PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 11 AUGUST 2017 1 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES THE MINUTES OF THE 660TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION FRIDAY, 11 AUGUST 2017 ROOM 18-029, 1515 ARCH STREET BOB THOMAS, CHAIR PRESENT Robert Thomas, AIA, Chair Emily Cooperman, Ph.D. Terrence Dillon, Department of Licenses & Inspections Anuj Gupta, Esq. Steven Hartner, Department of Public Property Dan McCoubrey, AIA, LEED AP BD+C Rachel Royer, LEED AP BD+C R. David Schaaf, RA, Philadelphia City Planning Commission H. Ahada Stanford, Commerce Department Betty Turner, M.A. Kim Chantry, Historic Preservation Planner II Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner II Meredith Keller, Historic Preservation Planner I ALSO PRESENT Tina Lecoff, Penn Knox Sue Patterson, Penn Knox Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Jerald Goodman, Esq., Drinker Biddle & Reath Drew Kmetz, Varenhorst Stephen Varenhorst, Varenhorst Charlette Caldwell, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Brett Feldman, Esq., Klehr Harrison Kiki Bolender, Design Advocacy Group J.M. Duffin Maude Haak-Frendscho, Mural Arts PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 11 AUGUST 2017 2 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES CALL TO ORDER Mr. Thomas called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Commissioners Cooperman, Dillon, Gupta, Hartner, McCoubrey, Royer, Schaaf, Stanford, and Turner joined him. MINUTES OF THE 659 TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ACTION: Ms. Turner moved to adopt the minutes of the 659th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, held 14 July 2017. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. REQUESTS TO CONTINUE NOMINATION REVIEWS Mr. Thomas and Ms. Cooperman recused from the discussion of the continuance request for the review of the nominations for 100 S. Independence West Mall. Ms. Turner took the chair in place of Mr. Thomas. Ms. Turner presented the request to continue the review of the nominations for 100 S. Independence West Mall. She asked if any Commissioners had comments on the continuance request. None were offered. She asked if anyone in the audience had comments on the continuance request. None were offered. ACTION: Mr. Schaaf moved to continue the review of the nominations for 100 S. Independence West Mall to the December 2017 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Thomas presented the request to continue the review of the nomination for 2041-55 Coral Street to the October 2017 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to continue the
2017 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Thomas presented the request to continue the review of the nomination for 2041-55 Coral Street to the October 2017 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to continue the review of the nomination for 2041-55 Coral Street to the October 2017 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Ms. Chantry presented the request to extend the period to review the nomination of 23 W. Penn Street. She explained that the Commission announced that it would hold a Special Meeting to review the nomination on 24 July 2017. That meeting was cancelled, owing to a request to continue the review to allow additional time for community members and the property owners to meet and discuss the matter. Ms. Chantry stated that it is her understanding that that meeting has occurred; however, before the Commission today is a request from both the nominator and the attorney representing the property owner to extend the period to review the nomination for 30 days. She added that, in addition to determining the amount of time to grant for the extension, the Commission must decide if the matter is to be placed on its regularly-scheduled meeting of 8 September 2017, or if it should be reviewed at a Special Meeting, which the staff would work to schedule within the timeframe directed by the Commission. She noted that it will be problematic to secure a large enough meeting space within 30 days. Mr. Thomas asked for comments from the Commissioners and the public. None were offered. ACTION: Ms. Turner moved to extend the period to review the nomination for 23 W. Penn Street by 30 days, and to place it on the Commission’s agenda for 8 September 2017. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 11 AUGUST 2017 3 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES THE REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 25 JULY 2017 Dan McCoubrey, Chair CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Thomas introduced the consent agenda, which included applications for 130 S. 18th Street, Unit RC1 and RC2, 1512-14 Spruce Street, 263 S. 22nd Street, and 6433 Drexel Road. Mr. Thomas asked if any Commissioners had comments on the Consent Agenda. None were offered. Mr. Thomas asked if anyone in the audience had comments
