ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 20 FEBRUARY 2018 1 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION TUESDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2018 1515 ARCH STREET, ROOM 18-029 DAN MCCOUBREY, CHAIR PRESENT Dan McCoubrey, FAIA, LEED AP BD+C, Chair John Cluver, AIA, LEED AP Nan Gutterman, FAIA Randal Baron, Historic Preservation Planner III ALSO PRESENT Lou Filippore, Grayboyes Windows Chris Dochney Jon Drial Jillian Staffiera Jonathan Broh, JKR Partners Jen Whary, JKR Partners Samantha Saunders, JKR Partners Jacob Roller CALL TO ORDER Mr. McCoubrey called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Gutterman and Mr. Cluver joined him. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 20 FEBRUARY 2018 2 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 2409 PINE ST Project: Construct roof deck on rear addition Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Adam Solow Applicant: Timmy Graham History: 1835 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 Staff Contact: Randal Baron, randal.baron@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct a roof deck with pergola on the rear of this two-story rowhouse located in the Rittenhouse Fitler Residential Historic District. The proposed deck is located on top of a new three-story rear addition, which the Commission approved in 2014. For the 2014 approval, an application was submitted for demolition of the rear roof slope and rear dormer, and construction of a three-story rear addition with roof deck. The Committee determined the massing and scale to be excessive, and recommended denial of the application, with the recommendation that it be revised to be a two-story addition with deck, or a three-story addition with no deck. The application was revised to show a three-story addition with no deck, and the Commission approved the revised application. This new application is essentially requesting the remaining portion of the application that was not approved by the Commission in 2014, with the argument that the historic fabric at the rear of the building was lost with the 2014 approval, and the deck is likely to not be visible from a public right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, pursuant to Standard 9, the Roofs Guideline, and the Commission’s 2014 approval of a three-story rear addition without the deck. DISCUSSION: Mr. Baron presented the application to the Architectural Committee. No one represented the application. Ms. Gutterman asked about the applicant’s rationale for proposing a deck that has already been denied. Mr.
Standard 9, the Roofs Guideline, and the Commission’s 2014 approval of a three-story rear addition without the deck. DISCUSSION: Mr. Baron presented the application to the Architectural Committee. No one represented the application. Ms. Gutterman asked about the applicant’s rationale for proposing a deck that has already been denied. Mr. Baron replied that the applicant still seeks deck and has the right to reapply for the same work that was denied after one year has elapsed since the denial. Mr. Cluver asked if the earlier version of the deck included a pergola. Mr. Baron responded that he did not remember whether the earlier application included a pergola. Mr. Cluver said that he voted in favor of the deck the first time. He stated, however, that he intends to vote against it this time because he respects the Historical Commission’s determination that the deck does not satisfy preservation standards. Mr. McCoubrey stated that he considers it quite unusual that the Historical Commission approved the original project in 2014 to demolish the rear slope and dormer of the rowhouse for the addition. He contended that the Historical Commission’s approval constituted a compromise, and the deck was considered inappropriate. Ms. Gutterman agreed. Mr. McCoubrey called for public comment, of which there was none. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 9, the Roofs Guideline, and the Commission’s 2014 approval of a three-story rear addition without the deck. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 20 FEBRUARY 2018 3 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 724 S 2ND ST Proposal: Replace rear wall and construct additions Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: 2nd & Monroe LLC Applicant: George Konel, JKR Partners, LLC History: 1795 Individual Designation: 6/24/1958 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Randal Baron, randal.baron@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct a third-story addition on top of the existing rear ell of this individually-designated building, which would be consolidated into a larger new construction project to the north on currently vacant lots. The proposal requires the removal of the rear wall of the existing building, which has already been severely compromised by previous work. The existing front façade, party walls, and half gambrel roof and dormer would be retained. The proposed new construction would form an L around the rear and north side of the existing building, and would be three-stories in height, rising slightly above the height
