Architectural Committee — May 25, 1999

) REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Robert Thomas, Chair Commission Conference Room, One Parkway, 13th Fl., 1515 Arch St. 25 May 1999 Present Robert Thomas, Chair Penelope Batcheler Herbert Levy Daniel McCoubrey, Vice Chair Suzanne Pentz Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer R. Scott Jacob, Executive Secretary Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Also William Mead, Peale Valley Tile/ Friends of Rittenhouse Square Wendy Rosen, Peale Valley Tile/ Friends of Rittenhouse Square Nancy Heinzen, Friends of Rittenhouse Square Emily Smith, Friends of Rittenhouse Square Neale Quenzel, Carpenters' Company of Philadelphia Charles Evers, Atkin Olshin Lawson-Bell and Associates Elizabeth Armour, Society Hill Civic Association (SHCA) Mary Marshall, Center City District Theresa Stuhlman, Fairmount Park Commission (FPC) Peter Brown, Capital Programs Office Virginia Naude, Norton Art Conservators, Inc. Nan Gutterman, Vitetta Group Mary Ossi, Vitetta Group Hyman Myers, Vitetta Group Scott Kalner, Kelly/Maiello Architects Vincent Maiello, Kelly/Maiello Architects T. Scott Kreilnick Marianna Thomas, Marianna Thomas Architects C. J. Moore Ronald Donatucci Albert Taus, Taus and Associates, Architects Kevin Szictanik, Taus and Associates, Architects Donald Lavin, Bridges and Lavin Architects Margaret Jones, M. L. Jones Construction William Menke, Menke and Menke Landscape Architects Carol Menke, Menke and Menke Landscape Architects Claire Donato, Mark Thompson Associates Mark Thompson, Mark Thompson Associates Norman Tissian, SHCA Janet Potter, The Foundation for Architecture Stephanie Craighead, FPC Amy Freitag, FPC Charles Mottershed, Capital Program Office Frederick Kaulbach, Armstrong and Kaulbach Architects John Lawson, JLA Aliki Strakes, Preservation Alliance Paul Rakita Bernice Hamel, Society Hill Civic Association Scott Zucker Carl Massara, Carl Massara Architect William Proud Lorna Katz, JLA M. Gilbert Alan Gilbert Edward Robinson Margaret Ulrich, Center City Residents Association (CCRA) William G. Schwartz, Esq. Cynthia Tedeschi Walter Chatham Frederick Mann Mark Brookman, Duane Morris and Hec~cher Attorneys Kevin Kent, Duane Morris and Heckscher Attorneys Jan Rubin Robert Warden Judith Eden, CCRA Ian Rubinstein Claire Oliver William Kramer, KMA Architects Paul Stein Gerard Brown Alice Wells, Weekly Press Barbara Gilbert Sandra Mann Eleanor Gross G. Weldon Patricia Y onekawa Susan Freedman Shelly Lucero Patricia Aden, Preservation Alliance William Burke, Art Commission John Jones John Connelly, Jr. Patricia Royston 2 ) J H. Jaffe Jonathon Weiss, Esq., Silverman Cooperson and Frieman Patricia Mattern Barbara Capizzi John Sheridan Mr. Levy, Vice Chair, recognized a quorum and called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. Rittenhouse Square, Fountain City of Philadelphia, Owner Emily Smith, Friends of Rittenhouse Square, Applicant

