PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 1 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES THE MINUTES OF THE 624 TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION FRIDAY, 8 AUGUST 2014 ROOM 18-029, 1515 ARCH STREET SAM SHERMAN, CHAIR PRESENT Sam Sherman Jr., chair Ralph DiPietro, Department of Licenses & Inspections Anuj Gupta, Esq. JoAnn Jones, Esq., Office of Housing & Community Development Rosalie Leonard, Esq., Office of City Council President Sara Merriman, vice chair, Commerce Department R. David Schaaf, RA, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Robert Thomas, AIA Betty Turner, M.A. Jonathan E. Farnham, Executive Director Randal Baron, Historic Preservation Planner III Kim Broadbent, Historic Preservation Planner I Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner I ALSO PRESENT Matt McClure, Esq., Ballard Spahr Brett Webber, SPG3 Richard K. Gelber, SPG3 Kurt Blorstad, 13th Street Hospitality Charles B. Kensky, Bala Consulting Engineers Albert Wachlin Sr. Albert Wachlin Jr. Harry S. Murray, Campbell Thomas & Co. Tim Wanaselja, Meyer Design, Inc. George Wilson, Meyer Design, Inc. Harry K. Schwartz, Esq., Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Bill Steedle, Graboyes Commercial Window Company Al Paulo, DeBarbieri Architects LLC Anthony Forte, Esq., Saul Ewing Christopher Mrozinski, PREIT Betty Cohen, Century 21 Reggie Prento, Century 21 Kathy Dowdell Tom Gluck, Gluck+ Dan Reisman, Esq., Eckert Seamans Bill Commer, Uniqlo-WJCA Jerry Marshall, Amerimar PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 2 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES CALL TO ORDER Mr. Sherman, the chair, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Commissioners DiPietro, Gupta, Jones, Leonard, Merriman, Schaaf, Thomas, and Turner joined him. MINUTES OF THE 623 RD STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ACTION: Ms. Jones moved to adopt the minutes of the 623rd Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, held 11 July 2014. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. THE REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 22 JULY 2014 Dominique Hawkins, Chair CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Farnham introduced the consent agenda and explained that it included applications for the following addresses: 1520-28 Spruce Street and 640-42 N. 18th Street. Mr. Sherman asked if any Commissioners had comments on the Consent Agenda. No one offered comments. Mr. Sherman asked if the audience had comments on the Consent Agenda. No one asked any questions. ACTION: Ms. Jones moved to adopt the recommendations of the Architectural Committee for the applications for 1520-28 Spruce Street and 640-42 N. 18th Street. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
comments. Mr. Sherman asked if the audience had comments on the Consent Agenda. No one asked any questions. ACTION: Ms. Jones moved to adopt the recommendations of the Architectural Committee for the applications for 1520-28 Spruce Street and 640-42 N. 18th Street. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 3 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AGENDA ADDRESS: 228-38 N 13TH ST Project: Construct addition Review Requested: Final Owner: Foundation for BBBSA Applicant: Matthew McClure, Ballard Spahr, LLP History: 1946; Warner Brothers Film Distribution Center; William Harold Lee, architect Individual Designation: 5/9/2008 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to the Historical Commission’s approval in concept of 11 July 2014, Standard 9, and Section 14-1000 of the Philadelphia Code, provided the following conditions are met: 1. details of the panel system, glazing, canopy, parapet wall, garage door, and fence are submitted; 2. color samples of cladding materials for the addition in relation to the historic materials are submitted; 3. it is confirmed that the roof of the historic building will not be occupied; 4. designs of any railings to be installed on the roof of the historic building for occupancy are submitted; and, 5. the locations and configurations of all HVAC equipment are submitted. OVERVIEW: This application for final approval proposes to construct an addition on the building at 228-38 N. 13th Street as it is converted from offices to a hotel. The building is bounded by 13th Street at the east, Florist Street at the south, Clarion Street at the west, and a private alley at the north. The historic building has a flat roof with small penthouse at the northwest corner. The east and south facades as well as a return on the north façade are finely finished. The west and north facades are utilitarian. There is an open loading dock and parking area at the rear or west. The Art Moderne building was constructed by architect William H. Lee in 1946 as the Warner Brothers Film Exchange Building, a warehouse that served for a short time as a regional distribution center for movies. Several other movie studios maintained similar warehouses in the area of 13th and Vine Streets until the early 1950s, when the movie studio system collapsed. The building
