Committee on Historic Designation — May 20, 2020

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 1 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 20 MAY 2020, 9:30 A.M. REMOTE MEETING ON WEBEX EMILY COOPERMAN, CHAIR CALL TO ORDER START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 00:00:00 The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. The following Committee members joined her: Committee Member Present Absent Comment Emily Cooperman, Ph.D., chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen, Ph.D. X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy, Ph.D. X Douglas Mooney X * Owing to public health concerns surrounding the COVID-19 virus, all Committee members, staff, and public attendees participated in the meeting remotely via Cisco Webex video and audio conferencing software. The following staff members were present: Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Randal Baron, Historic Preservation Planner III Kim Chantry, Historic Preservation Planner II Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner II Shannon Garrison, Historic Preservation Planner I Meredith Keller, Historic Preservation Planner II Allyson Mehley, Historic Preservation Planner II Leonard Reuter, Esq., Law Department Megan Schmitt, Historic Preservation Planner II The following persons attended the online meeting: Alex Balloon David Gest, Esq., Ballard Spahr Ralph Marano Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance Paul Boni Susan Wetherill George Poulin Carl Primavera, Esq., Klehr Harrison Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance Ben Leech Franklin Berger Brandi Levine COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 2 Reed Slogoff, Pearl Properties Jennifer Robinson, Preservation Alliance Deena Gothelf John Manton Dan Rosin Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society Geoff DiMasi Marco Gorini J.M. Duffin Steven Peitzman Nancy Pontone Josh Nadel Gussie O’Neill, Esq., Klehr Harrison Scott Welden Matthew McClure, Esq., Ballard Spahr Kelly Wiles Kevin Block Jay Farrell Eugene Desyatnik Celeste Morello COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 3 CONTINUANCE REQUESTS ADDRESS: 156 W SCHOOL HOUSE LN Name of Resource: Boxwood Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Teen Challenge Training Center Inc. Nominator: Penn Knox Neighborhood Association Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 156 W. School House Lane and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the building satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination argues that Boxwood reflects the Colonial Revival style of architecture as applied to upper-class suburban residences in late nineteenth-century Philadelphia. The nomination further argues that the “cottage-stable” at the rear of the property represents Gothic

satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination argues that Boxwood reflects the Colonial Revival style of architecture as applied to upper-class suburban residences in late nineteenth-century Philadelphia. The nomination further argues that the “cottage-stable” at the rear of the property represents Gothic Revival cottage motifs popularized by Andrew Jackson Downing in the late 1840s and early 1850s.Under Criterion D, the nomination asserts that Boxwood was designed by Mantle Fielding, a prolific and significant architect who influenced the built environment in Northwest Philadelphia at the turn of the twentieth century. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 156 W. School House Lane satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E. However, the staff asserts that the so-called “cottage-stable” at the rear of the property does not reflect the Gothic Revival style and, therefore, does not satisfy Criteria C and D as presented in the nomination. While the building has a cross gable, a typical feature of the Gothic Revival, it does not have any other features characteristic of the style. The building may have served as a barn, potentially for an earlier residence predating Boxwood, and was later updated with a cross gable. The staff recommends that the so-called “cottage-stable” contributes to the site’s historical significance but does not exhibit sufficient character-defining features to be considered reflective of or exemplary of the Gothic Revival style. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 00:06:15 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the continuance request to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Attorney Matthew McClure represented the property owner.  Oscar Beisert represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Mr. McClure stated that he represents the owner, the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf, a leading institution in deaf education. He noted that the school’s campus abuts 156 W. School House Lane and that the school purchased the property in July 2019. He commented that the school is undergoing a substantial master planning exercise, adding that it has a long record of historic stewardship. He stated that the continuance request results from a delay in master planning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic, he added, has also changed the schools plans, and it is reconsidering how it educates deaf children. He noted that the six-month continuance will allow the school to evaluate the nominated property and determine whether it supports designation or seek a compromise

planning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic, he added, has also changed the schools plans, and it is reconsidering how it educates deaf children. He noted that the six-month continuance will allow the school to evaluate the nominated property and determine whether it supports designation or seek a compromise solution with the community. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 4 He acknowledged that the property would remain under the jurisdiction of the Historical Commission during the continuance period.  Mr. Cohen asked whether anyone has ever requested a continuance for such a long period. o Ms. Cooperman answered that the Committee has had continuance requests of this length and noted the unusual circumstances of the pandemic. o Ms. Barucco noted that it was a lengthy continuance, but countered that the reason is justified in order to undertake a master plan. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Brandi Levine, chair of the Penn Knox Neighborhood Association, stated that the association supports the continuance. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  It typically supports continuance requests proffered by property owners.  The property would remain under the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction during the continuance period. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination of 156 W. School House Lane and remand it to the December 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ITEM: 156 W SCHOOL HOUSE LN MOTION: Continue and remand to December 2020 CHD meeting MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Milroy VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 1617 WALNUT ST Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Rosenberg Family Partners Nominator: Staff of the Historical Commission Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1617 Walnut Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the building satisfies Criterion for Designation D. Under Criterion D, the nomination argues that the Seeburger & Rabenold-designed building conveys the aesthetics of the Italian Renaissance Revival style through its classical temple form, verticality, and classical detailing. While the COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 5 ground-story commercial space has been

Designation D. Under Criterion D, the nomination argues that the Seeburger & Rabenold-designed building conveys the aesthetics of the Italian Renaissance Revival style through its classical temple form, verticality, and classical detailing. While the COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 5 ground-story commercial space has been altered several times, most recently in 2011, the modifications have remained sensitive to the building’s original detailing and classical style. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1617 Walnut Street satisfies Criterion for Designation D. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 00:14:28 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the continuance request to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  It typically supports continuance requests proffered by property owners.  The property would remain under the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction during the continuance period. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination of 1617 Walnut Street and remand it to the August 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ITEM: 1617 WALNUT ST MOTION: Continue and remand to August 2020 CHD meeting MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Mooney VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 6 ADDRESS: 3414 HAVERFORD AVE Name of Resource: Frame Twin Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: LINA Holdings LLC Nominator: University City Historical Society Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 3414 Haverford Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the building satisfies Criterion for Designation J, in part because it is representative of “the historical heritage of the neighborhood’s initial period of development, as well as the economic and social history” of the community’s founders. The nomination also contends that “the subject property is representative of the early development of the Mantua neighborhood, as well as a once common house type that has largely vanished from the built environment of West Philadelphia.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at