Patricia Royston 2 ) J H. Jaffe Jonathon Weiss, Esq., Silverman Cooperson and Frieman Patricia Mattern Barbara Capizzi John Sheridan Mr. Levy, Vice Chair, recognized a quorum and called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. Rittenhouse Square, Fountain City of Philadelphia, Owner Emily Smith, Friends of Rittenhouse Square, Applicant DATE: Fountain- 1913 PROPOSAL: Replace tile on fountain with original design This proposal calls for removing the existing turquoise tiles on the fountain in Rittenhouse Square and replacing them with tiles set to the original design by Paul Cret, architect for the fountain. The applicant showed the Committee tile samples depicting the colors proposed for the : restoration. A hand-colored photograph from the time of the fountain's construction depicts an 1 approximation of the original coloration. Mr. Baron also read a detailed description of the colors , used, and the applicant correlated some of thes-e with the tile samples. The Committee did not object to ~e proposal in concept, but requested greater color palate detail and samples of the actual proposed tiles. The Committee also recommended studying other period tile work, specifically work done by the Enfield Company, which manufactured the original tiles. Mr. Baron noted that the existing turquoise tiles constitute an important aspect of the fountain's history, and asked for samples for the Commission's files. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend preliminary conceptual approval of the proposal) with a request for the submission of greater color palate detail) samples of the actual proposed tiles and further study of other period tile work) specifically work done by the Enfield Company 320 Chestnut Street, Carpenters' Hall Carpenters' Company, Ruth O'Brian, Executive Director, Owner Charles Evers, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1770-1774 PROPOSAL: New bronze handrails; interior shutters This application calls for adding a simple railing to the back steps of Carpenters Hall as well as installing interior shutters. Committee members discussed the number of shutter panels, and the importance of correlating the new shutters with existing. The Committee thought the applicant should install four-panel shutters. The Applicant described the method of installation, which will cause minimal damage to the historic material of the interior window frame. 3 The applicant explained that the proposed two inch bronze tube railings will match existing railings at the front entrance to the building. In order to avoid damaging historic fabric, the railings will attach into the paving instead of the bottom step, as in the other

the interior window frame. 3 The applicant explained that the proposed two inch bronze tube railings will match existing railings at the front entrance to the building. In order to avoid damaging historic fabric, the railings will attach into the paving instead of the bottom step, as in the other location. The head of the railings will be anchored into center of the wooden pilasters flanking the door. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal) with four-panel shutters. 500 West Willow Grove Avenue, Chestnut Hill Academy Chestnut Hill Academy, Owner Craig Klofach, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1882-1884 PROPOSAL: Roof replacement; restore woodwork The proposal calls for restoring wood trim on this Victorian building and replacing the roof. Mr. Baron explained that the applicant will work with Commission staff regarding the proposed restoration work. The Committee did not object to any aspects of the proposed restoration. The architect also seeks to use red asphalt shingles to replace the current roof of hard red mineral fiber shingles, itself a substitute for a c~ramic shingle roof. The architect stated that the existing roof dates from c. 1980, and that the former roof was covered with gray, possibly slate shingles. The Committee examined historic photographs to determine the shape and material of the earlier roof, but was unable to identify _enough detail. One 1910 Photograph shows what appears to be diamond cut slate shingles. Committee members recommended conducting more investigative research, with the aid of minimal selective demolition to ascertain the shape and fabric of the former and possible the original roofing material. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend: 1. Approval of the restoration work) with staff to review and approve details. 2. Tabling the application to replace the roof until the Commission receives more information regarding the shape and fabric of the former and possibly the original roofing material and any funding limitations. City Hall City of Philadelphia, Owner Peter Brown, Capital Programs Office, Applicant DATE: 1871-1901 PROPOSAL: Roof replacement; masonry restoration; minor exterior alteration This proposal calls for: 1. The renovation and restoration of the courtyard and street side exterior envelope in the northeast quadrant of City Hall and the masonry portion of the tower. 2. Roof replacement 3. Cast-iron and window restoration and replacement 4 ) 4. Masonry cleaning and repair 5. Gutter and copper repairs 6. Door renovation and replacement 7. Related mechanics, plumbing and electrical systems work.

envelope in the northeast quadrant of City Hall and the masonry portion of the tower. 2. Roof replacement 3. Cast-iron and window restoration and replacement 4 ) 4. Masonry cleaning and repair 5. Gutter and copper repairs 6. Door renovation and replacement 7. Related mechanics, plumbing and electrical systems work. Ms. Pentz recused herself from the discussion and the vote owing to her engineering firm's association with the proposal. Prior to the meeting, the Committee members reviewed an extensive report, plans and elevations detailing the multitudinous elements of the proposed work. The Committee narrowed the scope of its review at this meeting to those aspects of the proposal that differ from previously approved treatments used on the East Center Pavilion of City Hall and changes to the building. The proposed work will folio~ methods used in the cleaning, restoration and repair of the East Center Pavilion three years ago, with a few exceptions. This proposal may involve the use of improved cleaning methods. Nan Gutterman, one of the architects involved with the restoration, explained that some deteriorated or spalling portions of the granite base, the ashlar blocks and the cornice above require removal of loose surfaces and subsequent re-tooling of the newly exposed surfaces. This procedure will leave irregularly shaped patches of tooled granite. Committee members agreed with the necessity for this procedure and to recommend its approval. Approximately 20 of the 431 window openings in the project area will require partial or full sash restoration. One non-original window sash on the east wall above the above the courtyard will be replaced with a paired casement unit; d<::tailed to match adjacent existing windows. The proposal also calls for the replacement of the 172 air conditioning units within the windows with new units in uniform cabinet sizes and colors. Wood doors and frames at the roof level and one at the basement level will be replaced with painted galvanized steel units. The Committee did not object to these alterations. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal, with staff to review and approve details. 201 Pine Street First Union, Owner Dominic Aspite, Applicant DATE: 1868 PROPOSAL: Signage Th~ proposal involves legalizing several signs for this corner bank. The Committee reviewed and voted on each of the signs individually. The Committee voted to recommend: Approval of 1. Refacing the existing sign over the front door on Pine Street. 2. The metal

