0"1'-218"10'-3"9'-1034"PLANELEVATION13'-6"2'-4"FINISHED GRADE(2) 12" x 3" STEEL TUBE(2) 10" SQ STEEL TUBEPOSTSMTC CHANNEL LETTER4'-0" HT FENCE15'-0"43'-8"738"34'-10"2'-5"2'-0"19'-0"26'-0"3'-0"43'-8"WALKWAY ENTRY DRIVE5'-0"PLAN (B)SECTION2'-4"6"5.BL20214'-0"26'-0"2'-0" 13'-6" 2'-9"FINISHED GRADE11'-0"6'-6"5'-0"6'-6"(2) 2"x6" TUBE STEELTOP/BOTTOM RAIL(2) 6" SQ STEEL TUBEPOSTFCO STEEL LETTERS2'-6"26'-0"STONE VENEER PLANTER /BASE8"PLANELEVATIONLIGHT PENDANT6'-6"6'-6"13'-0"6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJ8?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?/6LWH'HWDLOVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION6,7('(7$,/6/L2022N.T.S.DOG WASTE RECEPTICLEL20211/2" = 1'-0"HITCHING POSTPLAN & ELEVATIONL2023N.T.S.BIKE RACKPLAN & SECTIONL20261/4" = 1'-0"DOG YARD ARCHELEVATIONL20241/4" = 1'-0"MAIN ARCH (DESIGN INTENT ONLY)PLAN & ELEVATIONL20251/4" = 1'-0"PEDESTRIAN ARCH (DESIGN INTENT ONLY)PLAN / ELEVATIONITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 48 6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?/3ODQWLQJ6FKHGXOH 1RWHVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONGENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES1.PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE - FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAFDENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALLTREES SHALL BE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT.2.IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH ANAUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATERUTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UPIRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP(TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THEIRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. IRRIGATION SYSTEMSTO BE TURNED OVER TO THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR MAINTENANCE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PARKS MANAGER AND MEET PARKSIRRIGATION STANDARDS. DESIGN REVIEW SHALL OCCUR DURING UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION REVIEW PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ABUILDING PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND INSPECTION BY PARKS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTRUCTIONPROCESS.3.TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FORLATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING.4.SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOILIN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8)INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEASTSIX(6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PERONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTENCERTIFICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLYLOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED, CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132.5.INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNERDESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHERINSTALLED OR THE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROWACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANYBUILDING IN SUCH PHASE.6.MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINALPLANS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITEDETAILS. THE APPLICANT, LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULARMAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS,WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TOMAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION.7.REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITHTHE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS.8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES:40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES.4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a).10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORTCOLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OREASEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCESWITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN.11. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORMDRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OFLANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN.12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -- AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANTAVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OFCONFLICT WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGESOF PLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES./3/$17,1*6&+('8/( 127(6675((775((127(61. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLANARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALKAND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BEPLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION(SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY.2. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THEDEVELOPMENT. ALL MUST BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTINGIS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE.3. STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES ANDPOLICIES. ALL TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL WORKS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSEDARBORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.STREET TREES SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND PLANTED BY THE DEVELOPER USING AQUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING STREET TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINAL MAINTENANCEINSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION. ALL STREET TREES IN THEPROJECT MUST BE ESTABLISHED, WITH AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF ACCEPTABLE CONDITION PRIOR TOACCEPTANCE.5. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER -- STREET TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATEDRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY SEPARATIONS BETWEEN TREES, STREET SIGNS AND STREET LIGHTS. STREET TREESTO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON PLAN MUST BEINSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION IS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO MEET SEPARATION STANDARDS.75((3527(&7,21127(61. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALLREMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL.2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTHUNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE.3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREEPRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORISTLICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITHSUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T- POSTS, NOCLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALLBE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE.5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENTOR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT,CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANYPROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES.6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE.7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARINGAREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVEFENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3)NOTE: UNDERSTOY PLANTING TO BE PROVIDED AT FOLLOWING SUBMITTALITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 49 HARMONY ROAD.CINQUEFOIL LANE NEW BUILDINGPRIMARYFARMHOUSEGRANARYBARN(RELOCATED)SECONDARYFARMHOUSEENTRYCOURTYARDSERVICEPORCH1 QM6 QM2 QR2 QR6 QR4 QR1 QR1 QM4 GT3 GT3 GT4 GT2 GT3 GT1 GT1 GT5 CO2 CO2 TA8 TA2 TA2 TA2 CO6 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 MSS1 MSS3 MSS5 CC2 PP4 PP3 PP4 MR4 MR3 MR1 ATMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102 6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?//;;/DQGVFDSH3ODQVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION/$1'6&$3(3/$16/0'20'40'1 = 20'60'NORTHMATCHLINENOTE:1. SEE PLANT LIST FOR QUANTITIES ANDADDITIONAL PLANT INFORMATION.2. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BEWATERED WITH AN AUTOMATICIRRIGATION SYSTEM.3. SEE SOIL REPORT FOR ALL IDENTIFIEDSOIL TYPES.4. UNDERSTORY PLANTING TO BEPROVIDED AT FOLLOWING SUBMITTAL.LANDSCAPE PLANTINGLEGENDLIMIT OF WORKPROPERTY LINESSTEEL EDGEREASEMENT LINEOVERSTORYCANOPY TREES(SEE DETAIL 1/4601)ORNAMENTAL TREESEVERGREEN TREES(SEE DETAIL 2/4601)UNDERSTORYSHRUB AND PERENNIALBEDSSOD LAWNRIGHT OF WAYENT (ENHANCED NATIVETURF)EXISTING STREET TREESTREE REMOVAL PERMIT:A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THECITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES ORSHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN AREPLANTED, PRUNED, OR REMOVED IN THEPUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THIS INCLUDESZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THISPERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATIONAND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TOOBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THECITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TOCITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSORESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATINGTREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY.NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THESONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING APROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFEBIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEYTO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTINGON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALLBE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTALPLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THECITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANTSTATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TODETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONALRESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL ANDCONSTRUCTION APPLY.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 50 20' UTIL (REC. NHARMONY ROAD.DOG PARKNEW BUILDINGFOSSIL CREEKRESERVOIR INLET DITCHTRASHFIRE LANEENTRYCOURTYARDSERVICEPORCH1 QM6 QM2 PS1 PS3 PS2 PS2 PS2 QR2 QR1 QR1 QM4 GT3 GT3 GT4 GTGT2 CO2 CO5 CO2 CO2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT5 CC2 PP4 PP3 PP4 MR4 MR3 MR6 AGMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102 6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?//;;/DQGVFDSH3ODQVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION/$1'6&$3(3/$16/0'20'40'1 = 20'60'NORTHMATCHLINENOTE:1. SEE PLANT LIST FOR QUANTITIES ANDADDITIONAL PLANT INFORMATION.2. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BEWATERED WITH AN AUTOMATICIRRIGATION SYSTEM.3. SEE SOIL REPORT FOR ALL IDENTIFIEDSOIL TYPES.4. UNDERSTORY PLANTING TO BEPROVIDED AT FOLLOWING SUBMITTAL.LANDSCAPE PLANTINGLEGENDLIMIT OF WORKPROPERTY LINESSTEEL EDGEREASEMENT LINEOVERSTORYCANOPY TREES(SEE DETAIL 1/4601)ORNAMENTAL TREESEVERGREEN TREES(SEE DETAIL 2/4601)UNDERSTORYSHRUB AND PERENNIALBEDSSOD LAWNRIGHT OF WAYENT (ENHANCED NATIVETURF)EXISTING STREET TREESTREE REMOVAL PERMIT:A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THECITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES ORSHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN AREPLANTED, PRUNED, OR REMOVED IN THEPUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THIS INCLUDESZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THISPERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATIONAND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TOOBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THECITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TOCITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSORESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATINGTREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY.NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THESONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING APROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFEBIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEYTO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTINGON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALLBE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTALPLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THECITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANTSTATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TODETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONALRESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL ANDCONSTRUCTION APPLY.