Ir ... C ' ) J Present REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PHILADELPIIlA IDSTORICAL CO1\1MISSION Arlene Matzkin, Chairperson Commission Conference Room, Suite 1301, 1401 Arch Street 28 November 1995 Arlene Matzkin, Chairperson, Architectural Committee Penelope Batchelor William Cornell David Hollenberg Herbert Levy Suz.anne Pentz Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Lori Plavin Salganicoff, Historic Preservation Specialist Jeffrey Barr, Historic Research Technician Also Judith Eden, Center City Residents Association (CCRA) Jeffery Hayes, Susan Maxman Architects Dante Luciani Bobbye Burke, CCRA Bernard Nearey, CCRA Jeff Wilson, Richard Conway Meyer Architect Dick Meyer, Richard Conway Meyer Architect Ira Brind, 1830 Rittenhouse Square Mary Galgon, Historic Landmarks Cathleen Tinton, University of Pennsylvania Jay Platt, University of Pennsylvania A. C. Ives, University of Pennsylvania A. C. Strassner, University of Pennsylvania Donna Fecondo, 2121 Walnut Street Richard W. Thom, Old City Neighborhood Claire Donato, Mark B. Thompson Associates Mark Thompson, Mark B. Thompson Associates R. T. Friday, R. T. Friday Construction Hy Myers, Vitetta Group _Nan Gutterman, Vitetta Group M. Kettler, Vitetta Group George Shaeffer, Philadelphia Orchestra Association Charles A. Fischer, 824 S. Front Street Stella Toczhlowski, 824 S. Front Street George J. Baker, 325 S. 18th Street Hank Clinton, 325 S. 18th Street Terry Kennedy, 325 S. 18th Street Bill Wheeler, 1811 Walnut Str~t Mark Herrmann, 2331 N. Broad Street j Report of the Architectural Committee 1828 ADDISON STREET Martin and Suzanne Kelly, Applicant PROPOSAL: New windows 2 28 November 1995 Meeting The applicant proposes to install new single glazed wood 2/2 windows on the front and visible rear facades. The Committee voted to reCO"}mend approval of this proposal. 1901-45 VINE STREET, FREE LIBRARY OF PHILADELPHIA, LOGAN SQUARE George Yu, Architects PROPOSAL: Restoration of pediment and sculpture The applicant proposes to clean, caulk and restore the stonework in the pediment of the Free Library. The architects have hired a conservator to write a specification for the restoration. The Committee voted to recommended approval with details to be approved by staff. 18TH AND SANSOM STREETS First Baptist Church PROPOSAL: Stained Glass Restoration The applicant proposes to clean and repair the stained glass windows and protective grates and reinstall them. The Committee recommended approval of this proposal with staff review of details. 412 SOUTH lsEMINGER STREET Arnold Kurtz, Applicant PROPOSAL: Security Door and Transom Grate The Applicant proposes to install a metal and glass storm/security door on the front door of this
glass windows and protective grates and reinstall them. The Committee recommended approval of this proposal with staff review of details. 412 SOUTH lsEMINGER STREET Arnold Kurtz, Applicant PROPOSAL: Security Door and Transom Grate The Applicant proposes to install a metal and glass storm/security door on the front door of this rowhouse, and a glass panel with metal grill over the door's three-pane transom. Mr. Kurtz did not attend this hearing. Committee members asked if there had been a break-in attempt through this door. It was explained that there had been a break-in through a rear upper floor window. Committee members were concerned that this very heavy looking door would cover up the door and transom and change the historic character of the opening. They were also concerned with the precedent this would set for covering historic openings all over the City. They recommended in regard to security that burglars rarely break in a highly visible front door, but that if the security of the front door is the problem, the applicant should consider a metal six panel door ~t to the door opening. The transom bars could be installed on the inside of the three light transom. For energy efficiency they suggested improved weather stripping and perhaps a wood storm door with a full glass panel to be reviewed by the Committee at a later date. The Committee voted to recommend denial of this proposal. J J Report of the Architectural Committee 334 SOUTH 24TH STREET Victoria Lilly, Applicant PROPOSAL: New Wood Windows 3 28 November 1995 Meeting This proposal calls for the replacement of wood window sash in kind with wood 6/6 windows with true divided lights. The existing wood frames would be retained. The Committee asked that staff confirm that the window will not have an exterior energy panel. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal. 237-241 SOUTH 21ST STREET Dante Luciani, Applicant Jeffrey Hayes, Susan Maxman Architects PROPOSAL: New Windows Front facade windows on this Frank Furness-designed row were removed without benefit of a building permit with the intention of replacing them with vinyl 1/1 windows. These windows have already been purchased and are mostly installed. Insufficient evidence of the original sash configuration created confusion at the last (31 October) Architectural Committee meeting and resulted in a recommendation that the Applicant return with a more fully-developed proposal produced by an historical architect. Utilizing a photograph