1946 as the Warner Brothers Film Exchange Building, a warehouse that served for a short time as a regional distribution center for movies. Several other movie studios maintained similar warehouses in the area of 13th and Vine Streets until the early 1950s, when the movie studio system collapsed. The building was later occupied by an insurance company, film production company, and non- profit organization. It was individually designated in 2008 for its architectural and historical significance. The interior is not designated and not under the Commission’s jurisdiction. The applicants first proposed a hotel project for this site in June 2014, when the Architectural Committee reviewed a nine-story version of an addition to this historic building. The Committee recommended denial of that design and some Committee members suggested that the applicants redesign the addition, setting it farther back from the front and south facades, making the tower taller, more slender, and vertically oriented, and adjusting the exterior cladding materials of the tower to better harmonize with those of the historic building. At its July 2014 meeting, the Historical Commission reviewed a design revised according to the Committee members’ suggestions and approved it in concept. The Commission found that the proposal did not constitute a demolition in the legal sense, as the Preservation Alliance contended at the Commission meeting, because the character-defining features of the building as defined in its nomination would be retained and restored. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Robert PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 4 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Thomas that the revised proposal satisfies Standard 9 because the construction of the addition would not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships that characterize the property; and the addition would be differentiated from the old and compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property. The revised design that the Commission approved in concept is now proposed for final approval. DISCUSSION: Mr. Farnham presented the application to the Historical Commission. Attorney Matt McClure, hotelier Kurt Blorstad, and architect Brett Webber represented the application. Mr. Farnham stated that, in his opinion, the applicants had satisfied the requirements of the Architectural Committee’s recommendation. The applicants submitted details of the panel system, glazing, canopy, parapet wall, garage door, and fence. The applicants submitted color samples of cladding materials for the addition in relation to the historic materials. The
stated that, in his opinion, the applicants had satisfied the requirements of the Architectural Committee’s recommendation. The applicants submitted details of the panel system, glazing, canopy, parapet wall, garage door, and fence. The applicants submitted color samples of cladding materials for the addition in relation to the historic materials. The applicants confirmed at the Architectural Committee meeting that the roof of the historic building will not be occupied. No designs of railings to be installed on the roof of the historic building for occupancy need be submitted because the roof will not be occupied. Finally, the applicants identified the locations and configurations of all HVAC equipment at the Architectural Committee meeting; the equipment will be located in the enclosed mechanical penthouse on the addition. Mr. Webber presented the design to the Commission using a Powerpoint presentation. He stated that the design has not changed since the Architectural Committee meeting, but some clarifications were made to the plans. For example, the depiction of the glazing on the elevation drawings of the addition was revised. He showed images of the drawings of the details requested by the Committee including details of the proposed canopy. He explained that the roof of the historic building would not be occupied, but would be a green roof. He showed a drawing of the skylight, which would not rise above the level of the parapet on the historic building. He showed sections through the walls of the addition. He provided detail drawings of the rooftop of the addition as well as the enclosure for the mechanical equipment. Mr. Webber showed a series of images depicting the proposed cladding materials set against the historic cladding materials to allow their compatibility to be judged. He showed images of the proposed windows including corner details and of the proposed extruded terra cotta. He explained the use of darker and lighter colors for the cladding of the addition, which correspond to the lighter and darker colors of the historic façade. Mr. Schaaf asked Mr. Webber to confirm that the five provisions of the Architectural Committee’s recommendation had been satisfied. Mr. Webber stated that he believes that they have been satisfied. Mr. Sherman asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission regarding this proposal. No one indicated that he or she wished to speak. Mr. Sherman asked again if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Again,
stated that he believes that they have been satisfied. Mr. Sherman asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission regarding this proposal. No one indicated that he or she wished to speak. Mr. Sherman asked again if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Again, no one responded. ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to approve the application as presented to the Historical Commission at its meeting of 8 August 2014, with the staff to review details, pursuant to the Historical Commission’s approval in concept of 11 July 2014, Standard 9, and Section 14-1000 of the Philadelphia Code. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 5 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 205-09 RACE ST Project: Construct building Review Requested: Review and Comment Owner: Second and Race Streets, L.P. Applicant: Daniel Reisman, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC History: vacant lot Individual Designation: None District Designation: Old City Historic District, Non-contributing, 12/12/2003 Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Architectural Committee voted to concur with the staff’s comments. The proposed building is appropriate for this location within the historic district, which mediates between the densely developed three to five-story historic buildings to the west and the very large infrastructural systems to the north and east. Along Race Street, the building would maintain a 51-foot cornice height and would be visually broken down into series of components that would replicate the rhythms of the facades in the historic district. The tall section to the east, which is visually distinct from the base, would correspond to the size and scale of the bridge and highway. Like many historic buildings in the area, this building would have retail space at the ground floor. The vehicular entrance and loading area would be appropriately located on the service alley. The application should be supplemented with information about exterior materials and finishes. OVERVIEW: This application proposes the construction of a mixed-use building at the northwest corner of N. 2nd and Race Streets. The Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to review-and- comment jurisdiction at this vacant lot in the Old City Historic District, which is considered an undeveloped site. The Commission reviewed and commented favorably on a mixed-use project for this site in June 2005, but the building was not constructed. The proposed building would include almost 15,000 sf of retail space at
at this vacant lot in the Old City Historic District, which is considered an undeveloped site. The Commission reviewed and commented favorably on a mixed-use project for this site in June 2005, but the building was not constructed. The proposed building would include almost 15,000 sf of retail space at the ground floor, 148 residential units at the upper floors, and 28 parking spaces in the basement. The building would be 51 feet tall at the west end, where it would abut historic buildings, and 197 feet tall at the east end. The parking entrance and loading would be accessed from Florist Street, a service alley. The site is adjacent to the Benjamin Franklin Bridge approach and is near the interchange of I- 95 and I-676. DISCUSSION: Mr. Farnham presented the application to the Historical Commission. Attorney Dan Riesman and architect Tom Gluck represented the application. Mr. Gluck displayed a Powerpoint presentation and described the site for the proposed construction. He explained that the building is designed to relate to both the older historic neighborhood and the large-scale infrastructure. He pointed out the notch between the base and tower. He showed that the fenestration pattern changes as the building transitions from a smaller scale at the west to a larger scale at the east. He showed how the window design visually reduces the mass of the building. He then discussed the cladding materials, glass and two varieties of metal panels, which are grey. He pointed out that the loading and parking is at the rear along Florist Street. He discussed the storefronts and residential space. He noted the widened sidewalk. He showed floor plans and elevation drawings of the proposed building. He discussed the roof terrace on the lower section of the building. He confirmed that all mechanical equipment will be fully screened. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 6 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Ms. Merriman asked Mr. Gluck to enumerate the number of floors in the building. He stated that it would have 17 floors, one for commercial space and 16 for residential. Mr. Schaaf called the proposed building “very handsome” and reported that the Civic Design Review Committee of the City Planning Commission praised and approved the design of the building. Mr. Sherman asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission regarding this proposal. No one indicated that he or she wished
the proposed building “very handsome” and reported that the Civic Design Review Committee of the City Planning Commission praised and approved the design of the building. Mr. Sherman asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission regarding this proposal. No one indicated that he or she wished to speak. ACTION: Mr. Schaaf moved to adopt the comments of the Architectural Committee. Ms. Jones seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ADDRESS: 801 MARKET ST Project: Install marquee, awnings, and banner signs Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: PREIT Rubin Inc. Applicant: James DeBarbieri, DeBarbieri Architects LLC History: 1903; Strawbridge & Clothier Department Store; Addison Hutton, Grant Simon, architects Individual Designation: 6/9/2006 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Kim Broadbent, kim.broadbent@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial of the application as presented, with the clarifications that the canopy over the main entry is generally acceptable, but other options for the awnings and blade signs need to be explored that better resolve the tension between the retail needs of the tenant and the character of the historic building, pursuant to Standard 9. OVERVIEW: This revised application proposes to install an exterior marquee, awnings, and banner signs on the Market Street façade of the western half of the former Strawbridge & Clothier department store building. A similar marquee application was approved by the Historical Commission in 2012 for Philadelphia Inquirer signage, and a copy of the minutes from that meeting along with approved drawings are included with this packet. The Architectural Committee agreed that this marquee was generally acceptable