REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Vincent Rivera, AIA, Chair Commission Offices, One Parkway, 13th Floor, 1515 Arch Street 25 September 2001 Present Vincent Rivera, AIA, Chair Rudolph D’Alessandro Herb Levy, FAIA Daniel McCoubrey, AIA Suzanne Pentz Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Jeffrey Barr, Historical Research Technician Julianne L. Brennan, Historic Preservation Planner Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Also David Orphanides, Esq. Stella Mitoulis Jim Dunlap, Hopkinson House Owners Association Christian A. Busch, Sullivan Company M.A. Chromitz, Society Hill Civic Association Rosemarie Brandt Eric Shanoski John Dahl Patricia Wellenbach, Wellness Community Elizabeth Dubin, University of Pennsylvania Robert F. Tiffany, Duckrey Enterprises John Carr, Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust Robert Graves, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects Vincent Rivera, AIA, Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. 119 North 20th Street Michael Schaffer, Owner Robert Boothroyd, Applicant Date: c. 1860 Proposal: Panning of windows and door, new vinyl window Staff recommendation: Denial of panning per Standards 6 and 9. Approval of vinyl window on the rear per Standard 9 and lack of visibility. Ms. Brennan described the two parts of the application. First, the owner wishes to wrap the frames of 17 windows and 3 doors with aluminum or p.v.c. panning in a blue/grey color. These windows and doors appear on all facades of the property. The owner wants the panning to avoid having to paint the windows year after year. Second, the owner proposes one new vinyl, double- hung, one-over-one window on the rear ell with the same aluminum or p.v.c. panning. Visibility 2 of the rear exists from a public parking lot, but a tree hides the exact location of the proposed window. Committee members stated that a good paint should last up to ten years so the owner does not need to paint the window frames each year. They discussed the visibility of the rear window. Mr. Rivera stated that a tree proves rather temporary as a screen hiding the window. Mr. Levy noted that since all of the other windows on the property are wood, this new one should be as well. The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the aluminum/p.v.c. panning and denial of the vinyl window based on Standards 6 and 9. 231 South 24th Street Stella and Nikolaus Mitoulis, Owners/Applicants Date: c. 1840 Proposal: Storefront alterations Staff recommendation: Denial per Standards 2 and 9. Mr. Baron
should be as well. The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the aluminum/p.v.c. panning and denial of the vinyl window based on Standards 6 and 9. 231 South 24th Street Stella and Nikolaus Mitoulis, Owners/Applicants Date: c. 1840 Proposal: Storefront alterations Staff recommendation: Denial per Standards 2 and 9. Mr. Baron described the submission, which involves alterations to two storefront facades on this c. 1840 building in the Rittenhouse-Fitler Historic District. He noted that an atlas from 1850 shows the first floor use as commercial; such a building typically would have had two doors at the corner for access to both streets. The owners wish to increase the light within the restaurant and modernize the look of the building. They propose removing the original windows and frames at the first floor on Locust Street and installing casement windows. They also seek to remove the non-historic door and frame on Locust Street to install a glass door with a metal or wood frame. On South 24th Street, they wish to remove a non-historic door and frame and replace it with brick infill and a casement window. David Orphanides, Esquire, explained to the Committee that he put the application together for the owners. They specifically did not include drawings because they only want to bring in an architect at the end of the design process to save money. He described the building, noting that it sits at the edge of the historic district and has had changes to the façade in past years, including a pent eave and replacement windows. The owner wishes to bring more light and air into the restaurant, using casement windows that other restaurants in the area have. The owner is willing to remove the pent eave, globe fixtures, window grates and shutters. Mr. Levy noted that the owner may remove those items if she wishes, but the Commission will not require that work. Ms. Pentz explained that the plank frames of the windows are a rare window type in the City and that the frames serve as structural members. Mr. McCoubrey noted that double-hung windows have sash at two distinct planes and a casement window, even one mimicking the grid of a double-hung window, has glass at only one plane. The Committee emphasized the owner’s ability to change the doors, removing the built-up frames and reestablishing the historic openings, but not installing brick in-fill at the bottom of