windows. These windows have already been purchased and are mostly installed. Insufficient evidence of the original sash configuration created confusion at the last (31 October) Architectural Committee meeting and resulted in a recommendation that the Applicant return with a more fully-developed proposal produced by an historical architect. Utilizing a photograph from 1922, the architects drew a proposal showing both the 21st Street and Locust Street facades. On 21st Street they propose to install new wood 2/2 true-muntin windows on the ground floor, retain the exiting 1/1 vinyl windows on the second and third floors, and at the dormer level to affix a muntin grid on the vinyl windows to mimic the muntins on the existing wood windows. On the Locust Street facade all windows would be wood with true muntins. The first floor would be have 2/2 windows, the second and third floor would be 1/1 and the dormer windows would be a combination of 6/1 and 8/1. No basement windows would be changed. The bays would contain single pane casements and retain leaded glass transoms where they currently exist. The architects determined that the original frames remain in most locations on the building. All will be retained and reused. The architects observed no original sash. They noted that the vinyl windows purchased seem to fit into the existing frames and pockets well. Committee members noted that Pella, the manufacturer of the vinyl windows, can factory-install metal muntins that might perform better than the window mun tins provided by Mr. Luciani' s contractor. Committee members observed that the installed 1/1 vinyl windows appear to be "floating" owing to missing brick mold. They agreed that a brick molding could be installed to minimize this problem. In exchange for retaining many of the vinyl windows and being allowed to use the applied muntins at the dormer level, Mr. Luciani has agreed to repair the masonry below the ground floor window that was cut down with matching stone or formed stucco. Ms. Burke complimented Mr. Luciani for allowing this issue to be resolved amicably. She recommended that the documentation compiled and prepared by Susan Maxman Architects should remain with the property so that the next owner would have a better opportunity to undertake a restoration. Mr. Baron stated that the information would be retained at the Historical Commission. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal submitted by the architect with the
Susan Maxman Architects should remain with the property so that the next owner would have a better opportunity to undertake a restoration. Mr. Baron stated that the information would be retained at the Historical Commission. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal submitted by the architect with the conditions that Report of the Architectural Committee 4 28 November 1995 Meeting the masonry watertable be restored with i1ifill stone or matching stucco and that the multi-pane ground floor transom window be stored ill a safe place inside of the building. The applicant also requested that the Committee consider signage bearing the name "The Victoria House" and perhaps some historical infonnation either above the entrance lintel at 239 S. 21st Street or on one or two brass plaques. Committee members favored the plaques, and recommended that the Applicant return to the Committee with a formal signage proposal when prese~ting the other two facades. 314 EAST WISTER STREET Anthony Weber, Architect PROPOSAL: Rear Additions This proposal calls for adding a third floor onto a two-story rear addition and a second story onto a one-story rear addition. The work would be only slightly visible from the street. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal. 311-315 CHESTNUT STREET Richard Conway Meyer, Architect PROPOSAL: New Front Facade Window Openings The applicant proposes to cut new openings through the front facade of this relatively modem addition building for the installation of new metal windows. The applicant desires views to a portion of Independence National Historical Park when seated inside of the building's front rooms. Committee members agreed that the cutting of openings at this particular facade would not constitute the removal of historic fabric. Owning to the modernity of this addition, the Committee voted to recommend approval of the new window openings. 1830 RITTENHOUSE SQUARE Rich Klepfer, Martin Rosenblum Architects PROPOSAL: New Windows This proposal involves the replacement of single-glazed, fixed casement picture windows with double-glazed casements on the front facade of this grand apartment building facing Rittenhouse Square. The Commission's record photograph of the building at the time of its designation shows 1/1 double hung sash windows. These were apparently replaced with the picture windows without a permit by the previous owner. Comparison of the designation photograph with a current one reveals that many windows, transom bars, and dividers have been altered or replaced on this building without benefit of permit. Commission
