THE MINUTES OF THE 435th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 12 November1998 Commission Conference Room, One Parkway, 1515 Arch Street, 18th Floor Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Present Wayne S. Spilove, Chair David Brownlee, Ph.D. Duane Bumb, Deputy Director, Department of Commerce Barbara Kaplan, Executive Director, City Planning Commission Carol Lawrence Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Robert Thomas Dennis Ward III Scott Wilds, Assistant Director for Housing, Office of Housing and Urban Development Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer R. Scott Jacob, Executive Secretary Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Mark Zecca, Esq., Deputy City Solicitor Also Stephen Ferrara, Sign Spec Inc. Ted Capaldi, MBM ATM Group Diane Burko, Rittenhouse Place Condominium Association Thomas Church Marvin Gerstein, Temple University Bernhard Neudecker Bennur Koksuz, City Planning Commission Michael Hauptman, Brawer and Hauptman, Architects Christina Romano, Conroy Catering Anthony Marfia Jack Conroy, Conroy Catering Aliki Strakes, Preservation Alliance Nicole Faux, Philadelphia Accessibility Compliance Office Michael Fink, Department of Licenses and Inspections Kenneth Kaiserman, Rittenhouse Claridge Joseph Cianfrani James Gagnon, Drill Construction Kris Seedorff Jan Singer Judith Eden, Center City Residents Association (CCRA) Carol Lee, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Peggy M. Ulrich, CCRA Cary Borish Jay Borish Ted Capaldi, MBM Group Ann Sacks Barry Ginder, Brandt and Ginder Architects 2 Wayne Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 435th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 10:00 A.M. MINUTES of the 434th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Ms. Wolf and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the 434th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 14 October 1998, Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 27 October 1998, Robert Thomas, Chair. 110-112 South Front Street William Lawless, Owner/Applicant DATE: New construction PROPOSAL: Construct building on historic site Architectural Committee Recommendation: Granting preliminary approval of both schemes, but with a preference for scheme I if the applicant can secure permission to build over the carriage way, and the two- phase building schedule if necessary. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves constructing a building on an historic site. The historic building included a carriage way entrance over Ionic Street. Following a fire that seriously compromised the vacant building on the site some time ago, the former owner applied for demolition, citing both structural and economic factors. Shortly after that, the Historical Commission granted approval
on an historic site. The historic building included a carriage way entrance over Ionic Street. Following a fire that seriously compromised the vacant building on the site some time ago, the former owner applied for demolition, citing both structural and economic factors. Shortly after that, the Historical Commission granted approval to the selective demolition of the property to abate the imminently dangerous conditions with the aim of preserving as much historic fabric as possible. Mr. Thomas explained that the Commission had asked that any future rebuilding on this property incorporate the remaining historic material, and, to this end, the Commission required the owner to store the stone columns and entablature of the building on the site. The present applicant seeks preliminary review to build a new structure incorporating the salvageable pieces of the stone columns and entablature and using the Flemish bond brickwork similar to that of the old building. The new building will incorporate a new design feature of inset balconies in place of the old double-hung windows. The applicant submitted two design schemes because he does not yet know if he can secure approval to rebuild over Ionic Street. The applicant also submitted design options to construct either scheme in two phases, as he has resources at this time only to build the first two floors, but plans to construct the upper floors in a second phase as funding permits. Mr. Thomas explained that scheme I proposes to construct the new building the full width of the two lots and to utilize the air rights over Ionic Street by extending the upper levels, while maintaining the carriage way at the first level. Scheme II proposes to construct the new building only within the full width of the two lots leaving the air space above Ionic Street open. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee preferred scheme I, with all five stories constructed at the same time, but agreed to recommend approval of the two-phase building schedule. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation to grant preliminary approval of both schemes, but with a preference for scheme I if the applicant can secure permission to build over the carriage way, and the two-phase building schedule if necessary. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 3 239 Chestnut Street David Caudillo, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1852 PROPOSAL: Legalize sign Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal
