1 REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 27 July 1999 Commission Conference Room, 1515 Arch Street, 13th floor Robert Thomas, Chair Present Robert Thomas, Chair Tony Atkin Herb Levy Dan McCoubrey Suzanne Pentz Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Also Pam Whitehead, Monighan + Associates, Architects Bob Hannan, Tower Records T. Kromer, Tower Records Jim Wyatt, Domus, Inc. Aliki Strakes, Preservation Alliance Willie Walker, W&W Contractors Margie Politzer Michael Bach, 406 South Camac Street Paul Horning, Hallowell Construction Theresa Mueller, Chocolate by Mueller Liz Riccardi, 35 South 2nd Street Shabir Kazmi, 35 South 2nd Street Cara Carroccia, 406 South Camac Street Meg Chapman, Chapman Associates Suhil Marbrook, Café Spice Stephen Klein, 217 Delancey Street Rayesh Bhandus, Café Spice Philip Rakita, 217 Delancey Street Bill Farmer Peter Saylor, Dagit Saylor Architects Mike Barber, Dagit Saylor Architects Alan Gilbert Barbara Gilbert Susan Montgomery William Bertolet Tony DePaul, 116-18 Chestnut Street David Murray Ean Tobin Myles Kelly Bobbye Burke Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents Association 2 William Schwartz, Esq. Sandra Mann Judith Eden, Center City Residents Association Beth Holden, 119 South 18th Street Reed Axelrod, Reed Axelrod Architects Joe DelCiotto, DelCiotto Associates David Singer, 123 South 18th Street Mr. Thomas called the meeting to order at 11:45 a.m. 100-18 South Broad Street aka 1400 Chestnut Street, Land Title Building Alliance Realty Ltd. Partnership/Preservation Alliance (easement), Owners Pamela Whitehead, Architect/Applicant Date: 1897-1902 Proposal: signage; marquee This proposal calls for signage, a new door on Chestnut Street and two metal marquees for a new Tower Records store. The doorway on Chestnut Street will re-establish an original opening. Signage includes bronze plaques and large neon channel letters on the central marquees, as well as banners. The original marquee on Broad Street spanned three bays. Pamela Whitehead, architect for the project, stated that after negotiations with the Art Commission and the Preservation Alliance, the proposal has been changed to a marquee in a single bay, to match the one on Chestnut Street, and the letters will have perforated metal covers rather than plastic The Committee voted to recommend approval of the banners, plaques and re-instillation of the door on Chestnut Street with staff to review and approve details. The Committee also voted to recommend approval of the marquees, a single bay in width, with perforated metal covers on the letters, with staff to review
Committee voted to recommend approval of the banners, plaques and re-instillation of the door on Chestnut Street with staff to review and approve details. The Committee also voted to recommend approval of the marquees, a single bay in width, with perforated metal covers on the letters, with staff to review and approve details. 25 East High Street Mary Taylor , Owner Willie Walker, Contractor/Applicant Date: c. 1796 Proposal: legalize vinyl siding Without a permit or Historical Commission approval, the owner covered the front of the house in vinyl siding, including the cornice and other details. Willie Walker, the contractor, seeks to legalize the work. Mr. Walker stated that he thought the owner already had a permit for the work. The Committee voted to recommend denial. 232-34 North 2nd Street Guido Buratto, Owner Douglas Seiler, Architect/Applicant Date: c. 1870 Proposal: star bolts; storefront alterations; fire escape extension Mr. Baron presented the proposal for installing star bolts, new storefront windows, a rear gate; altering the stone platform; repainting the façade, and extending the existing fire escape. Mr. Baron 3 noted that the staff recommended cleaning the brick instead of painting it again, but the owner wanted to save money by just painting over the façade. The Committee noted that cleaning the building would prove cheaper, in the long run, owing to maintenance of the paint. Mr. McCoubrey stated that if the owner paints the building, extensive prep work must be done before the painting. Mr. Baron stated that he approved at staff level the proposal calling for four-over-four windows in the upper floors and paneled and glazed double-leaf doors in the entrance, which match the description of the insurance survey from 1893. However, the architect proposes to have larger panes in the doors that will act as store windows in order to display merchandise. Mr. Thomas noted that the proposed concrete platform in front of the building may not meet ADA requirements. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the star bolts, windows, fire-escape extension, concrete platform and storefront with staff to review and approve details. The Committee voted to recommend that the Historical Commission consider the painting vs. cleaning options after the architect and owner investigate the cost of cleaning the façade instead and presents the information at the meeting. 4626 Hazel Avenue Margie Politzer, Owner Date: c. 1920 Proposal: storm windows The owner, Margie Politzer, wishes to install storm windows