as originally submitted . The revised submission proposes a backlit Century 21 logo, with a maximum three inch projection for the channel letters. This application also proposes awnings at five other window or doorways along Market Street, for a total of six red canvas awnings with the white Century 21 logo. The Architectural Committee stated that the original submission lacked information regarding these awnings and their attachment methods and locations. The revised submission addresses that comment with three pages of awning details based on the three different conditions at window and door openings. The Architectural Committee commented that the awnings did not align at the tops, and in response the applicant has adjusted the slope of the awnings in an effort to visually align the tops of the awnings; however, the staff contends that the attachment method, location and
window and door openings. The Architectural Committee commented that the awnings did not align at the tops, and in response the applicant has adjusted the slope of the awnings in an effort to visually align the tops of the awnings; however, the staff contends that the attachment method, location and therefore what level of ornamentation is left visible and unaltered should take priority over visual alignment of the tops of the awnings. The proposed banner signs run the length of the second floor at both 823 and 801 Market and wrap around the building onto the South 8th Street façade. The banner signs project PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 7 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES approximately three feet from the building. Attaching into mortar joints as originally proposed has been amended to show fastening into block face to segregate fastener holes into one unit of masonry in lieu of two units of masonry, a revision that was based on comments from the staff. The proposed banner signs have been lowered to not go above the spring line of the arched windows, as suggested by the Architectural Committee. This revised application also proposes exterior up-lighting of the façade, which was not reviewed in detail by the Architectural Committee. The proposed fixtures would be twelve inches long and mounted above the first floor cornice along Market Street and South 8th Street. The staff recommends that the fixtures are mounted so that the holes drilled into the façade are not on top of the cornice so that water can penetrate, but rather are on the building face so that water does not sit directly on the drill holes. DISCUSSION: Ms. Broadbent presented the application to the Historical Commission. Architect Alfredo Paulo, attorney Anthony Forte, and owner’s representative Christopher Mrozinski represented the application. Mr. Forte provided background on the project and explained that this building formerly housed a single department store, but will now be a multi-tenant retail center anchored by Century 21. He explained that the drawings were revised after the Architectural Committee meeting to reflect comments received from the Architectural Committee. The revisions include additional details of the marquee and awnings, lower banner signs with a change in attachment method, and additional detail on the exterior lighting. Mr. Paulo stated that the intention for the awnings is to have a continuous two-foot wide fascia for the logo. He explained
Architectural Committee. The revisions include additional details of the marquee and awnings, lower banner signs with a change in attachment method, and additional detail on the exterior lighting. Mr. Paulo stated that the intention for the awnings is to have a continuous two-foot wide fascia for the logo. He explained that he attempted to address a comment from the Architectural Committee regarding continuity of the horizontal line of the awnings. He explained that the attachment of the banner signs was revised, based on comments from the Architectural Committee, so that each attachment connects to one block, as opposed to two blocks as previously proposed. These signs were also lowered, based on comments from the Architectural Committee, so as to not rise above the spring point of the arched windows. Mr. Paulo explained that the intention is to utilize existing infrastructure in order to minimize the number of additional penetrations into the buildings. He provided an example of an existing cornice pocket at 823 Market Street with a roller shade mechanism inside. They would like to attach to it so there are no additional fastening mechanisms connected into the ornamentation. He explained that the top portion of the awning is now shallower to maintain continuity of horizontal alignment and to not obscure historic decorative elements, as requested by the Architectural Committee. He showed the diagrams of the attachment to the vertical mullions at the doorway of the 801 Market Street building. Mr. Schaaf stated that projecting signs above the second floor, like the proposed banner signs, are disallowed in a CMX-5 district by Section 14-502(7) of the Philadelphia Zoning Code. Mr. Forte responded that they will seek a zoning variance, and that they were looking to obtain comments from the Historical Commission first before reviews by the Art Commission and Zoning Board. Mr. Schaaf responded that it is important for the Historical Commission to know that these types of signs are disallowed in this district. Mr. Forte commented that there is precedent in the district for this type of sign, but Mr. Schaaf said that it is only if there is a pre- existing hanger for the sign. Mr. Forte asked that the banner signs be reviewed based on their appropriateness for the historically designated building. Mr. Schaaf responded again that projecting signs above the second floor are disallowed, and noted that he sits on the sign PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8
