Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/2022 - 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 Chambers, 300 LaPorte Meg Dunn And remotely via Zoom Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting July 20, 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 hybrid Historic Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone and in person. The online meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to join online or in person at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. IN PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to queue at the podium to indicate you would like to speak at that time. You may speak when acknowledged 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 mmatsunaka@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 mmatsunaka@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 MAY 18, 2022. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 18, 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. 510 & 514 WOOD STREET – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notices for 510 & 514 Wood Street. • 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 ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). 4. BALFOUR SENIOR LIVING DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of a five-acre site at the southeast corner of Harmony and Cinquefoil Lane for a senior living community. Project includes adaptative reuse of four historic farmstead structures and construction of a 204,795 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 5. 1306 W MOUNTAIN – ADDITION – 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 along with related rehabilitation. A previous version of the application of the project included demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building – that work is still proposed but based on approval from the HPC on February 17, 2022, is not included in this application for approval. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) Packet Pg. 3 Page 4 6. 1802 N COLLEGE – APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation of the commercial property at 1802 North College Avenue. On April 22, 2022, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property was landmark eligible based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in intensive-level survey site forms. When undergoing development review, landmark-eligible properties are subject to the historic resource requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPLICANT: Darren Haun, H & H Properties, LLC (Property Owner) • 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. 4 Packet Pg. 5 Date:Roll CallMargo CarlockMeg DunnWalter DunnEric GuentherAnne NelsenJim RoseVacant SeatVacant SeatKurt KnierimVotePresent Present Present Present Present Present N/A N/A PresentConsent Agenda:1) MINUTES OF MAY 18, 20222) 510 & 514 WOOD STREET - SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICEAnne NelsenJim RoseEric GuentherVacant SeatMeg DunnVacant SeatMargo CarlockWalter DunnKurt KnierimYES YES YESYESYES YES YES7-0Discussion Agenda: 4) BALFOUR SENIOR LIVINGMeg DunnMargo CarlockWalter DunnAnne NelsenJim RoseEric GuentherVacant SeatVacant SeatKurt KnierimYES YES YES YES YES YESYES7-0Discussion Agenda: 5) 1306 W MOUNTAIN - ADDITION - FINAL DESIGN REVIEWMargo CarlockWalter DunnAnne NelsenJim RoseEric GuentherVacant SeatVacant SeatMeg DunnKurt KnierimNO YES YES NO RECUSEDYES YES4-2Discussion Agenda: 6) 1802 N COLLEGE - APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITYJim RoseEric GuentherVacant SeatMeg DunnVacant SeatMargo CarlockWalter DunnAnne NelsenKurt Knierim7-0YES YESYESYES YES YES YESRoll Call & Voting Record,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐPreservation Commission7/20/2022Packet pg. 5-1 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 20, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 2022 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 18, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1.HPC May 18, 2022 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 6 Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 May 18, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Walter Dunn And Remotely via Zoom Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting May 18, 2022 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Walter Dunn STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Melissa Matsunaka, Aubrie Brennan, Brad Yatabe •AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek requested the Commission change the order of items two and three. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Ms. Bzdek stated Council will issue a proclamation for “A Day of Racial Healing” in honor of Hattie McDaniel on June 7th and it will be accepted by a relative of Hattie McDaniel. Additionally, she provided an update on the Civil Rights Historic Context Project. She also stated staff has issued a second round deadline of July 1st for applications for zero interest rehab loans. Historic Preservation Commission Packet Pg. 7 Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 May 18, 2022 •PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:38 p.m.] 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 20, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member M Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the April 20, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Member Rose seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:39 p.m.] •DISCUSSION AGENDA 2.CONGRESO DEBRIEF (LATINOS IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION, NATIONAL MEETING, DENVER 2022) DESCRIPTION: This will be a short debrief about the 2022 Congreso, the national meeting of the Latinos in Heritage Conservation non-profit that held its 2022 annual meeting in Denver on April 28-30. City staff attended along with Jerry Gavaldon of the Museo de las Tres Colonias. After the debrief, there will be an open discussion among Historic Preservation Commission members and any attending community partners or members of the public about how the content and lessons of Congreso can be leveraged by the Historic Preservation program to better serve Fort Collins’ Hispanic residents and ensure their heritage and historic places are recognized, preserved, and shared with the broader community. STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Ms. Bzdek reported on the history of the 2-day Congreso conference held in Denver and discussed some of the topics covered during the meeting, noting the meeting always has an integrated focus on historical, cultural, and natural resources. Mr. Bertolini provided additional information on the topics discussed at the meeting, including the Denver Latinx community, the documentation of Hispanic heritage, and field visits. He discussed key takeaways from the meeting, including the area of ownership versus rental, particularly when addressing the equity challenges of preserving Hispanic history and associated places. Ms. Bzdek commented on the case studies discussed at the conference, including a digital pilot project in Texas. Mr. Bertolini commented on the importance of both historic and contemporary murals in cultural connections. Museo de las Tres Colonias Board Chair Jerry Gavaldon reported on his experiences at the Congreso conference. He discussed gentrification in Fort Collins. Member M. Dunn asked if there are any historic murals in Fort Collins. Mr. Gavaldon replied the Coca- Cola sign in Old Town has been around for decades and suggested an inventory of murals could be a good project. Packet Pg. 8 Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 May 18, 2022 Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Knierim asked if Commissioners could attend this conference in the future. Ms. Bzdek replied in the affirmative and noted the conference is bi-annual and occurs throughout the country. She also noted Councilmember Gutowsky has been to the conference in the past and she will be sent a recording of this discussion. Member M. Dunn requested additional information on a historic district in Denver that was discussed at the conference. Ms. Bzdek provided details regarding the public outreach and the district, which was recognized under criteria related to cultural significance. Chair Knierim asked how the Commission can help elevate this type of work within Fort Collins. Ms. Bzdek replied there are budget offers in that would support two additional staff positions, and if they move forward, Commissioners could comment before Council. [Timestamp: 6:09 p.m.] 3.STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES – switched with Item 3 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. Mr. Bertolini provided information on the historic surveys that were completed over the past month and discussed Ms. Bzdek’s participation in the “Living Her Legacy” portrait unveiling. 4.1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW, REHABILITATION & ADDITION DESCRIPTION: This item is a conceptual design review of the applicants’ project, to assess how well it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and to provide feedback to the owner/applicant so they can apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness at a future date. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the rear elevation of the main building, with other modifications to the building to allow for adaptive reuse. A previous version of the application of the project included demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building – that work is still proposed but based on approval from the HPC on February 17, 2022, is not included in this conceptual review. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) (**Secretary’s Note: Claire Havelda recused herself from this item and Brad Yatabe took her place as the representative from the City Attorney’s Office. Additionally, Member Guenther withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report noting this is a Conceptual Review of a new proposed addition design. He discussed the Commission’s previous approval of items related to demolition of the non- historic garage and constructing a new garage off the alley. He discussed the role of the Commission and noted it does have the option to move to a Final Design Review as the property has been posted. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the designation of the property and reviewed the timeline for the proposed project. He provided additional details regarding the new proposed addition design and stated staff’s analysis of the concept sketches is that the applicable rehabilitation standards are generally met. He provided information related to specific items on which staff is recommending the Commission focus its discussion. He stated the primary question from staff for the Commission is regarding the appropriateness of the window modification at the northwest corner of the addition. Packet Pg. 9 Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 May 18, 2022 Applicant Presentation Brian Berkhausen, property owner, stated he believes this new plan will meet the applicable goals, standards and guidelines while still providing he and his wife the necessary space they will need to age in place at the home. He discussed the reversal of the staircase and provided additional detail regarding the new proposed plan. Jeff Schneider, representative of the property owners, provided answers to Commission questions from the work session, including the reason the roof pitch was not changed, noting the proposed window pattern is likely not exact, addressing the west elevation, ensuring the addition is different than the existing building, and addressing the removal of the northwest window for life, health, and safety issues, among others. Public Input Laura Bailey commented she was pleased to see the changed design was closer to meeting the applicable Secretary of the Interior standards; however, she had questions about the lower window. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Schneider commented the current window does not meet Code egress requirements, which is why it needs to be replaced. Member Rose asked about the maximum distance above the floor for the window Code requirement. Mr. Schneider replied it is 44 inches. Member Nelsen clarified the head weight and size of the window. Mr. Schneider noted he would need to provide exact measurements at a later date. Member M. Dunn asked if an addition that went straight across was considered as opposed to the proposed L-shaped addition. Mr. Schneider replied the proposal decreases the footprint to not exceed 30% and minimizes the mass. Member M. Dunn commended the new roof design as being subordinate; however, she stated the Commission’s concerns were more related to the design than the size. Mr. Schneider stated the applicants feel this design is subordinate to the existing home while still meeting the needs of the property owner. Member M. Dunn stated she would like to keep the windows if possible. Mr. Schneider commented on window changes from a previous plan and noted these changes are similar but are less visible from the street side and still meet egress Code requirements. Mr. Schneider commented on the likelihood the window would be covered by a bed headboard. Member M. Dunn asked if it would be possible to get the necessary egress with the current window, though a different type of window. She stated the interior layout is not part of the Commission’s concern. Mr. Schneider replied the longevity of the property and use of the space also needs to be considered in terms of life, health, and safety. Mr. Berkhausen commented on the desire to be able to access the space with a walker and stated moving the bed would make aging in place more difficult. Mr. Schneider noted having the ability to age in place is one of the City’s strategic housing goals. Member Rose commended the new plan but questioned the east elevation whereupon there will be the same roof pitch, part with new roofing material and part with the existing roofing material. He commented on the porch having a different roof pitch and questioned whether the same roof pitch could be employed on the addition to create a more definitive break between the existing and the new addition. Mr. Schneider replied that has been considered; however, the Commission has deemed the existing mud porch as non-historic; therefore, it is not being considered as a design element. Member Rose clarified he was referring to the street-facing front of the building and that porch. Mr. Schneider replied there is an offset of the main roof on the front of the home and architecturally, it would seem to be a disservice to the existing bungalow style. He also noted the entire roof will ultimately be replaced at some point. Member Rose suggested considering the roof pitch change. Member Nelsen asked if the entire window or just the glazing will be replaced in the bathroom. Mr. Schneider replied it would just be the glazing as the glass needs to be tempered per Code. He stated it is undecided if the glass would be obscured. Packet Pg. 10 Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 May 18, 2022 Member M. Dunn asked Mr. Bertolini about his statement that there is precedent for window changes such as this and requested an example of the Commission allowing such a change for a locally landmarked property. Mr. Bertolini replied his use of the term ‘precedent’ was based on the Parks Service guidance for not disrupting the overall character. He stated it depends on the context, visibility, and the location of the windows and noted he is not aware of a City landmark example where a window change has been approved. Member M. Dunn stated differentiation is important for the addition, not for the existing windows at the rear of the historic house, and proportions are important there. She stated if the Commission can find a rationale with which it feels comfortable, that also fits within the Secretary of the Interior standards, that would enable the filling of the window and building the two new windows, the next concerns are related to the fill-in and whether the windows are in a similar proportion and are simple. Member Rose stated the flexibility provided in the City’s adopted Building Code could make for getting close to the maximum height above the floor and arranging proportions so they more closely conform to what is differentiated and yet compatible. He suggested there may be a way to create the necessary egress windows while still accommodating the preservation needs. Mr. Schneider replied changing out the window to be an egress window, that may or may not accommodate egress, would still require a variance from the Building Department. Mr. Bertolini noted those variances would be at the discretion of the Chief Building Official and they are typically applied when a character-defining feature is being threatened. Member Carlock commended the changes to the plan and noted the windows on the east side are not similar and do not line up with the band; therefore, there is already variation in the windows and the proposed change would be a reasonable adaptation to achieve the aging in place goal. Member Nelsen stated the actual window measurements are important. Mr. Schneider noted this plan is an overall concept to allow the Commission to weigh in on whether this will philosophically work. Mr. Schneider requested input on the brick grounding of the exposed foundation wall for the addition. Member M. Dunn supported the thin brick proposal. Member Rose commended the continuation of the band, though he suggested a colored stucco could be just as effective a treatment as the thin brick. Mr. Schneider replied that had been considered; however, he questioned whether having three different materials stacked on top of each other would be appropriate from a design perspective. Member M. Dunn commended the size of the new addition plan and noted design matters more than square footage. She stated it is worth exploring a more rectangular, simple form addition, inset perhaps on both sides with the bedroom behind the existing brick wall so the new windows can be exactly as desired and to allow the existing window to be maintained. Mr. Schneider stated the applicant team is attempting to be respectful of past conversations related to square footage. He stated a rectangular addition would be much larger than what is proposed and suggested the functionality of this proposal is greater than what would be provided by a rectangular addition. Mr. Berkhausen asked if it would be possible for Mr. Bertolini to do some research on the precedent of window modifications that have occurred at the federal level. Mr. Bertolini replied in the affirmative. Mr. Berkhausen commented on the benefits of the proposed plan and asked if the north wall could be removed. Mr. Schneider noted removing that wall would allow for additional floor space flexibility and a smaller addition. Member Rose stated he does not believe the existing brick wall is a character-defining feature and it could be worth investigating its removal to provide changes to the addition that may be beneficial. Chair Knierim concurred and noted the brick wall would no longer be an exterior feature. Member Carlock stated the Commissioners commented in January that the retention of the brick wall was important to the reversibility aspect. Mr. Schneider stated that was his concern as well. Member M. Dunn stated she would rather lose the bricks in the back than the bricks that would be lost to the new windows. Mr. Schneider noted the back wall removal would be 96 square feet whereas the windows would be 8 to 10 square feet. Member M. Dunn reiterated her thoughts on a rectangular addition. Mr. Schneider replied he is concerned from an aesthetic and architectural nature that that would not be an appropriate feel and would not be complementary to the existing home. Packet Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT July 20, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 510 & 514 WOOD ST STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior 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. 510 Wood Street Historical Background The property at 510 Wood Street appears to have been built in circa 1920, although no original building permit could be located. There is no detailed survey record for this property, although a reconnaissance survey was completed as part of the Westside Neighborhood Survey effort in the late-1990s, which has been attached to this report. Construction History •1920 (circa) – building constructed o Note: first City directory entry is 1929 •1926 – garage built •1938 – reroofing •1949 – addition to house Residents (to 1972) -1929 – Charlies P. & Minnie Mayers -1931 – Robert & Edna Roades; Robert was a laborer -1933-1934 – Aaron G./Alpheus & Virginia Cox; Aaron/Alpheus worked in trucking -1936 – Keith J. & Bessie Chavez; Keith was a laborer o Addressed as 512 Wood St. -1938 – Vacant -1940 – Frank A. & Rushie Thompson; Frank worked for the Works Progress Administration -1948 – Marvin C. & Flossie Davis; Marvin was a lineman (electrical utility) -1950-1956 – Robert & Louisa Smith; Robert was a general worker -1957 – Jake C. & Fay Michael; Jake worked at the Loveland Sugar Factory (Great Western) and Fay worked as a finisher at Seder’s (a local plastic manufacturing corporation at 300 N. College Ave). Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 -1959-1962 – Mrs. Alice (Fae) Michael; now working as a clerk at Woodward Governor (Jake passed away) -1963-1972 – Everett & Faye (remarried from above) Straw; Everett was a mechanic at Northern Colorado Equipment Co. and Fay worked in the assembly department at Woodward Governor 510 Wood St, 1998 Historic Survey image Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 510 Wood Street – Google Streetview Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 4 514 Wood St Historical Background The property at 514 Wood Street appears to have been built in circa 1918, although no original building permit could be located. There is no detailed survey record for this property, although a reconnaissance survey was completed as part of the Westside Neighborhood Survey effort in the late-1990s, which has been attached to this report. Construction History • 1918 (circa) – building constructed o Note: first City Directory entry is in 1929 • 1950 – remodel & enlarge garage (John Gallegos) • 1953 – rear 21’x14’, two-room addition (John Gallegos) • 1982 – reroof and interior rehab (Mary Martinez) Residents (to 1972) - 1929-1936 – Daniel L. & Eva Cox; Daniel is a laborer - 1938 – Pearl T. & Estherella Miller; Pearl was a poultryman - 1940-1948 – Clifford L. & Opal Webb; Clifford was a laborer - 1950-1957 – John B. & Ursina Gallegos; John was a painter - 1959 – vacant - 1960-1963 – Sam J. & Joyce M. Mestas; Sam was a plumber for Rodgers Plumbing & Heating at 250 E. Mountain Ave. - 1964-1966 – Perry E. & Fern E. Cassel; retired - 1968 – No information - 1969 – Mary Martinez (owns through the 1980s); Jenny Martinez also listed starting in 1970. Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 5 514 Wood Street, 1998 Historic Survey image 514 Wood Street (Google Streetview) ATTACHMENTS 1. 510 Wood Street, Historic Survey Form and Photos, 1998 2. 514 Wood Street, Historic Survey Form and Photos, 1998 Packet Pg. 17 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 18 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 24 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 25 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 26 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 27 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 28 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT July 20, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING MAY 5, 2022 TO JULY 6, 2022) STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Specific to project review, 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 May 5, 2022 to July 6, 2022. There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting items and events from the previous month. Education & Outreach Activities Part of the mission of the Historic Preservation Services division is to educate the public about local, place- based history, historic preservation, and preservation best practices. Below are highlights from the last month in this area. Program Title Sponsor/Audience/Partner Description # of Attendees Date of Event/Activity NCPH – Burnout & Government Historians National Council on Public History – Government Historians Committee A professional discussion and sharing about the challenges of burnout in the public history profession. 50+/- May 11, 2022 Packet Pg. 29 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 Black & Latinx History in Fort Collins PDT Admin Team Walking tour for City staff in PDT Administration about Latinx & Black History 15+/- May 26, 2022 Black History Video filming Historic Preservation, FCTV, CSU-BAACC HPS-produced Black History (pending) w/ FCTV and CSU support N/A (4 staff & 1 CSU staffer) June 2, 2022 Juneteenth Staff support for Juneteenth event planning National holiday commemorating the end of slavery – local celebrations - June 18, 2022 Early Black History in Fort Collins Poudre Libraries District Walking tour of early Black History sites in/near Washington Park 25 June 22, 2022 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 426 Peterson St. – Rowe/Peasley/Kreutzer Property) Helical piers to stabilize foundation. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved – report issued May 10, 2022 17-19 Old Town Square Change to windows & patio along Walnut St/Old Town Square. Non-contributing property to Old Town Landmark District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved May 10, 2022 415 E. Laurel St. – Hussey House Rear addition and demolition of historic garage. Project did not meet SOI Standards (not a Landmark – compliance not required). Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved – report issued (did not meet SOI Standards) May 17, 2022 1510 S. College Ave. – Bradley Residence Replacement sign on monument sign in front yard. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved May 25, 2022 713 Mathews St. – Sterdensticker Property Rooftop solar & in-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle) Approved - report issued (met SOI Standards) May 25, 2022 300 S. Howes St. – Peter Anderson House Replacement in-kind for non-historic, two-story rear staircase. Listed in National Register of Historic Places. Reviewed by staff under Land Use Code 3.4.7. Approved May 26, 2022 172 N. College Ave – Northern Hotel New hanging sign on Walnut Street face for new commercial tenant. Contributing property to Old Town Landmark District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved May 27, 2022 214 E. Elizabeth St. – Endicott House New rear/north deck. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved – report issued (met SOI Standards) June 3, 2022 Packet Pg. 30 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 1320 W. Oak St. – Parker/Stover House After-the-fact trim painting and storm window install (LRL application denied). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved June 3, 2022 229 W. Mulberry St. – Alfred Parker Duplexes New black metal railing on front entries to meet IEBC requirements. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved June 3, 2022 217 Linden St. – Loomis Block New sign for new commercial tenant. Contributing property to Old Town Landmark District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved June 9, 2022 1006 Laporte Ave. - Marsh-Geist House & Garage New door opening with steel door leading onto deck. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved June 30, 2022 4605 Ziegler Rd. – Preston Farm Removal of dead pine tree. City Landmark, listed on National and State Registers of Historic Places. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved 6/30/2023 247-249 Linden St. – Tubbs & Cowan Block Major rehabilitation including in-kind window & door replacements, masonry repair, rooftop access addition, and rear/alley addition. Contributing property to Old Town Landmark District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved July 5, 2022 218 Linden St. – Philippi Harness Shop Sign refacing and window signs. Contributing property to Old Town Landmark and NRHP Districts. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved July 6, 2022 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation Vine & College (NE Corner – multiple addresses) – Powerhouse 2 Multi-story office building. Properties existing on site either not of age, previously determined ineligible, or determined ineligible by staff. New building does not overlap w/ historic buildings’ Historic Influence Area 3.4.7 requirements met through new building location May 11, 2022 1215 S. Shields St. – Fischer Properties Mixed single-family and multi-family development. Properties on site determined not eligible in 2017. 2017 determinations valid for this application only. Design compatibility with 1301 S. Shields Recommended May 25, 2022 322 E. Oak St. Change of use – commercial/office to single- family No Preservation concerns (no exterior work) June 3, 2022 Packet Pg. 31 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 121 W Olive Mixed Use Building (commercial & apartments) Existing building determined Not Eligible; Design Compatibility needed w/ Armstrong Hotel June 8, 2022 300 Impala Cir Housing Catalyst Redevelopment Preservation Design Compatibility w/ Ricketts Farmhouse met. June 29, 2022 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 704 N. College Ave & 108 E Vine Dr. Reviewed by staff – Not Eligible N/A May 17, 2022 124 E. Vine Dr. Reviewed by staff – Not Eligible N/A May 17, 2022 202 E. Vine Dr. Reviewed by staff – Not Eligible N/A May 17, 2022 6824 S. College – Farmhouse Not Eligible Yes June 28, 2022 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 Packet Pg. 32 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 5 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. Between May 5, 2022 and July 6, 2022, staff processed a total of 1 5G/Small Cell tower requests. This was a revised application from previous submissions, and was to replace existing street lights. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 33 1 Staff Activity Report Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission July 20, 2022 Education & Outreach Highlights • NCPH – Burnout & Government Historians online discussion • Black & Latinx History in Fort Collins – PDT Admin • Black History Video filming (w/ FCTV & BAACC) • Juneteenth support • Walking Tour – Early Black History in Fort Collins (Poudre Libraries) • Extra note: Prep for Museo Adobe remudding, July 29 & 30 2 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 34 Historic Survey Highlights • Steady Progress on College Ave. SHF- funded Survey • Development Review – 4 Findings • all 4 Not Eligible • 6824 S. College Ave • 704 N. College & 108 E Vine Dr. • 124 E. Vine Dr. • 202 E. Vine Dr.3 6824 S. College Design Review Highlight: 247-249 Linden • 1882 Tubbs & Cowan Block • Old Town Landmark District • Joe’s [Cienfuegos] Auto Upholstery • Masonry repair • Targeted window and door replacement • Rear addition • Rooftop stair access addition 4 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 35 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT July 20, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME THE OVERLANDER BY 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. Project includes adaptative reuse of four historic farmstead structures and construction of a 204,795 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 HPC’S ROLE IN REVIEW PROCESS: Provide a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission 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: Application pre-submittal requirements: 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. As a result of that determination, adaptive reuse of the historic resources on the development site is required by Section 3.4.7(D) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. PDP review progress: The applicant submitted for Project Development Plan (PDP) review in January 2022 and the HPC provided comments on the project design at its March 16, 2022 meeting (minutes attached). Staff provided comments on the Round 2 PDP submittal on July 1, 2022 and the Round 2 submittal documents are now before the HPC for additional comment and a recommendation to the decision maker. Overview of historic resources on development site: 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 related to its agricultural operations extends from 1878 to 1965. While the four contributing structures—two farmhouses, a Packet Pg. 36 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 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 project incorporates 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 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 • boxed 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 lacks a significant feature—the original front porch has been removed. Photographic 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 Packet Pg. 37 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 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 • 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 to new locations 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 204,795 square feet that will serve as the main structure for the senior living community. The materials for that building, as well as the colors, were chosen to create design compatibility with the historic resources on the site. Pertinent changes in the Round 2 submittal include reduction of the building massing and changes to the material colors on the SE corner of the new building and lowering of the roofline along the east and south facades. On the west side adjacent to the historic resources, the applicant has broadened the space between the barn and the porch of the new building so that the span is now 40 feet. The granary re-location site is now closer to the relocation site for the historic barn. The revised design eliminates several of the conjectural features (windmill, etc.) that could have been construed as historic elements on the site. AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY: The “area of adjacency” for the purpose of historic review of the proposed changes is the parcel that is the entire development site because it contains identified historic resources. There are no additional extant historic buildings abutting the development site. REVIEW CRITERIA AND 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. Packet Pg. 38 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 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. Historic complex: It is difficult to meet this standard for the entire parcel in the context of intensive site redevelopment, which will greatly alter the open landscape surrounding the farm buildings that is characteristic of the property’s historic agricultural use. In such a circumstance where the property is zoned for redevelopment, the applicant’s proposal to retain the historic structures on or close to their original locations and spatial relationships, is an appropriate 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. Barn and granary: Staff concurs with the Commission’s feedback on the relocation of the barn and granary, noting they are justified based on the site plan requirements and allow for retention of all four contributing structures as well as adaptive reuse plans for each. The structural stability of the barn will be improved as part of the relocation, and it is also worth noting that the proposed move of the granary building is mitigated by the fact that the building has already been moved in the past. Complies 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. Barn and granary: 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. However, as noted above, moving buildings a reasonable distance to accommodate redevelopment plans at this level of complexity is a frequent occurrence in order to adaptively reuse the structures, and this proposal retains the overall coherence of the original farm complex’s general layout. Ideally, the redevelopment should include visible indicators and/or interpretative signage to document that the buildings have been moved. Barn: Changes to the paint color for the barn are acceptable and consistent with changing paint color over the full history of the structure. The Commission did not highlight any concerns about the decorative additions to the paint. The applicant wishes to retain the proposed new decorative barn TBD Packet Pg. 39 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 doors on the north side, which could be falsely construed as historic features. The Commission noted general support for the overall rehab plan for the barn, including the decisions about window and door openings, but one member noted that the design for the barn doors should be simpler since we are lacking information on the original barn doors on the south. Staff concurs with this suggestion for a simpler barn door design to offset the degree of design alteration to the exterior of this structure, particularly since the doors are a new addition to the building. Primary farmhouse: In March, the Commission supported the proposed reconstruction of the porch based on historic photos. Site features: Due to concerns raised at the last HPC discussion of this project, the revised design no longer features the conjectural features (windmills, water tower, and stagecoach) that could have created a false sense of history. SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The intensive-level site form for this property does not highlight any alterations to the original farmstead structures that have acquired significance, and no such features have been identified by staff. 