the Historical Commission consider the painting vs. cleaning options after the architect and owner investigate the cost of cleaning the façade instead and presents the information at the meeting. 4626 Hazel Avenue Margie Politzer, Owner Date: c. 1920 Proposal: storm windows The owner, Margie Politzer, wishes to install storm windows that match the meeting rail and color of the original windows. They will be installed leaving a portion of the wood window frames exposed. Mrs. Politzer brought a window sample to show the Committee. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 1115-45 Market Street, Reading Terminal Market Theresa Mueller, Store Owner/Applicant Date: 1893-95 Proposal: construct enclosed market stall Although this work exists on the interior of the market, a special ordinance and the Market rental agreement grants the Historical Commission jurisdiction over any work that involves the interior of the market. One of the central tenets of this review has been the retention of open-air stalls as opposed to creating small, enclosed spaces. This proposal calls for an enclosed area to serve as a workroom to make chocolates. Theresa Mueller stated that she needs a space that can be climate- controlled to make the chocolates and that the added space will allow them to bring in other equipment. Mr. Baron stated that the staff was afraid that this proposal would set a dangerous precedent to have enclosed spaces within the market. He noted that the Down Home Diner existed before the current controls. Committee members noted that this stall would have a formal roof nine feet below the market ceiling, retaining the open-air effect found throughout the market. Also, this stall would be tucked into a corner, not in the middle of the market. Committee did suggest that the design should have glass in the clerestory on the northern wall of the stall. The Committee discussed the relationship of the stall to the muntins of the exterior windows. The Committee voted to recommend approval with glass in the clerestory on the northern wall and a cornice reduced in size and aligned with the horizontal muntins of the exterior windows, with staff to review and approve details. 4 406 South Camac Street Michael Bach and Cara Carroccia, Owners/Architects/Applicants Date: c. 1830 Proposal: add mansard; three-story rear addition; deck The Committee and Commission reviewed a version of this proposal last month. Michael Bach and Cara Carroccia, owners, presented the Committee with four schemes
to review and approve details. 4 406 South Camac Street Michael Bach and Cara Carroccia, Owners/Architects/Applicants Date: c. 1830 Proposal: add mansard; three-story rear addition; deck The Committee and Commission reviewed a version of this proposal last month. Michael Bach and Cara Carroccia, owners, presented the Committee with four schemes for adding to the house. The first is the smallest proposal with a two-story addition on the rear with a deck and the fourth, the most ambitious, proposes to enlarge the house with an extra story on the roof as a mansard, a rear three-story addition with a projecting bay and roof deck. The other two schemes fall in between. Mr. Baron explained that the other houses in this row have been expanded with two-story additions and decks as in Scheme 1. He also explained the significance of the little houses in terms of the unique architectural heritage of Philadelphia. The Committee members stated that the uniqueness of the half-gable roof is a defining feature of this house and row and should not be obscured. Mr. Bach noted that he and his wife prefer scheme four and that the larger addition has a better overall design. Mr. Thomas stated that most of the schemes proposed overwhelm the building and, therefore, don’t follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Mr. McCoubrey agreed that the additions should read as additions. Mr. Levy noted that he could also recommend approve scheme two without a deck, but other Committee members did not agree. Mr. Baron stated that the proposal also includes new windows and shutters on the second floor and asked Committee members if the proposed louvered door proved appropriate. Mr. Baron noted that the same type of door can be found on numerous houses along Camac Street. Committee members agreed that such doors exist on other houses of the same period. Also, the house has a non-historic front door, so it would not obscure historic fabric. The Committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of Scheme 1, denial of Schemes 2, 3, and 4 and approval of the door and windows with staff to review and approve details. 35 South 2nd Street Café Spice 2, Owner Shabir Kazmi, Architect/Applicant Date: c. 1870 Proposal: façade alterations; signage; café doors This proposal includes installing new four-leaf metal doors as open café windows, a two-leaf entrance door, new “halo” lit metal signs, an awning and a railing