Dominic Aspite, Applicant DATE: 1868 PROPOSAL: Signage Th~ proposal involves legalizing several signs for this corner bank. The Committee reviewed and voted on each of the signs individually. The Committee voted to recommend: Approval of 1. Refacing the existing sign over the front door on Pine Street. 2. The metal wall plaques at the Pine Street entrance to the parking lot. 3. The non-illuminated flat wall sign on the west wall reading ((Customer parking Only.'' 5 4. The sing over the rear door) facing the parking lot. 5. The ccBank Parking Only)) sign in the middle of the rear wall of the parking lot. 6. Refacing the existing ATM sign) but with smaller letters not in a sloped configuration. Denial of 1. New flat) internally illuminated wall sign on the west wall seen from Pine Street. 2. New flat) internally illuminated wall sign on north wall overlooking the parking lot. 3. The two ccBank Parking Only)) signs along the perimeter wall of the parking lot closest to the entrances. 1228 Waverly Street Justina Suchadolski, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1830 PROPOSAL: New rear fence The proposal calls for replacing a stockade type fence with a wood hatchet head vertical picket fence. The Committee did not object the proposal. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 352 South 4th Street C. J. Moore, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1791 PROPOSAL: Glaze rear porch This proposal calls for glazing a modern rear porch. The new window will match the glazed arch just below it on the first floor. The Committee did not object to the proposal. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 824 South Front Ronald Donatucci, Equitable Owner/ Applicant DATE:c. 1865;Shopfront-c. 1914 PROPOSAL: Remove storefront; construct residential front This proposal calls for removal of storefront from this corner building and construction of a residential front. The applicant seeks to reinstall the original two over two window sash and shutters. The applicant explained that an old building permit dates the storefront to the l 910's. The Committee thought the applicant could restore the original residential front, but directed him to revise the plans to put the front door on the right side of the front, as houses from this period would have doors opposite the chimney, which is on the left side of this building. The applicant does not intend to raise the first floor to its original height, or restoring the marble watertable. The Committee

front door on the right side of the front, as houses from this period would have doors opposite the chimney, which is on the left side of this building. The applicant does not intend to raise the first floor to its original height, or restoring the marble watertable. The Committee asked for the retention of the original marble base at the front. 6 ) J The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal) with the front door on the right side of the front and staff to review and approve details. 440 Spruce Street Richard Autieri, Owner Margaret Jones, Applicant DATE: 1770 PROPOSAL: Rear demolition; new addition and deck This proposal calls for the demolition of a modern rear addition and its replacement with a smaller brick addition and deck. The Committee did not object to the proposal. The Committee voted unanimously to re.commend approval. 1300 Market Street, Wanamaker Building Amerimar Wanamaker Management Company, Owner Donald Lavin, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1902-1910 PROPOSAL: New entrance on Juniper Street for restaurant tenant This proposal seeks to create an entrance in the show window, at the second bay north of Chestnut Street on Juniper, for an Au Bon_Pain restaurant. The restaurant will remain open for longer hours than Lord and Taylor, necessitating a door to the street. The proposed doors closely resemble an existing set a few bays north. The Committee welcomed more activity at this remote corner of the Wanamaker building. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal) with staff to review and approve details. Fairmount Water Works, Philadelphia Museum of Art and Lloyd Hall sites City of Philadelphia, Owner Claire Donato, Architect/ Applicant DATE: early to mid 19th century- Water Works early to late 20th century- Museum and Lloyd Hall sites PROPOSAL: Parking; landscaping This proposal, now greatly revised, calls for restoring the grassy area next to Lloyd Hall and the historic South Garden at the Water Works. The project places parking in the vicinity of the restored forebay of the mill house and in a single row on each side of Fairmount Avenue and Aquarium Drive. As presented previously, the precincts of the forebay and the Italian Fountain will have fewer parking spaces than they now have. 7 Claire Donato, architect for the proposal, described the parameters of the Water Works as the edge of the historic forebay on the east and north, the Schuykill

