THE MINUTES OF THE 443rd STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 14 July 1999 Commission Conference Room, One Parkway, 1515 Arch St., 18th Fl. Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Present Wayne S. Spilove, Chair David Brownlee, Ph.D. Barbara Kaplan, Executive Director, City Planning Commission Carol Lawrence Shelly Merhige, Office of City Council President Steven Mullin, Director and City Representative, Department of Commerce David Perri, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Robert Thomas Dennis Ward III Scott Wilds, Assistant Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Caroline Wischmann Stephanie G. Wolf, Ph.D., Vice Chair Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer R. Scott Jacob, Executive Secretary Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Mark Zecca, Esq., Deputy City Solicitor Also Allan Baumholtz Sharon Finnegan Nancy Smith Robert Saxon, Saxon Capers Architects Alfred Ottaviano Purrette Ottaviano Patrick Gillard James Piatt, Piatt Associates Architects Cynthia Kishinchand Julie Camburn Michael Bach Cara Carroccia Roger Moss, Athenaeum of Philadelphia James Gagnon, Drill Construction Richard Thom, Old City Civic Association Rae Monroe Maria Heiman, Gilbane Building Co. Philip Kunz Vibeke Lichten John Bowie Shelly Lucero Jonathan Cabin Craig Klofach, Ueland Junker McCauley and Nicholson Architects Aliki Strakes, Preservation Alliance David Dutot, Delta Group 2 William Kerr, Blank Rome and Comisky & McCauley LLP, Counselors at law C. Thomas, Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen Attorneys Richard Forsythe, Burt Hill Kosar Rittelman Architects Jeffrey Kleger David Allen, Morton’s Restaurant Janet Potter, Foundation for Architecture Judith Eden, Center City Residents Association Wayne Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 443rd Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 9:00 A.M. MINUTES of the 442nd Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Ms. Wolf and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the 442nd Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 9 June 1999, Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. Old Business 2039 Walnut Street Commonwealth Real Estate, Owner Shelly Lucero, Applicant DATE: 1858 PROPOSAL: Banner sign Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for installing a large banner sign projecting from the middle of the central window of a bay. He stated that the Committee objected to the proposal, and wanted the applicant to place signage within the windows of the bay. The applicant stated that the previous window signage was not effective. Commission members agreed that projecting
sign projecting from the middle of the central window of a bay. He stated that the Committee objected to the proposal, and wanted the applicant to place signage within the windows of the bay. The applicant stated that the previous window signage was not effective. Commission members agreed that projecting signage would meet the applicant’s needs without obscuring the historic features to any great degree. Ms. Wischmann suggested using a more transparent material for the banner, and Mr. Tyler thought the applicant should consider moving it to one side of the center window of the bay. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and to approve the proposal as submitted, noting the suggestions made by Ms. Wischmann and Mr. Tyler, but not making them part of the motion. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with eight votes. Mr. Thomas dissented. Four members of the Commission arrived after the vote. REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 27 June 1999, Robert Thomas, Chair. 1628 Spruce Street Allan Baumholtz, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1855 PROPOSAL: Legalize vinyl windows; install two wood windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal. 3 Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal seeks to legalize the installation of vinyl windows in place of the two-over-two wood windows done without a permit. Allan Baumholtz, owner of the building, proposes to add a thin vertical vinyl mullion to the upper floor windows and install wood, true divided light sash on the first floor. He has not provided an adequate drawing showing the proposed windows. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee thought the applicant should replace all of the windows with wood, true divided light sash. Mr. Sklaroff noted that the applicant purchased the property fully aware of the violation. The Committee recommendation to deny the vinyl windows follows guidelines for windows in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which are upheld by the Commission consistently. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation to deny the proposal. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 341 South 4th Street Alfred Ottaviano, Owner Stephen Skale, Esq., Applicant DATE: c. 1780 PROPOSAL: Re-roofing Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal, with a recommendation to pursue a better match for faux weathered cedar shake. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for installing an asphalt faux slate shingle on this rowhouse. He stated that
