Historical Commission — Feb 14, 2020

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 1 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES THE MINUTES OF THE 690TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION FRIDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 ROOM 18-029, 1515 ARCH STREET ROBERT THOMAS, CHAIR CALL TO ORDER START TIME IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:00:00 Mr. Thomas, the chair, called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. and announced the presence of a quorum. The following Commissioners joined him: Commissioner Present Absent Comment Robert Thomas, AIA, Chair X Emily Cooperman, Ph.D., Committee on Historic Designation Chair X Kelly Edwards, MUP X Steven Hartner (Department of Public Property) X *Departed 11:00am Labaron Lenard-Palmer (Dept. of Planning & Development) (X) *Arrived 9:07am Josh Lippert (Department of Licenses & Inspections) X *Departed 11:00am Melissa Long (Division of Housing & Community Development) X John Mattioni, Esq. X Dan McCoubrey, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Architectural Committee Chair X Jessica Sánchez, Esq. (City Council President) X H. Ahada Stanford, Ph.D. (Commerce Department) X Betty Turner, MA, Vice Chair X Kimberly Washington, Esq. X The following staff members were present: Jonathan E. Farnham, Ph.D., Executive Director Kim Chantry, Historic Preservation Planner II 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 The following persons were present: Nunzio Terra A. Robert Torres Joan Brown Jill Galpen PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 2 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Alex Carlson, Sowinski Sullivan Lawrence Gilbert, LG Architect Jami Chung, University of Pennsylvania Law School Max Masenda-Faglens, University of Pennsylvania Law School Ellen Heiman, University of Pennsylvania Law School Nancy Pontone, East Falls Historical Society Vern Anastasio Max Klemmer, Temple University Sara Pochedly, Toner Architects Leah Silverstein, Chestnut Hill Conservancy Corey Hull, JMT Janet Anderson Becca Lynch Judy Robinson, Continuum Architecture James Maransky, E-Built Aminali McNulty Nancy Dickson Dan Ratchford Kevin Rockey, Sowinski Sullivan David Ali, SEPTA Blair Sweeney Emily Horner, University of Pennsylvania Law School Steven Peitzman Kevin Rasmussen, Rasmussen/Su Walt Sommers Gingi Wingard Jason Wingard Stephanie Boggs David S. Traub, Save Our Sites Lori Salganicoff, Chestnut Hill Conservancy Nour Jafar, UPenn K. Black, Princeton D. Saglor, UPenn D. Seid, UPenn Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Yulanda Rodriguez, Toll Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society Allison Lau Chris Carickhoff, Studio C Architecture Steve Olszewski, Baker Street Partners Andrew Mulson, Baker Street Partners Matt Wysong,

Lori Salganicoff, Chestnut Hill Conservancy Nour Jafar, UPenn K. Black, Princeton D. Saglor, UPenn D. Seid, UPenn Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Yulanda Rodriguez, Toll Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society Allison Lau Chris Carickhoff, Studio C Architecture Steve Olszewski, Baker Street Partners Andrew Mulson, Baker Street Partners Matt Wysong, Philadelphia City Planning Commission PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 3 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADOPTION OF MINUTES, 689TH STATED MEETING, 10 JANUARY 2020 START TIME IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:01:15 DISCUSSION:  Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioners for any additions or corrections to the minutes of the preceding meeting, the 689th Stated Meeting, held 10 January 2020. PUBLIC COMMENT: None ACTION: Mr. Lippert moved to approve the minutes of the 689th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, held 10 January 2020. Mr. Mattioni seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: Adoption of Minutes, 689th Stated Meeting MOTION: Approval MOVED BY: Lippert SECONDED BY: Mattioni VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 11 2 CONTINUANCE REQUESTS ADDRESS: 2501-61 N 15TH ST Name of Resource: Thirteenth & Fifteenth Street Passenger Railway Company’s Depot, Car House, & Stable Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Tag CG Philadelphia LLC Nominator: Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 2501-61 N 15th Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former Thirteenth & Fifteenth Street Passenger Railway Company’s Depot, Car House, and Stable satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination contends that the Thirteenth & Fifteenth Street Passenger Railway Company is an early and significant example PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 4 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES of the evolution and development of passenger railway companies, and public transit in Philadelphia. The facility was expanded as public transit moved from horse cars, to cable cars, to motorized buses. Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the expansion of public transit was one reason for the residential development of this area of North Philadelphia, exemplifying the historical heritage of the community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the

transit moved from horse cars, to cable cars, to motorized buses. Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the expansion of public transit was one reason for the residential development of this area of North Philadelphia, exemplifying the historical heritage of the community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 2501-61 N 15th Street 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 2501-61 N. 15th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J, and that the property should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. ACTION: See below. ADDRESS: 807-11 BAINBRIDGE ST AND 620-24 S 8TH ST Name of Resource: Church of the Crucifixion and parish building Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: The Rectors of the Church of the Crucifixion Nominator: Scott Welden, Bella Vista Neighbors Association Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 807-11 Bainbridge Street and 620-24 S. 8th Street and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the Church of the Crucifixion and parish building satisfy Criteria for Designation A, E, and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that the buildings are associated with the life of a person significant in the past, Archdeacon Henry L. Phillips, who began his ministry in 1877 and turned the Church of the Crucifixion into a leader for social outreach programs for the surrounding black community. Under Criterion E, the nomination explains that the church and parish building are the work of Isaac Pursell, a prolific Philadelphia- based church architect whose work has significantly influenced the historical and architectural development of the City. Under Criterion J, the nomination argues that the Church of the Crucifixion exemplifies the cultural, economic, social, and historical heritage of the community, as an early provider of shelter and refuge for some of the city’s poorest black residents, who were able to benefit from the Church’s mission work. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 807-11 Bainbridge Street and 620-24 S. 8th Street satisfy Criteria for Designation A, E, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination

The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 807-11 Bainbridge Street and 620-24 S. 8th Street satisfy Criteria for Designation A, E, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination of 807-11 Bainbridge Street and 620-24 S. 8th Street and remand it to the March 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ACTION: See below. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 5 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 1513 WALNUT ST Name of Resource: The Stock Brokerage House of Hano, Wasserman & Company Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: The Business Known As 1513 Walnut LLC Nominator: Center City Residents’ Association Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, Allyson.mehley@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1513 Walnut Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Built in 1929, the former Stock Brokerage House of Hano, Wasserman & Company is a two-story, limestone-faced building that extends from Walnut Street to Moravian Street. Under Criterion D and E, the nomination contends that the subject building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Modern Classical Style as designed by noted Philadelphia architect Grant M. Simon. The nomination asserts that 1513 Walnut Street exemplifies the economic and social heritage of Jewish Americans working to enter the realm of Philadelphia finance in the first half of the twentieth century, satisfying Criterion J. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1513 Walnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D, E, and J. ACTION: See below. ADDRESS: 1801-03 N HOWARD ST Name of Resource: The Star Carpet Mills Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Joseph Laragione Nominator: Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller @phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1801-03 N. Howard Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former Star Carpet Mills complex satisfies Criteria for Designation G and J. Under Criterion G, the nomination argues that the complex was “part of and related to a distinctive industrial area and block which should be preserved for its ties to Philadelphia’s manufacturing history, exemplifying the economic heritage of Kensington and Philadelphia.” Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that Star Carpet Mills represents an important and intact surviving example of a

was “part of and related to a distinctive industrial area and block which should be preserved for its ties to Philadelphia’s manufacturing history, exemplifying the economic heritage of Kensington and Philadelphia.” Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that Star Carpet Mills represents an important and intact surviving example of a nineteenth-century industrial complex with an integrated dye house where ingrain carpets were manufactured, and contributes to the industrial history that defines the Kensington neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1801-03 N. Howard Street satisfies Criterion for Designation J, but not G. Criterion G is intended to facilitate the designation of groups of discrete buildings that together form an ensemble, like rowhouses around a city square; it is not intended to facilitate the designation of sites related to broader neighborhood themes like textiles in Kensington or banking in Center City. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1801-03 N. Howard Street satisfies Criterion for Designation J, and that the property should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 6 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: See below. ADDRESS: 1813-53 N HOWARD ST Name of Resource: Clifton Mills Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 1813 N HOWARD LLC Nominator: Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1813-53 N. Howard Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former Clifton Mills complex satisfies Criteria for Designation G and J. Under Criterion G, the nomination argues that the subject property is “part of and related to a distinctive industrial area and block which should be preserved for its ties to Philadelphia’s manufacturing history, exemplifying the economic heritage of Kensington and Philadelphia.” Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the subject property is part of “an exemplary surviving textile mill complex that rose in Kensington’s textile district during an important period of economic and technological advancement,” when small-to-medium sized manufacturers were requiring larger spaces to accommodate new machinery in the production of their goods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1813-53 N. Howard Street satisfies Criterion for Designation J, but

during an important period of economic and technological advancement,” when small-to-medium sized manufacturers were requiring larger spaces to accommodate new machinery in the production of their goods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1813-53 N. Howard Street satisfies Criterion for Designation J, but not G. Criterion G is intended to facilitate the designation of groups of discrete buildings that together form an ensemble, like rowhouses around a city square; it is not intended to facilitate the designation of sites related to broader neighborhood themes like textiles in Kensington or banking in Center City. ACTION: See below. CENTRAL MOUNT AIRY HISTORIC DISTRICT Proposed Action: Designation Nominator: Philadelphia City Planning Commission Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This proposed historic district, located along the 7100 and 7200 blocks of Germantown Avenue in Northwest Philadelphia, is comprised of 54 properties, largely constructed between 1885 and 1933. Five properties are classified as significant, 45 properties are considered contributing, and one property is classified as non-contributing. An additional two properties are already listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The proposed Central Mount Airy Historic District extends just past Nippon Street at the north and is bounded by Mount Pleasant Avenue at the south. The west boundary is defined by properties fronting Germantown Avenue, with one additional property on W. Durham Street. The east boundary is similarly bounded by properties fronting Germantown Avenue, with several additional properties on E. Mount Airy Avenue. The nomination argues that the Central Mount Airy Historic District evolved from an area sparsely populated by eighteenth- and nineteenth-century buildings to a dense commercial corridor by the early twentieth century, accelerated by wholesale commercial development in PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 7 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES the 1920s. The nomination contends that, owing to the scale and presence of those early twentieth-century buildings, their Art Deco style defines the district, with colonial buildings interspersed throughout. The nomination further argues that the buildings within the district have undergone little change since the corridor was modernized nearly 100 years ago. The Mt. Airy Business Improvement District, the organization that represents business and property owners in the area, has requested that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination to allow time for an analysis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the proposed district satisfies Criteria for