two distinct planes and a casement window, even one mimicking the grid of a double-hung window, has glass at only one plane. The Committee emphasized the owner’s ability to change the doors, removing the built-up frames and reestablishing the historic openings, but not installing brick in-fill at the bottom of the front door opening. Mr. Baron stated that the owner would have several options for door types, including half-glazed double-leaf or a single- leaf wood doors. The Committee suggested that the owner meet with staff to decide on new doors that would be historically accurate, yet allow more air and light into the restaurant. They emphasized that the new submission should include an architectural drawing in order to be considered a complete application. 3 The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the submission based on Standards 2 and 9, as well as the incompleteness of the submission. 216-20 West Washington Square, W.B. Saunders Building West Washington Square Partnership, Owner Christian Busch, Architect/Applicant Date: 1911 Proposal: HVAC units Staff recommendation: Denial per Standard 9. Mr. Baron described the proposal. The building has open fire-stair balconies in the westernmost bay of the Locust Street façade. The developer wishes to use this open space to install H.V.A.C. units. The location allows the units to be in an easily accessible place for maintenance, yet does not interfere with the living space of the condominium units. Units have been installed on two floors and prove highly visible from Locust and South Washington Square Streets. Mr. Baron met with Christian Busch, the architect for the project, at the site and found several less visible locations for the units, including inside the living spaces with a vent to the porches or north façade, hanging the units on small balconies on the hidden north façade of the building or installation on the roof. Mr. Busch explained that the other options are not viable. The units require a large amount of air and placement inside the building does not meet the installation requirements established by the manufacturer, Carrier, without cutting visible holes in the wall. The area on the north façade is not feasible because the balconies would need to be large enough to accommodate a maintenance worker as well as the units and provide easy access to the units for repair, all at an additional expense. The roof space has already been sold, with the expectation of a rooftop
façade is not feasible because the balconies would need to be large enough to accommodate a maintenance worker as well as the units and provide easy access to the units for repair, all at an additional expense. The roof space has already been sold, with the expectation of a rooftop addition. Mr. Busch was not sure if there was enough space on the roof for all of the required units. The Committee then discussed ways to minimize the visibility of the H.V.A.C. units in the present location. They asked Mr. Busch to investigate installing the units closer to the rear wall, perhaps on tracks so they can be moved out for maintenance, and painting the units black to eliminate the reflective qualities of the metal. The Architectural Committee recommended tabling the proposal until next month. They asked that a mock-up be erected and for Mr. Busch to investigate the rooftop option. 604-36 South Washington Square, Hopkinson House Hopkinson House, Owner Liz Ricciardi, Applicant Date: 1962 - Oscar Stonorov, Architect Proposal: Illuminated signage Staff recommendation: Approval per Standard 9. Ms. Brennan described the application for new signage on the building’s entry canopy. The signage includes two 11-foot-long, 14-inch-tall bronze signs with back lit ivory Plexiglas letters. Plans show the signage bolted through the existing canopy. Mr. Rivera objected to the method of attachment, saying that the bolts should not penetrate through the canopy. The Committee asked 4 for a different attachment method. Jim Dunlap, General Manager for the building, agreed to the change. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the signs, based on Standard 9, on the condition that their attachment does not include bolts through the canopy, with staff to review details. 1107 Spruce Street John Dahl and Eric Shanoski, Owners/Applicants Date: 1889 - Brown and Day, Architects Proposal: Expanded rear dormer and new roof deck Staff recommendation: Approval of dormer expansion per Standards 9 and 10. Approval of roof deck provided the deck has a thin, metal railing system to decrease visibility. Ms. Brennan presented the proposal for the expansion of a rear dormer from six to thirteen feet, and a roof deck in the house’s rear ell set back fourteen feet from the rear of the building. The applicant proposes using slate-line roofing to match the existing cedar cladding, a double hung window to match existing, and a glass panel door. A walkway runs behind the property, affording
