REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Arlene Matzkin, Chairperson Commission Conference Room suite 1301, 1401 Arch street Present Arlene Matzkin, Chairperson Tony Atkin Penelope Batcheler David Hollenberg Herbert Levy Suzanne Pentz 28 May 1996 Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Jeffrey Barr, Historical Research Technician Laura Spina, Historic Preservation Specialist Also Helen Jones, Metropolitan Opera House Sandra Haughton, Haughton Group Craig Morrison, AIA Oscar Hammerstein III, Metropolitan Opera House Miles Pettingill ~ John Strong John Konick, Metropolitan Opera House Gary Austin Harry Walker, Temple University Michael Resnic, AIA Milton Marks, Preservation Alliance Judith Eden, Center City Residents Association (CCRA) John Soletter • Bernard Nearey, Rittenhouse-Fitler District John Lois Rev. Louis Temme, Trinity Memorial Church Walter Crimm, Crimm & Associates Bobbye Burke, Rittenhouse-Fitler District E. Monro, Rittenhouse-Fitler District William Burke, Art Commission M. Lane, Landmarks Society Benjamin Miller, Rittenhouse Club Benner Kolcrey Sam Burman, A & P David Polatnick, P2 Architects Julie Halsted Bruce Wheeler Fred Kaulbach, Armstrong Kaulbach Architects Lisa Armstrong, Armstrong Kaulbach Architects Dominic Colaizzo Stephanie Craighead, Fairmount Park Commission (FPC) Tom Kline, FPC Steve Sendzik Richard Winston, Becker Winston Architects Albert Pard Roseanne Kozlow Charles Carr Constance Cauno, Ridgeland Manor Jeffrey Powell James Ruckmann Larry Snyder, Fairmount Park House Preservation Trust (FPHPT) Ms. Matzkin called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m. 2901-2951 Market Street, 30th Street Station Sherman Aronson, Peter Koppel & Assoc. PROPOSAL: Lights for Regional Train Platform The Committee had previously reviewed and approved a proposal to renovate the train platform, with the issue of light fixtures deferred for further review. Mr. Aronson brought two examples of fluorescent light boxes for attachment to the metal framework of the platform canopy. One had exterior louvers and the other an egg-crate lens cover. The boxes would be painted the same color as the canopy. The Committee voted to recommend the approval of the light fixture with the exterior louvers, but asked that the louvers be made longer. 3419 Baring street John Strong, Contractor PROPOS~L: Porch and cornice restoration Mr. Strong presented drawings of the proposed replacement cornice and porch elements. All elements were drawn by Mario Quanti from the originals and the details were specific. He stated that the owner wanted to install a white modified rubber roof on the porch, the original roof was tin. Ms. Batcheler suggested a grey color instead of white. The Committee commended Mr. Strong
All elements were drawn by Mario Quanti from the originals and the details were specific. He stated that the owner wanted to install a white modified rubber roof on the porch, the original roof was tin. Ms. Batcheler suggested a grey color instead of white. The Committee commended Mr. Strong for his attention to detail. The Comniittee voted to recommend approval with Ms. Matzkin going to site for final approval. 1830 Manning Street Michael Resnic, Owner/Architect PROPOSAL: Roof deck Mr. Resnic presented a design for a roof deck on the rear of the property. The deck would be cantilevered over the narrow parapet and secured and supported by metal ties on the visible rear of the building. The parapet will bear no load. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 2 858 N. Broad Street, Metropolitan Opera House Robert Barnett, Licenses & Inspections PROPOSAL: Complete demolition Mr. Barnett stated that, in his reading of the law, the Department of Licenses and Inspections does not have to consult with the Committee or Commission for permission to demolish a building declared Imminently Dangerous. From 1994, fifteen hearings took place to have the dangerous conditions fixed. However, if certain work occurs by 30 June, Licenses and Inspections will withdraw the demolition order. John Konick, architect for the Reverend Mr. Hatcher, presented to the Committee a propos~l to repair the building. He stated that they are prepared to address Licenses and Inspections' four major concerns with the structure as stated in the violation. First, the parapet walls will be repaired, especially the south wall. Second, the exterior walls will be inspected and all loose brick will be replaced. Damaged bricks and plaster will be replaced. The interior brick walls were made of harder bricks and mortar than the exterior so the exterior walls are suffering the most damage. The interior walls are structurally sound. Third, the trim at the stringcourse and the balustrade will be checked. Any loose ornament will be removed and stored until the money is raised to restore the building. Four, the marquee will be stabilized and the panels will be rebuilt. Mr. Konick stated that the work will remedy the immediate danger avert the demolition of the building. The money for the necessary materials for the emergency work is in hand and the congregation of the Reverend Mr. Hatcher had several skilled masons who would donate their time to the project.