Drive. As presented previously, the precincts of the forebay and the Italian Fountain will have fewer parking spaces than they now have. 7 Claire Donato, architect for the proposal, described the parameters of the Water Works as the edge of the historic forebay on the east and north, the Schuykill River on the west and the historic fence of the South Garden at the south. The project proposes to re-establish the historic boundaries of the Water Works for purposes of interpretation. Work includes lowering the existing grade within the forebay to reveal the edges of the Mill House buildings and the historic forebay bridge so that the Water Works appears again as a peninsula. A portion of a recreational trail will run adjacent to the forebay, as will some parking spaces. Plans also call for the restoration of the 1930s Beaux Arts garden on the west side of the Italian Fountain with the aid of original designs. The South Garden restoration includes the repair and restoration of the marble fountain, the Graff Memorial, Peace Fountain, spring house, brick walks and other garden appurtenances, as well as the rehabilitation of the underground pump room for the fountain mechanicals. Plans also call for the restoration of the historic fence designed by Frederick Graff, Jr. at the southern boundary of the Water Works precinct. Ms. Donato described the parking aspect of the proposal. Originally, plans called for one way traffic only, with cars entering Aquarium Drive from Kelly Drive and exiting from Fairmount Avenue onto Kelly Drive. Apparently, Fairmount Avenue cannot be used as an exit, so the proposal now entails a modest widening of Fairmount Avenue to accommodate two way traffic. 1 Committee members did not object to the revised parking scheme, but requested the inclusion of a pedestrian walkway to the side of Fairmount J\venue, and asked the applicant to return with greater detail regarding the paving material and lighting scheme for the parking areas. Alike Strakes of the Preservation Alliance read a letter from the Alliance in support of the ' proposal. Frederick Kaulbach, landscape architect, voiced his support for the proposal, but asked the applicant to modify the path along Aquarium Drive to avoid any damaging or losing any of the original Paul Cret plantings. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend tabling the lighting and paving material aspects of the parking portion of the proposal. The Committee voted unanimously

the proposal, but asked the applicant to modify the path along Aquarium Drive to avoid any damaging or losing any of the original Paul Cret plantings. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend tabling the lighting and paving material aspects of the parking portion of the proposal. The Committee voted unanimously to approve all other aspects of the proposal) with the inclusion of a pedestrian walkway to the side of Fairmount Avenue. 220 Delancey Street Mary Sales, Owner Carl Massara, Architect/ Applicant DATE: c. 1843; facade - 1970 PROPOSAL: Relocate front door to passageway entrance This proposal calls for creating an on-street entrance and addition in the side alleyway currently leading to the back yard of the house. The proposal would not alter the appearance of the facade, except for the glazing of the transom. When the house was reconstructed under the aegis of the Redevelopment Authority it lost its old front entrance, leaving it with an awkward alley entrance. The alley sits entirely on the property of 220 Delancey, unencumbered by an easement. 8 ) _) Carl Massara, architect for the proposal, explained that the owner wishes have an identifiable entrance at the street side facade as well as expand the living space of the first floor. The present actual door into the dwelling is within the alley and accessible only through the alleyway gate. Mr. Massara also described plans to build a greenhouse addition at the rear of the property, which would obstruct the rear entrance to the alley. The Committee questioned the Historical Commission's jurisdiction over alterations at the rear of the building. Several members of the community expressed strong objections to the proposal, citing the gated alley as an important feature of the building, and that these passageways constitute a common and important element of many historic buildings in the neighborhood. Ms. Batcheler concurred, and cautioned that approving the elimination of this alley may set a dangerous precedent. Philip Rakita and his wife Elizabeth Armour who reside next door to the subject property took great excepting to the proposal. Mr. Rakita and Ms. Armour argued that the alleyway constitutes a "structure," and that it quite possibly.dates from the original construction of the building. They asked the Committee to recommend denial of the proposal as it calls for the demolition of an established visible element of the building and the historic district. Apparently, the wall between 220 and