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 51 WRAP ENTIRE SURFACE OFTRUNK UP TO 2ND BRANCH.SECURE @ TOP & BOTTOMAND 2' INTERVALS.2 x ROOTBALL DIAMETERSPECIFIED SOIL BACKFILL.WATER & TAMP TOREMOVE AIR POCKETSCUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROMTOP 1/2 OF ROOTBALL ANDREMOVE ALL NYLON TWINE.CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/2 OF WIREBASKETS '2127%5($.5227%$// CUT VERTICAL SLATSIN BURLAP (6 TOTAL)3" DEPTH WOOD MULCH.KEEP 6" FROM TRUNKPRUNE ONLY DEAD ANDBROKEN LIMBS (EXCEPT TOPRUNE WEAK CROTCH ORDOUBLE LEADER)DO NOT CUT/TRIM LEADERPLACE ROOTBALL ON SUBGRADE,6" DEPTH (MIN.) WATER BASINSAUCER BUILT FROM NATIVESOIL. REMOVE AFTER 1 YEAR &REPLACE WITH WOOD MULCHPLANT AT SAME HEIGHT ASGROWN IN NURSERY ANDKEEP TURF CLEAR FROMTRUNK BASE.NOTES:3. PRUNE DAMAGED OR DEAD WOODONLY, EXCEPT PRUNE TO ELIMINATEWEAK CROTCH OR DOUBLE LEADER4. PROVIDE THREE-GUY SYSTEMEQUIDISTANT AROUND TREE AT 120DEGREES & REMOVE AFTER 1 YEAR5. TREES WITH CRUMBLED OR BROKENROOTBALLS WILL BE REJECTED.EXISTING SUBGRADE OR 95%COMPACTED SUBGRADE6' LONG, 2" x 2" WOOD STAKESDRIVEN VERTICALLY INTOOUTSIDE BACKFILL AREADOUBLE STRAND GALVANIZEDWIRE WITH 12" PVC PIPE SECTIONGROMMETED NYLON WRAPNOTES:2. SET ROOTBALL ON UNDISTURBEDSOIL3. PROVIDE THREE-GUY SYSTEMEQUIDISTANT AROUND TREE AT120 DEGREES AND REMOVE AFTER1 YEAR4. TREES WITH CRUMBLED ORBROKEN ROOTBALLS WILL BEREJECTED.2 x ROOTBALL DIAMETERDOUBLE STRANDGALVANIZED WIREGROMMETED NYLON WRAPPLANT AT SAME HEIGHT ASGROWN IN NURSERY AND KEEPTURF CLEAR FROM TRUNKBASE.CUT & REMOVE BURLAP FROMTOP 1/2 OF ROOTBALL ANDREMOVE ALL NYLON TWINE.CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/2 OFWIRE BASKET '2127%5($.5227%$// CUT VERTICALSLATS IN BURLAP (6 TOTAL)3" DEPTH WOOD MULCH.KEEP 6" FROM TRUNK6" DEPTH (MIN.) WATER BASINSAUCER BUILT FROM NATIVESOIL. REMOVE AFTER 1 YEAR &REPLACE WITH WOOD MULCHSPECIFIED SOIL BACKFILL.WATER & TAMP TO REMOVEAIR POCKETSEXISTING SUBGRADE OR 95%COMPACTED SUBGRADEPLACE ROOTBALL ONUNDISTURBED SUBGRADE, DIGEDGE OF PIT 4" LOWER FORDRAINAGE3' LONG, 2" x 2" WOOD STAKESDRIVEN VERTICALLY INTOGROUND, OUTSIDE BACKFILLAREANOTES:1. STAKE TO FIRST BRANCHESAS NECESSARY FOR SUPPORT2. WIRE SHALL NOT TOUCH ORRUB ADJACENT TRUNKS ORBRANCHES2 STRAND 12 GAUGE GALV.WIRE TWISTED ANDENCASED IN GROMMETEDNYLON WRAP 6"-9" FROMTOP OF STAKE WITH 12" PVCPIPE SECTION. 2 WIRESUPPORTS SHALL BE USEDON MAIN STRUCTURALBRANCHES(1) 6' LONG 2" DIA.WOOD STAKE. REMOVESTAKE AFTER 1 YEAR.FORM SAUCER WITH 4"CONTINUOUS RIM3" DEPTH OF SPECIFIEDMULCH2 x BALL DIAMETERSPECIFIED PLANTINGMIX. WATER & TAMP TOREMOVE AIR POCKETSO.C. SPACINGO.C . S P A C I N G 18" MIN.18" MIN. SETBACK FOR SHRUBS ANDGROUNDCOVER12" MIN. SETBACK FOR ANNUALSNOTES:1. THE PERIMETER OF ALL CURVEDPLANTING BEDS SHALL BE PLANTEDWITH A ROW OF SHRUBS AS SHOWNIN THE PLANS AND AT THE SPACINGSHOWN IN THE PLANT LIST.2. INTERIOR PORTIONS OF EACH BEDSHALL BE PLANTED ATAPPROPRIATE SPACING ACCORDINGTO THIS PLANT SPACING DETAIL.3. NO WOOD MULCH IN GROUNDCOVER AREASPROVIDE 18" MIN. SPACINGBETWEEN DIFFERENT PLANT TYPESALL SHRUBS & GROUNDCOVERS TOUSE TRIANGULAR SPACING EXCEPTWHERE NOTED; SEE PLANT LIST FOR(O.C.) SPACINGCURB/EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BEDLINENOTES:1. PRUNE ONLY TO REMOVE DAMAGED OR DEAD WOOD.2. SHRUB PLANTING - REFER TO SHRUB BED LAYOUT FOR PLACEMENT OF SHRUBS.3. REMOVE ALL CONTAINERS, BURLAP WIRE OR OTHER MATERIAL SUPPORTINGROOTBALL.4. FOR GROUPINGS OF SHRUBS, MULCH ENTIRE PLANTING AREA.5. FOR INDIVIDUAL SHRUBS, MULCH PLANTING PIT AREA ONLY.6. NO EDGER FOR THESE SHRUB PLANTINGS SHOWN IN OPEN LANDS AREAS.7. GRADE EDGE OF PLANTING AREAS TO RETAIN MULCH.3(X)WIDTHOFROOTBALLSCARIFY SIDE AND BOTTOM OFPLANTING PIT TO ENCOURAGE ROOTGROWTH OUT OF PITEXISTING SUBGRADE OR 95%COMPACTED SUBGRADE12" MIN. DEPTH SPECIFIED BACKFILLMIXSPECIFIED MULCH LAYER (3" DEPTH)(IF PLANTED PRIOR TO AUTOMATICIRRIGATION) CONSTRUCT WATERINGRING AROUND SHRUB AT EDGE OFPLANTING PIT TO CONTAIN WATER TOA DEPTH OF 4".PLANT ROOTBALL AT GRADE WHICHSHRUB GREWSHRUB BED AREASFINISHED GRADEFINISHED GRADEMULCHING CONDITIONS:1. PROVIDE SPECIFIED MULCH IN THE FOLLOWING BEDS: A. PERENNIALSB. ORNAMENTAL GRASSESC. TREE RINGSD. SHRUB BEDSE. GROUNDCOVERS2. HARD COMPACT SOIL AT SHOVEL CUT EDGE3. SPECIFIED MULCH LAYER 3" IN PERENNIALS/GROUNDCOVER AREA4. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED:A. ALL ORNAMENTAL GRASS BANDING SHALL BE 3/8" GRAY PEA GRAVELB. ALL PLANTING AREA WITHIN THE MEDIAN SHALL BE 2"-4" WHITE RIVER ROCK COBBLEMULCHC. ALL OTHER AREAS SHALL BE SHREDDED REDWOOD 'GORILLA HAIR' MULCH. ALL SHRUBBED AREAS WITHIN OPEN SPACE / DRAINAGE AREAS SHALL BE RECYCLED WOOD CHIPMULCH, AS SPECIFIED BY HIGH PLAINS ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER.FINISHED GRADEFINISHED GRADEORNA MEN TAL G RAS SES /P ERE NN IAL /A NNU AL BE D ARE ADC TUR F SOD DED AR EASB SEE D ARE AS A8" MIN.VARIES6" MIN.VARIES3" MIN.VARIES 12"3" MIN.6"VARIES EXISTING SUBGRADE OR 95%COMPACTED SUBGRADE85% COMPACTED SUBGRADESPECIFIED MULCH LAYEREXISTING SUBGRADE OR 95%COMPACTED SUBGRADE85% COMPACTED SUBGRADESPECIFIED MULCH LAYERSPECIFIED PLANTING SOIL LAYEREXISTING SUBGRADE OR 95%COMPACTED SUBGRADESPECIFIED TOPSOIL LAYER85% COMPACTED SUBGRADESOD AND THATCHEXISTING SUBGRADE OR 95%COMPACTED SUBGRADE85% COMPACTED SUBGRADESPECIFIED TOPSOIL LAYERSPECIFIED PLANTING SOIL LAYERNOTES:1. PRUNE ONLY TO REMOVE DAMAGED OR DEAD WOOD.2. SHRUB PLANTING - REFER TO SHRUB BED LAYOUT FOR PLACEMENT OF SHRUBS.3. REMOVE ALL CONTAINERS, BURLAP WIRE OR OTHER MATERIAL SUPPORTINGROOTBALL.3(X)WIDTHOFROOTBALLSCARIFY SURFACES OF PLANTING PITTO ENCOURAGE ROOT GROWTH OUTOF PITEXISTING SUBGRADE (OR 95%COMPACTED SUBGRADE)12" MIN. DEPTH SPECIFIED BACKFILLMIXSPECIFIED MULCH LAYER (3" DEPTH)(IF PLANTED PRIOR TO AUTOMATICIRRIGATION) CONSTRUCT WATERINGRING AROUND SHRUB AT EDGE OFPLANTING PIT TO CONTAIN WATER TOA DEPTH OF 4".PLANT ROOTBALL AT 2" ABOVE FINISHGRADE6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?//;;3ODQWLQJ'HWDLOVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION/3/$17,1*'(7$,/6L4011N.T.SDECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGSECTIONL4012N.T.SEVERGREEN TREE PLANITNG DETAIL TYPEL4013N.T.SMULTI-TRUNK TREE STAKINGSECTIONL4104N.T.SSHRUB & GROUNDCOVER SPACINGL4015N.T.SOPEN LANDS SHRUB PLANTINGSECTIONL4016N.T.SPLANTING AREASSECTIONL4016N.T.SSHRUB PLANTING IN MULCH BEDSECTIONITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 52 HARMONY ROAD.CINQUEFOIL LANE NEW BUILDINGPRIMARYFARMHOUSEGRANARYBARN(RELOCATED)SECONDARYFARMHOUSEENTRYCOURTYARDSERVICEPORCHMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102 6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?//;;+\GUR]RQH3ODQVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION+<'52=21(3/$16/NOTE:1. SEE PLANT LIST FOR QUANTITIES AND ADDITIONAL PLANTINFORMATION.2. SEE SHEET L702 FOR PLANT MATRIX LAYOUT ANDINFORMATION.3. SEE SHEET L701 FOR PLANT DETAILS.4. DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS FROM BUILDING TO BEDETERMINED.5. SOIL AMENDMENTS (PER THE PARTICULAR HYDROZONEPLAN AND NATIVE SOILS) ARE REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED,UNLESS WAIVED. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED SOILAMENDMENT AFFIDAVIT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TOTHE ACTIVATION OF A HYDROZONE IRRIGATION METER.6. A HYDROZONE AGREEMENT MUST BE EXECUTED BETWEENTHE CITY AND THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THE ACTIVATIONOF A HYDROZONE IRRIGATION METER. THIS AGREEMENTSHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERKAND RECORDER.LANDSCAPE HYRDOZONE LEGENDMODERATELOWTREE REMOVAL PERMIT:A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THECITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES ORSHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN AREPLANTED, PRUNED, OR REMOVED IN THEPUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THIS INCLUDESZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THISPERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATIONAND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TOOBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THECITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TOCITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSORESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATINGTREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 53 HARMONY ROAD.DOG PARKNEW BUILDINGFOSSIL CREEKRESERVOIR INLET DITCHTRASHFIRE LANEENTRYCOURTYARDSERVICEPORCHMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102 6+((7180%(56+((77,7/(5(9,6,216352-(&712&+(&.('%<'5$:1%<,668('$7(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($5&+,7(&785(ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'7-'(6,*1,QF:HVW3HDFKWUHH6W6WH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7'UDZLQJX?EDOIRXUIWFROOLQV?&$'?6KHHWV?6'?//;;+\GUR]RQH3ODQVGZJ /DVW6DYHG-DQXDU\$0E\*RQGHUGRQN /DVW3ORWWHG$0 &23<5,*+7k$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&75*:*2-97+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION+<'52=21(3/$16/NOTE:1. SEE PLANT LIST FOR QUANTITIES AND ADDITIONAL PLANTINFORMATION.2. SEE SHEET L702 FOR PLANT MATRIX LAYOUT ANDINFORMATION.3. SEE SHEET L701 FOR PLANT DETAILS.4. DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS FROM BUILDING TO BEDETERMINED.5. SOIL AMENDMENTS (PER THE PARTICULAR HYDROZONEPLAN AND NATIVE SOILS) ARE REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED,UNLESS WAIVED. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED SOILAMENDMENT AFFIDAVIT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TOTHE ACTIVATION OF A HYDROZONE IRRIGATION METER.6. A HYDROZONE AGREEMENT MUST BE EXECUTED BETWEENTHE CITY AND THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THE ACTIVATIONOF A HYDROZONE IRRIGATION METER. THIS AGREEMENTSHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERKAND RECORDER.LANDSCAPE HYRDOZONE LEGENDMODERATELOWTREE REMOVAL PERMIT:A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THECITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES ORSHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN AREPLANTED, PRUNED, OR REMOVED IN THEPUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THIS INCLUDESZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THISPERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATIONAND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TOOBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THECITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TOCITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSORESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATINGTREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 54 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 55 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 56 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 57 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 58 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 59 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 60 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 61 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 62 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 63 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 64 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 65 $5&+,7(&785(3/$11,1*/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785('7-'(6,*1,QF,ULV$YHQXH6WH%28/'(5&27ZZZGWMGHVLJQFRP'5$:1%<&+(&.('%<352-(&712,668('$7(5(9,6,2166+((7180%(5&23<5,*+7$//5,*+765(6(59(''7-'(6,*1,1&k /DVW6DYHG 'UDZLQJ6+((77,7/(127)25&216758&7,21&?8VHUV?PDQGHUVRQ?'RFXPHQWV?%DOIRXU)W&ROOLQVBPDQGHUVRQ%<='UYW 30 $(;,67,1*3(563(&7,9(60/$(-556/337+(29(5/$1'(5%<%$/)285 (+$5021<52$')257&2//,16&2 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$168%0,77$/SCALE: N.T.S.A2123PERSPECTIVE 3SCALE: N.T.S.A2121PERSPECTIVE 1SCALE: N.T.S.A2122PERSPECTIVE 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 66 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 67 Scale: 1/8” = 1’- 0”0’ 4’ 8’ 16’NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTIONNovember 17, 2021The Overlander by Balfour50% Schematic DesignFort Collins, CO19Barn - ElevationsNORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONNE Corner: grade beam displacedoutward to east, along with base ofbearing wall, creating out-of-plumb wallcondition above. Present over roughly1/3 of east sideRegularly-spaced separationcracks in existing grade beamobserved along all elevations,indicating absence ofreinforcingNew Barn exterior foundation: 12"x 24" grade beam with 2-#5 T&Bon 12" x 16" wide continuousfooting with 3-#5 Bottom, #4vertical bars at 24" - typ.Interior post footings: 12" x 2'-0"square, with 4-#5 each waybottom (6 locations assumed)-typ.Barn ElevationsFeb 3, 2022Replace all deteriorated framingand siding: attach each sidingboard with 2 screws ectors perframing member - typ.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 68 Scale: 1/4” = 1’- 0”0’ 2’ 4’ 8’NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTIONNovember 17, 2021The Overlander by Balfour50% Schematic DesignFort Collins, CO20Cottage - ElevationsNORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONLater addition:wood sidingwith CMUgrade beamNE Corner: grade beam displacedoutward to east, along with base ofbearing wall, creating out-of-plumb wallcondition above. Present over most ofeast elevationSettlement cracking in brick;re-level wall as part of new pierinstallation; re-point brickafterwardNorth Cottage ElevationsFeb 3, 2022New helical pier with supportangle under base of grade beam,6' max. on center and at eachcorner - typ. pending input frompier subcontractorExisting stone grade beam- typ. at original portion:re-mortar joints after pierinstallation1'-11 1/2"Existing CMU grade beam- typ. at addition; re-mortarjoints after pier installationHelical pier under each newporch post, and at 6' max oncenter under existing stonegrade beam at house - typ.30'-4"Restore wall, gradebeam to vertical on newhelical piers, re-point asneededAdd wood diagonal membersbetween each rafter and ceilingjoist to form trusses: min. 3screws per connection - typ.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 69 Scale: 1/4” = 1’- 0”0’ 2’ 4’ 8’NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTIONNovember 17, 2021The Overlander by Balfour50% Schematic DesignFort Collins, CO21Cottage - Elevations NORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONBased on further exploration, if onlySOG present: excavate and shorewall, install new grade beam, 10"wide x 36" deep with 2-#4 T&B -project reinforcing Class B laplength between pours - typ.Alternate if grade beam /thickened slab edge present :install helical piers with ledgeplate at base of existing slab, 6'max. on center and at eachcorner - typ.South Cottage ElevationsFeb 3, 2022Add wood diagonal membersbetween each rafter and ceilingjoist to form trusses: min. 3screws per connection - typ.Replace all deteriorated framingand siding: attach each sidingboard with 2 screws ectors perframing member - typ.