Mr. Konick stated that the work will remedy the immediate danger avert the demolition of the building. The money for the necessary materials for the emergency work is in hand and the congregation of the Reverend Mr. Hatcher had several skilled masons who would donate their time to the project. Money will be raised· for the complete restoration of the building in the future. The-Committee asked if the documentation of the work and the completion of the repairs would stop the demolition order. Mr. Konick said that the work will be documented and will use the four elements of the outline made by Licenses and Inspections as a guide. When the work is finished, Licenses and Inspections would lift the Imminently Dangerous order. The Committee suggested using stucco on the area of the cornice to help seal the building from water. Mr. Kopick said that he would consider the option or using a sealant, but hoped to restore the cornice when the building is completely restored. Presently, there is no tenant for the building, but when repaired, the Reverend Mr. Hatcher may move his church into the building. The next phase will be a new roof for the building. There has been some interior deterioration which makes it unsafe for use. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 3 1931 Manning Street Michael Murtha, owner PROPOSAL: Window, pointing, cleaning The dutch door on the second floor provides one of the only sources of light for the sixty-foot long room. John Soletta, the architect for the project, proposed to install a glass panel with a wood frame in front of the door to allow the door to remain open for light. The Committee suggested a wood door with two large glass panels separated by a horizontal rail, to match the break of the dutch door, for definition. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the glass panel with the changes made by Committee for staff approval. Staff will also review the cleaning and pointing the brickwork. 1714 Walnut Street John Lois, Owner PROPOSAL: New storefront John Lois presented a revised proposal for a new storefront more sympathetic to the Bauhaus style of the first and second floors of the building. Mr. Baron emphasized that the proposal applies to the storefront only. The awning shown on the first floor is not included in the proposal. The Committee commended Mr. Lois for the improvement
a new storefront more sympathetic to the Bauhaus style of the first and second floors of the building. Mr. Baron emphasized that the proposal applies to the storefront only. The awning shown on the first floor is not included in the proposal. The Committee commended Mr. Lois for the improvement from the initial proposal. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 2200 Spruce Street, Trinity Memorial Church John ~drews, Applicant PROPOSAL: New doors Mr. ·Atkin recused himself from the discussion and vote. John Andrews, architect, presented a revised proposal for the doors of the church. Previously, the church had proposed installing glass in the panels of the wood doors. In the new proposal~ pockets would be created inside the masonry walls and the original doors would be put on sliders and roll into the pockets .' New glass doors would be installed behind the original doors. The proposed doors are wbod with glass panels and a horizontal bar that would have a panic bar for egress. Ms. Matzkin stated that a more modern door would be more appropriate, instead of trying to make the glass door look original. The Committee agreed that an all glass door without a center rail was more appropriate. The Reverend Mr. Louis Temme stated that the congregation wanted to have the glass doors so that the church would be more inviting to pedestrians. The original wood doors are too imposing .for the image the congregation is trying to establish with the community. The glass doors would allow outsiders a view 4 ) and show the church as an active and vibrant organization. The church would like to have only the glass doors visible twenty- four hours a day to communicate the message of openness and availability even at night when the church is locked. Bernard Nearey, of the Rittenhouse-Fitler District, expressed concern that if the glass doors were approved, then the original wood doors would not be used and, in a sense, tucked away in storage. He asked that the Committee not approve a lock on the glass doors, forcing the church to use the wood doors to lock the church at night. The Committee agreed with Mr. Nearey that the wood doors should be used as often as possible, but understood the need for a locked door for security, even during the day. The Committee stated that the glass doors may have a lock for
