PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2011 1 THE MINUTES OF THE 587 TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 8 JULY 2011 ROOM 18-029, 1515 ARCH STREET SAM SHERMAN, CHAIR PRESENT Sam Sherman, Chair Richardson Dilworth III, Ph.D. Hal Fichlander, Office of City Council President Susan Jaffe JoAnn Jones, Office of Housing & Community Development Sara Merriman, Commerce Department Daniel Quinn, Department of Licenses & Inspections David Schaaf, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Joan Schlotterbeck, Department of Public Property Robert Thomas, AIA Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Randal Baron, Historic Preservation Planner III Erin Cote, Historic Preservation Planner II Jorge Danta, Historic Preservation Planner II Karen Gonski, Administrative Technician Rebecca Sell, Historic Preservation Planner II ALSO PRESENT Vincent Wolk, Longo Architects Rachel Schade, Schade & Bolender Architects Ross Bagley, Wells Fargo Bank Jim Multari Ben Leech, Preservation Alliance of Philadelphia Joseph Loonstyn, Loonstyn Roofing Mark D. Sylvester, Walnut Street Theatre Jessica Doheny, Walnut Street Theatre CALL TO ORDER Mr. Sherman called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Commissioners Dilworth, Fichlander, Jaffe, Jones, Merriman, Quinn, Schaaf, Schlotterbeck, and Thomas joined him. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2011 2 MINUTES OF THE 586 TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ACTION: Ms. Schlotterbeck moved to adopt the minutes of the 586th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, held 10 June 2011. Ms. Merriman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. THE REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 21 JUNE 2011 Dominique Hawkins, Chair CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Farnham introduced the consent agenda and explained that it included applications for 1801 Delancey Street, 507 S 15th Street, and 3301 Hamilton Street. Mr. Sherman asked if any Commissioners had comments on the Consent Agenda. No one offered comments. Mr. Sherman asked if the audience had comments on the Consent Agenda. No one offered comments. ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to adopt the recommendations of the Architectural Committee for 1801 Delancey Street, 507 S 15th Street, and 3301 Hamilton Street. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. AGENDA ADDRESS: 340-50 S 02ND ST Project: Construct addition for ATM Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Ross Bagley Applicant: Ross Bagley, Wells Fargo Bank History: 1868 Individual Designation: None ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct a small building to house an accessible ATM. This ATM building would be located along Pine Street adjacent to a non-historic addition that houses
Ross Bagley, Wells Fargo Bank History: 1868 Individual Designation: None ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct a small building to house an accessible ATM. This ATM building would be located along Pine Street adjacent to a non-historic addition that houses an ATM. The addition would be clad in a painted brick veneer to match to existing addition. A Fypon cornice and trim are proposed to allude to the historic building. DISCUSSION: Ms. Cote presented the application to the Commission. Bank property manager Ross Bagely and architect Vincent Wolk represented the application. Ms. Merriman stated that she deemed the revised design to comply with the suggestions offered by the Architectural Committee during its meeting. Mr. Wolk stated that that was his goal with the revisions. He observed that he removed the signage, reduced the ornament on the ATM building, removed the second brick pier, and reduced the size and bulk of the canopy, all as suggested by the Architectural Committee. Mr. Thomas suggested that the staff verify that the color choices for the signage are appropriate. ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to approve the revised design as presented to the Historical Commission at its meeting of 8 July 2011. Ms. Schlotterbeck seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2011 3 ADDRESS: 506 S 07TH ST Project: Rehabilitate first-floor front façade, replace windows, add balconies Owner: Jorge Mosquera Applicant: Joseph Serratore, Joseph Serratore & Company Architects History: 1860 Individual Designation: 12/31/1984 District Designation: None ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to alter the ground floor of a mid nineteenth-century building. The building was constructed between 1860 and 1876. It is highly likely that the ground floor was originally used for commercial purposes with the upper stories reserved for residential use. As originally proposed, the rehabilitation of the building into a single-family residence would remove the extant non-historic storefront and create a more residential ground-floor. The original proposal includes the creation of an arched entrance with a four-panel door and a bay window with three double-hung windows. The storefront cornice, dating from the turn of the twentieth century that currently delineates the ground floor from the second floor, would remain. The new ground-floor façade would not recreate a typical residential ground floor, since it is highly unlikely that one