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 historic materials and features, and the Commission did not raise any concerns about this Standard at the previous meeting. Complies 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. Features on the historic structures that may be replaced are limited to windows. The updated submittal packet now includes a window schedule. New windows have not received final selection, but the applicant has provided information about the Andersen E-Series Architectural Collection product line for your review. These are Energy-Star certified aluminum-clad windows with a wood core. A more typical replacement product line for wood windows that we would approve would be a coated wood-clad product such as the Energy-Star Kolbe Heritage Series. If the Commission will provide guidance on this question, staff can work with the applicant in the final development plan to select and approve an appropriate window replacement product. Primary farmhouse: Two existing door openings would receive new doors with single half lite with a traditional window pattern. All of the existing window openings will be retained without changes. One small, fixed window in a modified opening (B13) would receive a replacement window for the modified opening. Another opening (B6) is missing the window unit. The TBD Packet Pg. 40 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 6 remaining windows openings also have original window units in varying states of repair. The applicant proposes to replace rather than repair all of these windows, so staff is recommending an initial assessment, potentially combined with further investigation if the Commission recommends it, to determine if any of these could be repaired. For windows that are approved for replacement products, staff recommends sashes that replicate the original two-over-two sashes from a product line that meets the requirements established by the Commission. Secondary farmhouse: The entry door will be relocated to the north side for an accessible entrance and installed in an existing window opening, to be enlarged (C104). Two existing door openings would be infilled at the bottom to change to window openings (C100 and C102). None of the window units are original, and the applicant proposes to replace them with Andersen E- Series windows. The openings at C4, C5, and C6 would be altered. Granary: There are two window openings on the granary, both of which are empty and covered with plywood. It is unknown if the openings are original; both openings would be infilled. The damaged door in the original opening on the east wall (D100) will be modified to sliding, while the other door in the original opening on the west wall (D102), which is also damaged and missing the left panel, would be infilled with siding rather than repaired/replaced with an in-kind door product. Barn: The existing siding will be repaired and repainted. The fenestration on the barn is not reflective of the original agricultural use of the structure, and only three of the existing window sashes on the barn appear to be original (A10, A11, A12). Two of those will be restored and made operable, while A10 would be replaced with no change to the opening. As with the other structures, the Commission should provide clear recommendations for the option to replace with aluminum-clad versus wood-clad window products. As noted in the March 2022 discussion, the applicant proposes to add a door on the north elevation of the barn, as well as enlarging the door opening on the south wall. A door opening on the west wall that is not original would be infilled with siding. 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. Primary Farmhouse: The applicant’s cover memo notes a plan to clean masonry surfaces on the primary farmhouse using low-pressure water and detergent with soft bristle brushes. Paint removal on the siding will be done with environmentally safe paint removal products. Existing brick on the farmhouse will be repointed. Complies 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 Complies Packet Pg. 41 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 7 unlikely but further research would be necessary to confirm.” In the plan of protection for the construction phase, staff will call for archeological monitoring at the appropriate time when ground disturbance is underway for the project. 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 only identified changes that are relevant to this Standard are window and door opening changes, which are offset in part by removal of some of the non- historic window openings and are otherwise deemed acceptable based on the level of fenestrations changes to the historic structures over time. 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. At the March 2022 meeting, the Commission noted a concern about proximity of the new construction to the barn, so the applicant has adjusted the site plan by increasing the space between the barn and the porch of the adjacent building to 40 feet. The applicant has added a covered walkway between the barn and the new building that is freestanding and will not have a material impact on the structure, but the specifics of its design are not included/easy to see in the provided materials. Staff can follow up on this item with the applicant during the final development plan review process to ensure the design of the walkway is compatible with the barn if the Commission is comfortable with that approach. Complies 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. Complies Packet Pg. 42 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 8 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: As noted above in the project description, the revised design responds to the Planning staff concerns about the building massing along the east/southeast portion of the new building. Because the overall scale of the new construction is difficult to relate to the historic buildings in its entirely, in a scenario like this it is appropriate to create massing compatibility with the directly abutting building portions, which allows the historic resources to be retained and included in the overall site plan. Whether the building sufficiently addressed articulation that relates to the width of historic structures was a subject of discussion in the March 2022 HPC meeting. The applicant notes use of the shed and gable dormers, cupolas, and gabled roof forms as the primary means of reducing the overall mass in order to relate to the mass and scale of the historic resources. Staff notes that the three-story building mass with vertical siding, on the west elevation, also reflects a similar width as the historic resources in the complex on the west side of the site plan, as do the gabled entries along the one-story porch on this same elevation. Complies Packet Pg. 43 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 9 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. 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. The one-story entry porch at the same general height of the historic structures serves as the primary tool for the massing transition, which is further assisted by the increased distance of 40 feet between the barn and the new building. Based on the concerns that at least one member raised at the last meeting, the Commission will need to discuss whether this approach is sufficient to address the gradual massing transition requirement that is meant to address the difference in scale of the historic buildings and the new construction. 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. Without significant stepbacks on the structure to create a materials transition, this standard would need to be applied to all of the primary materials proposed for the project. In particular, there was some discussion of the stone product at the March HPC meeting. While one member appreciated the field stone material style, another expressed a question about whether the simulated stone material meets this Standard. The manufactured stone product does meet the durability standard but, like all simulated products, challenges the idea of “authentic” in this standard. The Commission should also be aware that evaluations of compliance with this standard have varied based on variable circumstances with other redevelopment projects in this past. Some building designs have lent themselves to simple materials adjustments that allow for real brick or stone cladding on building portions that are closest to the related historic resources that use a similar material. In the case of siding products, cementitious siding has been approved in several instances. If the Commission wishes to provide further guidance on material selection that the applicant would be willing to consider, staff could complete the review process in the final development plan review cycle. TBD Packet Pg. 44 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 10 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: The proposed materials meet this requirement based on type, scale, and color. As we noted for the Commission in March, Planning and Preservation had staff expressed concern about the quantity of white materials on the new construction and its contribution to the visual impact of the most sizeable portion of the new building. The revised design replaces some of that material with a tan/earth-toned color version. Complies 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: In March, the Commission highlighted concerns about the window proportions, window style and pattern, and the use and quantity of shutters. In response, the applicant notes the design now shows a reduced number of shutters and adjusted window styles to better relate to the 2-over-2 light windows in the historic structures. The applicant notes that the wide variability of window proportions in the existing structures calls for similar variability in the new building. Staff review of the proposed materials was inconclusive on the matter of the shutters—the elevations appear to show a similar quantity of shutters so this is a point of clarification to discuss with applicant of the Commission is sufficiently concerned with their impact on compliance with this standard. TBD Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Complies/Does Not Comply Packet Pg. 45 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 11 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: There was some disagreement about whether this requirement is met at the March HPC meeting, relative to the roof forms proposed for the new construction. It seems the use of the gambrel form in particular is intended to evoke the agricultural theme of the site rather than serve as a directly referential design feature. Staff notes that this code requirement is meant to provide options for relating design details to the existing historic resources and rooflines are one option for doing so, but not a requirement as long as the requirement is otherwise met. The applicant memo provided with the revised materials notes that the new building’s porch roof relates to the height of the granary and farmhouse buildings and the eaves of the gambrel roof reference the height of the barn. If the Commission does not feel this is sufficient, more clarity on suggestions for how to create stronger reference lines or elements would be helpful. TBD 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 from the right of way by the sizeable new construction on the eastern/northeastern portion of the site. However, visibility of the historic buildings from the pedestrian viewpoint on the site will be retained in 360 degrees on all four sides of each structure. Despite the impact on visibility from the east and from the south, the historic structures and their proximity to a major arterial road, with visibility maintained from the west and the north, allow the project to meet this requirement. Complies Packet Pg. 46 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 12 3.4.7(E)(3): Plan of Protection The applicant has not yet submitted this document for review and approval. Staff is in the process of updating the basic template for a plan of protection and can apply this requirement in the FDP review cycle. If the Commission would like to highlight any particular concerns that should be included in the plan of protection, that could also be included in the findings for your recommendation. SAMPLE MOTION FORMAT: The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of approval or denial of the development proposal based on the following suggested format: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker [approval/denial] of the development proposal for The Overlander by Balfour, finding it [is/is not] in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 based on the following: • The treatment of the four historic resources on the site [meets/does not meet] the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, [upon satisfaction of the following conditions, if applicable . . .]. • The design of new construction [reflects/does not reflect] massing, building materials, and façade details that are compatible with the historic context, [creates/does not create] a visual relationship between the historic architecture and the new construction, and [meets/does not meet] the requirements outlined in Table 1 of Section 3.4.7, [upon satisfaction of the following conditions, if applicable . . .]. • The proposed design [protects/does not protect] the visibility of nearby historic resources, [upon satisfaction of the following conditions, if applicable . . .]. Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings or conditions, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation 2. Applicant Submittal 3. DOE and Site Form 4. March 2022 HPC Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 47 1 Historic Preservation Commission, July 20, 2022 The Overlander by Balfour, 3733 E Harmony Development Review Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager HPC Role Provide a recommendation to the P&Z Commission regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the land use code 2 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 48 Project Summary 3 Adaptive reuse of four contributing buildings • 2 Farmhouses: independent living cottages • Barn: community room • Granary: storage for outdoor activities New building (3-5 stories; 204,795 sf) March 2022 Revised Site 4 Harmony Corridor 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 49 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 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 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 50 7 The Oliver Homestead/Webster-Garrett Farm 1899 Farmhouse 1921 Barn1921 Granary1915 Farmhouse 8 Revised Site Plan 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 51 Revised Elevations: Primary Farmhouse 9 Revised Elevations: Secondary Farmhouse 10 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 52 Revised Elevations: Granary 11 Revised Elevations: Barn (South) 12 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 53 13 North and West Elevations 14 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 54 15 16 15 16 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 55 17 Review Requirements 18 SOI Standards for Rehabilitation – 4 Historic Resources • Standards #3 (conjectural features) • Standard #6 (repair/replacement of features) 17 18 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 56 Review Requirements 19 Design Compatibility: New Construction • Does the building comply with all six of the compatibility standards in 3.4.7(E), Table 1? HPC Role Provide a recommendation to the P&Z Commission regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the land use code 20 19 20 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 57 Page 1 of 2 U:\2021044.20-Balfour Ft Collins\06 Milestones\2022-0627_Historic Planning Commission Submittal 2\2022-0630_hearing memo supplement\2022-0701_HPC Hearing Memo.docx Date: July 1, 2022 To: City of Fort Collins Development Review Center Attention: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 From: DTJ DESIGN, Inc. Re:The Overlander by Balfour- Historic Planning Commission Supplement 3733 East Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado PDP220001, Round 2 Applicant: Balfour Senior Living, LLC Maren, As requested, we are providing the following memo as a supplement to our HPC Hearing materials. This memo is provided to address the following: 1. Product sheets/ information for the proposed replacement windows and doors in the historic structures, 2. A summary of how the proposed treatments of the historic buildings comply with the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Standards for Rehabilitation, and 3. A summary of how the proposed new construction complies with the six requirements of 3.4.7 E, Table 1, of the Fort Collins Land Use code. 1.Product Sheets/ Information for Windows and Doors Please refer to the attachments to this memo for information on the type and style of proposed windows and doors for the historic structures. The same windows and doors are proposed for the new construction portion of the project as well. 2.SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Standards for Rehabilitation We have used these guidelines in strategizing and designing the adaptive reuse of the historic structures for this project. The two farmhouses will be used as senior living residential units, the barn will be used as a community room/ social space for gathering, and the granary used for storage. These proposed uses will require minimal change to the distinct features. While we are slightly relocating 2 of the historic structures, the design preserves the relationship of the historic resources and maintains the historical homestead character of the property. We have removed previous “conjectural” features, such windmills and water towers, to eliminate the potential confusion with non-historical elements. Our project plans to preserve the distinctive existing features such as the barn cupola and the “studs out” construction of the granary and will reconstruct the front porch of the primary farmhouse based on 1950 photographic evidence. As noted on the proposed building elevations, the exterior materials of the historic buildings will be noted to remain in our proposal and repaired with the same type of material when deterioration does not allow. The cleaning of masonry surfaces on the primary farmhouse will be with low pressure water and detergent with soft bristle brushes and ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 58 Page 2 of 2 U:\2021044.20-Balfour Ft Collins\06 Milestones\2022-0627_Historic Planning Commission Submittal 2\2022-0630_hearing memo supplement\2022-0701_HPC Hearing Memo.docx paint removal on siding will be with environmentally safe paint removal products and existing brick will be repointed for repair. No new additions are planned for any of the historic structures (other than the front porch noted above) and new construction will be located far enough away that in the event of their removal the integrity of the historic elements would be unimpaired. The alteration of the secondary farmhouse to relocate the entry door to the north side of this structure is required to provide an accessible route to this entrance but is done in a way to preserve the historic character of this structure. 3.Summary of compliance with the six requirements of 3.4.7 E, Table 1: a. Massing and Articulation: We have adjusted the site plan to increase the space between the barn and the porch element of the new building to 40’-0”, essentially twice the width of a large alley. We believe the shed and gable dormers, cupolas and gabled roof forms of the new building reduce it overall mass thru variety and reflect “the mass and scale of historic resources” as required in Table 1 (1) and the one-story porch element along the entry area of the new building (and other areas) is very close to the height of the historic structures and “creates a gradual massing transition at the same height” of the historic structures as required in Table 1, (2). b. Building Materials: Our intent is to use the style of architecture in the historic structures as a design que for the new building design and add variety thru material changes, color variations, and architectural features. The lower story of the new building at the entry area/ vicinity of the historic structures is constructed of manufactured stone, wood (siding) and precast concrete as shown in our PDP submittal materials board. The material choices, we believe, satisfy the requirements to provide “authentic, durable, high-quality materials” as noted in Table 1 (3). We are proposing to also use the same type of siding present on the historic structures (horizontal siding), the same scale (width of siding) and colors in a blend to create variety as noted above. We believe these material choices satisfy the requirements of Type, Scale and Color of Table 1 (4). c. Façade Details: We have refined the window grill pattern of the new building to match the window grill pattern in the historic structures. We believe providing a similar window pattern, historic in nature, satisfies the requirements of Table 1 (5): similar window pattern. We believe using the height of the granary and farmhouses as the que for the new building porch roof and the total height of the barn as the que for the eaves of the gambrel roof relate the new building to historic resources by “selecting horizontal refences lines” as required in Table 1 (6). Thank you for your consideration of this submittal, Lee Payne, AIA, NCARB, LEED A.P. Owner + Principal | Director of Architecture ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 59 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 SUBMITTAL 2JUNE 1, 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. trichards@dtjdesign.comContact: Todd Richards &,9,/(1*,1((50(3(1*,1((5%2:0$1&2168/7,1*1526 Cole Blvd., Suite 100Lakewood, CO 80401tel. 303-801-2917email. tpannell@bowman.comContact: Thomas Pannell,0(*&RUS7600 E. Orchard Road, Suite 250-SGreenwood Village, CO 80111tel. 303-796-6000email. craig.a.watts@imegcorp.comContact: Craig WattsVICINITY MAPNorthPROJECT LOCATIONE. HARMONY ROADCINQUEFOIL LANE (;,67,1*=21,1*HARMONY CORRIDOR DISTRICT)/225$5($5$7,2BUILDING AREALOT AREAFLOOR AREA RATIOTHIS PROJECT WILL OPERATE AS A MEMORY CARE AND ASSISTED LIVING COMMUNITY. PROJECT INFORMATION 352-(&7'(6&5,37,21MAIN BUILDING:•CONSTRUCTION TYPE VA•SPRINKLERED -FULL NFPA 13PRIMARY FARMHOUSE•NOT SPRINKLEREDSECONDARY FARMHOUSE•NOT SPRINKLEREDBARN -COMMUNITY ROOM•SPRINKLERED -FULL NFPA 13&2'(6800$5<%8,/',1*+(,*+7MAIN BUILDING:•75'-2" (150'-0" ALLOWABLE)•3, 4 & 5 STORIESPRIMARY FARMHOUSE•21'-3"•1 STORYSECONDARY FARMHOUSE•13'-3"•1 STORYBARN•25'-9"•1 STORY204,795 SF5 ACRES X 43,560 SF217,800 SF0.94ARCHITECTUREPLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Ste. 130BOULDER, CO 80301T 303.443.7533www.dtjdesign.comDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:SHEET NUMBER:COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022©Last Saved:Drawing: SHEET TITLE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\cjohnson.DTJ\Documents\2021044.20 - Balfour Ft. Collins_cjohnsonVJMKY.rvt5/31/2022 2:52:43 PMG0002021044.20COVER SHEETMLA, EJR, RSLPP06/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NUMBERNAMEGENERALG000 COVER SHEETCIVILC1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLANC2.0 OVERALL GRADING PLANC3.0 OVERALL UTILITY PLANC4.0 EMERGENCY ACCESS PLANLANDSCAPEG002 GENERAL NOTESL100 OVERALL SITE PLANL101 HARDSCAPE PLANSL102 HARDSCAPE PLANSL200 SITE DETAILSL201 SITE DETAILSL300 PLANTING SCHEDULE & NOTESL301 LANDSCAPE PLANSL302 LANDSCAPE PLANSL401 PLANTING DETAILSL501 HYDROZONE PLANSL502 HYDROZONE PLANSARCHITECTUREA110 SHADE STUDIESA200 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 DETAILSITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 60 SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\G001 - General Notes.dwgLast Saved: May 31, 2022 5:06:51 PM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:00:32 AMCOPYRIGHT © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONGENERAL NOTESG002BOTTOM 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 TestingAll 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 CompactionSee, 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 SlopesUnless 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), ODORˇCONTROLLED 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 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 61 10.00'MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102HARMONY ROAD.CINQUEFOIL LANEDOG PARKGENERATOR & ENCLOSURE(SEE ARCHITECTUREDRAWING)FIRE LANEMC GARDEN8' HARMONY SIDEWALK(TYP)CORTYARD40' BUILDING SETBACK (TYP)BICYCLE PARKING30' PARKING SETBACK (TYP)5' SETBACK (TYP)1 L100 381.20129.2516.86100.1964.86133.8765.7868.038.008.8519.045.0050' FROM TOP OF BANKNATURAL HABITAT BUFFERZONE (NBHZ) 21,195 S.F.24.0026.0020.0026.0020.0030' BUFFER DITCHEASEMENT PER CIVILTOP OF BANK PER CIVIL10.0010' REGIONAL TRAIL2L100DITCH ACCESS(PER CIVIL)REMOVABLE BOLLARDS93.12BUILDINGOVERHANG (TYP.)PUBLIC ACCESSEASEMENT PER CIVIL80' HARMONY CORRIDORSETBACK (TYP)PICKLEBALLCOURTPRIMARYFARMHOUSE(EXISTING)FFE 4907.86BARN(RELOCATED)FFE 4905.26SECONDARYFARMHOUSE(EXISTING)FFE 4906.30ENTRYFFE 4904.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GRANARY (RELOCATED)FFE - 4905.60CONTECH-FILTERRAPLANTER - SEE CIVILPARKINGAREA 1PARKINGAREA 2PARKINGAREA 3LOADINGFOSSIL CREEKRESERVOIR INLET DITCHTRASH ENCLOSURE (SEEARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS)PUMP VAULT(SEE CIVIL)EVEVEVEVEVEVEVUTILITY WATEREASEMENT PER CIVILPEDESTRIAN ARCHSTREET LIGHTSSEE CIVILEXISTING WALL(SEE CIVIL)EMERGENCY ACCESSEASEMENT PER CIVILL10011" = 20'-0"PARKING SCREENSECTION19'-0"6.00'BIKE LANECINQUEFOIL LNPARKINGPARKINGWALK5.00'19'-0"24.00'TRAVEL LANES30.00'10.00'30' PARKING SETBACK40' BUILDING SETBACKSITE FENCETYPE B01L201LANDSCAPE PLANTING(TYP.)9' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT18.82'5'-0" SETBACKPROPERTY LINEVAR.REQUIRED TREE PLANTING (1 / 40 L.F.).SEE NOTESHRUB PLANTING (BUFFER / RAIL HEIGHT(30")). SEE NOTECURB BEYONDWHEEL STOPROOT ZONE TO BE PROVIDED FORPLANTINGS.5'-6"REDI-ROCKRETAINING WALL06L2005.00'19.00'26.00'L10021" = 20'-0"SOUTH PARKING RETAINING WALLSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L100 - Overall Site Plan.dwgLast Saved: May 31, 2022 2:28:37 PM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:00:48 AMCOPYRIGHT ©ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOVERALL SITEPLANL1000'30'60'1 = 30'90'NORTHNHBZ - NATURAL HABITATBUFFER ZONE - 21,165 SQ.FT.5280MATCHLINEPROPOSED 1' CONTOURPROPOSED 5' CONTOUROVERALL SITE LEGENDLIMIT OF WORKPARKING AREA BOUNDARYEASEMENT / SETBACK LINESPROPERTY LINETREE REMOVAL PERMIT:A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTERBEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLANARE PLANTED, PRUNED, OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALKAND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THISPERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TOBE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS AVIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECTTO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT INREPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ONCERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.NOTE:THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE ISINTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVELANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OFTHE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USESWITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFERZONE.THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANSUBMITTAL 2,ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 62 8.008.00 5.00HARMONY ROAD.CINQUEFOIL LANEPRIMARYFARMHOUSE(EXISTING)FFE 4907.86GRANARYFFE 4905.60BARN (RELOCATED)FFE 4905.26SECONDARYFARMHOUSE(EXISTING)FFE 4906.30ENTRYFFE 4904.00PAPAPAPAPACOURTYARDLOADING5.00PAPAPAPORCH (SEEARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS)#4#5#1#2#9PEDESTRIAN ENTRY ARCH 2L201BIKE RACK9L200BUILDING OVERHANG BARNCONNECTION (TYP)REDI-ROCK RETAINING WALL6L200PICKLEBALL COURT 4L201SITE FENCE 1L2015'-0" PROPERTY EASEMENT30' PARKING EASEMENT40' BUILDING EASEMENT26.005.0020.00MC GARDEN26.007.0019.0024.0019.009' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA19.0026.00PAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA19.00MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L10280' HARMONY CORRIDORSETBACK (TYP)PAPAPATIO (TYP.)#3GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00PATIO (TYP.)CONTECH FILTERRAPLANTER - (SEE CIVIL)CONTECH FILTERRAPLANTER - (SEE CIVIL)CONTECH FILTERRAPLANTER - (SEE CIVIL)PAEVEVEVEVEVEVEVUTILITY WATER EASEMENT PERCIVILSITE FENCE 1L201STREET LIGHTS (TYP.)SEE MEPREDI-ROCK RETAINING WALL6L200PAPAPAEMERGENCY ACCESSEASEMENT SEE CIVILPASHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L101-L1XX - Hardscape Plans.dwgLast Saved: May 31, 2022 2:27:19 PM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:01:02 AMCOPYRIGHT © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONHARDSCAPE PLANSL1010'20'40'1 = 20'60'NORTHTREE 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. SEE SHEET L300MATCHLINE(SEE KEY MAP)LIMIT OF WORKRIGHT OF WAYEASEMENT / SETBACK LINESPROPOSED 1' CONTOURPROPOSED 5' CONTOURHARDSCAPE AND FINEGRADING LEGENDLANDSCAPE EDGER(SEE DETAIL 8/L401)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 TYPE A(SEE DETAIL 1/L200)CRUSHER FINE(SEE DETAIL 5/L200)PATHWAY BOLLARD(SEE MEP)PAPLANTING AREAEXISTING TREES TO REMAINEXISTING TREES TO BEREMOVED (SEE NOTES)#CONCRETE PAVING TYPE B(SEE DETAIL 1/L200)ARTIFICIAL TURF(SEE DETAIL4/L200)GRASSCRETE(SEE DETAIL8/L200)NOTE:THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE ISINTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVELANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OFTHE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USESWITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFERZONE.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 63 8.00 10.00'HARMONY ROAD.DOG PARKFIRE LANEENTRYFFE 4904.00PAPAPAPAPACOURTYARDLOADINGPAPORCH (SEEARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS)PAPAPA5SITE STAIRS 7L200TRASH ENCLOSURE (SEEARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS)SITE FENCE1L201PAPAPUMP VAULT(SEE CIVIL)MC GARDEN20.0026.00REDI-ROCK RETAINING WALL6L200DOG WASTE STATION10L200REMOVABLE BOLLARD11L200BOLLARDTYPE 211L2007.00PAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA19.006.004.0010.00TRASHMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102GENERATOR ENCLOSURE(SEE ARCHITECTUREDRAWING)80' HARMONY CORRIDORSETBACK (TYP)30' FROM TOP OF BANKDITCH BUFFERTOP OF BANK (PER CIVIL)10' REGIONAL TRAILDITCH ACCESS(SEE CIVIL)PAPAPAPAPAPAPAGROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.0050.00FROM TOP OF BANKNATURAL HABITATBUFFER ZONE (NHBZ)FOSSIL CREEKRESERVOIR INLET DITCHCONTECH FILTERRAPLANTER - (SEE CIVIL)PAPAREDI-ROCK RETAINING WALL6L200REDI-ROCK RETAINING WALL6L200PAPAEXISTING WALL(SEE CIVIL)SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L101-L1XX - Hardscape Plans.dwgLast Saved: May 31, 2022 2:27:19 PM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:01:13 AMCOPYRIGHT © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONHARDSCAPE PLANSL1020'20'40'1 = 20'60'NORTHTREE 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.MATCHLINE(SEE KEY MAP)LIMIT OF WORKRIGHT OF WAYEASEMENT / SETBACK LINESPROPOSED 1' CONTOURPROPOSED 5' CONTOURHARDSCAPE AND FINEGRADING LEGENDLANDSCAPE EDGER(SEE DETAIL 8/L401)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 TYPE A(SEE DETAIL 1/L200)CRUSHER FINE(SEE DETAIL 5/L200)PATHWAY BOLLARD(SEE MEP)PAPLANTING AREAEXISTING TREES TO REMAINEXISTING TREES TO BEREMOVED (SEE NOTES)#CONCRETE PAVING TYPE B(SEE DETAIL 1/L200)ARTIFICIAL TURF(SEE DETAIL4/L200)GRASSCRETE(SEE DETAIL8/L200)NOTE:THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE ISINTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVELANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OFTHE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USESWITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFERZONE.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 64 COMPACTED SUBGRADE (PERGEOTECH)1"4"JOINTING4" THICK STANDARD CONCRETEPAVING. WITH REINFORCEMENTPER GEOTECH.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. 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.3$9(0(177<3($67$1'$5'3$9(0(17STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE FINISH WITHMEDIUM BROOM FINISH PERPENDICULARTO TRAFFIC. SEE PLANS FOR LOCATION /EXTENT.3$9(0(177<3(% 5(*,21$/75$,/3$9(0(17YOSEMITE BROWN BY DAVIS COLORS CONCRETEFINISH WITH MEDIUM BROOM FINISH PERPENDICULARTO TRAFFIC. SEE PLANS FOR LOCATION / EXTENT.STEEL LANDSCAPE EDGERADJACENT SURFACE(SEE PLANS)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 CONCRETE AND / OR WITHSTEEL EDGERNOTES:ϭ͘WZKs/KEdZK>:K/Ed^W/E'Yh>dKd,t/d,K&d,t><ͬdZ/>;ϭϮΖK͘KDyͿ͕KZ^Kd,Zt/^/Zdzd,KtEZ^ͬKZ͘1/4 THICKNESSOF SLABSAW CUT JOINTCONCRETE PAVING38"NOTES:1. DOWEL ALL EXPANSION AND COLDJOINTS AT STAIRS.2. PROVIDE 12" DIAMETER S.S. DOWEL AT 4"THICK PAVING.3. "X" AND "Y" DIMENSION PERGEOTECH/STRUCTURAL.4. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SAMPLES OFCAULK/COLOR AND JOINT MATERIAL.12"XYCAULK 1/4" BELOW SURFACE(COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT PAVING)1/8" RADIUSADJACENT CONCRETE PAVING2"••••••••••••VERIFY CONDITION AT 8" SECTION (SEE CIVIL)COMPACTED SUBGRADE(PER GEOTECH).4"12" ASPHALT IMPREGNATED EXPANSIONJOINT MATERIAL WITH BACKER RODOR EQUAL1" 0x18" SMOOTH DOWEL WITHEND CAP @ 18" O.C. LUBRICATEONE END.6"DOWELED EXPANSION JOINT(SEE DETAIL 4/L300)DOWELED EXPANSION JOINTNOTES:1. ALL RISERS TO BE 6" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON CIVILGRADING PLANS.2. SEE CIVIL GRADING PLANS FOR ELEVATION AND NUMBER OFRISERS.3. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ENGINEERED, STAMPEDSTRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO OWNER'S REP FOR APPROVALCOMPACTED SUBGRADE PERGEOTECHCHEEK WALL MIN. 6" ABOVE TOPSTEP. REFER TO HARDSCAPEPLANS FOR CHEEK WALLLOCATIONS6" TYP.3" WIDE ALUMINUM NON-SLIPSTRIP. SILVER OR BLACK,CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDEOPTIONS FOR APPROVAL BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT14" NOSING RADIUS TYP.ENLARGEMENT6" TYP.9"ADJACENT SURFACE1 1/4" THICK STEEL HANDRAIL(PAINT TO MATCHARCHITECTURE)3'-0"3'-0"ADJACENT SURFACE(SEE PLANS)ATTACH PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONSARTIFICIAL TURFSELF TAPPING ANCHORSCREW @ 24" O.C.FILTER FABRICCRUSHED STONE COMPACTEDTO 95% DRAIN TO PERF PIPECOMPACTED SUBGRADE(PER GEOTECH)4"24"8"NOTE:1. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.ARTIFICIAL TURF REFERENCE IMAGEREFERENCE IMAGE1. ALL PAVER UNITS TO BE SPACED3/4" - 2" APART2. ALL PAVER UNITS TO HAVEGROOVED FACE SIDE FACING UP3. PROVIDE 'PLANTER'S MIXCOMPOST TO INFILL ALL PAVERS4. COORDINATE WITH IRRIGATIONPLANS1'-334"1'-1158"PAVER UNITSTAGGERED RUNNING BOND LAYOUT358"SEE LANDSCAPEPLANS FOR PLANTMATERIAL TYPE TOBE INSTALLEDNOTES:1. REFER TO MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONSFOR INSTALLATION AND SPACING.2.5' MIN.BIKE RACK2' MIN.2.5' MIN.SEE PLANSADJACENTSIDEWALKBIKE RACKSURFACEMOUNTED TOPAVING TYPE 18"3'-6"BIKE RACK,SEEMATERIALSSCHEDULEPAVING TYPE 1TYPE 1 - REMOVABLE BOLLARDTYPE 2 - BOLTED DOWN BOLLARDNOTES:1. INSTALL ALL FURNISHINGS PERMANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONSAND DETAILS.2. PAINT ALL BOLLARDS BLACK.NOTES:1. INSTALL ALL FURNISHINGS PERMANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS ANDDETAILS.SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L200 - Site Details.dwgLast Saved: May 31, 2022 1:44:47 PM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:01:48 AMCOPYRIGHT © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSITE DETAILSL200L20011" = 1'-0"CONCRETE PAVINGSECTIONL20051" = 1'-0"CRUSHED GRAVEL SURFACESECTIONL20033" = 1'-0"CONTROL JOINT - TYPYCALSECTIONL20023" = 1'-0"EXPANSION JOINT - NON-DOWELLEDSECTIONL20073/4" = 1'-0"SITE STAIRSSECTIONL20041" = 1'-0"ARTIFICIAL TURFSECTIONL20061" = 1'-0"REDI-ROCK RETAINING WALLSECTIONL2008N.T.S.GRASSCRETESECTIONL2009N.T.S.BIKE RACKPLAN & SECTIONL20010N.T.S.DOG WASTE RECEPTICLEL20011N.T.S.BOLLARDITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 65 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.2 SCREWS OR NAILS PERHORIZONTAL PANEL, EACH SIDEFINISH GRADE2" x 2" WIRE MESH GRIDBLACK(2) 2" x 6" HORZ. CEDAR TOPRAILSGATE LATCH, PAD LOCKABLE2" x 6" HORIZ. CEDAR RAILS4'-0"2" x 8" HORIZ. CEDAR BOTTOMRAIL6"1'-712"4'-0"6'-0"14'-0"2'-0"13'-6"2'-9"FINISHED GRADE11'-0"(2) 2"x6" TUBE STEELTOP/BOTTOM RAIL. PAINTED BLACK(2) 6" SQ STEEL TUBEPOST. PAINTEDBLACK.2'-6"STONE VENEERTO MATCH BUILDING8"PLANELEVATION9"1'-9"9"1'-9"6"14'-0"2'-0"19'-0"19'-0"15'-0"7'-0"7'-0"15'-0"44'-0"10'-0"10'-0"20'-0"PICKLEBALL COURT LAYOUTCENTERLINESIDE LINENON-VOLLEYLINENET POSTBASE LINERIGHT SERVICEAREALEFT SERVICEAREANON-VOLLEYZONE2" STRIPESTYP.PICKLEBALL COURT NETPOLE20'-0" COURT WIDTH1'-8"1'-8"3'-3"3'-0"2'-10"11'-8"11'-8"23'-878" CENTER TO CENTER NET POSTSCLCLCENTER STRAP ANCHOR2'-0" DIA. (TYP.)5'-0"6" BELOW FROST DEPTH3'-3"NET POST SET INNET POST SLEEVECONCRETE FOOTING POUR TOUNDISTURBED EARTH (PERGEOTECH/ STRUCTURAL)PICKLEBALL NET (TYP.)(SEE DETAIL 2/L406)NET POST (LACINGROD OPTIONAL)NET TIGHTENERCLCOURT SURFACEPER STRUCTURAL12" DIA. (TYP.)15" DIA. (TYP.)15"-24"(TYP.)12" DIA.(TYP.)15" DIA. (TYP.)6"(TYP.)COURT PAVEMENT PERSTRUCTURALCENTER STRAP ANCHORCONCRETE FOOTING(PER GEOTECH/STRUCTURAL)COMPACTED CRUSHEDSTONE BASE COURSE(PER GEOTECH)CONCRETE SUBGRADE(PER GEOTECH)CONCRETE FOOTING (BELOWPAVEMENT)CENTER STRAP ANCHORALIGN PIN WITH PICKLEBALLNET (SEE DETAIL 2/L406)NET LINE(SEE DETAIL 1/L406)SECTIONPLANSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L200 - Site Details.dwgLast Saved: May 31, 2022 1:44:47 PM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:02:24 AMCOPYRIGHT ©ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSITE DETAILSL201L20113/4" = 1'-0"SITE FENCESECTIONL-2016N.T.S.PICKLEBALL NET POST FOOTINGPLANL20121/4" = 1'-0"PEDESTRIAN ARCH (DESIGN INTENT ONLY)SECTIONL2015N.T.S.PICKLEBALL NET ELEVATIONSECTIONL-20131/8" = 1'-0"PICKLEBALL COURTPLANL-2014N.T.S.PICKLEBALL NET POST FOOTINGPLANITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 66 SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L300 - Planting Schedule & Notes.dwgLast Saved: May 26, 2022 11:22:34 AM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:02:33 AMCOPYRIGHT ©ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT 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.L300PLANTINGSCHEDULE &NOTES675((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, NO••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••BE 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 SUBMITTALAFRDS. ALLPOP-UPIPSTEMST PARKSCE OF AONFORTHE SOILGHT(8)T LEASTENT PERTENANNERWANYALSITEGULAR, PESTS,ALLY TOE WITHD)(2)(a).RTE ORENCESTORMFPLANTT OFANGES•••••••••••••••••••ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 67 HARMONY ROAD.CINQUEFOIL LANELOADINGMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102PRIMARYFARMHOUSE(EXISTING)FFE 4907.86BARN (RELOCATED)FFE 4905.26SECONDARYFARMHOUSE(EXISTING)FFE 4906.30ENTRYFFE 4904.00PORCH (SEEARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS)GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00COURTYARDMC GARDEN6 QM1 QT3 QT6 QT4 QT2 QM4 LP3 CS3 GT4 GT2 GT3 GT1 GT1 GT6 CO3 CO2 TA8 TA2 TA2 TA2 CO3 AT3 AT3 AT2 AT6 AT2 MSS1 MSS3 MSS2 CC2 PP3 PP4 PP4 MR5 MR3 CC3 CC3 MR1 MR2 PP1 QT1 QT1 QTPICKLEBALLCOURT5'-0" PROPERTY EASEMENT30' PARKING EASEMENT40' BUILDING EASEMENT9' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT80' HARMONY CORRISETBACK (TYP)CONTECH FILTERRAPLANTER - (SEE CIVIL)CONTECH FILTERRAPLANTER - (SEE CIVIL)GRANARYFFE 4905.60CONTECH FILTERRAPLANTER - (SEE CIVIL)EMERGENCY ACCESSEASEMENT SEE CIVILSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L301-L3XX - Landscape Plans.dwgLast Saved: May 26, 2022 11:23:01 AM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:02:48 AMCOPYRIGHT © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE PLANSL3010'20'40'1 = 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 PLAN FOR TYPE)ORNAMENTAL TREES(SEE PLAN FOR TYPE)EVERGREEN TREES(SEE PLAN FOR TYPE)UNDERSTORYSHRUB AND PERENNIALBEDSMANICURED TURF (MT)RIGHT OF WAYENT (ENHANCED NATIVETURF)EXISTING STREET TREESARTIFICIAL TURF(SEE DETAIL 4/L200)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.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.NOTE:THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE ISINTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVELANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OFTHE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USESWITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFERZONE.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 68 10.00'HARMONY ROAD.LOADINGMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102FIRE LANEENTRYFFE 4904.00PORCH (SEEARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS)TRASHGROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00DOG PARKCOURTYARDMC GARDEN6 QM2 PS1 PS3 PS2 PS2 PS1 QT3 QT2 QM4 LP3 CS3 GT4 GTGT2 CO3 CO6 CO2 CO3 AT3 AT2 CC2 PP3 PP4 PP4 MR5 MR6 AG3 CC3 CC3 MR1 MR2 PP1 QT1 QT80' HARMONY CORRIDORSETBACK (TYP)DITCH ACCESS(PER CIVIL)50' FROM TOP OF BANKNATURAL HABITAT BUFFERZONE (NHBZ)Xref ..\..\X-Refs\02 Legend\X-BASE-ARCH-BALFOUR.dwgCONTECH FILTERRAPLANTER - (SEE CIVIL)30' FROM TOP OF BANKDITCH EASEMENTTOP OF BANK10' REGIONAL TRAILFOSSIL CREEKRESERVOIR INLET DITCHCONTECH FILTERRAPLANTER - (SEE CIVIL)SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L301-L3XX - Landscape Plans.dwgLast Saved: May 26, 2022 11:23:01 AM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:03:05 AMCOPYRIGHT © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE PLANSL3020'20'40'1 = 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 PLAN FOR TYPE)ORNAMENTAL TREES(SEE PLAN FOR TYPE)EVERGREEN TREES(SEE PLAN FOR TYPE)UNDERSTORYSHRUB AND PERENNIALBEDSMANICURED TURF (MT)RIGHT OF WAYENT (ENHANCED NATIVETURF)EXISTING STREET TREESARTIFICIAL TURF(SEE DETAIL 4/L200)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.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.NOTE:THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE ISINTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVELANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OFTHE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USESWITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFERZONE.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 69 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. SPACING18"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 GRADEORNAMENTAL GRASSES/PERENNIAL/ANNUAL BED AREADCTURF SODDED AREASBSEED AREASA8" MIN.VARIES6" MIN.VARIES3" MIN.VARIES12"3" MIN.6"VARIESEXISTING 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 FINISHGRADEFINISHED GRADE - TOP OF SODTHATCH LAYER AND TOP OFMULCH OR DECOMPOSEDGRANITE SHALL BE FLUSH WITHTOP OF EDGERADJACENT SURFACE (SEEPLANS)AMENDED SOILEXISTING SUBGRADE OR 95%COMPACTED SUBGRADENOTE:1. SET ALL EDGING 1" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE AS SHOWN. THERE SHALL BE NO EXPOSED SHARP/ JAGGED EDGES CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL STAKES UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN, ASREQUIRED BY THE MANUFACTURER.2. ALL MULCH/ROCK BED AREAS ADJACENT TO TURF AND PROPERTY LINES SHALL BECONTAINED BY A STEEL EDGER. AN EDGER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED WHEN ADJACENT TOHARDSCAPE SURFACES, WALLS, SOLID FENCES OR BUILDINGS.3. THE STEEL EDGER SHALL BE INTERLOCKING ROLLED-TOP TYPE EDGER. OVERLAPPING TYPEEDGER IS NOT PERMITTED.4. SEE MATERIALS SCHEDULE FOR PRODUCT SPEC.ROLLED TOP STEEL EDGER (16)12" DIA. HOLES 1" O.C. MIN. AT ALLLOW POINTS, OR POORLYDRAINING AREAS IN ORDER TOENSURE ADEQUATE DRAINAGELONGITUDINAL SECTIONOF EDGER AT LOW POINT(16) 1/2" DIA. HOLES MIN. AT ALLLOW POINTSSECTION 2PLAN 2SECTION 1PLAN 1NOTE: TYPICAL CHARACTERPLANTING ALONG THE HARMONYBUFFER.SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L401 - L4XX - Planting Details.dwgLast Saved: May 25, 2022 2:22:24 PM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:03:21 AMCOPYRIGHT © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONL401PLANTINGDETAILSL4011N.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 AREASSECTIONL4017N.T.SSHRUB PLANTING IN MULCH BEDSECTIONL4018N.T.SSTEEL EDGERSECTIONL4019N.T.SEXHIBIT HARMONY PLANTINGSECTIONITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 70 HARMONY ROAD.CINQUEFOIL LANESECONDARYFARMHOUSELOADINGX=##########Y=##########MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102PRIMARYFARMHOUSE(EXISTING)FFE 4907.86GRANARYFFE 4905.60BARN (RELOCATED)FFE 4905.26SECONDARYFARMHOUSE(EXISTING)FFE 4906.30ENTRYFFE 4904.00COURTYARDMC GARDENGROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00ARTIFICIALTURFSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L501-L5XX - Hydrozone Plans.dwgLast Saved: May 31, 2022 2:31:17 PM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:03:36 AMCOPYRIGHT © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONHYDROZONEPLANSL501NOTE: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 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 71 ONY ROAD.FOSSIL C R E E K RESE R V OI R I NL E T DI T C H LOADINGMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L101MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L102ENTRYFFE 4904.00COURTYARDMC GARDENGROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00GROUND FLOORFFE 4891.00SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:REVISIONS:PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREwww.dtjdesign.comDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Suite 130Boulder, Colorado 80301T 303.443.7533Drawing: u:\2021044.20-balfour ft collins\05 CAD\Sheets\SDP\L501-L5XX - Hydrozone Plans.dwgLast Saved: May 31, 2022 2:31:17 PM by JVITTALLast Plotted 6/1/2022 9:03:52 AMCOPYRIGHT © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022TR/GWGO/JV2021044.2006/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONHYDROZONEPLANSL502NOTE: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 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 72 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 73 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 74 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 75 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 76 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 77 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 78 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 79 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 80 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 81 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 82 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 83 ARCHITECTUREPLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Ste. 130BOULDER, CO 80301T 303.443.7533www.dtjdesign.comDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:SHEET NUMBER:COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022©Last Saved:Drawing: SHEET TITLE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\cjohnson.DTJ\Documents\2021044.20 - Balfour Ft. Collins_cjohnsonVJMKY.rvt5/31/2022 3:48:26 PMA2122021044.20EXISTINGPERSPECTIVESMLA, EJR, CEJLPP06/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2SCALE: N.T.S.A2123PERSPECTIVE 3SCALE: N.T.S.A2121PERSPECTIVE 1SCALE: N.T.S.A2122PERSPECTIVE 2SCALE: N.T.S.A2124PERSPECTIVE 4ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 84 ARCHITECTUREPLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Ste. 130BOULDER, CO 80301T 303.443.7533www.dtjdesign.comDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:SHEET NUMBER:COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022©Last Saved:Drawing: SHEET TITLE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\cjohnson.DTJ\Documents\2021044.20 - Balfour Ft. Collins_cjohnsonVJMKY.rvt5/31/2022 3:47:42 PMA2132021044.20PROPOSEDPERSPECTIVESMLA, EJR, CEJLPP06/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2SCALE: N.T.S.A2131PERSPECTIVE 1SCALE: N.T.S.A2132PERSPECTIVE 2SCALE: N.T.S.A2133PERSPECTIVE 3SCALE: N.T.S.A2134PERSPECTIVE 4ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 85 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 86 EXISTING GRADEPROPOSED GRADEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEARCHITECTUREPLANNINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREDTJ DESIGN, Inc.3101 Iris Avenue, Ste. 130BOULDER, CO 80301T 303.443.7533www.dtjdesign.comDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:SHEET NUMBER:COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DTJ DESIGN, INC. 2022©Last Saved:Drawing: SHEET TITLE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\cjohnson.DTJ\Documents\2021044.20 - Balfour Ft. Collins_cjohnsonVJMKY.rvt5/31/2022 2:58:03 PMA3002021044.20SITE SECTIONSMLA, EJR, CEJLPP06/01/2022THE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR3733 E. HARMONY ROAD, FORT COLLINS, CO 80528PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 2Scale: 1" = 30'- 0"15'-0"30'-0" 60'-0"0'SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A3002HEIGHT & RIDGELINE DIAGRAMITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 87 BLDG. WDW NO. TYPE ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL HEIGHT CONDITION TREATMENT PLAN CURRENT CONDITION PHOTOS A1 WOOD CASEMENT 2' 6" 4' 6 1/2" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & OPENING TO BE INFILLED WITH FRAMING & NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING A2 WOOD CASEMENT 2' 6" 4' 6 1/2" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & OPENING TO BE INFILLED WITH FRAMING & NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING A3 WOOD CASEMENT 2' 6" 4' 6 1/2" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A4 WOOD CASEMENT 2' 6" 4' 6 1/2" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL WINDIW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A5 WOOD CASEMENT 2' 6" 4' 6 1/2" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A6 WOOD CASEMENT 2' 6" 4' 6 1/2" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME WINDOW SCHEDULE BARNTHE OVERLANDER BY BALFOUR HISTORICAL PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 88 BLDG. WDW NO. TYPE ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL HEIGHT CONDITION TREATMENT PLAN CURRENT CONDITION PHOTOS A7 WOOD FIXED 1' 0" 7' 0" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A8 WOOD FIXED 1' 0" 7' 0" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A9 WOOD DOUBLE INSWING 3' 5" 3' 6" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES MISSING, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNTI TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A10 WOOD DOUBLE INSWING 3' 5" 3' 6" APPEARS TO BE ORIGNAL WINDIW UNIT, PANES MISSING, STEEL SECURITY BARS, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A11 WOOD HOPPER 3' 4" 2' 5" APPEARS TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, STEEL SECURITY BARS, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE RESTORED & OPERATION TO BE FIXED A12 WOOD DOUBLE INSWING 3' 4 1/2" 3' 6" APPEARS TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, STEEL SECURITY BARS, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE RESTORED & OPERATION TO BE FIXED A13 WOOD DOUBLE HUNG 2' 5" 3' 3" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, SCREEN DAMAGED, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAMEBARN ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 89 BLDG. WDW NO. TYPE ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL HEIGHT CONDITION TREATMENT PLAN CURRENT CONDITION PHOTOS A14 WOOD DOUBLE HUNG 2' 5" 3' 3" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, SCREEN DAMAGED, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A15 WOOD FIXED 2' 7" 1' 7" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & OPENING TO BE INFILLED WITH FRAMING & NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING A16 WOOD DOUBLE INSWING 3' 5" 3' 6" WINDOW UNIT MISSING WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A17 WOOD DOUBLE INSWING 3' 5" 3' 6" WINDOW UNIT MISSING WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A18 WOOD FIXED 2' 7" 1' 7" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & OPENING TO BE INFILLED WITH FRAMING & NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING A19 WOOD FIXED 2' 7" 1' 7" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDIW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & OPENING TO BE INFILLED WITH FRAMING & NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING A20 WOOD FIXED 2' 7" 1' 7" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & OPENING TO BE INFILLED WITH FRAMING & NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTINGBARN ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 90 BLDG. WDW NO. TYPE ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL HEIGHT CONDITION TREATMENT PLAN CURRENT CONDITION PHOTOS B1 WOOD SINGLE HUNG 3' 4 1/2" 5' 5 1/2" APPEARS TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME DAMAGED & IN VERY POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B2 WOOD SINGLE HUNG 3' 4 1/2" 5' 5 1/2" APPEARS TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME DAMAGED & IN VERY POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B3 WOOD SINGLE HUNG 2' 4 1/2" 5' 6" APPEARS TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME DAMAGED & IN VERY POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B4 WOOD SINGLE HUNG 2' 4 1/2" 5' 6" APPEARS TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME DAMAGED & IN VERY POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B5 WOOD SINGLE HUNG 2' 4 1/2" 5' 6" APPEARS TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME DAMAGED & IN VERY POOR CONDITION WINDOW UNIT TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B6 WOOD FIXED 2' 3" 2' 0" WINDOW UNIT MISSING WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B7 WOOD HOPPER INSWING 2' 4" 2' 0 1/2" APPEARS TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES & MULLIONS DAMAGED, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAMEPRIMARY FARMHOUSEITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 91 BLDG. WDW NO. TYPE ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL HEIGHT CONDITION TREATMENT PLAN CURRENT CONDITION PHOTOS B8 WOOD SINGLE HUNG 2' 3 1/2 3' 5" APPEARS TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES & FRAME DAMAGED, FRAME IN VERY POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B9 WOOD SINGLE HUNG 2' 3 1/2" 3' 5" APPEARS TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B10 WOOD SINGLE HUNG 2' 3" 3' 0 1/2" APPEARS TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B11 WOOD DOUBLE PANEL - SINGLE HUNG 6' 0" 3' 0" APPEARS TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN VERY POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B12 WOOD SINGLE HUNG 2' 4" 5' 6" APPEARS TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES DAMAGED, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING TO REMAIN THE SAME B13 FIXED 2' 0" 1' 4" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, OPENING APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MODIFIED INFILL EXISITING WINDOW W/ WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE B14 WOOD SINGLE HUNG 2' 4 1/2" 5' 6 1/2" APPEARS TO BE ORIGINAL WINDOW UNIT, PANES & FRAME DAMAGED, FRAME IN VERY POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAMEPRIMARY FARMHOUSEITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 92 BLDG. WDW NO. TYPE ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL HEIGHT CONDITION TREATMENT PLAN CURRENT CONDITION PHOTOS C1 VINYL SINGLE HUNG 2' 6" 4' 0" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, WINDOW IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME C2 VINYL SLIDER 3' -0 2' 6" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, WINDOW IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME C3 VINYL SLIDER 3' 0" 2' 6" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, WINDOW IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME C4 DOOR C102 - -N/A NEW WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE IN EXISTING DOOR OPENING, FRAMING TO BE INFILLED BELOW N/A C5 VINYL SINGLE HUNG 2' 4" 3' 10" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, WINDOW IN AVERAGE CONDITION NEW HALF LITE DOOR W/ TRANDITIONAL GRILL PATTERNTO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, WINDOW OPENING TO BE INCREASED APPROXIMATELY 6" TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DOOR C6 DOOR C100 - -N/A NEW SINGLE HUNG WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE IN EXISTING DOOR OPENING, FRAMING TO BE INFILLED BELOW N/A C7 VINYL SINGLE HUNG 2' 0" 4' 0" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL WINDIW UNIT, PANES & FRAME DAMAGED, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAMESECONDARY FARMHOUSEITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 93 BLDG. WDW NO. TYPE ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL HEIGHT CONDITION TREATMENT PLAN CURRENT CONDITION PHOTOS C8 VINYL SINGLE HUNG 2' 6" 4' 0" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, WINDOW IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME C9 VINYL SINGLE HUNG 2' 0" 4' 0" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, WINDOW IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME C10 VINYL SINGLE HUNG 2' 0" 4' 0" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, WINDOW IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME C11 VINYL SINGLE HUNG 2' 0" 4' 0" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, WINDOW IN AVERAGE CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME C12 VINYL SINGLE HUNG 2' 0" 3' 0" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL WINDOW UNIT, WINDOW IN POOR CONDITION WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED WITH WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAMESECONDARY FARMHOUSEITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 94 BLDG. WDW NO. TYPE ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL HEIGHT CONDITION TREATMENT PLAN CURRENT CONDITION PHOTOS D1 N/A 2' 0 1/2" 3' 2" MISSING OPENING TO BE INFILLED WITH FRAMING & NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING D2 N/A 2' 0 1/2" 3' 2" MISSING OPENING TO BE INFILLED WITH FRAMING & NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTINGGRANARY ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 95 BLDG. DOOR NO. STYLE ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL HEIGHT CONDITION TREATMENT PLAN CURRENT CONDITION PHOTO A100 N/A --N/A NEW FULL LITE DOUBLE DOOR W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE 1HISTORIC STYLE, NEW FRAMED OPENING N/A A102 WOOD SLIDING 6' 6 1/2" 5' 10" OPENING APPEARS TO BE ORGINAL BUT DOOR DOES NOT, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION NEW FULL LITE DOUBLE DOOR W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING TO BE INCREASED A104 HOLLOW METAL, FLUSH PANEL 3' 0" 6' 8" OPENING APPEARS TO BE ORGINAL BUT DOOR DOES NOT, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION DOOR TO BE REPLACED WITH FULL LITE W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME A106 N/A 3' 0" 6' 8" OPENING DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGNAL, DOOR MISSING, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION DOOR TO BE INFILLED WITH FRAMING & NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING B100 N/A 3' 0" 7' 0 1/2" OPENING APPEARS TO BE ORGINAL, DOOR MISSING, FRAME IN POOR CONDITION DOOR TO BE REPLACED WITH SINGLE HALF LITE W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME B102 FIBERGLAS, HALF LITE 2' 6 1/2" 6' 9" OPENING APPEARS TO BE ORGINAL BUT DOOR DOES NOT, FRAME IN AVERAGE CONDITION DOOR TO BE REPLACED WITH SINGLE HALF LITE W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING SIZE TO REMAIN THE SAME DOOR SCHEDULE BARNPRIMARY FARMHOUSEITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 96 BLDG. DOOR NO. STYLE ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL HEIGHT CONDITION CURRENT CONDITION PHOTO C100 FIBERGLAS S, FLUSH PANEL 2' 6" 6' 8" DOOR NOT INSTALLED, OPENING APPEARS TO BE ORGINAL BUT DOOR DOES NOT, DOOR DAMAGED NEW SINGLE HUNG WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, OPENING WIDTH TO REMAIN THE SAME, FRAMING TO BE INFILLED BELOW C102 FIBERGLAS S, FLUSH PANEL 2' 6" 6' 8" DOOR NOT INSTALLED, OPENING APPEARS TO BE ORGINAL BUT DOOR DOES NOT, NEW FIXED WINDOW W/ TRADITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE 1950 STRUCTURE, OPENING WIDTH TO REMAIN THE SAME, FARMING TO BE INFILLED BELOW, BASIS OF DESIGN TO BE ANDERSEN E SERIES C104 WINDOW (C5)--N/A NEW HALF LITE DOOR W/ TRANDITIONAL GRILL PATTERN TO EMULATE THE HISTORIC STYLE, WINDOW OPENING TO BE INCREASED APPROXIMATELY 6" TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DOOR N/A D100 WOOD DOUBLE FLUSH PANEL 11' 11 3/4"6' 8" DOOR APPEARS TO BE ORIGINAL BUT DAMAGED DOOR TO BE MODIFIED TO SLIDING D102 WOOD DOUBLE FLUSH PANEL 5' 4 1/4" 6' 4" DOOR APPEARS TO BE ORIGNAL BUT DAMAGED, LEFT PANEL MISSING DOOR TO BE INFILLED WITH FRAMING & NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING GRANARYSECONDARY FARMHOUSEITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 97 ESERIES Architectural Collection UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES TO CREATE YOUR ORIGINAL 2020 PRODUCT GUIDE FOR PROFESSIONALS ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 98 CONTENTS ESERIES WINDOWS & PATIO DOORS Performance & Durability .................................................................... 2 Contemporary Style ............................................................................. 5 Unlimited Combinations ....................................................................... 6 Exteriors ................................................................................................... 7 Interiors ................................................................................................. 12 Exterior & Interior Trim ....................................................................... 16 Unlimited Views .................................................................................. 18 Glass ............................................................................................... 20 Stormwatch® Protection ................................................................ 21 Grilles .............................................................................................. 22 Insect Screens, Blinds & Shades .................................................. 24 Window Hardware & Smart Home Solutions .......................... 26 Patio Door Hardware ...................................................................... 28 Environmental Responsibility .......................................................... 30 Casement Windows ......................................................................... 32 Casement Windows ................................................................... 34 French Casement Windows ..................................................... 36 Push Out Casement Windows ................................................. 38 Awning Windows ...............................................................................63 Awning Windows ........................................................................ 50 Push Out Awning Windows ...................................................... 52 Double-Hung Windows ................................................................... 56 Double-Hung Windows ............................................................ 58 Double-Hung Insert (RetroFit) Windows ............................... 60 Double-Hung Sash Replacement Kit ..................................... 62 Bay & Bow Windows ..................................................................... 80 Gliding (Slide-By) Windows ......................................................... 92 Specialty (Auxiliary) Windows ..................................................... 98 Hinged Patio Doors ...................................................................... 103 Gliding Patio Doors ...................................................................... 142 Installation Materials ...................................................................... 154 Product Performance ........................................................................163 For warranty information, visit andersenwindows.com/warranty. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 99 E-Series windows and patio doors are made to your exact specifications for unmatched flexibility and design freedom. These premier products allow you to create custom shapes, dramatic sizes and striking combinations to set your work apart. 50 standard exterior colors, custom colors and anodized finishes, plus a range of interior wood species and beautiful interior stains. Or, if your customers want something even more distinctive, we can source virtually any wood species they desire. If it's possible, it's possible with E-Series windows and patio doors. For more information, visit andersenwindows.com/e-series. ESERIES WINDOWS & PATIO DOORS ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 100 *Visit andersenwindows.com/warranty for details. E-Series extruded aluminum cladding Solid wood interiors E-Series casement window with Terratone exterior color. A solid wood core and extruded aluminum cladding give E-Series windows both strength and flexibility in many design applications. DURABILITY Our aluminum cladding withstands nature’s toughest elements — the extrusions slide onto the wood and are secured independently, allowing both wood and aluminum to expand and contract naturally. Our products are engineered to open, close, support, swing or slide reliably day after day.* BEAUTY Aluminum offers a smooth finish and versatility in design that enables us to create windows and doors with distinctive character and unparalleled beauty. It provides an essential foundation for our quality, baked-on silicone polyester finish, and it enables us to offer a broad array of unique accessory metals to create or recreate the architectural style you need. And beauty doesn’t stop on the outside — we give you the design freedom you need to create a look of distinction both inside and out. VERSATILITY Aluminum’s strength and versatility allow us to offer beautiful made-to-order design solutions for practically any combination of shapes and styles you can imagine. We offer dozens of exterior accessory metals to match any architectural style, and our colorful 2-, 3- and 4-tone exteriors truly broaden your creative palette. STRENGTH We harness the full strength of aluminum with heavy gauge, extruded aluminum-clad wood sash and frames. Our thick cladding offers greater structural capabilities than thinner, roll-form aluminum, while providing a superior exterior finish that resists the elements of inclement weather, abrasion and impact.* 2 MADE STRONG Aluminum is a distinguishing element that enables us to offer the strength, beauty and design freedom for which E-Series products are known. Through decades of innovation, we have elevated the extruded aluminum-clad window and patio door category and perfected a made-to-order process that is unsurpassed. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 101 *Visit andersenwindows.com/warranty for details. LOWMAINTENANCE EXTERIORS Baked-on silicone polyester enamel exteriors offer virtually maintenance- free performance and durability. They’re warranted for 10 years against chalking and color change and for 20 years against cracking, checking, peeling, flaking, blistering and loss of adhesion.* PROTECTION FOR COASTAL AREAS E-Series windows and patio doors with Stormwatch® Protection meet building code requirements in many Gulf and Atlantic coast states. See your local building code official for specific requirements. Visit andersenwindows.com/coastal for more information. BUILT FOR YEARS TO COME Our renowned Owner-2-Owner® limited warranty is fully transferrable and not prorated, making it one of the best coverage plans available — which means it can add resale value for your customers. It's also supported by the industry's largest service network.* ENERGYSAVING GLASS FOR ANY CLIMATE Andersen makes windows and patio doors with options that make them ENERGY STAR® v. 6.0 certified throughout the United States. Visit andersenwindows.com/energystar for more information and to verify that the product with your glass option is ENERGY STAR certified in your area. 3 ENGINEERED FOR PERFORMANCE & DURABILITY ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 102 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 103 “FSB” is a registered trademark of Franz Schneider Brakel GmbH & Co. Interior of door shown with 3 11 ⁄16 " contemporary panel profile. CONTEMPORARY DESIGNS Dark colors and narrow profile options on windows, patio doors and even grille options offer a truly contemporary style. BEAUTY Durable, stainless steel FSB® hardware features clean lines in a satin finish for a thoroughly modern look. See FSB hardware options on page 29. SLEEK INTERIORS High-quality, factory-applied interior finishes offer convenience along with beauty. For a modern look, choose a black or anodized silver painted interior. Miesian Modern Industrial ModernMMd International Modern BRING YOUR VISION TO LIFE Andersen has done extensive research into many architectural styles and how windows and patio doors play a critical role in achieving them. We’ve compiled it all into our Home Style Library. Whether you’re looking for a modern home style or something more traditional, our library shows how easily you can achieve each style with our Andersen® products. To view our complete Home Style Library, visit andersenwindows.com/stylelibrary. Contemporary grille profile in black with a black spacer bar. 5 CONTEMPORARY STYLE Modern home styles incorporate clean lines, simple forms and open floor plans. They often feature floor-to-ceiling windows or doors with narrow profiles to maximize light and view, have multiple units arranged in rectangular groupings and use dark colors or metal finishes. E-Series products are available in these options to let you create a contemporary style. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 104 BUILDING BLOCKS Our complete window and door styles are your building blocks for making any architectural statement. We give you the products and the design freedom you need to create the perfect solution for your project whether residential or commercial, new construction or remodeling. Unique shapes in varying combinations create focal points that become defining architectural elements. SIZING OPTIONS We believe you shouldn’t have to settle for “close enough”. Our made-to-order process enables us to make your windows and doors to the specific size you need. So when you go from inspirational sketch to architectural drawing, know that we will fulfill your design needs. We provide a thorough range of sizes for most applications and offer custom sizing anytime you need it. 6 UNLIMITED COMBINATIONS E-Series windows and patio doors are made to your exact design specifications. Because we make your window or door especially for you, and since our options are virtually limitless, you have the advantage of combining shapes, sizes and styles for new construction or remodeling applications. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 105 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 106 UNLIMITED EXTERIORS Color enhances your design and is a vital element of every architectural style. We believe it shouldn’t have to cost more which is why our 50 exterior colors, an industry-leading modern palette, are available at no additional cost. Add to that our 2-, 3- and 4-tone exteriors and set your E-Series windows and doors apart from the rest. If your inspiration comes from an autumn leaf, a river-washed stone, a glass of fine wine or even a classic car, we will bring it to life with our custom color capabilities. And for a look of distinction, we offer seven spectacular anodized finishes that truly shine. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 107 9 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 108 *AAMA 2605 finishes are available in any of our 50 colors or select a custom color of your choice. **Visit andersenwindows.com/warranty for details. Printing limitations prevent exact color and finish replication. See your Andersen supplier for actual color and finish samples. Harbor Mist Colony White White Abalone Balsa White Canvas Maple Syrup Harvest Gold Prairie Grass Sandtone Pebble Tan Carmel Terratone Hot Chocolate Bourbon Flagstone Acorn Coffee Bean Cocoa Bean Sierra Bronze Dark Bronze Red RockClay Canyon SageOliveCinnamon Toast Fire Engine Red Bing CherryCardinal Billiard Green Moss Forest Green Mallard Green Spearmint Aquamarine Patina Sky Blue Moody Blue SlateCaribbean Blue Watercolor Blue Blue DenimCountry Blue Stormy Blue Dove Gray Yorktown Pewter Smokey Gray Mystic Gray Dark Ash Black Medium Bronze Light BronzeDark Bronze Clear Anodized Black ChampagneCopper 7 ANODIZED FINISHES Choose from a spectacular selection of anodized finishes. Anodizing is a process that penetrates the aluminum like a stain penetrates wood. The result is a rich, lustrous metallic appearance that cannot peel or flake and is not affected by sunlight.** This process produces a harder, more durable finish that makes this a perfect choice for high-traffic areas in commercial or residential buildings. EXTERIOR COLORS 10 50 EXTERIOR COLORS Our exclusive line of exterior colors offers a broad spectrum of quality, baked-on, silicone polyester enamel exteriors that meet AAMA 2604 specification. AAMA 2605 color compliance is also available.* Our limited warranty covers exteriors for 10 years against chalking and color change and 20 years against cracking, checking, peeling, flaking, blistering and loss of adhesion.** ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 109 Printing limitations prevent exact color duplication. See your Andersen supplier for actual color samples. CUSTOM COLORS While our large selection of exterior colors covers a lot of ground, inspiration comes in infinite hues. Let us match a paint chip, a photograph, a favorite work of art to bring your dream color into the light of day. Sage, Moss and CanvasCountry Blue and Stormy Blue 2, 3 AND 4TONE EXTERIORS With our 2-, 3- and 4-tone color combinations, the sky’s the limit. Mix and match up to four of our 50 exterior colors on the frame, sash, exterior trim and grilles for a combination look that’s all your own. 11 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 110 A RANGE OF INTERIORS Natural wood adds character to your design and defines a room’s character while creating a warm, comfortable space that leaves a lasting impression. We offer distinctive wood varieties, custom wood species and interior stain and paint options to meet your design needs. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 111 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 112 *Actual wood species is either Sapele or Sipo, both non-endangered species grown in Africa, with color and characteristics similar to Central American mahoganies. Wood species shown are unfinished. Naturally occurring variations in grain, color and texture of wood make each window one of a kind. We cannot guarantee consistency in wood grain and/or color within a particular species, product or project. Pine Mixed Grain Douglas Fir Oak WalnutMahogany*Maple Hickory Cherry AlderVertical Grain Douglas Fir CUSTOM WOOD INTERIORS If a unique wood species is required to complete your project, we will try to source any variety that meets our production standards and your needs. INTERIOR WOOD SPECIES DISTINCTIVE WOOD SELECTIONS Our distinctive woods add uncommon flair to any room. Each option has its own character, grain and staining capabilities, so you can select one that makes your windows stand out or one that blends seamlessly with your interior décor. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 113 *Visit andersenwindows.com/warranty for details. Please note that custom finishes and primed option require additional finishing. Some nail and staple holes may need to be filled prior to applying the final finish. Printing limitations prevent exact finish and color replication. See your Andersen supplier for actual finish and color samples. CUSTOM STAINS, PAINTS & COLOR MATCHING When only a specific tint will do, we will create one for you, matching existing woodwork, interior furnishings or other items for just the right finish to your design. Birch Bark Dark Bronze Sandtone Red Rock White Forest Green Black Canvas Prairie Grass Primed (for paint) Dove Gray Terratone Cocoa Bean All stained interior finish options are shown on pine. Anodized Silver WheatClear Coat Cinnamon EspressoAutumn Oak Honey MochaRussetGolden Hickory Painted interior options are available on pine. Dark bronze and black also available on maple. Anodized silver available on maple only. STAINED INTERIOR OPTIONS PAINTED INTERIOR OPTIONS 15 VARIETY OF INTERIOR FINISHES Our high-quality, factory-applied stains offer you convenience along with beauty. Before staining, each wood component is treated with a preservative and insect repellent and dried thoroughly. We apply two coats of polyurethane for a long-lasting,* durable finish, and because every exposed edge is stained before the window is assembled, you get a complete, consistent finish. Choose from nine stain colors. If you prefer a painted interior, choose one of our painted or primed options. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 114 EXTERIOR TRIM Designed to add depth and traditional appeal, our exterior trim options extend outward from the window or door frame, casting a shadow line consistent with true historical applications. Choose from our extended selection of flat and profiled casings, brick mould casings and sill nose. Match or contrast the trim with your windows and doors in any of our 50 exterior colors, custom colors and anodized finishes. INTERIOR TRIM COMPONENTS 3 1⁄2" backband and bead casing and 1 1⁄2" sill nose shown on casement 3 1⁄2" flat casing shown on hinged inswing patio door 2" brick mould and 1 1⁄2" sill nose shown on casement 3 1⁄2" brick mould and 1 1⁄2" deep sill nose shown on double-hung Wood Casing A subtle touch around the perfect window or door makes your view even more special. Choose from four different casings and add plinth blocks at the corners for just the right touch of detail. Drywall Returns We offer drywall returns in three depths: 11 ⁄16 ", 9⁄16 " and 7⁄16 " Extension Jambs Pre-installed, dimensional extension jambs save time on jobsites and help enable a perfect installation. Available in all wood species, extension jambs can accommodate a wide variety of wall conditions. A 1⁄2" x 3 1 ⁄4" Fluted Casing B 11 ⁄16 " x 2 1⁄4" Colonial Casing (WM366) C 11 ⁄16 " x 2 1⁄4" Colonial Casing (WM356) D 11 ⁄16 " x 2 1⁄4" Ranch Casing (WM324) E 2 1 ⁄2" Plinth Block F 3 1 ⁄2" Plinth Block A B C D E F 16 EXTERIOR & INTERIOR TRIM OPTIONS Details take your project from ordinary to extraordinary. The perfect finishing touches make every window and patio door an irreplaceable part of any home or commercial building. We offer the trim and accessory metals that make the final details of your project easier to complete and more beautiful to look at. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 115 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 116 *See your local code official for building code requirements in your area. UNLIMITED VIEWS Whether your design demands performance, clarity or architectural detail, we have the glass and divided light solutions to make your views spectacular. For performance needs in a variety of environments, we offer a multitude of glass options, including our High-Performance Low-E4® glass and our exclusive Stormwatch® impact-resistant product systems for severe weather conditions.* And for visual impact, made-to-order decorative glass and grilles give you infinite possibilities, so your design will be as original as your inspiration. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 117 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 118 *Winter and summer values are based on comparison of E-Series 3866 double-hung window U-Factor to the U-Factor for clear dual-pane glass non-metal frame default values from the 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018 International Energy Conservation Code "Glazed Fenestration" Default Tables. See your Andersen supplier for actual glass samples. “ENERGY STAR” is a registered trademark of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ●●❍❍ ●●❍❍ Center of glass performance only. Ratings based on glass options available as of January 2019. Visit www.andersenwindows.com/energystar for ENERGY STAR® map and NFRC total unit performance data. ENERGY LIGHT How well a product blocks heat caused by sunlight. Visible Light Transmittance How much visible light comes through a product. UV Protection How well a product blocks ultraviolet rays.GLASS How well a product prevents heat from escaping. Solar Heat Gain CoefficientU-Factor ●●●●●●●❍●●●● ●❍❍❍●●●❍●●●❍Passive Sun ●●●❍●●●●●❍❍❍●●●❍Sun Low-E4 with HeatLock Coating Triple-Pane ●●●❍●●●❍●●❍❍●●●❍ Low-E4®●●●❍●●●❍●●●❍●●●❍ ●●●❍●●●●●●❍❍●●●●SmartSun with HeatLock® Coating ●●●❍●●●●●●❍❍●●●●SmartSun™ Low-E4® Glass, our standard glass option, provides excellent insulation from heat and cold. Compared to ordinary dual-pane glass, High- Performance Low-E4 glass is up to 44% more energy efficient in winter and up to 57% more efficient in summer.* Or consider Sun glass with its soft, glare-controlling tint. Low-E4 Passive Sun® Glass is a great solution for colder climate zones where higher heat gain is desired. It allows a higher amount of the sun’s heat to pass into the home, making it an ideal solution for passive solar applications. Low-E4 SmartSun™ Glass combines performance with clarity — letting more light in and keeping more heat out. It blocks 95% of the sun’s damaging ultraviolet rays. Enjoy the performance benefits of tinted glass without the loss of visibility. Triple-Pane Glass with three panes of glass, combined with Low-E coatings, can provide enhanced energy performance. Adding triple-pane glass can produce a lower U-Factor than using regular dual-pane glass. HeatLock® Technology can increase the energy efficiency of any E-Series window or door with Low-E4 or SmartSun glass. Applied to the room-side glass surface, it reflects heat back into the home and improves U-Factors, which can help the window or door meet ENERGY STAR® requirements. Laminated Glass offers sound protection, forced entry and impact resistance. It reduces unwanted outside noise, making it ideal for locations like airports and high-volume traffic areas. Decorative & Specialty Glass options are also available. See our decorative glass collection at andersenwindows.com/artglass or combine beveled, frosted, grooved, colored or textured glass with three caming options to create your own design. Specialty glass includes tinted glass, spandrel glass and Mapes panels as well as rain, reeded and obscure glass options. A removable translucent film shields glass from damage and simplifies finishing and cleaning on the jobsite. ●❍❍❍❍❍❍❍●●●●❍❍❍❍Clear Dual-Pane 20 GLASS OPTIONS We offer a multitude of glass options to meet all of your design needs. Whether you’re in need of energy efficiency or resistance to harsh weather conditions, we provide the solutions for you. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 119 *See your local code official for building code requirements in your area. **Double-hung windows are only available with impact-resistant monolithic bronze, gray, green and clear glass options. †E-Series Casement 3060 HP Impact DP+65/-75 (AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/ A440-08 & -11). For more information, visit andersenwindows.com/e-series. Impact-Resistant Insulated Glass Options* - Low-E - SmartSun ™ - Bronze or Gray - Bronze/Bronze or Gray/Gray (meets Florida Turtle Code) Impact-Resistant Monolithic Glass Options* - Low-E - SmartSun - Bronze, Gray or Green - Clear PG 65† PERFORMANCE E-Series Casement 3060 HP Impact DP+65/-75 (AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-08 & -11) PERFORMANCE & DURABILITY Impact-resistant glass provides windborne debris protection,* reduced sound transmission and burglar resistance Designed to satisfy: - AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-08 & -11 - Large missile impact test ASTM E1886/E1996 - TAS 201, 202, 203 (excluding inswing patio doors) - Peace of mind with 24/7 protection PRODUCT AVAILABILITY Choose from a variety of coastal windows including casement, awning, double-hung** and fixed windows. Impact-resistant double-hung windows utilize two or more snuggers applied to the sill, creating a structural connection between the lower sash and frame. Simply close and lock the window and it’s ready to withstand even the toughest weather conditions.* We also offer a variety of coastal patio doors including inswing patio doors (impact-resistant insulated glass options only), outswing patio doors and French gliding patio doors. Surface bolts are required for impact certification of double doors. Plus, you can select any of our 50 exterior colors, anodized finishes or custom colors. Choose from a variety of wood species, interior finishes, hardware, grille options, VeriLock® sensors and more. The only options not available on coastal products are decorative glass, blinds and shades.Double-hung window with Stormwatch Protection. 21 STORMWATCH® PROTECTION Designed for use in coastal areas, these systems combine monolithic or insulated laminated glass with structural enhancements to meet or exceed the stringent code requirements of ASTM and TAS testing protocols.* You get the performance you need with the design options you want. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 120 Shown with chamfer exterior grille and ovolo interior grille profiles. Shown with ovolo profile and optional permanently applied exterior grille with chamfer profile. Ovolo Contemporary Choose from our broad palette of 50 colors or select from the two-tone paint combinations shown above. Colony White Sierra Bronze/Colony White Sierra Bronze Pebble Tan/Colony White Pebble Tan Forest Green/Colony White Forest Green 5⁄8" Color Options 1" Color Options Shown with 1" contoured profile. Flat Contoured Shown with contemporary exterior and interior grille profiles. 7⁄8"5 ⁄8 "11⁄8"1 1⁄2"2 1⁄4" 7⁄8"5 ⁄8 "11⁄2"1 1⁄8"2 1⁄4" Profiles and Widths Profiles and Widths Profiles and Widths ‒ Interior Grilles FULL DIVIDED LIGHT (MODERN DIVIDED LIGHT) Give any window an authentic look with full divided light grilles that are permanently applied to the interior and exterior of your window with a spacer between the glass. Available in ovolo (colonial) and contemporary profiles. SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHT (CLASSIC DIVIDED LIGHT) An economical solution with traditional beauty, our simulated divided light features fixed exterior and interior grilles without an internal spacer. Available in ovolo and contemporary profiles. REMOVABLE INTERIOR WOOD GRILLES Our removable wood grilles are installed on the interior surface. They are available with an optional surround and an optional permanently applied exterior grille. Available in ovolo and contemporary profiles. FINELIGHT™ GRILLES BETWEENTHEGLASS Aluminum grilles conveniently placed between two panes of glass make the glass easy to clean inside and out. 7⁄8"5 ⁄8 "1 1⁄2"1 1⁄8"2 1⁄4" 7⁄8"5 ⁄8 "1 1⁄2"1 1⁄8"2 1⁄4" 5⁄8"1" 7⁄8"7⁄8" Profiles and Widths ‒ Exterior Grilles 22 ARCHITECTURALLY AUTHENTIC GRILLES We offer a variety of grille styles and patterns to choose from, or design your own with varying lines, curves and shapes. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 121 DESIGN YOUR OWN GRILLES We offer a variety of grille patterns to choose from, or design your own with varying lines, curves and shapes to create a truly unique pattern. 23 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 122 *TruScene wood-veneered insect screens utilize a different frame profile than other E-Series wood-veneered insect screens. **Retractable insect screens are available on inswing, outswing and gliding patio doors. See your Andersen supplier for details. †Visit andersenwindows.com/warranty for details. All comparisons are made to conventional E-Series aluminum insect screens. Conventional Insect Screen TruScene Insect Screen Retractable Insect Screen RETRACTABLE INSECT SCREENS FOR WINDOWS AND PATIO DOORS Retractable insect screens for casement and awning windows offer a sleek addition to any home. In place, the insect screen keeps insects out. When retracted, it provides a beautiful clear view. For patio doors,** retractable insect screens are built with an innovative color-matched housing that hides the insect screen when not in use. It’s there when you need it and gone when you don’t. TRUSCENE® INSECT SCREENS* TruScene insect screens for windows are made with a micro-fine stainless steel mesh that offers 50% more clarity than our conventional aluminum mesh insect screens. TruScene insect screens let in more fresh air and sunlight and keep small insects out. WOOD VENEER INSECT SCREENS For a clean appearance, E-Series interior window insect screens can feature a wood veneer to blend into your window. RETRACTABLE INSECT SCREEN FOR PATIO DOORS** This insect screen is built with an innovative color-matched aluminum housing that hides the insect screen when not in use. It’s there when you need it and gone when you don’t. HINGED INSECT SCREEN Available for hinged inswing patio doors, this solid insect screen offers a full-door view and features a lockable latch and automatic closer. TOPHUNG GLIDING INSECT SCREEN FOR PATIO DOORS Open your room to the outdoors with the touch of a finger. Our top-hung gliding insect screen provides smooth and reliable operation, season after season.† 24 SCREEN OUT THE INSECTS, NOT THE VIEW E-Series insect screens let the beauty of the outdoors in, while keeping even small insects out. Choose from a wide selection of insect screen styles, including options that blend seamlessly with your window. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 123 *Not all sizes of blinds-between-the-glass are retractable. Printing limitations prevent exact color duplication. See your Andersen supplier for actual color samples. AlmondTan White Tilt, raise and lower with one control cord.* BLINDSBETWEENTHEGLASS E-Series blinds-between-the-glass can be installed in many of our patio doors and rectangular picture windows. Placed between the two panes of glass away from dust, dirt and damage, you get the benefit of energy efficiency and privacy control and convenience of blinds. Almond PearlVanilla Winter White AlmondTan White System 3 Shades System 3 Blinds WhiteBronzeGoldBlack Control Knobs BlindsShades SYSTEM 3 BLINDS & SHADES Add privacy and even greater energy efficiency with this low-maintenance blind or shade solution. Applied to the interior of the sash, the System 3 design creates a triple-glazed window for incredible energy efficiency. Our 3⁄4" blinds and pleated shades are available for casement, awning and picture windows, plus hinged patio doors, and are mounted to an extruded aluminum storm panel and applied to the interior of the sash. The removable storm panel is available in tan, gold, white or wood veneer. Blinds-Between-the-Glass 25 BETWEENTHEGLASS BLINDS & SHADES What could be more convenient than blinds or shades between the panes of glass? Minimal cleaning and no worry about damage. It's simply a fitting way to put privacy at your fingertips. E-Series blinds and shades offer the ultimate in practicality for both residential and commercial applications. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 124 *Hardware sold separately. Oil rubbed bronze is a “living” finishes that will change with time and use. Printing limitations prevent exact finish replication. See your Andersen supplier for actual finish samples. HARDWARE FINISHES Antique Brass Gold Oil Rubbed Bronze Black Bright Chrome Pewter Satin Chrome Bronze Polished Brass White Optional sash lock with VeriLock® security sensor shown in black. See page 27 for more information. Double-HungCasement & Awning Gliding Windows Antique Brass | Black | Bright Chrome | Bronze | Gold Oil Rubbed Bronze | Pewter | Polished Brass | Satin Chrome | White Antique Brass | Black | Bright Chrome | Bronze Polished Brass | Satin Chrome | White Antique Brass | Black Oil Rubbed Bronze Polished Brass Satin Chrome | White Antique Brass | Black | Bright Chrome | Bronze | Gold Oil Rubbed Bronze | Pewter | Polished Brass | Satin Chrome | White Antique Brass Black | Bright Chrome Bronze | Gold Oil Rubbed Bronze Pewter | Polished Brass Satin Chrome | White Push Out Casement & Awning French Casement Black Bronze Gold Polished Brass White Insect Screen Pull Operator Handle & Cover Lock Handle Operator Handle & Cover Sash Lock Sash Lift Lock Lock Slim Line Sash Pull Bold name denotes finish shown. 26 WINDOW HARDWARE Complement a home's decor with E-Series window hardware, available in a variety of finishes. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 125 *When properly configured and maintained with a professionally installed security system and/or self-monitoring system compatible with Honeywell® 5800 controls. See your Andersen supplier for more information. **Based on testing of thirty-two (32) A-Series double-hung windows. Air loss through unlocked windows will vary based on window type and age, pressure differential, temperatures inside and outside the home, altitude and application. †See product installation for details. Printing limitations prevent exact color duplication. See your Andersen supplier for actual color samples. VERILOCK® SECURITY SENSORS With the most advanced technology in the industry, VeriLock security sensors not only indicate whether windows and patio doors are open or closed, they even indicate if they are locked or unlocked.* No other sensor can do that. Double-Hung Sash Lock VeriLock Security Sensor Open/Closed Sensor Maintains Warranty — No drilling required which can void warranties. Helps Maximize Energy Efficiency — Windows that are closed but unlocked lose air at a rate up to 3X that of a closed and locked window.** VeriLock sensors tell you which windows and patio doors are open or unlocked* so you can help manage air loss. Preserves Beauty — Available in a variety of colors to complement many Andersen hardware or interior finishes. WIRELESS OPEN/CLOSED SENSORS These wireless sensors provide the peace of mind of knowing whether your windows and patio doors are open Easy Installation — No tools are required to install our sensors. Simply place the sensor on a window or patio door and line up the magnet with the sensor until the LED glows blue.† Maintains Warranty — No drilling required which can void warranties. Compact Design — Sleek, compact design in a variety of colors to blend in with the window or patio door. SandtoneCanvas Dark Bronze White Gray StoneGold DustWhite Black 27 THE SMARTEST TECHNOLOGY FOR THE SMARTEST HOMES Andersen® E-Series windows and doors can now be part of today’s connected home. Monitor the status of your windows and patio doors anytime and from anywhere with our sensor options.* Plus, our new Yale® Assure Lock,® shown on page 29, lets you remotely lock or unlock your hinged patio doors.* Learn more about the convenience and peace of mind Andersen smart home products offer at andersenwindows.com/connect. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 126 Hardware sold separately. Distressed bronze and oil rubbed bronze are “living” finishes that will change with time and use. Bright brass and satin nickel finishes on patio door hardware feature a 10-year limited warranty. Printing limitations prevent exact finish replication. See your Andersen supplier for actual finish samples. Gliding Hinged YUMA Distressed Bronze Distressed Nickel Gliding Hinged Distressed Bronze Distressed Nickel ENCINO Gliding Hinged Bright Brass | Oil Rubbed Bronze Satin Nickel ANVERS Gliding Hinged Antique Brass | Bright Brass Brushed Chrome | Oil Rubbed Bronze Polished Chrome | Satin Nickel NEWBURY Bold name denotes finish shown. Hinged ENCINO Gold Dust Oil Rubbed Bronze Polished Chrome Stone White HARDWARE FINISHES Distressed Nickel Satin Nickel Brushed Chrome Distressed Bronze Antique Brass Bright Brass Black Gliding Hinged Antique Brass | Bright Brass Oil Rubbed Bronze COVINGTON Gliding Hinged Antique Brass | Bright Brass Oil Rubbed Bronze | Satin Nickel WHITMORE Gliding Hinged Black | Gold Dust Stone | White ALBANY Gliding Hinged Stone | White TRIBECA 28 PATIO DOOR HARDWARE E-Series patio door hardware is available in a variety of different designs to match virtually any style. Yuma®, Encino®, Anvers®, Newbury®, Covington™ and Whitmore® hardware options feature solid drop-forged brass for added strength, while Albany and Tribeca® hardware options are made of zinc die cast with durable powder-coated finishes. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 127 Hardware sold separately. Yale manufactures and supports the limited warranty for Yale Assure Lock for Andersen patio doors. All marks where denoted are trademarks of their respective owners. Printing limitations prevent exact finish replication. See your Andersen supplier for actual finish samples. 1035 1075 1076 1102 Satin Stainless Steel FSB® HINGED PATIO DOOR HARDWARE Durable, stainless steel FSB hinged door hardware features clean lines and a sleek satin finish for a thoroughly modern look. YALE ® ASSURE LOCK® Monitor, lock and unlock from anywhere with the Yale Assure Lock. This slim, sleek keyless lock is designed exclusively for Andersen hinged patio doors and integrates with a wide range of smart home platforms. One Touch Locking — Lock up without the hassle of keys by simply tapping the keypad. Key Free — No cylinder means no lost keys and no pick and bump break-ins. Battery Backup — Never lose power, the lock can be energized with a 9V battery. Three Connectivity Options — Touchscreen, Bluetooth® + WiFi and Z-Wave® Smart Home Integration — Monitor, lock and unlock from anywhere. Satin Nickel Black White 29 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 128 *Winter and summer values are based on comparison of E-Series 3866 double-hung window U-Factor to the U-Factor for clear dual-pane glass non-metal frame default values from the 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018 International Energy Conservation Code “Glazed Fenestration” Default Tables. All marks where denoted are trademarks of their respective owners. WINDOW & DOOR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION WDMA High-Performance Low-E4 glass is up to 45% more energy efficient in winter and up to 57% more energy efficient in summer compared to ordinary dual-pane glass.* CONSERVING ENERGY Our technology and design innovation creates greater energy efficiency in all our products. Our High-Performance Low-E4® glass provides superior thermal protection, helping significantly reduce heating and cooling requirements. Additional energy-efficient glass options include triple-pane glass and SmartSun™ glass. Combined with weathertight frames, sash and weatherstrip, E-Series windows and doors play an important role in energy conservation. USING RECLAIMED MATERIALS Our cladding contains pre-consumer reclaimed aluminum, which requires much less energy to process than virgin aluminum. In addition, our glass utilizes reclaimed glass, which reduces landfill waste. PRESERVING NATURE To protect our natural resources, we use wood harvested from managed forests and leverage engineered wood technology whenever possible — we use finger-jointed wood and laminated veneer lumber, both of which use wood efficiently and result in superior performance. In addition, we use water-based finishes, which have less impact on the environment than oil-based products. REDUCING WASTE We recycle whenever possible — office paper, corrugated cardboard, sawdust, scrap aluminum, paints and solvents. Our electrostatic paint system attracts the paint to the aluminum, creating an efficient use of materials. Packaging enhancements include frame protectors made of HDPE, a recyclable plastic. TAKING AN ACTIVE ROLE We work closely with the industry organizations shown to manufacture energy-efficient and environmentally responsible products. ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATIONS E-Series windows and doors have received SCS Global Services (SCS) Indoor Advantage™ Gold certification for indoor air quality. Indoor air quality is an important issue because many people spend as much as 90% of their time indoors, either at home, work or school. 30 ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY It is more essential than ever that we all do our part to help protect the environment. While environmental responsibility may be new to some, to us, making environmentally responsible manufacturing decisions is nothing new. We’ve made responsible choices in the past and will continue to strive to be responsible in the future. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 129 Technical {Ž{ Eldorado StoneJTEFTJHOFEUPNFFUPSFYDFFECVJMEJOHDPEFSFRVJSFNFOUT*OEFQFOEFOU UFTUJOHDPOGJSNTDPNQMJBODFXJUI*$$&4 "DDFQUBODF $SJUFSJB  4UBOEBSE4QFDJGJDBUJPO GPS"EIFSFE.BOVGBDUVSFE4UPOF.BTPOSZ7FOFFS6OJUT Supporting test data is available upon request. -PDBMCVJMEJOHDPEFTNBZWBSZCZBSFB"MXBZTDIFDLXJUIZPVSMPDBMCVJMEJOH BVUIPSJUJFTCFGPSFJOTUBMMJOHTUPOF For additional technical information please visit: www.eldoradostone.com Adhered Veneers & Wall Mounted Accessories Ingredients ƒ‚Ž‘ƒ‚Ž{Œ{ŽǼŚŚĘŚŚŗûŚŚŘ ‰ŒŽ†{ˆ~}‡ˆŽǼŘŜŗĘǼ ŚŘş ƒˆŒ{†‰’ƒ~Šƒ‡ˆŽǼŠŞŠ Code Acceptability & Certification ƒŽŒ~ ƒˆŒ{†}‰‡Š‰ƒŽƒ‰ˆˆƒŽ Œ€{}|Œˆƒˆ}‚{Œ{}ŽŒƒŽƒ} †{‡ŠŒ{~ ŗ ‡‰…†‰Š~ ŗ Ž‚{ˆŘėŜŠŒ}ˆŽ‘ƒ‚Ž†‰{ŽŜŗ}“}†ĚŠ{~ Shear Bond (Adhesion) Œ{ŽŒŽ‚{ˆŜŗŠƒ‚{Œ|‰ˆ~ŽŒˆŽ‚ Absorption İǼ}}ŠŽ{ˆ}ŒƒŽŒƒ{ŜŘûǼŘśŗ Saturated Density݃‚ŽŠŒ‹{Œ‰‰Ž ƒ‚Ž†Ž‚{ˆŘŜ†|ėŠŒ‹ė€Žėʍ{ŽŒ{Ž~ Thermal Resistance Ž~ƒˆ{}}‰Œ~{ˆ}‘ƒŽ‚ǼŘŞŞ {†ęŗėŝřĽ€Žřİİ‚ŒľĪ{ŽŘėŜŊŽ‚ƒ}…ˆ Compressive Strength ‰‡ŠŒƒŽŒˆŽ‚ƒŒ{ŽŒŽ‚{ˆřŘŗŗŠƒ Wind Load Testing Ž~ƒˆ{}}‰Œ~{ˆ}‘ƒŽ‚ǼŚŚŗ{Ž ŘŜŗ‡Š‚‘ƒˆ~Š~ĚŠ{~ İŘřŘŜ {†ƒ€‰Œˆƒ{ƒ†~ƒˆ‰~ †‰Œƒ~{ƒ†~ƒˆ‰~ ‰Ǽˆ†{Œ}‚Š‰ŒŽŖřŜŜşŠ {ŽŒƒ{††{ŖŠŘŗ †‰Œƒ~{Œ‰~}ŽǼŠŠŒ‰{†řŘŘśŚİŘ Freeze-thaw Durability 78:797 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 130 Why is Eldorado Stone® considered The Most Believable Architectural Stone Veneer in the World ™? Believability. It’s the most important ingredient of Eldorado Stone and the most compelling reason why so many architects, builders and homeowners choose Eldorado Stone. Eldorado’s distinct process handcrafts molds and creates the natural color palettes that capture all the nuances of real stone. The warmth and richness of Eldorado Stone creates unique spaces of permanence, romance and beauty; inside and out. The Most Believable Architectural Stone Veneer in the World. Only from Eldorado Stone. What is the difference between manufactured stone veneer and natural stone? Manufactured stone veneer is cast from molds of real stone which makes it lighter than natural stone. Natural stone may require wall ties and footings, which, in turn, can increase installation cost and difficulty. Eldorado’s architectural stone veneer is lighter weight, designed to adhere easily to a variety of structurally sound surfaces, and is capable of installations that would normally be very difficult and costly to achieve with natural stone. What are the benefits of using manufactured stone? Installed, manufactured stone is approximately ⅓ to ½ the cost of natural stone. Its light weight properties eliminate the need for wall ties or footings. Manufactured stone has a 2% (approximately) waste factor versus 10% or more for natural stone. Where can I install Eldorado Stone? Eldorado Stone can be applied to any structurally sound surface with the proper preparation. It fits nearly any building plan — large or small, interior or exterior, new residential or commercial projects — or on any remodel. For inspirational installations visit www.eldoradostone.com/imagine. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 131 Can I install Eldorado Stone myself? In general, installation of Eldorado Stone can be installed by almost anyone. However, installation does require a fundamental understanding of stone masonry. Please review the Installation Procedures and How to Install at www.eldoradostone.com or contact Customer Service at 800.925.1491. How does Eldorado Stone withstand freeze/thaw cycles? Eldorado Stone products are tested for freeze/thaw durability. As with any installation, making sure to incorporate good building practices that include proper flashing and water diversion techniques will help ensure a successful installation. How much does Eldorado Stone weigh? Approximately 10-12 lbs. per square foot. Eldorado Stone qualifies as an adhered veneer because it weighs less than 15 lbs. per square foot. Will Eldorado Stone fade? The base color is blended throughout and permanent mineral oxide pigments are applied and absorbed when the veneer is cast. Color becomes an integral part of the veneer and, similar to natural stone, there are minimal noticeable color changes after years of weathering. How important is a good stone installation? As with any building material, the beauty of that product is greatly enhanced by how well it is installed. With Eldorado Stone, careful consideration regarding the type of profile and color selected, the actual installed stone “pattern”, and the type of grout technique used, are all very important factors to regard. It is always best to create a mock up board with the desired aesthetic appeal prior to installation on your project. For more information download the Installation Procedures and Finishing Details PDFs from www.eldoradostone.com. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 132 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. 133 - 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. 134 - 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. 135 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. 136 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. 137 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. 138 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. 139 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. 140 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. 141 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. 142 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. 143 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. 144 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. 145 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. 146 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. 147 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. 148 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. 149 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. 150 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. 151 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. 152 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. 153 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. 154 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. 155 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. 156 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. 157 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. 158 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. 159 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. 160 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. 161 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. 