THE MINUTES OF THE 490TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 13 June 2003 City Council Caucus Room, 4th Floor, City Hall Michael Sklaroff, Esq., Chair Present Michael Sklaroff, Esq., Chair James Cuorato, Director, Department of Commerce Gary Hack, Chair, City Planning Commission Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Property Kathleen Murray, Council President Verna’s Office David Perri, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Harris Steinberg, AIA Thomas Sugrue, Ph.D. Norman Tissian Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Randal Baron, Historic Preservation Specialist Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Jonathan Farnham, Historic Preservation Planner Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Larry Copeland, Senior Attorney, Law Department Also John A. Eppinger, 1900 Panama Street David Matus, Matus Windows Michael Phillips, Gardner/Fox Associates, Incorporated David Yurky, Office of Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller Jamin Potamkin Jerry Slipakoff, 1832 Delancey Street Schauun McKamey, Church Street project, Woodway Construction Company Hugh Zimmers, 1514 Waverly Street Rex Thomson, Superior Projects, 1 Leverington Avenue David Amburn, Amburn/Jarosinski Architects Steven Vaughn, Office of Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller Cara Carruccia, 1227 Pine Street Joseph Vanelli, 114 Levering Street Steve Kuzmicki, Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation Christopher Beardsley, Christopher Beardsley Architects, LLC David Irons, Montgomery Avenue Arlene Matzkin, Friday Architects Meredith Sellinger-Ebizadeh, Valen, LLC Robert Powers, Powers and Company Catharine K. Franklin, Penn-Knox, 5300 Block Committee Tina LeCoff, Penn-Knox Neighborhood Association Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents' Association/Preservation Alliance Greg Caputo, Coach Michael Sklaroff, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 490th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 9:05 a.m. Minutes of the 489th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission Upon a motion made by Mr. Wilds and seconded by Mr. Sugrue, the Commission voted to approve the minutes of the 489th Stated Meeting, 9 May 2003, as corrected, Michael Sklaroff, Chair. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 27 May 2003 Herbert Levy, FAIA, Acting-Chair 211, 213, 215 South Quince Street, NE corner St. James Street George Mortelliti, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1827 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations, 3-story rear additions The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the front renovation with staff to review details. Denial of a three-story rear addition that demolishes the roof and dormer, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. The proposal involves renovating these former houses turned restaurant back into three houses. The structure has been vacant for a number of years and has been the
with staff to review details. Denial of a three-story rear addition that demolishes the roof and dormer, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. The proposal involves renovating these former houses turned restaurant back into three houses. The structure has been vacant for a number of years and has been the subject of violations from the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The new owner seeks to renovate the front facades, demolish the rear wall, rear roofs and dormers, and add three-story additions. The rear of the building has visibility from St. James Street and minimal visibility from 11th Street. The reason for the demolition of the roof and rear dormer is that the developer has said he can get a higher asking price if the houses have a larger third bedroom and a second bathroom. The applicant also seeks to create parking for three cars in an area formerly occupied by a now demolished back building. Mr. Baron presented the proposal and said that from St. James Street, the proposed additions are very visible; however, from 11th Street there is minimal visibility. He opined that the allowance of the rear demolition is a compromise in itself. Mr. Sklaroff commented that the real issue is the visibility from St. James Street. Mr. Wilds noted that the nature of St. James Street in this location is a service alley with no houses fronting the street. Mr. Hack inquired about the square footage of the properties. It was noted that the properties without the additions are 1,000 square feet and with the additions the square footage is 1,700. Larry Gilbert, the architect, said that there is limited exposure from the rear and the proposed three bedrooms are needed for economic reasons. Councilman Frank DiCicco stated that as an option, the owner is willing to raise the roof, to add an additional floor, but that proposal would effect the front façade. Mr. Wilds concluded that these are little houses and that the proposed work is acceptable, since the front facades would get a full restoration. He pointed out that it is not uncommon for the Commission to consider the context of a street when making some decisions. Mr. Hack remarked that the two-story addition would also change the roofline. He also thought it important to establish the material to be used on the addition. Mr. Gilbert said that the proposed material 2 would be a
