Item 5C - 90 Arapahoe AveAgenda Item #5C Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
August 1, 2018
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Charles Ferro, Interim Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Counsel, City Attorney’s Office
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner II
Tony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern
Caleb Gasparek, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an application to rehabilitate
and construct additions to the Silver Saddle motel cabins and office
building at 90 Arapahoe Ave., a pending landmark, pursuant to
Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2018-00069).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 90 Arapahoe Ave.
2. Designation: Pending Landmark (HIS2017-000114)
3. Zoning: RM-3 (Residential –Medium 3)
4. Lot Size: 7.3 acres (approximately)
5. Applicant: Tim Laughlin, Surround Architecture
6. Owner: Curtis McDonald, Canyon Creek Villas, LLC –
90 Arapahoe
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff considers that if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the
proposed alterations will be generally consistent with the conditions specified in
Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and the General Design Guidelines. Staff recommends
that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated Aug. 1, 2018 as the
findings of the board and approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the rehabilitation
and construction of additions at 90 Arapahoe Ave., subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the alterations shall be
Agenda Item #5C Page 2
completed in compliance with plans dated July 5, 2018, except as modified
by these conditions of approval.
2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the
Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following,
which shall be subject to the final review and approval of the Ldrc:
a. Revised plans showing historic windows rehabilitated rather than
replaced; retention of painted finish on wood log siding; reduction of
parapet on Motel Office Building to tuck underneath the existing
eaves;
b. Final architectural plans that include details including wall and roof
materials, paint finish, door and window details, rehabilitation and
select replacement of only deteriorated wood siding, and hardscaping
on the property to ensure that the final design of the building is
consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the intent of this
approval.
SUMMARY:
• The property at 90 Arapahoe Ave. was annexed into the City in 2017 and is
currently in the Site Review Process. As a condition of the annexation
agreement, the property owner has submitted an application to landmark a
portion of the property. See Attachment A: Landmark Designation Application
Map
• As a pending landmark, all exterior alterations require Landmark Alteration
Certificate (LAC) review pursuant to Section 9-11-11, B.R.C. 1981.
• The proposal was reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee
(Ldrc) on March 21, April 11 and May 23. On May 23, the Ldrc referred the
application to the board for review in a public hearing pursuant to Section 9-
11-14(b), B.R.C. 1981.
• Staff considers that the proposal to rehabilitate and construct additions
to the Silver Saddle motel cabins and office building at 90 Arapahoe
Ave. is consistent with Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and the General
Design Guidelines and recommends approval of the application.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The 7.3-acre property at 90 Arapahoe Ave. is located at the mouth of Boulder
Canyon, south of the Boulder Creek. Bounded by Canyon Boulevard on the
north and 96 West Arapahoe Ln. on the east, the property backs to City of
Boulder Open Space on the south and west.
Agenda Item #5C Page 3
The property includes five buildings: the c. 1920s-1948 motel office and 1948
motel cabins, located on the northern portion of the lot; two rows of motel cabins
constructed c.1950 and c.1958, located on the southern portion of the lot; and a
two-story brick building constructed c.1970 and located on the western portion
of the site.
The property was annexed into the City of Boulder in 2017 (LUR2015-00057). As
a condition of approval, the applicant was required to submit an application to
landmark a portion of the property, including the earliest motel cabins, the motel
office building, and the parking lot in front of the buildings. The designation
application was received on April 7, 2017 and includes two historic Silver Saddle
Motel signs. See Attachment A: Proposed Landmark Boundary.
Figure 1. Location Map, 90 Arapahoe Ave.
Agenda Item #5C Page 4
Figure 2. 90 Arapahoe Ave., facing southwest, 2013.
History
Constructed in 1948 by Thomas and Blanche Taylor, the Silver Saddle Motel
property is significant for its association with automobile tourism in Boulder,
having remained in continuous operation until 2015. The Landmarks Board will
review a landmark designation application for the property following the Site
Review process. See Attachment A: Property History.
Figure 3. Postcard view of the Silver Saddle Motel, date unknown. Ebay.