and a roof deck in the house’s rear ell set back fourteen feet from the rear of the building. The applicant proposes using slate-line roofing to match the existing cedar cladding, a double hung window to match existing, and a glass panel door. A walkway runs behind the property, affording very little visibility of the roof deck railing. Staff recommended installing a thin metal railing to further reduce visibility. John Dahl and Eric Shanoski, owners of the property, stated that estimates for a metal railing were $5,000 to $6,000 more expensive than a wood railing. Mr. Shanoski noted that the proposed railing calls for 1-inch square balusters. Mr. Rivera questioned the treatment of the deck support structure, saying that the joists should be pocketed into the parapet wall. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the application based on Standards 9 and 10, with staff to review details. 563 North 20th Street Rosemarie Brandt, Owner/Applicant Date: c. 1873 Proposal: Legalize vinyl windows Staff recommendation: Denial of legalization per Standard 6. Ms. Brennan explained that after the Commission mailed the initial notice letters for the Spring Garden Historic District, the owner installed five vinyl one-over-one windows with panning on the third floor of the Brandywine Street façade. The applicant wishes to have the windows legalized. Rosemarie Brandt, owner of the building, stated that she was not aware of the restrictions of the new district and Window Wizards told her that she did not need a permit. Mr. Baron noted that the building has multiple units, triggering the need for a permit regardless of the historic status of the building. Ms. Brandt offered to remove the panning and paint the frames, but any other work would prove a hardship. Committee members noted that the appropriate windows would be wood, true-divided light, two-over-two windows. The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the proposal based on Standard 6 and suggested that the Financial Hardship Committee review the proposal. 5 Ridgeland Mansion Barn City of Philadelphia/Fairmount Park, Owner John Carr, Applicant Date: mid-19th century Proposal: Canvas awning Staff recommendation: Approval on the condition that the awning is not attached to the building. Mr. Baron described the proposal for a large canvas awning wrapping around two sides of the barn. Patricia Wellenbach, Director of the Wellness Community, stated that the facility is a haven for people battling cancer, but they cannot be exposed to the sun for long
not attached to the building. Mr. Baron described the proposal for a large canvas awning wrapping around two sides of the barn. Patricia Wellenbach, Director of the Wellness Community, stated that the facility is a haven for people battling cancer, but they cannot be exposed to the sun for long periods of time. The awning would allow the patio to be used three seasons of the year. Staff and Committee members questioned the method of attachment to the building and the wear and tear of a sail-like structure attached to the building. John Carr of the Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust stated that they were concerned that a freestanding tent would drain water towards the building’s foundation, causing more harm than attaching the awning to the building. Mr. Levy noted that a frame to hold a tent for several months at a time would prove less stable without the building for support. Mr. Rivera suggested a shoe method of attachment. The shoes would be attached to vertical studs of the building’s framing, through the clapboarding. The Architectural Committee recommended approval per Standards 9 and 10 with staff to review attachment details. 1926 Park Mall Temple University, Owner Robert F. Tiffany, Sr., Applicant Date: 1884 Proposal: Exhaust vents Staff recommendation: Approval, with the condition that the louvers match the color of surrounding wall surface. Mr. Barr explained the proposal. Another ground floor restaurant tenant, within the second row of the Park Mall project, requires an exhaust fan and louver for kitchen equipment. Locating the exhaust chimney at the rear appears problematic as the oven and cooking equipment are located along the side wall. The applicant proposes to encase the exhaust duct in stucco to match the stucco surface of the side elevation. The fresh air vent on the first floor would be painted to match the stucco. The Architectural Committee recommended approval per Standard 9. 1600 Arch Street SAS-1600 Arch Street, Owner Robert Graves, Architect/Applicant Date: 1925 - Stewardson and Page, Architects Proposal: Revised planters and signage Mr. Baron explained that the State’s Bureau for Historic Preservation reviewed the plans for the building’s rehabilitation for the federal rehabilitation tax credit program. The State is requiring smaller planters on the 16th Street façade and reduced signage at the corners. Robert Graves, architect for the project, stated that the two signs will have two sides, instead of three, and bronze 6 facing. Individual,
the building’s rehabilitation for the federal rehabilitation tax credit program. The State is requiring smaller planters on the 16th Street façade and reduced signage at the corners. Robert Graves, architect for the project, stated that the two signs will have two sides, instead of three, and bronze 6 facing. Individual, illuminated letters will punch through the bronze. He noted that the new granite planters will bevel to stay behind the plane of the columns. The Architectural Committee recommended approval based on Standards 9 and 10. The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.