1 REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Robert Thomas, Chair Commission Offices, One Parkway, 13th Floor, 1515 Arch Street 26 June 2001 Present Robert Thomas, Chair Rudolph D’Alessandro Herbert W. Levy, FAIA Daniel McCoubrey Suzanne Pentz Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Julianne L. Brennan, Historic Preservation Planner Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Also Audrey R. Johnson Thornton, Belmont Mansion Bob Levy, Valley Green Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents’ Association/Preservation Alliance Theresa Stuhlman, Fairmount Park Commission James Bischoff, Kramer/Marks Architects Katherine Ramey, Glen Foerd Walter Weissman, Glen Foerd Claire Donato, Mark B. Thompson Associates Terri Sapp, Mark B. Thompson Associates Karen Borseki, Fairmount Park Commission Fredda Lippes, Capitol Programs Office Baird Brown, Fairhill Burial Ground C. Anthony Junker, Fairhill Burial Ground Nan Gutterman, Vitetta Group James Bryan, Vitetta Group Peter Rittenhouse, Friends Center Corporation Dan Johnson, Henkels and McCoy John Starkey, Capitol Programs Office Ira Kauderer, Esq., Ballard Spahr Andrews and Ingersoll Judith Eden, Center City Residents’ Association Carl Primavera, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg and Ellers Brett Feldman, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg and Ellers Van M. Potteiger, Van Potteiger Architects Charles Simpson Rachel Schade, Schade and Bolender Architects Philip Smith, Philip Smith Interior Design Mark Wilcox Ed Hinton, Majek Fire Protection Albert Taus, Albert Taus and Associates Howard Silver, Howard Silver Contractor, Incorporated Charles D. Datner 2 Ed. Chinchillo, E. J. Chinchillo Contracting Michael Priffti, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects Brian McGillin, Keating Dan Keating, Keating Herbert Levy, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. Valley Green Inn, Springfield Avenue at Wissahickon Creek City of Philadelphia, Owner Irving Shapiro, Architect DATE: c.1820 PROPOSAL: Demolition and additions This proposal, seen several times before, received modifications to reduce cost. On the plans, the addition now sets away from the rear retaining wall and the material of the walls has changed to wood siding. The terrace area has semi-permanent roof panels to afford protection in inclement weather. The staff recommended approval per Standards 9 and 10. Bob Levy, the proprietor, and Gianne Conard, the architect, attended the meeting to explain the proposal and answer questions. Ms. Conard explained that the new submission is a simplified design and creates a cover which blends into the building. When questioned about the wood on the pergola and the trusses being built across, she responded that wood would be painted and that at the edge of the porch area
Ms. Conard explained that the new submission is a simplified design and creates a cover which blends into the building. When questioned about the wood on the pergola and the trusses being built across, she responded that wood would be painted and that at the edge of the porch area the truss would be pulled away to an articulated zone. She stated that the terrace would be of flagstone and the handicapped access would be moved behind the front terrace. She also stated her intention to consult with the Fairmount Park Commission on the color of the wood. The Architectural Committee recommended approval with staff to review details. Mr. Levy abstained from voting. 5001 Grant Avenue, Glen Foerd Fairmount Park Commission/Glen Foerd Conservation Corporation, Owners Lisa Armstrong, Architect DATE: c.1850; William J. McAuley, Architect PROPOSAL: New boathouse building Ms. Brennan described the application which calls for the construction of a new boathouse on an existing foundation and the utilization of an existing stairway. Plans show a one-story structure, built into the seawall and clad with fiber cement clapboards and trim, and aluminum clad wood windows. A balcony protrudes slightly over the existing stone foundation on the east elevation. In addition, the application shows a concrete on metal roof deck with a gazebo atop the first story. A roof of asphalt or copper shingles would cover the gazebo supported by steel posts. Staff recommended approval of the project. Karen Borski, Fairmount Park Commission, answered the Committee’s question regarding the look of the proposed siding and trim material. The Committee stressed that staff should review a sample of the material prior to construction. Walter Weissman, representing Glen Foerd, showed the Committee a 1988 design for the previous boathouse which was destroyed by fire. The Committee acknowledged that the design for the new boathouse was inspired by the 1988 design, but emphasized that the new boathouse is not a reconstruction of the previous boathouse. 3 The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the boathouse design with staff to review material samples and details. JLB 4250 Belmont Mansion Drive, Belmont Mansion City of Philadelphia, Owner Claire Donato, Architect DATE: c. 1742; additions; c. 1744-45, 1755, 1762, 1850, 1867, 1876 PROPOSAL: Restoration of roof, chimneys, cornices, porch and other features This proposal to remove the structurally unsound third floor and install a new roof has received approval in concept in the past from the Committee and