a pre- existing hanger for the sign. Mr. Forte asked that the banner signs be reviewed based on their appropriateness for the historically designated building. Mr. Schaaf responded again that projecting signs above the second floor are disallowed, and noted that he sits on the sign PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 8 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES committee of the Art Commission, and these types of variances are not normally granted. Mr. Forte asked the Historical Commission to judge the application using its review criteria including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and not inappropriately apply the review criteria of another regulatory agency. He stated that the Historical Commission should apply the historic preservation criteria during its review and the Zoning Board should apply its zoning criteria during its review. The Historical Commission should not prejudge whether a zoning variance is merited in this case. Mr. Schaaf noted that the letter from the Preservation Alliance described the proposed awnings as box signs, rather than awnings. He referenced the roller that Mr. Paulo mentioned previously, and explained that the historic awnings used that roller for the fabric that was unrolled to create the awning. He explained that the difference between that type of awning and what is proposed for Century 21 is that the Century 21 proposal is a structured box that hangs over sections of the window. He stated that the awnings are illuminated, but Mr. Paulo clarified that the awnings are not illuminated, and only the logo on the marquee is illuminated. Mr. Schaaf agreed with the Preservation Alliance’s concern regarding functionality of the awnings in snow and rain if the slope is shallow and the bottoms are covered with fabric. He encouraged the applicant to propose an awning that is more like an awning and less like a box sign. Ms. Merriman asked Mr. Schaaf if his preference would be for the sides and the bottom to be open and without fabric. Mr. Schaaf responded that his preference would also include a flap with the logo, and the awning would be retractable. Mr. Paulo responded that the design intent for Century 21 is to have the two-foot wide fascia with the logo, which is dictated by Century 21’s logo and design concept. Mr. Schaaf responded that two feet is rather large for a flap of an awning. Mr. Forte added that the slope is now
that the design intent for Century 21 is to have the two-foot wide fascia with the logo, which is dictated by Century 21’s logo and design concept. Mr. Schaaf responded that two feet is rather large for a flap of an awning. Mr. Forte added that the slope is now shallower than originally proposed, owing to comments from the Architectural Committee that requested that the ornamental areas of the openings are not obscured by the awnings. He also added that Century 21 is committed to maintaining the awnings so that they remain in good condition. Mr. Schaaf continued to question the logic behind a design that may necessitate frequent maintenance. Mr. Forte responded that Century 21 will maintain the awnings diligently; it is in the company’s interest to have well-maintained awnings. Mr. Forte explained that there is a precedent for the window openings of this building to have awnings, and noted that the Preservation Alliance objected to an awning over the doorway at 801 Market Street because there is no precedent for an awning over that opening. He explained that Century 21 is proposing an awning for that doorway for several reasons. First, the building may not have needed awnings over every opening when it was a single department store, but now Century 21 will be but one of several tenants of this large building. He stated that it is important to show which part of the building houses Century 21, and not have an unidentified door opening that may confuse customers. Second, removing the awning over the doorway will leave the easternmost window awning, which is smaller, sitting off by itself aesthetically. Ms. Merriman asked who requested the straight alignment of the awnings. She stated that the awnings would better fit the windows if they did not have that artificial restriction. Mr. Forte responded that the alignment was requested by one member of the Architectural Committee. With regard to the alignment of the top of the awnings, Mr. Forte explained that the applicant received conflicting comments from the Architectural Committee. He stated that it is most important to Century 21 to have the logos on the awnings align; the alignment of the tops of the awnings is not significant to Century 21, but was to one member of the Architectural Committee. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 9 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Mr. Sherman acknowledged it