Commission to consider the context of a street when making some decisions. Mr. Hack remarked that the two-story addition would also change the roofline. He also thought it important to establish the material to be used on the addition. Mr. Gilbert said that the proposed material 2 would be a stained wood siding; however, Mr. Hack thought that a neutral color stucco is more appropriate and other Commission members concurred. Mr. Cuorato urged the Commission to consider the economic impact of the denial of this proposal, and believes that the applicant has made good faith efforts. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sugrue seconded the motion, which failed with a 2 to 8 vote. Mr. Cuorato, Mr. James, Mr. Wilds, Mr. Hack, Mr. Perri, Mr. Sugrue, Mr. Tissian and Ms. Murray opposed the motion. Mr. Cuorato made a motion to approve the proposal as submitted with a neutral color stucco for the addition, with the staff to review details. Mr. James seconded the motion, which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Steinberg dissented and Mr. Sklaroff did not vote. 5320 Germantown Avenue, SW corner of Penn Street Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation, Owner Liz Zimmers, Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Legalize vinyl windows The Architectural Committee recommended denial per Standards 2, 5, and 6. Mr. Baron explained this proposal in which the applicant seeks to legalize a large number of vinyl windows installed without a permit. Mr. Wilds asked for clarification about the muntin, and it was pointed out that it exists inside the glass. Steve Kuzmicki, the owner, explained the sequence of events, which led to the installation of the incorrect windows. His contention is that the installed windows do not impact the appearance of the building. A memo by the applicant, Hugh Zimmers, states that the last contractor replaced the sash without the appropriate authorization. Mr. Sklaroff asked Mr. Kuzmicki if the contractor was following his instructions for the window replacement. Mr. Kuzmicki responded in the affirmative. Mr. Kuzmicki offered to replace the windows over a period of fifteen (15) years. Mr. Wilds acknowledged the financial status of the applicant and encouraged that the proposal be referred to the Financial Hardship Committee, which he believes, could possibly offer a suitable compromise. Mr. Sklaroff noted that the historic features of this property have already been compromised. Tina LeCoff, Penn-Knox Neighborhood Association, and Catharine Franklin, Northwest
the financial status of the applicant and encouraged that the proposal be referred to the Financial Hardship Committee, which he believes, could possibly offer a suitable compromise. Mr. Sklaroff noted that the historic features of this property have already been compromised. Tina LeCoff, Penn-Knox Neighborhood Association, and Catharine Franklin, Northwest Coalition, both concurred that the building should maintain its integrity as a further enhancement to Germantown Avenue. They believe that this corner property will be seen as a model for future rehabilitation. They remarked that the current appearance does not resemble the historic photograph of this property. In conclusion, they expressed hope that a compromise could be reached that will return this property to its historic appearance. Mr. Hack made a motion to deny the legalization of the windows. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion, which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Cuorato, Ms. Murray and Mr. Tissian dissented. Mr. Wilds made a motion to refer the proposal to the Committee on Financial Hardship. Mr. Sugrue seconded the motion, which carried with 8 votes. Ms. Murray and Mr. Cuorato dissented. 3 103, 105, 107 Church Street Woodway Construction Company, Owner Liz Zimmers, Applicant DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations, rooftop addition, 6-story rear addition, decks in concept The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the proposal in concept as submitted and recommended that the applicant erect a mock-up for a determination of visibility. This proposal in concept involves adding a floor and decks on the roof of these warehouse buildings constructed for the Girard Estate. The additions will have visibility from Front Street because 103 Church Street forms the end of the row, leaving a large gap for viewing. The deck railing sits right at the front of the property and will have visibility from Church Street and Front Streets. The staff recommends pulling the roof elements back substantially so that they will not be seen. Mr. Baron presented the proposal and noted that he made a site visit to assess visibility. Mr. Sklaroff inquired about ownership of these properties. Schauun McKamey said that he is the equitable owner of these properties. Mr. McKamey agreed to withdraw his application and re- submit with a new design. The Commission accepted the withdrawal of the proposal. 36 North 3rd Street, NE corner of Wister Street Dominic Ward, D&M Realty Group, Owner Liz Zimmers, Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations, rear decks, roof deck and