The nomination also contends that “the subject property is representative of the early development of the Mantua neighborhood, as well as a once common house type that has largely vanished from the built environment of West Philadelphia.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3414 Haverford Avenue satisfies Criterion for Designation J. The staff, however, recommends against naming the resource for its associated developer, Julia A.A. Blodget Britton. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 00:14:28 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the continuance request to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner.  George Poulin represented the nominator and commented that the University City Historical Society did not object to the continuance request. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  It typically supports continuance requests proffered by property owners.  The property would remain under the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction during the continuance period. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination of 3414 Haverford Avenue and remand it to the August 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 7 ITEM: 3414 HAVERFORD AVE MOTION: Continue and remand to August 2020 CHD meeting MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Mooney VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 3412 HAVERFORD AVE Name of Resource: Frame Twin Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Mary E. Drummond Nominator: University City Historical Society Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 3412 Haverford Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the building satisfies Criterion for Designation J, in part because it is representative of “the historical heritage of the neighborhood’s initial period of development, as well as the economic and social history” of the community’s founders. The nomination also contends that “the subject property is representative of the early development of the Mantua neighborhood, as well as a once common house type that has largely vanished from the built environment of West Philadelphia.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates

of the community’s founders. The nomination also contends that “the subject property is representative of the early development of the Mantua neighborhood, as well as a once common house type that has largely vanished from the built environment of West Philadelphia.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3412 Haverford Avenue satisfies Criterion for Designation J. The staff, however, recommends against naming the resource for its associated developer, Julia A.A. Blodget Britton. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 00:14:28 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the continuance request to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner.  George Poulin represented the nominator and commented that the University City Historical Society did not object to the continuance request. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  It typically supports continuance requests proffered by property owners. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 8  The property would remain under the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction during the continuance period. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination of 3412 Haverford Avenue and remand it to the August 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ITEM: 3412 HAVERFORD AVE MOTION: Continue and remand to August 2020 CHD meeting MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Mooney VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 40-42 S 2ND ST  Name of Resource: Vacant Lot  Proposed Action: Rescind Individual Designation  Property Owner: Posel Enterprises  Nominator: Matt McClure, Esq., Ballard Spahr  Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov, 215-686-7660    OVERVIEW: This application requests the rescission of the individual designation of the property at 40-42 S. 2nd Street. The property was individually designated on 7 October 1976. At the time, a four-story, commercial building stood on the site. The building was constructed in 1891 for H.O. Atwood, the proprietor of Atwood’s Furniture. The Department of Licenses & Inspections declared the building imminently dangerous in 1987 and the Historical Commission approved its demolition on 30 April 1987. The building was subsequently demolished. The property has been used as a surface parking ever since. The property was included in the Old City Historic District,

The Department of Licenses & Inspections declared the building imminently dangerous in 1987 and the Historical Commission approved its demolition on 30 April 1987. The building was subsequently demolished. The property has been used as a surface parking ever since. The property was included in the Old City Historic District, which was designated on 12 December 2003, with a classification of non-contributing. The Old City Historic District inventory does not indicate that the property has any historical, architectural, or archaeological significance. Section 5.14.b.1 of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations authorizes the Commission to remove entries from the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places when the qualities that caused the original entry on the Register have been lost or destroyed. In this case, the building was designated for its architectural qualities, which were lost when the building was legally demolished. There is no longer a basis for the individual designation. It is what the Commission calls a “phantom designation.” The Commission routinely removes phantom designations. Rescinding the individual designation will have no impact on subsequent regulation of the property, which will be treated as an “undeveloped site” with or without the phantom designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 9   STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Historical Commission rescind the individual designation of 40-42 S. 2nd Street and remove its entry from the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, pursuant to Section 5.14.b.1 of the Commission’s Rules & Regulations, because the qualities that caused its original entry have been destroyed. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 00:21:22 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the rescission request to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Attorney Matthew McClure represented the property owner. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Farnham stated that the property was individually designated because of the architectural characteristics of the historic building that stood on the site. That building was legally demolished owing to its imminently dangerous condition. Therefore, the individual designation qualifies for rescission under Section 5.14.b.1 of the Commission’s Rules & Regulations; the qualities that caused its original entry to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places have been lost. He observed that the Historical Commission refers to such designations as phantom designations.  Mr. McClure stated that the individual designation qualifies for rescission under Section 5.14.b.1 of the Commission’s Rules & Regulations. He noted that this property was classified as non-contributing when the Historical Commission assessed it for historic

He observed that the Historical Commission refers to such designations as phantom designations.  Mr. McClure stated that the individual designation qualifies for rescission under Section 5.14.b.1 of the Commission’s Rules & Regulations. He noted that this property was classified as non-contributing when the Historical Commission assessed it for historic resources when it designated the Old City Historic District in 2003. In other words, the Historical Commission found that it had no historical significance at that time. PUBLIC COMMENT:  No one of the telephone offered comments when all callers were unmuted.  Oscar Beisert asked about the Historical Commission’s level of jurisdiction over new construction on the site with and without the individual designation. o Mr. Farnham responded that the Historical Commission itself would make a final decision about its level of jurisdiction over the review of a building permit application for new construction at this site, but stated that, in his opinion, owing to the fact that the building was demolished legally, with the Commission’s approval, the Commission would be compelled to determine that its jurisdiction over this site is review-and-comment only. He stated that this phantom designation would not be sufficient to consider the site a “developed” site. He explained that the current applicant is being prudent and addressing the question of the phantom designation before submitting a building permit application by resolving this clerical issue. Mr. Farnham concluded that removing the phantom designation would not impact the Historical Commission’s future jurisdiction over the site. He concluded that Mr. McClure is seeking clarity now, rather than at the time of a permit application. o Mr. Reuter, the Historical Commission’s attorney, asked Mr. Farnham to clarify the timeline of designation and demolition. o Mr. Farnham stated that the building was designated prior to the effective date of the current preservation ordinance and prior to the creation of the historic district. The building was demolished after the effective date of the current preservation COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 10 ordinance and prior to the creation of the historic district. The lot was vacant at the designation of the historic district. Mr. Farnham added that the Historical Commission automatically removed without review the designations of buildings that were designated and then demolished prior to the effective date of the current preservation ordinance, April 1985. The Historical Commission has reviewed and rescinded the designations of buildings