1/1 double hung sash windows. These were apparently replaced with the picture windows without a permit by the previous owner. Comparison of the designation photograph with a current one reveals that many windows, transom bars, and dividers have been altered or replaced on this building without benefit of permit. Commission staff noted that standard practice has consistently been to require that alterations done without benefit of permit be returned to the documented appearance at time of designation when further alterations are proposed on those pieces. Committee members expressed dismay at the building's window alterations and how it is damaging the ...J appearance of the front facade, especially given the building's great significance to the historic district and • J Report of the Architectural Committee 5 28 November 1995 Meeting Rittenhouse Square. The apartment owner stated that without approval for his desired replacement, the present windows would remain. He explained that he bought the apartment because he liked these picture windows. The Committee voted to recommend denial of the proposal to replace no11-approved picture wi11dows ;,, ki11d in favor of replacing those windows with the historically appropriate 1 /1 double hung sash windows. Ms. Burke suggested that CCRA might be able to come to 1830 Rittenhouse Square and try to educate apartment owners about the history and importance of their building and its windows. 2121 WALNUT STREET Donna Fecondo, Applicant PROPOSAL: Painted Facade, Copper Ornament The Applicant sought last month to legalize the painting of the building's stone facade, but was asked to return and make the proposal after submitting the appropriate building permit application. The paint was applied to mask hard-to-clean graffiti on the rough stone. Although the color of the paint matches the stone, a Commission approval of the paint job itself might allow for the building to be repainted in other colors without Commission review under current procedures. This proposal does not include the request to alter windows found in last month's application. While Ms. Fecondo has indicated that neither she nor the present owner intend to repaint using a different color, concern remained for control of paint color after the building is sold. Prior to this meeting, Mr. Grimes of the City Solicitor's Office determined that the Commission may not attach any deed restrictions as part of the design review process. A staff member reported that at the Commission meeting a Commission member recommended that this work
color after the building is sold. Prior to this meeting, Mr. Grimes of the City Solicitor's Office determined that the Commission may not attach any deed restrictions as part of the design review process. A staff member reported that at the Commission meeting a Commission member recommended that this work could be approved as a • graffiti barrier" rather than a paint job, implying that the coating is meant to protect and/or represent the stone. Ms. Batchelor added that perhaps the paint should always be the color of the original material when graffiti protection is the issue. Committee members agreed with this suggestion, adding that when graffiti cannot be removed in other ways and the building must be repainted to cover graffiti, the new paint should extend only as high as the lowest line in the masonry above the affected area. Committee members expressed concern that too much paint would obscure the textured surface of the stone. They also reiterated that the condition for allowing this paint to remain on the facade is that the copper ornament at the front and side of the building should be carefully stripped of its paint and reattached in a symmetrical manner at the front and side of the building without changing its spacing. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the stone-colored graffiti barrier on the building conditional upon the stripping of the copper ornament either in place or if necessary with removal and reattachment in a symmetrical pattern at the front of the building without changing its spacing. 24 SOUTH BANK STREET William Link, Applicant PROPOSAL: Legalize Door Replacement The applicant seeks to legalize the installation of a solid metal door on the side facade of this Old City apartment building. The door replaced a pair of panelled, glazed double doors that had been vandalized. ) Report of the Architectural Committee 6 28 November 1995 Meeting Because the door is not high enough for the opening, an infill panel was installed at the top. Mr. Thom of the Old City Civic Association described the side facade as important since it faces Elbow Lane. This lane is part of an historic pedestrian walkway being developed in Old City sponsored by the City Administration. On behalf of the Old City Civic Association, he urged that the blank steel door be replaced with a more appropriate one. Mr. Hollenberg noted that a steel door would
