MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 9 January 1986 David Hollenberg, Chairman Present: David Hollenberg, Chairman Theodore T. Bartley, Jr., F.A.I.A., Preservation Committee, American Institute of Architects, Philadelphia Chapter Penelope H. Batcheler, Historical Architect for Independence National Historical Park David DeLong, University of Pennsylvania, Preservation Program Herbert W. Levy, A.I.A. Mark McQueen, Esq., Assistant City Solicitor, Law Department Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Patricia Siemontkowski, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Randal Baron, Executive Secretary Terry Koob, Clerk Steno II Also: Dennis DiDonatis, Applicant, to present request for approval of a demolition permit application for 13 S. 2nd Street. Fred Caine, Owner, Society Hill Florist and 713 Walnut Street. Jerry Roller, Architect, representing 713 Walnut Street, 927 Clinton Street and 104-106 Fitzwater Street. Tom Chin, Applicant, to request approval of work done without a building permit for 223 S. 9th Street. Michael Schwartz, Architect, and Martin Raeff, Owner, representing 730-732 S. Broad Street. Jeremy Starobin, Applicant, to present plans to construct an addition on the rear of 706 Pine Street. Marie DeVito, Owner, to request approval of repointing of brickwork done without a permit. John Gibbons and Tyler Wren, Spring Garden Civic Association, to request Historical Commission support in the community's efforts to preserve the character of the district through some control over utilities, street furniture, paving, and the like. And others. DEMOLITIONS 13 S. 2nd Street. Dennis DiDonatis, Applicant. Mr. DiDonatis represented the owner, Michael Singer, in his request for approval to demolish this four- story, brick, commercial loft building built c. 1835. The owner of 13 S. 2nd Street received a Licenses and Inspections "Order and Notice" to repair the dangerous conditions or demolish. Mr. DiDonatis explained that this vacant structure continues to deteriorate. Loose bricks have fallen onto an adjacent property and the fourth level floor has collapsed into the third story. Mr. DiDonatis stated that it was his understanding that the owner wants to demolish this building and use the site for parking. Mr. Singer also owns the adjoining lots at 17 and 19 S. 2nd Street which are currently used for parking. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 2 9 January 1986 Following some discussion concerning the condition of the building, its importance to the Old City streetscape and its potential for reuse in an area undergoing substantial rehabilitation, the Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that the owner submit data pursuant to Section 7(f)
for parking. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 2 9 January 1986 Following some discussion concerning the condition of the building, its importance to the Old City streetscape and its potential for reuse in an area undergoing substantial rehabilitation, the Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that the owner submit data pursuant to Section 7(f) of 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code. This section requires an owner seeking approval to demolish to show that there is no feasible and economic reuse for the building. The committee also recommended that the Commission invoke Section 8(c) of 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code to prevent further deterioration of this structure. ALTERATIONS 713 Walnut Street, Jerry Roller, Architect, and Fred Caine, Owner. Mr. Roller presented a resubmission of his proposal to convert this Sansom Row house into a flower shop for use by Society Hill Florist. At today's meeting, Mr. Roller presented three possible ideas for the construction of a commercial display area fronting on Walnut Street. The first scheme illustrated a metal frame bay as presented at the 12 December 1985 meeting. The second possible solution called for a glass and metal frame addition attached to the front facade below the window sills. The final drawing showed a free-standing kiosk on the sidewalk in front of the building. The Committee reviewed the three schemes and unanimously approved, in concept, the use of a free-standing structure. The Committee advised Mr. Roller to resubmit a more refined elevation drawing for this project which includes details. Ms. Siemiontkowski agreed to send a memorandum to Mr. Boothroyd of the Streets Department advising him of the Architectural Committee's endorsement of Mr. Roller's proposal. 927 Clinton Street, Jerry Roller, Architect. Mr. Roller presented revised drawings for the construction of a second story addition to the rear of 927 Clinton Street. Mr. Roller explained that a four-story addition which had been previously proposed for this building will not be constructed owing to neighborhood opposition. The Architectural Committee reviewed the revised plan for the rear addition to 927 Clinton Street and agreed to recommend its approval. 104-106 Fitzwater Street, Jerry Roller, Architect. Mr. Roller presented a sample window for the Committee's consideration for use at 104-106 Fitzwater Street. The proposal to rehabilitate these two small eight- eenth century houses was first submitted to the Architectural Committee on 11 July 1985. At that time the Committee requested that the window design be reviewed and resubmitted. The window presented