162 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. 163 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. 164 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. 165 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. 166 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. 167 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. 168 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. 169 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. 170 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. 171 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. 172 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. 173 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. 174 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. 175 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. 176 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. 177 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. 178 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. 179 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. 180 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. 181 EXCERPTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 1 March 16, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado Walter Dunn And Remote Via Zoom Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting March 16, 2022 Minutes CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Jim Rose ABSENT: Anne Nelsen STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Aubrie Brennan Chair Knierim read the following legal statement: “We are holding a hybrid 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 as a hybrid was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.” ***BEGIN EXCERPT*** 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. Historic Preservation Commission ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 182 EXCERPTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 2 March 16, 2022 APPLICANT: Balfour Senior Living, Louisville, CO Lee Payne, DTJ Designs, Inc. Staff Report Senior Historic Preservation Planner Bertolini presented the staff report. He noted this is a development review and he outlined the role of the Commission to provide a recommendation to the decision maker regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. He stated the Commission is not being asked to make that recommendation this evening as this item is to serve as more of a conceptual review. Mr. Bertolini discussed the proposed project which is a mixture of adaptive reuse of four historic buildings and the construction of a large new building. The four historic structures include two farmhouses, a barn, and a granary. He went on to detail the location of the project and discussed the historic documentation of the property. Mr. Bertolini noted the property was found to be eligible as a City landmark under standard 1, events and trends, specifically for agricultural history. Mr. Bertolini discussed the proposed site plan and the proposed treatment for each of the historic buildings. Applicant Presentation Michael Schonbrun of Balfour briefly introduced Balfour as a Colorado company. He discussed other Balfour sites that have included restored historic structures and stated the company is excited to utilize the historic structures on this site as they lend character to the development. He discussed Balfour’s approach to combining historic structures with new development. Lee Payne of DTJ Designs gave the Applicant presentation and showed a three-dimensional model of the proposed development. He discussed the intent for adaptive reuse and historic preservation. He noted the barn is intended to be restored for use by the entire community. He discussed the reasons for bringing the historic building closer together on the site to create a village feel and detailed the architectural elements of the new building that provide an interpretive relationship to the historic structures. Mr. Payne discussed the dimensions of the buildings and relationship of them to one another. Additionally, he noted the entry signage is approximately ten feet from the southern façade of the secondary farmhouse and is scaled to not overshadow the farmhouse. Mr. Payne stated the landscape design will mitigate the loss of the unwell trees currently on the property while still meeting the specific landscape requirements of the Harmony Corridor setback area. Due to the setback requirement and significant landscape buffer, the buildings are not likely to be very visible from Harmony Road. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Member Guenther asked about the intended use of the farmhouse. Mr. Payne replied they will be adaptively reused as independent living cottages. Chair Knierim asked about the proposed use of the granary. Mr. Payne replied it is likely to be used as a gear garage for storing chairs or pickleball equipment. Member M. Dunn expressed support for the project and its embracing of the history of the property. She stated she believes the moving of the structures is fine as long as the original farm context is maintained. She asked if the new white residential building is board and batten and questioned the use of vertical elements. Mr. Payne replied there is horizontal siding, board and batten, and two or three color schemes to provide a mixture of materials and variations in massing. Member M. Dunn asked if all the white on the new building is either horizontal or vertical wood. Mr. Payne replied in the affirmative. He stated the first level has a collection of decorative shutters and windows, board and batten to the ground, horizontal siding, and stone veneer. Member M. Dunn asked if there is any stone on any of the historic buildings. Mr. Payne replied the farmhouse foundations include stone; unfortunately, it is painted. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 183 EXCERPTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 3 March 16, 2022 Member M. Dunn asked about the location of brick on the new construction. Mr. Payne replied the only brick on the project will be the existing brick on the primary farmhouse which will be lightly cleaned and repainted. Member M. Dunn commented the Code Section 3.4.7.4 which states the new project needs to reference one or more of predominate materials on historic resources. She stated the predominate material being referenced appears to be the wood. She asked if there is anything on the new building that references the studs out construction of the granary. Mr. Payne replied in the negative stating it is very difficult to treat buildings thermally with that construction. Member Carlock stated the vertical siding on the new building could be seen as mimicking the studs out construction. Member M. Dunn asked for Commissioners’ thoughts on Section 3.4.7.2 regarding stories being one level taller than historic structures. Member Carlock asked if the plan to paint the barn is common for barns in the west. Mr. Payne replied the proposed color scheme picks up on the existing colors and he noted the barn changed from white to red over time in the historic photos. Mr. Bertolini stated the paint scheme has varied over time based on the owners and their tastes and histories. Member M. Dunn liked the use of the whimsical sheep stating they are educational and do not affect the historic integrity of the building. Mr. Payne commented on the likelihood the windmill will end up being an interpretive rather than literal component which will help draw a distinction between the old and new. Chair Knierim suggested opening Commission discussion by starting with Section 3.4.7 and Member M. Dunn’s concerns regarding scale and massing. Member M. Dunn stated this area provides a good opportunity to build the density needed by Fort Collins; however, she noted Section 3.4.7 discusses massing, building articulation, and gradual massing transitions between new development and historic resources. Mr. Bertolini noted there will be some interplay between this standard and density requirements from Planning staff. Member M. Dunn commented on the appropriate transition between the Elizabeth Hotel and a one- story historic structure. She stated the larger gap between the new and historic buildings on this site is helpful and she commended the design for this particular site; however, she would not like to see this as a precedent for dealing with this Code section in the future. Member Rose stated he was not as sure the proposed design works. He expressed concern about the proximity of the new building to the historic structures and about the new building dwarfing the barn in size. He appreciated the fact the buildings are being restored; however, he suggested more could be done to scale back the mass of the new building. Member M. Dunn commented on the roof line coming down to the top of the second story, which makes the building feel more like a two-story building. Member Guenther expressed support for the scale and massing and commended the fact that the historic structures are being saved and showcased. Chair Knierim concurred and stated the proposed relocation of the historic buildings makes sense for the site layout. Member M. Dunn asked Commissioners to discuss Section 3.4.7.1 regarding articulated similar widths. Member Rose commented on the roof forms not being reflective of the structures on the site. Member Carlock stated she has no issues with the gambrel roof and stated another pitched roof would make the building look too institutional. Member Guenther agreed and commented on Fort Collins’ eclectic architecture. Member M. Dunn stated she does not see much echoing of the widths of the houses and barn aside from some of the side gables. She suggested the applicant look at the articulation being better aligned with the widths of the historic buildings. She suggested moving the gambrel roofs and creating some Harmony Road-facing gabled sections. She commented on not being able to think of any barns in Fort Collins with a gambrel roof; however, she stated the typology fits the feel of the project. She suggested it be used in another location on the project rather than being next to the barn. Member M. Dunn asked Commissioners for thoughts on the window patterning. Member Carlock stated she likes the dormer windows on the gambrel building stating they help to alleviate the massing issue. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 184 EXCERPTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 4 March 16, 2022 Member Rose questioned the use of shutters stating they are not typically found on farmsteads. Member Guenther stated the shutters are probably meant to soften the building and he supported their use. He stated he believes Section 3.4.7 is met. Member M. Dunn suggested changing the windows to four light windows would help better meet the Code requirement. Member W. Dunn stated the Code is met based on the doors. Chair Knierim discussed the possibility of removing some of the shutters. Member Carlock replied that would eliminate some of the symmetry. Member Rose agreed removing some of the shutters could be an improvement. Chair Knierim requested the Commissioners discuss materials. Member M. Dunn commented on the Code language which states the predominant material only needs to be on the lower story façade until any stepbacks. Additionally, she stated other colors could be used based on the Code language. Member Guenther noted the shutters help to soften the all-white building façade. He commented on the wide variety of patterns used. Member M. Dunn commented the stone helps address Section 3.4.7.3. She asked if the stone is real or simulated. Mr. Payne replied the stone is manufactured in a field stone pattern with a variety of colors. Chair Knierim stated the stone fits with the overall character of the project given the thoughtfulness of using field stone rather than a cut stone. Member M. Dunn stated the simulated stone would need to be evaluated to determine whether it is an authentic, durable, and high-quality material per the Code. Member M. Dunn stated she did not have any concerns about the Secretary of the Interior standards as related to the historic buildings. Chair Knierim agreed. Member Rose noted there was a question from staff about the fenestration on the barn, though he stated he did not have any concerns about that as the new construction on the barn will bring it back to a form more like the original. Member M. Dunn commended the use of the murals as they are just paint, and they add a whimsical farm sense. She suggested a more simple design for the barn doors as there is no evidence of what they were originally. Chair Knierim stated moving the buildings is not an issue as the original locations are close and moving them does not create a false sense of history. Member M. Dunn stated she was concerned about the entrance gate towering over the house. Mr. Bertolini stated that item would fall under the Secretary of the Interior standard 9 dealing with design compatibility. Member Carlock noted those types of signs are common for ranches. ***END EXCERPT*** ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 185 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT July 20, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, FINAL DESIGN REVIEW, REHABILITATION & ADDITION STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT 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 along with related rehabilitation. A previous version of the application of the project included demolition of a non- historic accessory structure, and construction of a new garage building – that work is still proposed but based on approval from the HPC on February 17, 2022, is not included in this application for approval. APPLICANT/OWNER: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) RECOMMENDATION: This is a final design review in which the applicant is seeking approval via a Certificate of Appropriateness for the exterior project components based on the City’s requirements and standards for designated City Landmarks. Staff recommends conditional approval of the project as presented. Staff finds the current proposal generally meets the Standards for Rehabilitation very well, but the modification to the historic west-facing window in the northwest bedroom does not appear to meet the Standards. Staff is recommending a condition to approval that the plan be altered to retain the existing window opening, not approve the proposed demolition for two new window openings in this area, and approve a casement or other egress-compliant window in the existing historic window opening. Staff has provided an analysis below. COMMISSION’S ROLE: Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews proposed exterior alterations to a designated historic property for compliance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). The HPC should discuss and consider the presented materials and staff analysis. For City Landmarks and properties in City Landmark Districts, the Commission is a decision-maker and can choose to issue, or not issue, a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). Issuing a CoA allows the proposed work to proceed and the City to issue other necessary permits to complete the project. In this case, the applicant is requesting a final decision on design review of proposed plans to under Municipal Code 14-54(a) at this meeting. Packet Pg. 186 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The William and Violet Jackson Property was designated as a City Landmark on December 2, 2014. That designation included the full property, and specified that the main 1922 residence and 1942 garage constructed by the Jacksons are historic features, while the 1968 two-car garage is not. The property was designated under Standard 3 for Design/Construction, specifically as an “excellent example of the west-coast Craftsman architectural style, popular in the early twentieth century.” The proposed project includes construction of an addition totaling 339 ft2 (264 new ft2, when the existing 75 ft2 mudroom is subtracted). Although not covered in this final design review, the overall project also includes demolition of the non-historic 1968 garage and construction of a new, 630 ft2 garage at the rear of the lot. The accessory structure treatment is not part of this review as that work was approved by the HPC at its February 17, 2022 meeting. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Character-defining features for this property discussed in the nomination form include: • A low pitched, open, front-gabled roof including exposed rafter tails. • Simple, rectangular massing under a single, front-gabled roof form, indicative of Craftsman Cottages of this style. • Outer brick walls set in Flemish bond with shiners and rowlocks facing outward and two distinct bands of darker brick near the foundation. • Craftsman-style front porch including two, open, low-pitched gables finished with shingles and supported by brick pillars • Wood, one-over-one sash windows of varying sizes with matching wood storm windows. • Two distinctive brick chimneys • A c.1942 single-car garage at the northwest corner of the lot. [nomination form is Attachment 2 to this packet] ALTERATION HISTORY: Known alterations of the property to date include: • 1922 – construction of the original house • 1942 – construction of the single-car garage • 1947 – reshingling of the house • 1968 – addition of two-car garage at northeast corner of the lot • 2000s – minor restoration of exterior, including removal of aluminum storm windows with current wood • 2007 – reroof of buildings on the property HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: Since designation in 2014, this property does not appear to have undergone significant Design Review until the current project. Below is an administrative history of this application: • January 12, 2021 – demolition permits for both accessory structures (one historic, one not) received. • January 19, 2021 – building permit requested for main house with addition • February 4, 2021 – video conference with owner and contractor to discuss City Landmark requirements and where project did not meet Standards. • February 25, 2021 – video conference with owner and contractor about review process • March 17, 2021 – project scheduled for conceptual review but rescheduled due to late hour at request of owner • May 11, 2021 – follow-up meeting with applicant’s contractor to further explain how project did not meet Standards. Packet Pg. 187 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 • June 28, 2021 – follow-up meeting with applicant and contractor to explain how project did not meet Standards. • October 27, 2021 – follow-up meeting with applicant and contractor to remind on project review process and Standards. • November 19, 2021 – Conceptual Review (Round 1) with Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) • January 22, 2022 – Conceptual Review (Round 2) with HPC • February 17, 2022 – Final Design Review; addition on main house denied; modifications to basement windows on main house, demolition of 1968 garage and new 630 square foot new garage approved. • May 18, 2022 – Conceptual Design Review; the HPC reviewed a revised proposal for the addition, generally conforming to the current proposal. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: N/A - Unknown DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a final design review decision for the following items: 1. Construction of an addition totaling 339 ft2 (264 new ft2) onto the existing 1,097 ft2 home (Note: 1,097 includes the approximately 75 ft2 rear mud porch slated for demolition). 2. Modification of windows on west wall of northwest bedroom on historic house. Note: The following work has already been approved by the HPC but remains part of the project scope: 1. Replacement of all historic basement windows with egress-compliant window units. 2. Demolition of non-historic garage, and construction of a new 630-ft2 garage at the rear of the lot. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Staff has been in consultation with the applicant since January, 2021 with a previous iteration of the project. Consultation has included six meetings with the applicant to explain the design review process, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and the requirements for design review for projects on City Landmarks. Five of those meetings were related to previous designs of the project shown in the attachments that did not meet the Standards. The most recent meeting between staff and the applicant was on April 27, 2022 to go over the current design. Staff indicated the design should meet the Standards, with the main concern to address in conceptual review being the treatment of the northwest bedroom windows. Staff has continued correspondence with the applicant to prepare for this July 20 final review hearing. To provide some context on project improvements, the February 2022 iteration of the project drawings is included as an attachment. Previous iterations of the project that have since been discarded are on file and available if they are of interest to the HPC. At a previous meeting, the HPC submitted requests for additional information regarding how projects such as this (additions on residential City Landmarks) had been reviewed in the past, with specific interest in feedback from the State of Colorado (via the State Historic Preservation Office). That information remains a part of the record for the February 17 HPC meeting but has not been included here. However, it can be re-added to the packet for this conceptual review, or a final design review, if that is of interest to the HPC. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comments have been received so far on this iteration of the project. Previous public comments that pertain to the iteration of the project denied by the Commission on February 17, 2022 are available but have not been included in this packet. Staff will report information about public comments received and update this staff report as necessary. Packet Pg. 188 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: As provided for in City Code Section 14-53, qualified historic preservation staff meeting the professional standards contained in Title 36, Part 61 of the Code of Federal Regulations has reviewed the project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff finds that the most relevant review criteria under the Standards for Rehabilitation are Standards 2, 5, 9, and 10. The City of Fort Collins adopted the federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties both as a requirement to maintain a federal certification for the City’s historic preservation program, and as a way to establish a consistent and predictable methodology for how exterior projects can be approved on City Landmarks. With adaptive reuse being the most common treatment of historic buildings in Fort Collins, almost all projects, including this one, are reviewed under the Standards for Rehabilitation. Those Standards, and their accompanying, recently updated guidelines (2017) from the National Park Service, provide a framework for decision-making that recommends certain types of actions, and recommends against certain types of actions, based on the historic significance of a property, and the needs arising from the modern use of that property. The Standards are intentionally not prescriptive in approach due to the diversity of historical significance, diversity of historic features, and broad range of potential project types that may come forward for review. The Standards instead create consistency and predictability through a standardized decision-making process that preserves the essential historic characteristics and features of a property while accommodating changes both minor and major on an historic property. Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) 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 property will remain in residential use. Y 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. Designated as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage, the building is characterized by its small size and compact massing compared to larger Victorian and modern homes. Its simple rectangular form under the front-gabled roof, and other Craftsman-style features including exposed rafter tails, the styled brick exterior, wood sash windows, and prominent brick chimneys together characterize the property. The addition appears to meet this Standard. The overall compact massing of the property remains intact, and the addition retains the overall massing, scale, and spatial relationships of the primary residence. The treatment of the windows at the northwest bedroom’s west wall, which will result in the removal of a visible historic window and the creation of two new window openings, is the only item that staff considers as not meeting this Standard by unnecessarily altering the historic window pattern. While such modifications can be accepted in limited circumstances where no other egress alternative exists, alternatives do appear to exist in this case so staff is recommending a condition that this item not be approved. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls may be helpful in making this determination. Y (w/ Condition) Packet Pg. 189 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 5 With the condition that the existing window opening in the northwest corner of the property is retained and new window openings are not installed, staff finds this Standard met. 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. N/A SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The primary historic feature proposed for removal is the rear porch. While this feature appears to date from the property’s historic period and represents a common adaptation to historic residences in Fort Collins, staff does not believe the porch is a character-defining feature based on the significance of the property for Design/Construction as a significant example of a Craftsman Cottage. While staff generally encourages retention of rear porches whenever possible, in this case retaining it is not required in order to meet this Standard. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The project as proposed in the current version, conditionally meets this Standard. The plan has been modified from previous iterations to avoid demolition of the primary exterior wall of the house at its northeast corner. In this case, with one exception, all distinctive, or character-defining, features are being preserved. The exception is the treatment of the west-facing window in the historic northwest bedroom. The upper floor windows of the property and the existing window pattern is a character-defining feature of the property. While some modification of windows on secondary elevations can be allowed in limited circumstances, alternatives appear to exist here to avoid demolition of historic masonry and the loss of the historic window opening. Staff recommends a condition to retain the existing window opening in the northwest bedroom, to delete the creation of two new window openings in this space from the project plan, and to install an egress-compliant new window unit in the existing historic opening. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls may be helpful in making this determination. With that condition in place, staff would consider this Standard met. Y (w/ Condition) 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 discussed with the applicant the requirements for rehabilitation of the existing windows. That is likely, and may include addition of piggy- back or other integrated storm windows that do not require seasonal removal/reinstallation. Y Packet Pg. 190 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 6 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. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The proposal includes excavation for the foundation and finished basement under the addition. Based on the construction date of the property, the disturbed nature of the soil, and distance away from natural waterways (beyond 200 ft), it is unlikely that excavation would uncover significant archaeological materials from the pre-contact or Euro- American settlement periods. Y 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. Generally, this Standard calls for additions to meet three main requirements: to be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate. Staff’s analysis is that the project meets these requirements. The addition is comparatively small in footprint, adding approximately 264 ft2 of new space to the building, making it compatible and subordinate in size and scale. The massing of the addition will be retained behind the historic building, being flush on the east elevation, and setback slightly on the west elevation. The addition also incorporates the roof forms of the historic building into it, including the hipped roof of the mudroom addition that will be demolished over the new bathroom, and a gabled-end over the new kitchen. Exposed rafter tails, one-over-one windows, and a thin brick foundation for the addition also allude to the features of the historic building. The addition will be distinguishable, primarily by being clad in lapboard above the foundation, a common treatment for additions during the historic period as well, and having the foundation clad in, or constituted by, thin brick (less common for additions like this but compatible with the brick cladding of the main building, especially with the contrasting use on the foundation rather than the addition’s primary walls). The addition will be subordinate to the main property. It is flush with the east elevation side wall on the main house, and set in from the west elevation side wall. The roof of the addition will be below that of the historic. The addition is also only adding 264 new ft2 to the property (total square footage is 339 ft2, minus the 75 ft2 mud porch proposed for demolition). This is within the realm of normal additions added onto historic properties under this Standard. Y 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. In these revised plans, this Standard appears to be met. The mud room addition is not considered a character-defining feature, and the main brick Y Packet Pg. 191 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 7 wall that was formerly along this wall section has already been removed. The modification of the north-facing window at the northwest corner of the house into a passageway into the new bathroom is a common modification to provide passage in between existing and new additions and meets this Standard. INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY N/A FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the alterations and addition at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue was designated as a City Landmark by City Council ordinance on December 2, 2014 based on its architectural significance under Standard 3 (Design/Construction). • The project as proposed conditionally meets the Standards for Rehabilitation. To meet Standards 2 and 5, staff finds the modification of the west-facing window in the northwest bedroom does not appear to be necessary, with compliant alternatives to this degree of change readily available. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC conditionally approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project, specifically approving the project as proposed, with the condition that the window treatment of the northwest bedroom in the historic building be modified to retain the existing window opening, delete the proposed creation of two new window openings, and install an egress-compliant window in the existing opening. SAMPLE MOTIONS This is being presented to the Commission as a Final Design Review, so a decision is being requested. The Commission may adopt a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Project. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the 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. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC ITEMS AND DENIAL OF OTHERS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for proposed items [list items for approval with brief description of proposed work] 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 items [list items for approval with brief description of proposed work] because they do not meet the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: [Describe the standards(s) not met and why.] 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. Packet Pg. 192 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 8 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. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, provided the following conditions are met: [list condition(s) in detail and how satisfaction of each condition contributes towards meeting particular 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. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: [Describe the standards(s) not met and why for the basement windows, garage, and rear addition.] The Commission further finds that other than the stated standards not met, the denied alterations 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. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Landmark Nomination form 2. Current drawing set (June 24) plan set for project 3. Overall project set of photos from applicant 4. National Park Service Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 37: Rear Additions to Historic Houses (also available online, HERE) 5. Interpreting the Standards Bulletin 14, New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls (also available online, HERE). 6. February 2022 Drawing set (Denied by HPC on February 17, 2022 - for reference only) 7. Copy of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the adopted standards under which this project is being reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. 8. Applicant responses to HPC Work Session requests (drawings & photos) 9. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 193 Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 2, Swett’s Addition, City of Fort Collins Property Name (historic and/or common): William and Violet Jackson / Robert Bailey Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Robert Bailey Phone: 970-484-5411 Email: ecoregions@cs.com Address: 1306 West Mountain Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 or P.O. Box 512, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Mitchell Schaefer, Historic Preservation Intern; Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Address: City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-224-6078 Email: kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None DATE: Prepared 2 September 2014. Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.274 0 970.224.613 4-fax fcgov.com ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 194 Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property includes two contributing resources, the Craftsman bungalow home built in 1922 and the one-car garage located on the northwest corner of the lot, which William G. Jackson constructed in 1942. The two-car garage, constructed in 1968 by Robert Waldron, located southeast of the one-car garage and northeast of the home, does not contribute to the significance of the property due to its age. SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY Properties are eligible for designation if they possess both significance and integrity. Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. Significance: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess es high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity: Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. Setting. This property retains a character and relationship with its surroundings that reflect how and where it was originally situated in relation to its surrounding features and open space. Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the prope rty's historic character. Association. This property retains an association, or serves as a direct link to, an important historic event or person. It retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 195 Revised 08-2014 Page 3 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The property at 1306 West Mountain Avenue is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type and period. This one-and-a-half story 1922 Craftsman bungalow home is an excellent example of the west-coast Craftsman architectural style, popular in the early twentieth century. Its front-gabled roof, overhanging eaves with exposed roof rafters, false purlins, and iconic 19-by-7-foot porch are only some of the stylistic aspects that make up approximately one-third of all Craftsman homes in America.1 This home retains an abundance of its exterior and interior integrity. The home stands in the very location where it was originally built in 1922, and has excellent integrity of materials, workmanship and design. Limited alterations to the property and to the surrounding neighborhood have helped to preserve its setting and feeling. The current owner, Robert Bailey, has made great efforts to restore the home to its 1920s character, and in doing so, provide a living snapshot into the past of the Fort Collins community. HISTORICAL INFORMATION This Craftsman bungalow home was constructed very likely in 1922. In September 1921, William Glenn Jackson, the vice president, advertising manager, and secretary for the Fort Collins Express-Courier (now the Fort Collins Coloradoan), purchased Lot 2, Block 2, of the Swett’s Addition to the city for $500.00.2 On June 3, 1922, Jackson obtained a ten-year loan for $3,000.00 for construction materials.3 Jackson hired Walter A. Knight, a building contractor living in Fort Collins, to build the house, and on June 21, 1922, Knight obtained a permit from the city to construct a “Five-room brick bungalow” for $4,000.00.4 William Glenn Jackson, the only son of William and Della McMillan Jackson, was born on June 5, 1884, in Ohio. By 1888 the family had moved to Colorado Springs. The younger William attended schools in the area, and, on July 18, 1907, at the age of 23, he married Grace Violet Sanders in that city. The 1910 federal census shows that Jackson had begun his newspaper career, working as a reporter in Colorado Springs. By 1918, when William registered for the draft, he and Violet had relocated to Fort Collins, and were living at 1133 Laporte Avenue. The 1920 census found them still at that address, along with their two young sons, William Frank and Glenn V. In 1922, the Jacksons moved into this Mountain Avenue residence, where they lived until at least until 1927. In 1930, the family was living in Eugene, Oregon, where William Jackson worked in newspaper advertising. Soon after, the family relocated to Estes Park. In May 1931, William G. Jackson and Dean Kirby became owners of the Estes Park Trail. Jackson bought Kirby out in August 1934. Former secretary of the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce William Dings became editor the same year. Jackson’s son, William F. Jackson, took over as the newspaper’s editor in 1938. After living in Estes Park for many years, William and Violet Jackson returned to Colorado Springs, where they remained until William’s death in 1966 and Violet’s in 1973. When the Jacksons left this Mountain Avenue home in the late 1920s, they chose to rent the property out rather than sell. Over the next nearly thirty years, at least seven different tenants lived here. The occupations of those residents ranged from lawyers and editors to gas inspectors and “sheep commissioners.” In 1942, Jackson acquired a building permit to construct a 12’ X 20’ 1 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture (New York: Knopf, 2013), 567. 2 Warranty Deed, September 16, 1921, Conveyance No. 41, Abstract of Title to Lot 2, Block 2, Swett’s Addition to Fort Collins, in possession of Robert Bailey, Fort Collins, Colorado. 3 Mortgage Deed, June 3, 1922, Conveyance No. 44, Abstract of Title; Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, 1922 (Colorado Springs: R. L. Polk Directory Co., 1922), 85. 4 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 1027, June 21, 1922. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 196 Revised 08-2014 Page 4 “frame one car garage” on the northwest corner of the lot; the estimated cost of labor and materials was $200.00.5 In 1947, Jackson re-shingled the home.6 In October 1949, the Jacksons sold the Craftsman home to Gordon and Evelyn Heumesser. Gordon Heumesser was employed as a steward for the Elks Club, and Evelyn Heumesser worked as a bookkeeper.7 The Heumessers remained here until 1963.8 In November of that year, they sold their home to John H. Rust Jr., a machinist, and his wife Dorothy.9 The Rusts financed their new home through the Fort Collins Federal Savings and Loan Association for $12,800.00, and remained here for five years until selling it to Robert “Bob” and JoAnne Waldron in 1968.10 The same year that the Waldrons purchased the home, they also paid $1,000.00 to construct a 22’ x 26’ two-car detached garage on the property.11 Bob Waldron, a World War II veteran, met his future wife, Joanne Bancroft in 1947, while both were working in downtown Fort Collins. The couple was married on February 22, 1948, and raised two daughters, Suzanne (Henderson) and Gwen (Feit). Bob worked at Paramount Laundry and then at Colorado State University Food Services, retiring from this position in 1972. JoAnne retired from Steele’s market in 1991, where she worked for 34 years. Bob Waldron passed away on December 6, 1999,12 and JoAnne on September 11, 2002. The current owner, Robert Bailey, purchased the home in 2001. Bailey, an ecological geographer and writer, is employed by the U.S. Forest Service.13 Since purchasing his home, Mr. Bailey has made great pains to restore it to its original 1920s Craftsman style both inside and out. “Fortunately,” he stated in an American Bungalow article he published in 2011, “the exterior needed little work.” He did, however, replace old aluminum storm windows with wood frames to fit the period, and in 2007 he paid to tear off the existing roof and replaced it with asphalt shingles.14 In an effort to “bring back the spirit of the original construction” Bailey has done extensive interior work including re-installing the original bathroom sink and toilet (which he found in the basement), removing the carpet to refinish and improve the pine flooring, and repainting much of the interior. Even much of Robert Bailey’s furniture fits the beautiful 1920s style of this beautiful brick Craftsman home.15 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1922 Architect/Builder: Walter A. Knight, Builder Building Materials: Brick, Wood Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow Description: This one-and-a-half story 1922 Craftsman bungalow home retains much of its original integrity of design, workmanship and materials, and stands as a wonderful example of the west-coast Craftsman style. The low pitched, open and front-gabled roof includes overhanging exposed roof rafters and is topped by asphalt shingles. The outer brick walls are set in Flemish bond with shiners and rowlocks facing outward. Two distinct bands of darker brick are set in a repeating pattern with only rowlocks exposed and pairs of specialty cut smaller bricks edge all corners of the main house. The lower band of rowlock bricks sits flush with the outer layer of brick as it wraps around the house, including the front porch, and forms the lintels for the basement windows. The 5 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 6968, May 6, 1942. 6 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 9851, May 12, 1947. 7 Warranty Deed, October 31, 1949, Entry No. 65, Abstract of Title; Fort Collins City Directory 1952 (Colorado Springs: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1952), 131. 8 See Fort Collins city directories, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963. 9 Deed, November 4, 1963, Entry No. 70, Abstract of Title. 10 See Fort Collins city directories, 1964–1968. 11 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 12395, June 10, 1968. 12 Obituary of Robert Waldron, Coloradoan, December 8, 1999. 13 Julie Estlick, “Back to Life,” Lydia’s Style Magazine, September 2008, 34. 14 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. B0703533, June 5, 2007. 15 Robert Bailey, “The Sustainable Bungalow: Ecological Design in Historical Perspective,” American Bungalow 71 (2011): 72–83. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 197 Revised 08-2014 Page 5 higher-placed and corbelled band runs around the house forming the bottom sill of the first-story windows and connects with the cement cap of the porch’s wall structure. An undated addition to the kitchen on the rear (north) elevation sits on the northeast corner of the home and opens to a rear porch. The foundation is unexposed, but the base of the front and rear porches are constructed of cement. The front (south) elevation includes two open, low-pitched gables finished with shingles, one as part of the larger roof and the other covering the porch. The open and covered porch runs only a partial length of the front elevation. Its brick walls are set in Flemish bond capped by cement and lead to the front entryway. The porch’s gabled roof is supported by two brick pillars set in stretcher bond that rise from the porch’s brick walls. These pillars may have been repaired or installed sometime after the original construction, but building permits reveal no information concerning their addition. The porch’s gable has a slightly lower pitch than, and is symmetrical with, the front gable of the home and includes the exposed and overhanding rafters typical to Craftsman homes. Two decorative purlins are found below the soffits on either side of the porch’s gable. The steps leading up to the porch, along with the main entryway, is slightly asymmetrical and located just to the east of the center of the south elevation. The front entryway is protected by a glass door with wood rails and opens inward while an accompanying screen door opens outward. On either side of the front entryway are double-hung sash windows in cream wood frames that the current owner replaced after purchasing the property in 2001. The steps leading up to the porch are made of poured cement and adorned with decorative metal hand rails. Both of the east and west elevations are simple with little elaboration and continue the Flemish brick bond with the two distinctive dark-brick bands. On the west elevation four single pane windows that are nearly flush with the ground are surrounded by cream wood frames and provide light to the basement. Three double-hung sash windows and one single-pane window for the bathroom make up the first-story windows on the west elevation. Each of these windows is surrounded by cream wood frames. The three larger double-hung windows use the upper band of rowlock-patterned bricks as their sills. The east elevation bears a brick chimney set in corbelled Flemish bond before it pierces the roof, but set in standard, or running, bond there above without any corbelling or decorative patters above the roof line. This elevation bears four separate windows, one located just to the south of the chimney and three to the north. The only window located to the south of the chimney is a double-hung sash window surrounded by cream wooden frames. Like almost all other first-story windows it uses the higher-set band of rowlock bricks as its sill. The first, and smaller, of the three windows located north of the chimney is a double-hung sash window. The second window is comprised of three double-hung windows surrounded by cream wood frames and divided by two cream wooden mullions. The third and northern-most window has its own row of dark bricks for a sill that also bear only rowlocks in a uniform pattern, but is separate from the band that extends around the entire house. This window has four lights arranged in two double-hung windows separated by a single cream wooden mullion. Two, double- pane windows are flush with the ground and, like those on the east elevation, provide light for the basement rooms. The rear (north) elevation includes the same low-pitched gable as the front also finished with shingles, but also includes a wood-frame addition to the brick structure on the northeast corner of the home. The only window on the north elevation that is set in the brick structure is located west of the addition and is a double-hung sash window set in a cream wooden frame and it also uses the higher-set rowlock band of dark bricks as its sill. The partial hipped-roof addition protrudes from the northeast corner of the home and provides additional space within the kitchen. This addition very well may have been a later addition as the current owner informed Historic Preservation department staff that when he restored the wood flooring in the kitchen he found a portion of the wall that is now covered by the restored wood floor. Its outer walls are finished with vertical wood siding without a rake and the roof rafters are open and exposed on the west and east elevations of the addition itself. The northern exposed rafters are hidden by the rain gutter than runs the entire length of the addition’s northern roof. It also bears a door with light pane and a screen door on the outside that lead out to the back porch and backyard. West of the rear entryway on the addition are two double-hung windows surrounded by cream wood frames and separated by a cream wood mullion. The back porch is entirely composed of cement and is ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 198 Revised 08-2014 Page 6 surrounded by a simple metal pipe railing. The steps to the porch are found on both the west and east sides and have since cracked away from the rest of the porch structure due to ground settling. The one-car garage included within this landmark designation is located on the northwest corner of the property and was built by William G. Jackson, then the owner of the property, in 1942. The car door faces north and opens into the alley. It is a front-gable structure with overhanging, exposed roof rafters and asphalt shingles. The four elevations are covered with light brown drop siding and all edges are protected with cream wood corner boards. The car door is symmetrical with the gable and made up of eight green wood panels and surrounded by a cream wood framework. The entryway is located on the east elevation in the southeast corner and is painted to match the car door. It has two wood panels within rails and is surrounded by cream wood framework. The east elevation includes one four-pane window with cream wood frames and a wooden sill to match. A similar four-pane window is fond on the south elevation and is slightly offset to the west from the center of the gable. The two-car garage on the property built in 1968 by Robert Waldron is located to the northeast of the home and to the southeast of the one-car garage described above. This structure is not considered to be a historically significant element of this property, and is not included in this landmark designation. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 199 Revised 08-2014 Page 7 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION Abstract of Title of Lot two (2) in Block two (2), of Swett’s Addition to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado; in Larimer County, Colorado, compiled by The Fort Collins Abstract Company. In the possession of Robert Bailey, Fort Collins, Colorado. Bailey, Robert. “The Sustainable Bungalow: Ecological Design in Historical Perspective.” American Bungalow 71 (2011): 72-83. Ching, Francis D. K. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1995. City of Fort Collins building permits, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado and Fort Collins Local History Archive, Fort Collins, Colorado. City Directories of Fort Collins, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado and Fort Collins Local History Archive, Fort Collins, Colorado. Estlick, Julie. “Back to Life.” Lydia’s Style Magazine (September 2008): 32–34. Family Search: William Glenn Jackson. https://familysearch.org Federal Census of the United States: 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1940. Accessed through www.heritagequestonline.com. “JoAnne Waldron.” (Obituary). Fort Collins Coloradoan, September 13, 2002. McAlester, Viriginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. “Robert Waldron.” (Obituary). Fort Collins Coloradoan, December 8, 1999. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 200 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 201 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 10, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 1306 West Mountain Avenue CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Robert Bailey, Owner REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado BACKGROUND: The William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property, located at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, is being nominated for Landmark recognition for its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C, for its embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The Jackson/Bailey house is a classic example of the Craftsman style, popular in Fort Collins during the early-twentieth century, with many noteworthy architectural details. Constructed in 1922, the building’s distinctive features include varying colors of brick set in a beautiful Flemish bond, exposed roof elements, a prominent front entry, and a substantial front porch. The first of two automobile garages was constructed in 1942; as a simply designed single-car garage, it illustrates a time when many Americans were purchasing personal vehicles for the first time, and contributes to the significance of the property. The second garage, constructed in 1968, is not considered to be a historically significant element of this property, and is not included in this landmark designation. The current owner, Robert Bailey, has made extensive efforts since his purchase of the property in 2001 to restore the exterior and interior of the home, and is pursuing this Landmark designation. The property’s context is that of an early twentieth century residential neighborhood. Limited alterations to the property and to the surrounding neighborhood have helped to preserve its setting and feeling, and the Jackson/Bailey property relates to and contributes to the neighborhood’s context. COMMISSION ACTION: The Landmark Preservation Commission shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the request for Landmark designation of the William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property, 1306 West Mountain Avenue. REVIEW CRITERIA: Municipal Code Section 14-5, Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Landmark Districts, provides the criteria for determining the eligibility of a property for Landmark designation. It states, “Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered.” Standards for determining significance: ITEM 5, ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 202 -2 - A. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either (or both) of two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. B. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. C. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. D. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a property. c. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. f. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. Context: The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 203 -3 - context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area…. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 204 Oakwood School City Park W Oak St Pearl StC i t y P a r k D rLyons StSylvan CtJackson AveN Roosevelt AveLeland Ave N Mckinley AveSheldon DrS Mckinley AveS Roosevelt AveN Mckinley AveW Mountain Ave Laporte Ave ©1306 W Mountain Ave 1 inch = 200 feet Site ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 205 Front (South) and Side (West) Elevations, July 2014 Side (East) and Rear (North) Elevations, July 2014 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 THE ROBERT BAILEY PROPERTY, 1306 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE Packet Pg. 206 Rear (North) Elevation, July 2014 Garages facing North, July 2014 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 207 North and East Elevations, One-car Garage built 1942, July 2014 South and West Elevations, Two-car Garage built 1968, July 2014 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 208 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 209 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 210 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 211 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 212 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 214 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 215 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 216 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 217 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 218 Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Re ha bil i ta tion REAR ADDITIONS ITS NUMBER 37 Issue: Whenever possible, new additions should be con- structed on rear elevations where they will have less of an impact on the building’s historic integrity. Rear additions—like all new additions—should be subordinate to the original build- ing in size, scale, and massing, as well as design. Additions that feature a higher roofl ine, that extend beyond the side of the building, or that have a signifi cantly greater footprint than the original building are usually not compatible. The expansion of modest scale houses or those in prominent locations (such as a corner lot) can be particularly challenging. Standard 1 states that “A property should be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defi ning characteristics of the building and its site and envi- ronment.” In cases where an overly large addition is required in order to accommodate the owner’s programmatic needs, a more suitable building should be identifi ed. Rear additions that meet the Standards are compatible in de- sign, yet diff erentiated from the old building, often through a process of simplifi cation. For example, if the original house features narrow clapboard siding, multi-light double-hung sash windows and an elaborate decorative cornice, the new ad- dition could be sided with diff erent clapboards, one-over-one double-hung sash, and a less detailed cornice. New materials need not match exactly the historic materials but should be appropriate to the building type, compatible with existing materials, and unobtrusive in appearance. Rear additions that do not require signifi cant removal of exist- ing materials may help retain the house’s historic appearance and character. Connecting the new addition to the historic building with a modest hyphen can limit removal of historic materials, drastic structural changes, and irreversible changes to the original building. A hyphen can also more clearly dif- ferentiate new from old construction. Rear additions can also provide the opportunity to make a building accessible, rather than constructing ramps on a more prominent elevation. Top and Above: This historic house had been altered numerous times in the past--including multiple additions to the rear of the building. Application 1 (Incompatible treatment): This modest resi- dence began as a two-story log house. Later, the main portion of the house was converted into a distinctive Bungalow-style residence. Over time, multiple additions were also made along the natural grade at the rear of the house. Prior to rehabilita- tion, these later additions were quite deteriorated. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services Subject: Rear Additions to Historic Houses Applicable Standards: 9. Compatible New Additions / Alterations 10. Reversibility of New Additions / Alterations ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 219 These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting de ter mi na tions, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not nec es sar i ly ap pli ca ble beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. Chad Randl, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service June 2006, ITS Number 37 When the project began, the existing rear additions were determined to be beyond repair and were demolished. A re- placement addition of a similar size to those removed would likely have met the Standards. However, the new addition constructed on the rear doubled the size of the structure as it existed before the rehabilitation. As built, the cladding, open- ings, and roofl ines of the new addition were appropriate to the building’s historic character. Yet this was not suffi cient to overcome the eff ect of an addition substantially more massive than the additions that were demolished. With two full fl oors, a footprint that was much deeper than the previous additions, a new deck extending from the rear and side elevations, and signifi cant grade changes at the rear, this work competes for attention with the historic structure to which it is attached and has seriously impacted the property’s historic character. The size of this new rear addition—incorporating two fl oors and an ex- tended depth--combined with substantial changes to the site overwhelm the modest historic house. Right: The house prior to rehabilitation. Below right: Drawing of proposed rear addition and hyphen, show- ing how the new construction was subordinate in size to the historic house. Below left: New addition and connecting hyphen. The new materials and fenestration complement, yet are distinct from, the historic house. Application 2 (Compatible treatment): This large brick house was converted for use as offi ces. As part of the rehabilitation a new addition was constructed at the rear of the house. With a brick ground fl oor and a clapboard upper level set beneath a roofl ine that was lower in height than the original structure, the rear addition’s design was both distinct from, and compat- ible with, the size, scale, massing and architectural features of the historic house. The use of varied materials on the addition (brick below, clapboard above) was handled with restraint in a manner that did not compete visually with the main house. The addition provided space to locate new systems for the entire structure as well as accessibility to the historic house at grade, making exterior ramps unnecessary. A hyphen (with a lower roofl ine and narrower footprint) separated the new addition from the old, further distinguishing the various periods of construction and reducing the addition’s massing. The hyphen required only a minimal amount of distur- bance to the rear wall of the historic house and left the plan of the main house intact. If the addition were ever removed, the house’s historic integrity would remain undiminished. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 220  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services National Center for Cultural Resources ITS Interpreting NUMBER The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character 9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations Issue: Rehabilitating historic buildings for new uses occasionally requires cutting in new window openings in secondary elevations to increase light and ventilation. Secondary building elevations, while usually not as important as the fa9ade, are often articulated and quite visible, even though they may have few, if any, openings. Since secondary elevations can contribute to the historic character of a building, the integration of new openings requires careful consideration to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This can be accomplished through attention to the number, location, and design of proposed new openings during the design process. Application 1 (Incompatible new openings): This freestanding brick warehouse was constructed in 1859 to store grain and dry goods. Although the largely solid end wall elevations were second- ary, they were highly visible and contributed to the historic charac- ter of this building. During a conversion to offices, a series of new openings were inserted in the end walls to admit more light and take advantage of desirable views. The number and design of the new windows, which mimic the historic windows in size, propor- tion, detail and light configuration, fundamentally altered this building's historic character giving the building a significantly dif- ferent look. The treatment did not meet the Standards. New windows could have been installed while maintaining the his- toric massiveness of the end wall. This would have required the introduction of only a few smaller windows. Top: The historically important 1859 brick warehouse with largely solid end wall. Bottom: The number and design of the windows added to the end wall make this an inappropriate treatment. ADDING NEW OPENINGS ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 221 o Left: 1882 corner commercial building. Right: The number and location of the new openings do not alter the historic character nor cause this elevation to compete with the facade . Application 2 (Compatible new openings): This 1882 structure exemplifies the transition in commercial architecture after the Civil War from simple, domestically scaled buildings to structures distinguished as symbols of commercial prestige by their size and height, decoration, quality of architecture and prominence. When rehabilitating this building into bank offices, the owner proposed inserting new openings on the third floors of the secondary side elevation for added light and ventilation. The number and location of these new openings did not impact the character-defining features nor direct too much focus to the secondary elevation. Application 3 (Incompatible treatment modi- fied to meet the Standards): A nineteenth cen- tury commercial building with an exposed party wall, where the adjacent buildings have been razed, presents a greater opportunity for com- patible new openings. Nonetheless, the design must not make such a strong architectural state- ment as to radically change the appearance of the building or overwhelm the composition of the historic fa ade. This 1897 commercial building with exposed party wall on the west was constructed to house a significant early twentieth century retail es- tablishment. Four entry doorways were cut into the party wall when the building was al- a BBB B B ~ffflclfil:1 B m m [J 8 B B B B lffllfilfi m m B j ~ Left: 19th century commercial building with exposed partywall. Above: Inappropriate treatment. Below: Appropriate solution. B888B83 BBaaaEE B B B B B B tered in 1937 and 1992 . When rehabilitating this building for mixed-use in 1999, with a restaurant and specialty shops on the first floor and residential apartments on the upper three stories, twenty-five new openings were proposed on the west eleva- tion. These new openings with varying header heights included four different window sizes and pane configurations, and two projecting balconies. The number, placement, rhythm created by the variations in header heights and window sizes and pro- posed balconies make a strong architectural statement that is incompatible with the historic character of this large solid ma- sonry wall. The revised elevation design eliminated the balconies and some of the new window openings, standardized the header heights, sash size and pane configuration. This compatible treatment meets the standards . Kaaren R. Staveteig, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case . September 2000, ITS Number 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 222 P.O. Box 330 • La Porte, CO 80535 Office (970) 472-1113 • Fax (970) 472-8313 www.armsteadconstruction.com 12-23-21 RE: Design Changes for 1306 W. Mountain Revised Plan set dated 12-8-2021 and consisting of 7 pages Demolition of existing brick wall: - Revised plans show there will not be any existing historic brick being removed and all brick walls can be reversable. Exterior Windows: - Revised Plans show retaining the existing windows in the home except for the removal of and fill-in in the existing bathroom. Floor plan square footage: - Revised plans show adding onto the existing home of 1097 square feet a new addition of 887 square feet reflecting a reduction of 24% from previous plans. Roof Details: - Removal of dormer on the east roof elevation based on the commission’s recommendations. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 223 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 224 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 225 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 226 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 227 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 228 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 229 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 230 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 231 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 232 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 233 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 234 Northeast corner of historic house, looking northeast Northeast corner of historic house, looking north toward rear of house ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 235 Left: photo of west elevation w details, looking north; Right: Photo of rear/northwest window Rear bathroom & NW window on west elevation ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 236 1 Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission – July 20, 2022 1306 W. Mountain Avenue Landmark Design Review – Final Review 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 237 Role of the HPC • Consider proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation • Pass motion under Municipal Code 14, Article IV to approve, approve w/ conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. 3 Property Background • City Landmark • Jackson-Bailey Property • Designated December 2, 2014 • Standards 3/C • No period of significance defined • 1922 • 1942 • House constructed in c.1922 • Garage in 1942 4 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 238 Current Review Timeline • January 12, 2021: Demolition permits received for both accessory structures (holds placed, contractor contacted) • January 19, 2021: Building permit requested for main house addition/rehab • February 4, 2021: Video conference with owner and contractor to discuss required Landmark design review process and key conflicts. • February 25, 2021: Follow-up video conference to discuss review process • March, 2021: Scheduled HPC Conceptual Review (rescheduled at owner’s request due to late hour) • May 11, 2021: Follow-up w applicant • June 28, 2021: Follow-up w/ applicant • October 27, 2021: Process follow-up w/ revised plans • November 19, 2021: HPC Conceptual Review Rd 1 • January 22, 2022: HPC Conceptual Review Rd 2 •February 17, 2022: HPC Final Design Review •Garage & basement window treatments approved •Addition denied •May 18, 2022: HPC Conceptual Design Review 5 Proposed Project 6 1. Construction of an addition totaling 339 ft2 (264 new ft2) onto the existing 1,097 ft2 home •(Note: 1,097 includes the approximately 75 ft2 rear mud porch slated for demolition). 2. Modification of windows on west wall of northwest bedroom on historic house. 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 239 Proposed Alterations – Site 7 Proposed Alterations – Existing Conditions 8 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 240 Proposed Alterations – Existing Conditions 9 Proposed Alterations – West Elevation 10 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 241 Proposed Alterations – East Elevation 11 Proposed Alterations – Rear/North Elevation 12 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 242 Staff Analysis - Overall • Project meets all applicable Rehab Standards (with 1 exception) • Standards respond to proposed work in relation to building’s “character-defining features.” • Key Standards for this project are: • 2 – Preserve historic character • 5 – Preserve character-defining features • 9 – Additions/exterior alterations should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate • 10 – Additions/exterior alterations should be reversible • ITS Bulletin 37 – Rear Additions to Historic Houses • ITS Bulletin 14 – Modifications to Windows on Secondary Elevations 13 Staff Analysis – Standards 2 & 5 • 2 – Preserve historic character – generally met • Addition appears to meet • Modifications to northwest bedroom windows not recommended • Standard 5 – Preserve specific character-defining features and materials – met: • Addition begins at rear/north brick wall and is not removing specific historic materials. • Again, northwest window treatment not recommended 14 13 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 243 Staff Analysis – Standards 9 & 10 • 9 – Additions/exterior alterations should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate – met • Addition is appears to meet all three factors • 10 – Additions/exterior alterations should be reversible – met: • Addition is utilizing existing openings to create connections 15 Context for Modifying Side Windows • Typically historic openings are retained and new window openings added • Typically done when a wall is blank • If an existing opening is present but not IEBC-compliant, changing the existing is preferred rather than removing/infilling and adding new • See ITS Bulletin 21 – Adding new Openings on Secondary Elevations • Typically completed on larger buildings with blank walls 16 15 16 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 244 Staff Recommendation • Approve w/ Conditions • Condition: to retain the existing west-facing wall in the northwest bedroom, delete one or both of the two proposed new window openings, and install an egress-compliant window in the existing opening. 