McKamey agreed to withdraw his application and re- submit with a new design. The Commission accepted the withdrawal of the proposal. 36 North 3rd Street, NE corner of Wister Street Dominic Ward, D&M Realty Group, Owner Liz Zimmers, Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations, rear decks, roof deck and stairtower The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the revised submission, with staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. Mr. Baron presented the proposal, a scaled back version of a proposal approved by the Historical Commission in the past. The proposal involves rear and rooftop additions and decks as well as restoration of the front facade. Hugh Zimmers, the architect, informed the Commission that with the change in ownership came the much smaller proposed addition. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Murray seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1010 Arch Street 224 East 13th Street Realty Corporation, Owner Stuart Rosenberg, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1902, William Pritchett, architect PROPOSAL: New Aluminum windows The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the window proposal with restoration of the wood windows on the front, new matching wood windows in the smaller side openings and 4 new aluminum windows with retention of the existing frames and a 7/8-inch muntin on the east west and south facades, with the staff to review details. Mr. Baron explained this proposal, which involves the restoration of windows on the front façade of the building and removal and replacement of the sash in the side and rear windows. The proposed windows show a narrow 5/8” applied muntin to replace the existing inch-wide muntin and the subframe reduces the glazed opening by three inches in width. Commission members concurred with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 114 Levering Street Joseph Vanelli, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1890 PROPOSAL: Legalize door The Architectural Committee recommended legalization of the proposal including the new door and aluminum covered surround. Mr. Baron presented this proposal, which involves the legalizing of a new door and frame without a permit. The pictures show a door that looks much smaller than the original opening surrounded by brown aluminum. Commission members agreed with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Murray seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Sklaroff passed the gavel to Mr.
permit. The pictures show a door that looks much smaller than the original opening surrounded by brown aluminum. Commission members agreed with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Murray seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Sklaroff passed the gavel to Mr. Sugrue. 1 Leverington Avenue, Venice Island Main Street Restaurant Group, Owner Rex Thomson, Applicant DATE: c. 1990 PROPOSAL: Illuminated signage, awnings The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the arched awnings and signage, but approval of square head canvas type awnings pursuant to the Manayunk Ordinance. Mr. Baron explained this proposal which is to legalize signage and awnings for a new restaurant in a modern building on Venice Island within the Manayunk Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization Zone. The work involves adding an internally illuminated roof sign above the cornice line of the building. The applicant also shows a combination of square and round head awnings. In response to Mr. Wilds query about the installation of the awnings, Rex Thomson, the applicant, informed the Commission that he did not install the awnings. He also noted that the sunbrella type awning is very costly and opined that from a distance the installed awnings have 5 the same appearance. He pointed out that the LED type of lighting is low voltage. Mr. Thomson said that the appearance of the current signage mimics the previous signage, therefore he believes that the signage is appropriate. Mr. Tissian asked if the signage violates the Manayunk Ordinance. Mr. Thomson said the current signage is double the size allowed by the Ordinance. Mr. Wilds asked for clarification of the Ordinance’s requirements with regard to the awnings. Mr. Baron responded that awning’s shape should follow the shape of the opening. The Commission members concluded that this is a matter of interpretation. Mr. Wilds concluded that clearly the work was done without a permit and that the owner should be warned that the Commission would not look kindly on another infraction. He also believes that the signage is appropriate for the frontage of this modern building. Mr. Cuorato concurred. Ms. Murrary remarked that this is an isolated area with a need for the signage. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to deny the legalization of the signage and the arched awnings. Mr. James seconded the motion, which failed with a 2 to 7 vote. Mr. Cuorato, Mr. Wilds, Mr. Hack, Mr. Perri, Mr.