Motel Cabins
A parking lot is located in front of the four motel cabins, while the grade behind
Agenda Item #5C Page 5
the cabins inclines steeply toward the south. Four motel cabins, connected by
flat-roofed carports, were constructed in 1948 as the earliest phase of
development of the Silver Saddle Motel. Identical in design, each of the cabins
feature shallow-pitched gable roofs, an off-center entrance accessed by concrete
steps, and a large plate-glass window with sidelights. The buildings are clad in
half-round simulated log siding, painted dark brown. The log siding in the gable
ends are positioned in a diagonal array, while the east, west and south faces of
the cabins feature small, square windows.
Historic photographs indicate the row of cabins to be largely intact to its 1948
construction with the exception of 3-over-1 double-hung sash that have been
replaced with picture windows with sidelights.
Figure 4. View facing south toward the motel cabins, 2018
Silver Saddle Motel Office Building
The c. 1920s-1948 Office Administration building is located to the west of the
motel cabins, with its entrance facing east. The L-shaped building has a clipped
gable roof extending east-west and a gable roof extending north-south. The
entrance is located beneath a recessed porch and a large picture window is
located to the south of the entrance. The building is clad in half-round log siding,
similar to that on the cabins, and arranged in a diagonal array on its gable-ends.
It appears a c.1920 residence on the property was repurposed as the motel office
building in 1948. At that time, the south addition was constructed, and the
Agenda Item #5C Page 6
building was clad in log siding. Three additions followed: a gable roof addition
to the west (rear) in 1972, an L-shaped addition to the south in 1993, and a roof
between the 1972 and 1993 additions since 1993. See Figures 6 and 7.
Figure 5. Silver Saddle Motel under construction, c.1948 (left) and c.1950 (right)
Figure 6. View facing west toward the office administration building, 2018
Agenda Item #5C Page 7
Figure 7. Aerial photograph with shaded overlay showing the dates of construction of the
Office Administration Building and Motel Cabins.
Site Review
The owners are currently in the discretionary review process to develop the
property to provide 48 residential units, 20 of which will be permanently
affordable. As determined in the annexation agreement, the Motel Office
Building will be converted into two affordable housing units, each at a minimum
of 800 sq. ft. and the four motel cabins will be four units: two market rate and
two affordable units, each at a minimum size of 525 sq. ft. See Attachment B:
Applicant Materials.
REQUEST:
Rehabilitation and Addition to Motel Cabins
The application requests rehabilitation of the motel cabins, including repairing
the exterior log siding, removing the brown paint and finishing the wood in a
transparent stain, and removing the picture windows and returning the
fenestration to the pair of 3-over-1 double-hung windows visible in the c.1950s
photograph. See Figure 8.
Agenda Item #5C Page 8
Figure 8. Silver Saddle Motel Under Construction, c.1948.
Figure 9. Proposed View of Silver Saddle Motel, facing west.
Figure 10. Proposed View of Silver Saddle Motel, facing south.
Addition to Motel Cabins
Plans show additions on the south (rear) side of the cabins. The additions
measure 420 sq. ft. in size, expanding the units from 210 sq. ft. to 630 sq. ft.
Connectors to differentiate between the historic and new portions of the building
have been integrated into the design, while the materials, flat roofs, and
relationship of positive and negative space are intended to reference the historic
Agenda Item #5C Page 9
cabins. Due to the slope of the grade and the relatively low plate height of the
cabins, the additions are proposed to be approximately 30” higher than the
cabins at 15 ft. in height.
Figure 11. Motel Cabins, existing and proposed north elevation.
The windows on the front of the buildings are shown to be returned to the 3-
over-1 double-hung wood sash visible in the c.1948 photograph of the buildings
under construction. The concrete steps are proposed to be reoriented to be
parallel with the buildings.
Figure 12. Motel Cabins, existing and proposed south elevation.
Agenda Item #5C Page 10
The cubic form of the additions is shown to have an asymmetrical window
pattern, with a group of three vertically-proportioned aluminum-clad wood
windows at the rear (south). The additions are shown to be clad in horizontal
wood siding that has a transparent stain, while the portion of the building that
links the additions to the historic cabins is clad in metal panels. The applicant’s
narrative explains the material choice references the relationship of negative and
positive space in the original design of the cabin and carports.