alleyway constitutes a "structure," and that it quite possibly.dates from the original construction of the building. They asked the Committee to recommend denial of the proposal as it calls for the demolition of an established visible element of the building and the historic district. Apparently, the wall between 220 and 222 Delancey Street is deeded entirely to 222. Mr. Rakita attested that, as this is not a party wall, he has the burden of maintaining it. He also cited ; I several ways in which the in-fill of the alleyway will impact his house, including the elimination of the natural drainage route for both properties,_and loss of access to the exterior of the east wall of · his building for maintenance purposes. A synapsis of their statements is attached as an addendum. The Committee discussed the possibility of recessing the new "real" front door a few feet back within the alley and maintaining the gate in its existing condition. The applicant agreed to comply should the Commission vote to deny the original proposal. All of the Committee members except Ms. Batcheler thought this an acceptable modification. Ms. Batcheler object to the proposal. Four of the five Committee members voted to recommend approval of recessing the new front door a few feet back within the alley and maintaining the gate in its existing condition. .Ms. Batcheler voted to recommend denial of the pro-posal. 119 Lombard Street Edward Robinson, Owner/ Applicant DATE: 1743 PROPOSAL: Window planters; clear plastic basement window covers This proposal calls for basket type window boxes and plastic domes over the basement windows. The applicant informed the Committee that he would now prefer to install window boxes, and showed photographs of boxes similar to the ones he wants. The Committee agreed to recommend approval of the window boxes provided they are attached with brackets to maintain some distance from the brick and not installed into the pegs in the sills. 9 The Committee informed the applicant that it could not approve the proposed plastic window domes. Mr. Thomas suggested employing French drains to relieve the water infiltration. With this method, gravel, placed within the window well, disburses the water into the ground at a slower rate. Upon examining an historic photograph of the building showing wooden basement window covers, Committee members thought the applicant could rebuild them with hinges, so the covers can remain open if desired. The applicant

method, gravel, placed within the window well, disburses the water into the ground at a slower rate. Upon examining an historic photograph of the building showing wooden basement window covers, Committee members thought the applicant could rebuild them with hinges, so the covers can remain open if desired. The applicant stated he would try the French drains, and if that did not work, he will install the wood window covers if approved. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend: Approval of 1. The window boxes provided they are attached with brackets to maintain some distance from the brick and not installed into the pegs in the sills. 2. Hinged wooden basement window covers or French drains. Denial of 1. Clear plastic basement window domes. 2022-2024 Chancellor Street Jan Rubin Associates, Owner Dominic Aspite, Applicant DATE: c. 1890 PROPOSAL: Renovations; remove rear dormer; new deck This proposal calls for minor window replacement on the Chancellor Street facade and substantial changes on the St. James Street.rear facade. The plans call for removal of a dormer and section of roof for a deck. They also show cutting of a long window in the rear wall and the installation of a new air conditioning unit in a visible location. Mr. Thomas noted that this block of St. James Street does not see much traffic except as a service alley. This property sits at a jog in the street, further mitigating its visibility. The Committee discussed the details of some proposed changes to the St. James Street facade, including the windows within the former carriage door and the location of the air conditioner. The Committee decided to recommend approval of the proposal as submitted owing to the remote location of the rear facade. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 1914-1916 Rittenhouse Square Street; 1915-1919 Manning Street Henry McNeil, Owner Walter Chatham, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1914 Rittenhouse Square Street - 1859 Entrance Pavilion - 195 7 Rear ell - late 19th century to mid 20th century; garage - c. 1960 PROPOSAL: Demolition of entrance pavilion, rear garage and ell; new additions; rooftop alteration and addition 10 ) J This proposal calls for: 1. The demolition of the one story entrance pavilion at 1916 Rittenhouse Square, both chimneys on 1914 Rittenhouse Square and the rear ell and garage on Manning Street. 2. A new four story gallery addition and wider rear ell with vaulted roof deck. 3.