I if the applicant can secure permission to build over the carriage way, and the two-phase building schedule if necessary. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 3 239 Chestnut Street David Caudillo, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1852 PROPOSAL: Legalize sign Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves legalizing an existing back lit metal sign, and that the Committee did not object to the sign. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 335, 337 South 12th Street Bernhard Neudecker, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1845 PROPOSAL: Legalize vinyl windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial because the new windows fail to match the old in material, design and appearance. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves legalizing vinyl windows installed on the front facade of two rowhouse apartment buildings. The new sash have an eight-over-eight pattern rather than six-over-six, and the muntins have no depth or shadow line. Mr. Baron stated that curing the violation only requires replacing the sash, as the original frames remain intact. Mr. Neudecker, owner of these building, explained that he did not know of the buildings’ designated status. Mr. Baron stated that the Commission has several permits from the Neudeckers on file, and has denied him through-wall air conditioners in the past. One of the two buildings has an Historical Commission plaque. The applicant explained that he installed the windows to create an efficient and cost effective improvement to the buildings. He stated that he replaced the sash at 337 South 12th Street two years ago, and the sash at 335 South 12th Street last year. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the recommendation of the committee to deny the proposal. Mr. Wilds seconded the proposal which carried unanimously. 252 South 4th Street, St. Mary’s Church Old St. Mary’s Church, Owner Monsignor John Sharkey, Applicant DATE: Founded 1763; enlarged 1810; renovated 1963 PROPOSAL: Replace brick wall with steel and brick fence Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approving a new fence and wall, incorporating elements of the design compromise provided by the Garden Club of America, with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves replacing a brick wall that enclosed the 4 south side of the church yard cemetery with a new brick and steel fence. This wall used to form the rear portion of the enclosure for the National Park
staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves replacing a brick wall that enclosed the 4 south side of the church yard cemetery with a new brick and steel fence. This wall used to form the rear portion of the enclosure for the National Park Service garden on Locust Street. Mr. Thomas explained that Jean Bodine, representing the Garden Club of America, which donated the “magnolia garden” abutting the churchyard wall in 1959, presented a compromise design scheme that includes a five-foot span of a solid brick wall to either side of the fountain between the park and the cemetery, with an aim to provide a sense of enclosure, as well as focus for the fountain. The Garden Club’s compromise also specified that the new brick piers should match the piers of the Locust Street fence more closely. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee thought the applicant should consider incorporating some of the suggestions Ms. Bodine provided, and asked him to submit a revised design scheme to the Commission. The Commission reviewed a revised submission incorporating some design elements requested by the Garden Club of America. Michael Hauptman, architect for the project, asserted the Church’s willingness to accept the revised application. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to approve the revised proposal. Ms. Lawrence seconded the proposal which carried unanimously. 1318 Rodman Street Laurie Fitzpatrick, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1846 PROPOSAL: Vinyl windows and stucco on rear wall Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves stuccoing the rear facade and installing two vinyl windows. The facade has minimal visibility from half a block away through a vacant lot and trees on South Street. Commission members agreed that the strong likelihood of future construction on the adjacent vacant lot warranted approving the proposal. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation to approve the proposal. Mr. Ward seconded the proposal which carried unanimously. 321 Chestnut Street Irvin Borowsky, Owner Sandra Kelly, Liberty Museum, Applicant DATE: 1905 PROPOSAL: Alter front window Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal as submitted, and approval of the new glazing in the existing frame, or an in kind replacement of that frame in the existing plane. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves constructing a new front window in front of the plane of the existing window. The new window will contain a single pane, and will sit
new glazing in the existing frame, or an in kind replacement of that frame in the existing plane. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves constructing a new front window in front of the plane of the existing window. The new window will contain a single pane, and will sit out several inches further toward the street than the existing. Mr. Thomas stated that Committee members rejected the proposal as submitted and asked the applicant to install the new glazing in the existing frame, or an in kind replacement of that frame with the existing setback. 5 Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation to deny the proposal as submitted, and to approve the new glazing in the existing frame, or an in kind replacement of that frame in the existing plane. 1900-1938 Park Mall, Temple University - Main Campus Temple University, Owner Michael Hauptman, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1870s PROPOSAL: Preliminary review for conversion of rowhouses to shops; raised walkways; additions to sides and rears of rowhouses Architectural Committee Recommendation: Preliminary approval of: 1. A simplified raised platform across the front of the buildings and ramps at either end, without the brick base, and constructed in a manner that will encapsulate the historic material beneath it. 2. Vertical pavilions in the gap between the two sections of rowhouses, with levels to echo those of the rowhouses and designed to complement the other new elements of the proposal. 