Historical Architectural Review Board
October 21, 2010
The Lansdowne Borough HARB held a regular meeting on Thursday, October 21, 2010 at 7:00 PM at Borough Hall, 12 E. Baltimore Ave., Lansdowne, PA.
- Members Present:
- Gloria Carpenter, Vice-Chair
- John Gould, BCO, Borough Liaison
- Margaret Vance, Acting Secretary
- William H. Patterson III
- Others present:
- F. David Hennessey, Jr., Owner, 55 N. Lansdowne Ave.
- Scott Keehan, Manager, Wells Fargo Bank, 65 W. Baltimore Ave.
- Bret Dvorak, Icon Identity Solutions, representing Wells Fargo Bank
- Brian Jones, Icon Identity Solutions, representing Wells Fargo Bank
- Michael Parkin, Owner, 47 S. Lansdowne Ave.
- Bounta Phengsisouk, Owner, 55 E. Baltimore Ave.
- Hai Luu, Contractor for Mr. Phengsisouk
- Rachel Van Tosh, Main Street Manager, LEDC
Call to Order: Mrs. Carpenter called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. All discussions were made in consideration of the Lansdowne Borough HARB Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties.
Minutes of the previous meeting were approved via e-mail and were not read.
1.) 55 N. Lansdowne Ave. Application of Windows Plus for Window replacement.
2.) 65 W. Baltimore Ave. Application of Icon Identity Solutions for signage replacement.
3.) 47 S. Lansdowne Ave. Application of Michael Parkin for façade improvements.
4.) 55 E. Baltimore Ave. Application of Bounta Phengsisouk for façade improvements.
All applications were reviewed in the order presented in the agenda:
1.) 55 N. Lansdowne Ave: Mr. F. David Hennessey, Jr., owner of the structure, distributed a written description of the proposed work while the Board anticipated the arrival of Windows Plus, the contractor, with a sample for the 3rd story, vinyl window replacement. As the contractor did not arrive, Mr. Hennessey noted that the windows were the same type as those in the second story of Lansdowne Borough Hall, and reassured the Board that they were 6-over-1 sashes, of the same configuration as the existing, and with muntins sandwiched between the glass (not snap-ins). Mr. Gould motioned to accept the application as proposed, Mr. Patterson seconded the motion, and all others were in favor.
2.) 65 W. Baltimore Ave: The representatives for the proposed signage change from Wachovia Bank to Wells Fargo Bank presented copies of the graphics that were attached to their application. The Lansdowne Zoning Board had previously approved the size of the signs and the associated lighting. Mr. Dvorak noted that the same general concept is incorporated in all logo signs. One board member asked about the brightness of the yellow sample color presented, and Mr. Dvorak noted that they always stay with the corporate colors. Mrs. Vance motioned to accept the application as proposed, Mr. Gould seconded the motion, and all others were in favor.
3.) 47 S. Lansdowne Ave: Mr. Michael Parkin presented his information for replacing the storm porch on the front of his building with a Tudor Revival interpretation meant to be more in keeping with the structure itself. It was agreed that although the proposal was much more like the structure and not set apart enough from the original design, the proposed materials (concrete-shingled siding and wood-shingled roofing materials) were different enough to distinguish it from the original construction and therefore it would conform to the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines.
a. Members of the Board recommended making the roof a straight slant rather than the curved roof as proposed.
b. Members of the Board recommended that the proposed exterior door did not conform to the Tudor style and another option from the same Simpson Door Company, #7114, would be more appropriate.
c. Members of the Board recommended that the window-sash lights on the side of the storm porch line up with the lights in the upper section of the door.
d. Members of the Board advised that the proposed plum color for all the half-timbering, trim, new door and new shingle siding was too purple and perhaps would be too electric for the building and suggested that a darker purple with more brown in it would be more appropriate. (After the last application was reviewed, Mr. Parkin returned with new color proposal, which was a darker purple from Benjamin Moore paints, #2073-10, which was more to the liking of the Board members.)
e. The roof would be covered in a Certain-teed asphalt shingle that was accepted by the Board.
Mr. Patterson motioned to accept the application with the Board’s recommendations (presented above), Mr. Gould seconded the motion, and all others were in favor.
4.) 55 E. Baltimore Ave: Mr. Bounta Phengsisouk and his contractor, Mr. Hai Luu presented their proposed application for alterations to the building.
a. Members of the Board recommended a different roofing shingle than the proposed Black Pearl, which presented a monotone appearance; Stonegate Gray, which appeared more varied in color and was from the same asphalt roofing company, was agreed upon by the Board and owner.
b. Members of the Board advised for a softer yellow color than what was proposed for the stucco (Peace Yellow SW2857), and the contractor agreed to drop off a sample at the Borough Code Office.
c. The owner informed the Board that a different trim color would be used than what was presented in the application: all trim would be white in color, and the Board agreed to the change.
d. The owner and contractor informed the Board that the second-story window sashes would be 6-over-1 rather than the 9-over-1 that were presented in the drawings because the 2nd story ceiling was now lower than originally designed. The Board agreed to the change.
e. The Board recommended a different door style than proposed, and the Barrington Fiberglass Doors “Marquise Glass” #BLT-203-778-7, and the owner agreed to the change. This door style, textured oak with platinum caming, would be used for the front double door and the one side door. The Board suggested that the two doors to the apartments on the right recessed area of the building could be similar without any glass.
f. A fluorescent light would be recessed under the canopy around the façade of the structure and would not be visible. The Board agreed.
g. The stucco water table would not be installed as originally proposed. The Board agreed.
All proposed signage would be presented to the HARB at a later meeting.
Mr. Gould motioned to accept the application with the Board’s recommendations (presented above), Mrs. Vance seconded the motion, and all others were in favor.
5.) Although not on the agenda, Ms. Rachel Van Tosh requested that the Board consider two outstanding sign issues. The first was for approval of the Tai Chi sign for 16 S. Lansdowne Ave. Mr. Gould motioned to accept the proposal, Mr. Patterson seconded the motion and all were in favor. The second was for the approval of Agustina’s sign for 24 N. Lansdowne Ave. Mr. Gould again motioned to accept the proposal, Mr. Patterson seconded the motion and all were in favor.
Adjournment: Mr. Patterson motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM; seconded by Mr. Gould. All were in favor.
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the HARB will be on November 18, 2010 at 7:00 PM at the Borough office.
Margaret A. Vance
cc: HARB Members
Craig Totaro, Borough Manager
Betsy Riffert, Assistant to the Borough Manager
Rachel Van Tosh, Main Street Manager, LEDC