) J This proposal calls for: 1. The demolition of the one story entrance pavilion at 1916 Rittenhouse Square, both chimneys on 1914 Rittenhouse Square and the rear ell and garage on Manning Street. 2. A new four story gallery addition and wider rear ell with vaulted roof deck. 3. A new two story garage attached to the remaining historic structure. 4. A large fifth floor living room addition and roof deck with clear railing atop the mansard roof of the historic structure to provide views of Rittenhouse Square. 5. The demolition of the front stoop and its extension out toward the street with a glass and metal canopy. 6. Replacing six-over-six windows on historic facade and reestablishing the historic two-over-two configuration. One year ago, the Architectural Committee reviewed the possibility of demolishing the pavilion for comment only to assist the owner in his decision to purchase the property. The Committee thought the pavilion could be dem9lished: however, the Commission took no action dn that opinion. The proposed new addition on the_site of the pavilion will complement the historic facade in scale and proportion. The architect proposes to build a new addition over the present site of the pavilion that mimics the basic shape of the historic facade, with a concave mansard and arched dormers, but with dissimilar details and materials to differentiate the addition from the historic portion. Mr. Tyler stated that the proposed addition does conform with The Secretary of the Interior)s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in that it respects the historic building in scale, proportion, materials and massing while maintaining the appearance of a new addition. The new section of the mansard will have slightly lighter gray slate shingles. The proposed brick for the fascia of the addition will not match the historic, but Walter Chatham, the architect for the proposal, explained that he chose a color to complement it. The Committee thought the applicant should eliminate the several bands of limestone coursing at the base of the new addition. Committee members thought the ground-floor windows of the addition did not reflect the residential aspect of the building, and asked for a more "pedestrian" appearance. • The owner intends to use this space as a gallery for his art collection, and needs high windows to accommodate its installation, but that still provide enough natural light. The Committee also objected to the proposed painted steel

aspect of the building, and asked for a more "pedestrian" appearance. • The owner intends to use this space as a gallery for his art collection, and needs high windows to accommodate its installation, but that still provide enough natural light. The Committee also objected to the proposed painted steel lintel over the three ground-floor windows. Mr. Chatham agreed to redesign the windows to complement the scale and orientation of those on the historic facade, but with decorative) perhaps brownstone, panels in the lower portions. 11 The Committee did not think the applicant should demolish the chimneys on 1914 Rittenhouse Square Street. The architect explained that the current location and orientation of the chimney would block the view of the Square if the owner is allowed to build the rooftop addition. Mr. Chatham also noted that the height of the neighboring building renders the chimneys illegal by today's fire code. He offered to rebuild the chimneys in a new configuration to maintain the view corridor. The Committee did not agree. The Committee unanimously disapproved of the proposed rooftop addition and the plexiglass guardrail surrounding it. Committee members discussed the possibility of rotating the rooftop addition 90 degrees and relocating it over the new addition that replaces the entrance pavilion or back toward Manning Street. They also requested more information regarding the visibility of the proposed rooftop addition from different locations in Rittenhouse Square. Mr. Chatham agreed to meet with Committee members and staff to conduct tests to examine the visibility. The Committee noted that. the plexiglass railing, although clear, would be very visible owing to its reflective qualities. Mr. Chatham explained that the owner wishes to demolish the existing rear ell because the twelve-foot-wide former servants wing cannot meet the spatial needs of the new owner. Committee members acknowledged that the adaptive reuse of the building may require a wider rear ell. The : 1 elegant formal dining room is located in the rear ell in the location of large projecting bay, but the other rooms are small with low ceilings. The Gommittee requested further study for the possible reuse of part or all of the rear ell. The proposal also calls for the lengthening of the front stoop, the construction of a clear glass canopy and an iron fence. These new elements are contemporary in design and would create a vestibule at the front entrance. The Committee strongly objected