Lane. This lane is part of an historic pedestrian walkway being developed in Old City sponsored by the City Administration. On behalf of the Old City Civic Association, he urged that the blank steel door be replaced with a more appropriate one. Mr. Hollenberg noted that a steel door would be an undesirable precedent in this area. Mr. Thom added that Ii.is own nearby building ~as an interior gate inside of its main double doors for a secure entrance that does not mar the appearance of the building. Committee members agreed that the steel door should be replaced with a door based on the original door as well as other appropriate neighborhood doors. A photograph taken immediately after the installation of the steel door shows the original doors lying against the wall. The Committee voted to recommend denial of the metal door, asking that it be replaced with a full-height door based on the original doors' design. It could be a single door that appears to be double doors. Where the original door had glass, the replacements could have a reveal or glass with interior bars. Details may be work out at staff level. FAIRMOUNT WATERWORKS ENGINE HOUSE AND OLD MILL HOUSE Clair Donato, Mark Thompson Associates Architects PROPOSAL: Vents for Kitchen and Air Conditioning To accommodate exhaust and make-up air requirements for the kitchen, the applicant proposes to create masonry openings in the existing semi-circular lunettes above the four comer doors on the east and west facades. Louvers would cover the lunettes, mimicking fixed shutters that were historically located there. The applicant offered several options to vent the kitchen exhaust and provide air conditioning for a restaurant in the Waterworks Engine House and an interpretive center in the Old Mill House. These options for the Engine House proposed various combinations of louvers set into window locations, and creating false chimneys for air intake. The first option would use four attic windows for intake, combustion, and relief air louvers. The louvers would be located at two attic windows on the north and south elevations and the chimney would be rebuilt for reuse as a mechanical flue. The second option is different from the first only in its location of louvers at two second floor windows on the north and south elevations. Option three proposes using two attic and two second floor windows on the south (garden) elevation. The fourth option
for reuse as a mechanical flue. The second option is different from the first only in its location of louvers at two second floor windows on the north and south elevations. Option three proposes using two attic and two second floor windows on the south (garden) elevation. The fourth option features boxing out two false chimneys on the west roof-slope for air intake and using the bottom sash for louvers at the south elevation of the attic. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal to offer ventilation, with the understanding that there would only be partial removal of the masonry in the lunettes and that louvers there should resemble shutters. The Committee also voted to recommend Option 3 as most desirable. 232-246 SOUTH BROAD STREET, ACADEMY OF MUSIC Hyman Myers, Vitetta Group PROPOSAL: Ramp. Roof Alterations, Loading-Dock Alterations This proposal involves raising the roof in two penthouses by ten feet, installing an accessibility ramp at the front facade and altering a loading area on the south side of the building. Interior alterations presented to but not Report of the Architectural Committee 7 28 November 1995 Meeting reviewed by the Committee include lighting alterations, interior changes for greater accessibility, and removal and replacement of the interior roof structure. Committee members agreed that the roof penthouses would be acceptable but found the placement of the accessibility ramp at the majestic front of the building problematic. Mr. Myers stated that although a side alley exists adjacent to the entrance that could be altered to accommodate such access, the only option seriously considered was a ramp at the ·front facade. He offerecJ that while the alley could be made attractive, well lit, and would offer protection from the weather unlike the front , it is nevertheless an entrance that would only be used by the wheelchair-bound. He explained that regulations dictated that such separate accommodation should be avoided. Committee members recommended that the south facade areaway should be considered seriously as an option since the front ramp would do serious damage to the look of this National Landmark. They suggested that perhaps the Academy could pursue an appeal with the City's ADA compliance board. On Locust Street, access for wheelchair-bound performers was an easier problem to solve. Toe floor level of the performers' area sits much closer to the street, and will actually be lowered further as part of the planned interior