doors to lock the church at night. The Committee agreed with Mr. Nearey that the wood doors should be used as often as possible, but understood the need for a locked door for security, even during the day. The Committee stated that the glass doors may have a lock for when people were in the church and wanted security. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the glass doors without the horizontal rail, but stressed that the original doors be used as often as possible, especially to lock the church at night after all activities. 1500 Pine street, University of the Arts Vahe Ashodian, Architect PROPOSAL: Entrance, windows, masonry Ms. Pentz recused herself from the discussion and vote. Walter Crimm, of Crimm & Associates, presented several items for 1500 Pine Street. First, the original 15th Street entrance had been closed for many years with plywood. The owner wants to seal the entrance completely using cast stone to mimic the terra cotta bands of the first floor. The brackets and details around the entrance would remain. Second, the entrance on Pine Street, cut out and framed in marble, would be refurbished, replacing lost elements in cast stone to mimic the terracotta. Third, all of the terracotta would be painted because the original glaze has suffered extensive deterioration. Fourth, the proposal included the replacement of all of the wood windows with aluminum sash with applied muntins and panning for the frames. Many of the proposed windows varied from the originals in dimensions and muntin widths. The Committee stated that the entrance on 15th Street may be closed, but the work should be set back from the facade and the sides of the stair remain to show that an entrance had existed. The Committee also approved the painting of the terracotta, only because it had lost its glaze and had been painted previously. The Committee did not accept the many proposed changes to the windows and said that the windows should have true and correctly sized muntins. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the entrances with its recommendations, and the painting of the terracotta. The Committee voted to recommend denial of the window design as 5 proposed and would like to see new details of the windows showing true muntins, stepped heads, and the panning match the current width of the posts. 1511 Spruce Street John Vanore, Applicant PROPOSAL: Storefront alteration Mr.
the terracotta. The Committee voted to recommend denial of the window design as 5 proposed and would like to see new details of the windows showing true muntins, stepped heads, and the panning match the current width of the posts. 1511 Spruce Street John Vanore, Applicant PROPOSAL: Storefront alteration Mr. Vanore presented a proposal to install a take-out window recessed inside a vestibule in the storefront. Two new double doors with a second transom would replace two sections of windows in the facade. The doors would open, swinging into the store, when the take-out window is in operation. He explained that his employees have been robbed and that he wants the greater security of this arrangement. The doors proposed were glass with metal frames, like the existing door to the store which also has a second transom. The Committee recommended that the doors have a metal panel at the bottom to mimic the stone sill that will be removed to allow the doors, keeping the strong horizontal line created by the sill. Judith Eden, of CCRA, stated that the building was a part of the Rittenhouse-Fitler District and the approval of the doors would allow the business to operate in effect as a sidewalk take- out. Mr. Atkin replied that the business was still inside the building since customers had to walk through the doors to make purchases and that the issue of a take-out area was zoning, and not an Historical Commission issue. Ms. Eden stated that having the doors open would create a "boardwalk" setting and the design was not customary. Ms. Matzkin stated that other stores can and do operate with their doors open and this proposal was in keeping with that option. Also, the storefront in that particular bay had been changed and the only historic fabric was the stone sill. Ms. Batcheler objected to the loss of the stone sill. The Committee voted five to one to recommend approval with the modified door. 251-257 s. 17th street Michael Gilger, Architect PROPOSAL: Window vent Mr. Gilger was not present. Mr. Baron explained that Mr. Gilger applied to install a bathroom vent in a window and shorten the window. This solution would then be a model for use elsewhere on the building. The Committee said that the proposal compromised the look of the facade and suggested having an exhaust duct travel through the building to ·the roof.