of part or all of the rear ell. The proposal also calls for the lengthening of the front stoop, the construction of a clear glass canopy and an iron fence. These new elements are contemporary in design and would create a vestibule at the front entrance. The Committee strongly objected to this aspect of the proposal. The architect explained that the existing dormer windows have two-over-two windows, . while the rest of the windows on the historic building have six-over-six. He seeks permission to replace all of the windows to match the two-over-two. Committee members agreed. Ms. Batcheler examined a c. 1920 photograph that appears to show six-over-six windows in the dormers, but acknowledged that two-over-two windows better suit a house of this period. Patricia Aden of the Preservation Alliance noted that the entrance pavilion is listed as a contributing structure in the Rittenhouse Filter Historic District, and that this block of Manning Street is residential, and should not be treated as a secondary street. She stated that the pavilion served as the entrance for Henry Mcllhenny, one of Rittenhouse Square's best-known residents. Ms. Aden noted that the Alliance finds the proposed addition appropriate in terms of massing and materials, but is concerned over the fenestration, which reads as a three story building instead of four. The Alliance also greatly objects to the proposed penthouse addition and the plexiglass railing. She also stated that the demolition of the rear portions visible from Manning Street does not conform with The Standards. 12 ) J Patricia Royston, a neighbor of the subject property, stated that a petition containing over 800 names of individuals against the proposal will be presented to the Commission. She cited this block of Rittenhouse Square Street as one of Philadelphia's most important, largely owing to the association with Mr. Mcllhenny. She and other members of the community expressed strong objections to the proposal, and especially the demolition of Mcllhenny's entrance pavilion. Mr. Tyler read from Architectural Committee's 31 March 1998 Report and the Minutes of the 8 April 1998 Commission Meeting commenting on the possibility of demolishing the pavilion. He stated that the Commission did not grant approval of a permit application or a review in concept. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend: Denial of 1. The Canopy) steps and iron fence. 2. Rooftop addition) awaiting further study of its visibili-ty 3. Demolition of the chimneys. 4. Demolition

pavilion. He stated that the Commission did not grant approval of a permit application or a review in concept. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend: Denial of 1. The Canopy) steps and iron fence. 2. Rooftop addition) awaiting further study of its visibili-ty 3. Demolition of the chimneys. 4. Demolition of the rear ellj the applicant to return after conducting further study regarding its possible reuse) but with the recommendation that the garage could be replaced and expanded) with further study. 5. Demolition of the entrance pavilion) with the recommendation that the applicant return with a more convincing reason for its demolish. Approval of 1. Replacing six-over-six winqnws on historic facade with -iwo-over-two windows. 1701 Locust Street, Warwick Hotel (Prime Rib Restaurant) Warwick Hotel, Owner Prime Rib of Philadelphia, Tenant Jonathan Weiss, Esq., Applicant DATE: 1923-1925 PROPOSAL: Illuminated canopy with poles This proposal calls for removal of an illegal canopy on the Prime Rib Restaurant and installation of another canopy in its place. The plans show the proposed canopy extending over the sidewalk on poles, covering the stonework decoration of the arched opening, and having internal illumination. The applicant submitted a letter from the Center City Residents Association detailing the Association's recommended specifications for the proposal and a revised drawing reflecting those conditions. The new plans show a much reduced, ten foot projecting canopy installed within the arch, with support poles nine-and-one-half feet out from the building in burgundy canvas, gold letters on each side to match existing canopies on the building, and closed at the end. 13 Judith Eden of the Center City Residents Association expressed concern over placing the poles in that location and asked the applicant to set them closer to the building. The applicant stated his willingness to install the poles three feet out from the building, with large planters at each pole. The applicant stated that a light, connected to an existing light fixture within the arch, will illuminate the interior of the canopy. The proposal does not include the use of "egg crate" for the underside of the canopy. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal. 2039 Walnut Street Commonwealth Real Estate, Owner Shelly Lucero, Applicant DATE: 1858 PROPOSAL: Banner sign The proposal calls for installing a large banner sign projecting from the middle of the central window of a bay. The Committee objected to the proposal, and wanted the applicant

recommend approval of the proposal. 2039 Walnut Street Commonwealth Real Estate, Owner Shelly Lucero, Applicant DATE: 1858 PROPOSAL: Banner sign The proposal calls for installing a large banner sign projecting from the middle of the central window of a bay. The Committee objected to the proposal, and wanted the applicant to place signage withing the windows of the bay. The applicant stated that existing window signage has not provided enough exposure for her business, and would obscure the restored Victorian interior of her shop to passers-by. Judith Eden informed.the applicant that this building's block is not zoned ' for projecting signage. William Burke of the Art Commission confirmed that this sort of signage is not permitted in this location. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposal. 2027 Spruce Street Barbara Capizzi, Owner/ Applicant DATE: 1875 PROPOSAL: Build basement areaway and door This proposal calls for cutting an areaway and door to provide basement access. The neighboring house has a similar, but non-original access door. The Committee objected to adding an element this large to the front of the building and exposing below-grade material that will not match the brownstone facade. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposal. Respectfully submit K R. Scott Jacob Executive Secretary 14