that this is an isolated area with a need for the signage. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to deny the legalization of the signage and the arched awnings. Mr. James seconded the motion, which failed with a 2 to 7 vote. Mr. Cuorato, Mr. Wilds, Mr. Hack, Mr. Perri, Mr. Tissisan, Mr. Sugrue and Ms. Murray dissented. Mr. Sklaroff did not vote. Mr. Wilds made a motion to legalize the signage and the awnings. Mr. Cuorato seconded the motion, which carried with 6 votes. Mr. James, Mr. Sugrue and Mr. Steinberg dissented. Mr. Sklaroff did not vote. Mr. Sugrue returned the gavel to Mr. Sklaroff. 424 Pine Street Mark Burlingame, Owner David Matus, Applicant DATE: c. 1796 and 1801 for David Lapsley, merchant; new façade, c. 1866 Designated: 30 April 1957, 10 Mar 1999 as part of Society Hill Historic District PROPOSAL: New windows with applied muntins and subframe, new rear doors The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the doors, pursuant to Standard 9 and. denial of the windows, pursuant to Standard 6. The property currently has two-over-two wood windows and fully glazed doors. This application calls for new sash and doors. The existing brick molds and frames would remain. The proposed six-over-six sash would have applied muntins and sub-frames. The proposed dormer would have a four-over-four configuration with fanlight. The proposed multi-light doors for the visible rear façade of the rear ell would also have applied muntins. David Matus, the applicant, explained that the applied simulated muntin and subframes are a more energy efficient type window, which can be operated easily. In addition the proposed window can be tilted for easier cleaning. He pointed out that removal of the frames totally would be a structural issue. Mr. Matus cited a property on Delancey Street, in which sub-frames were approved. Mr. Wilds remarked that the proposed window’s pane size is substantially changed with the loss of two inches, and noted that the cited window was a much larger window. He also noted that the correct windows are available. Mr. Sugrue inquired if the existing windows could be repaired and the applicant responded that it would not be as efficient. Mr. Wilds emphasized the importance of the appearance on the front façade, while other facades could be addressed with a compromise. Mr. Sklaroff remarked that in this case, all the facades are important, owing to their visibility from the cemetery at
applicant responded that it would not be as efficient. Mr. Wilds emphasized the importance of the appearance on the front façade, while other facades could be addressed with a compromise. Mr. Sklaroff remarked that in this case, all the facades are important, owing to their visibility from the cemetery at Old Pine Street Church, and other Commission members 6 concurred. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion, which carried with 9 votes. Mr. Cuorato dissented. 320 South 4th Street Herbert Gunther, Owner Arlene Matzkin, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1783 for Moses Bussey, tallow chandler; restored c. 1967 by Oskar Stonorov, architect Designated: 30 April 1957; 10 March 1999 as part of Society Hill Historic District PROPOSAL: New windows, cut new side door The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the windows, pursuant to Standard 6. Denial of the door, pursuant to Standards 2, 9 and 10. Ms. Spina presented this application, which has two parts. First, the owners wish to install a single-leaf, multi-light door on the south façade of the main building, cutting the original 18th- century brick wall. Second, the proposal calls for new, true-divided-light insulated windows with 7/8-inch muntins. The current windows, installed in 1967, have only ½-inch muntins. The existing brick molds and trim would remain. Arlene Matzkin, the architect, urged the Commission to reconsider the motion for the denial of the side door, saying that the wall has already been greatly compromised. She acknowledged the existence of a sliding door in the gallery, and that the proposed door’s access to the yard would be a convenience. Mr. Wilds suggested installing the door in the location of the picture window. Mr. Sklaroff concurred. Some members thought that another location could accomplish the same result. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion, which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Cuorato and Mr. Steinberg dissented. 104-106 Delancey Street Denise Friedland, Owner David Amburn, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1796 for Francis Gurney, merchant; restored 1967 by Curtis Seibert, architect Designated: 31 Dec 1984; 10 March 1999 as part of Society Hill Historic District PROPOSAL: Demolish rear dormers, extend rear wall for new shed dormers The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal, with the cornice line retained across the addition. Ms. Spina presented the proposal, which calls for demolishing the rear dormers and extending the rear wall