been severely compromised by previous work. The existing front façade, party walls, and half gambrel roof and dormer would be retained. The proposed new construction would form an L around the rear and north side of the existing building, and would be three-stories in height, rising slightly above the height of the historic building. The rear of the property is landlocked, and would not be visible from any public right-of-way. The front façade of the building would be restored to its historic appearance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, pursuant to Standard 9. DISCUSSION: Mr. Baron presented the application to the Architectural Committee. Architects Jonathan Broh, Jennifer Whary and Samantha Saunders and developer Jacob Roller represented the application. Mr. McCoubrey asked Mr. Baron if the Architectural Committee should limit its review to the house at 724 S. 2nd Street only, or should consider the entire project. Mr. Baron explained that the Historical Commission had approved a project in this location in the past. At that time, the new construction was book-ended by two historically designated properties at 718 and 724 S. 2nd Street. The Historical Commission reviewed and approved the entire development. Since that time, the Commission rescinded the designation of the property at 718 S. 2nd Street. Mr. Baron explained that the proposed construction would attach to the historic building at 724 S. 2nd Street and therefore should be reviewed as an addition to the historic building even though most of it is located on ground that is not designated. Mr. Baron reported that the Historical Commission had approved the demolition of the rear ell of the building at 724 S. 2nd Street as part of the earlier approval. Mr. McCoubrey asked if the Monroe Street lot is designated as historic. Mr. Baron stated that it is not. Ms. Gutterman asked if the Monroe Street lot is located in a historic district. Mr. Baron responded that it is not located in a historic district listed on the Philadelphia Register. Mr. Broh explained that they intend to keep the existing roof on 724 S. 2nd Street although they would like to cover it in standing seam metal. This will help unify the building with the rest of the development. He explained that the parcels have been consolidated. Mr. Broh stated that they will replace the windows in the historic building with historically correct wood windows with either true or simulated divided lights with
in standing seam metal. This will help unify the building with the rest of the development. He explained that the parcels have been consolidated. Mr. Broh stated that they will replace the windows in the historic building with historically correct wood windows with either true or simulated divided lights with the staff to review details. Mr. Broh distributed prints of photographs showing standing seam roofs on similar buildings. Mr. Baron said that the ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 20 FEBRUARY 2018 4 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES building almost certainly had wood shakes originally, but may have been roofed in tin about 1830. Mr. Broh said that they are constructing a roof extension over the new construction that will have only a 2% pitch, which will be covered with a rubber roof. Ms. Gutterman asked about what appears to be a chimney along the party wall. Some Committee members suggested that it was a remnant of the building that stood on the adjacent lot. Mr. Baron pointed out that the chimney for 724 had been replaced with a metal exhaust pipe, which the applicants would remove. Mr. Broh reported that, owing to differences in the floor heights, the old building will be attached to but not internally connected to the addition to its rear. It will be its own condominium unit within the larger structure. Mr. Cluver said that an original metal roof would have looked more delicate than today’s metal roofs. Mr. Broh offered to make the spacing of the seams wider on the historic portion of the building. Mr. Broh explained that they will install a new cellar bulkhead and will work with the staff on the details. Mr. Cluver said that he can accept contemporary styling for the new building, but suggested that it should be clad with a red brick that is consistent with the historic building. Ms. Gutterman asked about the garage door. Mr. Broh replied that it will be an open metal gate. She noted that the architect should work with the staff to identify the correct shutters. It was noted that the proposed sign will not be internally illuminated and that they have not yet designed up- lighting for the building. Ms. Gutterman suggested that they further develop the concepts for the Historical Commission meeting. Mr. McCoubrey asked for public comment, of which there was none. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural
the proposed sign will not be internally illuminated and that they have not yet designed up- lighting for the building. Ms. Gutterman suggested that they further develop the concepts for the Historical Commission meeting. Mr. McCoubrey asked for public comment, of which there was none. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided that the metal roof is scaled to match an historic roof with a pole gutter; the front door is restored and the garage has an open gate; the HVAC equipment and decks do not expand beyond those shown in the application, and the lighting is developed before the Historical Commission meeting, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. ADJOURNMENT The Architectural Committee adjourned at 9:35 a.m. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CITED IN THE MINUTES 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. Roofs Guideline: Recommended: Designing additions to roofs such as residential, office, or storage spaces; elevator housing; decks and terraces; or dormers or skylights when required by the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features.