Mt. Airy Business Improvement District, the organization that represents business and property owners in the area, has requested that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination to allow time for an analysis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the proposed district satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. However, the staff recommends that some properties be further evaluated to determine whether they merit full jurisdiction by the Historical Commission. ACTION: See below. ADDRESS: 260 S 20TH ST Proposal: Demolish rear ell; construct three-story rear addition Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Su Bin Jiang and Bo Meng Lin Applicant: Chwen-Ping Wang, Sky Design History: 1860 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: The application proposes to demolish the rear wall of the main block and three-story rear ell and replace it with a three-story addition. The addition is proposed to cover the width of the property. Historic maps show that the 1860 building originally had a one-story rear wing (see Figure 1). The existing rear ell was added between 1860 and 1895 (see Figure 2). The Architectural Committee reviewed an earlier version of this application in August 2019 and Historical Commission in September 2019. The Historical Commission voted to deny the application, owing to its incompleteness. The Commission’s findings and conclusions were as follows: The Historical Commission found that:  The rear ell is not visible from any public right-of-way.  Historic rear ells can be character-defining features of buildings, even if not visible from the street.  The proposed scope includes removing the entire rear wall of the main block. It was noted by the Commission that the removal of the full rear wall of the building constitutes a demolition. Because of the lack of the detailed information in the application, the Commission could not determine if the proposed scope of work constituted an alteration or demolition.  The new addition will be wider than original ell and will cover entire rear of building and extend rear property line.  The application is not complete. The drawings and photographs do not communicate fully what currently exists, current conditions, what is being removed, and what the new construction would look like. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 8 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The application requires additional information to fully

is not complete. The drawings and photographs do not communicate fully what currently exists, current conditions, what is being removed, and what the new construction would look like. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 8 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The application requires additional information to fully evaluate the proposed scope of work. Existing condition drawings (elevations and plans) and existing condition photographs should be submitted for review. The Commission must be able to understand what currently exists on the rear ell including information such as window and door openings and overall condition. More fully developed drawings of the new addition should be submitted as well. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The application does not provide enough information to fully assess whether the proposed scope of work does or does not comply with the Standards.  The staff should visit the site and document the rear of the building.  The application should be revised to provide explicitly the current state of the rear of the building and the proposal for it. The staff visited the property on 2 October 2019 and verified that rear of property is not visible from the street. The staff observed that the rear ell has been altered several times including the construction of a one-story addition and changes to window openings. During a walk-through of the interior space, the rear ell exhibited sloping floorboards and other signs that the ell has shifted owing to an insufficient foundation. The staff concluded that the rear ell has little or no historic value and is not visible in any way from the right-of-way. To address the concerns of the Architectural Committee and Historical Commission raised during the earlier review, the applicant has submitted additional drawings, photographs, and an assessment letter from a structural engineer. SCOPE OF WORK  Demolish the existing three-story rear ell.  Demolish the rear wall of main block.  Construct a three-story addition with arear roof deck on second floor and arear balcony on third floor. The addition will cover the full width of rear property and will have crawlspace rather than a full basement.  Clad the rear wall with brick.  Renovate the interior within main block. No work is proposed to the front facade. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 2: The

crawlspace rather than a full basement.  Clad the rear wall with brick.  Renovate the interior within main block. No work is proposed to the front facade. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: 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 alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. o Although the demolition of the rear ell will result in the removal of materials and the alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships, none of this area is visible from the public-right of way. Only the front facade facing S. 20th Street is visible from the public right-of-way and no changes are proposed for the front façade. Although the general form of the late nineteenth-century ell still exists, it has been altered many times. Moreover, the rear ell appears to have been poorly constructed and is in poor condition. Also, the adjacent building no longer has an ell and was built out to the property line at an earlier date. Although historic fabric will be removed, the building’s visible historic character will not change to pedestrians walking through the Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 9 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 historic rear ell is shifting and is structurally compromising the overall building due to the lack of a foundation and a crack in the rear wall. The addition will be the same height as the historic ell and the rear wall will be clad in brick. The adjacent property is already built out to the property line and the proposed new addition will cover the full width of the rear property and be built against this party wall (Figure 5). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, owing to a lack of information. START TIME IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:01:49 PRESENTERS:

the rear property and be built against this party wall (Figure 5). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, owing to a lack of information. START TIME IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:01:49 PRESENTERS: Mr. Thomas read the list of continuance requests and asked if any Commissioners or members of the audience wished to comment. No one offered comments.. DISCUSSION: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to continue the reviews of the following nominations and applications as follows:  2501-61 N. 15th Street to the March 2020 meeting of the Historical Commission;  807-11 Bainbridge Street and 620-24 S. 8th Street to the March 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation;  1513 Walnut Street to the February 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation;  1801-03 N. Howard Street to the April 2020 meeting of the Historical Commission;  1813-53 N. Howard Street to the February 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation;  Central Mount Airy Historic District to the April 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation; and  260 S. 20th Street to the March 2020 meeting of the Historical Commission. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Mattioni recused, owing to his firm’s involvement in the 1801-03 N. Howard Street matter. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 10 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: Continuance of reviews MOTION: Approval MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Hartner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 11 1 1 THE REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 28 JANUARY 2020 Dan McCoubrey, Chair CONSENT AGENDA START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:04:10 DISCUSSION:  Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioners for comments on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to adopt the recommendations of the Architectural Committee for the applications for 6605 and 6607 Ridge Avenue, 338 Spruce Street, 613 Pine Street, and 2038 Wolf Street. Ms. Turner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 11 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Adopt the Consent

Architectural Committee for the applications for 6605 and 6607 Ridge Avenue, 338 Spruce Street, 613 Pine Street, and 2038 Wolf Street. Ms. Turner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 11 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Adopt the Consent Agenda MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Turner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 12 1 AGENDA ADDRESS: 1600S S BROAD ST Proposal: Construct elevator and enclosure at Tasker-Morris subway entrance Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: SEPTA Applicant: Bradford Hull, Johnson Mirmiran & Thompson History: 1938; Broad Street Subway Entrance, Tasker-Morris Station Individual Designation: None District Designation: Cast-Iron Subway Entrances Historic District, Contributing, 3/8/2019 Staff Contact: Megan Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Historical Commission designated the Cast Iron Subway Entrances Thematic Historic District, which includes historic entrances, ranging in date from 1928 to 1955, located along several subway and trolley lines throughout the city. As part of that designation, the Historical Commission maintains jurisdiction over the cast iron railings, granite curbs, and any historic auxiliary components, such as lamp standards, signage, and integral and free-standing light fixtures. The Historical Commission does not exercise jurisdiction over the steps, handrails, walls below the curbs, or any underground features. This application proposes to reconfigure the subway entrance on the northeast corner of Broad and Morris Streets at the Tasker-Morris Station, located along the Broad Street Line. The entrance was created in 1938 as part of the Snyder Avenue Extension. Three of the station’s entrances retain historic railings and curbs, and one entrance features modern replacement railings. This application proposes to move and reinstall the cast iron railings from the narrow historic entrance at the northeast corner of S. Broad and Morris Streets to allow for ADA accessibility and to increase station safety. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 12 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES SCOPE OF WORK:  Reconfigure the subway entrance. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work

RESOURCES SCOPE OF WORK:  Reconfigure the subway entrance. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o The application proposes to retain and reuse the cast iron railings from the northeast corner of S. Broad and Morris Streets. The historic cast iron guardrail will be reinstalled upon a granite-clad concrete curb that is part of the new stair headhouse. o The applicant has indicated that it is not feasible to salvage and reinstall the existing granite curb from the subject entrance. The staff recommends that any new granite to be used at the new stair and elevator match the historic granite as closely as possible. o The staff recommends that the applicant remove and safely store any historic fabric that cannot be used in the new entrance, including the posts shown in Figure 4.  Accessibility Guideline: Recommended: Providing barrier-free access that promotes independence for the disabled person to the highest degree practicable, while preserving significant historic features. o Staff considers the retention and reuse of the historic cast-iron guardrails as proposed to be compliant with this guideline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the newel-post element currently abutting the building will be retained and stored, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9 and the Accessibility Guideline. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 9. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:08:05 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Kevin Rockey represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  Replicating historic panels does not comply with historic preservation standards.  The roof of the headhouse structure should be sloped to prevent people from climbing on it and debris from collecting on it. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 13 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The revised plans indicate that one of the columns supporting the roof structure has been deleted from the design, in response to comments from the Architectural Committee.

on it and debris from collecting on it. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 13 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The revised plans indicate that one of the columns supporting the roof structure has been deleted from the design, in response to comments from the Architectural Committee.  The revised plans show that the granite base for the historic railings was reduced in size to better replicate the original base in response to comments from the Architectural Committee. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The revised plans meet Standard 9 and the Accessibility Guideline. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to approve the application for 1600 S. Broad Street, provided the structural elements are designed to be as thin as possible, the panel at the north end of the structure does not replicate the historic panel, and the roof has a slope, pursuant to Standard 9 and the Accessibility Guideline. Mr. Mattioni seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 10 to 2. ITEM: 1600 S BROAD STREET MOTION: Approval, with conditions MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Mattioni VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 2 1 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 14 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 3625 MCMICHAEL ST Proposal: Construct new main entrance; install casement windows and patio doors Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: RTR Realty Associates LLC Applicant: A. Robert Torres, Studio Torres LTD History: Manor Sunday School Association Chapel Individual Designation: Under consideration District Designation: None Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: This modest building designed in the Arts & Crafts style was originally constructed in 1916, with contributing additions built in 1938 and 1946. Ssections of the building constructed later are considered to be non-contributing. To convert the building to two independent residences, the applicant is proposing to add a second entrance. A new entrance with a porch and double doors is proposed for the Midvale Avenue façade; it would replace three existing windows. The existing double-door entrance would be replaced with two new casement windows. On the McMichael Street façade, the existing main entrance would remain. New door openings are proposed for the secondary facades (see drawings ELE-3