17 Role of the HPC • Consider proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation • Pass motion under Municipal Code 14, Article IV to approve, approve w/ conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. 18 17 18 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 245 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 1 STAFF REPORT July 20, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1802 N. COLLEGE: APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the commercial property at 1802 North College Avenue. On April 22, 2022, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property was Landmark-eligible based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in an intensive-level survey form. When undergoing development review, Landmark-eligible properties are subject to the historic resource requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: Darren Haun, H & H Properties, LLC (Property Owner) HPC’S ROLE: Section 14-23 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code establishes that “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.” In this hearing, the Commission shall consider an appeal of the determination of eligibility for 1802 N. College Avenue, based on the provided evidence from the initial determination (Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory 1403 form) and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The Commission must use the standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects, and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks in Section 14-22 of the municipal code to make its own determination. Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Section 14-9). BACKGROUND The building at 1802 North College Avenue was built in 1961 by local businessman Maurice L. Deines. In its early years, the building housed two sporting goods stores, but by 1969, Frank & Mary Perez began operating Pobre Pancho’s at this location. Frank Perez was born in Mexico in 1937 and immigrated to northern Colorado with his parents in 1943. He went to high school in Fort Collins and joined the U.S. Navy after graduation, becoming a citizen in 1957 after his service. In 1967, Frank and his mother Amelia started Pancho’s, the restaurant that would become Pobre Pancho’s, at 214 Walnut Street. 1968, Frank married Mary Medeillin, who he met when she worked as a server at the El Burrito restaurant on Pine Street. Frank and Mary took over operation of Pancho’s, renamed it Pobre Pancho’s, and moved it to the 1802 N. College Avenue address in 1969. The building remained in operation Packet Pg. 246 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 2 by the Perez family until early 2022 when the restaurant closed permanently. As part of the larger context of Hispanic/Latinx residents in Fort Collins, the history of discrimination by Anglo- American residents and lack of access to wealth-building opportunities is well-documented. Even today, while Hispanic residents make up about twelve percent (12%) of the city’s population, their share of business ownership is only three percent (3%) as of 2018. Pobre Pancho’s, like El Burrito on Pine Street and Joe’s Auto Upholstery (on Linden Street until several years ago when they moved to Willow Street), is a rare reflection of a long-standing Hispanic business that both served Hispanic residents that were often not welcome in other Anglo-owned businesses as late as the 1960s, but also a rare reflection of successful intergenerational wealth-building despite long-standing overt and institutional barriers to Hispanic residents to make that achievement in Fort Collins. March 3, 2022 – Conceptual Review: The property in question is part of a redevelopment of this and the 1800 N. College Ave property by Raising Cane’s. At their conceptual review hearing with City staff on March 3, Preservation staff identified the need for historic survey for both properties since they were both due for demolition. March 10, 2022 – Survey Ordered: On March 10, payment was received for the surveys of both properties from the developer. Preservation staff assigned the survey to Front Range Research Associates on March 17 (there was a delay as staff attempted to secure an available third party historian). April 28, 2022 – Survey Completed and Transmitted: On April 28, after FRRA was able to complete both surveys, staff transmitted the results of the survey both to the developers and the owners of record for both properties. Based on FRRA’s research, staff found the 1800 N. College property to be Not Eligible for Landmark designation, but found that 1802 N. College Avenue was Eligible, based on its significance to Hispanic and Commercial history in Fort Collins. May 2, 2022 – Appeal Received – On May 2, 2022, staff received an appeal of the finding of Eligible for 1802 N. College from the owner of that property, Darren Haun of H & H Properties, LLC. With the approval of the appellant, staff scheduled the hearing for the next available HPC agenda, July 20. RELEVANT CODES AND PROCESSES FOR HISTORIC REVIEW Sec. 14-22. - Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as landmarks or landmark districts. A determination of eligibility for landmark designation typically applies to the entire lot, lots, or area of property upon which the landmark is located and may include structures, objects, or landscape features not eligible for landmark designation located on such lot, lots, or area of property. In order for a district to be eligible for landmark district designation, at least fifty (50) percent of the properties contained within the proposed landmark district must qualify as contributing to the district. Resources eligible for landmark designation or eligible to contribute to a landmark district must possess both significance and integrity as follows: (a)Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object, or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how resources are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential. The criteria for determining significance are as follows: (1)Events. Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A resource can be associated with either, or both, of two (2) types of events: a.A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or b.A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Packet Pg. 247 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 3 (2) Persons/Groups. Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. (3) Design/Construction. Resources may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of resources. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A resource can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. (4) Information potential. Resources may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (b) Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance. The integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object, or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. The criteria for determining integrity are as follows: (1) Location is the place where the resource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. (2) Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. (3) Setting is the physical environment of a resource. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a resource was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the resource played its historic or prehistoric role. It involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. (4) Materials are the physical elements that form a resource. (5) Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. (6) Feeling is a resource's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource's historic or prehistoric character. (7) Association is the direct link between an important event or person and a historic or prehistoric resource. A resource retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a resource's historic or prehistoric character. (Ord. No. 034, 2019 , § 2, 3-5-19) Sec. 14-23. - Process for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts. (a) Application. [Omitted – this code section applies to applications for formal Landmark designation, and not to determinations of eligibility for development review purposes under Land Use Code 3.4.7]. (b) Appeal of determination. 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. The appeal shall include an intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form for each resource that is subject to appeal, prepared by an expert in historic preservation acceptable to the Director and the appellant, with the completion cost of such intensive-level survey to be paid by the appellant. Such survey need not be filed with the appeal but must be filed at least fourteen (14) days Packet Pg. 248 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 4 prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Director shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. Not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing, the Director shall: (1) Provide the appellant and any owner of any resource at issue with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal by first class mail; (2) Publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; and (3) Cause a sign readable from a public point of access to be posted on or near the property containing the resource under review stating how additional information may be obtained. (Ord. No. 034, 2019 , § 2, 3-5-19) ELIGIBILITY SUMMARY From the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form (1403) for 1802 N. College Avenue, Preservation staff found the property Eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark and subject to the provisions for historic resources in Land Use Code 3.4.7. Staff made that finding based on the research completed by Front Range Research Associates which includes the following statement regarding significance: The property is evaluated as potentially eligible for listing in the State Register of Historic Places and as a local landmark for its historical associations (Criterion A and 1) in the following areas of significance: Ethnic History/ Hispanic/Mexican for its association with the Perez family, Mexican immigrants who came to Fort Collins and established a restaurant business reflecting Mexican foodways. Using family recipes, the Perez family served a wide range of Mexican dishes, including now familiar Mexican favorites, a green chile sauce of varying degrees of heat, menudo, and its own Paco Macho. The operation of the restaurant included the extended Perez family, eventually embraced four generations. The Perezes were drawn to the US during World War II to work in agriculture, and the subsequent establishment and growth of Pobre Pancho’s reflects the upward mobility and entrepreneurial spirit of one Latino family. A 2003 historical context on Hispanics in Fort Collins by Adam Thomas is silent on Latinx participation in the local business community, suggesting such enterprises were rare. Current data from the City of Fort Collins reinforces this legacy, indicating that as of 2018 Hispanic residents made up nearly 12% of the city’s population but only 3% of its business owners. Research by the City to this point documents the discrimination against Hispanic residents, which made business ownership both more difficult due to institutional and overt racism in the Fort Collins business community, but also important as a means to provide commercial venues open to Hispanic residents. El Burrito restaurant (404 Linden Street), established by Jesse and Dorothy Godinez in 1960, is another example of a longtime Latinx restaurant. Both Pobre Pancho’s and El Burrito are included on the city website in a tour of Latinx resources. In regard to Pobre Pancho’s the tour observed: “The establishment of the second restaurant [at 1802 N. College Avenue] was a sign of the growing number of Latinx residents living along North College Avenue, typically in seasonal worker’s shacks or in the mobile home parks that began developing north of the Poudre River as a result of gentrification and displacement from neighborhoods like Holy Family and Tres Colonias.” Pobre Pancho’s is also significant in the area of Commerce, as an example of one of the city’s longer- lived restaurants of any cuisine, successfully operating for more than half a century in this location. By contrast, USA Today reported in 2018 (pre-pandemic) that “the average lifespan of a restaurant is five years and by some estimates, up to 90 percent of new ones fail within the first year.” The form provides the following information regarding historic integrity: The building retains historic integrity based on its appearance in a 1976 assessor appraisal card photograph, which shows the front and south walls, displaying the projecting entrance bay and fenestration present today. A subsequent rear addition was added in 1992, following the same materials and design approach as the original building, including stucco walls, board and batten gable face, and small, narrow windows. The building form reflects the functional and humble nature of a family owned restaurant but displays some decorative embellishments, including the façade’s two Packet Pg. 249 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 5 stained glass windows with sombreros and roses and the carved wood entrance door. The colorful wall signs were added in 2010. The expansions were made under Perez ownership and were necessitated by the growth of their business. The setting has been impacted by removal of the freestanding sign and relocation of parking access to the rear. Based on that evidence, staff finds the property Eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY Staff is testing a new process for public engagement regarding the historic survey process with this appeal. Staff has developed a notice that will hopefully be a standard part of public engagement where the question of preservation or redevelopment arises. That letter is attached and has been sent to several interested groups in the community. Staff will provide a final list of contacted organizations to the HPC and appellant prior to the final hearing. As of July 15, two (2) public comments have been received regarding this determination of eligibility, one (1) in favor of an Eligible finding, and one (1) in favor of a Not Eligible finding. Staff will continue to report information about public comments received prior to the July 20 hearing to both the HPC and to the appellant and update this staff report as necessary. SAMPLE MOTIONS Eligible If the Commission determines that the property is eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation in compliance with Section 14-23 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find the commercial property at 1802 North College Avenue eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings of significance] and [insert findings of integrity]. Not Eligible If the Commission finds that a property is not individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation in compliance with Section 14-23 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find 1802 North College Avenue not individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark according to the standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following findings of fact [insert findings based on lack of significance and/or integrity].” Note: The Commission may propose other wording for the motion based on its evaluation. ATTACHMENTS 1. 1802 N. College, Historic Survey Form completed April 22, 2022 2. May 2, 2022 Appeal Letter from Property Owner 3. Public Engagement letter (English & Spanish) for this property 4. Public Comments 5. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 250 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 Resource Number: B2700; 5LR.15077 Historic Building Name: Pancho’s Café; Pobre Pancho’s Property Address: 1802 N. College Avenue Determination: ELIGIBLE Issued: April 22, 2022 Expiration: April 22, 2027 ATTN: James Waller, Kimley-Horn (consultant) H and H Properties, LLC PO Box 341 Laporte, CO 80535 Dear Property Owner: 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 landmark eligibility provided by the consultant in the attached form. Significance Consultant’s evaluation: The property is evaluated as potentially eligible for listing in the State Register of Historic Places and as a local landmark for its historical associations (Criterion A and 1) in the following areas of significance: Ethnic History/ Hispanic/Mexican for its association with the Perez family, Mexican immigrants who came to Fort Collins and established a restaurant business reflecting Mexican foodways. Using family recipes, the Perez family served a wide range of Mexican dishes, including now familiar Mexican favorites, a green chile sauce of varying degrees of heat, menudo, and its own Paco Macho. The operation of the restaurant included the extended Perez family, eventually embraced four generations. The Perezes were drawn to the US during World War II to work in agriculture, and the subsequent establishment and growth of Pobre Pancho’s ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 251 -2 - reflects the upward mobility and entrepreneurial spirit of one Latino family. A 2003 historical context on Hispanics in Fort Collins by Adam Thomas is silent on Latinx participation in the local business community, suggesting such enterprises were rare. Current data from the City of Fort Collins reinforces this legacy, indicating that as of 2018 Hispanic residents made up nearly 12% of the city’s population but only 3% of its business owners. Research by the City to this point documents the discrimination against Hispanic residents, which made business ownership both more difficult due to institutional and overt racism in the Fort Collins business community, but also important as a means to provide commercial venues open to Hispanic residents. El Burrito restaurant (404 Linden Street), established by Jesse and Dorothy Godinez in 1960, is another example of a longtime Latinx restaurant. Both Pobre Pancho’s and El Burrito are included on the city website in a tour of Latinx resources. In regard to Pobre Pancho’s the tour observed: “The establishment of the second restaurant [at 1802 N. College Avenue] was a sign of the growing number of Latinx residents living along North College Avenue, typically in seasonal worker’s shacks or in the mobile home parks that began developing north of the Poudre River as a result of gentrification and displacement from neighborhoods like Holy Family and Tres Colonias.” Pobre Pancho’s is also significant in the area of Commerce, as an example of one of the city’s longer-lived restaurants of any cuisine, successfully operating for more than half a century in this location. By contrast, USA Today reported in 2018 (pre-pandemic) that “the average lifespan of a restaurant is five years and by some estimates, up to 90 percent of new ones fail within the first year.” Staff agrees with the consultant’s conclusions regarding the property’s significance, 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. Integrity Consultant’s evaluation: The building retains historic integrity based on its appearance in a 1976 assessor appraisal card photograph, which shows the front and south walls, displaying the projecting entrance bay and fenestration present today. A subsequent rear addition was added in 1992, following the same materials and design approach as the original building, including stucco walls, board and batten gable face, and small, narrow windows. The building form reflects the functional and humble nature of a family owned restaurant but displays some decorative embellishments, including the façade’s two stained glass windows with sombreros and roses and the carved wood entrance door. The colorful wall signs were added in 2010. The expansions were made under Perez ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 252 -3 - ownership and were necessitated by the growth of their business. The setting has been impacted by removal of the freestanding sign and relocation of parking access to the rear. 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. •Discussion and conclusion responds directly to previous conclusions and assessments of the property, whether in opposition or in agreement. Statement of Eligibility: This property is evaluated as eligible for listing in the State Register and as a Fort Collins local landmark for its association with Ethnic History/Hispanic/Mexican and Commerce. 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. 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 jbertolini@fcgov.com, or 970-416-4250. Sincerely, Jim Bertolini Senior Historic Preservation Planner Attachment: Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403, dated April 19, 2022. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 253 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue 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 ☐ Contributing to District ☐Not Eligible ☐Likely Eligible for State/National Register General Recommendations: This property is evaluated as eligible for listing in the State Register and as a Fort Collins local landmark for its association with Ethnic History/Hispanic/Mexican and Commerce. I. Identification 1.Resource number: 5LR.15075 2.Temporary resource number: N/A (parcel number 9836312001) 3. County: Larimer 4.City: Fort Collins ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 254 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue 5.Historic building name: Rod & Gun Shop, Rocky Mountain Sport Shop, Pancho’s Café, Pobre Pancho’s 6.Current building name: Pobre Pancho’s 7.Building address: 1802 North College Avenue 8.Owner name and address: H and H Properties LLC, PO Box 341, Laporte, Colorado 80535 II.Geographic Information 9.P.M. 6th Township 8N Range 69W SW ¼ of SW ¼ of SW ¼ of SW ¼ of section 36 10.UTM reference Zone 13; 493575 mE 4495558 mN 11.USGS quad name: Fort Collins, Colorado Year: 2019 Map scale: 7.5' ☒ 15' ☐ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): 1 Block: N/A Addition: Perez Minor Year of Addition: 1992 13.Boundary Description and Justification: The boundary includes the entire legal parcel historically associated with the property. The parcel measures 70’ north-south and 235’ east-west. Formerly described by a metes and bounds legal description, the owners platted the Perez Minor subdivision in 1992. III. Architectural Description 14.Building plan (footprint, shape): L-Shaped 15.Dimensions in feet: Length 76 Width 40 16.Number of stories: 1 17.Primary external wall material(s): Stucco 18.Roof configuration: Gabled Roof/Cross Gabled Roof 19.Primary external roof material: Asphalt/Composition 20.Special features: Overhanging Eaves. Patio. Stained Glass. 21.General architectural description: The one-story, roughly L-shaped, cross gabled roof restaurant building faces west toward North College Avenue. The 2,322-square-foot building has a concrete foundation; stuccoed concrete block walls; and a few narrow, flat-headed window openings. The roof is clad with asphalt composition shingles and has overhanging eaves, several drum vents, and an evaporative cooler. Gable ends feature projecting purlins, and gable faces are clad with board and batten siding. Front (West Wall). The front contains a small, projecting, slightly off-center, front gabled roof ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 255 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue entrance bay. The south wall of the bay features a wood door with twenty-one square panels, each carved with a fleur-de-lys. The west wall has a small, narrow, vertical, single-light window. The gable face is clad with board and batten siding. North of the entrance are two small, narrow, horizontal windows filled with stained glass depicting sombreros and a rose. South of the entrance the front wall is unfenestrated. South Wall. The south wall of the north-south gabled wing holds two, small, single-light windows to the east: a square one near the center and a narrow horizontal one farther east. The gable face is clad with board and batten siding and holds an illuminated box sign for “Pobre Pancho’s Mexican Food, Cocktails.” The center ridgeline is extended to produce a prow or winged gable, and there are projecting purlins. The short east wall of the north-south gabled wing is unfenestrated. Extending to the east, the setback south wall is mostly unfenestrated except for a narrow, horizontal single-light window to the west. The wall then steps back, has no windows, and includes a center entrance holding a flush metal door. Rear (East) Wall. The rear is unfenestrated except for a flush metal door at its north end. The gable face is the same as on the south, but it does not have a prow/winged gable. North Wall. The long north wall is unfenestrated. The gable of the north-south gabled wing is the same as the south gable. 22.Architectural style/building type: Commercial 23.Landscaping or special setting features: The level parcel is on North College Avenue, with an auto dealership to the south and a Discount Tire store to the north. The rectangular parcel measures about 235’ east-west and 70’ north-south. A wide concrete public sidewalk extends along North College Avenue. The restaurant building is located near the western end of the parcel. A low wall encloses a concrete paved patio between the building and the sidewalk. The patio features a planting area with a raised border holding two Alberta spruce trees near the southwest corner of the building. At the northwest corner of the building is a Blue Spruce tree. South of the building is a gravel area holding two additional spruce trees, two taller deciduous trees, and small boulders. South of the building on the south property line is a very large deciduous tree in a triangular area with small boulders. A small triangular area with evergreen shrubs is located farther east on the south property line. The area southeast and east of the building is paved with asphalt and used for parking. A wood post and metal pipe rail fence stands along the west part of the south property line; the wood posts have beveled tops. 24.Associated buildings, features, or objects: None. IV. Architectural History 25.Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1961, 1975, 1992 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 256 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Source of information: City of Fort Collins building permits, number 4422, April 13, 1961; number 23608, June 26, 1975; and number 922647, October 1, 1992 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Maurice L. Deines Source of information: City of Fort Collins building permit number 4422, April 13, 1961 28.Original owner: Maurice L. Deines Source of information: City of Fort Collins building permit number 4422, April 13, 1961 29.Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): There are no Sanborn fire insurance maps covering this location. A 1969 building permit for remodeling the interior noted the building then was a 40’ x 30’ rectangle. A 1975 building permit included construction of a new entrance (5’ x 6’) on the front and a center rear addition (16’ x 13’). A 1976 assessor appraisal card photo showed the front entrance and current fenestration, as well as a large free-standing sign standing next to North College Avenue and a driveway accessing the parking lot to the east. In 1992, the building received a subsequent rear addition on the east (producing an east-west extent of about 76’) that extended north to align with the north wall of the original building. The freestanding sign was removed in 2010 due to street and sidewalk improvements and the current wall-mounted signs were installed. At that time the driveway from College Avenue was removed and the front patio constructed. 30.Original location ☒Moved ☐ Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31.Original use(s): Commerce/Trade/Specialty Store 32.Intermediate use(s): Commerce/Trade/Restaurant 33.Current use(s): Commerce/Trade/Restaurant 34.Site type(s): Restaurant 35.Historical background: Constructed in 1961, this commercial building housed two sporting goods stores before Pancho’s Café (later Pobre Pancho’s Mexican Food and Cocktails) began operating here in 1969. Frank J. and Mary M. Perez ran the business, which continues to function here. Construction and Early Uses. Maurice L. Deines acquired this parcel from Harry M. and Margaret C. Finley in 1961. In April 1961 Deines obtained a building permit for a $12,500 “masonry store building.” The permit indicated that he served as the contractor. The 1962 city directory showed Deines operating the Rod & Gun Shop here. Vic Tamlin was the manager. Deines was a contractor and developer, who operated Deines Homes, Inc., in the 1960s and 1970s, building homes and apartments in the Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley areas. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 257 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Deines’ tenure here was short. By 1963 the building was vacant, and he sold it that year to David A. and Eleanor R. Thirolf. The deed included all improvements and store fixtures, including a “minnow tank.” In May 1963 the Mr. and Mrs. Thirolf opened the Rocky Mountain Sport Shop in this building. A large display advertisement in the Coloradoan announced the store specialized in “authentic Indian crafts,” including jewelry, blankets, and pots, as well as fishing reels, tackle, lures, and bait. The business was listed at this address in the 1964 city directory. In 1966 C.D. and Stella W. Burke bought the property. No information was provided for the property in the 1966 city directory, and the address could not be located in the 1968 publication. The Perez Family and Pobre Pancho’s. In 1969 Frank J. and Mary M. Perez began operating their Mexican restaurant here. Frank Javier Perez was born in Mexico in 1937. His father, Cipriano Ruiz Perez (1908-93), was a native of Hidalgo, Coahuila, and his mother, Amelia Ester (Cavazos) Perez (1915-79), was born in Monterey, Nuevo León. In 1943 Frank came with his parents to northern Colorado, where his father secured work as a farm laborer. Many Latinx were drawn to the area for work in sugar beets. Great Western Sugar was a major employer of Mexican workers during the World War II bracero program (1943-46) and the later Public Law 78 bracero agreement (1951-64), a binational farm labor agreement between the US and Mexico. It is not known if Mr. Perez worked under either of these programs. Latinx residents of Fort Collins principally settled in the Alta Vista and Holy Family neighborhoods. Latinx residents recall overtly discriminatory treatment in public accommodations, including at lunch counters and theaters, and in public education and infrastructure disparities within the city. After graduating high school, Frank served eleven years in the US Navy and became a naturalized citizen in 1957. He later worked for Hewlett-Packard. In 1967 Frank and his mother Amelia started Pancho’s Café at 214 Walnut Street in Old Town Fort Collins. In 1968 Frank married Mary Medellin, whom he had met when she worked as a server at El Burrito restaurant. Frank and Mary took over operation of Pancho’s and moved it to this location in 1969. The business was renamed Pobre Pancho’s (“Poor Frank’s” in Spanish) to distinguish it from a Pancho’s restaurant chain. The Perezes obtained a $3,200 building permit in February 1969 to “remodel interior of building for restaurant.” According to a 2017 Coloradoan article on the restaurant “Frank’s mother’s recipes have been used throughout the last 50 years with tacos, burritos, enchiladas, chile rellenos, tamales and tostadas among longtime menu staples.” The restaurant produced green chile in six different levels of spiciness and offered menudo (a specialty Mexican soup made of tripe) in the winter. Frank developed the Paco Macho dish, an enchilada stuffed burrito that became a popular seller. The restaurant prospered, and the Perezes purchased the parcel in 1972. They expanded the building in 1975-76 to meet increased business by adding a front entrance bay and a rear addition. In 1992 an 860-square-foot rear addition was constructed to increase the restaurant’s seating capacity. Frank was still working daily at the restaurant at age eighty in 2017. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 258 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Sale and Closure. In 2003 Frank quitclaimed his interest in the property to Mary. She transferred the property later that year to 1802 North College Investments LLC (apparently a Perez-owned entity). In 2020 H and H Properties became the owner of the parcel, and Asher Haun, a heating and ventilation contractor and longtime restaurant patron, purchased the restaurant business. Karolyn Bird, the Perezes’ granddaughter, stayed on as general manager and received an ownership percentage. Frank Perez died in October 2020. Pobre Pancho’s abruptly closed on March 31, 2022, ending its more than half-century run. Citing Monica Bird, a daughter of the Perezes, Denver’s Channel 7 reported “the employees did not receive a notice and learned of its closure as they left for the day and noticed someone changing the locks on the doors.” Owner Asher Haun commented “It was inevitably going to happen,” pointing to such factors as “two years of no profits, challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic, increased food prices and a slowing economy.” Haun has agreed to sell the property to Raising Cane’s, a fast-food chain selling “chicken tenders,” pending city approval of plans for a drive- through restaurant. 36. Sources of information: Larimer County Assessor, real estate information, Fort Collins, Colorado; Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, deeds and ownership transactions, Fort Collins, Colorado; City of Fort Collins, building permits, number 4422, April 13, 1961 (original construction), number 23608, June 26, 1975 (front entrance and rear addition), number 922647, October 1, 1992 (additional seating space added), and number B1004161, July 1, 2010 (removed freestanding sign and installed north- and south-facing wall signs); Fort Collins city directories, 1959-95; Larimer County Assessor, appraisal card, September 27, 1976, on file Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, Colorado; Fort Collins Coloradoan, May 29, 1963 (Rocky Mountain Sport Shop grand opening), August 6, 2020 (Pobre Pancho’s sold), and April 1, 2022 (Pobre Pancho’s closes); Pattrick [sic] Perez, “Beloved Fort Collins Restaurant Pobre Pancho's Permanently Closes,” www.thedenverchannel.com, April 3, 2022; Jacob Laxen, “A Family Tradition: Pobre Panchos [sic] Serves Up Time-Honored Mexican Dishes,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, October 11, 2017; Frank Javier Perez, obituary, Bohlander Funeral Chapel, www.bohlanderfuneralchapel.com (access March 23, 2022); Amelia Perez, Petition for Naturalization, number 25381, September 2, 1970, on Ancestry.com; US Census of Population, draft cards, and family trees, on Ancestry.com; USA Today, August 9, 2018; Adam Thomas, Hispanics in Fort Collins, 1900-2000: A Historical Context (Westminster, Colorado: SWCA Environmental Consultants, August 2003; City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation, Latinx History in Fort Collins, https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/latinx (accessed April 9, 2022), brochure, no date and Latinx History Tour Companion, https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/latinxtour (accessed April 9, 2022); City of Fort Collins, Equity Indicators Dashboard, https://ftcollinscap.clearpointstrategy.com/equity-diversity-and-inclusion/economic-opportunity- domain/, accessed April 22, 2022. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 259 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes ☐ No ☒ Date of designation: N/A Designating authority: N/A 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: Ethnic Heritage/Hispanic/Mexican, Commerce 40. Period of significance: 1969-2020 41. Level of significance: National ☐ State ☐ Local ☒ 42. Statement of significance: Constructed in 1961, this building housed two short-lived sporting goods stores in the early 1960s before becoming the home of Pobre Pancho’s Mexican restaurant in 1969. The property is evaluated as potentially eligible for listing in the State Register of Historic Places and as a local landmark for its historical associations (Criterion A and 1) in the following areas of significance: Ethnic History/ Hispanic/Mexican for its association with the Perez family, Mexican immigrants who came to Fort Collins and established a restaurant business reflecting Mexican foodways. Using family recipes, the Perez family served a wide range of Mexican dishes, including now familiar Mexican favorites, a green chile sauce of varying degrees of heat, menudo, and its own Paco Macho. The operation of the restaurant included the extended Perez family, eventually embraced four generations. The Perezes were drawn to the US during World War II to work in agriculture, and the subsequent establishment and growth of Pobre Pancho’s reflects the upward mobility and entrepreneurial spirit of one Latino family. A 2003 historical context on Hispanics in Fort Collins by Adam Thomas is silent on Latinx participation in the local business community, suggesting such enterprises were rare. Current data from the City of Fort Collins reinforces this legacy, indicating that as of 2018 Hispanic residents made up nearly 12% of the city’s population but only 3% of its business owners. Research by the City to this point documents the discrimination against Hispanic residents, which made business ownership both more difficult due to institutional and overt racism in the Fort Collins business community, but also important ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 260 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue as a means to provide commercial venues open to Hispanic residents. El Burrito restaurant (404 Linden Street), established by Jesse and Dorothy Godinez in 1960, is another example of a longtime Latinx restaurant. Both Pobre Pancho’s and El Burrito are included on the city website in a tour of Latinx resources. In regard to Pobre Pancho’s the tour observed: “The establishment of the second restaurant [at 1802 N. College Avenue] was a sign of the growing number of Latinx residents living along North College Avenue, typically in seasonal worker’s shacks or in the mobile home parks that began developing north of the Poudre River as a result of gentrification and displacement from neighborhoods like Holy Family and Tres Colonias.” Pobre Pancho’s is also significant in the area of Commerce, as an example of one of the city’s longer- lived restaurants of any cuisine, successfully operating for more than half a century in this location. By contrast, USA Today reported in 2018 (pre-pandemic) that “the average lifespan of a restaurant is five years and by some estimates, up to 90 percent of new ones fail within the first year.” 43.Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The building retains historic integrity based on its appearance in a 1976 assessor appraisal card photograph, which shows the front and south walls, displaying the projecting entrance bay and fenestration present today. A subsequent rear addition was added in 1992, following the same materials and design approach as the original building, including stucco walls, board and batten gable face, and small, narrow windows. The building form reflects the functional and humble nature of a family owned restaurant but displays some decorative embellishments, including the façade’s two stained glass windows with sombreros and roses and the carved wood entrance door. The colorful wall signs were added in 2010. The expansions were made under Perez ownership and were necessitated by the growth of their business. The setting has been impacted by removal of the freestanding sign and relocation of parking access to the rear. 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: This survey included only this property and the adjacent parcel to the south, so adequate information does not exist to formally assess district potential. There is substantial new construction in the vicinity, so district potential appears to be unlikely. If there is district potential, is this building: Contributing ☐ Non-contributing ☐ 46.If the building is in existing district, is it: Contributing ☐ Noncontributing ☐ VIII. Recording Information ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 261 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue 47. Photograph numbers: 01 through 15 Negatives filed at: City of Fort Collins 48. Report title: N/A 49. Date(s): Field surveyed March 18, 2022; form completed April 9, 2022 50. Recorder(s): Thomas H. Simmons and R. Laurie Simmons 51. Organization: Front Range Research Associates, Inc. 52. Address: 3635 W 46th Avenue, Denver, CO 80211 53. Phone number(s): 303-477-7597, frraden@msn.com, www.frhistory.com 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 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 262 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Historic Photos/Drawings Figure 1. This view northeast shows the restaurant in the fall of 1976. SOURCE: Larimer County Assessor, appraisal card photograph, September 27, 1976, in the files of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, Colorado. Figure 2. This ca. 1976 assessor appraisal card drawing is oriented with north to the left and North College Avenue at the bottom. By this date the original 30’ x 40’ building had received the front entrance bay and a rear addition. SOURCE: Larimer County Assessor, appraisal card drawing, ca. 1976, in the files of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, Colorado. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 263 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Figure 3. This photograph (displayed in the restaurant) shows Frank and Mary Perez, likely in the kitchen. SOURCE: Fort Collins Coloradoan, August 7, 2020. Figure 4. Frank Perez, then eighty- years-old, works in the restaurant kitchen. SOURCE: Fort Collins Coloradoan, October 11, 2017. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 264 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Site Photos and Maps Sketch Map: 1802 N. College Avenue Base: Google Earth, June 11, 2021 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 265 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue USGS Location Map. Surveyed resource is denoted by crosshair symbol. North is to the top and 1”=2,000’. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 266 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Current Photos (Date: March 18, 2022 by T.H. Simmons, photographer) Photograph 1. Overview of property from median of North College Avenue. View east. Photograph 2. Closer view of front from the North College Avenue median. View east. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 267 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Photograph 3. The front (west) and south walls of the building and the patio area. View northeast. Photograph 4. Front and south wall. View northeast. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 268 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Photograph 5. Front entrance detail. View north. Photograph 6. Stained glass window north of the entrance. View east-northeast. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 269 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Photograph 7. South wall. View north-northeast. Photograph 8. The west part of the south wall. View northwest. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 270 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Photograph 9. The east part of the south wall. View north-northwest. Photograph 10. The south and east (rear) walls. View northwest. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 271 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Photograph 11. The north wall from the east end. View west-southwest. Photograph 12. The north wall from the west end. View southeast. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 272 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Photograph 13. North wall and. Front (west) wall. View southeast. Photograph 14. View along the south property line from the public sidewalk. View east. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 273 Resource Number: 5LR.15077 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1802 North College Avenue Photograph 15. View toward the building from the east end of the parcel. View west. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 274 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 275 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 COMMUNITY INPUT INVITATION Ver página siguiente para español July 6, 2022 Dear Community Member, We are contacting you to invite you to provide your opinion about a City of Fort Collins process that affects the former Pobre Pancho’s Restaurant building at 1802 N. College Avenue. The property is for sale and new uses are being considered right now. In situations like this, the City’s Historic Preservation division is required to research the history of commercial buildings that are at least 50 years old if major changes are proposed for the property. If that research produces information that suggests a property is important to the history of the community, our development regulations require that the historic buildings are reused rather than demolished so that their history can be preserved. In this case, the former Pobre Pancho’s Restaurant property was determined to be important because of its long-standing association with the Hispanic business community in Fort Collins. The owner of the property has appealed this decision, which means there will be a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on July 20 starting at 5:30pm) so they can make a decision about whether saving and reusing the building will be required, or if it would be cleared for potential demolition. The Historic Preservation Commission is a group of volunteer residents who live in Fort Collins and have expertise or special interest in local history and historic buildings. The community’s opinions about the importance of the building and whether it should be saved because of its history are an important part of the process and will be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission. If you would like to share your opinion about what this property means to you, your organization, your family, or the local Hispanic community in general, we invite you to do so. Your input will be shared with the property owner, City staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, and anyone else from the community who has an interest in this property. There are several ways to share your thoughts. 1)All members of the public and interested parties are invited to attend the HPC meeting, in-person or online, on July 20 and speak directly to the Commission. You can do this either at the beginning of the meeting in the general public comment period, or just before the Commission discusses it, which will be later in the meeting. More information about how to attend that meeting and the schedule of items will be posted at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/historic-preservation on Friday, July 8. 2)Reply directly to this email and your message will be included with the other information presented at the HPC meeting. 3)Mail written comments to us at: Historic Preservation Services, 281 N College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Comments must be received by noon on July 20. 4)Drop off your written comments at 281 N College Avenue by noon on July 20, either to a staff member at the front counter, or by using the 24-hour secure dropbox next to the rear entrance of the building. A copy of the historic survey form for this property is attached for your information. Please feel free to forward this invitation to anyone else who may be interested in sharing comments about the property. Sincerely, Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager 970-221-6206 mbzdek@fcgov.com ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 276 Estimado miembro de la comunidad: Nos ponemos en contacto con usted para invitarle a dar su opinión sobre un proceso de la Ciudad de Fort Collins que afecta al antiguo edificio del Restaurante Pobre Pancho ubicado en 1802 N. College Avenue. La propiedad está en venta y actualmente se están estudiando nuevos usos. En situaciones como esta, la división de Preservación Histórica de la Ciudad está obligada a investigar la historia de los edificios comerciales que tienen por lo menos 50 años de antigüedad si se propone hacer cambios importantes a la propiedad. Si esa investigación arroja información que sugiera que una propiedad es importante para la historia de la comunidad, nuestro reglamento de desarrollo exige que los edificios históricos se reutilicen en lugar de demolerlos para poder conservar su historia. En este caso, se determinó que la propiedad del antiguo Restaurante Pobre Pancho es importante por su larga asociación con la comunidad empresarial hispana de Fort Collins. El dueño de la propiedad apeló esta decisión, lo que significa que habrá una audiencia pública ante la Comisión de Preservación Histórica (HPC, por sus siglas en inglés) el 20 de julio a partir de las 5:30 p. m. para que puedan tomar una decisión sobre si se requiere salvar y reutilizar el edificio, o si se autoriza su demolición potencial. La Comisión de Preservación Histórica es un grupo de residentes voluntarios que viven en Fort Collins y tienen experiencia o un interés especial en la historia local y en los edificios históricos. Las opiniones de la comunidad respecto a la importancia del edificio y si debería salvarse debido a su historia son una parte importante del proceso, y la Comisión de Preservación Histórica las tomará en cuenta. Si desea compartir su opinión sobre lo que esta propiedad significa para usted, su empresa, su familia o la comunidad hispánica local en general, lo invitamos a que lo haga. Su aportación se compartirá con el dueño de la propiedad, con los empleados de la Ciudad, con la Comisión de Preservación Histórica y cualquier otra persona de la comunidad que tenga interés en esta propiedad. Hay varias formas de compartir sus ideas. 1)Todos los integrantes del público y las partes interesadas están invitados a asistir el 20 de julio a la reunión de la HPC, en persona o en línea, para hablar directamente con la Comisión. Puede hacerlo al principio de la reunión, en el periodo de comentarios del público en general, o justo antes de que la Comisión lo analice, que será más tarde durante la reunión. Se publicará más información sobre cómo asistir a esa reunión y el programa de temas en https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/historic-preservation el viernes, 8 de julio. 2)Puede responder directamente a este correo electrónico y su mensaje se incluirá con el resto de la información que se presentará en la reunión de la HPC. 3)Puede enviarnos sus comentarios por escrito a: Historic Preservation Services, 281 N College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Los comentarios se deben recibir el 20 de julio al mediodía. 4)Puede entregar sus comentarios por escrito en 281 N College Avenue antes del mediodía del 20 de julio, ya sea a un miembro del personal en el mostrador, o utilizando el buzón seguro de 24 horas junto a la entrada trasera del edificio. Una copia del formulario de encuesta histórica de esta propiedad se incluye para su información. No dude en reenviar esta invitación a alguien más que pueda estar interesado en compartir sus comentarios sobre la propiedad. Sinceramente, Maren Bzdek, Gerente La división de Preservación Histórica 970-221-6206 mbzdek@fcgov.com ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 277 From:RON LAUTZENHEISER To:Maren Bzdek Subject:[EXTERNAL] FEEDBACK REQUESTED. NORTH COLLEGE AVE. Pobre Pauncho’s Building Date:Wednesday, July 13, 2022 3:15:23 PM I’ve been involved for 27 years on north college. I own the Big O Store and Grease Monkey Lube Center. I’ve been a leader for the last 25 years in returning N College to the condition it is now at. I am a Citizens Advisory Group member and have been for 20 years. I’m on the board of NFCBA I knew Frank Perez and his wife well. In my opinion there is no redeeming historical value to their building. Any more than my Grease Monkey or Big O Store. Sent from my iPhone Ron Lautzenheiser 970-214-1275 Rklautz@msn.com ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 278 From:Jimmy Aron 970-388-6654 To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] Pobre Ponchos Date:Friday, July 15, 2022 12:01:08 PM Dear Historic Preservation Commision, My name is James Aron. I live at 3613 Kenyon Drive, Fort Collins Colorado, phone number: 970-732-3106, email: aronaronja@aol.com. I would like to share my thoughts and memories of Pobre Panchos located at 1802 North College. I grew up in Loveland and moved to Fort Collins in 1975. Looking for good Mexican food I found Pobre Panchos on North College and was thrilled with my discovery. I was a regular client along with my family. It was my Son, Travis, favorite place to go for his birthday or food in general from about 1998 on. Every birthday Frank would give him a Pobre Panchos T Shirt. We have had many many family dinners there along with many many fond memories. It wasn't hard to find Frank Perez as he was always on site checking with the customers to make sure their meals were as they wanted. I got to know Frank and had abundant conversations with him over the years. It was a sad day when he passed on. We were there often enough to where the Ladies who worked there would automatically serve up an Arnold Palmer for me and a Doctor Pepper for my Son. In fact we ate there the final night before it closed. Pobre Panchos was our "home" restaurant. The food was good, the place was always clean and the service was quick and friendly. At the time of Franks death I was very happy the restaurant would not be closing as Asher Haun had bought it to keep the legacy alive. Myself, my family, the staff I knew and all of my friends were thrilled Pobre Panchos would be continuing on. There were two Mexican Food restaurants, to the best of my knowledge, actually owned and run by Hispanic families. Pobre Panchos and El Burrito. There may be others but these are the only ones I have direct knowledge of. Dorothy at El Burrito is retired now but her legacy lives on with her family working there. Frank at Pobre's also had his family employed there. It wasn't just a business it was a Family business. When King Soopers moved in next door Frank was offered a substantial amount to relocate. Happily Frank stood by his guns and stayed put. Pobre Panchos building is a landmark as much it is as a testament to Frank and his restaurant. I'm not sure how many Hispanic business owners there are in town but I'll wager there's not many. I believe Mr Haun bought Pobre's not to keep the legacy going but to sell it when the money was right. The way he shut it down with no notice, not even to the staff or regular clients, seals that for me. From the initial purchase I believe he saw it as a deal. I'm sure the price was reduced to keep the restaurant open as Mr Haun first promised. He states it was due to the economy and lack of customers yet every time we were there it was three quarters full to totally full. I believe that his true reason to sell was the high offer made by Raising Cane's for the property. He bought in low, ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 279 with the understanding the restaurant would stay open, and sold high for the money. I would give anything to have one more beef and cheese Paco Macho smothered in their hot green chili, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, avocado and cheese! So in closing I'll say that Pobre's is a Historical Landmark due to the years it was in operation, the fact it is one of the few businesses in Fort Collins legitimately owned and run by a Hispanic family and the joy it brought to many Fort Collins residents who happily indulged their need for Mexican Food. It should remain Pobre Panchos with some of the finest Mexican food forever! Sincerely, James Aron ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 280 From:Michael Bello To:Maren Bzdek Cc:Michael Bello-Contact; Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: Request for input - Pobre Panchos building historic status Date:Friday, July 15, 2022 3:09:59 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Maren I reached out to the North Fort Collins Business Association Board and got the following responses. I would agree with the prevailing thoughts here that though the family history has some significance the building doesn’t and as suggested in the first paragraph below, naming a building after them would be a better recognition of that history. Interesting read, I do believe that building does hold historical significance more so within the Perez family but not necessarily for Fort Collins. The fact that the owners, whom have occupied the building since 1969, are appealing the decision of its historical designation does hold weight with me, I happen to agree with them, that the building does not have historical significance. I believe someone had suggested that the new Community Center be named after the Perez family, which I think would be great recognition/ tribute to the family’s contribution to the business community. I am sure it has some history, but I don’t think you should put a historical tag on it. Doesn’t seem like it’s any special architecture, etc. I don't see anything historically significant for the building, the previous owners, nor anything that had happened there, so therefore I don't see any reason why the building should be historically preserved The building, if someone sees Historic value, should consider purchasing the building and moving the structure to another site. The current location provides for opportunity for a new building and a more functional use that would be compatible with surrounding properties. I know Pobre's was one of the first restaurants on N college and has been there for a long time, but honestly I don't personally feel that the historical significance of the building is doing much in the way of value for the community. From my perspective, this building has zero historical or architectural significance. It's fine with me to tear it down-- the sooner the better.-- has zero historical significance. Let me know if you need anything else from me. Thanks. Michael Bello C: 970.566.4541 From: Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 6:44 PM To: Historic Preservation <preservation@fcgov.com> Subject: Request for input - Pobre Panchos building historic status Greetings, ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 281 You are receiving this message because we are inviting your input for an upcoming hearing on July 20 related to the former Pobre Pancho’s Restaurant building at 1802 N College. Please see the attached bilingual message that provides more information about the nature of the hearing and instructions on how to participate or provide input in advance, as well as the second attachment that provides the historic survey evaluation of the property. We are interested in your input as an individual, or as the representative of a formal organization, or both. Please forward this message to any organizations or individuals who may also be interested in providing public comment for consideration at the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me. Regards, Maren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAREN BZDEK She/Her/Hers Historic Preservation Manager Historic Preservation Services 281 North College Avenue 970-221-6206 office mbzdek@fcgov.com ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 282 Betty Aragon-Mitotes 3375 Woodlands Way Wellington, Colorado 80549 July 18th, 2022 Historic Preservation Services 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter regarding Pobre Pancho’s Café historic designation. I am in full support of this being designated historical. The Perez family opened this café back around the same time as El burrito, in a time when there was still much discrimination. There were able to have a clientele that appreciated good Mexican food. They have been open for generations until the passing of Mr. Perez. This café brings fond memories for me; my father would always ask me to take him to eat there. It was a special time for me and my father. This family worked hard to keep that café open and they accomplished that as business owners. We need to honor Hispanics that were able to create a business and keep it going despite the struggles and discrimination. The Perez family has earned the right to be honored for their contributions to Fort Collins. Sincerely, Betty Aragon-Mitotes ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 283 Packet Pg. 283-1 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 ITEM 6, ATTACMENT 4 Packet Pg. 283-2 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 283-3 Full - 4 pages ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 283-4 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 283-5 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 283-6 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 283-6 Short - 3 pages ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 283-7 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 283-8 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 283-9 Packet Pg. 283-10 1 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission, July 20, 2022 Appeal: 1802 North College Avenue Landmark Designation Eligibility 1802 N. College – Pobre Panchos 2 1 2 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 284 Role of the HPC • De Novo hearing – HPC provides a new decision • Consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the building addressed as 1802 N College Avenue • Standards under Municipal Code 14, Article II • Provide a determination of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation • Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Sec. 14-9) 3 Current Review Timeline 4 • March 3, 2022: Conceptual plans reviewed by staff (Raising Cane’s) • Informed of Historic Survey requirement in LUC 3.4.7 (B) & (C) • March 10, 2022: Raising Cane’s orders historic survey for 1800 & 1802 N College Ave in preparation for PDP • April 28, 2022: Historian (FRRA) completes surveys and staff certifies findings • 1800 N. College – Not Eligible • 1802 N. College – Eligible • May 2, 2022: Property owner of 1802 N College (Hahn) files appeal 3 4 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 285 Code Process Land Use Code (Development) - 3.4.7 - (B) Requires identification of historic resources on/near development site - (C) Determination of Eligibility - (D) Treatment of Historic Resources Municipal Code - Eligibility - Chapter 14, Article II - 14-22 – Standards for eligibility - 14-23(b) – Process for appealing a staff decision 5 If found Eligible Outcomes • If determined Eligible •Does not require formal designation •Does require preservation and adaptive reuse of historic resources for development applications subject to land use code compliance [3.4.7(D)(3)] • Modifications of Standards are allowed under the usual process in LUC 2.8 • If determined Not Eligible – no further Preservation concerns 6 5 6 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 286 2 Requirements: Landmark Eligibility* Significance 1.Events/Trends 2. Persons/Groups 3. Design/Construction 4. Information Potential Integrity (7 Aspects) 1. Design 2. Materials 3. Workmanship 4. Location 5. Setting 6. Feeling 7. Association* 7 *Section 14-22, ““Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts.” 1802 N. College – Pobre Panchos 8 7 8 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 287 1802 North College Avenue: History • Constructed 1961 • Two sporting goods stores • 1969-2022 – Pobre Pancho’s • Frank & Mary (Medellin) Perez & family • Frank was a U.S. Navy vet & naturalized citizen • 1967 - started Pancho’s with his mother Amelia at 214 Walnut • Moved to 1802 N College w/ Mary and renamed Pobre Pancho’s Top: 1802 N. College, 1976 Bottom: Frank & Mary Perez, no date, Coloradoan. 1802 North College Avenue: Significance 1 – Events/Trends (Ethnic History/Hispanic & Commerce) • Long-standing business on North College Ave (1969-2022) • Hispanic-owned restaurant established during period of overt& institutional discrimination • Significant institution in Hispanic community on N. CollegeAve 9 10 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 288 1802 North College Avenue: Integrity • Simple Contemporary/Ranch-style commercial building • Strong integrity to c.1976 image; compatible 1992 rear addition • Setting: Somewhat diminished due to loss of landscapefeatures & redevelopment Setting and Context 12 1800 North Block, East Side Significantly Redeveloped since mid-20th century 1937 1969 11 12 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 289 Evaluating Integrity Most Important for Criterion A /Standard 1 (Events/Trends):* • Property must retain the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important trend/event •Design –are the basic features expressive of the properties design and/or function present, such as configuration, proportions, window pattern, etc. •Location –it is still on its original site •Materials –historic materials connected to event/trend are present •Setting –its general and specific setting is intact* • *Difficult to retain general setting in context of urban local historic preservation codes 13 Comments • Staff Public Engagement • Letter sent to local organizations • Public Comments (as of am, 7/15) • 1 opposed to Eligible determination 14 13 14 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 290 Role of the HPC • De Novo hearing – HPC provides a new decision • Consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the building addressed as 1802 N College Avenue • Provide a determination of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation • Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Sec. 14-9) 15 15 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 291 Appeal to Landmark Eligibility PRESENTED BY JEFFREY CULLERS, ATTORNEY FOR H AND H PROPERTIES LLC JULY 20, 2022 Presentation Outline I.Basic history of H and H Properties ownership. II.Basic legal framework. III.Appellant position on “significance” criteria. IV.Appellant position on “integrity” criteria. V.Comparison to another historic Mexican restaurant. VI.Comparison to other landmarked restaurants in Colorado. VII.Conclusion. 2 1 2 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. PPacket Pg. 291-1 H and H Properties, LLC Ownership Purchased in Summer 2020 (beginning of pandemic). Asher Haun – longtime customer, purchased through this entity to keep the restaurant going in the face of challenges. 3 4 3 4 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-2 Legal Framework A historic survey has been done as part of Raising Cane’s development application. Staff determined 1802 N. College is “eligible” for designation as a Fort Collins landmark under the applicable criteria. Property owner (H and H Properties LLC) has appealed to the LPC. Standard of review – de novo? Two questions to answer under the Code: Is there “significance,” under at least one of the four standards? Is there “integrity”, based on a set of 7 factors. 5 Significance – the Standard (1) Events. Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A resource can be associated with either, or both, of two (2) types of events: a. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or b. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. 6 5 6 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-3 Significance – Staff Finding Staff summary –staff determined eligible under the “pattern of events” option or “historic trend” for these reasons: 1.Focuses on the history of the restaurant itself, the recipes, and the history of the Perez family. 2.Suggests that the family overcame institutional racism as an obstacle to business ownership. 3.Notes that Pobre Pancho’s was a long-lived restaurant, but there is another Mexican restaurant that has been there even longer (El Burrito). 4.Suggests that the “second” Mexican restaurant in the area (in addition to El Burrito) was a sign of migration of Latinx residents to north of the Poudre River. 1.Note: El Burrito is not actually north of the Poudre. 7 Appellant Response Recall: the resource has to be “associated” with a “pattern of events” or “historic trend” that made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. 1.Staff did not directly identify any specific “pattern of events” or “historic trend.” 2.The only “historic trends” that could be gleaned from the report are: General migration of Latinx people to the City, State, and Nation. Institutionalized racism against Latinx people in Fort Collins, and Settlement of Latinx people north of the Poudre River because of gentrification. 8 7 8 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-4 Appellant Response Is Pobre Pancho’s “associated” with the trend of general migration of Latinx people to the City, State, and Nation? 9 Appellant Response Is Pobre Pancho’s “associated” with institutionalized racism against Latinx people in Fort Collins? 10 9 10 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-5 Appellant Response Is Pobre Pancho’s “associated” with settlement of Latinx people north of the Poudre River because of gentrification? 11 Integrity – the Standard Integrity is “the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance.” Based on seven factors. 12 11 12 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-6 Integrity – Staff Finding There is integrity because of the following: 1.Front of the building is generally the same as 1976 photograph, except that monument sign is now gone. 2.1992 rear addition is compatible with the original. 3.Two stained glass windows (sombrero and roses). 4.Carved wood entrance door. 5.2010 colorful wall signs. 13 1976 Photograph 14 13 14 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-7 Appellant Response Recall: the “historic trends” that support a significance finding all relate to Mexican or Latinx-specific matters, such as migration and racism. Recall: Integrity is “the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance.” Is there any integrity? 15 Current Pictures 16 15 16 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-8 Current Pictures 17 Current Pictures 18 17 18 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-9 Current Pictures 19 Current Pictures 20 19 20 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-10 La Posta de la Mesilla – New Mexico 21 La Posta de Mesilla – New Mexico 22 21 22 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-11 Current Pictures 23 Other Historic Restaurants in Colorado – Bastien’s Restaurant 24 23 24 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-12 Other Historic Restaurants in Colorado – Bastien’s Restaurant 25 Other Historic Restaurants in Colorado – White Spot Restaurant 26 25 26 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-12 The Eagle and Child Pub 27 Located in Oxford, England. Site of the “Inklings” writer group. Most famous members include C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. Conclusion Pobre Pancho’s significance and legacy is not about the building, and the building does not reflect it. 28 27 28 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 1 Packet Pg. 291-13