Claire Donato, Architect DATE: c. 1742; additions; c. 1744-45, 1755, 1762, 1850, 1867, 1876 PROPOSAL: Restoration of roof, chimneys, cornices, porch and other features This proposal to remove the structurally unsound third floor and install a new roof has received approval in concept in the past from the Committee and Commission. The main difference involves adopting the early 19th century as the period of significance and rebuilding a front porch seen in an 1816 image of the house. The staff recommended approval per Restoration Standards 4 and 7. Claire Donato, Mark Thompson Associates, Theresa Stuhlman, Fairmount Park Commission, attended the meeting to explain the proposal and answer questions. Ms. Donato talked about the building’s history. An 1816’s image shows the roof slope with a hipped roof of cedar and a porch. An on-site investigation of the framing produced evidence of the height and existence of that porch, and present one. Absent physical evidence, the applicant intends using period pattern books for guidance in the reconstruction. She gave an overview of the proposed repairs. These repairs would consist of reestablishing original openings on the north elevation, maintaining non- historic openings on the west elevation, and either leaving a lintel over a closed opening in place and repairing the masonry around it, or reconstructing arched windows on the north and south walls. She stated that stabilization of the later third floor poses serious structural problems and that their cure would entail extensive intervention that would result in the compromising of the integrity of the very significant eighteenth-century plaster work on the first floor. The air conditioning mechanical system mechanics which will be at the basement level; however, it then requires an on-site condenser which will be placed near the driveway and hidden by landscaping. Audrey R. Johnson-Thornton Johnson, American Women’s Heritage Society, spoke on its behalf and expressed opposition to the demolition of the third floor. She thought that alternative methods of stabilization should be explored before removing the third floor which she asserted forms a part of the building’s history. In addition, she believed that the removal of the third floor would do further harm to the building structurally. However, she did conclude that after researching the alternative, the Society would resign itself to its removal subject to the documentation of its removal. Committee members thought it important to document the restoration and give recognition to the significant elements of the
would do further harm to the building structurally. However, she did conclude that after researching the alternative, the Society would resign itself to its removal subject to the documentation of its removal. Committee members thought it important to document the restoration and give recognition to the significant elements of the building. Ms. Pentz questioned the treatment of the brick string course once the porch is restored; it will remain visible with the new porch. Some members questioned the existing fencing; in response it was stated that a permanent fence would be erected with the removal of the existing temporary fence. Mr. Tyler stated that preservation of the ground floor’s historic ceiling and molding prompted the Committee and Commission to grant conceptual approval of this project previously. 4 Tom Klein, Chief Engineer of Park Commission, presented an engineer’s report and stated that there are scenarios for stabilization which could relieve the stress in of the walls and ceilings; however, these methods would entail more money and added weight and would render the third floor unusable. Mr. D’Alessandro thought that the current engineer’s report changes the application’s basis for restoration and believed further study into stabilization should be investigated before the structure’s removal. The Architectural Committee recommended approval based on restoration to c.1816 with the staff to review details. Mr. D’Alessandro abstained from the vote. 2901 Germantown Avenue, Fairhill Cemetery Fairhill Burial Ground Corporation, Owner Craig Klofach, Architect Tony Junker, Architect DATE: Established 1703; Ornamental fence c.1875 PROPOSAL: Replacement of cemetery fence The proposal involves replacing the damaged fence along Germantown Avenue with a new simplified fence as was done on Indiana Avenue in 1998. The contractor estimates the cost of restoring the existing fence at approximately $164,000 versus $74,000 for replacement with the modern fence. Staff recommendation: Denial per Standards 5 and 6. The original fence, though missing in spots, largely remains intact. The applicant should infill missing pieces with new pieces to match the original. Once the molds for the correct design exist, they will reduce the costs of the remaining two sides. Mr. Baron visited the site and determined that a large amount of the fencing on the Germantown Avenue side still exists with some of the posts filled with concrete. He expressed concern that the proposal will remove a large amount of original fencing. Baird Brown and Tony Junker attended the meeting to explain the project. Mr. Brown