review and approve details. 35 South 2nd Street Café Spice 2, Owner Shabir Kazmi, Architect/Applicant Date: c. 1870 Proposal: façade alterations; signage; café doors This proposal includes installing new four-leaf metal doors as open café windows, a two-leaf entrance door, new “halo” lit metal signs, an awning and a railing on the rear ramp. Mr. Baron stated that the building originally had double-leaf doors in each bay, but the storefront was changed to a Colonial-Revival storefront around 1910. The proposal should have double-leaf doors with panels at the bottom in each bay. Margaret Chapman, architect for the project, stated that she questioned the amount of projection the double-leaf doors would have when they were open. Committee members noted that the projection should not cause a problem, and that the owner should install the historically accurate doors. The Committee members and Ms. Chapman discussed the placement of the signs within the transoms above. The Committee voted to recommend approval of wood double-leaf doors in all bays, the metal signs sitting on the transom bars just clearing the top of the doors, the awning and the railing at the rear with staff to review and approve details. 5 217 Delancey Street Stephen Klein, Owner/Applicant Date: c. 1755; 1998-99, addition Proposal: planter across sidewalk When the owner built the driveway to the new garage on Philip Street, the grade of the sidewalk changed dramatically. The owner, Stephen Klein, wishes to install a planter at the edge of the driveway to prevent pedestrians from tripping on the steep incline. Mr. Klein stated that the property line sits approximately 44-inches from the garage and the planter would sit on his property. He also produced a document from the Streets Department granting approval to repair the sidewalk. Norman Tissian, President of the Society Hill Civic Association, stated that the one of the charms of Philip Street is the undulating sidewalk and that this will destroy some of that charm. Catherine Apothaker opposed the planter and stated that the neighborhood feels railroaded by Mr. Klein’s proposal. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee was only reviewing the proposed planter, not the additions to the house that the Commission approved in 1997. Ms. Apothaker also stated that Mr. Klein had promised that neighbors that he would not apply for a curb-cut. Mr. Klein denied that promise and stated that he had a permit for the curb-cut. The Committee voted
planter, not the additions to the house that the Commission approved in 1997. Ms. Apothaker also stated that Mr. Klein had promised that neighbors that he would not apply for a curb-cut. Mr. Klein denied that promise and stated that he had a permit for the curb-cut. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 807 South Hancock Street Leeann Moldovany, Owner William Farmer, Contractor/Applicant Date: c. 1810 Proposal: side deck This proposal calls for a wood deck along the side of the rowhouse. The owners of the house also own the empty lot next door. The Committee voted to recommend approval with staff to review and approve details. 602 South Front Street Joe DeFrancesco, Owner Joel Spivak, Architect/Applicant Date: c. 1795 Proposal: alter/legalize façade and roof work The Committee and Commission have reviewed this project several times. The Department of Licenses and Inspections has issued numerous violations because the work did not follow the approved plans. The applicant seeks to correct parts of the violation and legalize others. The proposal calls for enlarging the windows and installing wood, true-divided light windows with wood paneled shutters, a reduced transom over the front door, wood siding on the glass dormer and a metal roof designed to minimize the non-historic appearance of the roof skylights. Joel Spivak, architect for the proposed work, stated that this now is a different owner than the one who performed the illegal work. Mr. Levy questioned the thin lintel above the garage and suggested framing the opening with wood trim instead. Mr. Spivak agreed. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the new windows, shutters, transom, dormer alterations and metal roof with wood framing around the garage opening instead of a stone lintel, with staff to review and approve details. 6 118-26 North Broad Street and across Cherry Street, Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Owner Peter Saylor, Architect/Applicant Date: 1872-76 Proposal: comment on scheme to link PAFA with former federal building at the NW corner of Broad and Cherry with a bridge, tunnel or addition on closed portion of Cherry Street The architect wished to bring this proposal to the Committee for comment only. This is not an application for an approval in concept. The Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts (PAFA) has acquired the federal building across the street and wants to connect the two buildings in some way. Peter Saylor, the architect, has
to bring this proposal to the Committee for comment only. This is not an application for an approval in concept. The Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts (PAFA) has acquired the federal building across the street and wants to connect the two buildings in some way. Peter Saylor, the architect, has designed several schemes to achieve this. Proposals range from bridges across Cherry Street; creating an enclosed “winter garden,” which includes the closing of Cherry Street to traffic; and an underground tunnel. Mr. Saylor stated that they presented the proposals to the State Bureau for Historic Preservation and the state office will only consider the underground schemes for approval. The north side of the museum proves too important to obstruct with an addition or tunnels. Mr. Atkin agreed, saying that it is one of the most important façades of world-class architecture. Mr. Saylor described the two proposals: one for a tunnel underground joining the two buildings with, perhaps, an ADA ramp and one with a tunnel and “winter garden” that will require the closing of Cherry Street. He stated that the museum will have to relocate numerous utilities to have the garden and that may prove cost-prohibitive. The Committee did not vote, but concurred with the State’s finding that any construction should not touch the Furness- designed building. 