REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Robert Thomas, Chair Commission Conference Room, One Parkway, 13th Fl., 1515 Arch St. 26 October 1999 Present Robert Thomas, Chair Tony Atkin Penelope Batcheler Herbert Levy Daniel McCoubrey Suzanne Pentz Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer R. Scott Jacob, Executive Secretary Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Also Mitchell Kutler, Toll Brothers, Inc. Andrew Terhune, Toll Brothers, Inc. Sabrina Soong, Soong Associates Luca Sena John Paloduva Aliki Strakes, Preservation Alliance Robert Hotes, Susan Maxman Associates Frank Reis, Walnut Tree Construction Steven Singer Nelson Lober Jerry Roller, J. K. Roller Architects Sharon Bout Jennifer Cathey James Burghardt James Carson Hugh Shockey Anthony Ciocca Douglas Seiler Alisa Burato Gianne Conard, SPG Architects Hazel Hancock Kristina Slater Marvin Gerstein, Temple University Angela Roach Steven DePetris Vernon Duckrey, Park Mall Properties Robert Hoe Michael Hauptman James Piatt Charles Tonetti, National Park Service Jennifer Horner Bobbie Knoll Kennedy Hickman Winchell Carroll, American Revolution Patriot Fund 2 Michael Halprin Audrey Claire Taichman Judith Eden, Center City Residents Association Dorann Matthews, Forman Sign Co., Inc. Cynthia Tedeschi, MBN ATM Group Paul Singer, Singer Financial Corp. Carl Massara, Carl Massara and Associates Ciarán Devine, Carl Massara and Associates William Vessal Kate Eyre Charles Dew David Zambala 18 North Front Street Penn’s View Hotel, Owner Sabrina Soong, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1825 PROPOSAL: Building renovation and rooftop addition This proposal includes the construction of a rooftop addition set back from both the front and side elevations of this corner building. Plans also show the removal of a much altered one story rear addition and its replacement with a five story addition. The developer plans to restore the front facade. Mr. Baron explained that the new addition will conceal a less sympathetic earlier alteration, thus improving the Church Street facade. Ms. Batcheler noted that part of the rear ell has original brick work, although much altered. Committee members did not object to the rear addition, if stepped back as shown in the drawings. Mr. Levy suggested salvaging some of the historic brick from the existing rear structure and using it at the corner to ease the transition where the new section will begin. The Committee did not object to the rooftop addition, owing to its minimal visibility. Committee members thought the storefront should have a two-leaf configuration in all three openings. The architect was amenable to the suggestion. Ms. Batcheler asked the staff to
ease the transition where the new section will begin. The Committee did not object to the rooftop addition, owing to its minimal visibility. Committee members thought the storefront should have a two-leaf configuration in all three openings. The architect was amenable to the suggestion. Ms. Batcheler asked the staff to show the applicant drawings she made for the restoration of a similar storefront at 112 South Front Street. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval, with staff to review and approve details of the storefront and rear brickwork. 216 Market Street Mirmor Corp., Owner Sabrina Soong, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: Demolish historic storefront; construct new storefront This proposal calls for the demolition of the historic recessed center entrance storefront and its replacement with an off-center entrance storefront. Plans show a new storefront cornice as well. The applicant explained that the center entrance will not accommodate the deli counter and seating section for the proposed new use. The applicant also noted that the deep display 3 windows to either side of the entrance fail to provide any functional space for the new use, as they are too narrow for seating. The Committee discussed the possibility that remnants of the earlier Victorian storefront remain beneath the Art Deco metal storefront. Committee members agreed that the existing condition is of poor integrity, and that the current configuration could hinder the new use. Mr. Baron noted that the proposal does not meet the guidelines set forth in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties regarding storefronts. (See pages 88 and 89) The Standards recommend “ replacing a storefront in kind that is too deteriorated to repair using the physical evidence as a model” and recommend against “changing a storefront’s main entrance” Mr. Thomas suggested installing glass transom panels above the storefront on both sides instead of the proposed wood panels. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval on the basis of the poor integrity of the existing storefront and because the center entrance and the narrow dimensions of the showcases will not accommodate the proposed new use, with glass transom panels above the storefront on both sides, and staff to review and approve details. 2300-2498 Grays Ferry Avenue, Naval Home Toll Naval Associates, Owner Andrew Terhune, Applicant DATE: Biddle Hall - 1827; Governor’s and Surgeon General’s Houses - 1844 PROPOSAL: Conceptual Approval - attach large addition to west
