) REPORT OF THE ARCIIlTECTURAL COMMITIEE PHILADELPIHA IDSTORICAL COMMISSION Present Arlene Matzkin, Chairperson Commi~ion Conference Room Suite 1301, 1401 Arch Street 27 June 1995 David Hollenberg, Vice-Chairperson, Architectural Committee Penelope Batchelor J. William Cornell Herbert W. Levy Suzanne Pentz Don Stevenson Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Lori Plavin Salganicoff, Historic Preservation Specialist Jeffrey Barr, Historic Research Technician Also Larry L. Snyder, Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust Amy Freitag, Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust Alexis Anderson, Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust Martin Jay Rosenblum, R.A., Belmont Mansion Peter A. Copp, Belmont Mansion Suzanna Barucco, Belmont Mansion Michele Rubin, Belmont Mansion Michael Samschick, 602 South Front Street John Konick, K Group Architects, 602 South Front Street Mike Rampone, Graboyes Window Co. Bernard Nearey, Center City Residents Association Terry Graboyes, Graboyes Window Col Debra Gruenstein, 2035 Spruce Street Jane M. DiNola, 312 Race Street, DiNardo's Patricia Stem, Light and Space Design, 312 Race Street ) Report of the Architectural Committee BELMONT MANSION BACK BUII.,DINGS Martin Rosenblum R.A., Architect PROPOSAL; Alterations and Addition 2 27 June 1995 Meeting The Applicant seeks final approval for the demolition of a 1956 addition and the construction of a glazed porch in its place. This proposal previously received conceptual approval by the Commission, with the request that the Applicant consider covering the structure with a hipped rather than half-gable roof. Additionally, the Applicant seeks final approval for the construction of a brick addition to and the enlargement of windows in an 1890s kitchen wing, their choices of roofing materials, the removal of a 20th century brick tower, and the alteration of a door to a window. No work is proposed here for the Belmont Mansion proper. For the sake of structural simplicity and aesthetics, the Applicant decided to reject placing a hipped roof on the glazed porch in favor of their original half-gable proposal. They proposed to construct a metal standing seam roof with half-round hanging gutters. Mr. Rosenblum reported that the Art Commission had reviewed the glazed porch proposal and had requested that muntins be taken out of doors allowing single panes of glass. Committee members expressed approval for the proposed design. Committee members also found the enlargement of windows in the 1890s kitchen acceptable, as this would allow the building to be more successful as an events facility. Noting that the painted brick addition to the kitchen wing, with its
panes of glass. Committee members expressed approval for the proposed design. Committee members also found the enlargement of windows in the 1890s kitchen acceptable, as this would allow the building to be more successful as an events facility. Noting that the painted brick addition to the kitchen wing, with its dumpster and vent fan, would hardly be visible to any public right-of-way, Committee members asked whether any historic landscaping will be covered and whether archaeological investigation would be undertaken before construction. Mr. Rosenblum responded that the most notable landscaping was done at a different area of the site, and that they have retained an archaeologist to investigate. The roofs would be covered with standing seam painted metal, either leaded copper painted to look like teme-coated copper, or prefabricated galvanized steel. While the leaded copper would last longer and was considered the preferred material, budgetary considerations could dictate the use of the steel. Galvanized steel may last up to twenty years. Committee members found both materials acceptable, although they expressed a preference for the leaded copper. Committee members voted to recommend final approval for the project. 1he design detaUs of the kitchen addition should be worked through at staff level. ) _) Report of the Architectural Committee SEDGELEY PORTER'S HOUSE 3 Larry Snyder, Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust PROPOSAL; Restoration 27 June 1995 Meeting A grant was received for the restoration of this building, called the oldest Gothic Revival structure in the United States and attributed to the architect Latrobe. The mansion for which this porter's house was a back building is gone. It was constructed in 1799 and modifications were made in 1840. It was used by the Fairmount Park Guards for the hundred year stretch between 1871, when the wings were added, and 1971. The building has been abandoned for almost ten years. The Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust plans to adaptively reuse the building for its offices, a conference room, and interpretation of the site. The Trust intends to rehabilitate the interior and restore the exterior of the building. It has already cleared the site of overgrowth. In order to create a conference room, the Trust proposes to disassemble, clean, and decorate the walls with the 19th century ironwork in the holding cells of the north wing. The slot windows in this section would be retained and window bars scraped, primed, and painted. The proposal also includes the