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 70 Scale: 1/4” = 1’- 0”0’ 2’ 4’ 8’NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTIONNovember 17, 2021The Overlander by Balfour50% Schematic DesignFort Collins, CO22Granary - Elevations NORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONNew grade beam, 10" wide x 36"deep with 2-#4 T&B - typ.Base scope: Existing floor joists(connected to exterior studs) bear onnew grade beam. Alternate: removejoists, add base plate all elevations, withslab on grade floorGranary ElevationsFeb 3, 2022Replace all deteriorated framingand siding: attach each sidingboard with 2 screws ectors perframing member - typ.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 71 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services OFFICIAL DETERMINATION: FORT COLLINS LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Historic Building Name: Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm Property Address: 3733 East Harmony Determination: ELIGIBLE Issued: November 11, 2021 Expiration: November 11, 2026 Kathryn Joy Anderson, Elsie A Winchester, BN Harmony LLC, Bill Ray Winchester II, Sheri W Lucas PO Box 2632 Monument, CO 80132 Dear Property Owners: This letter provides you with confirmation that your property has been evaluated for Fort Collins landmark eligibility, following the requirements in Chapter 14, Article II of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and has been found eligible for landmark designation. An intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form was completed by a third-party historic preservation consultant in order to provide the information that serves as the basis for an evaluation of a property’s historic and/or architectural significance and its integrity, both of which are required for landmark eligibility as per Article II, Section 14-22. Staff has made the following findings regarding the information and evaluation of significance, integrity, and Fort Collins landmark eligibility provided by the consultant in the attached form. Significance Consultant’s evaluation (abbreviated; see attached inventory form for full explanation): The Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm appears to be eligible for listing as a Fort Collins Landmark district under Criterion 1 in the area of Agriculture per the guidance embodied in Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area 1862-1994. The historic resources within the farm complex represent property types associated with the “Farming and Ranching” and “Sheep Raising and Woolgrowing” historic contexts. The period of significance begins in 1878, when John S. Oliver received patent to the northeast quarter of Section 4, Township 6N, Range 68W after improving the land under the requirements of the 1862 Homestead Act, to 1965, when ownership by the Samuel Webster family ended. The headquarters of the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm includes representative examples of the farmhouse, barn, granary, and outbuilding types. Considered as isolated resources, the four historic buildings within the district do not appear to be individually eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks, due to diminished individual integrity or lack of distinction (perhaps with the exception of the granary, given the rarity of the type). However, viewed as a collection of historically related agricultural buildings, these ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 72 - 2 - four buildings comprise an increasingly rare historic farm complex with a good array of representative property types. The farm complex includes four contributing resources, a modest ca. 1899 farmhouse typical of the style of homes built by homesteaders and farmers who had enjoyed a modicum of success by the late-1800s and early 1900s and sought to upgrade their living situation; a large, wood-frame gable- roof transverse plan barn, presumably used to store farm machinery and crops grown for livestock feeding; a rare “studs out” type granary; and a secondary farmhouse, presumably providing living quarters for farmhands or extended family members. A stable, loafing shed, and corrals constructed south of the complex ca. 1983-1999 were introduced after the period of significance and are not considered contributing resources within the district. Compared with the surviving agricultural resources in the area, the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm headquarters is notable first and foremost as a relatively intact farm complex containing an array of resource types representing a variety of agricultural functions, adjacent to a historic irrigation ditch and surrounded by open fields, which provide a strong sense of the building’s historical setting, feeling, and association. The complex is further distinguished by the presence of a farmhouse that is comparatively more modest than the Ziegler and Preston farmhouses, providing a sense of how farmers who were successful but less wealthy. The complex gains additional importance from the presence of a “studs out” granary. When conducting research for their 1995 reconnaissance survey and historic contexts report, McWilliams and McWilliams identified only five surviving granaries within the Fort Collins urban growth area. The Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm does not appear to be eligible for listing as a Fort Collins Landmark district under Criterion 3 for Architecture, given the removal of the front porch from the ca. 1899 farmhouse and changes to the ca. 1921 barn’s fenestration after the property ceased to be used for agricultural purposes ca. 1974. The Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm may be eligible for listing as a Fort Collins Landmark district under Criterion 2 for its association with Samuel F. Webster and his extensive farming and sheep feeding venture. Webster reportedly owned 42 farms at the time of his death in 1960 and a comparative analysis of all properties associated with Webster was beyond the scope of this survey. Webster did not live on the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm and the extent of his direct involvement in the development and operation of this particular farm is not known. Such an analysis would be necessary to evaluate if this property best represents Samuel Webster’s farming and livestock feeding activities and his substantive impact on the agricultural industry in Fort Collins. The farming activities of previous owners and Isabel and Roy Garrett do not appear to rise to the level of significance necessary for listing under Criterion 2. An archeological investigation of the property was not undertaken; however, farming headquarters of this age typically included privies and trash pits, which can include significant archaeological deposits. Documentation of such features was not found during research and the fields surrounding the headquarters have been heavily disturbed by cultivation. Archaeological significance is unlikely but further research would be necessary to confirm. Staff agrees with the consultant’s conclusions regarding the property’s significance under Criterion 1, based on the following findings. • The property’s statement of significance is supported by a discussion of historical context and a comparative analysis that is appropriate for the property. Relevant context reports have been referenced and cited. • Each significance criterion is addressed in the statement of significance, even if not applicable. • For eligible properties, a period of significance is provided and justified based on the available records. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 73 - 3 - Integrity Consultant’s evaluation (abbreviated; see attached inventory form for full explanation): According to the historic contexts and survey report, Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area 1862-1994, intact historic agricultural properties are rare in the Fort Collins area and should be given special consideration, stating that “those that do remain accrue additional significance, and their integrity should be evaluated in the broadest terms possible.” The report also emphasizes the heightened significance of farm complexes, stating that “farm buildings that still exist in association with other farm buildings and features, are potentially more significant than isolated farm buildings.” The integrity of the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm headquarters was evaluated based on this guidance and found to be sufficient for potential eligibility as a Fort Collins Landmark district under Criterion 1 for Agriculture with a period of significance from 1878 to 1965. Staff agrees with the consultant’s conclusions regarding the property’s integrity based on the following findings. • Essential physical features are identified in the integrity analysis and related to period of significance. • Discussion of integrity relates to the property’s most relevant aspects of integrity per its significance. • Discussion of integrity focuses on the property’s essential physical features and relates to period of significance. Statement of Eligibility: The Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm is determined eligible for listing as a Fort Collins Landmark district under Criterion 1 in the area of Agriculture for its association with historic trends in the development of farming and ranching in the Fort Collins area and the growth of the sheep feeding industry after 1889. Alterations to the ca. 1899 farmhouse and ca. 1921 barn completed ca. 1974 appear to discourage eligibility under Criterion 3 in the area of Architecture, and a comprehensive comparative study of resources associated with Samuel F. Webster is needed to fully evaluate potential eligibility under Criterion 2 for the property’s association with Webster. While the property retains sufficient collective integrity to support its eligibility as the Fort Collins landmark based on the particular guidance for extant farm complexes in the Fort Collins growth management area, the farm complex does not appear to retain the higher level of integrity required for listing in the National Register. Per Article II, Section 14-23 of the code, any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's determination listed at the top of this document. If you have any questions regarding this determination, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at mbzdek@fcgov.com. Sincerely, Maren Bzdek Interim Historic Preservation Services Manager Attachment: Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 74 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District Field Evaluation of Fort Collins Landmark Eligibility ☒ Individually Eligible (as a district) ☐ Contributing to District ☐ Not Eligible ☐ Likely Eligible for State/National Register General Recommendations: Established by homesteader John S. Oliver in the 1870s, further developed by subsequent owners, and operated by prominent Fort Collins farmer and sheep feeder Samuel F. Webster and his family from 1922 to 1965, the historic farm complex at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. was surveyed at the reconnaissance level in 1995, but not evaluated for potential eligibility at that time. The Oliver Homestead- Webster-Garrett Farm appears to be eligible for listing as a Fort Collins Landmark district under Criterion 1 in the area of Agriculture for its association with historic trends in the development of farming and ranching in the Fort Collins area and the growth of the sheep feeding industry after 1889. Alterations to the ca. 1899 farmhouse and ca. 1921 barn completed ca. 1974 appear to discourage eligibility under Criterion 3 in the area of Architecture, and a comprehensive comparative study of resources associated with Samuel F. Webster is needed to fully evaluate potential eligibility under Criterion 2 for the property’s association with Webster. When compared with the nearby National Register-listed Preston Farm at the time of its listing in 2001, the farm complex does not appear to retain the high level of integrity required for listing in the National Register. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 75 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. I. Identification 1. Resource number: Click here to enter text. 2. Temporary resource number: 3733 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm 6. Current building name: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. 7. Building address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80528 8. Owner name and address: Kathryn Joy Anderson, Elsie A. Winchester, B N Harmony LLC, Bill Ray Winchester II, Sheri W. Lucas, PO Box 2632, Monument, CO 80132 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6th PM Township 6N Range 68W ¼ of ¼ of N ½ of NE ¼ of section 4 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 499468 mE 4485756 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins Year: 1984 Map scale: 7.5' ☒ 15' ☐ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): n/a Block: n/a Addition: n/a Year of Addition: n/a 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The boundary consists of the legal parcel as established when the Oliver Homestead-Webster- Garrett Farm property was subdivided in 1974 and includes the farm headquarters and a portion of the agricultural fields historically associated with the farm’s operations. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 44 x Width 26 16. Number of stories: 1 17. Primary external wall material(s): Brick 18. Roof configuration: Hip 19. Primary external roof material: Composition Shingle 20. Special features: Arched brick lintels, stone sills, decorative wood shingles, dormer 21. General architectural description: Primary Farmhouse, ca. 1899, contributing building A 26’ x 44’ rectangular-plan, one-story brick house stands facing north on a raised stone foundation approximately 70’ south of E. Harmony Rd. The hip roof features a large front-gable dormer on the north ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 76 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. slope. The roof and dormer are covered with composition shingle roofing material. The roof’s overhanging eaves are boxed, with beadboard soffits and decorative wood trim at the fascia. The dormer roof is of the same design and the gable is filled with decorative wood shingles. The dormer’s central window, installed ca. 1974, is covered by a plywood panel. A secondary hip roof shelters the 18’ x 14’ rear wing; a small brick chimney rises from the ridge of this roof. The foundation walls are constructed of rough-faced rectangular stone blocks with beaded mortar joints. The walls above are painted brick with wood trim boards at the top of the walls. North Side: The north side has a door opening with a rough-faced stone lintel and threshold, set off- center to the east. A brick stoop sits outside the entry. Concrete pavers have been installed on top of the brick. The door opening is infilled with a plywood panel. The door opening is flanked by two window openings with rough-faced stone lug sills and infilled with plywood panels. East Side: The east side has a single window opening with a rough-faced stone lug sill and arched brick lintel to the north and a pair of window openings with rough-faced stone lug sills and arched brick lintels to the south. The window openings are infilled with plywood panels. To the south is an 8’ x 14’ shed-roof enclosed porch, which presumably dates to the home’s original construction period given its stone foundation. The porch projects 2’ from the east wall of the house. The porch walls are clad with wide horizontal siding. A concrete stoop sits outside a door opening on the north side of the porch’s east wall. The opening is covered by a plywood panel. A light fixture sits south of the entry. To the south is a small wood-framed window opening, infilled with a plywood panel. South Side: The south wall of the enclosed porch as a small wood-framed window opening, infilled with a plywood panel. The south wall of the enclosed porch is flush with the south wall of the rear wing. The south wall of the rear wing is brick and features two window openings. The east window opening has a rough-faced stone lintel and brick sill; the west window opening has a rough-faced stone lug sill and arched brick lintel. Both window openings are infilled with plywood panels. At ground level, there is a central opening with an arched brick lintel set into the stone foundation wall. The opening is infilled with plywood, and an older pipe/tap extends from the opening. West of the rear wing is the south wall of a 12’ x 17’ non-historic gable-roof addition. The addition sits on a concrete block foundation and the walls are clad with wide horizontal wood siding. The south wall is flush with the south wall of the rear wing and has a central wood-framed window opening infilled with a plywood panel. East Side: The east side of the gable-roof addition has two wood-framed window openings separated by a wood mullion. Both window openings are infilled with plywood panels. The north side of the addition is unfenestrated. The addition covers the south 2’ of the house’s brick east wall. South of the addition is a window opening with a rough-faced stone lug sill and arched brick lintel, infilled with a plywood panel; a smaller window opening of the same design that has been partially infilled with brick and the remaining space infilled with a plywood panel; and larger window opening matching the southernmost window. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 77 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. 23. Landscaping or special setting features: A few mature deciduous trees stand adjacent to the Primary Farmhouse and Barn, a few smaller deciduous trees are found near the Secondary Farmhouse. A non-historic dilapidated chain link and wood fence surrounds the Secondary Farmhouse and the remnants of a non-historic wood post and rail fence stands along E. Harmony Rd. in front of the Barn. Both fences were installed ca. 1983-99. Remnants of a drive extending from Cinquefoil Lane east of the Secondary Farmhouse to the northeast corner of the parcel are visible; as is a parking area east of the Primary Farmhouse. The land surrounding the farm headquarters is fallow and overgrown with grasses, wildflowers, and other volunteer plants. A non-historic medium-sized billboard installed ca. 1980s stands east of the barn at the north edge of the property along E. Harmony Rd. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Barn, ca. 1921, contributing building A 32’ x 40’ rectangular-plan, two-story, wood-frame Barn stands facing south on a concrete foundation, approximately 135’ east of the ca. 1899 brick house and 70’ south of E. Harmony Rd. The front-gable roof is covered with composition shingle roofing material; rafter tails and purloins are exposed at the overhanging eaves. The roof features a hay hood at the north end and a central, 2’ x 2’, hip-roof cupola/ventilator. The cupola/ventilator roof is covered with composition shingle roofing material, the rafters are exposed at the overhanging eaves, and a simple finial rises from its peak. The cupola/ventilator’s walls are clad with asphalt shingles with wood louvers above. The barn walls are clad with wood drop siding and cornerboards. The existing fenestration pattern on the north and west sides, and presumably the barn’s other sides, was established ca. 1974. North Side: The fenestration on the north side is symmetrically organized, with two wood-framed window openings on the lower level and two wood-framed window openings on the upper level. A fifth opening sits below the upper window openings, slight off-center to the east. This opening is infilled with wood panels painted the same color as the siding. A small wood-framed opening at the top of the gable is similarly infilled. The lower window openings are infilled with unpainted plywood panels; the upper window openings are also covered by unpainted plywood panels. East Side: The fenestration on the north side is symmetrically organized, with four wood-framed window openings on the lower level. The four window openings are covered by plywood panels. South Side: The fenestration on the south side is symmetrically organized, with what appears to be a central, wide, wood-framed barn-door opening on the lower level. The opening appears to hold a door flanked by sidelights. The sidelights are infilled with plywood and the door opening covered with plywood panels. A concrete stoop sits outside the opening. Above the door opening, is a central, tall, wood-framed opening, covered with a plywood panel. Flanking the tall opening are two, square, wood-framed window openings, flanked by two smaller rectangular wood-framed window openings. All are covered with plywood panels. At the top of the gable there is a central, wood-framed window opening holding a pair of three-light wood casement windows. Flanking the casement windows are two small wood-framed window openings covered with plywood panels. West Side: The fenestration on the west side is asymmetrically organized, with a wood-framed door opening set off-center to the north. The plywood panel that filled the door opening has been removed and is ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 78 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. leaning against the barn. A metal light fixture sits south of the door opening. A rectangular wood deck sits outside the entry. North of the door is a wood-framed window opening infilled with a plywood panel. South of the door is a smaller wood-framed window opening infilled with a plywood panel, and two larger wood-framed window openings, one infilled with a plywood panel, and one covered by a plywood panel. Granary, ca. 1920, contributing building A 20’ x 12’ rectangular-plan, one-story, wood-frame Granary stands facing west, approximately 70’ south of the barn. The side-gable roof is covered with composition shingle roofing material; the roof’s rafters and skip sheathing are exposed at the overhanging eaves and there is a modern skylight on the roof’s east slope. The granary sits on a wood foundation and was built in the “studs out” style; the building’s wood studs and diagonal bracing are exposed on the exterior and the interior side of the studs clad with narrow, tightly-fitting, flush horizontal wood siding. The gable ends are clad with horizontal wood drop siding that closely matches the siding on the barn. A wide door opening sits at the center of the west wall; the south leaf of the double doors remains intact. The vertical plank wood door has strap hinges. On the north wall, there is a window opening set slightly off center to the east. The sash has been removed and the opening covered with plywood. On the east wall, there is a central, wide door opening; the slab doors are constructed of medium density fiberboard (MDF) and have strap hinges. A 20’ x 12’ rectangular wood platform is attached to this side of the granary. On the south wall, there is a window opening set slightly off center to the east. The interior walls and floor are finished with MDF panels and the ceiling structure mostly exposed. The interior surface of the roof slopes is also finished with MDF. The interior walls are covered with sexually explicit graffiti. Secondary Farmhouse, ca. 1915, contributing building A 36’ x 28’ T-plan, one-story, wood-frame house stands on a concrete foundation facing east, approximately 50’ south of the ca. 1899 house. The building consists of a 14’ x 36’ front-gable block oriented east-west and a 12’ x 14’ front-gable wing oriented north-south. A 14’ x 6’ shed-roof enclosed porch is attached to the east wall of the north-south wing. The cross-gable roof is covered with composition shingle roofing material. On the east-west block, the roof’s rafters and purloins are exposed at the overhanging eaves. The purloins are not exposed on the north-south block. The walls of the east-west block and north-south wing are clad with wood drop siding. The enclosed porch is clad with vertical board siding. East Side: The east side of the east-west block has a wood-framed door opening to the north and a wood-framed window opening to the south. The opening holds a one-over-one non-historic window. A louvered vent sits at the gable peak; south of the vent is a metal light fixture. A wood deck extends the length of the wall with a simple wood handrail on its north edge. The north wall of the east end of the east-west block has a wood-framed window opening that is covered by a plywood panel. To the north is the east wall of the shed-roof enclosed porch, which has a wood-framed door opening with a wood-framed window opening to north. Both openings are covered by plywood panels. North Side: The north wall of the enclosed porch has a central wood-framed window opening covered with a plywood panel. The north face of the north-south wing has a central wood-framed window opening covered with a plywood panel. West Side: The west wall of the north-south wing has a wood-framed window opening covered by a plywood panel. The opening replaced an earlier window opening that has been partially infilled with wood ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 79 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. siding. To the south, is the north side of the west end of the east-west block, which is unfenestrated. The west face of the east-west block has a central wood-framed window opening covered with a plywood panel and a louvered vent at the gable peak. South Side: The south wall has three regularly spaced wood-framed window openings that are covered by plywood panels. A vertical wood trim board sits between the easternmost windows. The siding to the east and west of the trim board does not align. No other evidence suggests that this is the case, but the siding differences could indicate that the residence was built in stages or created by moving and joining previously existing buildings, a common practice on Colorado farms. Loafing Shed, ca. 1983-1999, non-contributing building An approximately 50’ x 15’, rectangular-plan, wood-frame loafing shed stands facing south near the southwest corner of the parcel. The walls are clad with vertical metal panels with ribbed details and the shed roof is covered with metal panel roofing material. A square opening near the midpoint of the north wall is framed with wood. A solid plywood shutter sits in the opening; its exterior clad with vertical metal siding. There is no foundation; structural posts are sunk directly into the ground. The floor is dirt. The building’s wood structural elements are exposed on the interior, which is divided into three pens of equal size. Built between 1983 and 1999, after the period of significance, the loafing shed is recommended non-contributing. Stable, ca. 1983-1999, non-contributing building An approximately 20’ x 16’, rectangular-plan, wood-frame stable stands directly west of the loafing shed, facing east. There is no foundation and the building’s wood structural elements are exposed on the interior. The floor is dirt. Structural posts are sunk directly into the ground and the bottom 3’ or so of the walls sheathed with horizontal boards. The horizontal boards are exposed on the exterior; above the boards, the exterior walls are clad with corrugated metal and wood cornerboards. The shed roof has exposed rafter tails and is covered with corrugated metal, a portion of which is missing. The east wall has a pedestrian-size door opening, set off-center to the south. There is no door. The west wall has a pedestrian-size door opening at the southwest corner. There is no door, but intact hinges indicate that one once existed in this location. The north and south walls are unfenestrated. There is graffiti on the east and north walls. Horizontal wood boards and wood poles, create a pen in the north east corner of the building’s interior, the pen is accessed via the door on the east wall. Built between 1983 and 1999, after the period of significance, the loafing shed is recommended non-contributing. Corrals, ca. 1983-1999, non-contributing structures A wood pole and woven wire, octagonal corral sits south of the loafing shed near the south property line. A larger approximately 100’ x 130’ rectangular corral occupies the area to the east. Remnants of an approximately 115’ x 40’ fence that once enclosed the stable remain visible. Historic aerial photos of the property indicate that the corral and livestock fencing were introduced between 1983 and 1999, when the stable and loafing shed were constructed. Added outside the period of significance, these features are recommended non-contributing. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 80 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: ca. 1899-1999 (complex) Actual: Source of information: Larimer County Tax Assessor Records 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: n/a 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: n/a 28. Original owner: John S. Oliver 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): The Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm has evolved over time since it was first homesteaded by John S. Oliver in the 1870s. The brick Primary Farmhouse is estimated by the Larimer County Tax Assessor to have been constructed in 1899 and the Barn and other buildings constructed in the 1910s and ’20s. Late Victorian architectural features such as arched brick lintels, rough-faced stone block foundation walls, rough-faced stone sills, no longer extant front porch details, and a large front-gable dormer with decorative wood shingles support a ca. 1899 construction date for the house. In use as early as the 1880s, drop siding like the siding used on the Barn, Granary, and Secondary Farmhouse was a particularly popular choice for utilitarian farm buildings built during the early twentieth century, supporting the estimated construction dates for these buildings. It is possible, however, that some or all of these buildings were built earlier than estimated. Homestead records held at the National Archives would provide insight into what buildings stood on the property ca. 1878. A large backlog of requests for homestead files currently exists due to COVID and federal government staffing issues and the National Archives is not currently accepting new online requests; therefore, these records were not consulted as part of this survey. Larimer County Assessor records indicate that the brick Primary Farmhouse was constructed in 1899. If accurate, this suggests the house was built for Orville Springer, owner of the farm from 1898 to 1903, though it is possible that the house was constructed earlier after John S. Oliver received patent to the land in 1878. Assessor records from 1950 document that the house originally featured a 20’ x 6’ hip- roof front porch with Tuscan columns and wood skirting. A number of changes occurred after the farm was sold by the Webster family in 1965. By December 1974, the front porch had been removed; the porch on the east side of the house fully enclosed with wide horizontal lap siding; a rectangular window in the north gable replaced with a circular window; the home’s historic two-over-two sashes replaced with one- over-one sashes; the wood shingle roof replaced with composition shingles; and the brick chimney reduced in height. The partial infilling of a window on the west side is presumed to have occurred outside the period of significance. Between 1974 and 1977 a 12’ x 17’ wood-frame addition clad with wide horizontal lap siding was constructed on the building’s west side. The siding on the addition is slightly narrower than the siding on the enclosed the porch. No further changes appear to have occurred since the 1970s, other than the ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 81 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. boarding up of the windows and doors, though it appears that several window sashes may be missing or heavily damaged. Larimer County Assessor Records indicate that the wood-frame Secondary Farmhouse was constructed ca. 1915. If accurate, this suggests the house was built for George Zinn, owner of the farm from 1903 to 1917, or for David Ernst who owned the property from 1917 to 1922. A 1950 Larimer County Assessor photograph indicates that alterations since that time are limited to the replacement of window sashes and doors; removal of two previously existing chimneys; replacement of the wood shingle roof with composition shingles; and the resizing of a window on the west side of the north-south wing. Larimer County Assessor records indicate that the wood-frame Barn was constructed ca. 1921. If accurate, this suggests the barn was built for David Ernst who owned the property from 1917 to 1922, or for Samuel Webster and his family, owners of the farm from 1922 through 1965. The building plan documented in Larimer County Assessor records from the 1950s is in keeping with the typical transverse barn plan. A central aisle with a concrete floor was flanked on the east by a large bin and on the west by an unpartitioned space with a wood floor. A hay loft with a pine floor occupied the upper floor. The barn appears to have been converted for use as an antique store ca. 1974. The wood shingle roof was replaced with composition shingles and the fenestration pattern throughout the barn altered to adapt the barn to its new use. On the west side, a pedestrian door was added; existing windows openings enlarged and new openings added; and new window sashes installed. Historic photographs of the barn’s north, east, and south sides were not found, but it is assumed that the existing fenestration pattern on these sides was established ca. 1974. In some instances, it appears that existing openings, such as the large door opening on the south wall, retained their historic size, with new doors and windows installed in the opening. A close examination of the existing window and door openings, any existing sashes, details such as sill and trim design, and other physical evidence such as regular cuts in the siding may provide more information regarding the extent of alterations to the fenestration. It appears that few changes have been made to the barn since its adaption for commercial use in the 1970s, though some window sashes may have been replaced. Larimer County Assessor records from the 1950s document the footprint of a building matching the dimensions of the Granary and identify it as built ca. 1920. The building’s drop siding at the gable peaks matches the siding on the barn, and it is possible that the building was constructed at the same time as the barn. A comparison of historic aerial photographs suggest that the building was moved to its present location between 1956 and 1969. Historic photographs of the Granary were not found; it is presumed that exterior changes made to the building are limited to the removal of historic windows; replacement of historic doors; reroofing with composition shingle roofing; and installation of a skylight on the roof’s east slope. Historic aerial photographs and Larimer County Assessor records from the 1950s document three resources on the property that are no longer extant or appear to be no longer extant. A ca. 1910 9’ x 40’ box car was removed between 1956 and 1969, and a ca. 1900 24’ x 14’ dwelling removed ca. 1974. A ca. 1925 14’ diameter cistern documented in Larimer County Assessor records could not be readily located, historically or currently. A 1950 Larimer County Assessor photograph documented the ca. 1900 dwelling; ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 82 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. which featured drop siding, a wood shingle roof, and mostly two-over-two windows. It was located directly north of where the Granary stands today. The box car stood east of the buildings. The eastern portion of the surveyed parcel appears to have been uncultivated in the 1950s. In 1925, Samuel Webster executed an oil and gas lease with E.W. Stevens allowing oil exploration on the farm and it is possible that drilling activity occurred in this area. The remainder of the parcel was used for crop cultivation as part of the Webster family fields, which lay to the west and south of the headquarters. The eastern portion of the parcel appears to have been increasingly cultivated after the property was sold in 1965, but not under cultivation during the 1980s. Between 1983 and 1999, likely after the property was sold in 1992 or 1994, the existing loafing shed, stable, and corrals were introduced and the open land within the parcel appears to have been used primarily as pastureland before eventually falling fallow. Any remaining historic fencing appears to have been removed from the property by the late 1990s. In 1956, a dirt road led south from the farm headquarters to what is today Steelhead St. and appears to have been the primary farm access road. A drive off of E. Harmony Rd. east of the Primary Farmhouse provided additional access to the headquarters. A drive off E. Harmony Rd. near the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch provided access to the eastern portion of the parcel. The south drive was eliminated between 1956 and 1969, likely after the property was sold in 1965, and the west driveway off E. Harmony near the Primary Farmhouse was the primary access ca. 1971. The east driveway off E. Harmony Rd. was reestablished as a secondary access to the headquarters ca. 1983, likely after subdivision of the land in 1974. Access to the property from E. Harmony Rd. was eliminated in the 2010s and the property is now accessed from Cinquefoil Ln. After subdivision in 1974, Cinquefoil Lane was established west of the farm headquarters and homes built on lots to the south and southwest. Beginning in 2005, the farmland surrounding the farm complex was redeveloped in a series of large projects that included construction of a multi-family residential development on the east side of the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch in 2018; construction of Banner Fort Collins Medical Center in 2014 directly west of the farm headquarters; and construction of residential developments in the southern half of the northeast quarter of Section 4 between 2004 and 2017. 30. Original location ☒ Moved ☐ Date of move(s): #### V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): DOMESTIC/single dwelling; AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE/agricultural outbuilding; AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE/agricultural field 32. Intermediate use(s): COMMERCE/TRADE/specialty store; DOMESTIC/single dwelling; AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE/agricultural outbuilding; AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE/agricultural field; AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE/animal facility; 33. Current use(s): VACANT/NOT IN USE 34. Site type(s): Farm Complex ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 83 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. 