glass transom panels above the storefront on both sides, and staff to review and approve details. 2300-2498 Grays Ferry Avenue, Naval Home Toll Naval Associates, Owner Andrew Terhune, Applicant DATE: Biddle Hall - 1827; Governor’s and Surgeon General’s Houses - 1844 PROPOSAL: Conceptual Approval - attach large addition to west (rear) side of Biddle Hall; demolish rear ell of Governor's House; and construct residential units and parking on site This proposal in concept calls for rehabilitating Biddle Hall, the Surgeon’s House and the Governor’s House as part of the phase one development of the property. Plans show a large wing added to the altered west facade of Biddle Hall. A parking area in front of Biddle Hall and the demolition of the rear ell of the Governor’s House have continued as part of the proposal. This scheme also greatly reduces the height of the building at the corner of Grays Ferry and Bainbridge Street from its most recent past incarnation. The Committee did not object to the various aspects of this conceptual plan, except for the demolition of the rear of the Governor’s House. Committee members suggested reconfiguring the parking design and housing layout to accommodate its retention. The applicant explained that the unusual shape of the property has presented some spatial problems, and the developer is trying to maximize the usable space without compromising the view corridors to the historic buildings. According to the applicant, the rear ell of the Governor’s House, although a relatively small portion of the building, is situated so as to impede the development of that section of the property. Committee members maintained that the loss of two parking places in Phase 1 of the proposal and the slight crowding of housing units in Phase 2 do not warrant the demolition of the rear ell. The Committee also requested further study of the condition of the ell and possible reuse before making any recommendations regarding the demolition of the rear ell of the Governor’s House. Aliki Strakes of the Preservation Alliance read a statement in support of the conceptual proposal, noting opposition regarding the demolition of the rear ell of the Governor’s House. 4 The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval in concept for both phases of the conceptual proposal, except the demolition of the rear ell of the Governor’s House. 922 Spruce Street Jinoua Kazemi, Owner Frank Reis, Applicant DATE: 1832 PROPOSAL: Full window
of the rear ell of the Governor’s House. 4 The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval in concept for both phases of the conceptual proposal, except the demolition of the rear ell of the Governor’s House. 922 Spruce Street Jinoua Kazemi, Owner Frank Reis, Applicant DATE: 1832 PROPOSAL: Full window screen installation The proposal calls for the installation of full length screens on this rowhouse. The Committee agreed to recommend approval of this proposal with the inclusion of a meeting rail within the screen that lines up with the meeting rail of the window itself. Mr. Levy suggested asking the owner to remove the screens in the winter months. The Committee decided not to make that part of its recommendation. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal because the previously approved sash do not have muntins, with the inclusion of a meeting rail within the screen that lines up with the meeting rail of the window itself, and with screen frames painted to match the window frames. 7212 Cresheim Road, Allen Lane Train Station Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Owner Frank Reis, Applicant DATE: 1885 PROPOSAL: HVAC units, vents Ms. Pentz recused herself from the discussion and the vote owing to her firm’s association with the project. This proposal calls for the installation of an air conditioning compressor on the porch of the train station. The applicant also provided an alternate placement set away from the building and landscaped with bushes. The Committee voted to approve the alternate proposal. The applicant also asked for approval of a four inch “B” vent on the roof. The Committee did not object as long as the vent is painted to match the roof. Five Committee members voted to recommend approval of the air conditioning compressor set away from the building, landscaped with bushes, and the “B” vent, painted to match the roof. Ms. Pentz recused herself. 739 Walnut Street Steven Singer, Owner Jerry Roller, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1927 PROPOSAL: New storefronts and window panels This proposal calls for stabilizing the cast stone facade of this corner commercial property. The owner wishes to remove the cast stone bases of the existing storefronts and construct new angled window show cases with roll down grates. On the upper floors plans show new metal panels above existing non-historic window treatments and in-fill glazing on the 5 stair tower bays. The new window panels will replace
to remove the cast stone bases of the existing storefronts and construct new angled window show cases with roll down grates. On the upper floors plans show new metal panels above existing non-historic window treatments and in-fill glazing on the 5 stair tower bays. The new window panels will replace a similar existing treatment. The Committee did not object to glazing the stair tower bays or the window panels. Steven Singer, the owner of the property, explained that the current shopfronts are not conducive to successfully marketing jewelry, and that the proposed storefronts will draw potential customers to examine the displays. Mr. Atkin thought the Committee could recommend approval of the new storefronts, if the material for the bases was changed to a dark stone such as black granite or another dark material. The Committee agreed, and asked that the removed sections of the cast stone be reapplied to the new pilasters. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal, with the material for the bases changed to a dark stone such as black granite or another dark material, and, if feasible, the removed sections of the cast stone reapplied to the new pilasters, with staff to review and approve details. 1401 Arch Street B & A Associates, Owner Anthony Ciocca, Applicant DATE: 1898; enlarged/altered 1926 PROPOSAL: New doorway This proposal calls for removal of the front doors both revolving and hinged and installation of new metal hinged doors to match the color of the existing frame. The Committee did not object to the proposal. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 232 North 2nd Street Artimede Inc., Owner Michael Drury , Applicant DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: Facade and sidewalk alterations The proposal calls for painting the already painted facade in cream and green tones and removing the bluestone sidewalk and replacing it either with new smaller stone pavers or tinted concrete. The applicant also seeks to add Pennsylvania blue marble steps between the existing steps. The Committee did not object to repainting the facade or the new steps, but wanted the repair and retention of the existing bluestone sidewalk. The Committee did not object to replacing the concrete sections of the sidewalk with smaller bluestone pavers or tinted concrete. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend: approval of: 1. painting the facade, 2. adding Pennsylvania blue marble steps, and 3. replacing the concrete sections of the sidewalk with
bluestone sidewalk. The Committee did not object to replacing the concrete sections of the sidewalk with smaller bluestone pavers or tinted concrete. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend: approval of: 1. painting the facade, 2. adding Pennsylvania blue marble steps, and 3. replacing the concrete sections of the sidewalk with smaller bluestone pavers or tinted concrete. 6 Denial of: 1. removal of the existing bluestone sidewalk sections. Valley Green Inn, Fairmount Park City of Philadelphia, Owner Gianne Conard, Applicant DATE: Mid-19th century PROPOSAL: Material Change for addittion Mr. Levy recused himself owing to his son’s involvement with the project. The proposal calls for a change of material for the approved additions to the historic building. To lower the expense of the work, the architect now proposes the use of board and batten siding in place of the approved stone to match the reconstructed horse shed. The Committee did not find the board and batten appropriate for the design, and requested horizontal wood siding. Committee members also asked for a larger barge board or cornice at the roof line of the additions. There was also a suggestion to extend the approved trellis all the way around the new construction. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposal as submitted, and approval of horizontal wood siding and a larger barge board or cornice at the roof line of the additions. 621 B South American Street Angela Roach, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1875 PROPOSAL: Rooftop HVAC and platform; paint stucco green The Applicant seeks to gain approval to rebuild a visible roof top platform with HVAC units. She also seeks to paint her facade pale green. The Committee did not object to the proposal. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 1900-1938 Park Mall, Temple University Temple University, Owner Michael Hauptman and James Piatt, Architects/Applicants DATE: c. 1870s PROPOSAL: Final approval for rehabilitation of and additions to rowhouses for offices and commercial spaces Most of the components of this proposal have come before the Architectural Committee and Historical Commission several times, and this final approval application, in large measure, responds to the recommendations and determinations of the Committee and Commission. The current plan also contains some alterations and additions not seen before. 7 This proposal includes: 1. an elevated platform in front of this row of houses, with the demolition rather than encasement of the front stoops; 2. glass and steel pavilions
recommendations and determinations of the Committee and Commission. The current plan also contains some alterations and additions not seen before. 7 This proposal includes: 1. an elevated platform in front of this row of houses, with the demolition rather than encasement of the front stoops; 2. glass and steel pavilions at the party wall ends of the rows; 3. a new entranceway and window that will access the inn to be located on the upper floors of the buildings; 4. new in-fill construction connecting the rear ells of the former row houses; 5. display cases on the raised terrace; 6. canvas awnings attached along the width of the front facades; 7. new glass and metal front doors and transoms; 8. new windows on the upper floors, and, 9. rooftop mechanicals. The architects described the material for the end pavilion additions as natural, silver tone aluminum, with white columns, and slightly illuminated. The Committee did not object. Because of the necessary length of the ramps onto the platforms in front of the rows, the architect has placed one off to the side, at the proposed inn entrance. The applicant also explained that the display kiosks on the platform will eliminate the need to install storefronts in the row houses themselves. The Committee did not object to the proposed platform, new ramp configuration, or the display kiosks. One of the conditions devised at an earlier Committee meeting and accepted by the Commission called for the retention of the historic brownstone front steps underneath the proposed platform. Most of them have now been removed. James Piatt, one of the architects, explained that the University removed the steps just prior to the construction of the platform bases, which occurred without a permit. The historic steps remain visible on some end rowhouses, which the architects intend to retain. The Committee voted to legalize the removal of those steps the University already disposed of only and the retention of the remaining steps. Mr. Atkin suggested having brownstone pavers the dimension of the former steps placed in front of the doorways to remember the steps. The architects agreed to incorporate that into the design. The proposal calls for the replacement of the historic wood double doors with glass and metal doors set into the historic frame. The Committee wanted the applicant to keep the historic doors at the end row houses where the steps remain. The architects