order to create a conference room, the Trust proposes to disassemble, clean, and decorate the walls with the 19th century ironwork in the holding cells of the north wing. The slot windows in this section would be retained and window bars scraped, primed, and painted. The proposal also includes the installation of a low-profile skylight in the north elevation of the hipped roof; this would apparently not be highly visible from a public right-of-way. A section of bargeboard has been removed for conservation. It was estimated that as much as 90% of the building's bargeboard is salvageable. The current design does not include the final resolution of an accessibility ramp. The roof, originally slate, is currently covered with a green asphalt shingle. Committee members propose to cover it with a slate-like shingle until they can afford slate. 1he Committee voted to recommend final approval of the proposal with the exception of the accessibility ramps and site work, which must return for Committee review. Commission staff should be presented with details and material specifications for work on windows and roof before a permit may be issued. 602 SOUTH FRONT STREET Michael Samschick, Applicant John Konick, K Group Architects PROPOSAL; Concej)tllal Aimroval, Facade, Garaee, and Roof Alterations Mr. Samschick, a developer, is considering purchasing a six-property tract from the Rappaport estate, within which 602 South Front Street is the only designated property. The estate will only sell the properties as a complete package. This building had a glass roof installed on its east gable slope and a garage door opening cut in 1988 by a previous owner, Mr. Rota. The garage replaced a storefront. A permit for this work was issued in error by the Department of Licenses and Inspections without Commission review, and a subsequent court hearing resulted in an order to restore the ground floor facade to an 18th-century residential front but allow the glass roof. Mr. Rota did not restore the facade before the property was taken by the bank in a bankruptcy proceeding. Report of the Architectural Committee 4 27 June 1995 Meeting The Department of Licenses and Inspections has expressed concern about loose brickwork above the garage steel beam lintel as well as other problems in the form a "Dangerous Building" violation. According to Mr. Samschick, the glass roof leaks substantially. Although the exterior of the building is in a distressed condition, the interior structure of the
Inspections has expressed concern about loose brickwork above the garage steel beam lintel as well as other problems in the form a "Dangerous Building" violation. According to Mr. Samschick, the glass roof leaks substantially. Although the exterior of the building is in a distressed condition, the interior structure of the building is secure as it consists of steel bar joists with plywood floors and structural steel wall studs. The Committee did not address the legal issues to whether the court's ruling pertains to the building at this time, even under new ownership. Mr. Hollenberg stated that the Architectural Committee shall consider the architectural merits of the proposal and leave the legal question to others. Committee members noted that this building is on the verge of being lost, and that the change from storefront to garage would have destroyed less than if it had been a residence. They expressed concern, however, that the rest of the facade be restored and that the roof be made into a solid shingle roof. Mr. Samschick expressed a willingness to significantly reduce the glass roof to a low- profile skylight within a normal gable and to restore the second and third floor facade if the garage could be retained. The Architectural Committee recommended approval, in concept of the retention of the first floor opening for use as a garage and the restoration of the rest of the facade. The roof slope shou/,d be ) restored to its original condition. Details toward final approval shou/,d be worked out at staff level. 201-217 souru 18m STREET, RITrENHOUSE CLARIDGE Terry A. Graboyes, Applicant PROPOSAL; New Windows at North, South and west Facades This project was reviewed several years ago when a small fire in the building caused a section of windows to be replaced. The original windows have uncoated aluminum sash and frames, while these replacement windows have a clear anodized finish. When first installed the original windows were silver, but they have aged to a darker finish. These windows have become difficult to operate, and have proved too heavy for the many elderly residents. The proposal to change the windows of the Rittenhouse Square facade met with staff approval, based partially on looking at the fire-replacement windows. The Applicant proposes to change the windows of the remaining three facades of the building at the north, south, and east in the same fashion. The Applicant requested quick review