double doors is proposed for the Midvale Avenue façade; it would replace three existing windows. The existing double-door entrance would be replaced with two new casement windows. On the McMichael Street façade, the existing main entrance would remain. New door openings are proposed for the secondary facades (see drawings ELE-3 and ELE-4). New casement windows are proposed throughout. This building is currently under consideration for designation. The Committee on Historic Designation recommended that the property be listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places at its meeting on 15 January 2020. The nomination will be reviewed by the Philadelphia Historical Commission at its 14 February 2020 meeting. SCOPE OF WORK  Construction of a new main entrance and porch for the new address at 3130 Midvale Avenue.  Installation of new patio doors facing the side yard for property on 3625 Midvale Avenue.  Installation of new casement windows throughout. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works 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. o The proposal retains the significant existing main entrance on the McMichael Street facade. o The introduction of the new entrance and porch on the Midvale Avenue façade does not require the removal of any significant or decorative architectural features. o Archival images document the use of casement windows at the subject property. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 15 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  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 The new entrance and porch on the Midvale Avenue façade appear to be designed in a way that their future removal would not compromise the essential form or integrity of the historic property.  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

that their future removal would not compromise the essential form or integrity of the historic property.  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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10 and Section 6.9.a.10 of the Rules & Regulations, in light of the extensive plans for the development of the property already in place at the time the Historical Commission notified the property owner of its intent to consider a designation. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided that:  the height of the door and window proposed on drawing ELE-3 is raised to match the height of the existing window opening;  the round window at the Midvale Street entrance is retained;  the option of relocating the patio doors from the second bay to the third bay is studied; and,  no mechanical equipment is visible from the public right-of-way;  pursuant to Standards 9 and 10 and Section 6.9.a.10 of the Rules & Regulations, in light of the extensive plans for the development of the property already in place at the time the Historical Commission notified the property owner of its intent to consider a designation. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:28:10 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect A. Robert Torres represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Co-nominators Nancy Pontone and Steven Peitzman expressed their concerns about the placement of the proposed patio doors. They urged that they be installed farther back on the building in order to retain the integrity of the original chapel space and to make them more inconspicuous from the public right-of-way. Some Commissioners supported the request to shift the patio doors back on the building; other objected, claiming that the relocation of the patio doors would result in a cluttered façade with the new doorway intersecting with a projecting portion of the building with a low eave and also would not work with the interior plan. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The two existing stained-glass windows should be retained. 

result in a cluttered façade with the new doorway intersecting with a projecting portion of the building with a low eave and also would not work with the interior plan. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The two existing stained-glass windows should be retained.  Raising the height of the new door and window on drawing ELE-3 to match the height of the existing window opening is appropriate. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 16 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Relocating the proposed patio doors to the third bay of the McMichael Street façade decreases the prominence of the alteration, making it less visible from the public right-of-way and more deferential to the building.  Preserving two adjacent bays gives a better sense of the original conditions of the McMichael Street elevation. The Historical Commission concluded that:  Pursuant to Standard 9, relocating the proposed patio doors retains two original adjacent bays which better conveys the original condition of the McMichael Street elevation.  Pursuant to Standard 10, the future removal of the proposed exterior alterations would not compromise the essential form or integrity of the historic property. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to approve the application, provided that the patio doors are relocated to the rear bay, and the window and door configuration shown on drawing ELE-3 are raised up to the level of the existing lintel, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10 and Section 6.9.a.10 of the Rules & Regulation. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 8 to 4. ITEM: 3625 McMICHAEL STREET MOTION: Approval with conditions MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Hartner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 8 4 1 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 17 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 25 S VAN PELT ST Proposal: Alter facades; construct fourth-floor addition Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: 25 Van Pelt Real Estate Advisors, LLC Applicant: Christopher Stromberg, S2 Design History: 1894; Evening Home and Library Association; Westray Ladd, architect (1894); Magaziner & Eberhard, architects (1939 addition); 1939 addition, Big Brothers Association Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 Staff

Requested: Final Approval Owner: 25 Van Pelt Real Estate Advisors, LLC Applicant: Christopher Stromberg, S2 Design History: 1894; Evening Home and Library Association; Westray Ladd, architect (1894); Magaziner & Eberhard, architects (1939 addition); 1939 addition, Big Brothers Association Individual Designation: None District Designation: Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District, Contributing, 2/8/1995 Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: Located between Ludlow and Chestnut Streets in the Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District, the property at 25 S. Van Pelt Street features two notable building campaigns: a Renaissance Revival portion to the south, designed by Westray Ladd and constructed in 1894; and a modern section, designed by Magaziner & Eberhard and constructed in 1939. The 1939 project entailed the rehabilitation of the entire complex, including exterior modifications to and partial demolition of the 1894 building, which was originally twice as wide, and the incorporation of the interiors of the old and new buildings. The 1939 addition included a large gymnasium, lecture rooms, basement workshops, and a caged-in roof court. The applicants include in their submission conceptual drawings by Magaziner and Eberhard from 1938 that would have demolished the 1894 building entirely and constructed a larger building; this concept was never realized, and the Athenaeum of Philadelphia also holds the original as-built drawings for the structure as it exists. The application proposes to make substantial alterations to the 1939 portion of the property to separate it from the 1894 portion of the building and convert it into three residential units. This application for final approval follows a previous in-concept application reviewed by the Architectural Committee in September 2019 and the Historical Commission in October 2019 to make substantial alterations to the fenestration of the Van Pelt Street elevation and to construct a rooftop addition. Substantial changes were made between the in-concept reviews, but the Historical Commission recommended denial of the in-concept application at its October 2019 meeting. No changes were made to the proposed façade alterations between the October 2019 application and the January 2020 Architectural Committee review. The fourth-floor addition, however, which was previously set in five feet from the front and rear parapet walls of the existing building, was pulled out so that it was flush with the existing facades and “floated” above the existing building with the use of small gap between the existing parapet and the addition. The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 2 and the Windows and

of the existing building, was pulled out so that it was flush with the existing facades and “floated” above the existing building with the use of small gap between the existing parapet and the addition. The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 2 and the Windows and Roofs Guidelines. Following the January 2020 Architectural Committee review, the applicants revised the proposal to reduce the number of garage openings from three to one, and to limit the amount of brick removed to install new windows and doors at the ground floor level and windows at the second- floor level. SCOPE OF WORK:  Cut down/enlarge existing window openings to create garage and pedestrian entrances  Remove existing brick to create new second-floor windows at front and rear  Construct fourth-floor addition with roof decks and pilot houses PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 18 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 2: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. o The application proposes to remove substantial portions of existing brick and significantly alter the materials and features that characterize the property. o The application does not comply with this standard.  Windows Guideline | Not Recommended: Changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows on primary or highly-visible elevations which will alter the historic character of the building; Cutting new openings on character-defining elevations or cutting new openings that damage or destroy significant features; Adding balconies at existing window openings or new window openings on primary or other highly-visible elevations where balconies never existed and, therefore, would be incompatible with the historic character of the building. o This application proposes to alter the number, location, and size of windows on the primary elevation of the building, to cut new window openings on the primary façade. o The staff suggests that it may be possible to cut minimal new openings to provide code-required egress, but does not recommend approval of the installation of garage entrances on the primary elevation. o The application does not comply with this guideline.  Roofs Guideline | Recommended: Designing rooftop additions, elevator or stair towers, decks or terraces, dormers, or

to cut minimal new openings to provide code-required egress, but does not recommend approval of the installation of garage entrances on the primary elevation. o The application does not comply with this guideline.  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 rooftop addition would be visible from the public right-of-way. o The application does not comply with this standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, pursuant to Standard 2 and the Windows and Roofs Guidelines. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 2 and the Windows and Roofs Guidelines. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:50:40 PRESENTERS:  Ms. DiPasquale presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Christopher Stromberg and developer William Vessal represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The application has been significantly revised to address many of the concerns expressed by the Architectural Committee. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 19 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Given the building’s special use historically as a gymnasium and the impact of that use on the exterior of the building, some flexibility must be allowed to make the building functional in a new, residential use.  The revised application limits the removal of historic masonry on the façade and maintains the large gymnasium windows that characterize the building and speak to its historic use.  The revised application eliminates recessed entries, maintaining the historic plane of the building’s main façade.  Sight line studies should be presented to the Historical Commission staff to determine whether the proposed six-foot setback is sufficient so that the rooftop addition is inconspicuous from Van Pelt Street, and particularly looking north at the building from the south along Van Pelt Street.  The addition will be visible looking south along Van Pelt Street owing to the adjacent parking lot, but this is likely to be a temporary condition, as the parking lot is likely to be developed in the future. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The revised application maintains the historic character of the property, satisfying Standard 2.

along Van Pelt Street owing to the adjacent parking lot, but this is likely to be a temporary condition, as the parking lot is likely to be developed in the future. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The revised application maintains the historic character of the property, satisfying Standard 2. ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to approve the revised application, with the staff to review details of the visibility of the rooftop addition, pursuant to Standard 2 and the Windows and Roofs Guidelines. Mr. Mattioni seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: 25 S VAN PELT STREET MOTION: Approval, with conditions MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Mattioni VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 12 1 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 20 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 6605 AND 6607 RIDGE AVE Proposal: Rehabilitate dwelling; construct multi-family buildings on subdivided lots Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: 6605 Ridge Realty LLC Applicant: Ian Toner, Toner Architects History: 1868 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Ridge Ave Roxborough Historic District, Contributing, 10/12/2018 Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: The buildings at 6605 and 6607 Ridge Avenue are three-story stone twin houses with historic two-story rear ells and non-historic one-story rear additions. Historically, the twin occupied the same parcel, which featured a frame stable at the rear. The land to the southeast of 6605 Ridge Avenue, at the corner of Gorgas Lane and Ridge Avenue, has never been developed. This application for final approval proposes to remove the one-story additions on the historic houses, constructed in 1940 (6605) and in the 1980s (6607), and to subdivide the properties and construct three multi-family buildings on the subdivided parcels. The new “Building 1,” which would be constructed to follow the angle of the corner of Ridge and Gorgas, would be set approximately 13 feet from the existing building at 6605 Ridge. The application does not specify a color palette for the masonry to be used on the building, but the staff suggests that a light, natural color would be appropriate for the district. This application for final approval follows an in-concept application reviewed by the Architectural Committee in May 2019 and the Historical Commission in June

a color palette for the masonry to be used on the building, but the staff suggests that a light, natural color would be appropriate for the district. This application for final approval follows an in-concept application reviewed by the Architectural Committee in May 2019 and the Historical Commission in June 2019. At that time, the Commission recommended approval in-concept, but requested that the corner new construction Building 1 be simplified, and that the vinyl siding proposed for the new construction along Gorgas Lane be replaced with a more appropriate material. This application responds to those requests. The application also calls for the renovation of the existing buildings, but lacks details on door and window replacement, which could be reviewed and approved at the staff level. SCOPE OF WORK:  Demolish rear additions  Renovate existing buildings  Subdivide properties  Construct three, three-story multi-family buildings STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o The proposed exterior alterations and related new construction do not destroy historic materials that characterize the properties. The new work is differentiated from the old, and the materials are consistent with the historic district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 21 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval with the following provisions: solid buff brick is used; the brick returns past the front facades of all buildings and onto the rear façade of Building 1; the window configuration of Building 1 is simplified to double-hung windows and the sidelite by the front door eliminated, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 7620-22 RIDGE AVE Proposal: Rehabilitate building; construct addition at rear Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Baker Street Partners LLC Applicant: Drew Hohenwarter, Studio C Architecture LLC History: 1850; Deeper/larger footprint by 1940s Individual Designation: None District Designation: Ridge Ave Roxborough Historic District, Contributing, 10/12/2018 Staff Contact: Allyson.Mehley@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: This application proposes