and a bay window with three double-hung windows. The storefront cornice, dating from the turn of the twentieth century that currently delineates the ground floor from the second floor, would remain. The new ground-floor façade would not recreate a typical residential ground floor, since it is highly unlikely that one ever existed historically. Instead, the design would clearly read as a new ground floor. The application also proposes the installation of appropriate two-over-four windows in the elongated second-floor openings and the installation of “plant balconies” at the second and third floors. The building would not have had “plant balconies” originally. DISCUSSION: Mr. Danta presented the application to the Commission. No one represented the application. Mr. Danta explained that the Architectural Committee had rejected the notion of creating a hybrid first-floor front façade that combined aspects of a residential and commercial appearance. He reported that the Committee suggested that, since we do not know whether the building originally had a storefront, the applicant should design either a residential or a commercial first floor, but not a combination. Mr. Sherman stated that he expected the applicant to provide a revised design based on the Architectural Committee’s suggestions. He asked if, procedurally, it would be better for the Commission to deny or table the application. Mr. Farnham explained that the Commission must act on all applications with 60 days, but can suspend the 60-day clock for up to six months by tabling. He observed that, if the Commission tabled, the table application would reappear on the Commission’s agenda at some point within six months, perhaps with revisions, but without the Architectural Committee’s comments on the revisions. If the Commission denied the application today, the applicant would then need to submit a second application, which would be referred to the Committee before appearing before the Commission, giving the Commission the benefits of the Committee’s comments. Mr. Farnham offered a third alternative. He stated that the Commission could approve the application, provided it is revised based on the Committee’s suggestions, and authorize the staff to determine whether the provision is met. If it is, the staff could approve the application without further review by the Committee or Commission. If not, then the staff could send the application back to the Commission. He noted that the staff has the authority to approve alterations to non-historic storefront areas such as this one. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY
staff could approve the application without further review by the Committee or Commission. If not, then the staff could send the application back to the Commission. He noted that the staff has the authority to approve alterations to non-historic storefront areas such as this one. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2011 4 ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to approve the application, provided it is revised to comply with the suggestions of the Architectural Committee, i.e. the first-floor front façade is redesigned as a historic residential or commercial façade, but not as a hybrid of the two, with the staff to review details. Ms. Merriman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ADDRESS: 2107 SPRUCE ST Project: Replace windows Owner: Philadeline LP Applicant: Frank Mallas, Friday Architects/Planners Inc History: 1869; front façade altered in Moderne style, c. 1930s or 1940s Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standards 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to address an outstanding violation for the illegal installation of vinyl windows in the ground and second-floor window openings of this mid nineteenth-century townhouse. The property was significantly altered in the 1930 or 40s with the refacing of the ground-floor façade in a Moderne Style and the addition of a second-floor bay. The Moderne Style façade showcased steel casement windows at ground and second floors. The steel casement windows were illegally removed in April 2010 and a violation issued soon after. The application does not propose to restore the fenestration to the Moderne Style, or to the original Second Empire style of the townhouse. Instead, the applicant proposes a completely new fenestration pattern. The application proposes to install two types of windows; wood double-hung windows in a one-over-one pattern at the ground floor and single-light wood casements in the second-floor bay. These windows would be installed in openings that were created in the 1930s or 40s with the Moderne alteration. The proposed windows do not recreate the pattern, proportions, or dimensions of the steel windows. DISCUSSION: Mr. Danta presented the application to the Architectural Committee. No one represented the application. Ms. Merriman stated that the proposed windows do not comply with the Standards. The other Commissions agreed. ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to adopt the recommendation of the Architectural Committee and deny the application, pursuant to Standards 2, 3,
presented the application to the Architectural Committee. No one represented the application. Ms. Merriman stated that the proposed windows do not comply with the Standards. The other Commissions agreed. ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to adopt the recommendation of the Architectural Committee and deny the application, pursuant to Standards 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2011 5 ADDRESS: 1801 DELANCEY PL Project: Restore exterior, add mechanical equipment, insert garage Owner: Mi'kimonki Trust Applicant: Rachel Simmons Schade, Schade & Bolender Architects, LLP History: 1867; Joseph William Bates House; Fraser, Furness & Hewitt, architects; T.P. Chandler Jr., alts, 1876 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Significant, 2/8/1995 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee recommended approval with the staff to review all restoration details and the HVAC mock up, pursuant to Standard 9. OVERVIEW: This application proposes a combination of restoration work and minimal alterations to this significant house in the Rittenhouse-Fitler Historic District. The house is