Historical Commission — Aug 13, 2021

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 1 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES THE MINUTES OF THE 708TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION FRIDAY, 13 AUGUST 2021 REMOTE MEETING ON ZOOM ROBERT THOMAS, CHAIR CALL TO ORDER START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:00:00 Mr. Thomas, the Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and announced the presence of a quorum. The following Commissioners joined him: Commissioner Present Absent Comment Robert Thomas, AIA, Chair X Donna Carney (Philadelphia City Planning Commission) X Emily Cooperman, Ph.D., Committee on Historic Designation Chair X Mark Dodds (Department of Planning & Development) X Kelly Edwards, MUP X Steven Hartner (Department of Public Property) X Sara Lepori (Commerce Department) X Josh Lippert (Department of Licenses & Inspections) X John Mattioni, Esq. X Dan McCoubrey, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Architectural Committee Chair X Jessica Sánchez, Esq. (City Council President) X Kimberly Washington, Esq. X (Arrived at 9:10) Owing to public health concerns surrounding the COVID-19 virus, all Commissioners, staff, applicants, and public attendees participated in the meeting remotely via Zoom video and audio- conferencing software. The following staff members were present: Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Kim Chantry, Historic Preservation Planner III Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner II Meredith Keller, Historic Preservation Planner II Allyson Mehley, Historic Preservation Planner II Leonard Reuter, Esq., Law Department Megan Cross Schmitt, Historic Preservation Planner II PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 2 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES The following persons attended the online meeting: Mary McGettigan Allison Weiss Hal Schirmer Justin Detwiler Gussie O’Neill Nathan Doty Gina Dallago Milan Rouge Susan Comninel Brett Feldman, ESq. Anthony Tsirantonakis Marlene Schleifer Greg Samuels B. Henderson Cheryl Feldman Shimi Zakin D. Bhavani Shankar Stanley Baum Marissa Gioffre Sally Nista David Schwartz John Dever Paul Steinke Jerald Slipakoff Kevin Brett Barbara Richman Michael Tester Kevin McMahon Heidi Allen George Thomas, Ph.D. George Poulin James Lyons Timothy Kerner Addison Geary David Whipple Carolyn Campbell Adam Laver Yoav Shiffman Caroline Slama Joseph Syrnick Frank Renner Judith Robinson Jay Farrell Yun Xia Snezana Litvinovic Ashley Velez Scott Woodruff Janice Woodcock Elizabeth Cunningham Oscar Beisert PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 3 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Lois Price David Traub Matt McClure, Esq. Mandy Doty Jim Duffin Rachel Pritzker Lynette Killen Yun Xia Ben She John Athanasiadis Mike Kitsios Lori Salamida Drew Palmer Richard DeMarco, Esq. Alex Balloon James

Cunningham Oscar Beisert PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 3 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Lois Price David Traub Matt McClure, Esq. Mandy Doty Jim Duffin Rachel Pritzker Lynette Killen Yun Xia Ben She John Athanasiadis Mike Kitsios Lori Salamida Drew Palmer Richard DeMarco, Esq. Alex Balloon James Campbell Jesse Carpino Devon Beverly Harrison Haas, Esq. Joseph Lombardi Teri Anger Julie Morningstar Nancy Pontone Charles Schwartz Susan Syrnick Michael Thornton Kelly O’Day Paula O’Day Kevin Block Michael Phillips Ryan LohBauer Steven Peitzman David Gest Sandy Sorlien Nina Curlett Dennis Carlisle Leah Silverstein Amy Lambert Job Itzkowitz Celeste Morello PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 4 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADOPTION OF MINUTES, 707TH STATED MEETING, 9 JULY 2021 START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:04:45 DISCUSSION:  Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioners, staff, and members of the public if they had any additions or corrections to the minutes of the preceding meeting of the Historical Commission, the 707th Stated Meeting, held 9 July 2021. No corrections were offered. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to adopt the minutes of the 707th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, held 9 July 2021. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. ITEM: Adoption of the Minutes of the 707th Meeting MOTION: Adoption of minutes MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 11 1 NOMINATION OF DEBORAH L. MILLER TO THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:05:15 DISCUSSION:  Mr. Farnham presented the nomination of Deborah L. Miller to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioners for comments on the nomination of Deborah Miller to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Ms. Cooperman supported the nomination. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 5 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to approve the nomination of Deborah L. Miller to the Committee on Historic Designation. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. ITEM: Nomination of Deborah Miller to the CHD MOTION: Approval MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X

approve the nomination of Deborah L. Miller to the Committee on Historic Designation. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. ITEM: Nomination of Deborah Miller to the CHD MOTION: Approval MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 11 REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 27 JULY 2021 CONSENT AGENDA START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:07:24 DISCUSSION:  Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioners, staff, and public for comments on the Consent Agenda. None were offered. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to adopt the recommendations of the Architectural Committee for the applications for 620-24 S. 8th Street, 539-41 N. 22nd Street, 1600-18 Arch Street, Unit 1621, 1524-38 Germantown Avenue, 36-42 S. 2nd Street, and 1921 Green Street. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 6 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: Consent Agenda MOTION: Approval MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 11 1 AGENDA ADDRESS: 620-24 S 8TH ST  Proposal: Rehabilitate building; insert floor; replace windows and doors; construct deck Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Crucifixion Renovation LLC Applicant: Adam Montalbano, Moto Designshop Inc. History: 1887; Church of the Crucifixion parish building; Isaac Pursell, architect; 1915 Individual Designation: 6/12/2020 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov BACKGROUND: The building at 620-24 S. 8th Street is a former parish building for the Church of the Crucifixion. It is proposed to be converted into a 16-unit multi-family residence, which includes the insertion of an additional floor. All existing windows and doors on the building are non-historic replacements, and in many locations, the original window openings have been partially infilled with brick. This project will reopen many of those to their original size and shape. SCOPE OF WORK:  Complete rehabilitation of building: o Construct roof deck with pilot house; o Replace all windows and doors, and remove brick infill from some openings to restore to historic

been partially infilled with brick. This project will reopen many of those to their original size and shape. SCOPE OF WORK:  Complete rehabilitation of building: o Construct roof deck with pilot house; o Replace all windows and doors, and remove brick infill from some openings to restore to historic size and shape; and o Insert small dormer windows into existing roof. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 7 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  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 work will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.  Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will 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 The proposed interventions could be removed in the future and the historic property would be unimpaired.  Roofs Guideline | Recommended: Designing rooftop additions, elevator or stair towers, decks or terraces, dormers, or skylights when required by a new or continuing use so that they are inconspicuous and minimally visible on the site and from the public right- of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining historic features. o The proposed deck and pilot house would be minimally visible but inconspicuous from the public right-of-way. The application satisfies the Roofs Guideline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10, and the Roofs Guideline. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10 and the Roofs Guideline, with suggestions that the applicant consider lowering the height of the pilot house, pushing back the railings from the roof edge, pushing back the condensers on the roof, using spandrel glass instead of metal panel on the front windows, and installing double doors at the front entrance. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 1505 SPRING GARDEN ST Proposal:

the height of the pilot house, pushing back the railings from the roof edge, pushing back the condensers on the roof, using spandrel glass instead of metal panel on the front windows, and installing double doors at the front entrance. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 1505 SPRING GARDEN ST Proposal: Construct addition Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Mark Berry and David McDonald Applicant: Adam Zangrilli, Zangrilli Design History: 1859; storefront, new brickwork, stucco and cornice, 1923 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Spring Garden Historic District, Contributing, 10/11/2000 Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov BACKGROUND: The building at 1505 Spring Garden Street is a three-story building with a two-story rear ell. At its February 2021 meeting, the Architectural Committee reviewed an application proposing to construct an addition so that the rear ell and most of the main block rose four stories in height. The addition was set back nine feet from the front façade, with a deck in the setback. The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial as proposed, but approval of a rear addition with no massing or deck on the main block, pursuant to Standard 9. The applicant submitted a revised scope for review by the Historical Commission at its March 2021 meeting, which the Commission voted to remand to the Architectural Committee for review. The Architectural Committee reviewed the revised application at its March 2021 meeting. The PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 8 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES revised application removed the roof deck and extended the setback of the rooftop addition from nine feet to eighteen feet. The Architectural Committee found that additional and revised drawings were necessary to be able to review the application sufficiently, concluded that the extent of demolition at the rear was too great, and recommended denial of the revised application. The Historical Commission reviewed the revised application at its April 2021 meeting and voted to deny the application, pursuant to Standard 9 and owing to incompleteness. The applicant has submitted this third application, which is similar in scope to the last application, but contains side and rear elevation drawings that were not included with the prior application. The only work to the front façade called out in the application is the replacement of the non- historic storefront windows and a door, for which the staff can work with the applicant on the details. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct third and

were not included with the prior application. The only work to the front façade called out in the application is the replacement of the non- historic storefront windows and a door, for which the staff can work with the applicant on the details. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct third and fourth floor addition STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of 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 massing will be minimally visible from the public right-of-way and will not detract from the historic character of the row; however, the proposed scope includes substantial demolition of the roof and rear of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, owing to the Historical Commission’s April 2021 denial of the application. The current application is substantially unchanged from the denied application. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, owing to the Historical Commission’s April 2021 denial of the application and the fact that the current application is substantially unchanged from the denied application. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:08:50 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Adam Zangrilli and property owner Milan Rouge represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 9 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The application has been revised to show retention of the third floor rear wall of the main block.  The applicant will need to work closely with the staff on all details, owing to the current lack of documentation provided by the applicant. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The massing will be inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and will not detract from the historic character of the row, and the amount of demolition has been reduced in the revised application, satisfying Standard 9. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to approve the revised application, with the staff to review details including windows, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 1505