to install a bathroom vent in a window and shorten the window. This solution would then be a model for use elsewhere on the building. The Committee said that the proposal compromised the look of the facade and suggested having an exhaust duct travel through the building to ·the roof. The Commi tt·ee voted to recommend denial . 6 ) 1811 Walnut Street David Polatnick, Architect PROPOSAL: Awnings, new construction at rear David Polatnick proposed a glass and bronze canopy for the front door. The canopy would be attached into the limestone jamb and support ties would be attached in the limestone above. The Committee suggested attaching the canopy to the transom instead of the limestone jamb. Mr. Atkin stated that the ornate metal work on top of the canopy was not necessary. The Committee said that the awnings for the side windows should be the width of the windows, but not set into the frames, eliminating the notch in the middle. Judith Eden questioned the use of the banners and asked if the awnings would be illuminated. Sam Burman, from A & P, stated that the metal flagpoles for the banners exist. The side awnings would not be illuminated, but the front canopy would have canister lights on the entranceway. The proposal also included a revised rear elevation of the two-story addition. The addition would be faced in red brick with a cast stone watertable and entablature and have two projecting bays. Committee members found the new facade an improvement over the previous proposal. Mr. Atkin asked for an elevation drawing that would show the entire rear, including the remaining portion of the original Rittenhouse Club building. Mr. Po1atnick stated that they did not have one, but would have one for the next meeting. Mr. Atkin stated that the request for the elevation was made at the previous meeting and that the Committee wanted to see the entire elevation for the final proposal . because it would be visible and also to see how the building will be structurally supported. Mr. Burman stated that they redesigned the interior of the store to create an employees' lounge at the rear of the building. In the revised proposal, the rooms with windows on the second floor would be used by the employees and not for storage. Mr. Atkin stated that the center door looked lost and-should be moved to the side,
the store to create an employees' lounge at the rear of the building. In the revised proposal, the rooms with windows on the second floor would be used by the employees and not for storage. Mr. Atkin stated that the center door looked lost and-should be moved to the side, under the windows. Ms. Matzkin questioned. the existence of the roll-down gate in relation to the adjacent building. The adjacent building has windows on that side and the setting of the grate will be determined by the facade of that building. Ms. Matzkin also asked about protection for the corner of the adjacent buildings from tr~cks backing into position. Mr. Polatnick stated that bollards will be installed to protect the buildings. The Committee stated that the arch over the gate should be metal, not brick. Ms. Eden asserted that the developer, at a meeting with the community, had said that a gate at the property line would be used to screen the tractor-trailer while unloading. Mr. Burman stated that a gate or screen was not possible and the plan never included one. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the awnings and canopy, with the ornamentation removed and attachment to the new jamb of the transom. Approval of the revised rear addition with the door moved to under the windows and the arch over the roll- down gate to be made of metal and set back from the main facade. 7 The brick cladding of the party wall should also receive a brick return. 244 s. 3rd street, Powel House Theodore Nickles, Applicant PROPOSAL: Roof Michael Lane made a proposal which included the use of the Slateline asphalt shingles to mimic slate. Ms. Batcheler stated that the Committee and Commission had previously approved a terne-coated stainless steel roof, but it proved cost- prohibitive. The Committee examined examples of the Slateline and the Timberline shingles, which resemble cedar shake. Ms. Batcheler was concerned about the cheeks of the dormers. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the Timberljne shingle in the weathered wood color in the maximum thickness possible. They also said that the installers should look to see if the house had nail holes showing clapboards on the dormer cheeks and reinstall them if historically appropriate. 1700 Montgomery Avenue, The Wagner Institute John Blatteau, Architect PROPOSAL: Skylight, roof Ms. Pentz recused herself from the discussion and vote. Julie Halstead presented
said that the installers should look to see if the house had nail holes showing clapboards on the dormer cheeks and reinstall them if historically appropriate. 1700 Montgomery Avenue, The Wagner Institute John Blatteau, Architect PROPOSAL: Skylight, roof Ms. Pentz recused herself from the discussion and vote. Julie Halstead presented the proposal for John Blatteau. The skylight and roof of the library addition would be restored. The skylight is galvanized metal and the slope section will be replaced in kind. The side walls will be restored. The downspouts, originally interior, would be put on the exterior of the building to prevent water infiltration, but must go back inside at the foundation to reach the water lines. Ms. Halstead stated that more downspouts would be added to the original three. The Institute wants to make the room into an exhibition space and the downspouts would be unattractive inside the room. The Committee suggested building a scupper and cutting through the wall at a narrower point for the new external downspouts. The Comm•i ttee voted to recommend approval . #1 Boathouse Row, Lloyd Hall Lisa Armstrong, Architect PROPOSAL: Cost-cutting revisions Lisa Armstrong reported that the design of the Boathouse as approved by the Committee and Commission was $660,000 over budget. The new base bid will not include the bridge or tower. The architects proposed three other changes to shave the extra costs. First, the skylights on the headhouse and the end skylights on the multi-purpose space would be eliminated. 