a grand Second Empire corner residence built in 1867. The application proposes the restoration of windows, metal work, and wood work throughout the exterior of the building. Several minor alterations that are not restorations of historic elements are also proposed. The application proposes the installation of one-over-one windows in two ground-floor openings along the Delancey Street façade of the house; the installation of HVAC units on the roof, the installation of new doors in an existing non-historic opening facing an enclosed garden, and the creation of the a garage opening along Cypress Street. The HVAC units would be mostly inconspicuous, although a site visit to review a mock up would be advisable. The garage along Cypress would alter a secondary elevation with little architectural character. This section of Cypress Street is a service alley. The proposed garage door would complement the house. The Commission has approved similar garage doors to other significant houses in Rittenhouse Square; for example, the Jayne Mansion at 19th and Delancey Streets. The garage would not be overtly visible to the public and it would not affect any of the principal facades of the house. ACTION: See Consent Agenda ADDRESS: 507 S 15TH ST Project: Infill side window, stucco side wall and addition, install fence, and demolish brick shed Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Broad Bay Investors LP Applicant: Vincent Mancini, Landmark Architectural Design History: 1840,
affect any of the principal facades of the house. ACTION: See Consent Agenda ADDRESS: 507 S 15TH ST Project: Infill side window, stucco side wall and addition, install fence, and demolish brick shed Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Broad Bay Investors LP Applicant: Vincent Mancini, Landmark Architectural Design History: 1840, second-floor side addition constructed after 1922 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 Staff Contact: Rebecca Sell, rebecca.sell@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the application, provided the fence is wood and the infill in the window is slightly recessed, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to infill a side window, stucco the side wall and addition, demolish a brick shed, and install a privacy fence. The small rowhouse has a non-historic, second-floor side addition that stands on columns. Currently, a window in the side wall of the main block is boarded up. The wood lintel over the window rotted and collapsed and the window was boarded. The application proposes to infill the opening with brick and stucco. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2011 6 The application also proposes to remove the asphalt shingles covering the non-historic side addition and stucco it. A dilapidated brick shed stands below the side addition. A wood bracing system currently holds the structure in place. The applicant proposes to demolish the structure and install HVAC condensers in its place. To hide the condensers, a privacy fence would be installed below and in the plane of the front façade of the side addition. ACTION: See Consent Agenda ADDRESS: 3301 HAMILTON ST Project: Replace slate roofing on mansard with synthetic shingles Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Laszio & Margaret Gyulai Applicant: Joseph Loonstyn, Loonstyn Roofing History: 1865; Henry E. Wrigley, engineer Individual Designation: 4/30/1963 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Rebecca Sell, rebecca.sell@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of roof replacement with a synthetic slate, provided it is dimensionally similar to the existing slates in thickness and size, with the same exposures and the same variegated colors, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 6. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to remove existing slate shingles on this mansard and install synthetic slate shingles. The existing slate shingles have exceeded their 125-year life span and are in need of replacement. The applicant
and the same variegated colors, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 6. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to remove existing slate shingles on this mansard and install synthetic slate shingles. The existing slate shingles have exceeded their 125-year life span and are in need of replacement. The applicant researched roof replacement with natural slate and determined it to be cost-prohibitive. The estimates ranged from $50,000 to $60,000. The proposed simulated synthetic slates shingles would match the shape, colors, and appearance of natural slate. This property was one of 30 buildings in Powelton Village designated in April 1963 upon recommendation by the Preservation Committee of the AIA. ACTION: See Consent Agenda PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2011 7 ADDRESS: 3400 W QUEEN LA Project: Install windows and door at front porch Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: James R. Multari Applicant: James Multari History: 1930 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Tudor East Falls Historic District, Contributing, 10/9/2009 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 9. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to install windows and a door at the front porch. In an effort to use the porch year round, the owner proposes to insulate from the interior, install vinyl sliders in the existing window openings, and install a pre-hung steel entry door in the existing door opening. The proposed materials are not compatible with the building or the district and these installations would alter the special relationships that characterize the property. The staff contends that this porch could be weatherized with the installation of compatible windows and door. DISCUSSION: Ms. Cote presented the application to the Commission. Property owner James Multari represented the application. Ms. Cote introduced the revised design. She explained the changes in the proposed windows. The Commissioners asked if the porch is original. Ms. Cote explained that it appears to be a later addition, but was executed in the same materials and style of the original house. Mr. Thomas stated that there are better ways to fenestrate the porch window openings than single- light sliders. He contended that the proposed windows are not sympathetic to the Tudor style. Mr. Dilworth noted that the grandfathered windows in the house are vinyl. He stated that it appeared that the Committee had advised that the windows in the house would need to be changed to match the new porch windows if the new porch windows