21 to have the logos on the awnings align; the alignment of the tops of the awnings is not significant to Century 21, but was to one member of the Architectural Committee. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 9 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Mr. Sherman acknowledged it is difficult to brand parts of two different buildings as one unified space. He opined that the proposal provides the best option for accomplishing this difficult task and voiced his approval of the application. Referring back to Mr. Schaaf’s comments about the banner signs above the second floor being disallowed, Mr. Thomas noted that the standards for various regulatory agencies often conflict. He suggested that the Commission apply its review criteria to the application and leave the zoning review to the Zoning Board. Mr. Thomas then opined that the proposed marquee over the main entrance covers too much of the historic ornamentation, and suggested that the applicant consider a barrel shaped canopy over the main entrance that has the Century 21 logo on the sides of the canopy so that there is visibility of the logo when traveling east or west on Market Street. He suggested that this may be a good option if the zoning variance for the banner signs is not granted. Mr. Forte responded that the Historical Commission recently approved a very similar marquee for this location on this building. He stated that that design was used with the understanding that it would be approved with the support of the Historical Commission staff and the Preservation Alliance. He also commented that Century 21 aims to be open by this holiday shopping season. Ms. Jones asked about signage for future tenants of the building. Mr. Mrozinski responded that future tenants who will occupy the east end of the building will use the same awning design. Ms. Merriman discussed the conflict between attempting to maintain a straight line of awnings across the two buildings and attempting to avoid obscuring architectural elements. She stated that she is in support of the application if the fabric is removed on the bottom of the structure. Mr. Sherman asked Mr. Paulo if he would accept that suggestion. Mr. Paulo responded that he will have to speak with Century 21’s design team before he makes a commitment. Mr. Forte explained that Century 21’s concern with removing the bottoms of the awnings is that the
of the structure. Mr. Sherman asked Mr. Paulo if he would accept that suggestion. Mr. Paulo responded that he will have to speak with Century 21’s design team before he makes a commitment. Mr. Forte explained that Century 21’s concern with removing the bottoms of the awnings is that the unattractive support structure will be revealed. On the other hand, a covered underside will give a clean and tailored look. He stated that they might be able to wrap the structures with the fabric to hide them while leaving the bottoms open. Harry Schwartz spoke on behalf of the Preservation Alliance. He stated that the Preservation Alliance is concerned with the awnings in general, and with the pitch of the awnings, and the protection of architectural details. He reminded the Commission that there is no evidence to show that an awning ever existed in the doorway at 801 Market Street where Century 21 is proposing an awning. He noted that there is exquisite detailing in the bronze at this doorway, and that the proposed awning will cut the existing transom in half visually. He asked that this particular doorway be spared an awning. He also added that the proposed banner signs are unnecessary. He asked that the application be sent back to the Architectural Committee. Mr. Thomas stated that it does not make sense to use a uniform line when the window and door openings vary considerably. He opined that the banner signs may be the least intrusive and most visually prominent aspect to the signage package. He suggested that the banner signs can be part of an entire revised package that respects the historic elements of the building and therefore will add long-term value to the building and project, and can be a good reason for a zoning variance for the banner signs. Mr. Mrozinski stated that a great deal of time has been spent by their team to determine the most appropriate signage design for these buildings. He stated that they have taken into account how the design relates to the Market East area generally. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 10 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to approve the application as presented at the Historical Commission meeting of 8 August 2014, provided the awnings are open at the bottoms, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Leonard
8 AUGUST 2014 10 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to approve the application as presented at the Historical Commission meeting of 8 August 2014, provided the awnings are open at the bottoms, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Leonard seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 5 to 4. Ms. Jones and Messrs. Gupta, Schaaf, and Thomas dissented. ADDRESS: 1520-28 SPRUCE ST Project: Replace wood windows with aluminum windows Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Touraine, LP Applicant: John Scott, Grayboyes Commercial Window Co. History: 1917; The Touraine; Frederick Webber, architect Individual Designation: 1/7/1982 District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Significant, 2/8/1995 Staff Contact: Randal Baron, randal.baron@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review details including the muntin patterns, pursuant to Standards 6 and 9. OVERVIEW: This application proposes the removal of wood windows and the installation of aluminum windows above the third-floor level on all facades of this large residential building. Views from the public right-of-way of large sections of the secondary facades are obscured by other buildings. The staff has worked with the applicant to craft a proposal in which the proposed windows closely match the original wood windows with regard to the sight lines and profiles. The wood windows at the first three stories of the building are being retained and have already been restored. Any leaded glass wood windows will also be restored rather than replaced, but the frames will be panned and a second piece of glass will be added on the outside of each sash. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 640-42 N 18TH ST Project: Remove infill; install windows and door Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Albert P. Wachlin Applicant: Albert P. Wachlin History: 1924; Mortgage Security Trust Company; William Macy Stanton, architect Individual Designation: None District Designation: Spring Garden Historic District, Significant, 10/11/2000 Staff Contact: Randal Baron, randal.baron@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the new transom bars are located at the height of the existing transom bar and the frames match the extant frame, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 6. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to the removal of masonry infill from original openings and the installation of six windows and one door. The proposed windows will have transoms over operable
existing transom bar and the frames match the extant frame, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 6. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to the removal of masonry infill from original openings and the installation of six windows and one door. The proposed windows will have transoms over operable panels. The heights of the operable and transom sections of the proposed windows PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 11 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES are shown as approximately equal. The staff would recommend reducing the heights of the transoms to align the new transom bars with the transom bar at the existing door. The operable sections would therefore need to increase in height. The frames of the new windows should match the details of the extant second-floor windows on the 18th Street façade. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 1608-12 CHESTNUT ST Project: Install internally-illuminated signage and banner sign Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Acorn Development Corp Applicant: Beth Saracino, WJCA Inc. History: Jackson & Moyer Clothing Store Individual Designation: 1/3/1985 District Designation: None Preservation Easement: Yes Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the banner sign, and denial of the internally illuminated signs covering the frieze between the second and third floors as well as the second-floor windows. OVERVIEW: This application proposes the installation of signage for the new retail tenant in this building. The signage would include internally-illuminated signs and banner signs. The application was revised following the Architectural Committee meeting. DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the application to the Historical Commission. Architect Bill Commer represented the application. Ms. DiPasquale noted that the revised application proposed to hang internally illuminated signage from the arched vestibule ceiling, with the attachments to be located on flat portions of the decorative plaster ceiling. The Commissioners agreed that the revised application was appropriate to the historic building. Mr. Sherman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the project. No one offered comments. ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to approve the application as presented at the Historical Commission meeting of 8 August 2014, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Turner seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 8 to 1. Mr. Schaaf dissented. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 12 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 401 N BROAD ST Project:
8 August 2014, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Turner seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 8 to 1. Mr. Schaaf dissented. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 12 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 401 N BROAD ST Project: Install rooftop cooling towers and louvered vents Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Gerald M. Marshall Applicant: Robert Thomas, Campbell Thomas & Company Architects History: 1929; Terminal Commerce Building, North American Building; William Steele & Sons Company, architects Individual Designation: 5/11/1994 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the installation of the first-floor louvers behind existing frames in the warehouse section along Callowhill Street and 13th Street; approval of the removal of the stucco infill and installation of louvers along Noble Street, provided that the window frames are retained or recreated in all openings; denial of louvers along the Broad Street façade; and no recommendation on the cooling towers, pending the submission of additional information; with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to install electrical power generation equipment primarily within the warehouse portion of the building and the associated cooling equipment on the roof of the headhouse and warehouse. The installation of the power generation system requires the installation of louvers within approximately 30 window openings of the building, including 26 bays of the warehouse portion of the building, and three windows of the headhouse. To achieve the necessary ventilation for the new power equipment, the proposed alterations for each street façade are as follows: - Callowhill Street: o Remove glazing from windows in seven bays of the warehouse o Leave existing steel window frames in place o Install louver systems behind and separate from the frames o Selectively remove muntins from upper corner of six of the seven openings to accommodate a 24” diameter vent pipe that extends 30” from the building façade. o Install one air louver within existing metal panel banding at ground floor of headhouse - 13th Street: o Remove glazing from windows in seven bays of the warehouse o Leave existing steel window frames in place o Install louver systems behind and separate from the frames o Selectively remove muntins from upper corner of four of the seven openings to accommodate a 24” diameter vent pipe
