M. ROOM 18-029, 1515 ARCH STREET, WITH REMOTE OPTION ON ZOOM KIM WASHINGTON, ACTING CHAIR CALL TO ORDER START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:00:00 Ms. m. and announced the presence of a quorum. , Committee on Historic Designation Chair (Historian) X Thomas Holloman (City Council) X Kyle O’Connor (Department of Public Property) X John P. Lech (Department of Licenses & Inspections) X Dan McCoubrey, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Architectural Committee Chair (Architect) X Stephanie Michel (Community Organization) X Arrived 9:13 Franz Rabauer X Robert Thomas, AIA (Architectural Historian) X Matthew Treat (Department of Planning and Development) X The meeting was held in person at 1515 Arch Street, with the option for applicants and the public to participate via Zoom video and audio-conferencing software.
, Law Department Lori Arnold Nancy Pontone Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance Reed Slogoff, Pearl Properties Rustin Ohler, Harman Deutsch Ohler Architects Ryan Solimeo, Harman Deutsch Ohler Architects Timothy Reimer PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 3 ADOPTION OF MINUTES, 766TH STATED MEETING, 12 JUNE 2026 START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:03:25 DISCUSSION: • Ms. Washington asked the Commissioners, staff, and members of the public if they had any suggested additions or corrections to the minutes of the preceding meeting of the Historical Commission, the 766th Stated Meeting, held 12 June 2026. No comments were offered. ACTION: Mr. Lech moved to adopt the minutes of the 766th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, held 12 June 2026. Mr. Holloman seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. gov OVERVIEW: The applicant for 1910 Chestnut Street has requested to continue the application from the July 2026 meeting of the Historical Commission to the August 2026 meeting.
PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 4 START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:04:00 PUBLIC COMMENT: • None. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to continue the review of the application for 1910 Chestnut Street to the August 2026 meeting of the Historical Commission. Mr. Holloman seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. TEM: Continuance MOTION: Approve continuance MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Holloman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Frankel, Chair X Washington, Vice Chair X Muhammad (Commerce) X Cooperman X Holloman (City Council) X O’Connor (DPP) X Lech (L&I) X McCoubrey X Michel X Rabauer X Thomas X Treat (DPD) X Total 8 4 REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 23 JUNE 2026 CONSENT AGENDA START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:04:45 DISCUSSION: • Ms. Washington asked the Commissioners, staff, and public for comments on the Consent Agenda. None were offered. PUBLIC COMMENT: • None. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to adopt the recommendation of the Architectural Committee for the applications for 1000 Spruce Street and 1800 Tasker Street. Ms.
Washington seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. gov OVERVIEW: This application proposes alterations to the rowhouse at 1000 Spruce Street, constructed 1872, including the rehabilitation of the ground-floor commercial space and seven apartments and the expansion of a one-story mid-century commercial building with a three-story addition. Exterior alterations would include reopening the glazed storefront on the east façade, constructing roof decks, demolishing a non-contributing hyphen, and constructing a two-story addition on a one-story commercial building at the rear on S. 10th Street. The roof decks do not appear to be visible directly across S. 10th or Spruce Streets. The addition will be clad in brick to match the primary façade of the of the one-story commercial building. SCOPE OF WORK: • Reopen glazed storefront on the east façade. • Construct roof decks. • Demolish non-contributing hyphen. • Rehabilitate one-story commercial building. • Construct a three-story addition above the one-story commercial building.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 6 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include: • Standard 2: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. o Reopening the east façade storefront is appropriate as the 1987 brick infill is not original. 10th or Spruce Streets. • Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o The hyphen to be demolished is not original and lacks significance. o The addition is set back five feet from the primary façade.
o The proposed addition to the one-story commercial building would be compatible with the building and district if a cornice and/or other restrained ornament is added. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided a cornice and/or other restrained ornament is added to the addition to the commercial building, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the addition is revised to include a cornice and/or other restrained ornament and a mock-up ensures that the pilot houses are inconspicuous, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9 and the Roofs Guideline. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. gov OVERVIEW: The structure at 1800 Tasker Street is a historic church building currently being converted for commercial use. As part of this adaptive reuse project, the property owner proposes to install a hand-painted mural on the west facade of the building. The mural is intended to reflect the character of the surrounding neighborhood and to respond to the requests of adjacent residents who face the mural wall and who have expressed a desire for a vibrant, community-oriented artwork at this location.