the designation of the historic district. Mr. Farnham added that the Historical Commission automatically removed without review the designations of buildings that were designated and then demolished prior to the effective date of the current preservation ordinance, April 1985. The Historical Commission has reviewed and rescinded the designations of buildings that were demolished after to the effective date of the current preservation ordinance, April 1985, when the qualities that originally caused the designation were lost with the demolition, provided the building was lost by an act of God and/or with a valid demolition permit. The building in question was demolished with the Historical Commission’s approval and a valid demolition permit. o Mr. Reuter stated that the building was legally demolished prior to the establishment of the historic district and is listed as non-contributing in the historic district.  Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia asked whether rescinding this individual designation would reduce the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction over a subsequent building permit application for new construction. o Mr. Farnham stated that the rescission would have no impact on the Historical Commission’s ultimate jurisdiction over a new construction building permit at this site. He stated that the Historical Commission will have to confront the phantom designation at one time or another, now when the property owner has proactively raised the issue with a rescission request, or when a building permit application was submitted, but it would be untenable for the Historical Commission to seek to assert full jurisdiction over a new construction permit application for this site. The question is really when the clerical record for this site will be corrected, now with the rescission or later with the permit application. o Ms. Milroy asked whether the Historical Commission would have the authority to review a proposal to build a 30-story building on this site. o Mr. Farnham replied that the City’s historic preservation ordinance does not give the Historical Commission plenary or full jurisdiction over new construction on undeveloped sites in historic districts. The Historical Commission has the authority to comment on plans for construction on undeveloped sites in historic districts, but it does not have the authority to approve or deny such plans. o Mr. Steinke stated that the Old City Historic District includes a height restriction for buildings that the Historical Commission would be obligated to enforce. o Mr. Farnham responded that there is no height

in historic districts, but it does not have the authority to approve or deny such plans. o Mr. Steinke stated that the Old City Historic District includes a height restriction for buildings that the Historical Commission would be obligated to enforce. o Mr. Farnham responded that there is no height restriction associated with the Old City Historic District. He acknowledged that there is a zoning overlay that limits the heights of buildings in this area to 65 feet, but the Historical Commission is not empowered to enforce that restriction. It is a zoning restriction that is enforced by the zoning agencies. o Mr. McClure stated that the site is zoning CMX-3, which allows an FAR of 5. Any new building on this site will be comparable in height to the buildings around it.  Ms. Cooperman asked whether the following is true: If the individual designation is rescinded, the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction will be limited to review-and- comment only; if the individual designation is retained, the Historical Commission will enjoy full jurisdiction over a subsequent building permit application. o Mr. Farnham replied that that is not true. The Historical Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to review-and-comment only regardless of the Commission’s decision on this rescission application. The applicant is pursuing the rescission now to clarify the record and simplify the later building permit application process. Regardless of the decision on the rescission application, the Historical COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 11 Commission’s jurisdiction will be limited to review-and-comment only on new construction permit applications for this site. On could make an argument that the Commission should have full jurisdiction, but that argument would be untenable. The Commission has confronted this question many, many times and has always concluded that its jurisdiction is review-and-comment only. He noted that there was no building on the site at the time of the designation of the district and no claim that the site has any historic value in the inventory. This is a clerical question, nothing more.  Mr. Farnham noted that Mr. Beisert’s electronic hand was raised again, asking to speak. Mr. Farnham noted that the Committee is bound by the Historical Commission’s Rules of Conduct, which provide for members of the public to comment once, but do not provide opportunities for debate. He asked Ms. Cooperman whether she, as chair, would permit Mr. Beisert to speak. o Ms.

to speak. Mr. Farnham noted that the Committee is bound by the Historical Commission’s Rules of Conduct, which provide for members of the public to comment once, but do not provide opportunities for debate. He asked Ms. Cooperman whether she, as chair, would permit Mr. Beisert to speak. o Ms. Cooperman stated that members of the public who had not yet had an opportunity to speak should be given an opportunity to speak now.  Alex Balloon stated that his written comments were made on his personal behalf and not as a representative of any organization.  Ms. Mehley reported that Paul Boni and Alex Balloon submitted questions about jurisdiction, which were answered with the discussion. She stated that Mr. Boni also requested that the staff prepare a summary of the legal issues raised by this rescission for review at the Historical Commission meeting.  Mr. Cohen thanked the staff for the historic photograph of the site and lamented the loss of the building, which would have fit in well with the historic district.  Ms. Barucco asked for clarification. Would the Historical Commission have review- and-comment jurisdiction over this site regardless of the decision on this application? She stated that this would be an easier question if the site were not located in a historic district.  Mr. Reuter, the Historical Commission’s attorney, stated that his advice is not binding legal advice. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Farnham’s interpretation. Mr. Reuter stated that the lot was vacant at the time the district was established and the district inventory attributes no historic value to the site. Mr. Reuter stated that, with or without the individual designation, the Historical Commission will consider this an undeveloped site and will exert review-and-comment jurisdiction only. Removing the individual designation clarifies the record, but does not change the fact that this is an undeveloped site in a historic district and subject to review-and-comment jurisdiction only. Mr. Reuter stated that, if the Historical Commission sought to exert full jurisdiction over this property owing to the vestigial individual designation, the decision would not hold up in court. This rescission review is a housekeeping measure.  Ms. Milroy asked if there are comparable lots in Old City. o Mr. Farnham responded that there are still a few lots in the historic district that were vacant at the time the district was created. Such lots will be

in court. This rescission review is a housekeeping measure.  Ms. Milroy asked if there are comparable lots in Old City. o Mr. Farnham responded that there are still a few lots in the historic district that were vacant at the time the district was created. Such lots will be subject to review-and-comment jurisdiction only when new construction permit applications are submitted for them. Several such lots in the district have been built on in the 17 years since the district was created and those construction proposal were subject to review-and-comment jurisdiction only. He added that the Historical Commission has rescinded other phantom designations since the creation of the district in 2003. o Ms. Milroy asked if the designations have been rescinded on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Farnham responded that prior to the adoption of the current COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 12 preservation ordinance, phantom designations were removed automatically and administratively. The current ordinance, effective in 1985, requires that rescissions and amendments to designations follow the same rules as designations. Therefore, the staff now refers rescission applications to the Committee on Historic Designation. The Historical Commission removed many phantom designations in the mid 2000s under what was called the Register Maintenance Rescission Program. However, it is very difficult to identify such lots and many phantom designations were not addressed under that program.  Mr. Mooney stated that parking lots in districts remain an issue with regard to archaeological resources. This lot was not the site of a former cemetery, but others like it have been, for example the First Baptist Church cemetery on Arch Street. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The property at 40-42 S. 2nd Street was vacant at the time that the Old City Historic District was established.  The property at 40-42 S. 2nd Street is listed as non-contributing in the inventory of the Old City Historic District.  The building that stood at 40-42 S. 2nd Street was demolished with the Historical Commission’s approval and a demolition permit, owing to its imminently dangerous condition prior to the designation of the historic district.  The building that stood at 40-42 S. 2nd Street was designated under the previous preservation ordinance for its architectural qualities. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The individual designation qualifies for rescission under Section 5.14.b.1