AVE Proposal: Rehabilitate building; construct addition at rear Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Baker Street Partners LLC Applicant: Drew Hohenwarter, Studio C Architecture LLC History: 1850; Deeper/larger footprint by 1940s Individual Designation: None District Designation: Ridge Ave Roxborough Historic District, Contributing, 10/12/2018 Staff Contact: Allyson.Mehley@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: This application proposes to construct a three-story addition to an existing three-story historic building at 7620-22 Ridge Avenue. The property at 7620-22 Ridge Avenue has been consolidated with the property at 485 Minerva Street, which is not designated as historic. As part of the proposal, the rear additions of the main three-story masonry structure will be removed and the Minerva Street buildings will be demolished. Historically, the three-story masonry building at 7620-22 Ridge Avenue appears to have been constructed in sections. The first part was constructed circa 1850 and the second half was added on during the early twentieth century. The extension of the rear additions was added during the second half of the twentieth century. SCOPE OF WORK  Rehabilitate the three-story historic masonry building.  Demolish the rear additions of 7620-22 Ridge Avenue.  Demolish 485 Minerva Street buildings.  Construct new building to the rear of 4620-22 Ridge Avenue; new construction will be connected by a “hyphen” structure at the rear of the historic building. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: 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 alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. o The exterior of the historic building must be rehabilitated in a manner that respects and preserves the historic character of the property.  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. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 22 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES o The new construction should not be taller than the historic building. The proposal shows that exterior cladding materials intend to differentiate the new construction from the historic building.  Standard 10: New additions and adjacent construction or related new construction will be undertaken

PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES o The new construction should not be taller than the historic building. The proposal shows that exterior cladding materials intend to differentiate the new construction from the historic building.  Standard 10: New additions and adjacent construction or related new construction will be undertaken in 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 “hyphen” structure connecting the historic building to the new construction ensures that the buildings could be separated in the future if required. This allows for the essential form and integrity of the historic building to be preserved. The connection will be done at the rear of the historic building and will not be visible from the public-right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided that “hyphen” structure is lower than cornice of historic building, the height of new construction is not taller than historic building, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2, 9, and 10. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial as submitted, but approval with the suggested revisions, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2, 9, and 10. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:03:38 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Chris Carickhoff and developers Steve Olszewski and Andrew Mulson represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  Revised application addressed the comments of the Architectural Committee.  The revised front façade on Minerva Street, with the central wall gable, is more compatible with the neighboring buildings.  The applicant should consider incorporating more landscaping around the parking area to reflect the historic character of the Ridge Avenue Thematic Historic District. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The exterior of the historic building will be rehabilitated in a manner that respects and preserves the historic character of the property, satisfying Standard 2.  The new construction will not be taller than the historic building and the new stucco on the addition will be a gray color to differentiate new construction from the historic building, satisfying Standard 9.  The “hyphen” structure connecting the historic building to the new construction ensures that the buildings could be separated in the future if required. This allows for the essential form and integrity

the addition will be a gray color to differentiate new construction from the historic building, satisfying Standard 9.  The “hyphen” structure connecting the historic building to the new construction ensures that the buildings could be separated in the future if required. This allows for the essential form and integrity of the historic building to be preserved. The connection will be done at the rear of the historic building and will not be visible from the public-right-of-way, satisfying Standard 10. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 23 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to approve the revised design, with the gable-roof alternate, pursuant to Standards 2, 9, and 10. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: 7620-22 RIDGE AVE MOTION: Approval of revised application with alternate Minerva Street facade option MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Hartner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 12 1 ADDRESS: 338 SPRUCE ST Proposal: Demolish rear and side additions; construct rear and side additions Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: 338 Spruce LLC Applicant: Kevin Rasmussen, Rasmussen/Su History: 1790; Williams-Hopkinson House; façade restored 1960 Individual Designation: 6/26/1956, 4/30/1957 District Designation: Society Hill Historic District, Significant, 3/10/1999 Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: This application proposes to demolish two non-historic one-story side and rear additions, and construct a one-story addition at the side and a three-story addition at the rear. The existing one-story rear addition proposed for demolition was approved by the staff in 2017 and replaced a twentieth-century kitchen addition. The existing one-story side addition likely dates to c.1960, when approval was granted to demolish and rebuild all or part of extensions at the rear. The first-floor rear of this building is not visible from the public right-of-way owing to a one-story garage. The visible second and third floors of the proposed rear addition would be clad in painted lap siding and the roofline of the rear addition would hit the existing rear ell slightly below the roofline. No work is proposed to the front façade. SCOPE OF WORK  Demolish non-original side and rear additions.  Construct side and rear additions. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 24 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL

and the roofline of the rear addition would hit the existing rear ell slightly below the roofline. No work is proposed to the front façade. SCOPE OF WORK  Demolish non-original side and rear additions.  Construct side and rear additions. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 24 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works 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. o The removal of non-original additions and construction of new additions at the rear ell of 338 Spruce Street does not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The proposed rear addition is differentiated from the red brick of the rear ell and is compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 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. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 613 PINE ST Proposal: Construct addition above carport Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Igor Frayman Applicant: Lawrence Gilbert, Lawrence Gilbert Architect History: 1990; Stephen Varenhorst, architect Individual Designation: None District Designation: Society Hill Historic District, Contributing, 3/10/1999 Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: This application proposes to construct a two-story addition above an existing one-story carport at the rear of this property along Panama Street. The building at 613 Pine Street is identified as a c. 1980 structure and is classified as Contributing in the inventory of the Society Hill Historic District, owing to the involvement of the Redevelopment Authority in its construction. However, the 1980 structure was demolished and the building currently on the site was constructed in 1990 without the involvement of the RDA. The current building should not be classified as Contributing in the inventory because it was constructed after the Period of Significance of the district. The proposed addition would include brick cladding and wood windows to match the existing house facing

was constructed in 1990 without the involvement of the RDA. The current building should not be classified as Contributing in the inventory because it was constructed after the Period of Significance of the district. The proposed addition would include brick cladding and wood windows to match the existing house facing Pine Street. The existing overhead door at the carport would remain. SCOPE OF WORK  Construct two-story addition above existing carport at rear. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 25 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  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 works 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. o There are no historic materials, features, and spatial relationships to protect at this property. The height of the addition will be taller than most structures along this block, many of which are garages; however, the proposed structure would be located directly across the street from a large four-story school building. Therefore, the proposed structure would not adversely impact its environment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, pursuant to Standard 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the sill heights of the third-floor windows align on the Panama Street facade, and the roofing material is changed to standing seam metal, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 1432 DIAMOND ST Proposal: Rebuild demolished rear ell with addition Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Lopsonzski 1432 W Diamond Applicant: Shae Morong, Plato Studio Architect, LLC History: 1886; John M. Sharp, builder Individual Designation: None District Designation: Diamond Street Historic District, Contributing, 1/29/1986 Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: The building at 1432 Diamond Street comprises one half of a twin and is part of three identical twins on the south side of Diamond Street. The side and rear elevations are highly visible from N. 15th Street, owing to an adjacent vacant lot to the west where another twin historically stood. In June 2019, the staff of the Historical Commission approved a building permit for interior alterations. Work to

the south side of Diamond Street. The side and rear elevations are highly visible from N. 15th Street, owing to an adjacent vacant lot to the west where another twin historically stood. In June 2019, the staff of the Historical Commission approved a building permit for interior alterations. Work to the building began once the permit was issued in early July. During the interior work, part of the side façade of the rear ell collapsed. In August 2019, the Department of Licenses & Inspections (L&I) declared the building imminently dangerous and abated the dangerous condition by demolishing the rear ell. According to L&I, the building plans submitted in July 2019 were inaccurate and did not reflect the extent of the work actually being undertaken at the site. Specifically, the height of the basement was misrepresented in the plans, and the basement was then excavated to achieve the height shown. Excavation was not part of the permitted work. Additionally, one emergency egress was indicated in the plans, but two window wells were installed. L&I concluded that the collapse of the historic ell was caused by poor construction methods and work that exceeded the July 2019 permit. At this time, only a one- story portion of the ell’s rear wall remains standing. In December 2019, the Historical Commission denied an application to construct a rear ell with a 20-foot extension beyond the original rear ell. The Commission noted that an engineer should inspect the building for structural stability and that an engineer’s report should be submitted to the Historical Commission. It further recommended that the extant portion of the building be PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 26 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES stabilized, sealed, and weatherized within 30 days. On 15 January 2020, the staff approved a building permit application to temporarily seal the building. This application proposes to construct a three-story rear ell with a 12-foot addition beyond the original rear ell. SCOPE OF WORK: o Construct three-story brick addition in place of demolished rear ell. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the