that a large amount of the fencing on the Germantown Avenue side still exists with some of the posts filled with concrete. He expressed concern that the proposal will remove a large amount of original fencing. Baird Brown and Tony Junker attended the meeting to explain the project. Mr. Brown gave a brief history of the cemetery and its 1870s design. He noted the destruction of the fence by theft or motor vehicular accidents. In addition, he said that the Germantown Avenue portion would cost twice as much; however, recycling would entail the post’s having to be dug out which will add to the cost. Mr. Junker also stated that the cost of a true restoration would exceed the $164,000 cost with painting and security not included in this amount. The applicant proposes to replace the 9th Street side in its entirety and then the Cambria Street side. Some Committee members suggested the possibility of casting the missing pieces in aluminum instead of iron and replacing only the missing pieces The Committee concurred that architecturally this is not a restoration but a change and therefore thought the proposal should be referred to the Committee on Financial Hardship. The Architectural Committee recommended the referral of the proposal to the Committee on Financial Hardship. 5 City Hall, Market and Broad Street City of Philadelphia, Owner City of Philadelphia Capital Program Office, Applicant James Bryan, Architect DATE: 1871; John McArthur, Jr., Architect PROPOSAL: Portal gates in concept Ms. Brennan presented the application in concept which calls for the fabrication of four new portal gates for City Hall. The application utilizes City Hall architect John McArthur, Jr.’s design for the portal gates; however, it does not replicate them exactly so as not to imply that they were made over 100 years ago. Plans show the new gates fashioned from modern materials for durability with a design that strongly draws from that of the original. Staff recommended approval with the addition of a date stamp to reflect the modern date of the gate construction. Mr. Thomas concurred with staff and recommended that a date stamp be incorporated within the gate design. Mr. Tyler agreed with the recommendation for a date stamp but expressed his concern that the new gate design drew too literally from McArthur’s original design. The Committee discussed the size of the date stamp and whether it should be a separate plaque or
be incorporated within the gate design. Mr. Tyler agreed with the recommendation for a date stamp but expressed his concern that the new gate design drew too literally from McArthur’s original design. The Committee discussed the size of the date stamp and whether it should be a separate plaque or incorporated into the design. James Bryan, architect, stated that the gate design will be further developed with a date stamp in mind and stressed that the new gates will not be mistaken for the original gates. Mr. Bryan asked the Committee’s advice on how the center plaque on the gates should be designed. He suggested the possibility of an individual design for each portal gate to reflect the function of government in each zone of City Hall. Mr. Thomas and Mr. Levy stated that the center plaque of each portal gate does not have to be identical. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the portal gates in concept with staff to review details. JLB 1515 Cherry Street, Race Street Friends Meeting Friends Center Corporation, Owner Peter Rittenhouse, Applicant DATE: 1856 PROPOSAL: Security camera Mr. Baron presented the proposal which involves installing a security camera on the corner of the building to help deter a rash of robberies. After conducting a site visit, staff recommended denial of placing the camera on the building itself and suggested an alternate placement. Discussion among Committee members and Peter Rittenhouse, applicant, ensued with regard to the camera placement. Mr. Thomas recommended a camera that oscillates to capture multiple views. After reviewing photographs of the property, Committee suggested mounting the camera to a new post independent of the building. The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the camera on the building as submitted; however, it recommended approval of a camera mounted on a new, freestanding post and not on original building fabric. JLB 6 2034 Rittenhouse Square Harry Pastcan, Trust, Owner Ira Kauderer, Esq., Applicant DATE: 1915 PROPOSAL: Rooftop antennas and cabinet Mr. Baron presented this proposal which involves installing an equipment cabinet and antennas on the roof of a parking garage. Mr. Baron conducted a site visit where the applicant installed a mock-up which demonstrated minimal visibility. As a result, staff recommended approval of the equipment installation. Ira Kauderer, attorney and applicant, stated that this installation would replace antennas located on the roof of a building at the northeast corner of 19th and Spruce Streets. An