116-18 Chestnut Street Buffalo Billiards, Owner Robert Rohe, Architect/Applicant Date: c. 1880 Proposal: signage This proposal calls for signs within the store window, signband and pediment and a large, wood, projecting sign, 10’ 6” by 12” with lights shining on the sign. Committee members stated that although the projecting sign is large, it is in keeping with the scale of the building and does not obscure historic fabric. The Committee voted to recommend approval. Mr. Thomas recused himself to present the next proposal. 112 Chestnut Street Wasseem Kalla, Owner James Campbell, Architect/Applicant Date: Proposal: ADA ramp This proposal involves re-grading the sidewalk with a railing to comply with ADA regulations. Mr. Thomas stated that railing will match existing railings found on the storefront. The Committee voted to recommend approval with staff to review and approve detail. Mr. Thomas recused. 7 1914-16 Rittenhouse Square Street aka 1915-19 Manning Street Henry McNeil, Jr., Owner Walter Chatham, Architect/Applicant Date: 1914- c. 1859; 1916- c. 1950 Proposal: rooftop alteration and addition Mark Brookman, Esq., and Walter Chatham, architect, presented the proposal. Mr. Thomas noted that the Committee,
and approve detail. Mr. Thomas recused. 7 1914-16 Rittenhouse Square Street aka 1915-19 Manning Street Henry McNeil, Jr., Owner Walter Chatham, Architect/Applicant Date: 1914- c. 1859; 1916- c. 1950 Proposal: rooftop alteration and addition Mark Brookman, Esq., and Walter Chatham, architect, presented the proposal. Mr. Thomas noted that the Committee, at its last meeting, recommended for approval the demolition of the entry pavilion at 1916 Rittenhouse Square Street, the rear el and the garage and the construction of a rear addition, new windows and other details, but denial of the roof-top living room. The Commission will hear the proposal at its meeting on 11 August and the Committee will not comment on those aspects of the proposal at this time. Mr. Chatham described the revised proposal for the rooftop addition, stating that the living room will sit only on the new addition at 1916. Only a glass-enclosed staircase will sit on the historic building at 1914 Rittenhouse Square Street. He also described the enclosed stair well that will be behind the chimney on 1914. The rooftop addition will have glass doors on the northeast corner, two windows on the west façade and one window on south façade. Copper sheathing will cover the walls and a cornice similar to one found on the mansard will top the addition. Mr. Chatham stated that this proposal has the room two feet to the south compared to the original submission. A mock-up of the eastern wall sits on the building. Mr. Levy noted that one can see the mock-up from the goat statue in Rittenhouse Square, but not from the corner or closer. Mr. Tyler stated that the mock-up proves visible on 19th Street from in front of the Dorchester and from parts of Rittenhouse Square. Mr. Thomas stated that the addition, since it will sit on the new addition, will not be mistaken as a part of the historic building. Ms. Pentz stated that the addition has been minimized to an acceptable degree. Committee members asked the architect to minimize the cornice details. William Schwartz, Esq., counsel for the neighbor at 1912 Rittenhouse Sq. Street, stated that the north wall of the addition has only been moved back two feet and would still prove highly visible. He noted that the mock-up only constitutes 13% of the intended addition. When questioned about the glass railing on the roof, Mr. Chatham stated that the roof
Sq. Street, stated that the north wall of the addition has only been moved back two feet and would still prove highly visible. He noted that the mock-up only constitutes 13% of the intended addition. When questioned about the glass railing on the roof, Mr. Chatham stated that the roof terrace will be lowered and the railing, of clear, non-reflective glass will only stand two feet above the roof and will not prove visible. Myles Kelly, who lives on Manning Street, objected to the addition because it will block his view of Rittenhouse Square. He asked Committee members that if the addition still proves visible, how could it be allowed. He had to prove that his rear deck would be completely invisible from the street before Committee and Commission approved his application. The Committee explained that this proposal, in contrast, will sit on new construction, not on an historic house. Barbara Gilbert echoed the query and questioned how the Committee could recommend approval of the demolition of 1916 based on the Commission’s ordinance. George Thomas stated that research of Sanborn maps shows that the rear wing dates to before 1907, not to the 1950s as the Committee stated at the last meeting. Fred Mann stated that the Committee based its decision on erroneous information; therefore, it should revisit its recommendation for approval. Aliki Strakes of the Preservation Alliance gave a statement in opposition to the fenestration pattern of the proposed addition and to the rooftop addition. 