the row, and the amount of demolition has been reduced in the revised application, satisfying Standard 9. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to approve the revised application, with the staff to review details including windows, pursuant to Standard 9. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 1505 SPRING GARDEN ST MOTION: Approval MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 12 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 10 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 1611 W GIRARD AVE Proposal: Construct additions; construct sidewalk access to basement; replace windows Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Kibbutz 3 LLC Applicant: David Whipple, Assimilation Design Lab LLC History: 1864 Individual Designation: 5/28/1968 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov BACKGROUND: The property at 1611 W. Girard Avenue is a three-story Italianate building located midblock. The building includes a main block and three-story rear ell with two-story addition. Buildings historically stood behind the property and fronted Flora Street. However, those buildings have been demolished and vacant lots remain, which leaves the rear of 1611 W. Girard Avenue visible from Flora Street. This application proposes to construct several additions. On the main block, a fourth-story addition would be constructed the full width of the building and with no setback from the front facade. The addition would be clad in aluminum. At the rear, the west wall of the ell would be retained and enveloped in a four-story addition that would extend beyond the current rear wall of the ell. The rear addition would be clad in stucco. The application also proposes to create sidewalk access at the front façade and to replace the front façade windows. The staff requests clarification on the scope of work related to creating sidewalk access and whether an opening would be cut into the building to provide access to the interior. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct fourth-story addition with no setback over main block;  Demolish rear wall of main block;  Retain west wall of main block and construct additions totaling four stories at rear;  Create sidewalk access at front façade; and  Replace windows. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of the Secretary of the

with no setback over main block;  Demolish rear wall of main block;  Retain west wall of main block and construct additions totaling four stories at rear;  Create sidewalk access at front façade; and  Replace windows. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of 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 addition is not compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportions, and massing of the historic property, and therefore the application fails to satisfy Standard 9. o Any replacement windows should match the historic configuration, including replicating the arched top of the first-story windows.  Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will 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 The addition would require significant demolition of the rear ell, leaving only the west wall. As proposed, the addition would destroy the essential form and integrity of the rear. The work does not comply with Standard 10. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 11 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Roofs Guideline | Recommended: Designing rooftop additions, elevator or stair towers, decks or terraces, dormers, or skylights when required by a new or continuing use so that they are inconspicuous and minimally visible on the site and from the public right- of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining historic features. o The proposed addition is highly visible from the public right-of-way and therefore the application fails to satisfy the Roofs Guideline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10 and the Roofs Guideline. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10 and the Roofs Guideline. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:25:50 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect David Whipple represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The

Standards 9 and 10 and the Roofs Guideline. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:25:50 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect David Whipple represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The application originally proposed to include a fourth-story addition on the main block and rear ell that would have no setback from the front façade. The application has been revised to remove the fourth-story addition from the main block.  The Architectural Committee requested that the addition not engage with the rear wall of the main block. The revised plans show the addition abutting the rear wall. The interior room adjacent to the main block would serve as storage space.  The four-story addition would extend beyond the existing rear ell and would require the demolition of the rear wall. The Historical Commission concluded that:  With the removal of the addition from the main block, the revised design is appropriate in size, scale, and massing; however, the addition should also be disengaged from the main block to satisfy Standards 9 and 10 and the Roofs Guideline.  The existing two-story addition is not historically significant and does not need to be retained. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to approve the revised application, provided the overbuild is disengaged from the main block of the house, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10 and the Roofs Guideline. Ms. Edwards seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 12 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 1611 W GIRARD AVE MOTION: Approval MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Edwards VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 12 ADDRESS: 539-41 N 22ND ST Proposal: Construct addition with roof deck and pilot house Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: JLM Investment Group, LLC Applicant: Augusta O'Neill, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP History: 1859 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Spring Garden Historic District, Contributing, 10/11/2000 Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application proposes to convert a single, wide building back to its historic form of two residential row houses. The parcel at 539-41 N.

Augusta O'Neill, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP History: 1859 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Spring Garden Historic District, Contributing, 10/11/2000 Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application proposes to convert a single, wide building back to its historic form of two residential row houses. The parcel at 539-41 N. 22nd Street was two separate properties with two separate row houses until the 1930s, when one owner purchased both buildings and consolidated them into one. Historic maps and deeds indicate the buildings were combined into a single building sometime between 1931 and 1942. Despite the merging of these properties, the original cornice and majority of front façade window and door openings remain in place. Permastone was installed over the brick on the front facade in 1951. The application proposes to rehabilitate the front elevation to be more compatible with the historic district and the 1859 appearance. The application also proposes to construct an addition on the existing rear extension with a roof deck and pilot house. Zoning records show this area has been altered over time and is a combination of brick and frame construction. It is presently clad in white vinyl siding. The present condition and materials under the vinyl siding is unknown. The rear addition and roof deck with pilot house will not be visible from the public right-of-way along N. 22nd Street but will PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 13 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES be visible from Wilcox Street. Although accessible to the public, Wilcox Street is a rear service alley for properties along Green Street and Brandywine Street. Visually it is composed of garage doors, parking areas, and fencing. Character-defining features of this historic district are limited along this service alley, owing to past alterations to the rear of these homes. A similar application was reviewed at the June 2021 Architectural Committee. This is a revised application based on comments of the Committee and additional information requested at the June meeting. SCOPE OF WORK:  Rehabilitate front façade to nineteenth-century appearance.  Divide building interior into two separate residences.  Construct addition with roof deck and pilot house on each row house. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive

with roof deck and pilot house on each row house. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. o The removal of the Permastone material on the front façade is appropriate as it was added in 1951 and outside the period of significance for the historic district. o The original cornice and front façade window and door openings should be maintained.  Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. o The applicant should remove some Permastone to reveal the condition of the original brick facade. The staff should define the final scope of work for the rehabilitation of the brick façade after reviewing the condition of the surviving brick, determining whether the existing brick can be restored or a replacement brick material will need to be applied.  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 To meet Standard 9, applicant should document the materials and window/door openings present under the vinyl siding. Existing historic materials and conditions should be compatible with new cladding system and window/door replacements.  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 Although the roofs of the rear ells will be altered, the application indicates the existing exterior side walls will be maintained in place. It is not clear if the original 1859 walls are extant under the current cladding material. In the future, the original roofline could be restored if a future owner chose

of the rear ells will be altered, the application indicates the existing exterior side walls will be maintained in place. It is not clear if the original 1859 walls are extant under the current cladding material. In the future, the original roofline could be restored if a future owner chose to do this.  Roofs Guideline | Recommended: Designing rooftop additions, elevator or stair towers, decks or terraces, dormers, or skylights when required by a new or continuing use PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 14 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES so that they are inconspicuous and minimally visible on the site and from the public right- of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining historic features.  o The proposed deck and pilot house on each residential property meets the Roofs Guideline as they are located on the rear of the property and not on the main block. They will not be visible from a primary public right-of-way, but will be visible from a service alley. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the staff to review details including the front facade masonry work, window and exterior doors, and rear cladding material, pursuant to Standards 2, 6, 9, 10, and Roofs Guideline. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the staff to review details including the front facade masonry work, window and exterior doors, and rear cladding material, pursuant to Standards 2, 6, 9, 10, and Roofs Guideline. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 122 S 19TH ST AND 1902 SANSOM ST Proposal: Construct addition Review Requested: Review In Concept Owner: Susan J. Schwartz Applicant: James Campbell, Campbell Thomas & Co. History: 122 S 19th St: 1951; Sophy Curson; Beryl Price, architect 1902 Sansom St: 1840 Individual Designation: 122 S 19th St: Pending 1902 Sansom St: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District, 2/8/1995 122 S 19th St: Non-contributing 1902 Sansom St: Contributing Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This in-concept application requests the Historical Commission’s comments and advice on the construction of an addition over the one-story Sophy Curson Building at 122 S. 19th Street and the adjacent three-story building at 1902 Sansom Street. Both properties are owned by the same entity. Both properties located are in the Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District. The property at 122 S. 19th Street, the Sophy Curson Building, is classified as non-contributing, while the property at 1902 Sansom Street is classified as contributing. The Historical Commission is in

Street. Both properties are owned by the same entity. Both properties located are in the Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District. The property at 122 S. 19th Street, the Sophy Curson Building, is classified as non-contributing, while the property at 1902 Sansom Street is classified as contributing. The Historical Commission is in the process of reviewing an individual nomination for the Sophy Curson Building at 122 S. 19th Street, but the review dates have not yet been scheduled. Therefore, the Historical Commission has not yet determined whether the Sophy Curson Building has historical or architectural significance that merits protection. For the sake of this review, the Historical Commission, Architectural Committee, and staff should assume that the building does merit individual designation. The application is submitted as a massing proposal only and should be judged as such. No details such as cladding materials or design features or elements are proposed. The addition would be L-shaped in plan, seven stories in height on the one-story building, for a total of eight stories, with a setback at the fourth-floor level on 19th Street and at 1902 Sansom Street. The new building would be 88’-8” tall. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 15 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES The one-story Sophy Curson Building is an anomaly in the area. Nearby buildings range from three and four stories to 565 feet in height, with several very tall buildings in the immediate area to the south, east, and west. The building that stood at 122 S. 19th Street that was demolished for the Sophy Curson Building was four stories in height, as the 1922 map below shows. The application points to three precedents, including additions on two Mid Century Modern buildings, the National Building in Old City and the Big Brothers Big Sisters Building on N. 13th Street, and an addition on the Freeman’s Auction House Building. All three projects were approved by the Historical Commission. Another precedent not noted in the application is the adjacent building at 1904 Sansom Street, where the Historical Commission approved the construction of a multi-floor addition on the four-story rowhouse when that building was connected to the larger Warwick Apartment Building to the west. The buildings at 1902 and 1904 Sansom Street were nearly identical in size. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct addition STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of

when that building was connected to the larger Warwick Apartment Building to the west. The buildings at 1902 and 1904 Sansom Street were nearly identical in size. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct addition STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of 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 question is whether an addition of the massing and size as is proposed is compatible with the two buildings and the environment.  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 It appears that the addition could be removed at a later date. Thereby, the proposal satisfies Standard 10. STAFF COMMENT:  An eight-story building would be compatible with the environment. The one-story Sophy Curson Building is an anomaly. All of the buildings around it are taller and many are much taller. The building that stood on the site prior to the Sophy Curson Building was four stories in height.  An overbuild of the buildings at 122 S. 19th Street and 1902 Sansom Street could be compatible with the existing buildings if designed with sensitivity. The primary experience of the Sophy Curson Building is the intimate pedestrian experience from 19th Street. Owing to its nearly flat roof with large overhang and unadorned north façade, a large rooftop addition would not alter that experience, if sensitively designed. While the Historical Commission does not typically approve large overbuilds on three- story rowhouses like the one at 1902 Sansom Street, this context might allow for an exception, if the addition is set back from the front façade sufficiently and designed with sensitivity.  The visual separation of the one-story Sophy Curson Building and the addition above should be further developed, perhaps with additional setbacks and other devises. For example, an open space along Sansom Street between the one-story building and the PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 16 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD

 The visual separation of the one-story Sophy Curson Building and the addition above should be further developed, perhaps with additional setbacks and other devises. For example, an open space along Sansom Street between the one-story building and the PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 16 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES addition above could highlight the subtly sloped roof of the Sophy Curson Building and improve the visual separation between the two elements of the building. The drawings on pages A104 and A105 hint at such a massing, but the intention should be clarified.  The addition should be set back from the front façade at 1902 Sansom Street a greater distance than currently proposed. A sufficient setback could give the impression that the addition is a taller building in the background. The addition approved for 1904 Sansom Street may provide some guidance.  The projects at 228-38 N. 13th Street (Big Brothers/Big Sisters Building) and 109-31 N. 2nd Street (National Products Building) can provide guidance for constructing large, but compatible additions on a Mid Century Modern buildings. Owing to the characteristics of Mid Century Modern buildings, they often are more capable of accepting visible additions than styles of buildings with pitched roofs. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Architectural Committee found that:  The one-story form of 122 S. 19th Street is a key character-defining feature of the building.  An overbuild of the buildings at 122 S. 19th Street and 1902 Sansom Street could be compatible with the existing buildings if designed with sensitivity and materials that maintain the primacy of the existing historic structures.  There should be a greater articulation between the 122 S. 19th Street building and the overbuild. This articulation should highlight the historic form of the Sophy Curson building.  The connection between the 122 S. 19th Street overbuild and 1902 Sansom Street overbuild should be additionally explored.  As presented, the proposal does not meet Standard 9 as the massing and form are not compatible with the historic buildings.  It appears that the addition could be removed at a later date. Thereby, the proposal satisfies Standard 10. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:33:43 RECUSAL:  Mr. Thomas recused, owing to his firm’s involvement in the project. Ms. Washington assumed the chair. PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Jim Campbell represented the application.

Thereby, the proposal satisfies Standard 10. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:33:43 RECUSAL:  Mr. Thomas recused, owing to his firm’s involvement in the project. Ms. Washington assumed the chair. PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Jim Campbell represented the application.  Attorney Adam Laver represented the owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Ben She, 5th Square, supported the in-concept application.  Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia, said he largely agrees with the Architectural Committee comments. He added that a Sophy Curson overbuild should be set back at least 23 feet from the front façade along 19th Street and the height of the adjacent buildings along 19th Street should be respected.  Oscar Beiser supported the concept of an overbuild but contended that it should be set back from the façade or lifted above it. He said that he was generally in agreement with the Architectural Committee’s comments. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 17 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Jim Duffin supported the concept of an overbuild.  Jay Farrell supported the general concept of an overbuild. HISTORICAL COMMISSION COMMENT: The Historical Commission commented:  Other massing options should be further studied and explored.  The success of a Sophy Curson overbuild is dependent on the quality of the details and the architecture. The special qualities and characteristics of the Sophy Curson building must be reflected in the overbuild.  The legibility of the Sophy Curson building’s volume needs to be maintained. The massing that is presented in the in-concept application does not maintain the legibility.  An overbuild is a way to make the historic Sophy Curson building sustainable, given the current high-rise development in the area.  The Historical Commission supports the general concept of an overbuild at this location. ADDRESS: 1600-18 ARCH ST, UNIT 1621 Proposal: Cut down window into door on terrace; install windows without muntins Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: SAS 1600 Arch Street LP Applicant: Robert Henderson, Robert Henderson Architect History: 1925; Insurance Company of North America Building; Stewardson & Page, architects Individual Designation: 9/7/1978 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application focuses on the doors and a window along the east elevation of the 16th floor at 1600-18 Arch Street, Unit 1621. The applicant is proposing the alterations as part of a comprehensive interior renovation. The

architects Individual Designation: 9/7/1978 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application focuses on the doors and a window along the east elevation of the 16th floor at 1600-18 Arch Street, Unit 1621. The applicant is proposing the alterations as part of a comprehensive interior renovation. The doors and window face on to exterior terraces and part of this change is required because the floor height will be raised in this unit. The existing doors and windows are not original to the construction of the building. The building was converted from office use to residential in 2000. SCOPE OF WORK:  Cut down masonry to alter a window to a door opening on the south terrace of the east elevation.  Remove existing doors on north and south terraces and replace with windows and one set of doors.  Remove historic muntin patterns and replace with single lite configuration. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 18 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES o While changing the doors to windows is acceptable, the historic muntin pattern should be maintained in the new windows, doors, and transoms to satisfy Standard 2.  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 Owing to a lack of visibility from the public right-of-way, the removal of the window and cut down of the limestone masonry to accommodate a new door on the south terrace meets Standard 9. o As the upper portion of the doors and transoms on the 16th floor’s east elevation are visible from the public right-of-way, the historic muntin configuration should be maintained to satisfy Standard 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial as proposed, but approval if revised to maintain the historic muntin configuration,

east elevation are visible from the public right-of-way, the historic muntin configuration should be maintained to satisfy Standard 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial as proposed, but approval if revised to maintain the historic muntin configuration, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 1250 E PALMER ST Proposal: Construct additions Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Barbara Cunningham Applicant: Janice Woodcock, Woodcock Design History: 1835; Joseph Paxson House & Store Individual Designation: 11/10/2017 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application proposes to construct additions at the side and rear of this two-and-a-half-story individually designated building. An In-Concept application was reviewed at last month’s meeting, where members of the Architectural Committee raised concerns that the design of the addition would partially demolish the rear roof of the house and would also obstruct views of the rear dormer. The Committee members recommended that the applicant find a design solution that would preserve the integrity of rear roof and would provide some distance between the designated house and the addition. The applicant has revised their plans to reflect these comments by creating more breathing room between the historic structure and the rear addition. The rear roof slope and dormer window remain intact in the revised plan. Because the subject property was designated with Criterion I, the archaeological criterion, the staff asks that the applicant confirm the extent of excavation necessary to build the additions as proposed. The staff also asks the applicant to confirm the materials proposed for the additions. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct additions at the side and rear of house.  Replace existing bay windows at ground floor. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 19 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 8: Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. o The applicant should demonstrate that archaeological resources will be protected and preserved.  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

must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. o The applicant should demonstrate that archaeological resources will be protected and preserved.  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 design of the additions leaves the character-defining features of the historic house, such as the gabled roof and the dormer, intact. o The staff finds the use of Hardie Plank siding and asphalt dimensional shingles to be appropriate materials, but not the use of vinyl. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided archaeological resources are protected and preserved, pursuant to Standards 8 and 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval provided that archaeological resources are protected and preserved; a fiber cement siding is used at the addition; the overhangs are reduced in scale; the downspout is relocated to the rear of the façade; alternatives to the windows at the ground floor where the addition meets the original structure are considered; and the exposed concrete at the ground level is clad with stucco or brick veneer and a water table feature, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 8 and 9. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:11:55 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Janice Woodcock represented the application.  Owner Barbara Cunningham represented the property. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society supported the application.  Ben She of 5th Square supported the application. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  With the exception of the proposed vinyl siding, the revised drawings reflect all of the recommendations made by the Architectural Committee.  The massing of the proposed addition is a significant improvement over the previous design.  Facing the first floor of the addition with brick would limit the use of vinyl to the second floor above the pedestrian level.  Improvements have been made to vinyl siding products over the years. The Historical Commission concluded that: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 20 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The design of the additions leaves the character-defining features of the historic house such as

the pedestrian level.  Improvements have been made to vinyl siding products over the years. The Historical Commission concluded that: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 20 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The design of the additions leaves the character-defining features of the historic house such as the gabled roof and the dormer, intact, satisfying Standard 9.  If necessary, the applicant will work with the staff to confirm that archaeological resources will be protected and preserved, satisfying Standard 8. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to approve the revised application, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 8 and 9. Ms. Sanchez seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 1250 E PALMER ST MOTION: Approval MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Sanchez VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington 12 Total ADDRESS: 223-25 MARKET ST Proposal: Construct addition Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: American Investment Assoc. Applicant: Snežana Litvinovi, Atrium Design Group History: 1960; second story and rear added, 2001 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Old City Historic District, Non-contributing, 12/12/2003 Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov BACKGROUND: The two-story, two-bay, brick-clad building at 223-25 Market Street is non-contributing structure in the Old City Historic District. This application proposes to construct a three-story addition on top of the existing structure. The building fronts Market Street and has a secondary façade that fronts Church Street to the north. An extremely narrow alley named W. Grishom Alley runs north – south between Market and Church Streets to the east of the subject property. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 21 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct three-story addition on existing two-story building: o Construct roof deck with pilot houses/roof access; o New brick to match existing will be used at the first and second-stories; charcoal color standing seam zinc panels will be used at the new, upper floors; o Balconies are proposed for floors two through five at both the front and back facades. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of 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

proposed for floors two through five at both the front and back facades. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Rehabilitation Standards of 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 three-story addition would not adversely impact any significant architectural features because it is being proposed on top of a non-contributing building. The overall massing and height appear compatible with the context of the overall block.  Guidelines for New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings and Related New Construction: o Recommended: Designing new construction on a historic site or in a historic setting that it is compatible but differentiated from the historic building or buildings. o Recommended: Considering the design for related new construction in terms of its relationship to the historic building as well as the historic district and setting. o Not Recommended: Adding new construction that results in the diminution or loss of the historic character of the building, including its design, materials, location, or setting. o The massing, size and scale of the proposed addition appear compatible with the site’s context. o The lack of cornice, the proposed arrangement of the window and door openings, and the use of standing seam zinc siding do not appear compatible with other buildings seen throughout the district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although the massing and height of the proposed addition seem appropriate to the site’s context, the staff recommends denial owing to the details of the design, including the lack of an articulated cornice, the out-of-place rhythm of the fenestration, and the incompatible cladding and balcony materials proposed for the addition, pursuant to Standard 9 and the Guidelines for New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings and Related New Construction. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 9 and the Guidelines for New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings and Related New Construction. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:28:30 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the application to the Historical Commission. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 22 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Architects Snežana

and the Guidelines for New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings and Related New Construction. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:28:30 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the application to the Historical Commission. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 22 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Architects Snežana Litvinovi and Shimi Zakin of Atrium Design Group represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Ben She of 5th Square supported the application.  Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society objected to the application.  Steven Peitzman objected to the application. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  Masonry would be a more appropriate material at the façade of the additional floors.  The windows lack frames and sills that are found on the buildings throughout the historic district.  The design of the cornice and the roof deck caused the building to appear top-heavy.  The projection of the cornice is out of scale with the buildings on the block.  There is a great tradition of this historic district of using one material at the front façade and then, once the building turns the corner, changing the material of the sides of the building.  The window openings on the building appeared to be proportionally appropriate. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The proposed use of metal cladding is not appropriate for the context of the historic district and does not satisfy Standard 9 or the Guidelines for New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings and Related New Construction.  The projection and size of the cornice is not compatible with the surrounding buildings and does not satisfy Standard 9 or the Guidelines for New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings and Related New Construction. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to deny the application, pursuant to Standard 9 and the Guidelines for New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings and Related New Construction. Mr. Mattioni seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 23 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 223-25 MARKET ST MOTION: Deny MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Mattioni VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 12 ADDRESS: 1524-38 GERMANTOWN AVE Proposal: Rehabilitate building; construct additions Review

VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 12 ADDRESS: 1524-38 GERMANTOWN AVE Proposal: Rehabilitate building; construct additions Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: TR Gretz LP Applicant: Anthony Tsirantonakis, T + Associates Architects History: 1885; Gretz Brewery; 1894-96; 1900; 1901; 1903; 1905; c. 1944 Individual Designation: 11/9/2018 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application proposes the adaptive reuse of the former Gretz Brewery complex, which was listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places in November 2018. The Historical Commission reviewed an in-concept application for this same scope on 12 April 2019, and voted unanimously to approve the in-concept application. As required by the Commission’s Rules and Regulations, the applicant has now submitted for final approval. This final approval application includes details, such as specification sheets for windows and doors, which were not part of the in-concept application. At the time of designation, the Commission voted to consider “Building 12” at the corner of Germantown Avenue and Redner Street as non-contributing, so that it may be approved for demolition to allow for greater flexibility with the plans for redevelopment. Also at the time of designation, the developer briefly showed preliminary plans to the Commission for redevelopment of the site, to demonstrate that plans for reuse of the property had been in the works for some time prior to the proposed historic designation. Several members of the staff toured the complex with the developer and architect in late 2018 and can confirm that the PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 24 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES buildings have suffered from years of deferred maintenance and exposure to the elements. Several buildings in the complex are lacking roofs. SCOPE OF WORK:  Demolish non-contributing “Building 12” at corner of Germantown Avenue and Redner Street.  Construct new mixed-use buildings on vacant lot created by demolition of “Building 12” and on existing vacant lot at corner of Germantown Avenue and W. Oxford Street.  Construct overbuilds and additions on existing historic buildings.  Rehabilitate historic facades and iconic chimney with “Gretz beer” signage.  Install new windows and doors throughout. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:  Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of

of Germantown Avenue and W. Oxford Street.  Construct overbuilds and additions on existing historic buildings.  Rehabilitate historic facades and iconic chimney with “Gretz beer” signage.  Install new windows and doors throughout. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:  Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. o The proposed project retains the historic facades and chimney, which are the highly visible portions of the complex that convey the historic materials and features.  Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. o The proposed project retains the historic street-facing facades. The interior of the complex, which is not visible from the street, is not a distinctive feature, and is in disrepair, and therefore does not require repair nor replacement in kind.  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.  Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will 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 The proposed project includes overbuilds with setbacks on historic facades, in an attempt to minimize the massing on the historic structures. Overall, the new construction portions of the complex may not strictly satisfy preservation standards, but should be considered owing to the poor condition of the complex, in addition to the plans having been developed prior to notice of proposed historic designation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 5, 6, 9, and 10 and the Historical Commission’s 12 April 2019 in-concept approval. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the suggestion that the new construction is simplified and the mesh mansard is removed, with the staff to review details, especially the windows in the historic buildings, pursuant to

10 and the Historical Commission’s 12 April 2019 in-concept approval. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the suggestion that the new construction is simplified and the mesh mansard is removed, with the staff to review details, especially the windows in the historic buildings, pursuant to Standard 9. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 25 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 36-42 S 2ND ST Proposal: Construct mixed-use building Review Requested: Review and Comment Owner: Second and Trotter LLC Applicant: David Gest, Ballard Spahr LLP History: Parking lot Individual Designation: None District Designation: Old City Historic District, Non-contributing, 12/12/2003 Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application proposes to construct an approximately 85-foot-tall building on a vacant lot at the corner of S. 2nd Street and Trotter’s Alley between Chestnut and Market Streets in the Old City Historic District. Historically the parcel was occupied by three four-story buildings, all of which were demolished prior to the designation of the Old City Historic District. Since the property was vacant at the time the district was designated, the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to review and comment only. The proposed construction is located on a block composed of mixed-use buildings ranging from one to six stories, with the majority being four stories in height. The building to the north across Trotters Alley is the tallest on the block, at approximately 77 feet. The majority of the buildings on the block are of red brick construction, although some are clad in lighter stone and cast iron. The proposed building, which is identified as seven stories with an additional mezzanine level, is approximately 85 feet in height, and would be clad in white brick on the 2nd Street elevation, with the side elevations in dark grey cement board siding. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct building on vacant lot STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. o The proposed new construction is differentiated from but generally compatible with the materials, proportions and features of the historic district, but is out of

and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. o The proposed new construction is differentiated from but generally compatible with the materials, proportions and features of the historic district, but is out of scale in terms of height with the surrounding context. The application partially complies with this standard. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed construction is compatible in general materials, rhythm and fenestration with the historic district, but is out of scale in terms of height with the surrounding stuctures, pursuant to Standard 9. The staff also suggests that the masonry be carried onto the north elevation above the ground floor for at least one bay. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE COMMENTS: The Architectural Committee did not formally adopt comments. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 26 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 1921 GREEN ST Proposal: Construct multi-family building Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: 1921 Green Street, LLC Applicant: Amanda Anderson, CANNO design History: 1959; infill of original storefront opening, 1975 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Spring Garden Historic District, Non-contributing, 10/11/2000 Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application proposes to demolish the non-contributing, one-story, mid-twentieth century building at the northeast corner of 20th and Green Streets in the Spring Garden Historic District and to construct a four-story building in its place. The new construction would be clad in red brick with a cast stone base and feature large double-hung windows and a metal cornice. The height of the proposed building approximates that of the adjacent historic building at 1919 Green Street, and is located in a context of primarily three and four-story residential masonry buildings. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct four-story building. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. o The proposed new construction is compatible with the size, scale, proportion, massing, materials and features of the historic district. The application complies with this standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, pursuant to Standard 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the

the property and its environment. o The proposed new construction is compatible with the size, scale, proportion, massing, materials and features of the historic district. The application complies with this standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, pursuant to Standard 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9, with the following provisions:  the beltcourse at the first floor is raised to make first floor appear taller;  the cornice wraps onto the north elevation;  the window placement on the north elevation is examined to make it more symmetrical;  the east elevation cladding is changed from vinyl siding to a Hardie panel system;  the cornice returns on itself at the east party wall; and,  the fence is painted wood. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 27 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 JULY 2021 ADDRESS: 3816 THE OAK RD Name of Resource: Memorial Church of the Good Shepherd Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Protestant Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd Nominator: Nancy Pontone Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 3816 The Oak Road as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the Memorial Church of the Good Shepherd church and parish hall, opened in 1927, satisfies Criteria for Designation D and E. Under Criterion D, the nomination contends that the church and parish hall embody distinguishing characteristics of the Colonial Revival and Classical Revival styles of architecture. Under Criterion E, the nomination argues that the church and parish hall are the work of Carl Augustus Ziegler, a prolific Philadelphia-based architect who was known for his accuracy with producing Colonial and Georgian Revival residences and special-purpose buildings in the 1920s. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3816 The Oak Road satisfies Criteria for Designation D and E. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3816 The Oak Road satisfies Criteria for Designation D and E. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 02:04:10 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Nancy Pontone represented the nominator.  No one represented the property owner.

the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3816 The Oak Road satisfies Criteria for Designation D and E. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 02:04:10 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Nancy Pontone represented the nominator.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society supported the nomination.  Jim Duffin supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The Memorial Church of the Good Shepherd church and parish hall opened in 1927.  Since the 1920s, the church property has become an integral part of the neighborhood and community. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The church and parish hall embody distinguishing characteristics of the Colonial Revival and Classical Revival styles of architecture, satisfying Criterion D.  The church and parish hall are the work of Carl Augustus Ziegler, a prolific Philadelphia-based architect who was known for his accuracy with producing Colonial and Georgian Revival residences and special-purpose buildings in the 1920s, satisfying Criterion E. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 28 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the property at 3816 The Oak Rd satisfies Criteria for Designation D and E, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 3816 THE OAK RD MOTION: Designate; Criteria D and E MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Hartner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 12 ADDRESS: 1523 CHESTNUT ST Name of Resource: Love Building Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 1523 Chestnut Associates Nominator: Center City Residents’ Association Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the Love Building at 1523 Chestnut Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. Under Criteria A and J, the nomination contends that the property is significant for its association with the Red Rose Girls, an enclave of notable female artists important in LGBTQ history that included Jessie Willcox Smith, Elizabeth Shippen Green, Violet Oakley, and others. The