its imminently dangerous condition prior to the designation of the historic district.  The building that stood at 40-42 S. 2nd Street was designated under the previous preservation ordinance for its architectural qualities. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The individual designation qualifies for rescission under Section 5.14.b.1 of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations; the qualities that caused its original entry to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places have been lost. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission rescind the individual designation of 40-42 S. 2nd Street and remove its entry from the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, pursuant to Section 5.14.b.1 of the Commission’s Rules & Regulations, because the qualities that caused its original entry have been destroyed. ITEM: 40-42 S 2ND ST MOTION: Rescind individual designation MOVED BY: Laverty SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 13 ADDRESS: 744-46 S 8TH ST Name of Resource: Columbus Hall Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Mama Y’s LLC Nominator: Celeste Morello and Eugene Desyatnik Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 744-46 S.8thStreet and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that building, historically known as Columbus Hall, satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination contends that the building has significant character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, as a purpose-built meeting hall for the “Societa’ di Unione e Fratellanza Italiana” (Italian Union and Brotherhood Society). Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the building exemplifies the cultural, political, social and historical heritage of the community, as members of the Society were the civic leaders in this “Little Italy” community and assisted with the arrival of new Italian immigrants into South Philadelphia at the end of the nineteenth century. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 744-46 S. 8th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 00:53:30 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Dan Rosin represented

the nineteenth century. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 744-46 S. 8th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 00:53:30 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Dan Rosin represented the property owner.  Celeste Morello and Eugene Desyatnik represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Rosin stated that he would like to understand more about the process and what would be required going forward as the owner of a historically designated property. o Ms. Cooperman responded that Mr. Rosin can consult with the Historical Commission’s staff. o Mr. Farnham added that the Historical Commission would require nothing unilaterally of the owner, but the Commission would have the authority to review any building permit applications for work proposed by the owner to ensure that the work meets historic preservation standards. o Ms. Cooperman noted that the Historical Commission would have no jurisdiction over the interior of the building. o Mr. Rosin responded that he understands.  Ms. Morello commended Mr. Rosin for his sensitive rehabilitation of the building. She explained that he could read her nomination to learn about the historic significance of the building.  Mr. Desyatnik spoke about the historic significance of the meeting hall.  Mr. Cohen thanked Ms. Morello for writing this nomination.  Ms. Milroy noted a correction on page 10, being that New York, rather than Philadelphia, was the first city to erect a statue of Christopher Columbus.  Ms. Barucco asked about the material at the first-floor front façade of the building. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 14 o Mr. Rosin responded that the entire first floor was stucco when he purchased the building, but that he believes limestone was used at the first floor as part of the rehabilitation. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub, representing Save Our Sites, provided written comment in support of the nomination.  Geoff DiMasi, descendant of John M. Queroli who was president of the Societa’ di Unione e Fratellanza Italiana for 22 years, commented that he supports the nomination and appreciates the history of the building and its original owners. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  Columbus Hall opened in 1898 and was constructed for the Societa’ di Unione e Fratellanza Italiana. The Committee

commented that he supports the nomination and appreciates the history of the building and its original owners. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  Columbus Hall opened in 1898 and was constructed for the Societa’ di Unione e Fratellanza Italiana. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building has significant character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, as a purpose-built meeting hall for the Societa’ di Unione e Fratellanza Italiana, satisfying Criterion A.  The building exemplifies the cultural, political, social and historical heritage of the community, as members of the Society were the civic leaders in this “Little Italy” community and assisted with the arrival of new Italian immigrants into South Philadelphia at the end of the nineteenth century, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 744-46 S. 8th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. ITEM: 744-46 S 8TH ST MOTION: Designate, A and J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Mooney VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 15 ADDRESS: 1822 CHESTNUT ST Name of Resource: Elon Dunbar House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 19th & Sansom Corp. Nominator: Philadelphia Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1822 Chestnut Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. Constructed in 1858 for Elon Dunbar, the building reflects the environment in an era characterized by the popular Italianate style, the most popular style of the Civil War Era, satisfying Criterion C. Additionally, the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Italianate style, including its low-pitched roof with wide eaves supported by decorative brackets, and tall two-over-two segmentally-arched double- hung windows with dramatic carved hoods and projecting sills, satisfying Criterion D. With its brownstone upper floors and commercial ground floor, the property represents both the residential development of the upper-class Rittenhouse neighborhood in the mid-nineteenth century, and the commercial development of Chestnut Street

brackets, and tall two-over-two segmentally-arched double- hung windows with dramatic carved hoods and projecting sills, satisfying Criterion D. With its brownstone upper floors and commercial ground floor, the property represents both the residential development of the upper-class Rittenhouse neighborhood in the mid-nineteenth century, and the commercial development of Chestnut Street in the early decades of the twentieth century, satisfying Criterion J. The building at the rear of the property, known as 1821 Sansom Street, is considered to be non-contributing for the purposes of this nomination. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1822 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 01:16:56 PRESENTERS:  Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Attorney Carl Primavera represented the current property owner of 1822 and 1824 Chestnut Street. Developer Reed Slogoff represented the equitable owner of 1822 and 1824 Chestnut Street. DISCUSSION:  Ms. Cooperman questioned why the staff considers the rears of 1822 and 1824 Chestnut Street non-contributing. o Ms. DiPasquale explained that there have been extensive alterations and additions to the rears of the properties and their carriage houses to the extent that they do not reflect the Criteria for which the properties are nominated. She noted that the staff considered the rear portions of the property non- contributing in the nomination, and presented a site plan from the equitable owner requesting that the rear portions of the properties at 1822 and 1824 Chestnut Street be excluded from the designation entirely. The staff supports the equitable owner’s plan because it would ensure the preservation of the significant rowhouses by excluding the insignificant rear buildings.  Mr. Primavera noted that he is available for any questions.  Mr. Slogoff explained that they have reviewed the nominations and spoken with the staff and are supportive of the designation of the historic Chestnut Street buildings, the portions of the property that the staff consider contributing.  Ms. Milroy noted that Criterion J is not checked on off on the form. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 16 o Ms. DiPasquale apologized for the oversight and noted that the staff could correct that error.  Ms. Milroy questioned the period of significance, noting that the early-twentieth century owner, Charles Haseltine, was a major player in the art world at the turn of the