agreed to incorporate that into the design. The proposal calls for the replacement of the historic wood double doors with glass and metal doors set into the historic frame. The Committee wanted the applicant to keep the historic doors at the end row houses where the steps remain. The architects were amenable to this recommendation. The Committee also asked that the design of the new doors reflect the historic configuration, with four lights, a four inch frame and a split transom. Ms. Batcheler requested that the University keep the removed original doors in storage or used inside somehow. The architects agreed to explore options to reuse or store the historic doors. At the Committee meeting Mr. Piatt presented a revised scheme for the proposed inn entrance that responds to recommendations made by the Commission staff. The proposal no longer includes the large, contemporary-designed window to the east of the main entrance. In its place are two new windows that correspond to the scale and shape of the historic windows, with cast stone lintels. The architect has also removed the asymmetrical design elements from the entrance. Mr. Atkin requested the architects to narrow the canopy, and center it over the entrance. The Committee did not object to the proposed awning across the front of the rows, if stepped to acknowledge the grade changes, the mechanicals on the roof, and the rear in-fill 8 additions. The Committee also raised no objections to the use of vinyl windows in the in-fills. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of: 1. the end pavilion additions; 2. the platforms with ramps and kiosks, with brownstone pavers the dimension of the former steps placed in front of the doorways to remember the steps; 3. legalization of the removal of the front steps; 4. the retention and restoration of the historic front doors on the end buildings, where the steps are still extant and visible, and the proposed new doors in the other locations, with a four light configuration including a split transom, and in the historic frames; 5. the revised inn entrance, with a narrower entrance canopy centered over the door; 6. the front awnings, stepped to match the elevations of the row houses and in a canvas material; 7. the rooftop mechanicals; and 8. the rear in-fills, with vinyl windows. All with staff to review and approve details. Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Washington Square
canopy centered over the door; 6. the front awnings, stepped to match the elevations of the row houses and in a canvas material; 7. the rooftop mechanicals; and 8. the rear in-fills, with vinyl windows. All with staff to review and approve details. Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Washington Square City of Philadelphia, Owner Winchell Carroll, American Revolution Patriots Fund, Applicant DATE: 1957 PROPOSAL: Conceptual approval for replacement of the monument in granite The applicant seeks conceptual approval for the replacement of the deteriorated limestone memorial to the Unknown Soldier of the American Revolution. The stone memorial has weathered badly, and suffered from inappropriate maintenance. The applicant has applied to rebuild the memorial with a matching design, but in granite. Charles Tonetti of the National Park Service asked for further study prior to the demolition of the original monument, and perhaps an Historic Structures Report. The Committee agreed that more information in needed. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend tabling the conceptual proposal for one month, awaiting further information regarding the condition of the monument and its replacement. 213 -217 North 4th Street Philadelphia Veterans Multi Services and Education Center, Owner Timothy Donahue, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. 1840; facade - c. 1920 PROPOSAL: New doors in mid-20th century ground floor The contractor seeks to install new metal doors in place of existing faux-colonial wood doors on an altered mid-20th century ground floor. He also proposes to cut a new door and louvers in the Florist Street facade of this same storefront to provide access to a room to hold transformers for electrical service. The Committee did not object to the proposal, but suggested installing plain flush doors so that when the “Colonial Revival” pent is removed the doors do not appear out of place. The applicant agreed, but wants to use the proposed doors at the main entrance off of Florist Street. 9 The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal, or an alternate scheme with the proposed doors at the main entrance on Florist Street and plain flush doors in the other locations. 245 South 7th Street Michael Halprin, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1963 PROPOSAL: New wood muntin grid windows The applicant seeks to install wood windows with an applied muntin grid within the existing frames. The grid has a deep putty slope and spacer bars fill the space between the glass. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 247