3. Three story structures in the areaways between the rear ells of the houses, set back to retain a sense of the areaways. 4. Additional openings on the sides of the rowhouse at 1900 Park Mall. Mr. Thomas explained that this preliminary review involves conversion of two rows of houses and the chapter house of the former Park Avenue Methodist Church into commercial establishments on the ground floor and residential use above. The proposal includes: 1. A raised platform across the front of the buildings and ramps at either end for handicap accessibility. 2. Vertical pavilions in the gap between the two sections of rowhouses. 3. Three story structures in the areaways between the rear ells of the houses. 4. Additional openings on the sides of the rowhouse at 1900 Park Mall to accommodate a new use as an inn. In order to provide handicap accessibility and use the buildings as stores, the architects propose to build a raised platform
the areaways between the rear ells of the houses. 4. Additional openings on the sides of the rowhouse at 1900 Park Mall to accommodate a new use as an inn. In order to provide handicap accessibility and use the buildings as stores, the architects propose to build a raised platform across the front of the buildings and ramps at either end. The ramp will, for the most part, entail covering, though not destroying, the stone stoops of the houses. The applicant intends to construct the ramp and terrace in cast stone with a brick base. Mr. Thomas explained that Committee members objected to the use of brick at the base because the houses have brownstone bases, and also asked the applicant to use a simpler railing. Mr. Brownlee noted his support for the preliminary proposal, but expressed concern regarding the raised platform across the front of the buildings, and inquired about individual ramps. Michael Hauptman, architect for the project, explained that the platform will serve to provide access to several different retail spaces, and that three feet high entrances would each require thirty-six feet of ramp. Commission members preferred one large terrace to several individual ramps. Mr. Thomas added that the designers also plan to build vertical pavilions in the gap 6 between the two sections of rowhouses. The pavilions, which will house a café, will help define the plan of a circular plaza. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee members recommended the applicant ensure that the design of the pavilions complement the other new elements of the proposal, and also wanted the levels of the pavilion additions to echo those of the rowhouses. The preliminary proposal also entails constructing three story structures in the areaways between the rear ells of the houses. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee wished to see the new construction set back further to retain a sense of the areaway. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried with six votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. 8001-8101 Veree Road, “Knowlton” Jack Conroy, Owner Anthony Marfia, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1879-1881 PROPOSAL: Large addition; new gate; parking lot Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of: 1. Parking lot 2. Gate cut 3. Proposed addition, conditioned upon the submission of new drawing reflecting the Committee’s recommendations regarding the hipped roof and porch rails, with staff to review and approve details Mr. Thomas explained that
PROPOSAL: Large addition; new gate; parking lot Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of: 1. Parking lot 2. Gate cut 3. Proposed addition, conditioned upon the submission of new drawing reflecting the Committee’s recommendations regarding the hipped roof and porch rails, with staff to review and approve details Mr. Thomas explained that the applicant has returned with a proposal seen in preliminary form two months ago. The design has improved with the retention of the rear porch and the removal of Colonial Revival details from the addition. The applicant has decided not to follow the Committee and Commission's request to reduce the contact of the new building with the front porch because he fears it will damage the flow of interior space. The orientation of the new building has changed somewhat and will now use more of the downwardly sloping space behind the house. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee considered the revised proposal an improvement, and asked the applicant to make the following changes: 1. A hipped roof over the kitchen portion of the addition in place of the proposed flat roof, and windows in the walls of the kitchen portion of the addition. 2. Not glaze the front corner of the house but instead to build a railing around the porch, with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to the proposed parking lot and new gate opening. The Commission received a revised drawing reflecting the Committee’s recommendations. Mr. Thomas voiced his approval of the changes on behalf of the Architectural Committee. Mr. Spilove thanked the new owner of the building for his efforts to preserve historic “Knowlton,” and commented on how close the mansion had come to demolition before Mr. Conroy purchased it. 7 Mr. Ward made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation, and to approve the revised drawings for the hipped roof over the kitchen portion of the new addition. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 401 North Broad Street 401 North Broad Street Associates, Owner Michael Hansen, Contractor/Applicant DATE: 1929 PROPOSAL: Basement fencing; louvers Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, with the condition that the applicant redesign the louvers to span the entire width of the transom portion of the windows, and paint them gray. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for installing fencing in the basement level of the building to provide protection for emergency generators