8 The Committee voted to recommend approval of the rooftop addition with a simplified cornice with staff and the Committee chair to review and approve details and material samples. 1509 Walnut Street Avado Brands, Inc., Owner Edward Palmer, Architect/Applicant Date: 1902 Proposal: illuminated accents on signage This proposal is to legalize two star lights above the new storefront. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 2406-08 Delancey Street Dieter and Sara Forster, Owner Reed Axelrod, Architect/Applicant Date: c. 1860 Proposal: two-story addition; parking; gate Reed Axelrod, architect, showed a model and explained the proposal. Mr. Forster owns both 2406 and 2408 Delancey Street. 2406 Delancey sits towards the rear of the property and has a front yard. The owners wish to build a post-modern addition to the front of 2406 Delancey to create a link between the two buildings. The front yard will have metal gate that will open to a parking pad. Mr. Baron
sits towards the rear of the property and has a front yard. The owners wish to build a post-modern addition to the front of 2406 Delancey to create a link between the two buildings. The front yard will have metal gate that will open to a parking pad. Mr. Baron stated that 2406 already has a one-story addition on the front and the owner proposes to restore the third story windows, the main visible area when the gates are closed. Also, the architect proposes to shift the chimney to the east side of the building to cover the new heating vents that must be installed on that side of the house. The link will have standing-seam metal, which will look like terne, and the front façade will have oversized buff brick. The gate will have red brick piers and painted steel gates. The Committee voted to recommend approval with staff to review and approve details. 119 South 18th Street Howard Winnig, Owner Beth Holden, Applicant Date: Proposal: awning; signage The proposal includes changing the non-historic storefront, an awning made of aluminum tubing and metal letters above the storefront and three flat-wall signs between the windows on the second floor. Beth Holden, of the design firm, stated that the storefront has a roll-down gate and the awning will project out from the housing of the gate. The Committee did not object to the concept of the awning, but stated that it overwhelms the storefront and would project over four feet. Committee members suggested pushing the awning closer to the gate housing and to have only a slight curve. Ms. Holden stated that she will investigate other designs. 9 The Committee voted to recommend approval of the storefront, and an awning that sits closer to the building face with staff to review and approve details. The Committee voted to recommend denial of the flat-wall signs above the storefront. 123 South 18th Street aka 1735 Sansom Street Michael Singer, Owner/Applicant Date: Proposal: legalize removal of chimney and window replacement Mr. Baron explained that the owner, without a permit or Historical Commission approval, removed the chimney, replaced the wood dormer window with a vinyl window and replaced windows along Sansom Street with vinyl windows and vents. The Department of Licenses and Inspections issued several violations and the owner had actually sent an incomplete application to remove the chimney in May 1996. The owner wishes
the chimney, replaced the wood dormer window with a vinyl window and replaced windows along Sansom Street with vinyl windows and vents. The Department of Licenses and Inspections issued several violations and the owner had actually sent an incomplete application to remove the chimney in May 1996. The owner wishes to legalize the removal of the chimney and the replacement of the windows. David Singer, representative of the owner, stated that the chimney was in great disrepair and that it had to be removed before it fell down. He stated that the owner had a permit for interior alterations when he discovered that the windows were beyond repair, so he replaced them. The Committee voted to recommend denial of the application to legalize the removal of the chimney and the replacement of the windows. 1118-20 East Berks Street David Rogers, Owner J.J. DelCiotto, Architect/Applicant Date: c. 1740 Proposal: construct factory around historic house Mr. Baron explained that 1118 and 1120 East Berks Street appear on the Philadelphia Register. However, sometime before 1992, 1118 was demolished without Historical Commission approval. The owner of the gear factory next door wishes to expand his factory to the house at 1120 and into its backyard. Originally the owner wanted to demolish 1120, but after hearing Mr. Baron and Mr. DelCiotto, the architect for the project, he has recognized the historic importance of this rare wood house. The proposal includes building the factory around the house and investigating ways to use and, perhaps, rehabilitate the house. The Committee members suggested leaving at least two feet around the house so that maintenance and cleaning can take place. Also the rear should have a light- well to satisfy zoning concerns for light and air in the back of the house. The Committee voted to recommend approval with at least a two-foot space between the factory building and the house. The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura M. Spina Historic Preservation Planner