The project is being managed by Trotter Cole Advisory (TCA), a public art consulting firm based in Philadelphia. TCA will lead artist selection, community engagement, and all aspects of project management through final installation. The mural will be hand-painted directly on the wall surface by an artist selected through a structured community process. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 7 The west wall has recently been and continues to be refinished as part of permitted masonry work undertaken by O’Neill Masonry. The mural will be directly applied to the newly restored lime plaster surface once all masonry work is complete. The proposed materials are acrylic paint and an anti-graffiti coating, both of which are vapor permeable. SCOPE OF WORK: • Install mural. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include: • Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o The mural will not cover or destroy historic materials. It will be differentiated from and compatible with the historic building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the staff to review details including final paint and sealant choices pursuant to Standard 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review final details including paint and sealant choices, pursuant to Standard 9. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. gov OVERVIEW: This application proposes hotel signage and lighting at the former Market Street National Bank, now Marriot Residence Inn, at 1319-25 Market Street. The fabric banner signage is proposed for three locations on the historic building. Two of the sign banners would be located at the corner of Market and Juniper Streets. A third banner sign would face Juniper Street at the corner of Commerce and Juniper Streets.
The signage would be 20 feet tall by three feet wide and connected to hardware installed into mortar joints. Additional signage would be incorporated into the existing contemporary awning located above the hotel’s main entrance on Juniper Street. It would be channel letters on a black metal curved band. The existing awning was approved by the Historical Commission. Uplighting is also proposed on the awning and on the building ledge under the banner signs. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 8 SCOPE OF WORK: • Install signage and lighting. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include: • Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
o The proposed fabric banner signs could be compatible with the historic building and meet Standard 9 if their size and scale were reduced. The proposed installation of the banners directly against the building could potentially trap moisture and cause damage to the terra cotta. To meet Standard 9, the banner must be offset from the building’s façade, and the applicant must provide technical information about the fabric material’s vapor transmission. Installing the signage hardware into the mortar joints would prevent damage to the terra cotta and therefore meets Standard 9. The applicant must provide hardware dimensions to ensure it will not exceed the size of the mortar joint. o The proposed sign for the existing awning is compatible with the contemporary awning and historic building in its materials, features, size, scale, and massing, and therefore meets Standard 9. The incorporated uplighting on the awning also meets Standard 9. o The installation of the proposed uplighting on the terra cotta ledge below banner lighting could meet Standard 9, if the installation does not alter or harm the historic materials.
Additional drawings and information should be submitted showing this part of the scope of work. • Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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. o Installing the proposed signage hardware into mortar joints would allow this change to be reversible and therefore satisfy Standard 10. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the marquee signage, with the staff to review details, and denial of the banner signage and lighting, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:05:50 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Mehley presented the application to the Historical Commission. • Attorney Eileen Quigley and owner’s representatives Ed Farrington, Jose Toro, and Bill Walther represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT: • None.
PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 9 HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that: • The applicant should explore other signage options including perpendicular signage that would not directly touch the terra cotta and submit a revised design. • The concept of the uplighting is approvable but the application should be supplemented with installation details and specifications. • The LED marquee signage can be approved as submitted. • The application could be separated into two separate applications to allow the marquee to be approved and move forward to permitting. The Historical Commission concluded that: • The signage and lighting proposed for the marquee satisfies Standards 9 and 10. • The banner signage and lighting as proposed fail to satisfy Standards 9 and 10, owing to its size, scale, installation, potential negative impact to the terra cotta, and lack of submission details. The review of a revised design of the banners and uplighting should be conducted at a future meeting of the Historical Commission. ACTION: Mr.