visit where the applicant installed a mock-up which demonstrated minimal visibility. As a result, staff recommended approval of the equipment installation. Ira Kauderer, attorney and applicant, stated that this installation would replace antennas located on the roof of a building at the northeast corner of 19th and Spruce Streets. An approval by the Committee and Commission of the present submission would include the removal of the antennas at the Spruce Street location. Mr. Kauderer reiterated for the Committee that the cabinet would be located on the western side of an existing roof penthouse and that the visibility is minor. He stressed that if this equipment were approved, the obsolete equipment at the Spruce Street location, which is highly visible at over 19 feet tall, would be removed. Photos of the mock-up were presented to the Committee members. Judith Eden, representing the Center City Residents’ Association, asked the Committee for the dimensions of the cabinet. The dimensions are as follows: 11 feet by 5 feet and 8 feet tall. Mr. Levy addressed his concern that future applications for this site would request approvals for higher antennas. He then stated to the applicant that future applications for antennas would not be approved should they go above 12 feet in height. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the equipment cabinet and antennas, with staff to review details and color, with the understanding that the obsolete antennas at the northeast corner of 19th and Spruce Streets be removed. In addition, when the approved equipment is rendered obsolete, the Architectural Committee stated that it must be removed. JLB 1801 Pine Street, NW corner of 18th Street Pine Street General Partnership, Owner Peter Miller, Architect DATE: c. 1870; altered c. 1950 PROPOSAL: Remove masonry grills and replace with metal Mr. Baron presented this proposal which calls for removing the damaged cast stone window grates and installing new iron grilles in their place. A former owner installed glass block in those openings without a permit and a violation issued at that time. The removal of the cast stone grates will further expose that glass block. The second problem is that the building received exterior alterations in the 1950s or 60s which may have some significance. Staff recommended denial and suggested that the applicant restore the cast stone elements as they form an integral part of the altered design of the building and help to hide the inappropriate
problem is that the building received exterior alterations in the 1950s or 60s which may have some significance. Staff recommended denial and suggested that the applicant restore the cast stone elements as they form an integral part of the altered design of the building and help to hide the inappropriate glass block. 7 Mr. Thomas stated that the alterations are not more than 50 years old and that he did not find them to have acquired their own significance. Mr. Thomas further stated that the goal of the owner should be to work back toward restoring the original historic house. He recommended that the Committee approve the removal of the cast stone grates. With respect to the glass block, the Committee favored its removal and replacement with clear basement sash and the installation of iron grilles. In the windows that do not have glass block, the Committee agreed on repair of the sash and the addition of iron grilles. The cast stone façade will remain on the building, except in front of the windows. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of removing the cast stone grilles and the glass block. The Architectural Committee recommended that the basement windows either be replaced with clear glass basement sash or those with existing sash be repaired. The Architectural Committee also recommended approval of the addition of iron grilles with staff to review details. Peter Miller, architect, then asked the Commission to consider a solid, flush door to replace a currently damaged replacement door on the 18th Street façade. He stated that the cost of an historic door would be a hardship. Mr. Thomas responded that when doors are replaced on historic homes, historically accurate doors must be used. The Committee discussed the configuration of the original door and conjectured that it was a paneled double door with a transom. Mr. Thomas commented that a flush replacement door would not be acceptable and that the applicant should consider the Hardship Committee should the cost of an historic door be an obstacle. The Architectural Committee denied the proposal for a solid, flush door and suggested the applicant work with staff to determine an appropriate historic door. The Architectural Committee further suggested the applicant consider an application to the Hardship Committee. JLB 233 South 24th Street Kell Stirman, Owner Charles Simpson, Contractor DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Legalize addition The applicant seeks to legalize the construction of a
applicant work with staff to determine an appropriate historic door. The Architectural Committee further suggested the applicant consider an application to the Hardship Committee. JLB 233 South 24th Street Kell Stirman, Owner Charles Simpson, Contractor DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Legalize addition The applicant seeks to legalize the construction of a large rear addition visible from both Locust and 24th Streets. The addition “completes the gable” on this half gable house. The new structure will have stucco walls and already has vinyl casement windows. Staff recommendation: Denial per Standards 9 and 10. The addition should have a roof that slopes sideways to the south and pulls back from the existing side of the building. Staff members had a mixed opinion on the vinyl windows. This project has doubled the size of the house, and the work was done without a permit. The original one-story portion of the back had a distinct offset; however, the new portion has a smaller amount of offset and rises up three-stories. 8 Charles Simpson, the applicant, attended the meeting and stated that the side had a 28 inch alleyway and that the roofline matches the neighboring one-story house’s roofline. This applicant is not the original builder in this matter. Some members expressed concern about the addition’s overwhelming the mass of the original building. Mr. Thomas made the applicant aware of code requirements for the window wall owing to its proximity to the property line, which may require that the applicant rebuild the wall for fire safety codes. The Architectural recommended denial as submitted, but approval of the re-sloping of the roofline to the south, a greater setback from the existing side of the building and consultation with an architect to make sure the windows conform to code. 1723-1729 Walnut Street AIG Baker Enterprises, Owner Van Potteiger, Architect DATE: c. 1961 PROPOSAL: Three-story addition Ms. Brennan presented the application which calls for the addition of three floors to an existing two-story retail building. Plans show the three new stories as continuing the general fenestration pattern of the existing and the use of a material to match the existing limestone in texture and color. In addition, a metal roof, new storefront doors and awnings are shown. The applicant’s design shows a central bay with a nine light window and a circular window at the curved top. A mechanical penthouse tops the building stretches three bays in length. Staff
existing limestone in texture and color. In addition, a metal roof, new storefront doors and awnings are shown. The applicant’s design shows a central bay with a nine light window and a circular window at the curved top. A mechanical penthouse tops the building stretches three bays in length. Staff recommended approval of the addition. The Committee directed several questions to architect Van Potteiger with respect to the west façade of the addition and its affect on the adjacent building. Mr. Potteiger presented multiple photographs to the Committee showing that the addition would not disrupt the adjoining building but that it would compromise the view on several floors. In addition, the Committee insisted that limestone be used to match the existing building. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the addition with the use of limestone to match the existing structure with staff to review details. JLB 1820 Delancey Street Ralph Scott, Owner Rachel Simmons Schade, Architect DATE: c. 1855 PROPOSAL: Demolition and two-story addition at rear Ms. Brennan presented this application which calls for the demolition of an existing two-story brick structure and the construction of a new, larger, two-story structure facing Panama Street. The first story would align with the current brick structure set back from the property line with a new second floor projecting over the first to the property line. 9 Rachel Schade, architect, presented a modified design to the Committee showing an entirely brick structure with the east elevation pulled back five feet from the property line on the addition’s second story. The new first floor of the addition would house the entrance to a two-car garage in the basement. Plans show a metal roll down door with brick trim on either side. A six-foot tall parapet wall protrudes beyond the addition’s second floor. The Committee members voiced their approval of brick as the addition’s material. Mr. Thomas recommended adding some form of architectural detail to the parapet wall to break up the massing. Mr. Levy suggested carrying up the recess from the windows below as a detail. In addition, the Committee requested that a deck plan and a modified elevation showing an altered parapet be furnished to the Commission. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the demolition of the existing two-story structure and the construction of a new two-story addition, with staff to review details, and a modified parapet wall to break the massing of
plan and a modified elevation showing an altered parapet be furnished to the Commission. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the demolition of the existing two-story structure and the construction of a new two-story addition, with staff to review details, and a modified parapet wall to break the massing of the addition. JLB 316 South American Street Paul Cohen, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1847; William and Francis Carpenter, builders PROPOSAL: Rear deck Mr. Baron presented the proposal which calls for the installation of a deck on the rear of the property which is visible from a parking lot. The applicant seeks to cut and partially fill in an existing rear window to create a door onto the deck. Staff recommended approval of the deck and door. Laura Temple and Philip Smith attended the meeting to explain the proposal and answer questions about it. Mr. Smith stated his intent to install a three light French door for access to the deck. The wood of the deck will be unfinished except for the spheres which will have gilding and the sides lightly higher for privacy. The applicant also proposes using the salvaged bricks for continuity of the masonry. The Architectural Committee recommended approval with staff to review details. 431 Spruce Street Mark Wilcox, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1803; William McDonough, builder PROPOSAL: Second story addition at rear Ms. Brennan presented this application which calls for a second story addition on top of an existing garage that faces Manning Street. The plans show the addition stretching about three- quarters of the garage in length, about 15 feet, with the remaining 5 feet as a balcony. The proposal calls for 4-inch horizontal cedar siding for the entire addition. A set of double doors behind a hinged gate and a window face Manning Street. A new exterior steel spiral stair placed behind the addition connects the second story and the rear yard. Staff recommended approval of the addition. 10 The Committee asked owner and applicant Mark Wilcox how the east façade of the addition would be finished. Mr. Wilcox responded that the wall would be stuccoed. Mr. Wilcox pointed out the addition of a window on the south elevation. The Committee noted that the south elevation is not visible from any public right of way. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the addition with staff to review details. JLB 57-63 North 3rd Street, SE corner of Arch Street
pointed out the addition of a window on the south elevation. The Committee noted that the south elevation is not visible from any public right of way. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the addition with staff to review details. JLB 57-63 North 3rd Street, SE corner of Arch Street Dr. Michael Yaron, Owner Albert Taus, Architect DATE: 57 North 3rd Street, c. 1855 59 North 3rd Street, c. 1920 façade 61-63 North 3rd Street, c. 1852; John Riddell, architect PROPOSAL: Cut light wells, add roof deck, stair house and HVAC Mr. Baron presented the proposal which calls for cutting two light wells into the building only one of which will have minor visibility. The roof will receive a deck, stair house and HVAC units all with minimal visibility. The staff recommended approval of the project. Albert Taus, architect, asked the Committee to approve the addition of a doorbell for multiple units inside the doorjamb. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the lightwells, deck, stair house, HVAC units and the addition of a doorbell placed in the doorjamb, all with staff to review details. JLB 2039 Mt. Vernon Street Stephen Gold, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1875 PROPOSAL: Windows The proposal calls for installing Pella windows into the existing window frames. These have applied muntins on both the interior and exterior of the glass as well as a spacer bar between the glass. The problem arises out of the fact that the windows do not come as a sash kit, but rather only with a box that will reduce the sash opening. The staff recommended denial per Standards 5 and 6. This building’s front façade is bowed inward and has pulled away from the cornice which has caused the window’s dimensions to be disproportionate in size. Howard Silver attended the meeting in the absence of the owners. Mr. Silver stated that owing to the opening’s being out of square, this makes the use of a jam liner system impractical. Ms. Pentz expressed concern about setting a precedent of allowing the installation of this type of window. Mr. McCoubrey had a problem with the sash in front of the brick molding. Mr. Levy 11 suggested making the brick mold deeper so that the pella sash will not extend outward beyond the brick mold. This can be attained by the addition of a four-sided piece of wood behind the existing brick mold. The applicant