2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 16 o Ms. DiPasquale apologized for the oversight and noted that the staff could correct that error.  Ms. Milroy questioned the period of significance, noting that the early-twentieth century owner, Charles Haseltine, was a major player in the art world at the turn of the twentieth century, and his galleries occupied these two buildings until his death in 1916. Mr. Cohen agreed. o Ms. DiPasquale agreed, noting that the staff would be amenable to that change as it is supported by the discussion under Criterion J in the nomination.  Ms. Cooperman questioned the dates of the rear portions of the properties and whether extending the period of significance would have an impact on the inclusion of the rear buildings in the designation. o Mr. Farnham responded that the staff made the decision to classify the buildings non-contributing, noting that there may be somewhere in them the remnants of carriage houses that were associated with the Chestnut Street houses. He explained that they have been so altered that they are nearly unrecognizable, especially the carriage house associated with 1822 Chestnut Street, alterations to which appear to have been made in the 1950s. He opined that what remains of the building could not be classified as a mid- nineteenth century building. o Mr. Farnham explained that the staff classified the portions of the rears of the properties at 1822 and 1824 Chestnut Street as non-contributing owing to the significant alterations that removed the character-defining features of the rear buildings. He noted that the staff is supportive of the equitable owner’s proposal to exclude these portions of the properties from the designation. He explained that these two properties along with several properties facing 19th Street were recently marketed for sale and the staff spoke to many prospective buyers of the properties who were interested in clearing the site and constructing a large tower. Mr. Slogoff’s company, Pearl Properties, was the only prospective buyer the staff spoke with who was interested in maintaining the two buildings facing Chestnut Street. He opined that it is a reasonable compromise to exclude from the designation the portions of the properties that the staff had already classified as non-contributing in the nomination in exchange for assurances that the buildings for which the properties were nominated would be protected. o Ms. Barucco noted that the side walls of the rear building do not

exclude from the designation the portions of the properties that the staff had already classified as non-contributing in the nomination in exchange for assurances that the buildings for which the properties were nominated would be protected. o Ms. Barucco noted that the side walls of the rear building do not appear to date from the mid-twentieth century, and may be the brick of the original carriage house. Ms. Cooperman agreed that the side walls are nineteenth- century brick, but opined that there have been extensive alterations.  Mr. Cohen questioned the date of the storefront at 1822 Chestnut Street, ultimately determining from the nomination that it dates to the 1920s.  The Committee discussed the period of significance, agreeing that the nomination makes an argument not only for the property’s residential significance but for its commercial significance into the 1920s or 1930s, of which the storefront is representative. Comparing historic photographs, the Committee members noted that the storefront is fairly intact from the early photographs after its commercial conversion. They ultimately agreed that the period of significance should end in 1933 to include the storefronts of 1822 and 1824 Chestnut Street. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 17  Ms. Cooperman questioned whether the extension of the period of significance to 1933 has any implications for the inclusion or exclusion of the rear portions of the property. o Mr. Farnham responded that, having researched the zoning documents for the properties, the altered rear buildings read more as 1960s or 1970s low- scale commercial buildings rather than carriage houses.  Mr. Cohen noted that there is a wonderful aerial photograph in the nomination of the rear of the properties. o Mr. Farnham responded that that photograph comes from the Dallin Aerial Survey Company through the Hagley Library.  Mr. Cohen questioned the degree to which the windows for 1824 Chestnut were differed from or were simplified from 1822 Chestnut Street. He remarked that 1822 Chestnut was absolutely florid. He opined that, despite the connection between architect Stephen Button and original owner Elon Dunbar, the design is too geometrically-defined form than what Button was designing around the time.  Mr. Cohen questioned whether the facades, and particularly the window hoods, of 1822 and 1824 Chestnut Street were identical originally. o Ms. DiPasquale responded that there is a historic photograph from 1933 in the nomination that shows that the

geometrically-defined form than what Button was designing around the time.  Mr. Cohen questioned whether the facades, and particularly the window hoods, of 1822 and 1824 Chestnut Street were identical originally. o Ms. DiPasquale responded that there is a historic photograph from 1933 in the nomination that shows that the ornamentation of the buildings was not identical. o Ms. Cooperman noted that it appears that 1822 Chestnut was already more elaborate than 1824 Chestnut, and agreed with Mr. Cohen that the design might actually be too good for Stephen Button. The Committee members noted that they do not know who the architect would have been, but it was clearly someone with an architectonic understanding of three-dimensional ornamentation. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The rowhouse at 1822 Chestnut Street was constructed in 1858 for Elon Dunbar.  The building reflects the environment in an era characterized by the popular Italianate style, the most popular style of the Civil War Era.  The building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Italianate style, including its low-pitched roof with wide eaves supported by decorative brackets, and tall two- over-two segmentally-arched double-hung windows with dramatic carved hoods and projecting sills.  With its brownstone upper floors and commercial ground floor, the property represents both the residential development of the upper-class Rittenhouse neighborhood in the mid-nineteenth century, and the commercial development of Chestnut Street in the early decades of the twentieth century.  The commercial storefront dates to the 1920s and is significant to the property’s transition from residential to commercial.  The property was owned and occupied by Charles Haseltine, a famous art dealer, during the early twentieth century, and his residency is significant to the history and significance of the property.  The building at the rear of the property, known as 1821 Sansom Street, has had numerous alterations that make it unrecognizable as a former carriage house, and is not considered a historically significant part of the property. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 18 The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The property reflects the environment in an era characterized by the popular Italianate style, satisfying Criterion C.  The property embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Italianate style, satisfying Criterion D.  The property represents both the residential development of the upper-class Rittenhouse neighborhood in

on Historic Designation concluded that:  The property reflects the environment in an era characterized by the popular Italianate style, satisfying Criterion C.  The property embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Italianate style, satisfying Criterion D.  The property represents both the residential development of the upper-class Rittenhouse neighborhood in the mid-nineteenth century, and the commercial development of Chestnut Street in the early decades of the twentieth century, satisfying Criterion J, and that the period of significance should be extended to 1933 to account for this transition and resulting alterations, as well as the occupancy of art dealer Charles Haseltine.  The rear portion of the property should be excluded from the designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination for 1822 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J, with the amendment that the period of significance be extended to 1933 so as to incorporate the residency of Charles Haseltine and the addition of the storefront in the 1920s, reflecting the commercial development of Chestnut Street, and with the boundary limited to the historic building fronting Chestnut Street, including its rear ell. ITEM: 1822 CHESTNUT ST MOTION: Designate, C, D, and J, with conditions MOVED BY: Milroy SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 1824 CHESTNUT ST Name of Resource: Edward H. Trotter House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 19th & Sansom Corp. Nominator: Philadelphia Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1824 Chestnut Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. Constructed in 1859 for Edward H. Trotter, the building reflects the environment in an era characterized by the popular Italianate style, the most popular style of the Civil War Era, satisfying Criterion C. Additionally, the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Italianate style, including its low-pitched roof with COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 19 wide eaves supported by decorative brackets, and tall two-over-two segmentally-arched double- hung windows with hoods and projecting sills, satisfying Criterion D. With its brownstone upper floors and commercial ground floor, the