McCoubrey moved to approve the alterations to the marquee and to continue the signage and lighting portion of the application until the applicant submits revised plans, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. Mr. Holloman seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. ITEM: 1319-25 Market St MOTION: Approve marquee alterations, continue signage and lighting MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Holloman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Frankel, Chair X Washington, Vice Chair X Muhammad (Commerce) X Cooperman X Holloman (City Council) X O’Connor (DPP) X Lech (L&I) X McCoubrey X Michel X Rabauer X Thomas X Treat (DPD) X Total 9 3 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 10 ADDRESS: 4619-25 LONGSHORE AVE Proposal: Construct elevator addition Review Requested: Review In Concept Owner: CDE Investments LLC Applicant: Andy Gray, Toner Architects History: 1908; Tacony Club; Clyde S. gov OVERVIEW: This in-concept application proposes erecting an elevator tower at the rear of the building at 4619 Longshore Ave, the former Tacony Club, with a small vestibule communicating with the parking lot.
The elevator tower would expand existing window openings into doors at the first and second floors. At the third-floor level, the rear dormer would be widened to meet the tower and provide access to the upper floor. The proposed massing and materials appear to be compatible with the historic resource and the tower is located to minimally impact the building’s primary elevations. The conceptual nature of the plans makes it difficult to fully evaluate the extent to which the project meets the Standards. Of particular note, the plans call for the removal of a portion of cornice and significant alteration of the rear dormer. An application for final approval should provide detail about these changes to character-defining elements SCOPE OF WORK: • Construct three-story elevator tower with vestibule. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include: • Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o Recommended: Constructing a new addition that results in the least possible loss of historic materials so that character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed. • An application for final approval would need greater detail, particularly around the areas where historic material is being removed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval in concept, pursuant to Standard 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial in concept, pursuant to Standard 9. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 11 START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:12:46 PRESENTERS: • Mr. Maust presented the application to the Historical Commission. • Architect Andy Gray represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT: • None.
HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that: • An elevator set away from the building by a connector would better meet the Standards. • An addition that met the historic building below the cornice would not require alteration of the cornice and rear dormer and thus better meet the Standards. • If elevator access to the third floor is necessary to make the project practical, the Historical Commission would like more documentation demonstrating that necessity. The Historical Commission concluded that: • The current proposal does not meet Standard 9. • An revised elevator addition to this building could meet the Standards. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to deny the application in concept as currently proposed but approve an exterior elevator in concept, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. D. gov OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct a dormer addition at the third floor of the mansion at 27 Druim Moir Lane, known as Brinkwood, to accommodate the conversion of an attic into living space.
The proposal includes the demolition of a portion of the roof and a small existing dormer. The new dormer would include two aluminum-clad window systems whose alignment and configuration would match those on the first and second stories below, with cedar shake siding to match the existing facade. The roof’s existing asphalt shingles would be replaced with slate tiles. In January 2023, the Architectural Committee reviewed a nearly identical proposal for 27 Druim Moir Lane. The Architectural Committee recommended denial and noted that the proposed dormer was out of proportion with the façade and that the replicated windows would diminish the visual impact of the historic windows. A revised design that proposed a shed dormer was approved by the Historical Commission in February 2023. The Architectural Committee reviewed and recommended denial for a different proposed dormer design in March 2023. The Historical Commission again approved a revised application that proposed a shed dormer in April 2023. SCOPE OF WORK: • Demolish dormer and portion of roof; construct dormer addition.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include: • Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o The proposed window system would not be easily differentiated from the historic windows below and its large size would diminish the prominence of the historic window features below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial as proposed, but approval provided the dormer is reduced in size and set back from the roof edge to maintain the cornice line, and windows are differentiated from the historic windows, pursuant to Standard 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 9.