8 ) Second, the curved glass wall on the south (water) side would be made straight. Third, the trellis on the north side would be eliminated. The landscaping has been designed with trees along the north side. These changes will not eliminate all of the cost-overruns; changes in the interior features and finishes will eliminate the balance. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 139 Pemberton street Richard Winston, Architect PROPOSAL: Alterations Richard Winston proposed several changes to the building: removal of the extant sundeck on the front portion of the house; removal of the aluminum eaves and cornice, and the restoration of the woodwork. The Committee questioned the profiles of the proposed cornice and thought that the original may not exist for documentation. It decided to let the staff approve the final design. The front windows will be replaced in Phase II of the project with wood, six-over-six, true muntin windows. The front
woodwork. The Committee questioned the profiles of the proposed cornice and thought that the original may not exist for documentation. It decided to let the staff approve the final design. The front windows will be replaced in Phase II of the project with wood, six-over-six, true muntin windows. The front shutters will also be replaced in Phase II. Pella clad, one- over-one windows will replace the aluminum windows in the rest of the house. A trellis will be installed on the side garden wall with anchors on the wall of the house over the French doors. The final part of the proposal included using dryvit on the side of the middle and rear additions. The side of the front portion of the house would not be covered. The Committee questioned the need for the covering. Mr. Winston stated that the owner does not have any insulation in the walls of the ell and that heating and cooling systems do not work efficiently. Also, the brick changed several times and did not match the original in many areas. Mr. Atkin stated that the replacement of the windows should satisfy the need for more insulation and suggested using clapboarding on the second floor of the rear addition, since it is a framed section. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the removal of the sundeck ·and replacement of the windows. Approval of the trellis. Approval of dryvit only on the small wall facing the rear of the yard and the first floor of the middle (under the trellis) and rear addition and clapboarding on the second floor of the rear addition. All other facades must retain the exposed original brickwork. 123-129 Chestnut Street Phillipe Daouphars, Applicant PROPOSAL: Doorway Phillipe Daouphars' partner presented a proposal to replace 9 a non-historic metal door with single-leaf aluminum door. The Committee recommended a wood door as appropriate to the building. The Committee decided that the curved door handle was too modern for the classical style of the building. The sign, shaped like an artist's palette, was approved because it was the logo of the restaurant. The Committee voted to recommend approval of a single-leaf wood and glass door with a more classical handle, with staff approval of the final design. Approval of the sign, on the condition that it is attached with screws in the mortar joints and does not damage the brick facade. 5535 Ridge
Committee voted to recommend approval of a single-leaf wood and glass door with a more classical handle, with staff approval of the final design. Approval of the sign, on the condition that it is attached with screws in the mortar joints and does not damage the brick facade. 5535 Ridge Avenue Steven Sendzik, Owner PROPOSAL: 3 houses on rear of lot Mr. Sendzik proposed to build three houses on the rear of the lot of a designated property. The designated house is surrounded by a stone wall. The proposed houses would be outside the stone wall. Mr. Atkin was concerned that several trees would be removed for construction, creating an open view of the new houses. Steven Sendzik stated that trees would be planted to recreate the private space behind the stone wall and had already secured Fairmount Park Commission approval for these trees. The Committee voted to recommend approval on the condition that trees are replanted. 1217 Locust street Roseanne Kozlow, Applicant PROPOSAL: Facade alterations Roseanne Kozlow removed the stone facing from the front of the first story, revealing a wood arch and doorway installed in 1922. She and her husband created a design that would restore the arch and install new glazed panels. Two panels under the arch, flanking the door, would retain the stone veneer and the rest of the first floor facade would be stuccoed. Ms. Matzkin asked if the raised stucco panels featured above the arch were original. Ms. Kozlow stated that they were not, but there was an I-beam at that location and the panels would cover the I-beam. Mr. Atkin and Ms. Batcheler said that the facade proposal was a mixture of interpretation. Mr. Atkin stated his preference that the arch be removed and the original facade restored. If the Kozlows wanted to restore the facade to the period of 1922, they must restore all of the elements from that period, not just the arch. Ms. Kozlow stated that the brick next to the arch from 1922 was not in good condition and did not match the upper floors. Mr. Levy asked if an architect was involved because he believed that Licenses and Inspections would require an architect's drawing for the permit; there was not. Mr. Atkin encouraged the Kozlows to retain an architect so that they would 10 receive accurate cost-estimates and evidence for the design. } The Committee voted to recommend