Figure 13. Motel Cabins, existing and proposed east elevation.
The east and west elevations of the historic cabins will be maintained, each with
two small window openings. Currently, wood, fixed pane windows are located
on the west elevation, while the openings on the west do not have windows. The
application proposes the replacement of the existing windows on the east
elevation and that new windows will be added in the existing openings on the
west elevation. The east elevation of the addition is shown to have a clerestory
window. The link is recessed and clad in metal paneling.
Figure 14. Motel Cabins, existing and proposed west elevation.
The west elevation of the addition extends from the south corner of the historic
cabin and is clad in metal paneling.
Agenda Item #5C Page 11
Rehabilitation and Addition to Motel Office Building
The proposed rehabilitation of the Motel Office Building includes repairs to the
building foundation and structure; selective replacement of the log siding where
repair is not possible; stripping the paint and finishing the siding with a
transparent stain; replacement of the wood shake roof with asphalt shingles, and
replacement of the existing windows with wood double-hung windows. A door
opening on the east elevation is proposed to be restored to two double-hung
based upon the c.1949 photograph.
Removal of Rear Additions
The application proposes the removal of the 1972, 1993 and post-1993 additions
to the Office Administration Building. Due to the construction of the additions in
the last 50 years, staff does not consider these additions to be historic elements of
the building.
Figure 15. View of additions proposed for removal.
Additions to Motel Office Building
The additions to the Motel Office Building are shown to be located on the south
and west elevations, replacing the existing additions. Continuing the design
approach of the additions to the cabins, the additions to the Motel Office
Building are proposed to be cubic in form, with flat roofs and clad in horizontal
wood siding. The additions are shown to be connected by a link clad in metal
paneling.
Agenda Item #5C Page 12
Figure 16. View of proposed additions
Figure 17. Motel Office Building, existing and proposed east elevation.
Plans show the removal of a door on the projecting gable at the south end of the
east elevation and restoration of two double-hung windows visible in the c.1948
Agenda Item #5C Page 13
and c.1950 photographs of the buildings (see Figure 6). The doors (one facing
east and one located under the recessed porch, facing north), are shown to be
replaced with a full-light wood door and sidelight.
Figure 18. Motel Office Building, existing and proposed north elevation.
Changes to the north elevation of the Motel Office Building are limited to the
rehabilitation of the siding, removal of paint and a proposed transparent stain
and replacement of windows. An addition is shown to extend west, connected by
a link clad in metal panels. Fenestration on the north elevation of the addition is
shown to be three clerestory aluminum-clad wood windows.
Agenda Item #5C Page 14
Figure 19. Motel Office Building, existing and proposed south elevation.
The south (rear) elevation of the Motel Office Building continues the design of
the additions proposed for the motel cabins, with cubic forms of the south
elevation shown to have an asymmetrical window pattern, with a group of three
vertically-proportioned windows. These additions are shown to be lower in
height than the office building. A new opening on the original portion of the
building is shown to have a sliding glass door.
Agenda Item #5C Page 15
Figure 20. Motel Office Building, existing and proposed west elevation.
The west (rear) elevation is shown to have new window openings on the gable
end and addition of an exposed chimney. The additions, each with an
asymmetrically placed clerestory window, are shown to extend west and south.
Other Changes to the Buildings
Plans propose the existing entry stairs to the motel cabins be removed and
reoriented to be parallel with the building in a non-historic configuration. The
location of the entries will not change; the reorientation of the stairs will allow
space to meet the necessary circulation on the site. Patios are shown to be added
to the east and west elevation of the Motel Office Building.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION:
Subsection 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board
must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
(b) Neither the landmarks board nor the city council shall approve a landmark alteration
certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
Agenda Item #5C Page 16
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage
or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special
historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials used on existing and proposed structures are compatible
with the character of the existing landmark and its site;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district,
the proposed new construction to replace the building meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the landmarks
board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-
efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled.
ANALYSIS:
(1) Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or
destroy significant exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject
property within an historic district?