Street: o Remove glazing from windows in seven bays of the warehouse o Leave existing steel window frames in place o Install louver systems behind and separate from the frames o Selectively remove muntins from upper corner of four of the seven openings to accommodate a 24” diameter vent pipe that extends 30” from the building façade. - Noble Street: o Remove stucco infill from 12 bays along the Noble Street façade o Remove potentially deteriorated frames currently buried behind stucco panels o Install fully louvered vent panels filling the masonry opening - Broad Street: o Remove glazing from upper sash of three windows on the second floor o Install louver system behind existing frames PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 13 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES This application also proposes the installation of approximately 28’ high rooftop cooling towers on the southwest portion of the roof, one set to be located on the headhouse portion of the building, and the other to be located on the warehouse. The installation of the units will be conducted in phases, with the Phase I cooling towers to be built on the headhouse in order to relocate existing equipment on the warehouse prior to constructing the Phase II cooling towers. According to the applicant, the minimum number of units required for Phase I is three. The original application offered two alternatives for the location and configuration of the cooling towers, but has been revised since the Architectural Committee meeting to document six different alternatives recommendation to minimize the number of units on the headhouse. Of the current options, Option 3 offers the fewest units on the headhouse portion. DISCUSSION: Mr. Thomas recused and left the room, owing to his firm’s involvement in the project. Ms. DiPasquale presented the application to the Historical Commission. Historic building architectural consultant Harry Murray, architect Tim Wanaselja, project manager Chuck Kensky, and owner Jerry Marshall represented the application. Mr. Murray explained the project requirements. Mr. Marshall summarized his company’s history with historic buildings including the Wanamaker Building and 1500 Spring Garden, their experience from similar projects, and their commitment to the appearance of their buildings. He further described the importance of 401 N. Broad Street as a telecommunications hub on the East Coast. Mr. Sherman asked whether the information presented today incorporated the recommendations of the Architectural Committee. Mr. Wanaselja responded that the applicant explored additional
and their commitment to the appearance of their buildings. He further described the importance of 401 N. Broad Street as a telecommunications hub on the East Coast. Mr. Sherman asked whether the information presented today incorporated the recommendations of the Architectural Committee. Mr. Wanaselja responded that the applicant explored additional rooftop cooling tower options as recommended and now proposes revised schemes based on that exploration. Ms. Merriman noted that the placement and configuration of cooling towers seemed to be the outstanding issue. Ms. DiPasquale noted that the current Option 3 offered the fewest cooling towers on the headhouse portion of the building. Mr. Wanaselja then presented an animation of the visibility of the cooling towers approaching the building along Broad Street. Mr. Wanaselja noted that the Architectural Committee had been primarily concerned with the towers’ visibility on the headhouse, rather than the warehouse section of the building. Mr. Wanaselja commented that, owing to leases with other tenants that include rooftop equipment, it would be impossible to locate all of the necessary towers on the warehouse portion of the building at this time. Mr. Schaaf asked whether the project precluded any development of the first floor of the building at grade that would allow the spaces to be activated for N. Broad Street. Mr. Wanaselja responded that this project will have no impact on the ability to rent the ground-floor spaces along Broad and Callowhill Streets. Mr. Sherman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the project. No one offered comments. Ms. DiPasquale noted for the record that, although the plans were not updated between the Architectural Committee and Commission meetings, the applicant accepts the Committee’s recommendations. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 AUGUST 2014 14 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to approve the application with cooling tower Option 3, provided the windows and frames on the Noble Street façade are retained or recreated and no new louvers are installed on the Broad Street facade, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Jones seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT ACTION: At 10:45 a.m., Ms. Merriman moved to adjourn. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CITED IN THE MINUTES Standard 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
ACTION: At 10:45 a.m., Ms. Merriman moved to adjourn. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CITED IN THE MINUTES Standard 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. Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.