the Academy could pursue an appeal with the City's ADA compliance board. On Locust Street, access for wheelchair-bound performers was an easier problem to solve. Toe floor level of the performers' area sits much closer to the street, and will actually be lowered further as part of the planned interior changes. The applicant proposes to remove a step at the Locust Street performers' entrance, installing a short interior ramp. Committee members approved of this aspect of the proposal. Mr. Myers asked that Ms. Matzkin, as Chair of the Architectural Committee, write a letter requesting that the a solution using the south facade be approved for accessibility use by the City's accessibility advocate. The Committee voted to recommend approval of all aspects of the proposal except for the addition of an accessibility ramp to the front facade of the building. They recommended that the south facade areaway adjacent to the entrance be examined for its ability to offer a dignified entrance to people with disabilities. 3409 HAMIL TON STREET Russ T. Friday PROPOSAL: Rebuild Front Retaining Wall Toe application involves the rebuilding of a collapsed front yard brick retaining wall in stone. Familiar with the neighborhood and the project in question, Ms. Matz.kin expressed her approval of the project. She added that many of the original retaining walls in that area are built of similar stone. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal. 824 SOUTH FRONT STREET Charles A. Fischer, Contractor Stella Toczhlowski, Owner PROPOSAL: Storefront Restoration This comer storefront has been .Yandalized, boarded up, and had its comer entrance doors replaced without a permit. The applicant seeks to reopen the boarded storefront and remove an entrance security door, reinstalling double doors to mimic those which hung there originally. The storefront glass would be divided into three vertical panels so as to allow for less expensive replacement if a portion is broken by vandals. Committee members agreed that the mullions between the glass panels, proposed to be approximately 4" wide, Report of the Architectural Committee 8 28 November 1995 Meeting could and should be reduced to 1-1 /2". The double doors at the entrance would be constructed of true wood with panels, and could be a single door made to look like a double. In the interest of security, Committee members agreed that the door could contain a wood panel where it would have originally been glazed, with the
double doors at the entrance would be constructed of true wood with panels, and could be a single door made to look like a double. In the interest of security, Committee members agreed that the door could contain a wood panel where it would have originally been glazed, with the condition that the panel be removable for later glazing. This would allow for the correct appearance should the property's use ever return to commercial. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal, with the conditions that the width of the storefront metal mullions be reduced to ·l-112" and that the wooden front door be or appear to be double doors. The wood doors should contain true wood panels. 325 SOUTH 18TH STREET Teresa Kennedy, Applicant George Baker, Architect PROPOSAL: Reconstruction of Rear Section This proposal has appeared before the Committee and the Commission several times in the past months. At the last Committee meeting, the architect was asked to produce correctly drafted and dimensioned architectural drawings and to reinspect the property with an engineer. After careful consideration of the joists, the architect proposes now to completely rebuild the rear of the property. Water damage and badly planned cuts through the structure has seriously compromised this area's stability. The proposal was scaled back from the last meeting in that there is no increase in the height of the bay requested at this time. The applicant wondered about proposing such changes in the future, and was told that they would require a separate review but that the vote to approve the current proposal did not preclude the possibility of approval of future alterations. A concern was expressed for the deteriorated condition of the dormers and decorative slate mansard roof at this portion of the building. Although the original intent was to retain the roof and dormers, reconstruction and/or restoration may be necessary. Mr. Baker stated that the slate will be carefully removed and stored. He reported having met with Com.mission staff, who instructed him to provide details of the roof and dormers before they are dismantled. Commission staff summarized the extent of the work on the rear area of the building and noted that the proposed demolition is fast approaching the whole rear portion of the building. A lot may be revealed when work begins. Mr. Baker requested that this higher level of demolition be recommended for approval at this hearing
of the work on the rear area of the building and noted that the proposed demolition is fast approaching the whole rear portion of the building. A lot may be revealed when work begins. Mr. Baker requested that this higher level of demolition be recommended for approval at this hearing to allow for this possibility. He stated that if the mansard can be saved in situ, that would be the owners preference. Commission staff agreed that, owing to time constraints, it may be better to approve the full possible scope of the project. The Committee voted to recommend final approval of the proposal for demolition and rebuilding of the rear of the building, pending staff review of details. Mr. Baker agreed to present all drawings, including the necessary details of cornices, windows dormers and panelled bays, to Commission staff by 11 December 1995. .. ) _) Report of the Architectural Committee 1811 WALNUT STREET William Wheeler, Applicant PROPOSAL: Concept of Rear Demolition 9 28 November 1995 Meeting This proposal calls for the demolition