Staff considers the proposed rehabilitation and construction of additions to
the Silver Saddle Motel Office Building and cabins will preserve the historic
buildings and will not damage or destroy significant exterior architectural
features of the property.
The additions to the Motel Office Building proposed for removal were
constructed in 1974 and in the 1990s; staff does not consider these additions to
be significant architectural features of the building. Their dates of
construction are clearly documented to be outside of the recommended
period-of-significance, which would extend from the 1920s to 1968, fifty years
from the date the property was designated.
The restoration of the paired double-hung windows on the north elevation of
the motel cabins and east elevation of the Motel Office Building are based on
clear photographic documentation and will restore the historic buildings.
However, the remaining historic windows should be restored rather than
replaced on both buildings.
(2) Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark?
Agenda Item #5C Page 17
Staff considers that the proposed rehabilitation and alterations will not
adversely affect the special character of the landmark as the buildings will
retain its visibility and allow for adequate space surrounding the building.
Staff considers the proposed to be generally compatible with the General
Design Guidelines.
Staff considers the infill of the motel carports and construction of additions at
the rear through a link to be appropriate. Recessing the wall beneath the
carport will maintain the relationship of solid to void on the façade of the
building and the additions are separated from the historic building by a link
that steps in, creating a clear delineation between old and new. The footprints
of the motel cabins are retained, and the additions are constructed in a way
that would allow their removal without damage to the historic building. The
exterior wall material is shown to be wood siding to compliment, but not
replicate the historic half-log siding. The size, location, and massing of the
additions are compatible with the historic building and will not overwhelm
the historic buildings.
(3) Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of
the landmarked property?
Staff considers the additions as proposed will be compatible with the character of
the landmarked property; the architectural style of the additions are compatible
but distinct from the 1948 motel buildings, the fenestration generally follows the
existing pattern of solids and voids, and the exterior wood siding co mpliments
but does not seek to replicate the historic half-log siding. Staff considers in this
case, the use of metal panels will not detract from the historic character of the
buildings due to its limited use and visibility.
(c) The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in
determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
The applicant states the windows are proposed to be replaced due to the existing
single-pane glass. However, staff recommends rehabilitation of the existing
historic windows and installation of storm windows, along with other pursuing
other measures to holistically increase the energy efficiency of the buildings.
Design Guidelines
The Board has also adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the
Agenda Item #5C Page 18
historic preservation ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposed
new construction with respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are
intended to be used only as an aid to appropriate design and are not intended as
a checklist of items for compliance.
General Design Guidelines
2.1 Site Design
Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of our historic districts and
building. Individual structures are located within a framework of streets and public spaces that
set the context for the neighborhood. How structures occupy their site, in terms of alignment,
orientation, and spacing, creates much of the context of the neighborhood.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Preserve the original location of
the main entry and walk
The original entry of the motel
cabins will be preserved; however,
the stairs are proposed to be
reoriented to be parallel with the
buildings. Staff considers this
change will not substantially
change the character of the motel
cabins.
Maybe
.5 Provide a front yard that is
landscped in a traditional
manner with traditional
materials
The landscaping in front of the
building is proposed to remain as
paving. Staff considers that, unlike
a traditional residence, the location
of the parking lot in front of the
historic motel buildings is a
character-defining and historic
landscape feature of the motel
typology.
Yes
.3 Parking in the front yard is
inappropriate.
Unlike historic residential
neighborhoods, the parking has
traditionally been located at the
front of the motel buildings and is
proposed to remain there.
Yes
4.1 Protection of Historic Structures and Sites
Agenda Item #5C Page 19
The primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing additions to historic buildings
is the protection of the existing conditions and the character of the site and district…
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 Construct new additions so that
there is a least possible loss of
historic fabric and so that the
character-defining features of
the historic building are not
destroyed, damaged or
destroyed
Additions are proposed at rear of
the buildings; staff considers the
additions will not remove
character-defining features of the
historic building.
Yes
.2 New additions should be
constructed so that they may be
removed in the future without
damaging the historic
structure.
The additions appear to be
designed so they may be removed
in the future without significant
damage to the historic structure.