consent agenda, which included applications for 130 S. 18th Street, Unit RC1 and RC2, 1512-14 Spruce Street, 263 S. 22nd Street, and 6433 Drexel Road. Mr. Thomas asked if any Commissioners had comments on the Consent Agenda. None were offered. Mr. Thomas asked if anyone in the audience had comments on the Consent Agenda. None were offered. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to adopt the recommendations of the Architectural Committee for the applications for 130 S. 18th Street, Unit RC1 and RC2, 1512-14 Spruce Street, 263 S. 22nd Street, and 6433 Drexel Road. Ms. Turner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. AGENDA ADDRESS: 130 S 18TH ST, UNITS RC1 AND RC2 Proposal: Install signage Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: ADR 1811 Walnut St LP Applicant: Natalya Atroshyna, EZ Signs LLC History: 1900, Rittenhouse Club, Newman, Woodman & Harris, architect; rear demolished, 2009 Individual Designation: 4/8/1970 District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial of the design as submitted with the following suggestions: two vertical projecting signs are installed at the first story, with one of those signs replacing the existing blade sign; two new projecting signs are smaller than the proposed design, extending approximately three or four quoins in length and projecting roughly the same distance from the building as the existing first-story blade sign; and, all attachments penetrate the mortar joints and not the stone blocks. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to install two banner signs at the second story of the former Rittenhouse Club, which is now occupied by Barney’s New York. The building, located mid-block on Walnut Street, faces Rittenhouse Square and currently has a series of awnings at the first- and second-story windows, and a small projecting sign and plaques at the first story. The application proposes to introduce two new banner signs next to the curved bays. These signs would project four feet from the façade and would extend eight feet in height. Each banner would consist of Sunbrella fabric with no illumination. The staff suggests that the small, existing first-story sign could be replaced with one of the proposed banners rather than installing two new signs at the second story. The application also shows awnings at the two center second-story windows. These awnings are not currently installed and are not part of the application. ACTION: See
the small, existing first-story sign could be replaced with one of the proposed banners rather than installing two new signs at the second story. The application also shows awnings at the two center second-story windows. These awnings are not currently installed and are not part of the application. ACTION: See Consent Agenda PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 11 AUGUST 2017 4 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 1512-14 SPRUCE ST Proposal: Paint mural Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Forest City Applicant: E. Maude Haak-Frendscho, Philadelphia Mural Arts Advocates History: 1927; Drake Hotel; Ritter & Shay, architect; rear addition, 1954, Aaron Colish, architect Individual Designation: 10/6/1977 District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Significant, 2/8/1995 Preservation Easement: Yes Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the suggestions that the color is reconsidered to be more in keeping with the Drake, and a structural and water infiltration assessment is performed prior to work commencing. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to paint a mural on the former Drake Hotel’s 1954 rear addition along South Hicks Street. This wall previously had a mural on it, as seen in a photograph from 1986. The proposed mural would depict outlines of rowhouses similar to those found on this block of South Hicks Street, in addition to the shadows of trees and a muted city skyline. Per Section 6.15.a.4 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations, “The Philadelphia Historical Commission, its committees, and staff shall not consider a mural’s content as a part of its review of any application for a building permit, but may consider size, scale, and relationship to the historic context.” The staff suggests that the proposed mural is appropriate in terms of size, scale, and relationship to the historic context, but notes that the buff brick addition was respectful to the Drake in terms of the chosen brick color, and that the primary color of the mural could be reconsidered to be more in keeping with that of the exterior cladding of the Drake. ACTION: See Consent Agenda ADDRESS: 1807 DELANCEY PL Proposal: Expand penthouse and roof deck; raise rear chimney Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Richard Vague Applicant: Drew Kmetz, Varenhorst History: 1864; façade replaced Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of
and roof deck; raise rear chimney Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Richard Vague Applicant: Drew Kmetz, Varenhorst History: 1864; façade replaced Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the revised application, provided the setback of the deck remains at eight feet, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 9, 10, and the Roofs Guideline. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to replace a roof deck and penthouse, which the Historical Commission approved in 2012. The proposed changes include the demolition of the existing penthouse, construction of a new penthouse and sunroom, and the raising of a rear chimney. The raised rear chimney and small portion of the sunroom will be visible from Cypress Street at the rear, which is considered to be a service alley on this block. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 11 AUGUST 2017 5 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES DISCUSSION: Ms. Chantry presented the application to the Historical Commission. Architects Stephen Varenhorst and Drew Kmetz represented the application. Ms. Chantry explained that the applicants would like to propose a six-foot setback of the roof deck, as opposed to the eight-foot recommendation of the Architectural Committee. She noted that the initial application proposed a five-foot setback. She stated that she recently viewed a mockup of the railing with a six-foot setback, and it was not visible from any public right-of-way. Mr. Varenhorst stated that the proposed elevator to the deck encroaches on the existing space, so the additional two feet will be beneficial to the overall layout of the deck. Mr. McCoubrey commented that the Committee’s intended to ensure that the railing was not visible from Delancey Place. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to approve the revised application, with the setback of the deck at six feet, and with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 9, 10, and the Roofs Guideline. Ms. Royer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ADDRESS: 263 S 22ND ST Proposal: Construct rooftop addition and deck Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Balijepalli Srinivas and Daiya Kavita Applicant: Julie Scott, reku design History: 1920; addition constructed and façade replaced, 2006 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the railing is