START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:27:41 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 13 PRESENTERS: • Mr. Schroeder presented the application to the Historical Commission. • Property owner Ori Feibush and attorney Sean Whalen represented the application. DISCUSSION: • Mr. Whalen explained that the proposed exterior addition is necessary to accommodate the extension of the primary interior staircase to the third floor to make that space useable. He explained that the house was not visible to the public and emphasized that it was approximately 1,000 to 1,200 feet from the nearest public right-of-way. Mr. Whalen then summarized the revisions made in response to the Architectural Committee’s comments. • Mr. Feibush reiterated his justification for the addition and explained that extending the main staircase is the only viable option. • Mr. McCoubrey summarized the Architectural Committee’s recommendation. He argued that the stair extension could be accommodated with a more constrained dormer design that did not detract from the house’s historic appearance and would satisfy Standard 9.
He also summarized the Architectural Committee’s and Historical Commission’s past reviews of similar proposals for 27 Druim Moir Lane. • Mr. McCoubrey and Ms. W. D. Hewitt. They also noted that the property is individually designated. • Ms. Cooperman argued that, without any new information or changes in circumstances, there is no justification to approve a design that did not satisfy Standard 9. • Mr. Feibush responded that the designs previously approved by the Historical Commission allowed for more light but were insufficient for the staircase. He acknowledged that the Standards require differentiating new features from historic, but that as the house’s resident he wanted the addition to appear natural to the house. He also acknowledged that, as one of the largest collectors of early American lighting fixtures, the addition would allow him to properly install, display, and use fixtures from his collection. He also again emphasized the lack of public visibility. • Ms. Cooperman stated that the Architectural Committee’s and Historical Commission’s decisions have been guided by the Standards. ο Mr. Feibush reiterated that the proposal applied to the house’s rear façade.
• Ms. Washington stated that, although the proposal did not meet the Standards, the Historical Commission has repeatedly approved significant alterations to the rears of properties for homeowners seeking to improve their living conditions. ο Mr. McCoubrey responded that the homeowner’s intentions could be met without such a fundamental change to the exterior. He explained that the proposed addition has been referred to as a dormer but it is actually an extension of the second floor which is a more fundamental alteration. • Mr. Holloman expressed his support for the proposal, given the lack of public visibility and noted that rear façades are typically viewed as less significant than the front. • Ms. Cooperman again acknowledged the lack of visibility but contended that this property’s circumstances were fundamentally different than most the Historical Commission considers. She explained that most of the approved alterations to rears are on sections intended to be used for utilitarian purposes whereas each façade of 27 Druim Moir Lane has architectural and aesthetic significance as intended by the Hewitts.
She also explained that the Historical Commission has no purview over the interior but have approved exterior alterations that would accommodate the PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 14 applicant’s objectives for the interior. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Timothy Reimer encouraged the Historical Commission to follow the written comment submitted by the Chestnut Hill Conservancy and reject the application. • Lori Arnold expressed support for the application and argued that the Historical Commission often allows alterations that are not visible from a public right-of-way. She further argued that the proposed changes are reasonable and are reversible. She asked the Historical Commission to approve the application. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that: • The window bays on the second and third stories of rear façade of 27 Druim Moir Lane are character-defining features. W. D. Hewitt, is historically and architecturally significant. • The house at 27 Druim Moir Lane is not visible from any public right-of-way.
The Historical Commission concluded that: • The proposed addition inappropriately replicates historic features and would alter the spatial relationship between the rear façade’s historic features. Therefore, the application fails to meet Standard 9. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to deny the application, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6 to 4. gov OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct a four-story multi-unit residential structure on the surface parking lots at 1523-29 Wallace Street. It appears that the buildings that once stood on the lot were demolished circa 1966. The site consisted of several vacant lots at the time of the Spring Garden Historic District designation, with a non-historic site wall; therefore, the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction over the undeveloped site is review-and-comment only. This means that the Historical Commission and its advisory Architectural Committee may offer non- binding comments on the application at public meetings but may not approve or deny it. SCOPE OF WORK: • Construct four-story multi-unit residential building on vacant lots.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include: • Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o The new building will be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the surrounding historic context, satisfying Standard 9. STAFF COMMENT: The application satisfies Standard 9. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:51:06 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Chantry presented the application to the Historical Commission. • Architect Derek Spencer represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT: • David Traub of Save Our Sites commented in support of the application.
HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that: • The site consisted of several vacant lots at the time of the Spring Garden Historic District designation, with a non-historic site wall; therefore, the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction over the undeveloped site is review-and-comment only. The Historical Commission concluded that: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 16 • The application satisfies Standard 9. The new building will be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the surrounding historic context. ADDRESS: 3500 S BROAD ST Proposal: Construct building, ADA ramp, and driveway; add lighting Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: City of Philadelphia Applicant: Brittany Scherer, Studio Sustena History: 1926; American Swedish Historical Museum; John A. gov OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct an auxiliary building on the grounds of the American Swedish History Museum in FDR Park.
It additionally proposes a number of exterior landscape improvements including constructing an ADA accessible ramp, adding a paved parking area, constructing pedestrian paths and a plaza, and adding exterior lighting to the building. The building was constructed in 1926 by Swedish-American architect John Nydén as part of the Sesquicentennial celebration held at FDR Park and has housed the American Swedish Historical Museum since 1928. The auxiliary building will be positioned to western the side of the building between it and Pattison Avenue and its design imitates the colors and materials of the museum building. The parking area will be situated on the eastern side of the building near Pattison Avenue and will be connected to the museum building by a series of paved pedestrian paths and a paved plaza. The ADA ramp will be constructed on the park facing south side of the building and feature a mixed metal with clear acrylic panel design. Finally, lighting will be installed, both at ground level, via poles, and via a wall sconce element on the museum building. The entire building and grounds are visible from both Pattison Avenue and FDR Park.
SCOPE OF WORK: • Construct new auxiliary building. • Construct new ADA ramp. • Construct new parking area. • Construct new plaza and pedestrian paths. • Add new lighting to grounds and building. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include: • Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o The auxiliary building, ADA ramp, parking area, plaza, and paths will be compatible with the overall massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the Historic District. o Additional drawings showing the auxiliary building and ramp in context with the museum building should be provided. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 17 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, pursuant to Standard 9.
ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the proposed ramp and acrylic panels are reexamined and the location and design of the auxiliary building are revised to be compatible with the historic building, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:55:43 PRESENTERS: • Mr. Till presented the application to the Historical Commission. • Landscape architect Brittany Scherer, architect Al Wulff, and museum director Tracey Beck represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT: • None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that: • The application proposes modifications to the landscape around the Swedish American Historical Museum, a significant resource in the FDR Park Historic District. • Additional views of the site show that the proposed placement for the new auxiliary building is appropriate, owing to the constraints of the landscape. • The revised railing design for the proposed ADA accessible ramp is appropriate. • The auxiliary building’s design should be revised to have a hipped roof on all sides.
The Historical Commission concluded that: • The revised application satisfies Standard 9. The auxiliary building, ADA ramp, parking area, plaza, and paths are compatible with the overall massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the historic district. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to approve the application, provided the auxiliary building has a hipped roof, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. , Mr. McCoubrey moved to adjourn. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. ITEM: Adjournment MOTION: Adjourn MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Frankel, Chair X Washington, Vice Chair X Muhammad (Commerce) X Cooperman X Holloman (City Council) X O’Connor (DPP) X Lech (L&I) X McCoubrey X Michel X Rabauer X Thomas X Treat (DPD) X Total 10 2 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 10 JULY 2026 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 19 PLEASE NOTE: • Minutes of the Philadelphia Historical Commission and its advisory committees are presented in action format. Additional information is available in the video recording for this meeting. The start time for each agenda item in the recording is noted. gov/historical. CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION §14-1004. Designation. (1) Criteria for Designation.
A building, complex of buildings, structure, site, object, or district may be designated for preservation if it: (a) Has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth, or nation or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past; (b) Is associated with an event of importance to the history of the City, Commonwealth or Nation; (c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style; (d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen; (e) Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or designer, or professional engineer whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation; (f) Contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant innovation; (g) Is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area that should be preserved according to a historic, cultural, or architectural motif; (h) Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or City; (i) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history; or (j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community.