part of Society Hill Historic District PROPOSAL: Demolish rear dormers, extend rear wall for new shed dormers The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal, with the cornice line retained across the addition. Ms. Spina presented the proposal, which calls for demolishing the rear dormers and extending the rear wall to create a new, full fourth floor at the rear. The roof of the dormers will begin at the historic ridgeline and extend to the rear wall. The new rear wall will break the cornice historic line and have large, coupled casement windows. David Amburn, the architect, noted that the addition is only at the fourth floor. Commission members thought the proposed alterations appropriate. 7 Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 301-05 South 3rd Street, SE corner of Spruce Street Jeanne Potamkin, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1769 by Joshua Pancost, carpenter; renovated c. 1966 by George Roberts, architect Designated: 30 April 1957; 10 March 1999 as part of Society Hill Historic District PROPOSAL: Infill door and window, new window The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal, with its height matching the neighboring window, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Spina explained that the visible rear façade of the main building has stucco with a door and window in a brick-surrounded, arched opening on the second floor. The proposal calls for removing the non-historic door, window and brick and installing a new, simulated-divided light, awning window. The rest of the wall would be patched and stuccoed to match. The Commission agreed with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1830 Delancey Street Acorn Property Development Incorporated, Owner Kiki Bolender, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1857-1858, John McCrea, builder PROPOSAL: Rear addition, elevator tower, roof decks, new garage entrance, windows and doors The Architectural Committee recommended the following, with the staff to review details: 1. the approval of the garage opening painted black to minimize its impact; 2. the approval of a ground-level deck along the rear ell with the construction of a brick parapet wall along Panama Street instead of a railing; 3. the approval of the addition on the rear ell, provided that the south façade of the addition is articulated; 4. the approval of the deck on the rear ell with the conversion of a window to
construction of a brick parapet wall along Panama Street instead of a railing; 3. the approval of the addition on the rear ell, provided that the south façade of the addition is articulated; 4. the approval of the deck on the rear ell with the conversion of a window to a door, provided that the width of the window is retained; 5. the denial of the main roof deck, walkway, and stairs; 6. the denial of the elevator tower; 7. the approval of the HVAC units with minimal visibility; 8. the approval of the change to both 1st-story side facade windows in the rear ell; 9. the approval of shutters. Mr. Farnham explained this application, which proposes numerous alterations and additions to the row house at 1830 Delancey Street. Those modifications will include (1) the addition of a basement-level garage on Panama Street with a roll-down metal door; (2) the addition of a ground-level deck along the side of the rear ell with a new access door in the side façade of the ell and a 6-foot tall wood privacy fence to the east; (3) the construction of a one-story brick and stucco addition on the rear ell with 6/6 and paired single-light sliding windows in the side façade; (4) the addition of a roof deck on the rear ell with the conversion of a window to a door in the rear façade of the main section of the building; (5) the addition of a roof deck on the main section of the building with walkway and stairs down to the deck on the rear ell; (6) the addition of an 8 elevator tower rising 9 feet above the roof of the main section; (7) the addition of four HVAC units on the roof of the main section; (8) and the addition of paired single-light sliding windows in the side façade of the rear ell; (9) the addition of louvered shutters on the front façade at the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th stories. Prior to the meeting, the architect presented revised drawings to reflect the Committee’s recommendations. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised proposal. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1703 Walnut Street Ilan and Irit Zaken, Owners Michael Phillips, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: New storefront, signage and awnings The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal, provided that the stone pilasters and storefront cornice