Balijepalli Srinivas and Daiya Kavita Applicant: Julie Scott, reku design History: 1920; addition constructed and façade replaced, 2006 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the railing is not glass, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 9, 10, and the Roofs Guideline. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct a rooftop addition and deck on this building. The building underwent substantial renovations in 2006 including an entirely new façade and a change in height from two stories to three stories. The earlier building was a circa 1920s garage for the building next door. The proposed addition is set back over 25 feet from the front and 15 feet from the rear. The deck in front of the addition is set back 10 feet from the front of the building. ACTION: See Consent Agenda PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 11 AUGUST 2017 6 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 6901 CASTOR AVE Proposal: Legalize and install signage Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Kelly Zheng Applicant: Kelly Zheng, A Plus Realtors History: 1955; Ott Camera; Allan A. Berkowitz, architect Individual Designation: 7/8/2016 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 9. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to legalize one flat wall sign that was installed without Historical Commission approval or a building permit, and to install a second matching sign on the side elevation of the building. The existing sign is, and proposed sign would be, adhered to the delicate, character-defining glass tiles of the building’s façade. The staff notes that the proposed signage is inappropriate for the building, but recommends that a channel letter neon sign would be more in keeping with the style of the building. Alternatively, the staff notes that the existing/proposed sign could be installed behind the glass in the front window. DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the application to the Historical Commission. No one represented the application. Ms. Cooperman asked whether the Commission was also addressing the entrance canopy. Ms. DiPasquale responded that the staff requested violations for other work to the building, but that the Department of Licenses & Inspections only issued a violation for the sign. Mr. McCoubrey noted that the Architectural Committee was unanimous in its agreement with
the Commission was also addressing the entrance canopy. Ms. DiPasquale responded that the staff requested violations for other work to the building, but that the Department of Licenses & Inspections only issued a violation for the sign. Mr. McCoubrey noted that the Architectural Committee was unanimous in its agreement with the staff’s recommendation of denial. He noted that it is a wonderful gem of a building, and opined that there are other ways that signage can be achieved that are more consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Mr. Thomas agreed, and encouraged the owner to work with the staff to come up with an acceptable signage solution. Mr. Thomas opened the floor to public comment, of which there was none. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to deny the application, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Royer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 11 AUGUST 2017 7 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 6433 DREXEL RD Proposal: Construct two-story, single-family house Review Requested: Review and Comment Owner: Simon & Cindy Hauger Applicant: Simon Hauger History: vacant Individual Designation: None District Designation: Overbrook Farms Historic District, Contributing, under consideration Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Architectural Committee commented recommend that the proposed construction is generally compatible with the Overbrook Farms Historic District in terms of massing, size, scale, fenestration, but not materials for the exterior of the building and/or the windows. The Architectural Committee made the following suggestions: no vinyl siding is used; the detailing of the exterior with stone and stucco or stone and HardiePlank is explored, and, regardless of the cladding, a minimum 30-inch stone base is used; the slope of the roof, the depth of the soffit/eaves, and the height of the fascia board are all increased; and, the depth of the porch and the thickness of its supporting members are increased. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct a two-story single-family home on a currently vacant lot. The Historical Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to Review and Comment because the lot is an undeveloped site in a historic district. The proposed house is a simple Colonial, clad in horizontal vinyl siding, and featuring a gabled roof. The house is oriented sideways on the lot, with the primary entrance centered on the long west elevation. A porch with a standing-seam metal roof and French doors would face Drexel