Yes
.3 It is not appropriate to
construct an addition that will
detract from the overall historic
character of the principal
building and/or the site, or if it
will require the removal of
significant building elements or
site features.
In general, the proposed design is
compatible with the existing
buildings and will not detract from
its historic character. There is
limited public visibility from the
public right-of-way due to
distance, grade and mature
vegetation. Due to these factors,
staff considers the relative size and
height of the additions will not
overwhelm the historic buildings.
Yes
4.2 Distinction from Historic Structures
All additions should be discernible from the historic structure. When the original design
is duplicated the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Instead, additional
should be compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new
construction.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 Distinguish an addition from
the historic structure but
maintain visual continuity
Proposed additions are stepped in
from the sides of historic buildings
and are visually distinct, though
Yes
Agenda Item #5C Page 20
between the two. One common
method is to step the addition
back and/or set it in slightly
from the historic structure.
compatible.
.2 Do not directly copy historic
elements. Instead, interpret
historic elements in simpler
ways in the addition.
In form, the additions respect the
historic cabins and do not seek to
replicate historic elements. The
fenestration pattern and siding
materials interpret historic
elements in a way that is
compatible but distinct.
Yes
.3 Additions should be simpler in
detail than the original
structure. An addition that
exhibits a more ornate style or
implies an earlier period of
architecture than that of the
original is inappropriate.
In general, the additions are
simpler than the historic motel
buildings and compatible in mass,
scale and location. Staff recognizes
the challenge of constructing an
addition to a small, simple
building, and considers the
additions will not overwhelm the
historic buildings.
Maybe
.4 The architectural styles of
additions should not imitate the
historic style but must be
compatible with it.
Contemporary style additions
are possible, but require the
utmost attention to these
guidelines to be successful. The
use of two distinct historic
styles, such as adding Tudor-
style half-timbering to a Classic
Cottage, is inappropriate.
Proposed addition is generally
complementary to the historic
building and does not seek to
replicate it. Staff considers the
design of the additions to be of
their own time and that they will
not detract from the historic
character of the motel buildings.
Yes
4.3 Compatibility with Historic Buildings
Introducing new construction that contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure
or site detracts from the visual continuity that marks our historic districts. While
additions should be distinguishable from the historic structure, they must not contrast so
sharply as to detract from the original building and/or the site. Additions should never
overwhelm historic structures or the site, in mass, scale or detailing.
Agenda Item #5C Page 21
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 An addition should be
subordinate to the historic
building, limited in size and
scale so that it does not
diminish or visually overpower
the building.
While the addition is proposed to
be 30” higher than the existing
buildings, staff considers that due
to the limited visibility from the
public right-of-way and the
location of the additions at the rear
of the buildings, the additions will
not diminish or visually
overpower the historic buildings.
Yes
.2 Design an addition to be
compatible with the historic
building in mass, scale,
materials and color. For
elevations visible from public
streets, the relationship of solids
to voids in the exterior walls
should also be compatible.
The relationship of solids to voids
on the proposed additions are
compatible with those found on
the existing motel buildings. Staff
considers the proposed wood
siding for the additions to be
appropriate. Staff considers in this
case, the use of metal panels will
not detract from the historic
character of the buildings due to
its limited use and visibility.
Review at LDRC.
Maybe
.4 Reflect the original symmetry
or asymmetry of the historic
building.
Symmetry of the original motel
buildings is reflected in
fenestration of the proposed
additions.
Yes
.5 Preserve the vertical and
horizontal proportion of a
building's mass.
The dominant horizontal massing
of the Motel Office Building and
the cubic massing of the motel
cabins will not be negatively
affected by the proposed
additions.
Yes
4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting
Additions should be designed and located so that significant site features, including
mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the addition should not overpower the
site or dramatically alter its historic character.
Agenda Item #5C Page 22
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 Design new additions so that the
overall character of the site, site
topography, character-defining
site features and trees are
retained.
The topography of the property
will not be significantly affected
by the construction of the
additions. Character-defining
features of the site, including the
historic motel signs, will be
preserved and incorporated into
the design.