not sympathetic to the Tudor style. Mr. Dilworth noted that the grandfathered windows in the house are vinyl. He stated that it appeared that the Committee had advised that the windows in the house would need to be changed to match the new porch windows if the new porch windows were wood. Ms. Cote clarified that the Committee had informed the applicant that, if he proposed to change the windows in the house, then the Committee might recommend requiring that they be replicated in the original material. The Committee was not saying that the installation of wood windows in the porch would automatically and immediately trigger a requirement for wood windows in the house. Mr. Thomas added that, when one works on a building in steps, every step should meet the Standards, even if, at times, there are mismatches as one move closer to a full restoration. Mr. Multari agreed with Ms. Cote’s interpretation of the Committee’s comments. Ms. Merriman stated that the applicant appears to have followed the Architectural Committee’s guidance. ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to approve the revised design as presented to the Historical Commission at its meeting of 8 July 2011. Mr. Dilworth seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2011 8 ADDRESS: 827-31 WALNUT ST Project: Replace doors Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Walnut Street Theatre Corp. Applicant: Mark Sylvester, Walnut Street Theatre History: 1808; new front façade, 1828, John Haviland, architect; restored, 1971; Walnut Street Theater Individual Designation: 4/30/1957 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Rebecca Sell, rebecca.sell@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 6. OVERVIEW: This application proposes to replace the main entrance doors of the Walnut Street Theater, a National Historic Landmark. The existing doors are metal frame with full glass and were installed as part of the 1971 renovation. The applicant proposes to replace the doors with a six-light double door with three-part transom. The applicant submitted two design options. Option H-A1 is a black aluminum system with molded muntin profiles. The framing of the double door would be thicker than the muntins. Option H-B1 is a black steel system with flat muntin profiles, stiles, and rails. The steel system is thinner. The staff met with the applicant to discuss the proposal. At the time, the architect proposed a bronze finish on the framing. Currently, there are no known images of
the muntins. Option H-B1 is a black steel system with flat muntin profiles, stiles, and rails. The steel system is thinner. The staff met with the applicant to discuss the proposal. At the time, the architect proposed a bronze finish on the framing. Currently, there are no known images of the historic doors. The exterior was altered from the original design in 1920 and then restored in 1971 to the 1828 design by architect John Haviland. Although the historic door design is not known, doors on similar Greek Revival buildings were typically wood paneled doors. An application for door replacement was first proposed to the Architectural Committee in April 2011. That application proposed to adapt the design of the existing eight-light casement windows on the second story for the new door design. The proposed doors would be metal- frame, double doors with four glazed panels on each leaf. At the meeting, the Architectural Committee members suggested that the dimensions and framing should be larger to give the doors appropriate proportions. They recommended that the applicant use compatible materials and appropriate relationships of solid to glass. A Committee member suggested that a heavier wood door with glazing in the center similar to the door on the 9th Street side in a 1957 photograph would be more appropriate. The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 6. The applicant subsequently withdrew the application. DISCUSSION: Ms. Sell presented the application to the Commission. Architects Jonathan Broh and Blake Krevolin and theater manager Mark Sylvester represented the application. Ms. Sell stated that the applicants have submitted revised drawings that appear to comply with the Architectural Committee’s suggestions. Mr. Sherman agreed, stating that it appeared that the applicants had incorporated the Committee’s suggestions into their revised design. ACTION: Mr. Schaaf moved to approve the revised design as presented to the Historical Commission at its meeting of 8 July 2011. Ms. Schlotterbeck seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2011 9 ADJOURNMENT ACTION: Ms. Merriman moved to adjourn at 9:51 a.m. Mr. Schaaf seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CITED IN THE MINUTES Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinct materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record
AND GUIDELINES CITED IN THE MINUTES Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinct materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.