window for the Committee's consideration for use at 104-106 Fitzwater Street. The proposal to rehabilitate these two small eight- eenth century houses was first submitted to the Architectural Committee on 11 July 1985. At that time the Committee requested that the window design be reviewed and resubmitted. The window presented at today's meeting contained a storm window which was clipped to the exterior of the sash. The Committee rejected the use of this window at 104-106 Fitzwater Street. Ms. Siemiontkowski agreed to speak to the window manufacturer, Marvin, to inquire if it was possible to have this window made with the storm window applied to the interior. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 3 9 January 1986 The Architectural Committee unanimously agreed to request that the correct wood windows with proper muntins be installed in these houses. Detailed window specifications may be obtained from Ms. Siemiontkowski. 223 S. 9th Street, Tom Chin, Applicant. Mr. Chin appeared before the Architectural Committee as a result of a violation issued by the Department of Licenses and Inspections for work done without a permit. Mr. Chin explained that while having a roof installed on 223 S. 9th Street, the owner agreed to have the cornice covered with aluminum as recommended by the roofing contractor. The Committee reviewed photo- graphs submitted by Mr. Chin. The Architectural Committee recommended that the aluminum cover be removed and the cornice restored. Ms. Siemiontkowski stated that the building permit would be amended to read, "Remove aluminum cornice cover. Repair original wood cornice to match design of adjoining building at 225." 730-732 S. Broad Street, Michael Schwartz, Architect, and Martin Raeff, Owner. Mr. Schwartz presented preliminary plans for the conversion of this four-story c. 1849 firehouse with 1868 major alterations. This rehabilitation calls for the introduction of shops on the ground floor level and apartment units on the upper floors. The Committee reviewed Mr. Schwartz' plans and recommended that the existing 1868 wood carriage doors be retained. The Committee suggested removing the solid wood panels and inserting glass to allow light into the commercial area. Messrs. Raeff and Schwartz stated that they believed a concrete insert which is in the top of the loft doorway is for structural stability. The Committee disagreed and recommended that a structural engineer be consulted. The architect proposed to install a concrete insert in the right doorway to match the left side but this idea was rejected by the
concrete insert which is in the top of the loft doorway is for structural stability. The Committee disagreed and recommended that a structural engineer be consulted. The architect proposed to install a concrete insert in the right doorway to match the left side but this idea was rejected by the Committee. The Architectural Committee, following some discussion, recommended an approval in concept. The Committee requested that plans be resubmitted when more fully developed. 706 Pine Street, Jeremy Starobin, Applicant. Mr. Starobin presented a pro- posal which calls for the construction of a rear addition atop a two- story backbuilding at 706 Pine Street. Mr. Starobin explained that bronze, tempered glass would be used in the construction of this solar addition on the Addison Street elevation. The Committee reviewed the plans as presented for 706 Pine Street and agreed to recommend an approval of this project. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 4 9 January 1986 762 S. Front Street, Mario DeVito, Owner. Mr. DeVito appeared before the Architectural Committee as a result of receiving a violation from the Department of Licenses and Inspections for the reporting of his husband a building permit. On 6 August 1985, Mr. DeVito secured approval of a permit which listed as the brief description of work, "... 9/9 windows to 2nd floor, 6/6 in former, 12/12 to first floor; 6 panel raised panel door; 4 light transoms." Mr. DeVito was verbally instructed to match the windows to those on the adjacent property. Owing to the owner's ambiguous translation of the wording on the permit, the original window frames were removed and aluminum replacement windows with snap-in muntins were installed. Work performed that went beyond the scope of the original permit included alterations to the dormer, repointing and the installation of a watertable on the front facade. After considerable discussion, the Committee reluctantly agreed that owing to the wording on the building permit, they would recommend that the windows be allowed to remain although incorrect. However, the members agreed that they would request that Mr. DeVito submit to the Historical Commission an elevation drawing showing all future work to be undertaken on this property. The Committee also suggested that an on-site inspection be made of the dormer, watertable and pointing before a recommendation is made to the Commission. 1016 Pine Street, Michael Carmagola, Architect. Mr. Carmagola appeared before the Architectural Committee at its meeting of 12 December 1985. This submission
undertaken on this property. The Committee also suggested that an on-site inspection be made of the dormer, watertable and pointing before a recommendation is made to the Commission. 1016 Pine Street, Michael Carmagola, Architect. Mr. Carmagola appeared before the Architectural Committee at its meeting of 12 December 1985. This submission was inadvertently omitted from the report of that meeting and is therefore included in the minutes of today's meeting. Mr. Carmagola presented plans for rehabilitation of 1016 Pine Street c. 1812 with an 1860's Victorian storefront. Plans call for steel lintels to be placed above each window and covered with brick. The dormer window is either to be arched or square with arched molding depending upon the results of a close inspection of the existing molding. The doorway on the first floor is to remain intact. Mr. Carmagola was advised that if a door change was planned in the future, details must be submitted to the Historical Commission prior to such an undertaking. The Architectural Committee recommended that approval be given to this proposal for 1016 Pine Street. 