Owner Stephen Skale, Esq., Applicant DATE: c. 1780 PROPOSAL: Re-roofing Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal, with a recommendation to pursue a better match for faux weathered cedar shake. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for installing an asphalt faux slate shingle on this rowhouse. He stated that the Committee explained to the applicant that this building style would have originally had a cedar shake roof, better replicated with a weathered wood color and a wooden square butt shape shingle. The applicant maintained that the faux slate resembles the existing shingle on the building. Mr. Thomas noted that the proposal does not call for new shingles on the cheeks of the dormer. Alfred Ottaviano, owner of the building, showed the Commission photographs of other buildings in the area with treatments similar to his proposal. Commission members explained that many of the buildings in these photographs date from later periods when slate was a common roofing material. Other photos showed faux cedar shake, not faux slate, as Mr. Ottaviano thought. Commission members objected to the design of the proposed material because it is cut to look like slate, not cedar shake, and asked the applicant to order the appropriate design from the manufacturer. The owner stated that his contractor already purchased the faux slate shingles. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation to deny the proposal. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried with eight votes. Mr. Mullin, Mr. Sklaroff and Ms. Merhige dissented and Ms. Kaplan abstained. Mr. Mullin left the meeting. 500 West Willow Grove Avenue, Chestnut Hill Academy Chestnut Hill Academy, Owner Craig Klofach, Architect/Applicant 4 DATE: 1882-1884 PROPOSAL: Addition to Conkey Art Center Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the proposal. Mr. Thomas stated that this proposal calls for building an addition on the Conkey Arts Center, a much-altered building situated across the street from the main structure. He stated that the Committee did not object to the proposal. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 500 West Willow Grove Avenue, Chestnut Hill Academy Chestnut Hill Academy, Owner Craig Klofach, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1882-1884 PROPOSAL: Roof replacement with red asphalt shingles Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the use of the proposed red asphalt shingles by Certain-Teed, in either the “Grand Manor” or “Carriage House” design. Mr. Thomas stated that this application revisits the
Hill Academy Chestnut Hill Academy, Owner Craig Klofach, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1882-1884 PROPOSAL: Roof replacement with red asphalt shingles Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the use of the proposed red asphalt shingles by Certain-Teed, in either the “Grand Manor” or “Carriage House” design. Mr. Thomas stated that this application revisits the question of a new roof for the main building at the Chestnut Hill Academy. The proposal calls for a new red asphalt shingle roof. The historic photos show a roof of diamond-shaped terra cotta or slate shingles. Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant showed the Committee a colored drawing dating from the time of the building’s construction showing a red shingled roof. Mr. Thomas explained that the existing roof, constructed with Supra-Dur in the early 1980s, has not held up and requires replacement. He confirmed that some Supra-Dur roofs have not lasted, and that the company went out of business for that reason. A limited budget prohibits the Academy from using real tile or red Vermont slate, as well as the high-end replacement materials such as Eternit. Apparently, Eternit, in a diamond cut pattern, would add $500,000 to the approximate $1,500,000 cost of the roof project. Mr. Thomas noted that no diamond shaped asphalt shingles are available on the market at this time, and that the Committee did not object to the use of the proposed red asphalt shingles by Certain-Teed, in either the “Grand Manor” or “Carriage House” design. The Applicant informed the Commission of the preference for the “Carriage House” design. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1346 North Broad Street, Edwin Forrest House, (New Freedom Theater) New Freedom Theater/Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Owner Robert Saxon, Architect/Applicant DATE: Main house - 1853; theater addition - c. 1876 PROPOSAL: New side addition Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the proposal, with staff to review the color and finish of the stucco. 5 Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for constructing a stuccoed, one-story addition on the south wall of the theater building, set back from Broad Street. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to the proposal owing to its minimal visibility from Broad Street, but asked staff to review the color and finish of the stucco. Ms. Merhige made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried
Street. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to the proposal owing to its minimal visibility from Broad Street, but asked staff to review the color and finish of the stucco. Ms. Merhige made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Skidoo Street, between Stanton and Calumet Streets City of Philadelphia, Owner Madeleine Antinucci, Department of Streets, Applicant DATE: Early 20th century PROPOSAL: Pave in asphalt Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal, with the suggestion that the Department of Streets work with the interested members of the community to raise money for the proper restoration of the street. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for re-paving an historically designated granite block street with asphalt. At the Committee meeting the applicant reported that at least 54 percent of the street requires repair, and resurfacing it in asphalt would cost 10 percent of the cost to restore one half of the street in granite block. Mr. Thomas stated that he suggested the Department of Streets work with the interested members of the community to raise money for the proper restoration of the street. Ms. Kaplan noted that funds do exist in the Capital Program Fund specifically for paving matters like this, and suggested the Department of Streets and the Historical Commission look into tapping any possible funding sources available. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 219-221 South 6th Street, Athenaeum of Philadelphia Athenaeum of Philadelphia, Owner Roger Moss, Applicant DATE: 1845-1847 PROPOSAL: Sidewalk replacement; bollards Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the proposal. Mr. Thomas explained that the proposal calls for installing protective bollards on the St. James Street side of the building, removing the blue stone sidewalk and installing brick on the 6th Street side of the building. A note in the minutes of the Athenaeum in 1878 records the taking up of the sidewalk and laying of flagstone. The applicant takes this to mean that a brick sidewalk existed previously. However, he provides no evidence for this hypothesis. Roger Moss, applicant for the proposal, stated that the Athenaeum has had to replace portions of the bluestone with regularity, and that only the pavers closest to the building are original. He explained that the sidewalk was probably brick at the time of the building’s construction. Mr. Moss also
hypothesis. Roger Moss, applicant for the proposal, stated that the Athenaeum has had to replace portions of the bluestone with regularity, and that only the pavers closest to the building are original. He explained that the sidewalk was probably brick at the time of the building’s construction. Mr. Moss also noted that brick is easier to maintain. 6 Ms. Merhige made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried with eight votes. Mr. Brownlee and Mr. Wilds dissented. 501 Vine Street Vibeke Lichten, Owner/Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1885 PROPOSAL: Rehabilitation; replace windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for restoring the windows on the property and enclosing the rear porch. The Commission did not object to the proposal. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 406 South Camac Street Michael Bach and Cara Carroccia, Owners/Architects/Applicants DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Rear addition and deck; build a third floor Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of: 1. Expanding the front dormer as submitted. 2. Either of the two proposed schemes for the rear addition including the projecting bay and the faux chimney. 3. The trellis on the roof deck Approval of: 1. Expanding the front dormer to the south only. 2. A simplified rear addition that incorporates the frontage of the historic rear kitchen addition, with more windows if desired. 3. The proposed roof deck, without the trellis. Mr. Tyler stated that the Commission staff does not favor the revised submission reflecting the Architectural Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for a large addition and deck on this corner property that completes a row of similar houses, and that the architects have provided a few options. Some of the plans also show removal of the front dormer and building a mansard- like third floor. The Commission has allowed some dormers on these houses with the provision that they do not take up the full width of the house so that the public can discern the original roof line. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee thought the applicants could expand the dormer to the south, but not closer to the north wall or the front. The applicants do not want to extend the dormer to the south, because an existing chimney already fills that space. The applicants showed the Commission revised
stated that the Committee thought the applicants could expand the dormer to the south, but not closer to the north wall or the front. The applicants do not want to extend the dormer to the south, because an existing chimney already fills that space. The applicants showed the Commission revised plans. The first scheme loosely follows the Committee’s recommendation, while the other still shows a mansard and a large rear addition and deck. The Commission did not want to discuss the design aspects of these schemes, and referred them back to the Architectural Committee. 7 Mr. Wilds made a motion to table the issue and refer it back to the Architectural Committee. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 7301 Germantown Avenue, Lutheran Theological Seminary Lutheran Theological Seminary, Owner David Dutot, Architect/Applicant DATE: Hagen Hall - c. 1790; current appearance - 1850 PROPOSAL: New internally illuminated sign Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the proposed sign, if moved closer to the driveway entrance northwest of the existing sign location. Mr. Thomas stated that this proposal calls for removing the wood sign announcing the campus and replacing it with a metal-faced box sign with letters cut out of the solid material, and back lit. He stated that the Committee thought the proposed sign could be approved if moved closer to the driveway entrance northwest of the existing sign location. The applicant submitted revised drawings reflecting the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Kaplan made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 401 North Broad Street 401 North Broad Street Associates, Owner James Gagnon, Applicant DATE: 1929 PROPOSAL: Louvers in windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval if the louvers are expanded to the full width of the transom, painted the same creamy yellow as the transoms and the Commission receives a letter from the owner confirming the intention to work on a facade plan showing the placement of future louvers placed in an orderly fashion. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for installing two louvers in the Callowhill Street side of the building. He stated that the Committee agreed to recommend approval if the louvers are expanded to the full width of the transom, painted the same creamy yellow as the transoms and the Commission receives a facade plan showing the placement of future louvers placed in an orderly fashion. James Gagnon, the applicant for this proposal,
Committee agreed to recommend approval if the louvers are expanded to the full width of the transom, painted the same creamy yellow as the transoms and the Commission receives a facade plan showing the placement of future louvers placed in an orderly fashion. James Gagnon, the applicant for this proposal, submitted a preliminary master plan for the building per the Committee’s request. The Commission agreed to approve this proposal prior to accepting the final master plan for the building. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1900-1938 Park Mall, Temple University Temple University, Owner James Piatt, Architect/Applicant 8 DATE: c. 1860s PROPOSAL: Conceptual review - Rehabilitation, additions and terraces Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval in concept of the proposal as submitted. Mr. Thomas explained that the Committee has reviewed this proposal in concept before. The new design shows end pavilions that no longer overlap the fronts of the existing rowhouses. They now have a lower profile and more horizontal lines than the former design. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to the proposal. Commission members wanted to ensure that this conceptual review only concerns the end pavilions, and not the terrace details that appear on the drawings submitted. Mr. Baron stated that nothing has come before the Commission for permit purposes, only at the conceptual level. The Commission only voted regarding the end pavilions. Ms. Wolf made a motion to approve the end pavilions in concept. Ms. Kaplan seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1910 Rittenhouse Square Street Mary Parenti, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1891 PROPOSAL: Garage door Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, with staff to review and approve details of the color and finish of the new garage door. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal revisits the new rear garage already approved by the Historical Commission. In order to retain the use of an interior staircase, the applicant seeks to install a metal slat rolling garage door rather than the approved paneled door. The new proposed door will roll up to a smaller size, whereas the former proposal demanded more ceiling space when in the open position. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 23-31 North Juniper Street, City Hall Annex Annex Center Limited Partnership, Owner James Platt, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1927 PROPOSAL: Signage; landscaping Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval,
more ceiling space when in the open position. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 23-31 North Juniper Street, City Hall Annex Annex Center Limited Partnership, Owner James Platt, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1927 PROPOSAL: Signage; landscaping Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, with the applicant to provide staff with more details regarding the location of all the concealed fixtures. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal shows minor revisions from drawings previously approved by the Commission. The new plans call for: 1. Revised signage with back lit, cut out letters. 2. Flag poles and plantings on the new traffic island in front of the building. 3. A brick striped paving pattern carried around to the Filbert and North 13th Street elevation sidewalks. 9 4. Lighting of the building from mostly concealed fixtures. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to any aspect of the proposal, but asked the applicant to provide staff with more details regarding the location of all the lighting fixtures. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 253 South 20th Street Jason Nusbaum, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1930 PROPOSAL: Legalize visible HVAC unit and ductwork Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of: 1. The ductwork on the side of the building conditional upon pocketing the metal support beams within the parapet, lowering the HVAC unit, and pulling it back from the street. Denial of: 1. The existing rooftop HVAC and ductwork installation. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for legalizing the installation of exterior ductwork and roof top HVAC in highly visible locations. He noted that Mr. Baron met with the applicant before work began to help guide the placement of the mechanical equipment units in locations invisible from the street. The applicant ignored this advice and installed the units without a permit. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee members agreed that the duct sits on a secondary facade and is less visible from the street owing to its location and the brick red color the applicant painted it to mitigate its appearance. He noted that an interior installation conforms to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Mr. Thomas explained that the Committee agreed to recommend approval of the exterior installation of the ductwork on the condition that the owner modify the rooftop HVAC
mitigate its appearance. He noted that an interior installation conforms to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Mr. Thomas explained that the Committee agreed to recommend approval of the exterior installation of the ductwork on the condition that the owner modify the rooftop HVAC to eliminate visibility from the street. Mr. Thomas explained that the Committee objected to the rooftop HVAC and ductwork installation, and recommended “pocketing” the metal support beams within the parapet, which will lower the support beams and mitigate the visibility of the mechanicals. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation, with the specification to pull the unit back away from the street to further reduce its visibility. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1411 Walnut Street Philadelphia Management Inc., Owner Morton’s Steak House, Tenant Jeffrey Kleger, Applicant DATE: 1911 PROPOSAL: Illuminated signage Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal to illuminate the sign, and to 10 approve down lights fixed in cylindrical cans instead of diffused through an egg crate. Mr. Thomas explained that this application calls for illuminating canvas awnings that have already been approved by staff in non-illuminated form. The applicant wishes to light up the white lettering on the face of the awning from behind and also provide down lighting. The drawing seen by the Committee shows fluorescent lights with an egg crate grill. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee objected to the illuminated aspect of the sign, and asked the applicant to return to the non-illuminated scheme, and agreed to recommend approval of down lights fixed in cylindrical cans instead of diffused through the egg crate and a translucent logo within a solid background. The applicant showed the Commission photos of a mock-up that has can lights with soffits as recommended. The Commission did not object to the mock-up, but requested the lighting in the canopy/sign over the entrance only, not the adjacent window. Staff already approved non-illuminated canopies, so the applicant may have a second, non-illuminated canopy. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve one canopy/sign, because zoning regulation only allows one awning, and with internal illumination, translucent logo within a solid background and down lights in cylindrical cans. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT of the Special Meeting of the Architectural Committee, 8 July 1999, Robert Thomas, Chair Mr. Tyler stated that both of the
allows one awning, and with internal illumination, translucent logo within a solid background and down lights in cylindrical cans. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT of the Special Meeting of the Architectural Committee, 8 July 1999, Robert Thomas, Chair Mr. Tyler stated that both of the proposals reviewed at this special meeting have requested continuances until the 11 August 1999 Stated Meeting. THE REPORT of the Special Committee on Germantown Avenue, 21 June 1999, Robert Thomas, Chair Mr. Thomas read from the report of the Special Committee on Germantown Avenue and explained that the Committee voted to recommend approval of proceeding with the restoration of the granite block between the rails and in the strip between the two sets of rails, with the Department of Streets to return to this Special Committee after working with SEPTA regarding the details of the rail type. The Committee will meet again before the Commission votes on the issue. THE REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, June 1999, Richard Tyler Mr. Tyler noted a few highlights from the monthly staff report. HARRY A. BATTEN MEMORIAL FUND Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve an expenditure for lunches for the Architectural Committee. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the expenditure. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 11 Ms. Wolf Made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, R. Scott Jacob Executive Secretary