motion to approve the revised proposal. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1703 Walnut Street Ilan and Irit Zaken, Owners Michael Phillips, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: New storefront, signage and awnings The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal, provided that the stone pilasters and storefront cornice are restored, not painted or covered, with the staff to review details. Mr. Farnham presented this application, which proposes a new storefront, signage, and awnings for the building at 1703 Walnut Street. Excepting the flanking stone pilasters and storefront cornice, the existing storefront was erected in 1994. The pilasters to either side of the storefront remain from the earlier residential design. The architect proposes to cover them in Bomanite and replace the storefront windows and doors with an aluminum and stainless steel storefront. The drainpipe now at the west side of the storefront will be moved to the interior of the building. The storefront cornice, windows, and upper cornice will be painted white; the façade will be painted khaki. A white enamel panel sign with push-through, edge-lit letters will span the storefront above the transoms. Awnings with aprons and open sides will be mounted at the transom level of the storefront and on the 2nd-story windows. Commission members asked for clarification of Bomanite. Cindy Eng and Greg Caputo attended the meeting. Ms. Eng said the Bomanite is a cementitous material that resembles stucco and can be smooth or scored. She said that the proposed Bomanite would allow the symmetry of the building to be maintained, owing to the areas of damage on the pilasters. Mr. Caputo noted that the cornice would be retained. After some discussion, the Commission concluded that the addition of Bomanite would not destroy or remove historic fabric. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. Cuorato seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 330 South 19th Street aka 1900 Panama Street Debbie Coppola, Owner John Eppinger, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. 1860, Arts & Crafts renovation c. 1910 PROPOSAL: Dormer with door and roof deck 9 The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the project as submitted, pursuant to Standard 9 and the Roofs Guideline, with the staff to review details. Mr. Farnham explained this application, which proposes adding a roof deck on the rear ell as well as a dormer with deck access door in the rear slope of the main roof of
project as submitted, pursuant to Standard 9 and the Roofs Guideline, with the staff to review details. Mr. Farnham explained this application, which proposes adding a roof deck on the rear ell as well as a dormer with deck access door in the rear slope of the main roof of this Arts & Crafts building. The entire ell is visible because the building is situated on the southwest corner of 19th and Panama Streets. The deck would be set behind an existing parapet wall, but the railing would be visible above the wall from both 19th and Panama Streets. The new dormer and door would also be minimally visible. In 1998 the Commission denied an application to construct a deck in the same position because the access door would had been placed on the Panama Street façade with a cantilevered walkway to the deck. Responding to Mr. Wilds query about the deck design proposed in 1998, Mr. Farnham explained that the submission was rejected because it included a cantilevered walkway suspended on the Panama Street facade. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion, which carried with 9 votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. 1522 Locust Street Tom Holland, Owner Peter Lynch, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. 1926 PROPOSAL: Replace balcony The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial of the new design as proposed, pursuant to Standards 6 and 7. This application proposes replacing a 2nd-story wrought iron balcony on the front façade of the Georgian Revival building. Portions of the existing balcony are rusted beyond repair. Currently, the balcony is cantilevered out of the front façade. The new balcony will be supported with diagonal struts extending out from the façade. The struts will be ornamented with curvilinear pieces. The new panels will not match the original panels, but will be more decorative and curvilinear. Commission members agreed with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1832 Delancey Street Jerry Slipakoff, Owner Mihoko Samejima, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1857-1858, John McCrea, builder, alterations, 1907, Edgar Seeler, architect PROPOSAL: Add wood trellis on rear The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the trellis, pursuant to Standard 9 and the Roofs Guideline. Mr. Farnham explained this application, which proposes adding a wood trellis on a rear deck. The 10 Commission approved the deck, which sits atop a 3-story