change the windows of the Rittenhouse Square facade met with staff approval, based partially on looking at the fire-replacement windows. The Applicant proposes to change the windows of the remaining three facades of the building at the north, south, and east in the same fashion. The Applicant requested quick review of the proposal so that the work planned for all four facades could be done as one project. Installation of the Rittenhouse Square windows is scheduled for July 24 1995. Some drawings were received at the Commission offices a few hours before this meeting, but several necessary drawings have yet to be submitted. These drawings include existing windows at the same scale as in the proposal drawing. On all four facades, the appearance of the windows would not entirely replicate the original windows, as in some cases operable and fixed window sash must be switched to accommodate interior piers. This is proposed in order to allow at least one operable window in each living space; if the fixed and ) Report of the Architectural Committee 5 27 June 1995 Meeting operable windows were to stay in the same locations, mullions in front of concrete piers would have to be 9-1/2" wide. The horizontal and vertical elements would be located in exactly the same place as original and would look basically the same, except where applied dividers must be switched with true mullions and vice versa. The new mullions would be 4-1/2" wide. The original applied muntin is 2" wide. Another change in the appearance of the facade would come from the setback of the window in the opening. Originally set approximately 4" back, the new windows would sit only 2-1/2" in from the outside frame edge. The new windows would be clear anodized aluminum to match the windows installed after the fire. Committee members stated that since the windows liave been approved for one side, the other three sides should follow. 1hey voted to recommend approval of the proposal. It was requested, however, that all necessary documentary drawings be submitted to staff for the record. 2035 SPRUCE STREET Debra Gruenstein, Applicant PROPOSAL; Mansard Roof This proposal reviewed at a past meeting concerns the re-roofing of a slate mansard in a row of brownstones all with intact slate mansards. The owner proposes to install square asphalt shingles in place of the hexagonal slate shingles. The cost seems to be about $4,500
Applicant PROPOSAL; Mansard Roof This proposal reviewed at a past meeting concerns the re-roofing of a slate mansard in a row of brownstones all with intact slate mansards. The owner proposes to install square asphalt shingles in place of the hexagonal slate shingles. The cost seems to be about $4,500 for the asphalt and $9,000 for the slate. The staff of the Commission did research on slate substitutes which priced at about $8,000. The Commission hired Jeff Levine to evaluate the problem. He inspected - and said that the slates seemed to be in good condition even though they are probably 130 years old. He stated that the gutter needs replacing, however, the two bottom rows of slate would have to be pulled-up to do this. Given that the scaffolding is a substantial portion of the cost, it may make sense to reroof the roof if the resources can be found to do that now. Calls to the New York City Landmarks Commission and the Pittsburgh Historical Commission revealed that in the case of a small slate mansard that is a major part of the facade like this, they ask for replacement in slate or a slate substitute with thickness, shape and color to match the original. It was also noted that this is a house sold for approximately $400,000 in 1987 and that the extra $4,000 would give a 100 year roof instead of 10 to 15 years afforded by the asphalt and aluminum. The Architectural Committee recommended rejecting the asphalt replacement and asked for the hexagonal slate root 1hey explained that it may be possible to repair the gutter the first two rows of slate and use asphalt replacement shingles there if that area is hidden from the street by the cornice and therefore not visible. ) Report of the Architectural Committee 6 312-314 RACE STREET, DINARDO'S CRAB HOUSE Patricia Stem, Light & Space D~ign, Inc. PROPOSAL: Window Replacement 27 June 1995 Meeting This proposal calls for installing two new shopfront windows on the ground floor. The original Victorian windows shown in an old picture are large single pan~ with transoms above. Nine pane bowfront windows were installed in 1986. Colonial forty five pane windows in wood were purchased and the owner seeks to install them. The Committee meeting with the contractor last month, asked for the single pane window with transom above. 1he Architectural Committee recommended approval
pan~ with transoms above. Nine pane bowfront windows were installed in 1986. Colonial forty five pane windows in wood were purchased and the owner seeks to install them. The Committee meeting with the contractor last month, asked for the single pane window with transom above. 1he Architectural Committee recommended approval of the 45 pane colonial window, noting that the height of the window sill had been changed since installation of the victorian window. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. R~pectfully submitted, ~ 111 . . Lori Plavin Salganicoff NO'l'B: 203S Spruce Stleet and 312-314 Race Stleet minutes written by R. Baron.