of the Sansom Street (rear) portion of this property, with the retention of the front portion of the building. The point at which the building would be cut is shown on the plan to be just in front of the main interior stair. The applicant seek,s this approval in concept so that options are clear while he looks for an occupant. The Sansom Street facade presently incorporates two facades, an 1890s rear addition and a mid 20th century stucco funeral parlor. Mr. Tyler stated that a permit should not be approved for the demolition until a formal plan is presented and the developer is able to proceed with the new construction. That design for the new building should take into account the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for such work so that the new addition will be sympathetic with its older neighbors, but also a 1996 building. Ms. Matzkin added that Committee members would like to see the building used and the front portion of the building maintained. Mr. Wheeler noted that three high-quality retailers seem to be interested in the building. One could include an outdoor cafe. Mr. Wheeler also presented signage in concept. The signage could include brass plaques, matte canvas shed awnings, and perhaps banners utilizing existing flagpoles. The Committee voted to recommend approval in concept of the demolition, conditional upon approval of a
be interested in the building. One could include an outdoor cafe. Mr. Wheeler also presented signage in concept. The signage could include brass plaques, matte canvas shed awnings, and perhaps banners utilizing existing flagpoles. The Committee voted to recommend approval in concept of the demolition, conditional upon approval of a design for the Sansom Street facade and proof of readiness to construct the new building. Signage was also recommended for conceptual approval. 2331-35 NORTH BROAD STREET Dave Dobson, Applicant PROPOSAL: New Roof This proposal involves replacing the roof on this building with weathered wood-color asphalt shingles. The original standing-seam copper roof on this building blew off in a storm and was replaced in asphalt without benefit of a permit or Commission review. The new roof is leaking badly and water is damaging plaster. The applicant would like to replace the roof before winter. Mr. Herrmann, a representative for Mr. Dobson, explained that Mr. Dobson had wanted to replace the roof in copper, but that the cost was much higher than expected. Working with the two contractors who had submitted bids, they sought alternatives. Ms. Matzkin recommended the applicant consider using a rubber roof with battens, which strongly resembles a standing-seam metal roof and has been approved by the Historical Com.mission in the past. Mr. Herrmann described that the proposal includes removing the existing asphalt shingles to the roof substrate, adding 5/8" plywood, and reshingling. In addition, the applicant intends to replace gutters. He reported that the contractors had recommended the shingles. Mr. Herrmann stated that the roof currently leaks owing to poor installation and quality of shingle material. Ms. Matzkin and Mr. Levy responded that given the slope of the roof, the problem is more likely the use of the shingle itself. Commission staff added that the character of a shingle roof is very different from standing seam ' . Report of the Architectural Committee metal. 28 November 1995 Meeting Mr. Herrmann submitted that the cost of the shingle roof would be $95,000, the cost of teme-coated stainless steel would be $130,000, and that teme-coated copper would cost $150,000. Commission staff noted that the adjacent building received federal money for rehabilitation, and that perhaps $35,000 could be gotten from that same pot of money to make up the difference between shingle and standing-seam metal roofing. Mr. Herrmann expressed concern for the amount of time that would ~e. There was some
staff noted that the adjacent building received federal money for rehabilitation, and that perhaps $35,000 could be gotten from that same pot of money to make up the difference between shingle and standing-seam metal roofing. Mr. Herrmann expressed concern for the amount of time that would ~e. There was some disagreement between Committee members and Mr. Herrmann relating to costs of different types of roofing. In addition, the cost of a rubber roof was not submitted. Mr. Herrmann offered to obtain new estimates for the Committee's consideration before the time of the Commission's 13 December 1995 meeting. They agreed that Commission staff could review color if shingles are recommended for approval. No vote was taken by the Committee pending review of new estimates for roofing material alternatives. The meeting was adjourned at 5: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, e~l~ '7 'µ· ,✓, ✓v.,_ .- ~ Lori Plavin Salganicoff .. . .. ) Report of the Architectural Committee 1613 SPRUCE STREET Charles Derr, Applicant PROPOSAL: Restore Transom ADDENDUM 28 November 1995 Meeting The application involves the removal of a metal panel from the face of the transom and the restoration of a wood and glass frame. The Committee voted to recommend approval of this proposal showing the single glass light.