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 Although the proposed three-story rear ell would be clad in brick to match the now-demolished structure, the new ell would include a 12-foot addition at the rear that would extend the building beyond its neighbors. The rear wall of the proposed ell would include a second-story bay, an extant feature of all other buildings in the row. However, the proposed bay does not replicate the detailing of the original bay. The application does not comply with this standard.  Section 14-1007(3): any person who alters or demolishes a building, structure, site, or object in violation of the provisions of this Chapter 14-1000 or in violation of any conditions or requirements specified in a building permit issued by the Historical Commission shall be required to restore the building, structure, site, or object involved to its appearance prior to the violation. o The historic preservation ordinance requires the restoration of the building to its appearance before the illegal work. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the application as proposed, but approval of the reconstruction of a rear ell that accurately replicates the appearance and dimensions of the historic ell, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial as proposed, but approval of the reconstruction of a rear ell that more accurately replicates the appearance and dimensions of the historic ell, including the second- story bay, and that the roofline of the rear ell be differentiated from that of the main block, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:17:12 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Plato Marinakos and Mark Goodheart represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 27 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The current application is revised from the December 2019 application to include a reconstruction of the rear bay and a shorter addition that extends 12

HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 27 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The current application is revised from the December 2019 application to include a reconstruction of the rear bay and a shorter addition that extends 12 rather than 20- feet beyond the original rear ell.  The Department of Licenses and Inspections concluded that poor construction methods and the construction of a non-permitted, below-grade penetration caused the partial collapse of the rear ell.  An accurate reconstruction of the historic rear ell could be approved by the staff; however, any deviation from the appearance of the historic ell would need to be referred to the Architectural Committee and Historical Commission for review. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The rear elevations of the row are remarkably intact, and an addition beyond the existing rears would be inconsistent. The work does not meet Standard 9.  Contractors working for the property owner in excess of the building permit caused the collapse of the original rear ell. That illegal work should not be used as a basis to construct a new, larger rear ell to gain additional square footage. The rear should be reconstructed to its historic form, pursuant to Section 14-1007(3). ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to deny the application, pursuant to Standard 9. Mr. Lippert seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: 1432 DIAMOND ST MOTION: Denial MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Lippert VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 12 1 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 28 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 2038 WOLF ST Proposal: Install 18 composite windows Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Joseph E. Czarnecki Applicant: Maggie McDevitt, Renewal by Andersen of Greater Philadelphia History: 1911; James H. and John T. Windrim, architects Individual Designation: None District Designation: Girard Estate Historic District, Contributing, 11/10/1999 Staff Contact: Randal Baron, randal.baron@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: This application proposes to install Andersen Fibrex windows on the front, side, and rear façade of this twin house in Girard Estate. The Architectural Committee reviewed a version of this proposal at its last meeting and recommended denial. Since that time the

11/10/1999 Staff Contact: Randal Baron, randal.baron@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: This application proposes to install Andersen Fibrex windows on the front, side, and rear façade of this twin house in Girard Estate. The Architectural Committee reviewed a version of this proposal at its last meeting and recommended denial. Since that time the applicant has removed a piece of metal panning to reveal the original wood frames. The application now includes drawings that show how the subframe of the Fibrex window would be installed in a new wood frame. Because of the design of the Fibrex window, about one inch of subframe would be exposed and visible. The drawings do not show the correct detail on the sill or brickmold to match the existing frame; however, the applicant has indicated that he is willing to adjust the brickmold detail. SCOPE OF WORK:  Install windows STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  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 windows do not match the historic windows in design or materials, but the deviation in design will be minimal and the change in materials should be imperceptible from the street. The windows currently have very wide non-historic panning on the frames, so any change will be a vast improvement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, pursuant to Standard 6. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the windows are six-over-six with simulated muntins that include interior and exterior grills as well as spacer bars and the frames match the existing with the subframes mostly hidden behind the wood frames, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 6. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 29 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 JANUARY 2020 Emily Cooperman, Chair ADDRESS: 7709 CHEROKEE ST; 540 W MORELAND AVE; 545 W MERMAID LN Name of Resource: Keewaydin Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Robin Sommers (7709 Cherokee St); Ganos LLC (540 W. Moreland Ave); Donald J. Ratchford and Nancy A. Dickson (545 W. Mermaid Ln) Nominator: Chestnut

JANUARY 2020 Emily Cooperman, Chair ADDRESS: 7709 CHEROKEE ST; 540 W MORELAND AVE; 545 W MERMAID LN Name of Resource: Keewaydin Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Robin Sommers (7709 Cherokee St); Ganos LLC (540 W. Moreland Ave); Donald J. Ratchford and Nancy A. Dickson (545 W. Mermaid Ln) Nominator: Chestnut Hill Conservancy Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 7709 Cherokee Street, 540 W. Moreland Avenue, and 545 W. Mermaid Lane and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The three properties historically comprised the main buildings of the Keewaydin estate. The nomination contends that the buildings satisfy Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination argues that Keewaydin stands as a characteristic example of the Dutch Colonial Revival style, which operated as a particular mode within the broader Colonial Revival movement. Under Criterion E, the nomination contends that the estate was designed by notable Philadelphia architect George T. Pearson. Under Criterion J, the nomination argues that the estate was constructed for Edward W. Clark Jr. and his wife Lydia Jane (Newhall) Clark, a distinguished Philadelphia family and fixture of Chestnut Hill society. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 7709 Cherokee Street, 540 W. Moreland Avenue, and 545 W. Mermaid Lane satisfy Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 7709 Cherokee Street, 540 W. Moreland Avenue, and 545 W. Mermaid Lane satisfy Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:32:26 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Lori Salganicoff of the Chestnut Hill Conservancy represented the nomination.  Walter Sommers represented the property owner of 7709 Cherokee Street; Don Ratchford and Nancy Dickson represented the property owner of 545 W. Mermaid Lane; and attorney Vern Anastasio represented the property owner of 540 W. Moreland Avenue. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Neighbor Jason Wingard supported the nomination and asked to preserve the architectural integrity of the buildings, as well as the sightlines. He added that the estate is a contiguous property with open space surrounding the three buildings. He contended that the estate is visible from all directions and reiterated that the visibility should

supported the nomination and asked to preserve the architectural integrity of the buildings, as well as the sightlines. He added that the estate is a contiguous property with open space surrounding the three buildings. He contended that the estate is visible from all directions and reiterated that the visibility should be protected.  Neighbor Joan Brown discussed living in Philadelphia and local transit. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 30 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The property at 540 W. Moreland Avenue could potentially be further developed, but the Historical Commission should maintain jurisdiction over any new construction on the site. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The three buildings that historically comprised the Keewaydin estate represent the Dutch Colonial Revival style, a particular mode of the popular Colonial Revival movement, satisfying Criteria C and D.  The three buildings were designed by notable Philadelphia architect George T. Pearson, satisfying Criterion E  The property was developed for Edward W. Clark, Jr. and Lydia Jane (Newhall) Clark, a prominent Philadelphia couple. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 7709 Cherokee Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J, and to designate it at as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Washington seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: 7709 CHEROKEE ST MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, E, and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Washington VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 12 1 ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 540 W. Moreland Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J, and to designate it at as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Turner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 31 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 540 W MORELAND AVE MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, E, and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Turner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD)

COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 31 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 540 W MORELAND AVE MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, E, and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Turner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 12 1 ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 545 W Mermaid Lane satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J, and to designate it at as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Turner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: 545 W MERMAID LN MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, E, and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Turner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 12 1 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 32 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 145 SUMAC ST Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Heather Baumgardner and Robert J Marcin Nominator: Philadelphia Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 145 Sumac Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The Historical Commission first considered the historic designation of 145 Sumac Street in 2015. At its 10 July 2015 meeting, the Commission tabled the review of the nomination at the request of the property owner and author of the nomination, to allow for both parties to come to an agreement on the redevelopment of the property. The property has remained under the Commission’s jurisdiction during this tabling period. During the tabling period, the property was rehabilitated. Since being tabled, the nomination has been updated by the Historical Commission’s staff. The nomination contends that the building, one half of a twin comprising 145 and 147 Sumac Street, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. Satisfying Criteria A and J, the nomination argues that the building has significant interest or value as part of the city’s development related to Manayunk textile mills and is associated with an important

of a twin comprising 145 and 147 Sumac Street, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. Satisfying Criteria A and J, the nomination argues that the building has significant interest or value as part of the city’s development related to Manayunk textile mills and is associated with an important individual, Manayunk mill owner James Z. Holt, son of Edward Holt, who was among the first Manayunk Mill owners. It was second-generation mill owners, like James Holt and Wilde mill owners, the brothers John and Thomas Wilde, who provided much of the impetus for Wissahickon’s development as the location for elegant park-side homes along the Wissahickon Creek. The building was among the first grand homes built in Wissahickon during this Victorian era period of development, and exemplifies the economic, social, and historical heritage of the community. Satisfying Criterion D, the nomination contends that the building reflects an extraordinary example of Eastlake Victorian styling, with trim ornaments, spindles and door carvings with geometric patterns and incised lines. It is only one of a few remaining examples in Wissahickon, a neighborhood developed when Queen Anne style was in vogue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 145 Sumac Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 145 Sumac Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J; that the period of significance should be amended to end at 1940. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:51:20 RECUSAL:  Leonard Reuter recused owing to his involvement with the property owners during the 2015 review of the nominations. PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Historical Commission. She noted that the property owner attended the Committee on Historic Designation meeting.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 33 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The period of significance should end at 1940, because owner James Holt died and Mary Holt moved out of the house that year. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The building has significant interest or value as part of the city’s development related to Manayunk textile mills and is associated with an important individual, Manayunk mill owner

1940, because owner James Holt died and Mary Holt moved out of the house that year. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The building has significant interest or value as part of the city’s development related to Manayunk textile mills and is associated with an important individual, Manayunk mill owner James Z. Holt, son of Edward Holt, who was among the first Manayunk Mill owners, satisfying Criterion A.  The building reflects an extraordinary example of Eastlake Victorian styling, satisfying Criterion D.  The building was among the first grand homes built in Wissahickon during this Victorian era period of development, and exemplifies the 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 145 Sumac Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, with an amended period of significance to end in 1940. Ms. Edwards seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: 145 SUMAC ST MOTION: Designate, Criteria A, D, J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Edwards VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 12 1 Commissioners Hartner and Lippert excused themselves from the meeting. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 34 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 5627-33 GERMANTOWN AVE Name of Resource: Rowell Department Store Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Philadelphia Suburban Development Corp. Nominator: Noah Yoder Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 5627-33 Germantown Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the building satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J. Under Criteria A and J, the nomination argues that the C. A. Rowell Department Store remained a commercial stalwart in Philadelphia for several decades, and that the store became the first black-owned department store in the country when Curtis Sisco purchased it in 1974. Under Criterion C, the nomination contends that the building’s Georgian Revival detailing reflects elements of Germantown’s Georgian architecture and that Modernism was introduced to emphasize the ground-story commercial space. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that

the first black-owned department store in the country when Curtis Sisco purchased it in 1974. Under Criterion C, the nomination contends that the building’s Georgian Revival detailing reflects elements of Germantown’s Georgian architecture and that Modernism was introduced to emphasize the ground-story commercial space. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5627-33 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J. The staff further recommends that the nomination be revised to clarify that the two-story 1923 bank building that stood at the corner of Germantown and Chelten Avenues was demolished, and that only the eight-story 1929 addition to that building was retained and reused. The remainder of the C. A. Rowell Department Store was constructed in 1949. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5627-33 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C, H and J, and that the property should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:54:45 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  No one represented the nomination or property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission concluded that:  The building’s Georgian Revival façade reflects both the original Georgian architecture of the Germantown neighborhood and the subsequent Colonial Revival architecture that flourished in the early twentieth century, satisfying Criterion C.  The building stands as an anchor and local landmark at the corner of Germantown and Chelten Avenues, satisfying Criterion H.  The C. A. Rowell Department Store served the Germantown community for several decades, satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5627-33 Germantown Ave satisfies Criteria for Designation C, H, and J, and to designate PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 35 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Edwards seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: 5627-33 GERMANTOWN AVE MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, H, J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Edwards VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X

