PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 9 NOVEMBER 2011 1 THE MINUTES OF THE 591 ST STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2011 ROOM 18-029, 1515 ARCH STREET SAM SHERMAN, CHAIR PRESENT Sam Sherman, Chair Duane Bumb, Commerce Department Richardson Dilworth III, Ph.D. Dominique Hawkins Susan Jaffe JoAnn Jones, Office of Housing & Community Development Rosalie Leonard, Office of City Council President John Mattioni, Esq. Joseph Palantino, Department of Public Property Daniel Quinn, Department of Licenses & Inspections David Schaaf, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Robert Thomas, AIA ALSO PRESENT Ben Leech, Preservation Alliance Stephen Bachich, RFR Architect Raymond Rola, RFR Architect CALL TO ORDER Mr. Sherman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Commissioners Bumb, Dilworth, Hawkins, Jaffe, Jones, Leonard, Mattioni, Palantino, Quinn, Schaaf, and Thomas joined him. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 9 NOVEMBER 2011 2 MINUTES OF THE 590 TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Ms. Jaffe requested a correction to the minutes regarding her vote on the Consent Agenda. ACTION: Ms. Jaffe moved to adopt the minutes of the 590th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, held 14 October 2011, as corrected. Mr. Dilworth seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. THE REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 25 OCTOBER 2011 Dominique Hawkins, Chair CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Farnham introduced the consent agenda and explained that it included applications for 105 N. 02nd Street, 1700-02 Melon Street, and 1708-10 Melon Street. Mr. Sherman asked if any Commissioners had comments on the Consent Agenda. No one offered comments. Mr. Sherman asked if the audience had comments on the Consent Agenda. No one offered comments. ACTION: Ms. Hawkins moved to adopt the recommendations of the Architectural Committee for 105 N. 02nd Street, 1700-02 Melon Street, and 1708-10 Melon Street. Ms. Leonard seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. AGENDA ADDRESS: 105 N 02ND ST Project: Rehabilitate buildings for residential and commercial use Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: The Pottery Works LP Applicant: Jack Azran, The Pottery Works LP History: various buildings dating from 1840 to 1925 Individual Designation: 12/31/1984 District Designation: Old City Historic District, Contributing, 12/12/2003 Staff Contact: Randal Baron, randal.baron@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the storefront designs are revised based on the historic photographs, appropriate wood windows are installed, the cornice at 127 Arch Street is simplified, the fire escapes are retained if structurally sound and allowed by the building
Baron, randal.baron@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the storefront designs are revised based on the historic photographs, appropriate wood windows are installed, the cornice at 127 Arch Street is simplified, the fire escapes are retained if structurally sound and allowed by the building code, and the painted graphic “107” on 107 N. 2nd Street and the corner Trenton Pottery sign are preserved, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9. OVERVIEW: This application proposes the rehabilitation several commercial structures along Arch and N. 2nd Streets that have been combined into a single tax parcel. They will be rehabilitated as 36 dwelling units and ground-floor commercial space. The staff has worked with the architects to find appropriate designs for the doors and windows based on old photographs, insurance surveys, and evidence on the buildings. On the easternmost structure, formerly 127 Arch Street, the Historical Commission approved the removal of the fifth story after a fire and the Department of Licenses & Inspections’ designation of the building as Imminently Dangerous in 2001. At that time, the permit was conditioned, requiring the reconstruction of the cornice. The reconstruction was never completed. The application proposes a wood bracketed cornice, which never existed on the building. The staff recommends a different design based more PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 9 NOVEMBER 2011 3 closely on the cornice seen in historic photographs. The application proposes the installation of some “composite windows”; however, those may not meet the Standards. Finally, the application proposes masonry cleaning; however, specifications for the cleaning are not provided. The application does not propose additions to the structures. The applicants have indicated that they would prefer to remove the fire escapes to return the buildings to their original appearances. The applicants will need to work closely with staff on the details for the windows, storefronts, and treatment of masonry. ACTION: See Consent Agenda ADDRESS: 1700-02 MELON ST Project: Construct building Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: 1700 Melon Street Partner, 100 Snowflake Road, Huntingdon Valley, PA Applicant: Rustin Ohler, Harman Deutsch History: c. 1863, buildings declared ID and demolished, 2003 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Spring Garden Historic District, Contributing, 10/11/2000 Staff Contact: Jorge Danta, jorge.danta@phila.gov@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR 1700-02 MELON STREET: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review the details, pursuant to Standard
History: c. 1863, buildings declared ID and demolished, 2003 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Spring Garden Historic District, Contributing, 10/11/2000 Staff Contact: Jorge Danta, jorge.danta@phila.gov@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR 1700-02 MELON STREET: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review the details, pursuant to Standard 9. ADDRESS: 1708-10 MELON ST Project: Construct building Review Requested: Review and Comment Owner: 1700 Melon Street Partner, 100 Snowflake Road, Huntingdon Valley, PA Applicant: Rustin Ohler, Harman Deutsch History: vacant lots Individual Designation: None District Designation: Spring Garden Historic District, Non-contributing, 10/11/2000 Staff Contact: Jorge Danta, jorge.danta@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE COMMENT FOR 1708-10 MELON STREET: The proposed building is compatible with the context of the Spring Garden Historic District. OVERVIEW: These applications propose to construct two residential buildings on vacant lots on Melon Street in the Spring Garden Historic District. Melon Street is a very narrow alley running from 17th Street to Bouvier Street. The current lot lines define four lots, 1700, 1702, 1708, and 1710; they would be redrawn to create two new lots, 1700-02 and 1708-10. The properties that separate these lots, 1704 and 1706, are not involved in these applications. At the establishment of the Spring Garden Historic District on 11 October 2000, buildings stood at 1700 and 1702. The building at 1700 was a one-story remnant of a three-story Italianate rowhouse and was classified as Non-contributing to the district. The building at 1702 was a three-story Italianate rowhouse and was classified as Contributing to the district. In 2003, the Department of Licenses & Inspections declared the buildings at 1700 and 1702 Imminently Dangerous and the Historical Commission approved their demolitions. They were demolished and the lots are now vacant. Therefore, the 1700-02 site is not undeveloped; the Commission has full jurisdiction over this application. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 9 NOVEMBER 2011 4 The lots at 1708 and 1710 were vacant at the time of designation. However, the Commission’s inventory for the Spring Garden Historic District mistakenly locates a one-story, non-contributing garage at 1710-12 Melon Street. The garage is located at what was 1712 Melon, which is now consolidated into a larger property at 1713-27 North Street. It is not located on 1710, the lot in question, which was vacant at the time of designation. The property on which the garage stands is not involved in this application. Therefore, the 1708-10 site is undeveloped; the Commission has
now consolidated into a larger property at 1713-27 North Street. It is not located on 1710, the lot in question, which was vacant at the time of designation. The property on which the garage stands is not involved in this application. Therefore, the 1708-10 site is undeveloped; the Commission has review and comment jurisdiction over this application. The applications propose identical three-story, brick rowhouses for the sites. They would have front-loaded garages, paired and triple double-hung windows, inset terraces at the third floors, and roof decks. The decks and pilot houses are not depicted on the front elevation drawings. The decks are not depicted on the rear elevation drawings. No information is provided about the side elevations, but they are presumably stucco clad. The proposed buildings are compatible with their context. ACTION: See Consent Agenda ADDRESS: 2002 SPRING GARDEN ST Project: Legalize removal of slate roof and installation of asphalt shingles Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Mark Brownstein Applicant: Kevin Mallon, Pioneer General Contracting History: c. 1875 Individual Designation: 5/1/1975 District Designation: Spring Garden Historic District, Contributing, 10/11/2000 Staff Contact: Jorge Danta, jorge.danta@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 6. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to legalize the removal of slate roofing and installation of asphalt shingles on a mansard roof on a building on Spring Garden Street in the Spring Garden Historic District. The work was undertaken without the Commission’s approval or a building permit. A building permit is required for reroofing in Philadelphia, whether the building is designated historic or not. The original slate shingle was hexagonal in shape. The installed asphalt shingle is GAF Timberline, a rectangular shingle that resembles a cedar shake. DISCUSSION: Mr. Danta presented the applications to the Historical Commission. No one represented the application. The Historical Commission reviewed the application and agreed with the Architectural Committee that the installed roofing material does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to adopt the recommendation of the Architectural Committee and deny the application, pursuant to Standard 6. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 9 NOVEMBER 2011 5 ADDRESS: 1914 SHUNK ST Project: Replace wood porch railing with metal railing, install vinyl windows Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Jacqueline Mastrangelo Applicant: Jacqueline Mastrangelo History: 1910 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Girard Estate Historic District, Contributing, 11/10/1999 Staff Contact: Rebecca
passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 9 NOVEMBER 2011 5 ADDRESS: 1914 SHUNK ST Project: Replace wood porch railing with metal railing, install vinyl windows Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Jacqueline Mastrangelo Applicant: Jacqueline Mastrangelo History: 1910 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Girard Estate Historic District, Contributing, 11/10/1999 Staff Contact: Rebecca Sell, rebecca.sell@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standards 2, 3, 5, and 6. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to remove an original wood porch railing and install a metal railing. This application also proposes to install vinyl windows. These railing and window applications were submitted separately, but propose work to the same property. The existing railing is original to the building and part of the description of building type “L” in the designation of the Girard Estate Historic District. It should be noted that the entire wooden porch railing was present in the designation photograph taken in 2000. Currently, the west section of the rail and a piece of the north section are missing. Currently, there are aluminum windows on the side elevation. The photographs provided by the applicant do not reference the locations of the proposed windows. The front and side elevations are visible from the public right-of-way. DISCUSSION: Ms. Sell presented the applications to the Historical Commission. No one represented the application. The Historical Commission reviewed the application and agreed with the Architectural Committee that the railing and windows do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to adopt the recommendation of the Architectural Committee and deny the application, pursuant to Standards 2, 3, 5, and 6. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF THE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE At the October 2011 meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, Commissioner Jones suggested that the Commission conduct a discussion of its policies and procedures for the review of signage at its November 2011 meeting. The Commissioners and staff discussed the regulation of signage during the meeting. However, the Commission took no official action. ADJOURNMENT ACTION: Ms. Jones moved to adjourn at 9:38 a.m. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 9 NOVEMBER 2011 6 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CITED IN THE MINUTES Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinct materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 9 NOVEMBER 2011 6 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CITED IN THE MINUTES Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinct materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.