the Italianate style, including its low-pitched roof with COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 19 wide eaves supported by decorative brackets, and tall two-over-two segmentally-arched double- hung windows with hoods and projecting sills, satisfying Criterion D. With its brownstone upper floors and commercial ground floor, the property represents both the residential development of the upper-class Rittenhouse neighborhood in the mid-nineteenth century, and the commercial development of Chestnut Street in the early decades of the twentieth century, satisfying Criterion J. The building at the rear of the property, known as 1823 Sansom Street, is considered to be non-contributing for the purposes of this nomination. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1824 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 01:47:11 PRESENTERS:  Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Attorney Carl Primavera represented the current property owner of 1822 and 1824 Chestnut Street. Developer Reed Slogoff represented the equitable owner of 1822 and 1824 Chestnut Street. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Slogoff reiterated his comments from 1822 Chestnut Street, noting that they support the nomination so long as the rear of the property is excluded from the designation.  Ms. Barucco noted that, while the rear building at 1822 Chestnut Street had been dramatically altered, it appears to her that the openings of the rear building of 1824 Chestnut Street are the same today as they were in the 1931 photograph. She opined that the stable opening is still there. o Ms. Cooperman disagreed that the existing openings match those seen in Dallin’s aerial, but noted that the aerial seems to differ from the floorplan in the insurance survey.  The Committee members discussed the floorplans of the house and stable from the 1859 insurance survey. o Mr. Cohen noted that the stable opening appears to be centered in the floorplan, and that the fenestration appears to have changed as well. o Ms. Barucco questioned the portions of the property to be excluded from the designation. She noted that the photograph from Sansom Street on page 10 of the nomination shows an original cornice on a portion of the rear of the main building. o Mr. Farnham responded that the intention is to include the entirety of the rear portion of the historic row house. o Ms. Milroy asked whether

photograph from Sansom Street on page 10 of the nomination shows an original cornice on a portion of the rear of the main building. o Mr. Farnham responded that the intention is to include the entirety of the rear portion of the historic row house. o Ms. Milroy asked whether the proposed area for inclusion would account for the entire floorplan shown in the 1859 insurance survey. o Mr. Farnham responded affirmatively, explaining that the Italianate cornice at the second floor level would be included within the designated portion of the property.  Ms. Milroy excused herself from the meeting at 1:57:14 in the recording.  The Committee members expressed confusion over the areas of the property to be excluded from the designation, and suggested that it would be helpful for the staff to clarify dimensionally on an aerial view the portions of the properties that would be designated and those that would be excluded. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 20 o Mr. Farnham responded that the staff could provide that information to the Historical Commission so there would be no ambiguity in the ultimate designation.  The Committee members debated the potential significance of the rear building, noting that the changes are not as readily apparent as those of the rear building of 1822 Chestnut Street. They opined that they did not have enough information on the date of the rear building. o Ms. Barucco lamented the lack of photographs under the awnings of the rear building to help clarify its fenestration. o Ms. Cooperman noted that the Google Streetview of 1823 Sansom Street shows what appears to be late nineteenth-century brick. She expressed concern about the brick and the changes to the fenestration, and opined that the material that is visible does not date to before the Civil War, but is also obviously not twentieth-century brick. o Ms. Barucco agreed, but noted that, if they extend the period of significance to the 1930s as they did with 1822 Chestnut Street, this later material may be significant. She noted that the statement of significance points to the significance of Chestnut Street and how it developed.  Ms. Barucco suggested the nomination be continued to the next meeting in order to provide time to clarify the date of the rear building.  Mr. Cohen noted that in looking at the 1910 Bromley map on page

points to the significance of Chestnut Street and how it developed.  Ms. Barucco suggested the nomination be continued to the next meeting in order to provide time to clarify the date of the rear building.  Mr. Cohen noted that in looking at the 1910 Bromley map on page 16 of the nomination, the rear building appears to extend the full width of the property, but today there is an alley. o Ms. Cooperman agreed, but noted that Bromley was not always exact. o Mr. Laverty noted that the building is not distinguished as a stable in the Bromley map. o Mr. Farnham clarified that the staff looked for additional information on the rear buildings, but came to the conclusion that, even if some portion of the stables remain, they have been extensively altered and therefore, even if it falls within the extended period of significance, is not associated with the original owner and building and therefore was classified as non-contributing.  Mr. Laverty displayed the 1922 Bromley atlas for Center City Philadelphia, which shows contiguous brick buildings on Sansom Street, two stories on 1822 Chestnut and one story for 1824 Chestnut Street. He noted that there is a property line between the front and rear portions of the property at 1824 Chestnut around the property line of the Aldine Theatre.  Mr. Laverty opined that, because the staff as the nominators feel the rear buildings should be excluded from the designation, and there is a sympathetic equitable owner, he does not feel that the Committee should tie up the designation over what may or may not be portions of the carriage houses on Sansom Street. Mr. Cohen agreed. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  1824 Chestnut Street was constructed in 1859 for Edward H. Trotter.  The building reflects the environment in an era characterized by the popular Italianate style, the most popular style of the Civil War Era. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 21  The building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Italianate style, including its low-pitched roof with wide eaves supported by decorative brackets, and tall two- over-two segmentally-arched double-hung windows with hoods and projecting sills.  With its brownstone upper floors and commercial ground floor, the property represents both the residential development of the upper-class Rittenhouse neighborhood in

of the Italianate style, including its low-pitched roof with wide eaves supported by decorative brackets, and tall two- over-two segmentally-arched double-hung windows with hoods and projecting sills.  With its brownstone upper floors and commercial ground floor, the property represents both the residential development of the upper-class Rittenhouse neighborhood in the mid-nineteenth century, and the commercial development of Chestnut Street in the early decades of the twentieth century.  The commercial storefront dates to the 1920s and is significant to the property’s transition from residential to commercial.  The property was owned and occupied by Charles Haseltine, a famous art dealer, during the early twentieth century, and his residency is significant to the history and significance of the property.  The building at the rear of the property, known as 1823 Sansom Street, has had numerous alterations that make it unrecognizable as a former carriage house, and is not considered a historically significant part of the property. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The property reflects the environment in an era characterized by the popular Italianate style, satisfying Criterion C.  The property embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Italianate style, satisfying Criterion D.  The property represents both the residential development of the upper-class Rittenhouse neighborhood in the mid-nineteenth century, and the commercial development of Chestnut Street in the early decades of the twentieth century, satisfying Criterion J, and that the period of significance should be extended to 1933 to account for this transition and resulting alterations, as well as the occupancy of art dealer Charles Haseltine.  The rear portion of the property should be excluded from the designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1824 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J, with the amendment that the period of significance be extended to 1933 so as to incorporate the residency of Charles Haseltine and the addition of the storefront in the 1920s, reflecting the commercial development of Chestnut Street, and with the boundary limited to the historic building fronting Chestnut Street, including its rear ell. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 22 ITEM: 1824 CHESTNUT ST MOTION: Designate, C, D, and J, with conditions MOVED BY: Laverty SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco

fronting Chestnut Street, including its rear ell. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 22 ITEM: 1824 CHESTNUT ST MOTION: Designate, C, D, and J, with conditions MOVED BY: Laverty SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 315 N 33RD ST Name of Resource: Marot-McIlvain Residence Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Kevin Kelliher and Cameron Kelliher Nominator: Benjamin Leech, University City Historical Society Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 315 and 317 N. 33rd Street, located in West Philadelphia’s Powelton Village, and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The three-story residential twin, the former Marot-McIlvain Residence, was constructed circa 1860 in the Italianate Villa Style. The nomination states that the property meets Criteria C and D for its distinct architectural form and style, and also represents the least altered Italianate Villa style building with a central tower in the Powelton neighborhood. The nomination further contends that the property meets Criterion J, for its close association with the Marot and McIlvain families, two of Powelton Village’s historically notable families. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 315 N. 33rd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 02:26:45 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Kevin Kelliher represented the property owner.  George Poulin, University City Historical Society, and Ben Leech, nomination author, represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Ms. Cooperman questioned if this was the only Italianate tower house in University City or Powelton Village, since there are many that are similar. o Mr. Poulin responded that this is the only central tower Italian style extant building in the Powelton Village neighborhood and noted that there are certainly others in other West Philadelphia neighborhoods.  Mr. Cohen said the property is in good condition and the current and previous owners are to be commended for this. He commented that Criterion J as it related to COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 23 families that lived there was less important and that this was a great representation of the texture of Powelton Village in its most intact form

to be commended for this. He commented that Criterion J as it related to COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 23 families that lived there was less important and that this was a great representation of the texture of Powelton Village in its most intact form of the village character of this neighborhood. Mr. Cohen said that he would not emphasize so strongly the family association. He said the nomination is well done and complimented the nominators on their work.  Mr. Cohen pointed out that the nomination discusses semi-detached houses being established in Hamilton Terrace in 1856. He noted that he disagreed with the word “established” because he believes there were examples before that. Mr. Cohen said they were not really “established” by Hamilton Terrace.  Mr. Cohen stated that he liked the discussion of Sloan versus Riddell. He noted that there are a certain set of proportions to Riddell’s work are tall and narrow. Mr. Cohen said that at the end of the main book on Riddell there is a list of his clients and wondered if (Alfred Bunting) Justice appeared in any of these lists. He added that a University of Pennsylvania student recently completed a thesis based on a Riddell manuscript that came up for auction a few years ago and was made available to the student. He said the student included a comprehensive list of names listed at the back of the manuscript.  Mr. Cohen commented that the building is a great example and he is glad the building has been nominated.  Ms. Barucco agreed with Mr. Cohen’s remarks and added that the nomination was well written and the building is worthy. PUBLIC COMMENT:  No public comment. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  315-317 N 33rd Street is the only extant Italianate Villa style building with a central tower in the Powelton Village neighborhood The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building is notable for its distinct Italianate Villa architectural form and style, satisfying Criteria C and D.  The building is closely associated with the Marot and McIlvain families, two of Powelton Village’s historically notable families, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 315 N. 33rd Street satisfies Criteria

D.  The building is closely associated with the Marot and McIlvain families, two of Powelton Village’s historically notable families, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 315 N. 33rd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 24 ITEM: 315 N 33RD ST MOTION: Designate, C, D, and J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 5 1 ADDRESS: 317 N 33RD ST Name of Resource: Marot-McIlvain Residence Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Caroline Millett Nominator: Benjamin Leech, University City Historical Society Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 315 and 317 N. 33rd Street, located in West Philadelphia’s Powelton Village, and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The three-story residential twin, the former Marot-McIlvain Residence, was constructed circa 1860 in the Italianate Villa Style. The nomination states that the property meets Criteria C and D for its distinct architectural form and style, and also represents the least altered Italianate Villa style building with a central tower in the Powelton neighborhood. The nomination further contends that the property meets Criterion J, for its close association with the Marot and McIlvain families, two of Powelton Village’s historically notable families. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 317 N. 33rd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 02:38:37 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner.  George Poulin, University City Historical Society, and Ben Leech, nomination author, represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Cohen stated that all Committee comments for 315 N. 33rd also apply to 317 N. 33rd Street. PUBLIC COMMENT:  No public comment. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 25 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  315-317 N 33rd Street is the only extant Italianate Villa style building with a central tower in the Powelton Village neighborhood The Committee on Historic Designation concluded

DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 25 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  315-317 N 33rd Street is the only extant Italianate Villa style building with a central tower in the Powelton Village neighborhood The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building is notable for its distinct Italianate Villa architectural form and style, satisfying Criteria C and D.  The building is closely associated with the Marot and McIlvain families, two of Powelton Village’s historically notable families, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 317 N 33rd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. ITEM: 317 N 33RD ST MOTION: Designate, C, D, and J MOVED BY: Laverty SECONDED BY: Barucco VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 5 1 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.

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. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 26 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. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 02:43:15 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner or nomination. Mr. Farnham noted that the staff has been in contact via email with the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania and that it is aware of this meeting. DISCUSSION:  Ms. Chantry explained that the nominator, Scott Welden of the Bella Vista Neighbors Association, had been in attendance earlier but had to leave owing to the length of the meeting. He provided written comment which she read to the Committee as follows: o “The Church has been a staple of the community for over a century and therefore has maintained a presence in the neighborhood through many turbulent times (including now). In particular, the Church provided numerous social programs and a safe space for African Americans during the late 19th century. Additionally, Saint Marks Church is continuing this service work at the Church of the Crucifixion through the RISE program, which uses the building to bake bread and food for those in need. As a result, the Bella Vista Neighbor's Association wishes to nominate this building for historic preservation, as it has acted as a harbor for service and safety for over a century and therefore contributes greatly to the cultural heritage of our community.”  Mr. Cohen commented that the nomination was well-researched. He asked what makes something a mission, questioning if a mission is when it is not paid for by the parishioners. He commented that Isaac Pursell is a first-rate architect.  Ms. Barucco suggested that the period of significance be revised to end at a date earlier than 2015. She asked how that date was chosen. o Ms. Chantry responded that she believes that the 2015 date was chosen because that is when the congregation may have stopped using the

