THE MINUTES OF THE 431ST STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 15 July 1998 City Council Caucus, Room 401, City Hall Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Present Wayne S. Spilove, Chair David Brownlee, Ph.D. Joseph James, Deputy Director, Department of Public Property Carol Lawrence Shelly Merhige, Office of the City Council President David Perri, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Richard Reuda, Chair, City Planing Commission Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Robert Thomas Dennis Ward III Scott Wilds, Assistant Director for Housing, Office of Housing and Community Development Caroline Wischmann Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer R. Scott Jacob, Executive Secretary Mark Zecca, Deputy City Solicitor Also Rand K. Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum Design Group Christian A. Busch, C. A. Busch Consulting Edward Lane, Datafac Architects Frank Auddino James Dart, Historic Bartram’s Garden Pejmar Makarechi John Watt, Massara and Associates Gary Chapis Tony Mayiello Rosanne Kozlow Allison Kelsey, Preservation Alliance Judith Eden, Center City Residents Association Johnson Collins Wayne S. Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 431st Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Spilove introduced Richard Reuda, the new Chair of the City Planing Commission, as the new member of the Historical Commission. MINUTES of the 430th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Wilds and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the 430th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 10 June 1998, 2 Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 30 June 1998, Robert Thomas, Chair 925 Chestnut Street, Federal Reserve Building Jefferson Hospital, Rothman Institute, Owner Christian Busch, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1925 PROPOSAL: Alterations to the new elevator tower, new ground-floor fenestration treatment, garden in ramp court Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the metal cladding on the top of the proposed new elevator tower, the curved window wall, the proposed signage, landscaping and bronze anodized aluminum door and spandrel panels. Mr. Thomas explained that this application involves revisions to a previously approved proposal for the addition of an elevator tower and ground-floor treatment in the ramp court. Modifications to the elevator plan include cladding the top floor in metal panels rather than marble and curving the west wall. Alterations at the ramp court include a slightly modified window and door treatment and a landscaped garden area. The project’s architect designed
and ground-floor treatment in the ramp court. Modifications to the elevator plan include cladding the top floor in metal panels rather than marble and curving the west wall. Alterations at the ramp court include a slightly modified window and door treatment and a landscaped garden area. The project’s architect designed a curved window wall in the ramp court to connect it with the elevations to either side. The proposal calls for an alteration to a previously approved window and drive-through scheme. The applicant wishes to use bronze anodized aluminum spandrel panels instead of the original plan to use stone. The Institute wants to install a row of trees or shrubbery around the perimeter of the ramp court to keep pedestrians from congregating and smoking there. The proposal also includes three new halo-type illuminated signs on three sides of the new elevator tower, and two brushed aluminum, backlit sign panels in the ramp court. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 701 Market Street The Brickstone Companies, Owner Jay Tuller, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1901 - storefront PROPOSAL: Alter doors to shopfront, black out windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the opaque film over the windows and of removing the handles from the northwest corner entrance to create a new shopfront. Mr. Thomas explained that this application involves altering the northwest corner bay of the Lit’s Department Store building from a four-door entrance to a shop window. Several adjacent shop windows will receive an opaque black film to black out windows. Rand Rosenbaum, representing the applicant, explained that the proposal no longer calls for the removal of the wood frames at the corner entrance, but does seek approval to place black film over the doors. Commission members agreed that the proposed location of the work constitutes a secondary facade. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’ recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 3 401 North Broad Street Nathan Jacobs, Owner Edward Lane, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1930 PROPOSAL: New windows, fencing and louvers Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, with black vinyl coating on the chain link fences, with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves installing new louvers in windows facing North Broad Street and removing other louvers and fixing new windows in their place. The tenant seeks to place large new cooling units
vinyl coating on the chain link fences, with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves installing new louvers in windows facing North Broad Street and removing other louvers and fixing new windows in their place. The tenant seeks to place large new cooling units on the north side of the building, underneath a ramp screened by fencing and aluminum panels. Different mechanical needs necessitate the use of both corrugated and chain link fences. Mr. Thomas explained that Committee members requested a black vinyl coating on the chain link fences. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1219 Locust Street Henry Kozlow, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1892 PROPOSAL: Cut a garage door in rear facade Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, with staff to approve the color of the door. This proposal calls for cutting a garage door into the rear facade of this building. The garage will face St. James Street, adjacent to several rowhouses. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2-8 East Girard Avenue First Union Bank, Owner Dominic Aspite, Applicant DATE: 1877 PROPOSAL: Illuminated and non-illuminated signage Architectural Committee Recommendation: Tabling the issue awaiting further information. This proposal entails changing the plastic faces on existing signs, several of which are illuminated. The lack of Historical Commission approval for the existing signs creates a problem regarding approval of the new faces. Mr. Thomas explained that the Committee decided to recommend tabling the proposal until the applicant could send a design professional to discuss the signage and possible modifications with the Committee. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation to table the proposal for a period not to exceed six months awaiting information. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 4 1100 South Front Street Frank Audinno, Owner Dominic Aspite, Applicant DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Illuminated signage on roof of building Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of mounting the proposed sign on the roof without demolishing any part of the chimney, and attaching it to the rear of the chimney, no more than four feet above the building. They noted that a billboard exists about a block south on Front Street. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for a large, illuminated, plastic-faced sign over the roof of this rowhouse to advertize
attaching it to the rear of the chimney, no more than four feet above the building. They noted that a billboard exists about a block south on Front Street. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for a large, illuminated, plastic-faced sign over the roof of this rowhouse to advertize the restaurant occupying the building to highway traffic on I-95. The applicant seeks to demolish part of the chimney in order to create a ledge on which to set the sign. The owner already had the sign constructed. Mr. Tyler stated that the Historical Commission Staff disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Kaplan informed the Commission that the applicant has received a zoning variance for the sign. Mr. Brownlee strongly objected to the proposal and reminded the Commission that they almost always oppose internally-illuminated, plastic-faced signs. Mr. Sklaroff asked the Commission to approve the proposal owing to the owner’s special circumstances of location and because he already had the sign made. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to approve the installation of the sign to spare the owner the expense of having a new sign created and because of the difficult location of the restaurant, with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion, but asked that the record reflect that he disagrees with Mr. Sklaroff’s stated reasons to approve the proposal. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sklaroff, Mr. Wilds, Mr. Reuda, Ms. Merhige, Mr. Ward and Mr. Perri voted to approve the proposal. Mr. Brownlee, Ms. Lawrence, Mr. James and Ms. Wischmann dissented. 1210 Lombard Street, St. Peter Claver School Holy Ghost Fathers, Owner Sister Mary Paula Cancienne, Applicant DATE: 1906 - 1908 PROPOSAL: Apply door moldings Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, with staff to review and approve the choice of a stock trim and color. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal entails installing a molding around to evoke the sense of the former front door that the owner removed and filled in with cinder blocks before historic designation. To reduce costs, the applicant proposes a simple square molding rather than the rounded molding found on the remaining portion of the doorframe. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Bartram’s Garden, 54th Street and Lindbergh Blvd. John Bartram Association, Owner James Dart, Architect/Applicant 5 DATE: 18th Century PROPOSAL: New building Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas recused himself from
the doorframe. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Bartram’s Garden, 54th Street and Lindbergh Blvd. John Bartram Association, Owner James Dart, Architect/Applicant 5 DATE: 18th Century PROPOSAL: New building Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas recused himself from the discussion and vote owing to his professional association with the applicant. Mr. Baron explained that this proposal calls for constructing a building to hold public lavatories and educational program offices on the site of a former structure. The new building would resemble a small hay barn. Mr. Baron also stated that three or four generations of structures formerly occupied the proposed building site. Some evidence demonstrates that one of the structures was of frame-on-stone construction, which the proposed addition emulates in a contemporary fashion. Mr. Brownlee inquired about any possible archeological resources on the proposed building site. James Dart, architect for the project, stated that studies have revealed no significant remains on the site. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with ten votes. Mr. Thomas recused himself. Mr. Spilove turned the chair over to Mr. Brownlee. 2213 Locust Street Pejman Makarechi, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1872 PROPOSAL: Iron grates, flower boxes and fence Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the reconstructed basement grate and a simple pipe-style rail that complements the existing main rail, and with a handrail that angles down to follow the stairs, with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for reconstructing the stolen basement grates and building a new fence to keep trash from collecting in the basement stairway. The owner also proposes iron window boxes. Mr. Thomas stated that Committee members objected to the ornate appearance of the proposed flower boxes and gated fence, but approved the basement window grate replacement, and that the Committee recommended the applicant install a simplified, pipe-style rail that complements the existing main rail, and with a handrail that angles down to follow the stairs. Pejman Makarechi, owner of the property, showed the Commission photographs of neighboring buildings with window boxes, and explained that he now wishes to install simpler window boxes. Commission members agreed that the applicant could install simple metal window boxes if he consulted the Commission staff regarding the design and material. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation
of neighboring buildings with window boxes, and explained that he now wishes to install simpler window boxes. Commission members agreed that the applicant could install simple metal window boxes if he consulted the Commission staff regarding the design and material. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation and to approve the installation of simple metal flower boxes, with staff to review and approve details. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Spilove resumed the chair. 6 1900 Pine Street Allan Baumholtz, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1860 PROPOSAL: Roll down grate installed in a pent eave Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the security grate, with a stipulation for the restoration of the original cornice should this applicant or a future owner remove the pent, and photographic and descriptive documentation of the cornice for the Commission files. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for the legalization of a full-width, open- mesh, roll down security grate. This grate replaces a smaller version that did not successfully protect the store from burglary. Mr. Thomas added that the Committee suggested including a stipulation upon approval for the restoration of the original cornice should this applicant or a future owner remove the pent, and asked for photographic documentation of the cornice for the Commission files. Although historically inappropriate, the pent eave existed at the time of designation. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2103 Delancey Street Stanford Erickson, Owner Carl Massara, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1865 PROPOSAL: Replace rear deck Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for redesigning and rebuilding a rear deck and railing on a street faced by several houses. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 412 Lombard Street Kesher Israel Congregation, Owner Samuel Olshin, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1868, 1893 PROPOSAL: Restore stuccoed facade and rehabilitate fence Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. This proposal entails restoring the stuccoed facade and rehabilitating the iron fence of this synagogue. The fence would include restored iron posts but with simplified balusters owing to budget considerations. The owner intends to retain the one piece of existing original rail on site. Mr. Thomas explained that Committee members expressed concern that the proposed scoring pattern on the stucco does not match the historic photographs and that the architect for the
but with simplified balusters owing to budget considerations. The owner intends to retain the one piece of existing original rail on site. Mr. Thomas explained that Committee members expressed concern that the proposed scoring pattern on the stucco does not match the historic photographs and that the architect for the project agreed to redesign the scored demarcation lines to match the 1933 photograph from the Commission file. 7 Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1901-1905 Walnut Street, Rittenhouse Plaza Rittenhouse Plaza, Inc., Owner Dominic Aspite, Applicant DATE: 1926 PROPOSAL: New windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the proposed window replacements, with the second-floor windows redesigned to match the historic windows more closely, in either wood or aluminum. Mr. Thomas recused himself owing to his association with the proposal. Mr. Baron explained that this proposal involves installing approximately fifteen hundred new aluminum windows and capping the existing frames throughout the building. The capping on the frames closely matches the existing frames but shrinks the glass width of the new windows by two inches. The proposal shows a reduction in the depth of the putty slope to about 1/8 of an inch, which will make the windows seem quite shallow. The window manufacturer can rectify this, but doing so will either greatly increase the cost or sacrifice the tilt-in cleaning feature. Mr. Baron pointed out that with similar applications, such as the Barclay Hotel, the Commission approved overall window replacements with closer attention to the historic putty slope and mullion and frame width on the lower-floor window replacements. Mr. Baron stated that the applicant agreed to have the second-floor windows redesigned to match the historic windows more closely, in either wood or aluminum. Mr. Ward made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried with nine votes. Mr. Thomas recused himself. 1831 Addison Street William and Kathleen DeCara, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Install vinyl shutters Architectural Committee Recommendation: Mr. Cornell recommended approval of the new vinyl shutters owing to the financial hardship wood shutters would create. Mr. Levy recommended tabling the issue until the applicant can submit a cost estimate of replacing the first-floor shutters with wood, with the correct slide bar configuration. Mr. Thomas recommended approving the new shutters because they do not constitute a replacement and the owner already installed them.
shutters would create. Mr. Levy recommended tabling the issue until the applicant can submit a cost estimate of replacing the first-floor shutters with wood, with the correct slide bar configuration. Mr. Thomas recommended approving the new shutters because they do not constitute a replacement and the owner already installed them. He stipulated that any future shutter replacements should follow the correct historic model. This proposal calls for legalizing the bolting of vinyl shutters onto the brick facade. Mr. Baron stated that staff objected to the new shutters because of material, design and method of 8 attachment, and noted that the Commission has consistently asked for wood shutters with hardware and correct panel and louver patterns, and does not agree with the Committee’s recommendations. Mr. Brownlee noted that removal of the shutters in violation does not constitute any financial hardship, as they are not a necessary feature of the facade. Commission members did not agree with the Committee members’ recommendations. Mr. Wilds made a motion reject the Committee recommendations and to deny legalization of the vinyl shutters. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The Report of the Historical Commission Staff June 1998, Richard Tyler Mr. Tyler noted a few highlights from the staff report. Mr. Zecca asked the Commission to set up a special executive session to discuss protocol in litigation cases that may come up. Mr. Zecca briefly outlined what the session would entail. Commission members agreed to designate a time in the next stated meeting. Mr. Wilds made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, R. Scott Jacob Executive Secretary