Yes
.2 Locate new additions on an
inconspicuous elevation of the
historic building, generally the
rear one. Locating an addition to
the front of a structure is
inappropriate because it obscures
the historic facade of a building.
Proposed additions are
proposed at the rear of the motel
buildings and will have minimal
public visibility. Staff considers
the infill of the carports, in this
case, to be an appropriate
approach to modestly adding
onto the motel cabins. Recessing
the wall beneath the carport roof
will maintain the historic
relationship of solids to voids.
Yes
.3 Respect the established
orientation of the original
building and typical alignments
in the area.
Proposed additions do not affect
historic orientation and
alignments of the building.
Yes
.4 Preserve a backyard area
between the house and the
garage, maintaining the general
proportion of built mass to open
space found within the area. See
Guideline 2.1.1.
Proposed work will not
significantly affect the general
proportion of built mass to open
space within the landmark
boundary.
Yes
4.5 Key Building Elements
Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important character-
defining elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that
they complement the historic architecture.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Agenda Item #5C Page 23
Guideline?
.1 Maintain the dominant
roofline and orientation of the
roof form to the street.
The historic rooflines and
orientation will be maintained.
Yes
.2 Rooflines on additions should
be lower than and secondary to
the roofline of the original
building.
At 15’ high, proposed rooflines of
additions are approximately 30”
taller than ____ high motel cabins,
which have a 7’ plate height. The
addition is connected by a link,
which is connected beneath the
eaves. Due to the diminutive size
of the motel cabins and the
existing grade, staff considers the
proposed height of the additions to
be appropriate and that the
additions will be overwhelm the
scale of the existing buildings.
Maybe
.3 The existing roof form, pitch,
eave depth, and materials
should be used for all
additions.
The existing roof form of the motel
cabins is low-pitched, front gable
and flat carport roofs. The
additions are shown to have flat
roofs, which reference the historic
carports and reduce the massing
and scale of the additions. Staff
considers using the same
architectural language on the
Motel Office Building will create a
cohesive style of the 2018 additions
and will compatible with the
overall historic character of the
property.
Yes
.5 Maintain the proportion,
general style, and symmetry or
asymmetry of the existing
window patterns.
The proposed fenestration
appears to be consistent with the
historic buildings.
Yes
8.1 Paint and Paint Colors
When renovating a historic building, first consider using the original color scheme. The
Agenda Item #5C Page 24
original paint can often be discovered by careful analysis of samples of original materials.
If it is not possible to discern original paint colors, a color scheme should be based on
historic precedent within the area.
Historically, paint colors were more muted tones than those used today because they
depended upon a far more limited source of pigments. Most wood-clad buildings were
painted entirely, generally with one base color and one or two additional accent colors on
details and trim.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 Preserve and protect original
exterior building surfaces and
site features that were painted
by maintaining a sound paint
film on them.
Log wood siding is proposed to be
stripped and finished with a
transparent stain. Paint should
remain on building to protect
wood and maintain a traditional
aesthetic. Conduct a paint analysis
to determine original paint
scheme.
No
3.7 Windows, Storm Windows, and Shutters
Windows, the elements that surround them, and their relationship to one another are one
of the most important character-defining elements of a historic building and should be
preserved. Improper or insensitive treatment of the windows on a historic structure can
seriously detract from its architectural character.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 Retain and preserve existing
historic windows, including
their functional and decorative
features, such as frames, glass,
sashes, muntins, sills, heads,
moldings, surrounds and
hardware.
All existing windows are proposed
to be replaced with wood
windows that match the existing
window operation. Repair rather
than replace existing windows.
Review at LDRC.
No
.2 Preserve original window
locations; do not move windows
from their historic placement.
Double-hung wood windows on
the north elevation of the motel
cabins and east elevation of the
Motel Office Building are shown to
be recreated based on historic
Yes
Agenda Item #5C Page 25
photographs. Review at LDRC.
.3 Repair rather than replace the
functional and decorative
features of original windows
through recognized
preservation methods.
All existing windows are proposed
to be replaced with wood
windows that match the existing
window operation. Repair rather
than replace existing windows.
Review at LDRC.