812-814-816 S. Hancock Street, Charles Evers, Applicant. At the Architectural Committee Meeting of 12 December 1985, Mr. Evers presented a revised proposal to rehabilitate the properties at 812-814-816 S. Hancock Street. At that time the Committee agreed to recommend that the proposal be revised for staff review. Ms. Siemiontkowski explained that the revised submission calls for the use of an existing door at 812 S. Hancock Street. This door would be used as a model for the new door at 816 S. Hancock Street. The Committee reviewed the proposal and suggested that the owner could choose to use an exterior door of a different design on the building at 816 S. Hancock Street while keeping the existing door at 812 S. Hancock ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 5 9 January 1986 Street. As an alternative, the owner could model the door at 816 S. Hancock Street on the one that exists at 812 S. Hancock Street. The Committee further recommended that the existing door at 812 S. Hancock Street be checked for its effectiveness as an exterior door. Haviland Paneling from the Assembly Room of Independence Hall. Ms. Batcheler reported that a new home must be found for the Haviland paneling that was removed from the Assembly Room of Independence Hall for a 1974 restoration. This paneling was stored at the Penn Mutual with the
an exterior door. Haviland Paneling from the Assembly Room of Independence Hall. Ms. Batcheler reported that a new home must be found for the Haviland paneling that was removed from the Assembly Room of Independence Hall for a 1974 restoration. This paneling was stored at the Penn Mutual with the unfulfilled expectation that it would be used in an exhibit there. The paneling next went to the Philadelphia College of Art for possible use in its Haviland Building. The paneling was not used but was stored in the Atlantic Building where it remains today. The Atlantic Building has recently been sold by the Philadelphia College of Art and the new owners want the paneling removed. Ms. Batcheler proposed several possible uses for this paneling one of which is to install the paneling in pieces in the Second Bank treating each piece as an artifact. Another idea proposed by Ms. Batcheler is to assemble the paneling as a room within the new Visitor Center to be used as a setting for a museum on American patriotism. The Committee agreed that the Visitor Center suggestion was the better choice. Ms. Batcheler will advise the National Park Service of the Committee's recommendation in favor of this solution. Spring Garden Civic Association, John Gibbons and Tyler Wren. John Gibbons and Tyler Wren of the Spring Garden Civic Association appeared before the Historical Commission's Architectural Committee to request support in the community's efforts to preserve the character of the Spring Garden District through some control over public utilities, street furniture, signage, paving and the like. In particular, Mr. Gibbons expressed concern over the Philadelphia Electric Company's placement of electric meters on the fronts or sides of historic buildings rather than at the rear of these properties. The Spring Garden Civic Association has also expressed opposition to the Philadelphia Electric Company's proposed installation of primary overhead electrical service in the neighborhood which would adversely impact the historic character of the Spring Garden area. Concern over these particular items led to a broader discussion of controls in locally designated districts and the problems of enforcement. While the staff, the Commission and its committees in the past have sup- ported civic groups in their efforts to preserve the historic and archi- tectural integrity of particular neighborhoods, the 1955 ordinance limited the Historical Commission's jurisdiction to the preservation of buildings. Under the new preservation ordinance which became effective 1
staff, the Commission and its committees in the past have sup- ported civic groups in their efforts to preserve the historic and archi- tectural integrity of particular neighborhoods, the 1955 ordinance limited the Historical Commission's jurisdiction to the preservation of buildings. Under the new preservation ordinance which became effective 1 April 1985, the Commission's power was expanded to include the designa- tion and protection of sites, objects, structures and districts as well as individual buildings. The designation of these additional resources, however, raises questions with regard to the ability of the building permit process adequately to protect sites, objects, structures and ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 6 9 January 1986 districts. Members of the Committee agreed that a meeting to discuss the problems of enforcement as they relate to designated structures, sites and objects and to structures, sites and objects in designated districts is necessary. Since Spring Garden has not yet been designated a local historic district, the Historical Commission has no official jurisdiction except where individual buildings have been designated under the 1955 ordinance. Mr. Gibbons asked to meet with the staff to discuss the requirements for having Spring Garden designated a local district. The staff agreed to meet with Mr. Gibbons to offer guidance with regard to the identification of resources, the drawing of boundaries, the preparation of a revised inventory and other matters. PLAQUES 1021 Clinton Street. Mr. Theodore Bartley and members of the staff inspected this building and recommend that a certified restored plaque be awarded to 1021 Clinton Street. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Terry Koob, Clerk Steno II