the sash in front of the brick molding. Mr. Levy 11 suggested making the brick mold deeper so that the pella sash will not extend outward beyond the brick mold. This can be attained by the addition of a four-sided piece of wood behind the existing brick mold. The applicant was receptive to the suggestion as were other Committee members. The Architectural Committee recommended approval with the top frame of the sash blocked out behind the brick mold to ensure that the sash is behind the brick mold and have sash lined up with the inner most portion of the brick mold with the staff to review details. 564 North 17th Street Eric Bisson, Owner James Schneider, Applicant DATE: 1988, John Bushnell, architect PROPOSAL: Roof deck and spiral stair Ms. Brennan presented this application which calls for a 16-foot long roof deck on the rear portion of the top floor on this three-story row house. Plans show a 42-inch high wood railing and a metal spiral stair that would connect the second and third floors at the rear of the deck. Both the rail and the stair would have visibility from 17th Street owing to the one-story structure on the adjacent lot. Staff recommended denial of the application as shown and suggested moving the rail back from the edge visible from 17th Street and moving the circular stair farther behind the house to limit visibility. James Schneider, applicant, stated that moving the stair was not possible owing to a door at the rear of the house. Mr. Thomas indicated that the roof deck could be approved since this modern building is non-contributing to the district. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the roof deck with staff to review details including color. JLB 319 Market Street 319 Market Street Association, Owner Charles D. Datner, Architect DATE: 1831 PROPOSAL: Exterior alterations, exhaust fan, deck and windows This proposal involves re-application to legalize much work that has been approved in the past along as well as work never approved. The applicant seeks to install wood lower panels in the storefront door, correct the alley door to a single piece design, reinsert wood 2/2 windows in the upper floors of the façade and install a fire escape along the rear ell. All of this has received approval from the staff or Commission previously, but the applicant failed to execute it as approved. In addition,
alley door to a single piece design, reinsert wood 2/2 windows in the upper floors of the façade and install a fire escape along the rear ell. All of this has received approval from the staff or Commission previously, but the applicant failed to execute it as approved. In addition, the applicant seeks approval to legalize a rear deck, a side kitchen exhaust fan encased in a stuccoed pier and the installation of aluminum windows in the rear ell visible along the abutting public walkway. This latter item has previously been recommended for denial by the Committee. 12 Staff recommendation: Approval of all the work except the kitchen vent which the applicant can route through the interior of the house and the windows of the rear ell which should receive wood replacements to match the originals. Charles Datner attended the meeting to explain the proposal and answer questions. He stated that he believed the windows in their present state should be allowed. The Committee discussed the proposal at length and in the interest of not disrupting the tenants, it thought that compromises could be reached to help with this situation. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the following: 1. Changing the vinyl windows to wood; 2. Replacing the glass panel in the doors with solid panels; 3. Door in alley change from dutch door to a single door; 4. Legalize rear 1/1windows subject to stuccoing east façade wall a smooth brick color finish; 5. Fire escape but should be higher than 8 feet; 6. Deck on rear ell; 7. Satellite dish moved to non-visible rear end of roof; 8. Replace plastic awning with a canvas awning, and 9. Exhaust fan denied as submitted but approval of a stucco screened vent to look like a pier with louvers on the top With staff to review all details. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes Executive Secretary