No
.4 The replacement of historic
windows should only be
considered as a last resort if the
fabric of the window is
deteriorated beyond repair.
All existing windows are proposed
to be replaced with wood
windows that match the existing
window operation. Repair rather
than replace existing windows.
Review at LDRC
No
Staff considers the proposed rehabilitation and construction of additions to the
Motel Office Building and cabins to be generally consistent with the Standards
for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate (Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981)
and the General Design Guidelines. To summarize, staff considers:
• The reconstruction of the 3-over-1 double-hung wood windows on the
south elevation of the motel cabins is appropriate, as the historic
photographs clearly show the original window configuration. All other
existing windows should be repaired rather than replaced. If the applicant
discovers during the repair process that windows are deteriorated beyond
repair, the applicant should submit a separate Windows and Door
Replacement Application for consideration by the Landmarks Design
Review Committee (Ldrc).
• Because wood is traditionally painted rather than stained, the wood siding
should remain painted to protect historic material and maintain a
traditional aesthetic.
• The removal of the additions to the Motel Office Building, documented to
have been constructed in the 1970s and 1990s, is appropriate; the additions
are not historic and are not character-defining features of the building.
• The additions to the Motel Office Building and cabins, including infilling
the cabin carports and constructing rear additions, will be compatible with
the historic character of the buildings. The size, massing and location will
not overwhelm the historic cabins; the additions are constructed in a
manner that they could be removed in the future; and the architectural
Agenda Item #5C Page 26
style distinguishes the addition from the historic building while
maintaining visual continuity between the two through use of materials,
fenestration pattern and details.
• Reorienting the entry stair to the cabins will not adversely affect the
historic character of the motel building, as the relationship between the
entries and parking lot will be maintained.
FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the application and adopt
the following findings:
1. Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, the
proposed new construction meets the standards for approval of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate in Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised
Code.
2. The proposed construction will not have an adverse effect on the value of
the landmark property, as it will be generally compatible in terms of mass,
scale, or orientation with other buildings in the district.
3. In terms of mass, scale, and orientation the proposed construction will be
generally consistent with Section 9-11-18 B.R.C. and the General Design
Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Proposed Landmark Boundary
B: Application Materials
C: Current Photographs
D: Property History
Agenda Item #5C Page 27
Attachment A: Proposed Landmark Boundary
Agenda Item #5C Page 28
Attachment B: Applicant Materials
Agenda Item #5C Page 29
Agenda Item #5C Page 30
Agenda Item #5C Page 31
Agenda Item #5C Page 32
Agenda Item #5C Page 33
Agenda Item #5C Page 34
Agenda Item #5C Page 35
Agenda Item #5C Page 36
Agenda Item #5C Page 37
Agenda Item #5C Page 38
Agenda Item #5C Page 39
Agenda Item #5C Page 40
Agenda Item #5C Page 41
Agenda Item #5C Page 42
Agenda Item #5C Page 43
Agenda Item #5C Page 44
Agenda Item #5C Page 45
Agenda Item #5C Page 46
Agenda Item #5C Page 47
Agenda Item #5C Page 48
Agenda Item #5C Page 49
Agenda Item #5C Page 50
Agenda Item #5C Page 51
Agenda Item #5C Page 52
Agenda Item #5C Page 53
Agenda Item #5C Page 54
Attachment C: Current Photographs
Motel Cabins, North Elevation, 2018.
Motel Cabins, South Elevation, 2018.
Agenda Item #5C Page 55
Silver Saddle, View of Motel Cabins from Arapahoe Ave., 2018.
Silver Saddle, View of Motel Office Building from Arapahoe Ave., 2018.
Agenda Item #5C Page 56
Motel Office Building, East Elevation, 2018.
Motel Office Building, Northwest Corner, 2018.
Agenda Item #5C Page 57
Motel Office Building, Southeast Corner, 2018.
Motel Cabin Entrance, North Elevation, 2018.
Agenda Item #5C Page 58
Attachment D: Property History
Silver Saddle Motel
Thomas and Blanche Taylor purchased the property in the late 1940s and
constructed the Silver Saddle Motel, which they operated until 1984. Prior to the
Silver Saddle Motel, the property was owned by Ray and Genevieve Imel and a
c. 1920s house was located on the property. The house was later incorporated
into the Silver Saddle Motel Office Building.