historic district. The proposed house is a simple Colonial, clad in horizontal vinyl siding, and featuring a gabled roof. The house is oriented sideways on the lot, with the primary entrance centered on the long west elevation. A porch with a standing-seam metal roof and French doors would face Drexel Road. The proposed windows are primarily four- over-one and six-over-one, but the material of the windows is unspecified. ACTION: See Consent Agenda OLD BUSINESS 228 RICHMOND ST Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Carlos Lopez Nominator: Andrew Fearon & Oscar Beisert Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 228 Richmond Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 228 Richmond Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. This nomination argues that the Jacob Deal frame half-gambrel house is a rare surviving example of the wooden houses associated with the early development of maritime Philadelphia. DISCUSSION: Ms. Keller presented the application to the Historical Commission. No one represented the property owner or the nomination. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 11 AUGUST 2017 8 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Ms. Keller explained that she received a request from the nominator for a 90-day continuance, and that the request states that both the nominator and property owner are in agreement. However, she received a letter from the property owner just prior to the start of this meeting, and the property owner does not explicitly request a continuance, and made reference to attending today’s meeting, although he is currently not in attendance. She noted that this designation matter has been pending for quite some time. Mr. Thomas asked why the continuance request is for such a long period of time. Ms. Keller responded that the nominator is likely requesting the longest period of time that is typically granted by the Commission. She explained that it is likely because the nominator is planning on submitting a historic district nomination which would include this property. Ms. Cooperman noted that that nomination has not yet been received. Mr. Thomas noted that this property remains under the Commission’s jurisdiction. He commented that it could be a long
that it is likely because the nominator is planning on submitting a historic district nomination which would include this property. Ms. Cooperman noted that that nomination has not yet been received. Mr. Thomas noted that this property remains under the Commission’s jurisdiction. He commented that it could be a long time before a historic district would be designated, and that the Commission has an obligation to move its calendar forward. Ms. Cooperman noted that neither the property owner nor the nominator is in attendance, and suggested that the Commission continue the matter to its next meeting, at which time it can discuss the proposed designation. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to continue the review of the nomination for 228 Richmond Street for 30 days to the Historical Commission’s meeting on 8 September 2017. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Thomas commented that the Commission still needs to continue the discussion regarding historic districts, but that this meeting is not the opportunity for that discussion, as many people are on vacation. He noted that the 8 September 2017 Commission meeting may take longer than the average meeting, owing to several matters on the agenda, and suggested that the Commissioners bring lunch. ADJOURNMENT ACTION: At 9:24 a.m., Ms. Turner moved to adjourn. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CITED IN THE MINUTES 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. Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Roofs Guideline: Recommended: Designing additions to roofs such as residential, office, or storage spaces; elevator housing; decks and terraces; or dormers or skylights when required by the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features. 6.15.a.2-3: Murals shall not be placed directly upon historic fabric. 6.15.a.3: Murals shall not be placed in a manner that obscures historic fabric. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 11 AUGUST 2017 9 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL
use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features. 6.15.a.2-3: Murals shall not be placed directly upon historic fabric. 6.15.a.3: Murals shall not be placed in a manner that obscures historic fabric. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 11 AUGUST 2017 9 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION § 14-1004(1) Criteria for Designation. A building, complex of buildings, structure, site, object, or district may be designated for preservation if it: (a) Has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth, or nation or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past; (b) Is associated with an event of importance to the history of the City, Commonwealth or Nation; (c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style; (d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen; (e) Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or designer, or professional engineer whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation; (f) Contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant innovation; (g) Is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area that should be preserved according to a historic, cultural, or architectural motif; (h) Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or City; (i) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history; or (j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community.