Criteria for Designation A and J. Under Criteria A and J, the nomination contends that the property is significant for its association with the Red Rose Girls, an enclave of notable female artists important in LGBTQ history that included Jessie Willcox Smith, Elizabeth Shippen Green, Violet Oakley, and others. The nomination contends that the women maintained studios in the building during their formative years as artists and became significant contributors to the golden age of American illustration at a time when Philadelphia served as a national center for that industry. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1523 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 29 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1523 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 02:08:40 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Tim Kerner and Oscar Beisert represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Historical Commission found that:  The building was constructed in the 1880s, and its significance is identified as c. 1880 to 1923 to span the period when women artists maintained studios at the property.  The nomination notes that the residents, including Jessie Willcox Smith, Elizabeth Shippen Green, and Violet Oakley, became known as the “Red Rose Girls,” owing to their shared studio space in the Love Building.  The building, significant for its social history as it relates to important women in illustration, is one of several significant properties along the 1300 to 1500 blocks of Chestnut Street that housed prominent Philadelphia artists. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The building is significant for its association with several preeminent female illustrators, including Jessie Willcox Smith, Elizabeth Shippen Green, Violet Oakley, and others, satisfying Criterion A.  Together, the women artists who maintained studios in the building formed the Red Rose Girls and were important figures in both art and LGBTQ history, further satisfying Criterion A.  The women were significant contributors to the illustration profession at a time when Philadelphia served as a national center for the industry, satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to

formed the Red Rose Girls and were important figures in both art and LGBTQ history, further satisfying Criterion A.  The women were significant contributors to the illustration profession at a time when Philadelphia served as a national center for the industry, satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the property at 1523 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Edwards seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 30 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 1523 CHESTNUT ST MOTION: Designate; Criteria A and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Edwards VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 12 ADDRESS: 8224 GERMANTOWN AVE Name of Resource: Harriett Detweiler and Caroline Detweiler Hammond House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Jeanne & Stanley Baum Nominator: Chestnut Hill Conservancy Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the Harriett Detweiler and Caroline Detweiler Hammond House at 8224 Germantown Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, H, and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that the property has significant character and value as part of the development of the Chestnut Hill neighborhood. Under Criterion H, the nomination contends that the property is significant for its prominent location along Germantown Avenue, the main thoroughfare running through Northwest Philadelphia. The nomination further argues that the property satisfies Criterion J for its association with the Detweilers, an early settler family, and that it serves as a reflection of the early mid-nineteenth-century character of the emerging Chestnut Hill suburb. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 8224 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. However, the staff contends that, while the building contributes to the streetscape, it does not stand out from the adjacent buildings as an established and familiar visual feature and does not satisfy Criterion H. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 31 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on

the building contributes to the streetscape, it does not stand out from the adjacent buildings as an established and familiar visual feature and does not satisfy Criterion H. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 31 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 8224 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criterion for Designation J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 02:12:55 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Leah Silverstein of the Chestnut Hill Conservancy and Amy Lambert represented the nomination.  Owner Stanley Baum and Jesse Carpino represented the property owner and opposed the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Baum argued that the building is in poor condition and has required many repairs and much replacement. He further claimed that nothing visible from Germantown Avenue is original. He contended that the building’s structural condition will not allow for a vertical expansion and that building at the rear would remove parking spaces and impede the neighbor’s ability to use the shared drive. He stated that he intended to sell the property to his granddaughter and her husband so that they can rebuild on the site and raise their family in Chestnut Hill. He argued that designating the property as historic significantly decreases its value and renders it infeasible for his grandchildren to renovate and live in the building. He asserted that the proposed new building would be compatible in massing, size, and scale. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society supported the nomination.  Jim Duffin supported the nomination.  Steven Peitzman supported the nomination.  Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance supported the nomination.  John Dever asked that the community come together and contribute funds to assist the property owners. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The nomination dates the building’s construction to 1885 to 1889.  The building was constructed by two female members of the Detweiler family, the same family that owned the two adjacent eighteenth-century buildings.  The property is located along Germantown Avenue, a historic and important thoroughfare in Chestnut Hill that evolved into a wealthy suburb within the city. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The Detweiler family owned 8224 Germantown Avenue and the two adjacent properties; however, the history of the family does

 The property is located along Germantown Avenue, a historic and important thoroughfare in Chestnut Hill that evolved into a wealthy suburb within the city. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The Detweiler family owned 8224 Germantown Avenue and the two adjacent properties; however, the history of the family does not contribute significance to the city as a whole. The nomination fails to satisfy Criterion A.  The property contributes to the streetscape but does not stand out as an established and familiar visual feature and does not satisfy Criterion H. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 32 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The building serves as a strong example of the ways in which Germantown Avenue evolved socially and architecturally and preserves the spatial characteristics of the historic street, satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the property at 8224 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criterion for Designation J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Carney seconded the motion, which passed by roll-call vote of 10 to 2. ITEM: 8224 GERMANTOWN AVE MOTION: Designate; Criterion J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Carney VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 ADDRESS: 318 E DURHAM ST Name of Resource: 318 E Durham Street Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Sedgwick House, LP Nominator: East Durham Street Neighbors Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 318 E. Durham Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that the subject property is closely associated with Aston S. Tourison, an important developer of the Sedgwick Farms neighborhood in East Mt. Airy. It also suggests that the land’s prior association with Henry Lehnert, a well-respected maker of musical instruments, and Louis Grossman, “renowned in the field of medical science,” also support the subject property’s significance under Criterion A. Under Criterion C, the nomination argues that the subject property “records the beginning of the development in East Mt. Airy…built along the Reading Railroad commuter train line at the turn of the 19th century.” Under Criterion E, G and J, the nomination

support the subject property’s significance under Criterion A. Under Criterion C, the nomination argues that the subject property “records the beginning of the development in East Mt. Airy…built along the Reading Railroad commuter train line at the turn of the 19th century.” Under Criterion E, G and J, the nomination suggests that Tourison’s business, Ye Old Sedgwick PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 33 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Farms Company, was responsible for constructing most of the houses that still remain on the 300 and 500 blocks of E. Durham Street. The nomination argues that Tourison was a pioneer in residential development in East Mt. Airy who designed in a wide range of architectural styles across a wide range of home prices. Under Criterion H, the nomination describes the subject property as an established and familiar feature to the current residents of both the block and the surrounding streets, many of whom “consider [it] an asset to the legacy, social fabric, design, and character of this community-oriented walking neighborhood.” Tourison is unquestionably an important figure in the history and development of Mt. Airy, but this building’s connection to Tourison does not bestow architectural or historical significance on the building. The fact that Tourison renovated this building does not qualify it for historic designation. Tourison constructed and renovated hundreds of buildings in northwest Philadelphia. This particular building does not illuminate Tourison’s body of work. The connections to former owners likewise lack the significance required for designation. Moreover, this building fails to evidence the development of East Mt. Airy; the planned developments like Sedgwick Farms are certainly worthy of designation, but this building is not. Finally, this small building cannot be considered an established and familiar visual feature; it is not large, tall, or located in a prominent place. The staff questions the identification of this building on the 1901 Bromley map and contends that the yellow spot on the map that is interpreted as this building is nothing more than a smudge. The spot is the wrong size and shape, is in the wrong location, is not outlined in black like other wood-frame buildings on the map, and does not appear on the 1910 Bromley map. The building does not merit historic designation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination fails to demonstrate that the property at 318 E. Durham Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C,

in black like other wood-frame buildings on the map, and does not appear on the 1910 Bromley map. The building does not merit historic designation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination fails to demonstrate that the property at 318 E. Durham Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, E, G, H or J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination fails to demonstrates that the property at 318 E. Durham Street satisfies any Criteria for Designation. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 02:42:50 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Kelly and Paula O’Day represented the nomination.  Attorney Richard DeMarco and preservation consultant George Thomas represented the property owner. DISCUSSION:  Ms. Cooperman stated that the Committee found that the nomination lacked information that would allow it to make a recommendation for designation. She contended that it was not an independent evaluation of whether or not the Criteria applied to the building, but rather an evaluation that concluded that the nomination would need to supply essential information, and it did not. She argued that the motion states that the nomination fails to demonstrate that the property satisfies any Criteria for Designation, though it would be more accurate to state that the Committee found that the nomination did not provide enough information to allow it to evaluate whether the building satisfied any Criteria.  The property owners’ representatives argued that the property does not satisfy any Criteria for Designation and noted several errors in the nomination. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 34 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Kelly and Paula O’Day contended that the building is significant to the neighbors and argued for the designation of the property. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub of Save Our Sites supported the nomination.  Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society supported the nomination.  Jim Duffin supported the nomination.  Hal Schirmer supported the nomination.  Nina Curlett supported the nomination.  Steven Peitzman suggested that the Commission request revisions to the nomination, rather than rejecting it outright. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The property was historically associated with the larger property of 7131 Sprague Street and functioned as either a stable or barn.  The nomination argues that the property is significant for its association

nomination, rather than rejecting it outright. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The property was historically associated with the larger property of 7131 Sprague Street and functioned as either a stable or barn.  The nomination argues that the property is significant for its association with Ashton Tourison, Henry Lehnert, Louis Grossman, and Major Gravell.  The nomination suggests that the building serves as the “anchor house” that galvanized development in East Mt. Airy.  The nomination contends that the building serves as an early example of an adaptive reuse project by prolific developer Ashton Tourison in 1901.  The nomination asserts that the building serves as a familiar and established visual feature to the neighborhood. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The nomination’s contention that the property is associated with significant individuals in the past is unfounded. Most of those individuals owned the property but did not reside at it. The nomination does not satisfy Criterion A.  The building is not a strong representation of any particular architectural style. The nomination fails to satisfy Criterion C.  The nomination’s assertion that Ashton Tourison adaptively reused an existing structure and converted it into the current residence lacks complete documentation. While Tourison is an important figure in the development of Mt. Airy, any involvement that he may have had with this building does not represent that significance.The nomination does not satisfy Criterion E.  The nomination fails to make any assertion that the property is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area and does not satisfy Criterion G.  The nomination’s argument that the building serves as a familiar and established visual feature is weak. The property is small relative to its surroundings and is not a prominent visual feature along the streetscape. The nomination does not satisfy Criterion H.  The nomination contends that the property holds historic importance for its reuse of an earlier building. Documentation provided by the owner suggests that the building was not adaptively reused and was instead replaced. The nomination does not provide sufficient information to support Criterion J. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 35 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Mr. Mattioni moved to find that the property at 318 E. Durham Street satisfies no Criteria for Designation and to decline to designate it as historic. Ms. Washington seconded the

information to support Criterion J. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 35 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Mr. Mattioni moved to find that the property at 318 E. Durham Street satisfies no Criteria for Designation and to decline to designate it as historic. Ms. Washington seconded the motion, which passed by roll-call vote of 10 to 2. ITEM: 318 E DURHAM ST MOTION: Decline to designate MOVED BY: Mattioni SECONDED BY: Washington VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 Commissioner Carney left the meeting. ADDRESS: 5706 GERMANTOWN AVE Name of Resource: The John S. Trower Building Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Sung Choel Kim Nominator: Keeping Society of Philadelphia and Germantown United CDC Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 5706 Germantown Avenue as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that the building is associated with the life of a person significant in the past, successful caterer, businessman, philanthropist, real estate investor, and restaurateur John S. Trower, a Black man who achieved local, statewide, and national significance in American history. Under Criterion J, the nomination argues that the building stands as an important monument to the cultural, economic, social, and historical heritage of Trower’s significant catering and restaurant business that predominated in the Black community in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Germantown and Philadelphia. The period of significance begins when the property was acquired by John S. Trower in 1887 and ends with his passing in 1911. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 36 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5706 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5706 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 03:34:55 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Oscar Beisert represented the