Thomas E. Taylor was born in South Dakota in 1919. He moved to Boulder in
1936 and married Blanche Revis in Laramie, Wyoming in 1943. Upon graduation
from Boulder High School, Taylor enlisted in the U.S. Army was stationed a
Schofield Barracks in Honolulu during the attack on Pearl Harbor. After three
years service in the Pacific, he returned to the States as an instructor and was
later served in France and Germany.1 He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal;
Good Conduct; Asiatic-Pacific Campaign; E.T.O Pre-Pearl Harbor ribbons. Mr.
Taylor passed away in 1984.
Blanche Revis Taylor was born Sept. 5, 1918. She had a long career operating a
hair salon (Boulderado Hair Salon, Boulder Beauty Salon and Silver Saddle
Beauty Salon). She operated a hair salon in the Boulderado Hotel; when she
moved the business to the Silver Saddle Motel, she offered a shuttle service for
her customers. The Taylors had two children, Thomas and Susanna. Mrs. Taylor
passed away in 2013.
The Taylors owned and managed the Silver Saddle hotel from its construction in
the 1940s until Mr. Taylor’s death in 1984. The Silver Saddle continued to
operated until 2015, when the property was purchased by the current owners.
A postcard from c.1950-1960 advertises the motel as “At the entrance to beautiful
scenic Boulder Canyon, 12 blocks from downtown and Colo. University. The
Silver Saddle Motel is unique for its scenic qualities, bordering 3,000 acres of
Boulder mountain parks. Sixteen beautifully furnished, strictly modern units
with kitchenettes. Off the highway – no trains – quiet and cool.”
In 1969, the Taylors sued the City of Boulder for $75,000 in damages, claiming
the city refused to provide them with sufficient water to maintain their business.
In 1977, Taylor was arrested on the charge of menacing in a confrontation with a
University of Colorado football player by the name of Leon White. When White
1 “Sgt. Thomas Taylor Receives Discharge.” Daily Camera. 6 Mar 1984.
Agenda Item #5C Page 59
arrived at the motel with a couple of companions, Taylor refused to rent rooms
to two members of the group because they could not prove they were married.
After a dog in White’s car ran loose just as the group was leaving, White ran to
catch the dog, bumping an elderly man, and Taylor’s son began wrestling with
White. Taylor fired a pistol into the air in order to break up the fight, at which
point Taylor was arrested. A couple months later, Taylor was found innocent. 2
Postcard view of the Silver Saddle Motel, date unknown. Ebay.
The establishment of the Silver Saddle Motel began in 1948, with the construction
of four units connected by carports in a rustic cabin style, and the remodel and
addition to the earlier residence into the Motel Office Building and the Taylor’s
home. The cabins demonstrate typical characteristics of historic motor courts,
including a plan that afforded easy access to the unit by the car. In the case of the
Silver Saddle, the buildings are arranged in rows; each unit has a covered carport
adjacent to the room.
In 1950, the motel expanded with the construction of five additional units,
located south of the original units. The motel was further expanded in 1957 with
the construction of a 2,400 sq. ft., one-story building located on the southern
portion of the lot. By 1970, a two-story building with additional motel rooms was
constructed west of the Office Admin Building. Only the original motel cabins
2 “Motel Manager Found Innocent Of Menacing.” Daily Camera. 10 Feb 1978.
Agenda Item #5C Page 60
and Office Admin Buildings are proposed for landmark designation.
The property survives as a vestige of the automobile tourist trade which
flourished at the west end of Arapahoe Avenue during the 1920s through the
1960s. Located as it is at the base of the Flatirons and just off Canyon Road, the
area was a logical one in which to locate lodgings from which early automobile
tourists could launch exploration of the Colorado Rockies. The Silver Saddle
Motel was one of the many lodgings that contributed to the growth of tourism in
Boulder and to the City’s economy as a whole during the twentieth century.
View facing west toward the Silver Saddle Motel, c.1950s
View of the Silver Saddle Motel, c.1950