GERMANTOWN AVE MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, H, J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Edwards VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 ADDRESS: 1809-11 N HOWARD ST Name of Resource: Clifton Mills Building Four Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Evergreen Brothers LP Nominator: Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1809-11 N. Howard Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former Clifton Mills Building Four satisfies Criteria for Designation G and J. Under Criterion G, the nomination argues that the subject property is “part of and related to a distinctive industrial area and block which should be preserved for its ties to Philadelphia’s manufacturing history, exemplifying the economic heritage of Kensington and Philadelphia.” Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the Clifton Mills Building Four is part of “an exemplary surviving textile mill complex that rose in Kensington’s textile district during an important period of economic and technological advancement,” when small-to-medium sized manufacturers were requiring larger spaces to accommodate new machinery in the production of their goods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1809-11 N. Howard Street satisfies Criterion for Designation J, but not G. Criterion G is intended to facilitate the designation of groups of discrete buildings that together form an ensemble, like rowhouses around a city square; it is not intended to facilitate the designation of sites related to broader neighborhood themes like textiles in Kensington or banking in Center City. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 36 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 1809-11 N. Howard Street satisfies Criterion for Designation J, but not G. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:59:00 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The subject

OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:59:00 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The subject property was constructed between 1852 and 1863 and then rebuilt in 1878. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The subject property is part of an exemplary surviving mill complex that rose in Kensington’s textile district during an important period of economic and technological advancement, satisfying Criterion J.  The nomination failed to satisfy Criterion G owning to the fact that the property is not part of a discrete, well-defined area. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1809-11 N. Howard Street satisfies Criterion for Designation J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. Lenard-Palmer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: 1809-11 N HOWARD ST MOTION: Designate, Criterion J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Lenard-Palmer VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 37 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 3625 MCMICHAEL ST Name of Resource: Manor Sunday School Association Chapel Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: RTR Realty Associates LLC Nominator: East Falls Historical Society Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 3625 McMichael Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former Manor Sunday School Association satisfies Criteria for Designation D, H and J. Under Criterion D, the nomination argues that the original chapel section of the site “represents the successful and harmonious application of Arts & Crafts design…to the traditional format of an early English country church.” Under Criterion H, the nomination states that despite a series of alterations dating into the 1940s, “the original chapel remains clearly visible for what it was” and is “easily seen from the ‘spine of East Falls’,” Midvale Avenue. Under Criterion J, the nomination documents the role the Manor Sunday School Association Chapel played

the nomination states that despite a series of alterations dating into the 1940s, “the original chapel remains clearly visible for what it was” and is “easily seen from the ‘spine of East Falls’,” Midvale Avenue. Under Criterion J, the nomination documents the role the Manor Sunday School Association Chapel played in turning what was marketed as a “bucolic suburb in the city” into a community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3625 McMichael Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D and J. The staff does not find that the nomination makes sufficient argument for Criterion H. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3625 McMichael Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:01:26 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Nancy Pontone and Steven Peitzman represented the nomination on behalf of the East Falls Historical Society.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub of Save Our Sites supported the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The subject property located at the corner of McMichael Street and Midvale Avenue was constructed between 1916-1946 in the Arts & Crafts style. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The building is a successful example of the Arts & Crafts style, satisfying Criterion D.  The Manor Sunday School Association Chapel played an important role in turning a speculative development into a community, satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Ms. Turner moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3625 McMichael Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. Mattioni seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 38 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 3625 MCMICHAEL STREET MOTION: Designate, Criteria D and J MOVED BY: Tuner SECONDED BY: Mattioni VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 ADDRESS: 5607-13 GERMANTOWN AVE Name of Resource: Woolworth’s Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner:

Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 ADDRESS: 5607-13 GERMANTOWN AVE Name of Resource: Woolworth’s Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 215 TD Group LLC Nominator: Matt Wysong, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, Allyson.mehley@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 5607-13 Germantown Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Built in 1938, the former F.W. Woolworth 5¢ and 10¢ store is a two-story commercial building clad in terra cotta and located in the Germantown neighborhood. Under Criteria A and J, the nomination contends that the subject property represents the development of the Central Germantown Business District and was one of the earliest Woolworth stores in Philadelphia, remaining in this location for more than 80 years. Under Criterion D, the nomination asserts that the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Art Deco style, which was popular among commercial buildings in this period and exemplary of the design standard of Woolworth’s as the company expanded and modernized. Under Criterion H, the nomination argues that with the building’s Art Deco style and colorful terra cotta cladding it is an established and familiar feature in this area of Germantown Avenue, satisfying Criterion H STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5607-13 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J but not Criterion H. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5607-13 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criterion for Designation A, D, H, and J, and that the property should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 39 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:04:37 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Matt Wysong of the staff of the City Planning Commission represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, spoke in favor of designation.  Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society of Philadelphia, spoke in favor of designation.  David Traub, Save Our Sites, spoke in favor of designation.

Planning Commission represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, spoke in favor of designation.  Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society of Philadelphia, spoke in favor of designation.  David Traub, Save Our Sites, spoke in favor of designation. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The nomination of 5607-13 Germantown Avenue is consistent with the goals of the 2035 Philadelphia citywide comprehensive plan. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The building represents the development of the Central Germantown Business District, satisfying Criterion A.  The building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Art Deco style, which was popular among commercial buildings in this period and exemplary of the design standard of Woolworth’s as the company expanded and modernized, satisfying Criterion D.  The building’s Art Deco style and colorful terra cotta cladding is an established and familiar feature in this area of Germantown Avenue, satisfying Criterion H  The building was one of the earliest Woolworth stores in Philadelphia, remaining in this location for more than 80 years, satisfying Criterion J. ACTION: Ms. Turner moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5607-13 Germantown Ave satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, H, and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Stanford seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 40 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 5607-13 GERMANTOWN AVENUE MOTION: Designate, Criteria A, D, H, J MOVED BY: Turner SECONDED BY: Stanford VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 THE REPORT OF BOTH COMMITTEES; RELATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS & NOMINATIONS ADDRESS: 147 SUMAC ST (DESIGNATION) Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Deborah Gribbin-Zameska and James Zameska Nominator: Philadelphia Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 147 Sumac Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The Historical Commission first considered the historic designation of 147 Sumac Street in 2015. At its 10 July 2015 meeting, the Commission tabled the review of the nomination. The property has

proposes to designate the property at 147 Sumac Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The Historical Commission first considered the historic designation of 147 Sumac Street in 2015. At its 10 July 2015 meeting, the Commission tabled the review of the nomination. The property has remained under the Commission’s jurisdiction during this tabling period. Since being tabled, the nomination has been updated by the Historical Commission’s staff. The nomination contends that the building, one half of a twin comprising 145 and 147 Sumac Street, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. Satisfying Criteria A and J, the nomination argues that the building is associated with the life of Maurice F. Wilhere, a Magistrate and prominent figure in the local Democratic Committee in Philadelphia, who lived in the home from 1892 until his death in 1908, and the property exemplifies the economic, social, and historical heritage of the community, as a speculative housing development directed at the wealthier class looking to live in the developing Wissahickon neighborhood. Satisfying Criterion D, the nomination contends that the building reflects an extraordinary example of Eastlake Victorian styling, with trim ornaments, spindles and door carvings with geometric patterns and incised lines. It is only one of a few remaining examples in Wissahickon, a neighborhood developed when Queen Anne style was in vogue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 147 Sumac Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 41 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 147 Sumac Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D and J and that the property should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places; that the period of significance should be amended to end at 1908; and that the Historical Commission consider modifying the boundaries of the designated property to include the building with a perimeter buffer that includes the remnant of the existing curb cut on Sumac Street as the extent of the side yard. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:14:10 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Developer James Maransky and architect Judy Robinson represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  John Saylor, graduate student

curb cut on Sumac Street as the extent of the side yard. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:14:10 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Developer James Maransky and architect Judy Robinson represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  John Saylor, graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania, asked if the 2015 nominations were in response to the development at 145 Sumac Street. o Mr. Farnham confirmed that the 2015 nominations were in response to the proposed development at 145 Sumac Street and were submitted by a member of the community on behalf of the community organization. He explained that the reason the nominations were tabled was because of a joint request by the developer and community representative to allow for both to reach an agreement regarding the development of 145 Sumac Street. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The Historical Commission typically designates by tax parcel, but it can limit its designation to a portion of a tax parcel.  There are several parking spaces proposed for the rear of the historic building that partially fall within the perimeter buffer, and all work within the perimeter buffer will require review by the Commission.  It is fair and equitable to this property owner to allow for similar development as that which was permitted at 145 Sumac Street. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The building reflects an extraordinary example of Eastlake Victorian styling, satisfying Criterion D.  The property exemplifies the economic, social, and historical heritage of the community, as a speculative housing development directed at the wealthier class looking to live in the developing Wissahickon neighborhood, satisfying Criterion J.  The dimensions of the proposed perimeter buffer are appropriate for this property. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the house and land within the perimeter buffer at 147 Sumac St satisfies Criteria for Designation D and J, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, with an amended period of significance to end at 1908, and with the modified boundary as shown on the schematic site plan dated 27 January 2020, prepared by Continuum Architecture & Design, Inc. Mr. Mattioni seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 42 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 147 SUMAC STREET