The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5706 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 03:34:55 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Oscar Beisert represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Jim Duffin supported the nomination.  James Lyons, great grandson of John S. Trower, supported the nomination.  Susan Comninel, great granddaughter of John S. Trower, supported the nomination.  Allison Weiss, representing the SoLo Germantown Civic Association, supported the nomination.  Leah Silverstein, representing the Chestnut Hill Conservancy, supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The property at 5706 Germantown Avenue was purchased by John S. Trower in 1887, and he used the property for his catering business and residence. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The building is associated with the life of a person significant in the past, successful caterer, businessman, philanthropist, real estate investor, and restaurateur John S. Trower, a Black man who achieved local, statewide, and national significance in American history, satisfying Criterion A.  The building stands as an important monument to the cultural, economic, social, and historical heritage of Trower’s significant catering and restaurant business that predominated in the Black community in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Germantown and Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5706 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Sanchez seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 37 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 5706 GERMANTOWN AVE MOTION: Designate, Criteria A and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Sanchez VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 11 1 ADDRESS: 1946 N 23RD ST Name of Resource: Pearl Bailey House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: William Sharrock Nominator: Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1946 N. 23rd

X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 11 1 ADDRESS: 1946 N 23RD ST Name of Resource: Pearl Bailey House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: William Sharrock Nominator: Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1946 N. 23rd Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the building, constructed in 1882 as part of a larger speculative development project by architect Willis G. Hale, is significant under Criteria for Designation A, D, and E. Under Criterion A, the nomination contends that the property is socially and culturally significant as the family home of actress and singer Pearl Bailey, who described it in her autobiography as the house “where [her] career started.” Under Criterion E, the nomination argues that the property is significant as the work of Willis G. Hale, one of Philadelphia’s most important late nineteenth-century architects, whose work influenced the development of the city, and in particular North Philadelphia, in the third quarter of the nineteenth century. With its intricate brickwork, flamboyant window hoods, and projecting balconettes, the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of Hale’s unusual Victorian eclectic style as applied to speculative rowhouse design, satisfying Criterion D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1946 N. 23rd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and E. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 38 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1946 N. 23rd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and E. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 03:44:12 PRESENTERS:  Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  No one represented the property owner. Ms. DiPasquale noted that the staff had not had any contact with the property owner since sending the requisite notice letters. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Judith Robinson, representing the 32nd Ward RCO, supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The building at 1946 N. 23rd Street was constructed in 1882 as part of a larger speculative development project by architect Willis G. Hale for developer William Singerly.  Singer and actress Pearl Bailey lived in the house with her family during the 1930s and 1940s, when her

that:  The building at 1946 N. 23rd Street was constructed in 1882 as part of a larger speculative development project by architect Willis G. Hale for developer William Singerly.  Singer and actress Pearl Bailey lived in the house with her family during the 1930s and 1940s, when her career started, and continued to visit her mother there until her death in 1969. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The property is socially and culturally significant as the family home of actress and singer Pearl Bailey, a person significant in the past, satisfying Criterion A.  The property is the work of Willis G. Hale, one of Philadelphia’s most important late nineteenth-century architects, whose work influenced the development of the city, and in particular North Philadelphia, in the third quarter of the nineteenth century, satisfying Criterion E.  The property embodies distinguishing characteristics of Hale’s unusual Victorian eclectic style as applied to speculative rowhouse design, satisfying Criterion D. ACTION: Ms. Washington moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the nomination demonstrates that property at 1946 N. 23rd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and E, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. Lippert seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 39 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 1946 N 23RD ST MOTION: Designate; Criteria A, D, and E MOVED BY: Washington SECONDED BY: Lippert VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 11 1 ADDRESS: 7600 GERMANTOWN AVE Name of Resource: St. Martin’s Coal Company Office Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: John Mascaro Nominator: The Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 7600 Germantown Avenue as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former St. Martin’s Coal Company office, designed by John T. Windrim in 1916, satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. Under Criterion C, the nomination contends that the one-story office building is reflective of an era characterized by the Colonial Revival style as applied to commercial and office buildings in the larger Mt. Airy

office, designed by John T. Windrim in 1916, satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. Under Criterion C, the nomination contends that the one-story office building is reflective of an era characterized by the Colonial Revival style as applied to commercial and office buildings in the larger Mt. Airy neighborhood and throughout Philadelphia. Under Criterion D, the nomination argues that the building possesses distinguishing characteristics of the Colonial Revival style, including its Classical entryway, fanlight transom, six-over-six wood windows. Under Criterion J, the nomination asserts that the one-story office building is of a form and type that represents the cultural, economic, and social history of individual neighborhoods and the larger City of Philadelphia. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 7600 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C and D, but that the argument for the satisfaction of Criterion J is incomplete. The discussion of Criterion J provides examples of other office buildings without explaining how this or the other offices exemplify the heritage of the community. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 40 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 7600 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 03:49:31 PRESENTERS:  Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Oscar Beisert represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. Ms. DiPasquale noted that the staff had not had any contact with the property owner since sending the requisite notice letters. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Jim Duffin supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The property at 7600 Germantown Avenue was constructed on a design by John T. Windrim for the St. Martin’s Coal Company in 1916.  The name St. Martin’s was used many times by developer George Woodward in the Chestnut Hill area during this period. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The building at 7600 Germanton Avenue is reflective of an era characterized by the Colonial Revival style, as applied to commercial and office buildings in the larger Mt. Airy and Chestnut Hill neighborhoods of northwest Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion C.  The building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Colonial Revival style, satisfying Criterion D.  The building is

reflective of an era characterized by the Colonial Revival style, as applied to commercial and office buildings in the larger Mt. Airy and Chestnut Hill neighborhoods of northwest Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion C.  The building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Colonial Revival style, satisfying Criterion D.  The building is the work of renowned local architect John T. Windrim, satisfying Criterion E.  The one-story office building is of a form and type that represents the cultural, economic, and social history of individual neighborhoods throughout the city, and was designed in such a way as to reflect and capitalize on the St. Martin’s name popularized by George Woodward in northwest Philadelphia during the early twentieth century, satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Mr. Lippert moved to find that the property at 7600 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 41 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 7600 GERMANTOWN AVE MOTION: Designate; Criteria C, D, E, and J MOVED BY: Lippert SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 11 1 ADDRESS: 3615-35 CHESTNUT ST Name of Resource: Ralston House Proposed Action: Amend boundary Property Owner: Ralston House Applicant: Michael Phillips, Esq., Klehr Harrison Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This application proposes to amend the boundary of the designation of Ralston House at 3615-35 Chestnut Street, removing the area that includes the surface parking lot at the western edge of the site. The property includes a U-shaped historic building with frontages on Chestnut and Ludlow Streets, a lawn between the building and Chestnut Street, and a parking lot at the west accessed from Ludlow. The site plan submitted by the applicant proposes the removal of an 84 foot wide piece of land running from Chestnut Street to Ludlow Street. Most of the land proposed for removal was not historically associated with the designated property and some it is not currently designated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed amendment to the boundary of the designation of 3615-35 Chestnut Street, provided that an

land running from Chestnut Street to Ludlow Street. Most of the land proposed for removal was not historically associated with the designated property and some it is not currently designated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed amendment to the boundary of the designation of 3615-35 Chestnut Street, provided that an adequate buffer is maintained between the historic building and new property line at the west, because almost all of the land to be excluded from the designation was not historically associated with Ralston House, is currently used as a surface parking lot, and has no known historical significance. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission amend the boundary of the property at 3615-35 Chestnut Street, shifting the western boundary of the designated area to PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 42 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES the eastern edge of the paved area of the parking lot, thereby retaining a buffer between the western façade of the historic building and the western boundary line. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 03:54:45 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the boundary amendment to the Historical Commission.  Attorney Michael Phillips and Lynette Killen of the Ralston Center represented the application. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Phillips stated that his client, the Ralston Center, a non-profit, is seeking to amend the western boundary of the designated area at the site to exclude some open land that includes a surface parking lot. He explained that they had originally proposed to establish the western boundary running north-south between Chestnut and Ludlow Streets at a point five feet west of the westernmost part of the building, but increased that distance to eight feet after meeting with the Committee on Historic Designation. He said that the line would be eight feet from the projecting chapel at the northwest corner of the building but 20 feet from the main body of the building that extends toward Chestnut Street. He stated that the land to the west has no historic value. He contended that the site was designated for the building, not for the land. The Historical Commission only had the authority to designate buildings in 1971, when this was designated. Mr. Phillips stated that there are no current plans to redevelop the land that would fall outside the proposed boundary, but that land could be redeveloped to help

the building, not for the land. The Historical Commission only had the authority to designate buildings in 1971, when this was designated. Mr. Phillips stated that there are no current plans to redevelop the land that would fall outside the proposed boundary, but that land could be redeveloped to help support the Ralston Center at some point in the future. Mr. Phillips stated that most of the land proposed for exclusion  Ms. Cooperman stated that there was some breathing room to the west of the building historically and the Committee on Historic Designation decided that the boundary could be redrawn to the eastern edge of the surface parking lot, but that some open land to the west of the building should be retained as part of the designated area. The Committee concluded that the five and then eight feet from the building that was proposed was not sufficient.  Mr. McCoubrey cautioned that zoning would allow for the construction of a large building on Chestnut Street.  Mr. Phillips offered to redraw the proposed western boundary line so that it would follow the contour of the building and always be located 20 feet to the west of the building façade. o Mr. Thomas stated that the building needs some breathing room.  Mr. Phillips stated that the Historical Commission already determined that it did not have jurisdiction over most of the land under discussion when it decided that it did not have the authority to review the demolition of the house at 3635 Chestnut Street. He asserted that the area proposed for exclusion has no historic value. o Ms. Cooperman disagreed, stating that it has significance as the setting for the building.  Mr. Phillips noted that a new building was constructed at the eastern edge of the designated area, which abuts the historic building and even extends in front of it.  Mr. Mattioni asked about the purpose of the request. o Mr. Phillips stated that the Ralston Center is a non-profit and would like to use the vacant land to the west to provide resources to support the maintenance of the historic building and its charitable mission. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 43 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Mr. Thomas stated that he could accept the recommendation of the Committee on Historic Designation and shift the western boundary to the eastern edge of