35. Historical background: Around 1873, John S. Oliver took advantage of the 1862 Homestead Act, staking his claim on the northeast quarter of Section 4, Township 6 North, in Range 68 West southeast of Fort Collins. After improving the land as required by federal law, he received a patent for the land on November 5, 1878. Born in Adams County, Illinois, in 1846, Oliver moved to Missouri in 1859. In 1862, he enlisted in the Union Army and served until 1866. Oliver married fellow Illinois native Sarah Jane Luke in 1867. The couple settled in Grundy County, Missouri, where sons, Thomas (b. 1867), William (b. 1868), and Charles (b. 1869) were born. The family relocated to Larimer County ca. 1873, and the couple welcomed four more children, son George (b. 1874), daughter Mary (b. ca. 1877), son Jessie (b. 1878), and daughter Katie (b. 1882). The Oliver family farmed the northeast quarter of Section 4 through the early 1890s, when it was reported that Frank J. Murray had “recently purchased” “what is best known as the John Oliver farm” in 1894. By 1900, the Olivers were living at 202 N. Meldrum St. and John had begun working as a teamster. Early homesteaders like Oliver typically grew oats, hay, and vegetables and kept a small number of livestock. During the late 1800s farmers began to diversify, and by 1900 the area’s principal crops were alfalfa, sugar beets, wheat, corn, and potatoes. Frank J. Murray raised livestock, owned a harness business on Mountain Ave., and was involved in the irrigation business as president of the Colorado Development Company. Murray did not hold the Oliver homestead for long. According to the Fort Collins Courier, Orville Springer acquired the farm from Murray in 1898 for $5,600, however the transfer to Springer would not be formally executed until May 1903 after Frank Murray’s death from typhoid fever in 1901. Born in Bridgeport, New Jersey, in 1867, Orville Springer relocated to Fort Collins in 1887. He rented Asa Horner’s farm in 1896, shortly before marrying fellow New Jersey native Sibyl Tatum Howey in December 1896. The couple welcomed a son, Alfred (b. 1897), who died at age two. In 1900 Orville and Sibyl Springer were living on the farm they had purchased from Murray, along with two hired hands. After the death of their infant daughter, Abbie (b. 1901), the Springers sold the farm in 1903 to George W. Zinn. Prior to selling the farm, Springer had granted a right-of-way to the North Poudre Irrigation Company in 1902 for construction of an irrigation ditch, the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch, which runs along the eastern edge of the surveyed property (outside the current parcel boundary). The Springers son, Earl, was born in December 1903 and the family moved to Timnath. Springer joined the Timnath Farmers’ Mercantile Company in 1905 and was involved in the Timnath Improvement Company. He also worked as a ditch rider for the Lake Canal Ditch Company ca. 1910. The Springers divorced in 1914; Sibyl returned to New Jersey and Orville relocated to San Acacio in Costilla County, Colorado. George W. Zinn acquired the Springer farm for $8,000. Born in December 1841, Missouri native Elizabeth Hornbeck married George W. Zinn in March 1866. George, born in 1840, joined the Union Army in 1862, serving as a corporal in the 9th Kansas Cavalry during the Civil War and mustering out on June 15, 1865. George grew up in rural Illinois and Missouri, with his father, Joel, a farmer, mother, Thirza, and many siblings. After marrying, George and Elizabeth Zinn settled near Carthage, Missouri, where they farmed. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 84 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Children Zenas (b. 1867), Mary (b. 1869), Alice (b. 1871), Georgia (b. 1873), and John (b. 1877) were born before the family relocated to Fort Collins around 1900. George continued farming and the family lived in Fort Collins, renting homes at 529 N. Meldrum and 529 Sycamore St. (5LR.9361) before building a house at 806 Laporte Ave. (5LR.9294) in 1903. By 1913-14, George Zinn had retired, and he and Elizabeth moved to California. Sons Zenas and John remained in Fort Collins for a time. After John’s death in 1920, only John’s widow, Elizabeth, appears to have stayed in Fort Collins, with Zenas Zinn and wife Clara joining his parents in California before their deaths in 1922 and 1925. In 1917, William Bender paid $30,000 for “the Zinn quarter section in the Harmony district,” which at the time comprised the portion of the northeast quarter of Section 4 that lay east of the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch. In 1916, Zinn had sold his land west of the ditch to Charles Buckingham. An ethnic German born in Oberdorf, Russia, ca. 1864, William Bender arrived in the United States with his wife, Maria Katharina (Mary Katherine) Martin, son William Jr., and daughter Olga in 1905. The family first settled in Illinois before moving to Windsor in 1908, where William worked in the beet fields. Around 1912, he partnered with Samuel F. Webster, a successful farmer and livestock feeder operating in the Harmony district, in a livestock feeding venture. In 1915 the two men purchased the 320-acre Ziegler Farm directly west of the Zinn place. After purchasing the Zinn place in 1917, Bender immediately sold the farm to David Ernst for $34,000 and purchased the north 160 acres what had been the Ziegler Farm from Samuel F. Webster for $45,000. Ernst would sell the Oliver homestead to Samuel Webster in March 1922 and Webster would soon gain full control of the former Ziegler Farm as well. Born in Cass County, Missouri, on March 12, 1871, Samuel Fetters Webster relocated to the Fort Collins area as a young child with his parents, Stewart and Margaret Webster, older sister Mary (b. 1864), and older brother Henry (b. 1867) in 1875. Another sister, Minnie, was born in 1876 and his younger brother William arrived in 1880 after the family established a homestead in the Harmony district in 1877. Samuel Webster briefly worked for area farmers before arranging to purchase 160 acres of land on terms from Franklin C. Avery in 1887 at age 16. Nine years later, he had paid for the farm and was running a successful livestock operation. In 1898, he married Scottish immigrant Anna B. Strachan, daughter of prominent sheep feeder Hugh Strachan, and the couple had two daughters, Isabel (b. 1900) and Catherine (b. 1902). The Websters lived on a farmstead (headquarters demolished between 1983 and 1999) in the northwest portion of Section 5, across from the original Harmony School. The farmstead is now occupied by the UCHealth Harmony Campus and the Timber Creek subdivision. In 1900, Webster was feeding 1,830 lambs alfalfa and barley that he had grown. By 1904, he was a member of the Fort Collins Sheep Feeders Association and feeding more than 3,000 lambs; his growing business was approaching the size of ventures operated by major Fort Collins sheep feeders such W.A. Drake, who managed around 4,000 lambs that year. As Karen McWilliams and Carl McWilliams documented in their 1995 historic contexts and survey report, Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, 1862-1994, as the number of individual homesteaders increased and farmers began to grow alfalfa and sugar beets in 1890s, the livestock feeding industry ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 85 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. developed as an alternative to the open range system of livestock raising. According to McWilliams and McWilliams: The alfalfa fields were typically cut three times per year, providing an abundance of winter hay for cattle or sheep. Sugar beet tops, grain, corn and beet pulp were also utilized as sheep and cattle feed by area growers. For these so-called farmer-feeders, the production of crops for livestock consumption often became more profitable than producing crops for human consumption. As a result, after the turn-of-the-century, many farmers operated wholly as commercial feeders. The growth of the sheep feeding industry had its origins in the fall of 1889, when brothers E.J. and I.W. Bennett and their flock of 2,500 lambs were stranded by a severe snowstorm in southern Colorado that halted railroad operations. Unable to ship their lambs to Nebraska as planned, and with the health of the flock threatened by starvation and exposure, the Bennetts shipped their lambs to a ranch 12 miles east of Fort Collins. There the animals enjoyed a nourishing diet of alfalfa and corn and the Bennetts realized a healthy profit in the spring when the lambs were sold. Their success fueled the growth of sheep raising and feeding into a significant component of the agricultural economy in Fort Collins. According to McWilliams and McWilliams, “the number of sheep fed in the county increased dramatically over the next decade. In 1895, some 80,000 sheep were raised in Fort Collins and by the turn of the century, the number of sheep fed each year numbered over 350,000.” Anna and Samuel Webster divorced in 1904 and Anna died of typhoid fever 11 months later. Webster married his second wife, Margaret (Maggie) Angell, on January 25, 1905, in Colorado Springs. Born in Iowa in 1882, Angell moved to Colorado with her parents, Nancy and James H. Angell, in 1885. The family first lived in Severance before establishing a homestead in the Masonville-Buckhorn area. After Samuel and Maggie’s marriage, the Webster family moved from the farm near Harmony to a home at 300 Matthews St. in Fort Collins, before building the home at 301 E. Olive St. (5LR.463.23; contributing to the Laurel School Historic District) in 1914, where they raised their nine children. By that time Webster had acquired more than 400 acres of land and would continue to grow his operations in the following decades, becoming one of the area’s preeminent farmers and livestock feeders. Crops such sugar beets, hay, and alfalfa were grown on the Webster farms, presumably to support the sheep feeding operation. Webster’s farm holdings were extensive—at least 1,360 acres by 1925—and it is not entirely clear who lived at the former Oliver homestead after Webster acquired it or what functions the property fulfilled within the larger Webster farm operation. For a time, Webster may have rented the farmstead to another farmer, as he seems to have done with other properties, or hired a farm manager who lived on site. However, a 1940 map of Larimer County prepared by Clarence C. Thomas, suggests that Webster’s eldest daughter, Isabel, and husband Roy Garrett occupied the Zinn place after their marriage. Webster family members often occupied the various farms acquired by Samuel Webster, and according to Samuel Webster’s granddaughter, Charla Farmer, Webster gave each of his six daughters farms as wedding presents. Born in the Fort Collins area in 1899, Roy Garrett grew up in a farm family, attended Colorado A&M, and worked as a farm laborer before he and Isabel Webster wed in November 1920. By 1930, the couple was ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 86 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. farming and living in the Harmony area with their daughters, Ann and Shirley, and son, Roy Jr. In 1933, Garrett was selling lambs, and father-in-law Samuel Webster was involved in several lamb feeding partnerships—Webster and Crane (with son-in-law John Forest Crane); Webster, Garrett and Pitcher; Webster and Webster; Webster and L. Stroh; and Webster, Stroh and Thayer. In 1948, Roy Garrett died suddenly as a result of a farm accident. Isabel appears to have continued to live at the family home on Rural Route 4 after his death. Around 1954, the Webster farming interests appear to have been consolidated under Webster Farms, Inc., with Charles Webster as president. By 1960, the Webster family controlled at least 42 farms in Larimer and Weld County. After Samuel Webster’s death at age 89 in 1960, ownership of the former Oliver homestead transferred to Isabel Webster Garrett in August 1961. In 1965, she transferred the farm to her brother, Harold. Later that year June and G. Larry Warren acquired the farm from Harold Webster. The Warrens subdivided the land in 1974, separating off the farm headquarters in a parcel described as Tract A. In 1976, Charles Webster and Webster Farms, Inc. sold 690 acres of farmland to Robert and Karen Dickinson, largely ending the family’s involvement in local farming. After acquiring Tract A in 1974, Mary E. Smith remained owner of the property for eighteen years. She does not appear to have lived on the property. After 1974, antiques stores—Passamenterie Antiques and later Antiques at Harmony Hill—operated on the property through at least 1978. Smith sold the former farm headquarters in 1992 and the property changed hands again in 1994 and 1999, when the owners currently listed in the Larimer County Assessor records acquired the property. The buildings are currently vacant and the land uncultivated. 36. Sources of information: U.S. Census Records, 1870, 1880, 1885, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930 Land Patent, U.S. to John S. Oliver, NE1/4 of Section 4, Township 6, Range 68; November 5, 1878. https://glorecords.blm.gov “Building Record for 1903,” The Weekly Courier, December 30, 1903, 1-12. “Two Big Land Deals Consummated,” The Weekly Courier, February 23, 1917. The Fort Collins Express and The Fort Collins Review, November 11, 1915, 2. “Valuable Farm is Transferred Today,” The Weekly Courier, November 5, 1915, 1. The Weekly Courier, January 27, 1904. The Weekly Courier, November 9, 1904. “Margaret Webster,” https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/50779426/margaret-webster “Samuel Fetters Webster,” https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/50779437/samuel-fetters-webster Fort Collins Coloradoan, April 25, 1976. The Fort Collins Express and The Fort Collins Review, November 11, 1915, 2. “Larimer County Lamb Feeders,” The Fort Collins Express and The Fort Collins Review, January 20 1900, 6. The Fort Collins Express and The Fort Collins Review, August 18, 1900, 9. “Claims Husband Saved $15,000 in Ten Years,” The Fort Collins Express and The Fort Collins Review, June 10, 1915, 1. “Mrs. Mary Bender Dies At Her Home On June 2,” Windsor Beacon, June 9, 1938, 5. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 87 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. “Websters, Pioneers Here, To Mark 50th Anniversary,” January 27, 1955, 5. “Local pioneer woman dies,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, November 29, 1974. “$80,000 Used in Two Farm Deals,” The Weekly Courier, December 7, 1917. “Real Estate Transfers,” Loveland Reporter, November 26, 1915. “Larimer Man Earns $45,000 In Beets In 20 Years; Buys Farm,” Loveland Daily Herald, December 4, 1917. The Fort Collins Express, January 1, 1894. “Death of Frank Jennings Murray,” The Weekly Courier, January 17, 1901. “Timnath,” Fort Collins Courier, September 20, 1894. “Real Estate Transactions,” The Larimer County Independent, May 27, 1903, 7. “Real Estate Transfers,” Fort Collins Courier, September 29, 1898. Land Patent, United States to John S. Oliver, Homestead Certificate 963, Application 3075, November 5, 1878. “Annual Meeting of the Sheep Feeders Association,” The Weekly Courier, January 20, 1904. “Death Takes Webster, 89,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, May 4, 1960, 1. Mrs. G.W. Zinn Obituary, Fort Collins Courier, December 6, 1922. Watrous, Ansel. History of Larimer County, Colorado. (Fort Collins: The Courier Printing & Publishing Company, 1911), 468-470. McWilliams, Karen and Carl McWilliams, Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, 1862-1994, March 1995. Fort Collins Coloradoan, March 1, 1926, 2. “Injuries Take Roy Garrett,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, November 19, 1948, 1. The Larimer County Independent, April 12, 1905, 1. “Farm sold,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, April 25, 1976, 44. “Sam Webster’s Big Crop,” The Larimer County Independent, September 13, 1905, 11. The Larimer County Independent, March 8, 1912, 4. Fort Collins Coloradoan, April 30, 1933, 7. The Weekly Courier, February 28, 1913. The Weekly Courier, November 29, 1905. Fort Collins Building Permit #28832, April 18, 1988. Udell, Erin. “5 Fort Collins and Timnath farm properties that have survived development (for now), Fort Collins Coloradoan, May 16, 2021, 1-4. Larimer County Deed Records George W. Zinn to Charles Buckingham, May 1, 1916, Book 338/572. S.F. Webster to E.W. Stevens, Oil and Gas Lease, September 23, 1924, Book 504/250-52. Samuel F. Webster to Webster Farms Inc., July 22, 1954, Book 975/203. Webster Farms to Isabel Garrett, August 23, 1961, Book 1148/378. Isabel Garrett to Harold R. Webster, January 29, 1965, Book 1278/569. Harold R. Webster to G. Larry Warren and June E. Warren, July 22, 1965, Book 1297/206. Subdivision of Warren Parcel, October 30, 1974, Book 1623/101. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 88 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Warrens to B-L-P Inc., October 7, 1974, Book 1620/232. B-L-P Inc. to Mary E. Smith, October 7, 1974, Book 1620/234. William R. Moore and Mary E. Smith to Craig Hash, Troy Horton, Dale Klute, May 7, 1992, Reception #19940055105. Craig Hash, Troy Horton, Dale Klute to Jack and Nancy Long, June 29, 1994, Reception #19940055105. Jack and Nancy Long to Katherine Joy Anderson, Bill Ray Winchester II, Elsie Winchester, Susan Winchester, January 25, 1999. Reception #19990006636. VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes ☐ No ☒ Date of designation: #### Designating authority: Click here to enter text. 38. Applicable Eligibility Criteria: National Register Fort Collins Register ☐ A. ☒ 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; ☐ B. ☐ 2. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; ☐ C. ☐ 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ☐ D. ☐ 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. ☐ Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) ☐ Does not meet any of the above criteria Needs additional research under standards: ☐ A/1 ☒ B/2 ☐ C/3 ☐ D/4 39. Area(s) of significance: Agriculture 40. Period of significance: ca. 1878-1965 41. Level of significance: National ☐ State ☐ Local ☒ 42. Statement of significance: The Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm appears to be eligible for listing as a Fort Collins Landmark district under Criterion 1 in the area of Agriculture per the guidance embodied in the 1995 historic contexts document, Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area 1862-1994 prepared by Carl McWilliams and Karen McWilliams of Cultural Resource Historians. The historic resources within the farm complex represent property types associated with the “Farming and Ranching” and “Sheep Raising and Woolgrowing” historic contexts documented by McWilliams and McWilliams. Homesteaded by John S. Oliver in the 1870s, improved by subsequent owners, and operated as part of the Samuel Webster family’s sheep feeding venture for decades, the headquarters is directly associated with significant trends in Fort Collins agricultural history, principally the establishment of early homesteads spurred by government programs encouraging the settlement of federal lands by private individuals; the improvement and further development of such ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 89 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. homesteads as farming and livestock raising grew to dominant the local economy in Larimer County; and the growth of the sheep feeding industry during the 1890s and early twentieth century. The period of significance begins in 1878, when John S. Oliver received patent to the northeast quarter of Section 4, Township 6N, Range 68W after improving the land under the requirements of the 1862 Homestead Act, to 1965, when ownership by the Samuel Webster family ended. As noted by McWilliams and McWilliams, property types associated with farming and ranching generally overlap with those associated with the sheep industry and include farmhouses, barns, and granaries as well as other property types. The headquarters of the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm includes representative examples of the farmhouse, barn, granary, and outbuilding types identified by McWilliams and McWilliams. Considered as isolated resources, the four historic buildings within the district do not appear to be individually eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks, due to diminished individual integrity or lack of distinction (perhaps with the exception of the granary, given the rarity of the type). However, viewed as a collection of historically-related agricultural buildings, these four buildings comprise an increasingly rare historic farm complex with a good array of representative property types. The farm complex includes four contributing resources, a modest ca. 1899 farmhouse typical of the style of homes built by homesteaders and farmers who had enjoyed a modicum of success by the late-1800s and early 1900s and sought to upgrade their living situation; a large, wood-frame gable-roof transverse plan barn, presumably used to store farm machinery and crops grown for livestock feeding; a rare “studs out” type granary; and a secondary farmhouse, presumably providing living quarters for farmhands or extended family members. A stable, loafing shed, and corrals constructed south of the complex ca. 1983-1999 were introduced after the period of significance and are not considered contributing resources within the district. In addition to the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm headquarters, a few historic farm buildings remain within Sections 4 and 5 of Township 6N, Range 68, an area that has experienced extensive redevelopment since 2000. The two-story, brick, Late Victorian style Ziegler Farmhouse constructed in 1900 (5LR.1573) stands as an isolated resource at 3105 E. Harmony Rd. in front of the 1998 Intel building. The 1893-1940 Preston Farm complex (5LR.779; National Register listed May 10, 2001) remains intact at 4605 Ziegler Rd., though is setting has significantly changed since its listing. The wood-frame gable-roof transverse plan Ziegler-Charles Webster Barn, very similar in design to the barn on the Oliver Homestead-Webster- Garrett Farm, stands with a simple outbuilding on the Fossil Ridge High School property at 5400 Ziegler Rd.; and a ca. 1910-1960 farm complex stands nearby at 5117 Ziegler Rd. Samuel Webster’s farmstead in Section 5 across from the Harmony School was removed between 1983 and 1999. Compared with the surviving agricultural resources in the area, the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm headquarters is notable first and foremost as a relatively intact farm complex containing an array of resource types representing a variety of agricultural functions, adjacent to a historic irrigation ditch and surrounded by open fields, which provide a strong sense of the building’s historical setting, feeling, and association. The complex is further distinguished by the presence of a farmhouse that is comparatively more modest than the Ziegler and Preston farmhouses, providing a sense of how farmers who were successful but less wealthy then the Zieglers and Prestons lived. The complex gains additional importance from the presence of a “studs out” granary. When conducting ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 90 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. research for their 1995 reconnaissance survey and historic contexts report, McWilliams and McWilliams identified only five surviving granaries within the Fort Collins urban growth area. The Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm does not appear to be eligible for listing as a Fort Collins Landmark district under Criterion 3 for Architecture, given the removal of the front porch from the ca. 1899 farmhouse and changes to the ca. 1921 barn’s fenestration after the property ceased to be used for agricultural purposes ca. 1974. The Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm may be eligible for listing as a Fort Collins Landmark district under Criterion 2 for its association with Samuel F. Webster and his extensive farming and sheep feeding venture. Webster reportedly owned 42 farms at the time of his death in 1960 and a comparative analysis of all properties associated with Webster was beyond the scope of this survey. Webster did not live on the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm and the extent of his direct involvement in the development and operation of this particular farm is not known. Such an analysis would be necessary to evaluate if this property best represents Samuel Webster’s farming and livestock feeding activities and his substantive impact on the agricultural industry in Fort Collins. The farming activities of previous owners and Isabel and Roy Garrett do not appear to rise to the level of significance necessary for listing under Criterion 2. An archeological investigation of the property was not undertaken; however, farming headquarters of this age typically included privies and trash pits, which can include significant archaeological deposits. Documentation of such features was not found during research and the fields surrounding the headquarters have been heavily disturbed by cultivation. Archaeological significance is unlikely but further research would be necessary to confirm. When compared with the nearby National Register-listed Preston Farm at the time of its listing in 2001, the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm does not appear to retain the high level of integrity of required to be considered eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A for Agriculture. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: According to the historic contexts and survey report, Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area 1862- 1994, prepared for the City of Fort Collins Planning Department by McWilliams and McWilliams in 1995, intact historic agricultural properties are rare in the Fort Collins area and should be given special consideration, stating that “those that do remain accrue additional significance, and their integrity should be evaluated in the broadest terms possible.” The report also emphasizes the heightened significance of farm complexes, stating that “farm buildings that still exist in association with other farm buildings and features, are potentially more significant than isolated farm buildings.” Regarding the integrity of such complexes, the report states: “agricultural-related resources that are part of relatively intact farm complexes should be permitted a lower standard of integrity of design, materials and workmanship, because the presence of associated buildings and features greatly enhances their integrity of setting, feeling and association.” The integrity of the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm headquarters was evaluated based on the guidance outlined in the Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area 1862-1994 report and found to be sufficient for potential eligibility as a Fort Collins Landmark district under Criterion 1 for Agriculture with a period of significance from 1878 to 1965. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 91 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. The ca. 1974 alterations made to the ca. 1899 farmhouse and ca. 1921 barn have diminished their individual integrity of design, materials, and workmanship and discourage the district’s eligibility under Criterion 3 for Architecture; however, both buildings retain sufficient integrity to contribute to the district’s overall integrity and historic significance under Criterion 1 in the area of Agriculture. Though the barn’s fenestration has been altered, it continues to clearly read as an early twentieth-century barn and retains critical features that characterize the gable-roof transverse plan barn type, namely its rectangular plan and massing, wood drop siding, and front gable roof with exposed rafter tails, hay hood, and iconic cupola/ventilator. The size and number of window openings appear to have changed, but the pattern is generally consistent with the symmetrical fenestration pattern found on the Ziegler-Charles Webster Barn at 5400 Ziegler Rd.; and the south barn door opening remains intact, though filled with a new door and sidelights. The loss of the ca. 1899 farmhouse’s columned front porch, diminished its ability to stand out as a distinctive example of Late Victorian residential architecture; however, it retains critical features that characterize the period of its construction—rectangular plan, hip-roof, large front-gable dormer with decorative wood shingles, rough-faced stone block foundation with beaded mortar, brick walls, and tall window openings with rough-faced stone sills and arched brick lintels—and the building continues to strongly read as a Late Victorian farmhouse despite the loss of the porch. Its historic windows appear to have been replaced by one- over-one windows that do not detract from the historic feeling of the building or complex. The ca. 1974 addition constructed at the southwest corner does not compromise the farmhouse’s ability to contribute to the significance of the district; it is subservient to the original building in terms of size, scale and massing; located on the rear portion of the west side; and its materials and workmanship are sufficiently compatible with the original building. The granary has lost its window sashes, the existing doors appear to be replacements, and a skylight has been added to the roof; however, the building’s most important characteristic, its “studs out” design remains intact and clearly visible, allowing this rare resource to convey its original purpose and contribute to the overall integrity and significance of the district. The secondary farmhouse appears to have had few alterations since the 1950s, largely limited to the installation of replacement windows and doors with what appears to be one-over-one windows that do not strongly detract from the historic feel of the building or complex. Though the building lacks individual architectural distinction, it clearly conveys characteristics typical of early twentieth-century farm outbuildings— one-story, gable roof with exposed rafter tails (in this case cross-gable), and wood drop siding—and contributes to the overall integrity and significance of the district. As a whole, the complex retains excellent integrity of location and has remained in its current location since ca. 1899 when the brick farmhouse was constructed. Overall, the complex retains good integrity of materials and workmanship. The complex retains much of its distinctive historic materials such as wood drop siding, brick, decorative wood shingles, and rough-faced stone, with losses largely limited to historic windows and doors and wood shingle roofing. The construction techniques and craftmanship typical of the period remain evident in the stone and brick masonry, wood drop siding, and granary’s “studs out” design. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 92 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. The district as a whole retains good integrity of design. The granary was moved a short distance to its present location between 1956 and 1969; however, the physical relationship of the granary to the other farm buildings remains essentially intact and no non-historic buildings have been introduced within the historic headquarters area. A previously existing box car and ca. 1900 wood-frame outbuilding were removed from the property in the 1970s; the removal did not significantly alter the complex’s functional layout. The newer loafing shed, stable and corrals are situated outside the historic complex boundary. The complex’s integrity of setting, feeling, and association is very good considering the intensive commercial, residential and intuitional development that has taken place in the Harmony area in recent years and is minimally impacted by alterations to the buildings after ca 1974. The farm complex conveys a strong sense of the past and would be readily recognizable to Samuel Webster as one of his many farms. The property’s long association with the development of agriculture in the Fort Collins area is clearly conveyed by the contributing buildings and enhanced by the surrounding landscape. VII. National and Fort Collins Register Eligibility Assessment 44. Eligibility field assessment: National: Eligible ☐ Not Eligible ☒ Need Data ☐ Fort Collins: Eligible ☒ Not Eligible ☐ Need Data ☐ 45. Is there district potential? Yes ☒ No ☐ Discuss: The parcel contains the headquarters of the Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm, a significant concentration of historic buildings associated with the agricultural activities undertaken by the property’s various owners, most significantly the sheep feeding business operated by Samuel F. Webster and his extended family from 1887 to 1976. If there is district potential, is this building: Contributing ☐ Non-contributing ☐ See Architectural Description for recommendations regarding the contributing/non-contributing status of existing buildings and structure within the potential district. 46. If the building is in existing district, is it: Contributing ☐ Noncontributing ☐ VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: 1-26 Digital images filed at: City of Fort Collins, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, 281 N. College Ave. 48. Report title: n/a 49. Date(s): October 2021 50. Recorder(s): Amy Unger 51. Organization: Pine Street Preservation 52. Address: 233 N. Pine St., Alma, CO 80420 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 93 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. 53. Phone number(s): 210-347-5558 NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and photographs. History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 94 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Site Photos and Maps Map 1: USGS Topographic Map. 3733 E. Harmony Rd. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 95 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Map 2: Larimer County Assessor Parcel Map. Map 3: 2021 Google Earth aerial image, parcel boundary represented by red rectangle. Estimated construction dates from Larimer County Assessor Records and historic aerial photographs. Barn, ca. 1921 Primary Farmhouse, ca. 1899 Corrals, ca. 1983-99 Loafing Shed, ca. 1983-99 Stable, ca. 1983-99 Secondary Farmhouse, ca. 1915 Granary, ca. 1920 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 96 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 1: Historic farm complex. Camera facing northwest. Photo 2: Ca. 1983-1999 buildings and structures, historic complex in background. Camera facing northeast. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 97 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 3: Ca. 1899 farmhouse, north and east sides. Camera facing southwest. Photo 4: Ca. 1899 farmhouse, east and south sides. Camera facing northwest. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 98 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 5: Ca. 1899 farmhouse, south side and west side of ca. 1974 addition. Camera facing northeast. Photo 6: Ca. 1899 farmhouse, south and west sides of ca. 1974 addition. Camera facing northeast. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 99 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 7: Ca. 1899 farmhouse, north side of addition and west brick wall. Camera facing southeast. Photo 8: Ca. 1921 barn, north and east sides. Camera facing southwest. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 100 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 9: Ca. 1921 barn, south and east sides. Camera facing northwest. Photo 10: Ca. 1921 barn, north and west sides. Camera facing southeast. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 101 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 11: Ca. 1921 barn and ca. 1920 granary. Camera facing northeast. Photo 12: Ca. 1920 granary, south and west sides. Camera facing northeast. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 102 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 13: Ca. 1920 granary, north and east sides. Camera facing southwest. Photo 14: Ca. 1983-99 loafing shed, east and south sides. Camera facing northwest. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 103 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 15: Ca. 1983-99 loafing shed, east and north sides. Camera facing southwest. Photo 16: Ca. 1983-99 loafing shed, interior. Camera facing northwest. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 104 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 17: Ca. 1983-99 stable, east and south sides. Camera facing northwest. Photo 18: Ca. 1983-99 stable, north and west sides. Camera facing southeast. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 105 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 19: Ca. 1915 secondary farmhouse, east side. Camera facing west. Photo 20: Ca. 1915 secondary farmhouse, south and west side of east-west block. Camera facing northeast. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 106 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 21: Ca. 1915 secondary farmhouse, north side of west side of east-west block, west and north sides of north-south block, north side of enclosed porch. Camera facing southeast. Photo 22: Ca. 1915 secondary farmhouse, north side of north-south block and north side of enclosed porch. Camera facing west. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 107 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 23: Ca. 1915 secondary farmhouse, east side of enclosed porch, north side of east end of east-west block. Camera facing southwest. Photo 24: Ca. 1983-99 corrals. Camera facing southeast. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 108 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Photo 25: Ca. 1983-99 corrals. Camera facing southwest. Photo 26: Driveway from Cinquefoil Ln. Camera facing southwest. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 109 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 1: Map of the Irrigated Farms North of Denver: Tributary to the Factories of the Great Western Sugar Company, compiled 1914. Parcel location marked by red circle. Owner at the time was George W. Zinn. (The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) Figure 2: Primary farmhouse at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. in 1950. (Larimer County Tax Assessor Records/The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 110 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 3: Primary farmhouse at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. in 1974. (Larimer County Tax Assessor Records/The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) Figure 4: Primary farmhouse at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. in 1976. (Larimer County Tax Assessor Records/The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 111 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 5: Barn at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. in 1950. (Larimer County Tax Assessor Records/The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 112 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 6: Barn at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. in 1975. (Larimer County Tax Assessor Records/The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) Figure 7: Barn at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. in 1976. (Larimer County Tax Assessor Records/The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 113 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 8: Secondary farmhouse at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. in 1950. (Larimer County Tax Assessor Records/The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) Figure 9: Secondary farmhouse at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. in 1974. (Larimer County Tax Assessor Records/The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 114 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 10: Secondary farmhouse at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. in 1976. (Larimer County Tax Assessor Records/The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) Figure 11: Tertiary dwelling at 3733 E. Harmony Rd. in 1950. Removed ca. 1974. (Larimer County Tax Assessor Records/The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 115 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 12: Oliver-Webster-Garrett Farm, 1956. Construction dates based on Larimer County Assessor Records. (HistoricAerials.com) Box Car, ca. 1910 Granary, ca. 1920 Secondary Farmhouse, ca. 1915 Tertiary Dwelling, ca. 1900 Barn, ca. 1921 Primary Farmhouse, ca. 1899 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 116 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 13: Oliver-Webster-Garrett Farm, 1971. Construction dates based on Larimer County Assessor Records. (HistoricAerials.com) Barn, ca. 1921 Primary Farmhouse, ca. 1899 Secondary Farmhouse, ca. 1915 Granary, ca. 1920 Tertiary Dwelling, ca. 1900 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 117 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 14: Sections 5 (left) and 4, Township 8N, Range 68W, Harmony District, 1971. (HistoricAerials.com) Samuel Webster Farm Preston Farm Ziegler Farm Oliver Homestead-Webster-Garrett Farm Ziegler-Charles Webster Farm 5117 Ziegler Rd. Henry Webster Farm ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 118 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 15: Sections 5 (left) and 4, Township 8N, Range 68W, Harmony District, 2021, illustrating the extensive development that has taken place since 1971. (2021 Google Earth imagery) Figure 16: Ziegler-Charles Webster Barn at 5400 Ziegler Rd., north and east sides in 2020 (left) and south and west sides in 2021. (Paul Avery/Google Street View) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 119 Resource Number: Click here to enter text. Temporary Resource Number: 3733 Address: 3733 E. Harmony Rd. Figure 17: John S. Oliver and Sarah Jane Luke. (The Archive at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery) Figure 18: Samuel F. Webster and Margaret Angell Webster. (History of Larimer County, Colorado) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 120