1908, and with the modified boundary as shown on the schematic site plan dated 27 January 2020, prepared by Continuum Architecture & Design, Inc. Mr. Mattioni seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 42 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 147 SUMAC STREET MOTION: Designate house with perimeter buffer, Criteria D and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Mattioni VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 ADDRESS: 147 SUMAC ST (APPLICATION REVIEW) Proposal: Rehabilitate building; construct 7 single-family dwellings Review Requested: Review In Concept Owner: Deborah Gribbin Applicant: Judy Robinson, Continuum Architecture History: 1884; Maurice Wilhere House Individual Designation: 1/1/3000 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Allyson.Mehley@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: This application proposes to rehabilitate the existing historic building (one half of a twin) at 147 Sumac Street and develop the remainder of the large site with new single-family homes. The new construction would include four new homes on Kalos Street and three new homes along Righter Street. The existing driveway will be used to access a parking area located at the rear of the buildings. An additional driveway to the parking area will be created and accessed from Righter Street. The property at 147 Sumac Street is currently going through the designation process. At the 15 January meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation, the Committee recommended designating the historic building and a buffer around it, but not the entire lot. The Committee recommended creating a buffer area around the historic building that includes the existing curb cut. As a result, the lot area outside the buffer would not be part of the historic designation. Although the application lists the rehabilitation of the historic building as part of the scope of work, no information about the rehabilitation is provided. That work should be reviewed under a separate permit application. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 43 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES SCOPE OF WORK  Rehabilitate the existing building.  Construct seven new single-family homes.  Create parking area with two access driveways. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 2:

PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES SCOPE OF WORK  Rehabilitate the existing building.  Construct seven new single-family homes.  Create parking area with two access driveways. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: 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 alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. o The exterior of the historic building must be rehabilitated in a manner that respects and preserves the historic character of the property.  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 land buffer created around the historic building as part of its designation to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places should allow for new construction on the existing lot that will not affect its historic character.  Standard 10: New additions and adjacent construction or related new construction will be undertaken in 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 land buffer around the historic building should be sufficient enough to allow for adjacent construction that will not alter the essential form and character of the property if the new construction is removed or altered in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided a land buffer is created around the historic building as part of the designation process; and a separate building permit application is submitted for rehabilitation of the historic building. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided a minimum 15-foot wide land buffer is established around the historic building on the two exposed sides; the retaining wall at the corner of Sumac and Righter Streets is no taller than 24 to 30 inches; the rear elevations on Kalos Street have a medium gray or beige color, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2, 9, and 10. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:25:50 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham and Ms. Mehley presented the application to the Historical Commission.

30 inches; the rear elevations on Kalos Street have a medium gray or beige color, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2, 9, and 10. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:25:50 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham and Ms. Mehley presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Developer James Maransky and architect Judith Robinson represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 44 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Owing to the 15-foot wide perimeter buffer adopted by the Commission during the designation vote for 147 Sumac Street, the review of this application should focus on historic building and the land within the designated buffer area only.  Owing to dramatic grade changes on the property, a retaining wall most likely will be required near the intersection of Sumac and Righter Streets. The grade change and possible retaining wall would be within the 15-foot land buffer around the historic house. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The exterior of the historic building will be rehabilitated in a manner that respects and preserves the historic character of the property, satisfying Standard 2.  The land buffer created around the historic building as part of its designation to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places will allow for new construction on the existing lot that will not affect its historic character, satisfying Standard 9.  The land buffer around the historic building should be sufficient enough to allow for adjacent construction that will not alter the essential form and character of the property if the new construction is removed or altered in the future, satisfying Standard 10. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to approve the application in concept, provided the grade change near the house is minimized, pursuant to Standards 2, 9, and 10. Mr. Mattioni seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: 147 SUMAC STREET MOTION: Approval in concept with provision MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Mattioni VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 45 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 704 SANSOM ST Name of Resource:

X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 45 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 704 SANSOM ST Name of Resource: Electrotype Foundry Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 704 Associates Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 704 Sansom Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination states that the Electrotype Foundry, which stands on the site, was designed by the architectural firm of Collins & Authenrieth for publisher Henry C. Lea, constructed in 1877, and altered in 1890 by the same firm. The nomination stipulates that the period of significance is 1877 to 1922. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, G, and J. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria A and J, owing to association with the Henry C. Lea & Co. publishing house. The nomination provides a history of the publishing house that is taken verbatim from the nomination for 706 Sansom Street, where the publisher was headquartered. Much of the history of the publisher proffered in the nomination predates the construction of the building in question. For example, the significant publication of the first American edition of Gray’s Anatomy dates to 1866, a decade before the building in question was constructed. The staff contends that significance of the building at 704 Sansom should not be predicated on the significance of a publishing house that was located on an adjacent property. Henry C. Lea was the developer and owner of the building in question, and he may be historically significant as a real estate developer, but the nomination makes no such case. The nomination claims that the Electrotype Foundry was “one of many commercial buildings developed by Lea in the second half of the nineteenth century,” but it offers no evidence of Lea’s significance as a developer beyond a list of street addresses where he may have constructed buildings. Lea was unquestionably significant as a publisher, but that significance does not flow unabated into his activities in other realms including real estate speculation. The nomination includes several attenuated claims that the businesses operating out of the Electrotype Foundry

a list of street addresses where he may have constructed buildings. Lea was unquestionably significant as a publisher, but that significance does not flow unabated into his activities in other realms including real estate speculation. The nomination includes several attenuated claims that the businesses operating out of the Electrotype Foundry were associated with Lea’s publishing empire, but again no proof is offered. The nomination states that “part of the printing process [of Gray’s Anatomy] may have also been contracted to” the firm, but no evidence is provided. It claims without documentation that “Lea no doubt contracted his electrotype work to the firm.” And it proffers the unsubstantiated claim that “it is very likely that the firm did a great deal of work for its landlord and neighbor, Henry C. Lea & Co.” The property may be historically significant under Criteria A and J, but the nomination does not make a cogent case for the satisfaction. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria C and D, owing to its architectural style, and Criterion E, owing to its association with the firm of Collins & Authenrieth. The nomination identifies a distinctive architectural style, albeit not by name, and successfully explains, albeit succinctly, how the style reflects an environment characterized by that style and how the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of that style. Regarding Criterion E, the nomination successfully demonstrates that Collins & Authenrieth was a firm that significantly influenced the development of the city. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criterion G, that it “is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area that should be preserved according to a historic, cultural, or architectural motif.” The nomination briefly and imprecisely describes the 700-block of Sansom Street, but if offers no evidence that the block in question is a “distinctive area” that should be preserved in a particular manner. The area cannot be described as a park or square. The brief discussion of Jewelers’ Row provided in this section of the nomination relates to a time PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 46 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES period after the end of the proposed period of significance. The fact that the property is located in a National Register historic district offers no evidence that the property satisfies Criterion G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (BEFORE DEMOLITION): For the reasons stated above, the staff recommends to the Committee

OF HISTORIC RESOURCES period after the end of the proposed period of significance. The fact that the property is located in a National Register historic district offers no evidence that the property satisfies Criterion G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (BEFORE DEMOLITION): For the reasons stated above, the staff recommends to the Committee on Historic Designation that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 704 Sansom Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E, but not A, J, and G. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION (BEFORE DEMOLITION): The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend to the Historical Commission that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 704 Sansom Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, G, and J. ACTION: See below. ADDRESS: 706 SANSOM ST Name of Resource: Henry C. Lea Publishing House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: RP Sansom Street LLC Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 706 Sansom Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination states that the Henry C. Lea Publishing House, which stands on the site, was designed by the architectural firm of Collins & Authenrieth for publisher Henry C. Lea and constructed in 1866. The nomination stipulates that the period of significance is 1866 to 1922. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, E, G, and J. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria A and J, owing to association with the Henry C. Lea and his publishing house. The nomination provides a history of the publishing house and of Lea’s construction of the headquarters building at 706 Sansom. The nomination demonstrates that Lea and his firm had “significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth, or nation” and that the property “is associated with the life of a person significant in the past,” Lea. The nomination also demonstrates that the publishing house “exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community.” On page 24, the nomination contends that Lea purchased the properties on both sides of the subject property “to expand his publishing firm,” in contradiction to the nomination for 704 Sansom Street, which contends that the building at 704 Sansom was owned by Lea but leased to an independent business. The

page 24, the nomination contends that Lea purchased the properties on both sides of the subject property “to expand his publishing firm,” in contradiction to the nomination for 704 Sansom Street, which contends that the building at 704 Sansom was owned by Lea but leased to an independent business. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criterion C, owing to its architectural style, and Criterion E, owing to its association with the firm of Collins & Authenrieth. The nomination identifies a distinctive architectural style, albeit not by name, and successfully explains, albeit succinctly, how the style reflects an environment characterized by that style. Regarding Criterion E, the nomination successfully demonstrates that Collins & Authenrieth was a firm that significantly influenced the development of the city. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criterion G, that it “is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area that should be preserved according to a historic, cultural, or architectural motif.” The nomination briefly and imprecisely describes the 700-block of Sansom Street, but if offers no evidence that the block in question is a “distinctive area” that PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 47 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES should be preserved in a particular manner. The area cannot be described as a park or square. The brief discussion of Jewelers’ Row provided in this section of the nomination relates to a time period after the end of the proposed period of significance. The fact that the property is located in a National Register historic district offers no evidence that the property satisfies Criterion G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (BEFORE DEMOLITION): For the reasons stated above, the staff recommends to the Committee on Historic Designation that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 706 Sansom Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, E, and J, but not G. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION (BEFORE DEMOLITION): The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend to the Historical Commission that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 706 Sansom Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, E, G, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:35:03 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the nominations for 704 and 706 Sansom Street to the Historical Commission.  Patrick Grossi of the Preservation Alliance represented the nominations. Mr. Grossi stated that his organization nominated the district to protect the entirety of Jewelers’ Row, not

OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:35:03 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the nominations for 704 and 706 Sansom Street to the Historical Commission.  Patrick Grossi of the Preservation Alliance represented the nominations. Mr. Grossi stated that his organization nominated the district to protect the entirety of Jewelers’ Row, not to stop the construction of the Toll Brothers tower.  Attorney Stephanie Boggs represented the property owner. She reminded the Historical Commission that the buildings at 704 and 706 Sansom Street were demolished legally, with permits. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society stated that the building that stood at 706 Sansom Street was the publishing house of Henry C. Lea, one of the most prominent medical publishers of the era. He stated that the Historical Commission should have designated these buildings even though they were going to be demolished as a “statement.” DISCUSSION:  Ms. Cooperman stated that she believes that the properties at 704 and 706 Sansom Street satisfied the cited Criteria for Designation prior to the demolitions. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The buildings at 704 and 706 Sansom Street were demolished legally, with demolition permits.  The nominations proposed designation based on the significance of the buildings that stood on the sites. The nominations did not suggest that the sites themselves had any significance. The Historical Commission concluded that:  With the demolitions of the buildings at 704 and 706 Sansom Street, the properties do not satisfy any of the Criteria for Designation. The buildings that stood on the properties, the sole basis for the nominations, were legally demolished and the lots are now vacant. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 48 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Mr. Mattioni moved to decline to designate the properties at 704 and 706 Sansom Street Ms. Sanchez seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: 704 and 706 SANSOM STREET MOTION: Decline to designate MOVED BY: Mattioni SECONDED BY: Sanchez VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 ADDRESS: 708 SANSOM ST Proposal: Construct 24-story mixed-use tower Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Toll Washington Square, LP Applicant: Brian McGillin, Hunter Roberts Construction

X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 ADDRESS: 708 SANSOM ST Proposal: Construct 24-story mixed-use tower Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Toll Washington Square, LP Applicant: Brian McGillin, Hunter Roberts Construction History: Vacant lot Individual Designation: None District Designation: Jewelers Row Historic District, 1/1/3000 Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 BACKGROUND: This application proposes to construct a 24-story mixed-use retail and residential tower at 708 Sansom Street, a newly created address. The property known as 708 Sansom Street is an assemblage of the lots at 702, 704, 706, and 710 Sansom Street and 128 S. 7th Street. The assemblage at 708 Sansom Street is located in the proposed Jewelers’ Row Historic District. The district nomination is pending before the Historical Commission and is scheduled to be reviewed by the Committee on Historic Designation in February and by the Historical Commission in March. Also, two individual nominations are pending before the Historical Commission for part of the assemblage, what was known as 704 and 706 Sansom Street. The Historical Commission tabled the individual nominations because the developer vested rights in demolition permits before the notices for the individual or district nominations were issued. The demolition permits were not subject to the Historical Commission’s review and, after some litigation regarding the validity of the permits, the developer legally demolished the buildings. The assemblage known as 708 Sansom Street is now vacant. In the cover letter accompanying PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 49 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES this application, the developer requests that the Historical Commission consider and reject the individual nominations because the buildings have been demolished at its February meeting. The Historical Commission is reviewing this application because the assemblage is within the boundary of the proposed Jewelers’ Row Historic District and because part of the site has been individually nominated for designation. Pursuant to Section 14-1005(6)(f) of the preservation ordinance, the Department of Licenses & Inspections is prohibited from issuing building permits for properties during the review of nominations proposing designation after the requisite property owner notice has been mailed, unless the Historical Commission has approved the building permit application or no final action has been taken on the nomination and 90 days has elapsed since the submission of the application. 14-1005(6)(f) Jurisdiction During Consideration of Designation.

of nominations proposing designation after the requisite property owner notice has been mailed, unless the Historical Commission has approved the building permit application or no final action has been taken on the nomination and 90 days has elapsed since the submission of the application. 14-1005(6)(f) Jurisdiction During Consideration of Designation. L&I shall not issue any building permit for the demolition, alteration, or construction of any building, structure, site, or object that is being considered by the Historical Commission for designation as historic or that is located within a district being considered by the Historical Commission for designation as historic where the building permit application is filed on or after the date that notices of proposed designation have been mailed, except that L&I may issue a building permit if the Historical Commission has approved the application or has not taken final action on designation and more than 90 days have elapsed from the date the permit application was filed with the Historical Commission. Where the Historical Commission takes final action on designation within the time allotted herein, any building permit application on file with L&I shall be deemed to have been filed after the date of the Historical Commission’s action for purposes of this Chapter 14-1000. The applicant has requested that the individual nominations should be considered and “formally denied” by the Historical Commission. The individual nominations for 704 and 706 Sansom Street claim that the historical and architectural values associated with the properties that qualify them for designation derive strictly from the buildings that stood on the properties. The nominations do not claim that “the location itself maintains historical, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure” (Definition of Site in 14-203(298)). Likewise, the nominations do not claim that 704 and 706 Sansom Street contain archaeological resources that would have survived the demolition below grade. Therefore, it appears that, in light of the complete demolition, the Historical Commission must reject the individual nominations because they suggest no basis for individually designating the properties without the buildings. With regard to the pending historic district nomination, it appears that the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction over the building permit application will be limited to non-binding comment. Section 14-1005(4) of the preservation ordinance states that “the Historical Commission’s scope of review of applications for building permits for construction, as defined herein, shall be limited to a 45-day period of comment.” Section

that the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction over the building permit application will be limited to non-binding comment. Section 14-1005(4) of the preservation ordinance states that “the Historical Commission’s scope of review of applications for building permits for construction, as defined herein, shall be limited to a 45-day period of comment.” Section 14-203(76) of the ordinance defines “construction” as “the erection of a new building, structure, or object upon an undeveloped site.” Section 2.23 of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations defines an “undeveloped site” as: a property within an historic district which is not individually designated, to which the inventory in the historic district nomination attributes no historical, cultural, or archaeological value, and upon which no building or structure stood at the time of the designation of the historic district. Non-historic foundations and other below-grade constructions; surface parking lots; non-historic parking kiosks and other kiosks, storage sheds, and other impermanent constructions without foundations; and non-historic walls, PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 50 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES fences, and gates shall not be construed as buildings or structures for the purposes of this definition. The site at 708 Sansom Street can be considered an “undeveloped site” and, therefore, the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction over the current application can be considered “limited to a 45-day period of comment.” The Historical Commission cannot approve or deny so-called review-and-comment applications but can offer non-binding comments on the application at its public meeting and that of its Architectural Committee. Once the Committee and Commission have commented on the application, the applicant’s obligations to the Historical Commission under the pending historic district nomination have been met and the Department of Licenses & Inspections may issue the building permit. The proposed building would be 24 stories in height with setbacks at the 5th, 16th, 22nd, and 24th- floor levels. The building would have frontage on Sansom Street as well as S. 7th Street. The main entrances to the residential lobby and retail space would be located on Sansom; the loading dock on 7th Street. The building would be primarily clad in an aluminum and glass curtain-wall system with some grey brick at the lower levels. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct 24-story tower. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic

curtain-wall system with some grey brick at the lower levels. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct 24-story tower. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o Most buildings in the proposed historic district are between three and six stories in height and are clad in masonry with punched window openings. The proposed building is differentiated from those around it but is not compatible with the buildings in the proposed district in massing, size, or scale. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the proposed tower does not satisfy Standard 9. The staff recommends that the Architectural Committee formulate a recommendation on the building permit application to the Historical Commission that serves both scenarios, comment and plenary jurisdiction, because the matter of the individual nominations will not be settled at the time of the Committee meeting. The staff recommends that the Historical Commission consider the individual nominations for 704 and 706 Sansom Street before considering the building permit application. The staff recommends that the Historical Commission reject the nominations because the properties no longer satisfy any of the Criteria for Designation cited in the nominations, owing to the legally undertaken, complete demolitions of the buildings. The staff recommends that the Historical Commission find that 708 Sansom Street qualifies as an “undeveloped site” and that its jurisdiction over the building permit application is “limited to a 45-day period of comment.” PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 51 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES The staff recommends that the Historical Commission comment that the proposed tower does not satisfy Standard 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the tower, but denial of the storefront section along Sansom Street, which should  better meet the sidewalk;  be respectful of the building at 700 Sansom Street; and,  maintain continuity across the façade with no setbacks. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:55:08 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Attorney Stephanie Boggs represented the application. DISCUSSION:  Mr. McCoubrey stated

be respectful of the building at 700 Sansom Street; and,  maintain continuity across the façade with no setbacks. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:55:08 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Attorney Stephanie Boggs represented the application. DISCUSSION:  Mr. McCoubrey stated that the Architectural Committee offered two primary comments. First, the new building should not be set back from the sidewalk at the property line with 700 Sansom Street because the setback exposes the party wall of the building at 700 Sansom, a condition that was not seen historical. Second, the curtain wall system used to clad the tower should not be used at the lower floors along Sansom Street. The lower floors should be differentiated from the tower.  Mr. Mattioni stated that the design of the proposed building at the street level is “harsh” and “disrespectful” of Jewelers’ Row. He stated that the architects of the building “have ignored history.” He asked the applicant to have the design revised to be more deferential to the context. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub of Save Our Sites offered some suggestions for the design. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The buildings at 702, 704, 706, and 710 Sansom Street and 128 S. 7th Street were legally demolished. The demolition permits were not subject to the Historical Commission’s review because they were submitted to the Department of Licenses & Inspections prior to the Historical Commission’s issuance of notice letters indicating that it would consider the designating the site individually or as part of a historic district. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The property at 708 Sansom Street is an undeveloped site in a proposed historic district, as defined in Section 2.23 of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations, and is therefore subject to review-and-comment jurisdiction only, pursuant to Section 14-1005(4) of the historic preservation ordinance.  The Historical Commission concluded that the non-binding comments offered during the discussion, which will be detailed in the minutes of its meeting of 14 February 2020, satisfy its obligation to comment on the application. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 52 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADJOURNMENT START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 03:03:22 ACTION: At 12:16 p.m., Mr. Mattioni moved to adjourn. Ms. Turner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: Adjournment MOTION: Adjourn MOVED BY:

comment on the application. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 FEBRUARY 2020 52 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADJOURNMENT START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 03:03:22 ACTION: At 12:16 p.m., Mr. Mattioni moved to adjourn. Ms. Turner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ITEM: Adjournment MOTION: Adjourn MOVED BY: Mattioni SECONDED BY: Turner VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Cooperman X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lenard-Palmer (DPD) X Lippert (L&I) X Long (DHCD) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Stanford (Commerce) X Turner, Vice Chair X Washington X Total 10 3 PLEASE NOTE:  Minutes of the Philadelphia Historical Commission are presented in action format. Additional information is available in the audio 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.