Recommendation: Approval, with the condition that the applicant redesign the louvers to span the entire width of the transom portion of the windows, and paint them gray. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for installing fencing in the basement level of the building to provide protection for emergency generators for a communications company. The applicant also seeks approval for vents. He stated that Committee members thought the applicant should redesign the louvers to span the entire width of the transom portion of the windows, and paint them gray. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 401 North Broad Street 401 North Broad Street Associates, Owner James Gagnon, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1929 PROPOSAL: Basement fencing; louvers Architectural Committee Recommendation: approval of : 1. Fencing installed at the basement level of the building to provide protection for a communications company’s emergency generators. 2. Vents in the transom portion of several windows, with the condition that the applicant redesign the louvers to span the entire width of the transom portion of the windows, and paint them gray. 3. The antenna in a remote location on the roof. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for: 1. Fencing installed at the basement level of the building to provide protection for a communications company’s emergency generators. 2. Vents in the transom portion of several windows. 3. A small communications antenna near the center of the roof. Mr. Thomas stated that, as in the other proposal for 401 North Broad Street on this month’s agenda, Committee members thought the applicant should redesign the louvers to span the entire width of the transom portion of the windows, and paint them gray. The Commission did not object to the antenna, owing to its obscure location, or the fencing. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded 8 the motion which carried unanimously. 792 South Front Street Lisa Colon, Owner Curt Clark, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. early Nineteenth Century; modern addition, mid-Twentieth Century (?) PROPOSAL: Demolish visible rear addition; build new addition Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the demolition and new construction, with the condition that a staff member examines the rear ell, and determines that it constitutes a non-historic aspect of the building. Mr. Baron stated that the applicant has not contacted the Commission to set up an opportunity for a staff member
Recommendation: Approval of the demolition and new construction, with the condition that a staff member examines the rear ell, and determines that it constitutes a non-historic aspect of the building. Mr. Baron stated that the applicant has not contacted the Commission to set up an opportunity for a staff member to examine the rear ell. Mr. Wilds made a motion to declare the application incomplete. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. City Hall Department of Public Property, Owner Deborah Russo, Applicant DATE: 1878-1901 PROPOSAL: New entrance railings Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, with the ornate termination details turned in toward the railing. Mr. Thomas recused himself from the discussion and the vote owing to his architectural firm’s association with the project. Mr. Baron explained that the Commission recently approved the installation of handrails at the west side entrance of the northwest corner and the east side entrance of the northeast corner of City Hall. After their installation, both Mayor Rendell and City Council President Street thought the design inappropriate for City Hall, and insisted that the railings be replaced immediately with a more historically appropriate design. The new submission calls for the installation of bronze handrail molding in the “Ram’s Head” form, with a “Lamb’s Tongue” termination detail. Mr. Baron stated that Committee members did not object to the design, but recommended turning the ornate termination details in toward the railing, to meet code and to mitigate the likelihood of users hurting themselves or catching their clothing on them. Mr. Tyler stated that the proposed handrails conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Ms. Kaplan made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2027-2041 Sansom Street Samuel Rappaport Estate, Owner Jan Singer, Rappaport Estate, Applicant DATE: 1925 PROPOSAL: Metal windows 9 Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for the installation of multi-pane metal windows removed from this parking garage because of their dangerous condition. The applicant proposes new windows constructed from several superimposed aluminum grids. The windows fall at the rear and side facades of the structure. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1631 Walnut Street, Latham Hotel Ocean Properties, Owner Jon Mudrak, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c.1915 PROPOSAL: Patch and coat terra cotta bays Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial
the rear and side facades of the structure. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1631 Walnut Street, Latham Hotel Ocean Properties, Owner Jon Mudrak, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c.1915 PROPOSAL: Patch and coat terra cotta bays Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the coating proposal, and approval of conducting sample patch tests to find a material that matches the terra cotta, or to coat all the areas of patching to match the terra cotta, and cleaning, with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Spilove turned the Chair over to Mr. Brownlee. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves patching spalling portions of the building's terra cotta bays and covering the patches and the rest of the bays with a coating to provide a uniform color. Approximately fifteen locations on the facade require repair. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee recommended approval of conducting sample patch tests to find a material that matches the terra cotta, or to coat all the areas of patching to match the terra cotta. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Lawrence seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Spilove resumed the Chair. 1839 Spruce Street, Rittenhouse Place Rittenhouse Place Condominium Association, Owner of building’s common areas and facade Cary Borish, Co-owner of ground-floor restaurant condominium unit David Terrell, Applicant DATE: 1924 PROPOSAL: Café windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: To ask the applicant to submit additional information before making a recommendation, such as a clear photograph of the old doors that formerly occupied the opening, with staff to examine the doors and give an assessment of their age and condition. Mr. Thomas recused himself from the vote owing to his architectural firm’s association with future work at the restaurant. 10 Mr. Baron explained that this proposal calls for legalizing the operable café windows installed without a permit in the first floor storefront of the Marathon on the Square restaurant. Cary Borish, co-owner of the restaurant, contends that he replaced non-operable doors, that a previous tenant partially obstructed. He claims that the doors were in very poor repair and that he did not think they constituted an historic feature. Mr. Baron stated that Mr. Borish claims to have the old doors in storage, and has agreed to allow staff to examine them. Thomas Church, lawyer for the condominium association, asserted that the old doors
in very poor repair and that he did not think they constituted an historic feature. Mr. Baron stated that Mr. Borish claims to have the old doors in storage, and has agreed to allow staff to examine them. Thomas Church, lawyer for the condominium association, asserted that the old doors belong to the condominium association, not Mr. Borish, and cited sections of the condominium’s declaration laying claim to the skin of the building and all exterior features, including the doors and windows. Mr. Church also stated that the Commission should not discuss or vote on this application, as Mr. Borish did not secure approval from the owner of the doors to apply. Other owners of condominiums in the building expressed their strong objections to the café doors. Judith Eden of the Center City Residents Association asked that the Commission include more information on its agendas, which many members of the community receive, pertaining to the owners of the subject properties and the applicants. She objected to the Commission listing expediters as the applicants. Commission members agreed that the matter warrants attention, but did not think this Commission meeting the appropriate forum to decide the issue. Ms. Eden also reminded the Commission that the sixty-day period the Commission has to act following receipt of the application [section 14-2007(7)(g) of the Ordinance] does not apply in this case, as the application is incomplete without permission of the owner. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to table the proposal, and to send a complete application, approved by the owner of the old doors, back to the Architectural Committee within a period not to exceed forty-five days. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2100 Spruce Street Joseph Friedberg and Jo Buyske, Owners Barry Ginder, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1880 PROPOSAL: New balcony on carriage house; yard features Architectural Committee Recommendation: approval of: 1. Reducing and redesigning the modern balcony on the carriage house. 2. Filling in a non-historic driveway entrance, with staff to review brick samples. 3. Constructing several trellis-like elements in the rear yard, reducing the height of the fences shielding the HVAC units to no higher than the masonry portion of the wall, with the high end of the trellis extending no higher than the floor of the balcony next to it, and the pointed parts of the trellis support extend no more than eight inches above that floor. Mr. Thomas explained that
to no higher than the masonry portion of the wall, with the high end of the trellis extending no higher than the floor of the balcony next to it, and the pointed parts of the trellis support extend no more than eight inches above that floor. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for: 1. Shortening and redesigning the modern balcony on the carriage house. 2. Filling in a non-historic driveway entrance with bricks to match the existing wall. 3. Constructing several trellis-like elements in the rear yard. Mr. Thomas explained that Barry Ginder, architect for the project, intends to reuse bricks from another portion of the wall, as well as salvaged portions from the historic brownstone cap to fill in the non-historic gated opening. The proposal also calls for the use of one section of cast stone for the cap. Mr. Thomas stated that Committee members did not object to the alterations of the balcony or rebuilding the wall, but asked staff to review a sample of the bricks the applicant 11 chose to use to fill in the gate opening. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee thought the proposed trellises rise too far above the brick wall, and that they recommended the architect reduce the height of the fences shielding the HVAC units to no higher than the masonry portion of the wall. He explained that the Committee also asked that the high end of the trellis extend no higher than the floor of the balcony next to it, and that the pointed parts of the trellis support extend no more than eight inches above that floor. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Lawrence seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 209-211 Chestnut Street MBM Group, Owner Melissa Moore, Sign Spec Inc., Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: ATM installation Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that the applicant has returned with a revised proposal to fill in a window bay with an ATM. They revised the drawings to set back the machine housing within the opening to match the plane of the glazing. The applicant will move the fire department standpipe to an adjacent bay. Ted Capaldi, representing the ATM company, stated that he conducted a search for another, comparable location for the ATM with no desirable outcome. Mr. Capaldi also explained that they had the new proposal designed specifically to maintain a
The applicant will move the fire department standpipe to an adjacent bay. Ted Capaldi, representing the ATM company, stated that he conducted a search for another, comparable location for the ATM with no desirable outcome. Mr. Capaldi also explained that they had the new proposal designed specifically to maintain a “window-like” appearance. Commission members objected to replacing a window with a solid feature on this intact storefront, which violates standards for rehabilitation 2 and 9 in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Mr. Wilds made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and to deny the proposal. Ms. Kaplan seconded the motion which carried with six votes. Mr. Bumb dissented. 1326-1346 North Broad Street Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission/New Freedom Theater, Joint owners Robert Saxon, Architect/Applicant DATE: Main House - 1853; Theater addition - c. 1876 PROPOSAL: Demolish and rebuild theater addition Architectural Committee Recommendation: To deny the proposal and recommended that the applicant submit a new proposal to save the facade or if that proves impossible to reconstruct the front wall for the new theater. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for the demolition of the front facade and a significant portion of the south facade in conjunction with the rehabilitation and expansion of the theater section of the Edwin Forrest mansion. The architect proposes to construct the new front facade in Dryvit and split-face block, ornamented with some neo-Italianate details, and has provided two engineering reports to explain the necessity to rebuild the structure. Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant failed to appear before the Committee, as well as today’s Commission meeting. 12 Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee found the proposed new design incompatible with the historic building both in materials and design, and, if the front wall could not be saved, that the applicant should reconstruct the front facade. Mr. Tyler stated that the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, co-owner of the building, agrees with the position of the Architectural Committee. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Kaplan seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Addendum to the Architectural Committee Report 201-217 South 18th Street, Rittenhouse Claridge Kenneth Kaiserman, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1955 PROPOSAL: Apply waterproof coating to east facade Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the application of a waterproof coating to the east facade of the property with staff to review the color. Mr. Tyler
Addendum to the Architectural Committee Report 201-217 South 18th Street, Rittenhouse Claridge Kenneth Kaiserman, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1955 PROPOSAL: Apply waterproof coating to east facade Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the application of a waterproof coating to the east facade of the property with staff to review the color. Mr. Tyler explained that this application is for the treatment only of the east elevation. In the mistaken belief that the application of a waterproof coating does not require Historical Commission review and approval, the owner had the east facade primed. The Commission staff contacted the owner who had the work stopped. Further delay will necessitate removal of the prime coat and prevent treatment until next spring. A structural engineer advised the owner of the necessity of coating the east facade of the building to prevent further spalling and water penetration. Coating samples at the loading dock reveal that a “clear” coating gives a distinctively brown cast to the yellow brick, and that a yellow tinted coating can better match the color of the brick. Mr. Tyler explained that staff reviewed the samples and engineer’s findings, and polled members of the Architectural Committee on 2 and 3 November 1998. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The Report of the Historical Commission Staff October 1998, Richard Tyler Mr. Tyler noted a few highlights from the staff report. Certified Local Government: National Register Comment Mr. Tyler described the nomination of the Lower North Philadelphia Speculative Housing Historic District for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. He explained the 13 neighborhood’s social, architectural and historical significance, and asked the Commission to find the proposed district met Criteria A and C of the National Register and to recommend its entry on the National Register. Mr. Wilds made a motion to recommend this districts entry on the National Register. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Lawrence seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, R. Scott Jacob Executive Secretary