the maintenance of the historic building and its charitable mission. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 43 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Mr. Thomas stated that he could accept the recommendation of the Committee on Historic Designation and shift the western boundary to the eastern edge of the parking lot, but would need to see a redevelopment proposal before he could agree to move the boundary any further east, closer to the building.  Mr. Farnham stated that he was the impetus for this request. He explained that Mr. Phillips had inquired about the extent of the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction at the site and, when the staff conducted the research, it found some ambiguity in the record. He stated that the Historical Commission decided that it had no jurisdiction over 3635 Chestnut Street when the house was demolished. He also stated that a fire station and two rowhouses had faced 37th Street, and the rears of the properties were incorporated into this property when the buildings were demolished. He noted that the Historical Commission approved an in-concept application for a new building on this site in the 1990s. He concluded that he suggested that Mr. Phillips appear before the Committee on Historic Designation and Historical Commission to try to obtain some clarity on the western boundary and to suggest a reasonable boundary line. Mr. Phillips is here today not because his client is considering a construction project, but because his client would like the Historical Commission to establish a western boundary so that the non-profit can plan for redeveloping the parking lot to the west.  Mr. Reuter stated that the plan that Mr. Phillips is now proposing is very clear and straightforward. He is proposing a boundary line at the west that would follow the contours of the historic building and always be 20 feet to the west of the building. He asked Mr. Phillips to confirm his characterization of the revised proposal. o Mr. Phillips confirmed that Mr. Reuter had accurately characterized the proposal.  Mr. Reuter stated that the Historical Commission should focus its attention on whether any historic fabric exists in the area that would be removed from the designated site.  Mr. Thomas stated that the site is an important part of the historic building.  Mr. McCoubrey stated that various types of redevelopment will have different impacts on the historic building

attention on whether any historic fabric exists in the area that would be removed from the designated site.  Mr. Thomas stated that the site is an important part of the historic building.  Mr. McCoubrey stated that various types of redevelopment will have different impacts on the historic building and site.  Mr. Phillips asked the Historical Commission to table the matter for one month so that he can prepare a plan representing his most recent proposal. He stated that he accepts that the Committee has recommended a boundary at the eastern edge of the parking lot. He would like the opportunity to present a slightly revised line to the Historical Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. ACTION: Mr. Mattioni moved to table the review of the application for one month, to the 10 September 2021 meeting of the Historical Commission. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 44 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 3615-35 CHESTNUT ST MOTION: Table application for one month MOVED BY: Mattioni SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 11 1 Commissioner Dodds left the meeting. ADDRESS: 714 CHESTNUT ST Name of Resource: Henry A. Dreer Seed Company Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Herbert Richman Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 714 Chestnut Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that the property has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth of Nation, being the headquarters for the Henry A. Dreer Seed Company between 1863 and 1924, a leader in the development of horticulture in Philadelphia, the surrounding region, and nationally during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the property exemplifies the cultural, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community, with Philadelphia being recognized as “the oldest and perhaps the foremost seed market in America.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that

and nationally during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the property exemplifies the cultural, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community, with Philadelphia being recognized as “the oldest and perhaps the foremost seed market in America.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 714 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 45 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 714 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 04:49:46 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Paul Steinke and Kevin McMahon represented the nomination.  Barbara Richman represented the property owner. Ms. Richman stated that she and the other property owners remain in opposition to the designation as she indicated at the 21 July 2021 Committee meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Hal Schirmer supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The nomination highlights the important role Philadelphia seed houses held in the local economy and history of the city. Philadelphia seed houses were widely influential to the overall culture and economy of the nation during the nineteenth and early twentieth century.  Although some alternations have occurred over time, the building maintains a high degree of architectural integrity. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The property has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth of Nation, being the headquarters for the Henry A. Dreer Seed Company between 1863 and 1924, a leader in the development of horticulture in Philadelphia, the surrounding region, and nationally during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, satisfying Criterion A.  The property exemplifies the cultural, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community, with Philadelphia being recognized as “the oldest and perhaps the foremost seed market in America,” satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the property at 714 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021

Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the property at 714 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 46 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 714 CHESTNUT ST MOTION: Designate, Criteria A and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 ADDRESS: 1923 CHESTNUT ST Name of Resource: The J.E. Limeburner Co. Store Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 1923 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, LP Nominator: Center City Residents’ Association Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1923 Chestnut Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination contends that the J.E. Limeburner Co. store, constructed in 1925, embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Modern Classical Style and reflects the environment in an era influenced by modernism and classicism. Under Criterion E, the nomination argues that the building is the work of the prolific architectural firm Heacock & Hokanson, whose designs significantly influenced the built environment of the Greater Philadelphia region. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1923 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1923 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 04:58:30 PRESENTERS: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 47 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Ms. Mehley presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Tim Kerner and Oscar Beisert represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. Ms. Mehley noted that owner Glenn Krotick sent an email to the Historical Commission on 20 July 2021 stating that he opposes the nomination. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub of Save Our Sites supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. Ms. Mehley noted that owner Glenn Krotick sent an email to the Historical Commission on 20 July 2021 stating that he opposes the nomination. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub of Save Our Sites supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The building successfully communicates that it is both classical and modern in its design.  The building reflects an era when this section of Chestnut Street was developing as a commercial area. The building was intended to stand out rather than blend in with its neighboring buildings.  The front entryway area has been altered in recent years. The original entrance was set back and had separate entry doors for the first floor and upper floors. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The building, constructed in 1925, embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Modern Classical Style and reflects the environment in an era influenced by modernism and classicism, satisfying Criteria C and D.  The building is the work of the prolific architectural firm Heacock & Hokanson, whose designs significantly influenced the built environment of the greater Philadelphia region, satisfying Criterion E. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the property at 1923 Chestnut St satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 48 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 1923 CHESTNUT ST MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, and E MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 ADDRESS: 6500-90 OLD YORK RD Name of Resource: The Carmelite Monastery Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Carmelite Convent of Philadelphia Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the chapel building located on the property at 6500-90 Old York Road as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Under Criteria D and F, the nominator argues that the chapel of the Carmelite Monastery is a highly unique embodiment of the Lombard Romanesque style that

the chapel building located on the property at 6500-90 Old York Road as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Under Criteria D and F, the nominator argues that the chapel of the Carmelite Monastery is a highly unique embodiment of the Lombard Romanesque style that is enhanced by the architectural sculpture adorning the structure. Under Criterion E, the nominator argues that the chapel is significant owing to its association with Charles D. Maginnis of Magginis & Walsh, an important architect whose use of architectural sculpture set his career apart from his peers. Finally, under Criterion H, the nominator argues that the chapel has been “a beloved sight in Olney, a visual of solace and peacefulness” since before the commercial and residential development seen today. The nomination only proposes the designation of the chapel. The nomination neither documents the other structures on the property including those attached to the chapel and the imposing perimeter wall nor suggests that those structures have historical significance or should be classified as contributing to the significance of the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the chapel at the property at 6500-90 Old York Road satisfies Criteria for Designation D, E, F and H and suggests that the Historical Commission and Committee on Historic Designation PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 49 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES make determinations regarding the potential significance of the other structures and appurtenances at the site. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 6500-90 Old York Road satisfies Criteria for Designation D, E, and H, and that the boundary be defined as extending along 66th Avenue, Old York Road, 65th Avenue, and N. 15th Street to include the wall, the entire chapel, and all buildings and landscapes within the walled complex. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 05:05:06 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Celeste Morello represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. DISCUSSION:  Ms. Morello stated that she had spoken to Mother Pia, the treasurer for the property owner, the Carmelite Convent of Philadelphia. Ms. Morello said that Mother Pia supported including the entire property in the nomination.  Ms. Cooperman observed that, because members of the convent maintain extremely limited interactions

 Ms. Morello stated that she had spoken to Mother Pia, the treasurer for the property owner, the Carmelite Convent of Philadelphia. Ms. Morello said that Mother Pia supported including the entire property in the nomination.  Ms. Cooperman observed that, because members of the convent maintain extremely limited interactions with the public, there was no way Mother Pia could attend the meeting.  Ms. Morello asked why the recommendation excluded Criterion F.  Ms. Cooperman explained that the Committee on Historic Designation members did not dispute the quality of the architectural sculpture on the building. However, it was not found to be innovative. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub of Save Our Sites supported the nomination.  Hal Schirmer commented on the inclusion of the entire property.  Jim Duffin supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The Carmelite Monastery campus is located at 6500-90 Old York Road.  The property is bounded by a stone wall highly visible from the public right-of-way.  The structure attached to the nominated chapel, the stone wall around the property and other landscape features all contribute to the significance of the site. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The Carmelite Monastery is a highly unique embodiment of the Lombard Romanesque style, satisfying Criterion D.  The site is associated with Charles D. Maginnis of Magginis & Walsh, an important architect whose use of architectural sculpture set his career apart from his peers, satisfying Criterion E.  The prominence of the campus makes it a landmark of the neighborhood, satisfying Criterion H. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 50 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 6500-90 Old York Road satisfies Criteria for Designation D, E, and H, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, with a designation boundary extending along 66th Avenue, Old York Road, 65th Avenue, and N. 15th Street and including the wall, chapel, and all buildings and landscapes within the walled complex. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 6500-90 OLD YORK RD MOTION: Designate Criteria D, E and H MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Hartner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner

complex. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 6500-90 OLD YORK RD MOTION: Designate Criteria D, E and H MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Hartner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 11 Commissioner Sanchez left the meeting. ADDRESS: 1517 W GIRARD AVE Name of Resource: Pyramid Club Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: ADIR Holdings LLC Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1517 W. Girard Avenue as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that the subject property was the home of the Pyramid Club from 1940-1965, and as such possesses “significant character, interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of Philadelphia’s black elite, and especially that community’s participation in and contribution to the city’s art world.” Under Criterion E, the nomination contends that the renovation done by celebrated architect William PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 51 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Lightfoot Price in 1901 is “historically significant insofar as it helps to further document his career and professional network.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1517 W. Girard Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A and E. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1517 W. Girard Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 05:18:28 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Paul Steinke represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Judith Robinson supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The subject property was the home of the Pyramid Club from 1940 to 1965.  The members and activities of the Pyramid Club made significant cultural, artistic contributions to Philadelphia and beyond. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The property’s association with the Pyramid Club contributes to the heritage and cultural characteristics of Philadelphia and beyond, satisfying Criteria A and J. ACTION:

to 1965.  The members and activities of the Pyramid Club made significant cultural, artistic contributions to Philadelphia and beyond. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The property’s association with the Pyramid Club contributes to the heritage and cultural characteristics of Philadelphia and beyond, satisfying Criteria A and J. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1517 W. Girard Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 52 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 1517 W GIRARD AVE MOTION: Designate, Criteria A and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Hartner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 9 3 3611-31 SPRING GARDEN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT Proposed Action: Designation Nominator: University City Historical Society Number of properties: 11 Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate a historic district comprised of 11 properties on the north side of the 3600 block of Spring Garden Street in the Mantua section of West Philadelphia. Ten of the properties are classified as contributing and one is identified as non- contributing. The nomination argues that the district satisfies Criteria for Designation D and E. Under Criterion D, the nomination contends that the district exemplifies the Flemish Renaissance Revival style of architecture. Under Criterion E, the nomination argues that Willis Hale-disciple Henry E. Flower designed the row of buildings. The nomination suggests that Flower is most known for his relationship with beer baron Frederick A. Poth and for his designs of several architecturally significant buildings on Viola Street and Parkside Avenue in the Parkside neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the proposed district satisfies Criteria for Designation D and E. However, the staff recommends removing the property at 3611 Spring Garden Street, which is a vacant lot on the boundary of the proposed district, from the district and changing the district’s name to the 3613-31 Spring Garden Street Historic District. Historic preservation best practices advise against including non- contributing properties on district boundaries, especially vacant lots.

property at 3611 Spring Garden Street, which is a vacant lot on the boundary of the proposed district, from the district and changing the district’s name to the 3613-31 Spring Garden Street Historic District. Historic preservation best practices advise against including non- contributing properties on district boundaries, especially vacant lots. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 53 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the 3611-31 Spring Garden Street Historic District satisfies Criteria for Designation D and E. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 05:24:30 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  George Poulin of the University City Historical Society represented the nomination.  Attorney Henry Clinton and property owner Yun Xia represented the property at 3611 Spring Garden Street, and spoke in opposition to the inclusion of the property in the historic district. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Hal Schirmer supported the nomination.  Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  This row, located between 36th and 37th Streets on Spring Garden Street, was designed by architect and Willis Hale-disciple Henry E. Flower and constructed in 1894 and 1895.  The property at 3611 Spring Garden Street is a vacant lot. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The district exemplifies the Flemish Renaissance Revival style of architecture, satisfying Criterion D.  The row is significant for its association with architect Henry E. Flower, satisfying Criterion E.  The property at 3611 Spring Garden Street warrants inclusion in the historic district even though it is a vacant lot on the boundary of the district. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the 3611-31 Spring Garden Street Historic District satisfies Criteria for Designation D and E, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 54 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 3611-31 SPRING GARDEN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT MOTION: Designate, Criteria D and E MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I)

OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 3611-31 SPRING GARDEN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT MOTION: Designate, Criteria D and E MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 9 3 Commissioners Edwards and Washington left the meeting. REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 27 JULY 2021, AND THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 JULY 2021 ADDRESS: 340 GATES ST Name of Resource: The Lamon House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Denise Lehmann Nominator: Ridge Park Civic Association Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 340 Gates Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the residence, constructed between 1906 and 1910, satisfies Criteria for Designation C and D. Under Criterion C, the nomination contends that the residence reflects the environment in an era characterized by the Second Empire style, specifically in northwest Philadelphia. Under Criterion D, the nomination argues that the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of a late vernacular Second Empire style. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff acknowledges that the building at 340 Gates Street is a Second Empire-style building but questions whether it is a sufficiently noteworthy example of the style to qualify for individual designation based on stylistic reasons alone. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 55 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 340 Gates Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 05:45:40 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Oscar Beisert represented the nomination.  Property owner Denise Lehmann, attorney Rachael Pritzker, and architect Scott Woodruff represented the property owner. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Beisert summarized the historic significance.  Ms. Lehmann agreed with the staff recommendation which questioned whether the building was a sufficiently noteworthy example of the Second Empire style to qualify for individual designation based on stylistic reasons alone. She stated that she would not be opposed to keeping the building and renovating it. She stated that it is in need of updating, especially on the interior. She stated that she is

noteworthy example of the Second Empire style to qualify for individual designation based on stylistic reasons alone. She stated that she would not be opposed to keeping the building and renovating it. She stated that it is in need of updating, especially on the interior. She stated that she is opposed to a historic designation of the property because it is not worthy of such a designation.  Mr. Woodruff presented on the reasons why the property does not merit individual designation. He explained that the building does not have enough of the typical Second Empire-style characteristics to qualify it for historic designation on stylistic reasons alone. He showed examples in the neighborhood of Second Empire-style buildings that do have most of the typical features and which are designated as historic.  Ms. Cooperman summarized the findings from the Committee on Historic Designation. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Teri Anger, a neighbor, supported the nomination.  Sandy Sorlien, a former neighbor, supported the nomination.  Mandy Doty, a neighbor, supported the nomination.  Tina Krovetz, a neighbor, supported the nomination.  Joseph Syrnick, a resident of Roxborough, supported the nomination.  Hal Schirmer commented that the property was for sale three years ago.  Steven Peitzman, resident of East Falls, supported the nomination.  Cheryl Feldman, a neighbor, supported the nomination.  Marlene Schleifer, president of Ridge Park Civic Association and nominator for the subject property, supported the nomination.  John Dever, a neighbor, supported the nomination.  Lori Salamida, a neighbor, supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The building was constructed between 1906 and 1910 on a highly visible corner lot in Roxborough. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 56 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES The Historical Commission concluded that:  The residence reflects the environment in an era characterized by the Second Empire style, specifically in northwest Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion C.  The building embodies distinguishing characteristics of a late Second Empire style, satisfying Criterion D.  The property exemplifies the cultural, economic, social, and historical heritage of the community, satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 340 Gates Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed

satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 340 Gates Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 340 GATES ST MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 8 4 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 57 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 340 GATES ST Proposal: Demolish building Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Denise Lehmann Applicant: Maurice Edwards, Demolition Man LLC History: 1910; Lamon House Individual Designation: Pending District Designation: None Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov BACKGROUND: The property at 340 Gates Street contains a c.1910 building on a large lot. A nomination to designate the property as historic was submitted to the Historical Commission, and the notice of the proposed designation was sent to the property owner on 3 June 2021. The property owner submitted a draft building permit application for the complete demolition of the building to eCLIPSE, L&I’s online permitting system, prior to the Historical Commission’s issuance of the notice letter. L&I had already issued a zoning permit for complete demolition more than one month before the notice was sent. Section 6.9.a.10 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations, the so-called “transition rule,” allows the Commission, its committees, and staff to consider development plans in place at the time of the issuance of the notice announcing the consideration of a designation, including but not limited to executed contracts, substantial design development, or other evidence of a material commitment to development in the review of applications. The review of the nomination by the advisory Committee on Historic Designation is scheduled for 21 July 2021, and by the Historical Commission on 13 August 2021. SCOPE OF WORK:  Demolish building STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Historical Commission Rules & Regulations Section 6.9.a.10: The Commission, its committees, and staff may consider development plans in place at the time of the issuance of the

WORK:  Demolish building STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Historical Commission Rules & Regulations Section 6.9.a.10: The Commission, its committees, and staff may consider development plans in place at the time of the issuance of the notice announcing the consideration of a designation including but not limited to executed contracts, substantial design development, or other evidence of a material commitment to development in the review of applications.  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 The proposed work will destroy the features, materials, and spaces of the property, but would only violate Standard 2 if the property is deemed historic. The Historical Commission has not yet determined whether the property is historic. If it is, its character must be retained and preserved to comply with Standard 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff offers no recommendation because the Historical Commission has not yet determined whether this property warrants designation or whether the development plans in place at the time of the notice warrant special consideration. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 2, which passed by a vote of 5 to 1. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 58 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 06:22:20 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Property owner Denise Lehmann represented the property. DISCUSSION:  Mr. McCoubrey commented that the Architectural Committee had the benefit of the recommendation of the Committee on Historic Designation, but the designation had not yet been reviewed by the Historical Commission at the time of the Committee’s review. He explained that the Architectural Committee only reviewed the application for demolition; not an application for new construction on the site.  Ms. Lehmann commented that, although she does not believe the property is worthy of historic designation, she is willing to keep the building, especially now that she knows how the neighbors feel about it. She stated that she will remodel the house and still intends to build two modest homes at the rear of the property.  Mr. Thomas suggested that Ms. Lehmann look into the feasibility of utilizing the 10- year

building, especially now that she knows how the neighbors feel about it. She stated that she will remodel the house and still intends to build two modest homes at the rear of the property.  Mr. Thomas suggested that Ms. Lehmann look into the feasibility of utilizing the 10- year tax abatement which will remain in place for historic buildings. He opined that new construction at the rear of the property could add to the neighborhood.  Ms. Lehmann withdrew the application for demolition. ADJOURNMENT START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 06:33:20 ACTION: At 3:51 p.m., Mr. Mattioni moved to adjourn. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. ITEM: Adjournment MOTION: Adjourn MOVED BY: Mattioni SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 7 5 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 13 AUGUST 2021 59 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES PLEASE NOTE:  Minutes of the Philadelphia Historical Commission 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.  Application materials and staff overviews are available on the Historical Commission’s website, www.phila.gov/historical.