Halprin, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1963 PROPOSAL: New wood muntin grid windows The applicant seeks to install wood windows with an applied muntin grid within the existing frames. The grid has a deep putty slope and spacer bars fill the space between the glass. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 247 South 7th Street Rosa Myers, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1963 PROPOSAL: New wood muntin grid windows The applicant seeks to install wood windows with an applied muntin grid within the existing frames. The grid has a deep putty slope and spacer bars fill the space between the glass. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 226 South 20th Street VCA, Inc., Owner Dorann Matthews, Applicant DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: signage and awning This proposal calls for installation of a wood sign, illuminated with a goose neck lamp, and a vinyl awning over the door. The Committee found the proposed sign too large, and recommended adding signage to the sides of a canvas type awning. Mr. Baron noted that such a scheme requires a zoning variance, as awnings with advertising on the sides are considered projecting signage. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposal as submitted, and approval of adding signage to the sides of a canvas type awning. 259-261 South 20th Street Audrey Claire Taichman, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Ground-floor alterations The applicant seeks to cut new windows into the stucco side wall of this corner building. She also plans to extend the storefront cornice and create lift-out removable windows within the 10 existing storefront. The applicant attempted, but was unsuccessful, to locate an old photograph to determine where the original openings were along the side wall beyond the storefront. Mr. Baron suggested she obtain a permit to remove a sufficient amount of stucco on the side wall to determine where previous openings existed and use those openings for new windows. The Committee did not object to expanding the storefront, but wanted the applicant to eliminate the proposed cornice from the new section and use a simplified transom to avoid creating a sense of false history. The Committee also thought the existing plate glass storefronts could be replaced with accordion fold casement storefront doors, with thin wood frames. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend: Approval of: 1. expanding the storefront, without the proposed cornice and simplified transoms; 2. replacing the existing storefronts with accordion fold casement storefront doors,
also thought the existing plate glass storefronts could be replaced with accordion fold casement storefront doors, with thin wood frames. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend: Approval of: 1. expanding the storefront, without the proposed cornice and simplified transoms; 2. replacing the existing storefronts with accordion fold casement storefront doors, with thin wood frames Denial of: 1. the proposal to continue the historic cornice over the extended storefront. All with staff to review and approve details. 136 South 20th Street Jerold Batoff, Esq., Applicant DATE: 1928 PROPOSAL: Install ATM in storefront This proposal calls for installing an ATM in a portion of a currently unoccupied storefront. The Committee objected to blocking the storefront, and encouraged the applicant to find an alternate location. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposal. 1708 Locust Street Singer Financial Corp., Owner Paul Singer, Applicant DATE: 1830s; refaced 1902 PROPOSAL: Legalize sign cabinet on front door This proposal seeks to legalize the installation of a sign cabinet on the front door of the building. The Committee wanted the applicant to place the sign cabinet within the storefront. The applicant explained that the cabinet would block a significant amount of the view into the office if placed within the storefront, and interfere with existing signage there. The Committee disagreed. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial. 1732 Pine Street Carl Massara, Owner/Architect 11 DATE: c. 1845; altered c. 1910 PROPOSAL: Rear alterations This proposal involves an alteration to the rear of the house that was first partially approved at staff level. The previously approved application included removing a later addition and re-exposing the rear ell of the house. During construction the applicant found the rear wall weak and had it demolished. He now seeks approval for a new design with a stucco finish. The Committee agreed that the proposed work will not be visible from the public right-of-way. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 33 North 3rd Street William Vessal, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Alterations to Filbert Street facade This proposal calls for cutting new windows, adding balconies and HVAC platforms to the side facade of this corner property along Filbert Street. The side faces a constricted alleyway. The Committee found that the location of the proposed work will be minimally visible. The Applicant also wishes to build an elevator shaft addition on the rear of the roof. The Committee did not
the side facade of this corner property along Filbert Street. The side faces a constricted alleyway. The Committee found that the location of the proposed work will be minimally visible. The Applicant also wishes to build an elevator shaft addition on the rear of the roof. The Committee did not object to the rooftop addition, if held back from the street enough to eliminate visibility. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal, and the rooftop addition held back from the street enough to eliminate visibility. 1625 Locust Street, St. Mark’s Church, Parish House St. Mark’s Church, Owner Charles Evers, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1892 PROPOSAL: Balcony and fire ladder on rear Mr. Atkin and Ms. Pentz recused themselves from the discussion and the voted owing to their firms’ associations with the project. This proposal calls for the installation of a fire balcony and collapsible ladder on the rear (north elevation) of the St. Mark’s Church parish house. This will have visibility from a service alley, and minimally from 16th and 17th Streets. The remaining Committee members did not object to the proposal. Four Committee members voted to recommend approval. Mr. Atkin and Ms. Pentz recused themselves. Respectfully submitted, R. Scott Jacob Executive Secretary