an architect was involved because he believed that Licenses and Inspections would require an architect's drawing for the permit; there was not. Mr. Atkin encouraged the Kozlows to retain an architect so that they would 10 receive accurate cost-estimates and evidence for the design. } The Committee voted to recommend denial. 232 Montrose street Jeffrey Powell, owner PROPOSAL: Alterations, addition Jeff Powell and Charlie Clark, owners of this corner property explained the alterations and an addition already constructed without a permit. The present owners put a third floor on the rear ell, a new stucco finish on its side wall, that was brick at the time of designation, a projecting balcony, new one-over-one vinyl windows on the side facade, and glass block windows on the visible rear. Other changes, including incorrect shutters and a storm door, were installed without a permit by this owner about five years ago. Previous owners had stuccoed the side wall and built a wall around the garden. Mr. Powell stated that the work was done by a general contractor, William Swales. Licenses and Inspections told Mr. Powell that the property was historically designated on 16 May 1996. The owners did not know of the historical designation before that date. Mr. Swales told the owners that he had obtained the necessary permits and had obtained a zoning permit for the construction. The owners had the zoning permit in the window, as required, and believed all other necessary permits were in order. Ms. Matzkin stated that the zoning permit was probably for the deck. Ms. Batcheler stated that the storm door on the front facade was inappropriate and historically inaccurate and should not be approved. Mr. Powell stated that the front door is a paneled wood door. Mr. Atkin asked if the shutters were real. Mr. Clark said that they were not true shutters, but screwed into the facade. Mr. Powell objected to the removal of the storm door, stating that it was a matter of security because they live one block from a housing project. The Committee suggested putting another lock on the front door instead. Mr. Baron explained that the third floor addition, which turned the building into a gabled structure was problematic, but also the most expensive to correct. · Mr. Atkin stated that the real issues were the glass block windows, the balcony, and the vinyl windows. Mr. Baron suggested choosing amongst the
Mr. Baron explained that the third floor addition, which turned the building into a gabled structure was problematic, but also the most expensive to correct. · Mr. Atkin stated that the real issues were the glass block windows, the balcony, and the vinyl windows. Mr. Baron suggested choosing amongst the vinyl and glass block windows, shortening the balcony to tuck into the building line and/or correcting the louvered shutters as possible items as a compromise. Mr. Levy stated that he did not object to the glass block. Ms. Matzkin stated that the balcony was a problem because it definitely is an element that would not have been approved. All of the Committee members agreed that it was admirable that the homeowners had invested so much into a building at this location. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal except the two second-floor vinyl windows which they said should be replaced with two-over-two wood windows. 11 Ridgeland Mansion Amy Freitag, Applicant PROPOSAL: Glazed porch, ADA access Amy Freitag explained that the building will become a support facility for people who are undergoing treatment for cancer. The building will not be a medical or residential facility, but will provide meeting space for various activities. The Committee believed that it was a good re-use of the historic building. James Ruckmann presented a proposal that included four parts. First, a concrete and stucco ramp will be installed for ADA access. The front porch will be raised one riser so that it is level with the front door. Second, a rear open porch will be enclosed to offer use of the space during three seasons. The porch will not be heated. Third, paved parking lots will be installed on the grounds by the winding drive to the house. The parking will not be visible from the house because of several trees. Fourth, an outside fire escape might be needed. This aspect of the proposal is still in the beginning stages, and may be presented to the Committee again at a later date. The Committee approved the idea of the ramp, but not the materials. The ramp should be wood to match the front porch. The front porch may be raised, but behind the columns. The Committee, with regrets, approved the enclosure of the porch in concept. The porch is a major focal point of the facade and the posts for the windows will
materials. The ramp should be wood to match the front porch. The front porch may be raised, but behind the columns. The Committee, with regrets, approved the enclosure of the porch in concept. The porch is a major focal point of the facade and the posts for the windows will compete visually with the porch posts. The Committee needed more details to approve the porch design and asked the architect to return to the Committee with those details. The Committee approved the parking. The Committee voted to recommend approval of a wooden ramp and the raising of the front porch behind the columns. Approval of the enclosure of the rear porch in concept only, with details to be made available to the Committee. Approval of the parking lots. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Laura M. Spina Historic Preservation Specialist 12