Seeler, architect PROPOSAL: Add wood trellis on rear The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the trellis, pursuant to Standard 9 and the Roofs Guideline. Mr. Farnham explained this application, which proposes adding a wood trellis on a rear deck. The 10 Commission approved the deck, which sits atop a 3-story rear ell, in June 2002. The 8-foot by 15- foot mahogany trellis will span the deck and be visible from S. 19th Street. Christopher Beardsley and Mihoko Samejima, architects, and Jerry Slipakoff, the owner, attended the meeting. Mr. Beardsley said that the rear of the house faces an alley and has limited visibility. He said that the mahogany trellis is tied structurally to the building with four posts into the deck. Mr. Wilds asked for clarification of the function of the trellis. Mr. Slipakoff said that the trellis will be decorative plus it would provide shade. Mr. Hack commented that the trellis would be a positive enhancement to this street with a mixed context. Mr. Steinberg concurred. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation denying approval of the trellis. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion, which failed with 2 only votes. Mr. Sugrue, Mr. Tissian, Mr. Hack, Ms. Murray, Mr. Perri, Mr. Steinberg and Mr. Cuorato dissented. Mr. Sklaroff did not vote. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion, which carried with 8 votes. Mr. James dissented. Mr. Sklaroff did not vote. 903-905 Clinton Street Payam Ebizadeh, Owner Meredith Sellinger-Ebizadeh, Applicant DATE: c.1845 PROPOSAL: Install new roofing The applicant withdrew the application. 1227 Pine Street Robert V. Taglieri, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Demolish rear dormer, new shed dormer and HVAC equipment The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal with wood six-over-six windows in the dormer, with the staff to review details. Mr. Farnham presented this application, which proposes demolishing the historic rear roof and pedimented dormer and adding a large shed dormer fenestrated with four 6/6 simulated-divided- light windows. It also proposes adding an HVAC unit on the rear slope of the gable roof. Commission members concurred with the Architectural Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Murray seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. THE REPORT of the Committee on Financial Hardship, 22 May 2003 Michael Sklaroff, Esq., Chair 11 149 South Hancock Street Front Street Development Associates, Owner Joseph Pacitti,
with the Architectural Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Murray seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. THE REPORT of the Committee on Financial Hardship, 22 May 2003 Michael Sklaroff, Esq., Chair 11 149 South Hancock Street Front Street Development Associates, Owner Joseph Pacitti, Applicant DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Complete demolition, construction of 11-story building Mr. Cuorato asked for clarification about the status of the application. Mr. Sklaroff explained that the applicant has 90 days in which to come back to the Committee with its presentation. He commented that the applicant is aware of the required structural and financial analyses. In addition, the applicant would be heard as soon as the required documents are received. THE REPORT of the Historical Commission Staff, May 2003, Richard Tyler Commission members did not have any questions for Mr. Baron regarding the report of the activities of the Historical Commission staff. HARRY A. BATTEN MEMORIAL FUND Ms. Hughes asked the Commission to approve the expenditure of $280.00 to Keast and Hood for a structural report for 300-18 North 63rd Street. At the May meeting Mr. Tyler in error asked for the approval of $250.00. Additionally, an expenditure of $1,125.00 to the Unkerfer Brothers for support services for 300-18 North 63rd Street, and $15.97 for Architectural Committee lunches. Mr. Wilds inquired if the staff received lunches as well. Ms. Hughes said they do not. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the Batten Fund expenditures. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ms. Spina informed the Commission members about the Board of License and Inspection Review’s decision to sustain the applicant’s appeal for 2201 Green Street. Commission members concurred that this is an important building and that the decision should be appealed. John Gallery, Preservation Alliance, asked the Commission if they were aware of the proposed alterations to the Fairmount Waterworks. Commission members said that there has not been a submission thus far. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hack seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes Executive Secretary 12