 Ms. Barucco suggested that the period of significance be revised to end at a date earlier than 2015. She asked how that date was chosen. o Ms. Chantry responded that she believes that the 2015 date was chosen because that is when the congregation may have stopped using the buildings, but she is not sure of that. o Ms. Cooperman commented that it is important to capture the time in which the congregation used the buildings. o Mr. Cohen voiced concern that an extended period of significance would allow for later insensitive changes to be considered contributing. He suggested an end date prior to 1950. o Mr. Farnham commented that the staff could provide a proposed end date for consideration by the Commission.  Ms. Barucco asked if the stained glass or the frame remains in the large window opening on Bainbridge Street. o Ms. Cooperman shared a photograph that showed that no stained glass or original frame remains. o Mr. Mooney noted that the nomination states that the stained glass was removed. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 27 PUBLIC COMMENT:  Eugene Desyatnik, representing the Bella Vista Neighbors Association, supported the nomination. Regarding the end of the period of significance, he commented that it would be reasonable to recognize the date during which it successfully attained its recognition at the Protestant Episcopal Convention. He stated that they first tried in 1847 and were denied, reportedly owing to the make-up of the congregation. They kept trying every year, and eventually, perhaps in the 1860s, it may have been accepted. It was repeatedly attempted.  Oscar Beisert supported the nomination.  Jim Duffin commented that it is important to know about the current stain glass window. It may have been replaced to put in a new window that was more sensitive to the needs of the congregation so there could be a modern window with African Americans in the glass. He commented that it is important to make the distinction that this is a Reformed Episcopal church and not Protestant Episcopal one. He commented that mission churches are usually supported by the Diocese. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The end date of the period of significance should be revised, and the staff can propose a new date for review by the Historical Commission. The Committee

mission churches are usually supported by the Diocese. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The end date of the period of significance should be revised, and the staff can propose a new date for review by the Historical Commission. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded 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, satisfying Criterion A.  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, satisfying Criterion E.  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, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the properties at 807-11 Bainbridge Street and 620-24 S 8th Street satisfy Criteria for Designation A, E, and J, and that the end of the period of significance should be revised according to information to be provided to the Historical Commission. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 28 ITEM: 807-11 BAINBRIDGE ST AND 620-24 S 8TH ST MOTION: Designate, A, E, and J; revise end date of period of significance MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 5 1 ADDRESS: 1208 WALNUT ST Name of Resource: The Strathmore Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Millennium Hotel Group, LLC 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 1208 Walnut Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the building satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E. Under Criterion C, the nomination contends that the building reflects the environment at the turn-of-the-century, when this and several other large hotels and apartment buildings were built in the

on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the building satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E. Under Criterion C, the nomination contends that the building reflects the environment at the turn-of-the-century, when this and several other large hotels and apartment buildings were built in the same style for nearby sites. Under Criterion D, the nomination argues that the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the French Renaissance Revival style of architecture. Under Criterion E, the nomination contends that the building was designed by prominent early twentieth-century Philadelphia architect Carl P. Berger, an architect whose work has significantly influenced the historical and architectural development of the City and Commonwealth. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1208 Walnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 03:03:50 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner. Mr. Farnham stated that the staff has been in contact with two representatives of the property owner via email. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Cohen commented that the building may not jump out as French, but that good comparisons were used in the nomination to support the argument. He stated that he does not consider Carl Berger to be significant. o Ms. Cooperman agreed. She stated that he was a good architect, but that he does not rise to the required level of significance. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 29 o Mr. Laverty agreed. He commented that it is a great building, but even not-so- great architects can make great buildings and vice versa. He stated that the building stands on its own and there is no need to rely on significance tied to Carl Berger. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub, representing Save Our Sites, provided written comment in support of the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  Architect Carl Berger’s work has not significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation, and therefore Criterion E should be excluded. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building reflects the environment at the turn-of-the-century, when this and several other large hotels and apartment buildings were built in the same style for nearby sites, satisfying Criterion C.

the City, Commonwealth, or nation, and therefore Criterion E should be excluded. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building reflects the environment at the turn-of-the-century, when this and several other large hotels and apartment buildings were built in the same style for nearby sites, satisfying Criterion C.  The building embodies distinguishing characteristics of the French Renaissance Revival style of architecture, satisfying Criterion D. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1208 Walnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C and D. ITEM: 1208 WALNUT ST MOTION: Designate, C and D MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 5 1 ADDRESS: 1601 S 13TH ST Name of Resource: The Church of the Reconciliation Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: St. John’s Baptist Church Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1601 S. 13th Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the church COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 30 complex satisfies Criteria for Designation D, E, and J. Under Criterion D, the nomination contends that the church and Sunday School building embody distinguishing characteristics of both the Romanesque Revival and Italianate styles of architecture. Under Criterion E, the nomination argues that the complex is the work of two significant architects, Samuel Hall Day in 1892 and Charles Oelschlager in 1899. Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the building currently occupied by St. John’s Baptist Church exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social and historical heritage of the community, as part of development of South Philadelphia’s ethnic and religious diversity, particularly the Italian Protestant community but also the Southeast Asian immigrant community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1601 S. 13th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D, E, and J. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 03:14:00 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner. Mr. Farnham stated that the staff attempted to contacted the property owner but did not receive a response.  Patrick

D, E, and J. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 03:14:00 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner. Mr. Farnham stated that the staff attempted to contacted the property owner but did not receive a response.  Patrick Grossi and Kevin Block represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Grossi commented that the buildings are remarkably intact. He stated that the Preservation Alliance is excited to recognize this church’s legacy of cosmopolitanism and its embrace of South Philadelphia’s Southeast Asian community in more recent decades.  Mr. Cohen commented that it is a terrific building that really stands out. He suggested that it comes out of the last work of H. H. Richardson. He asked about the original congregation. o Mr. Block responded that it was originally built by the Episcopalian community to combat the spread of Catholicism in South Philadelphia. The South Philadelphians who built the church gave up on that strategy and sold it to the Baptists. There was a population of Baptist Italians who then developed a congregation.  Ms. Cooperman asked about the inclusion of Criterion E. o Mr. Laverty responded that, similar to Carl Berger at 1208 Walnut Street, Charles Oelschlager does not rise to the required level of significance.  Ms. Barucco asked about the period of significance extending through the present. o Mr. Laverty responded that the users of this building reflect the changing demographics over the last 140 years and that is significant, and the current congregation is an important part of the story. He stated that he would not be in favor of removing that aspect from the period of significance. o Mr. Grossi commented that Mr. Laverty’s point is why they extended the period of significance through the present. He suggested that it should cover the time period of the changing demographics of the neighborhood. He suggested several date options, including the year 2000. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub, representing Save Our Sites, provided written comment in support of the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 31 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  Architect Charles Oelschlager’s work has not significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation, and therefore Criterion E should be excluded.  The period

HISTORICAL COMMISSION 31 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  Architect Charles Oelschlager’s work has not significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation, and therefore Criterion E should be excluded.  The period of significance should be revised to end in 2000 rather than the present. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The church and Sunday School building embody distinguishing characteristics of both the Romanesque Revival and Italianate styles of architecture, satisfying Criterion D.  The church building exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social and historical heritage of the community, as part of development of South Philadelphia’s ethnic and religious diversity, particularly the Italian Protestant community but also the Southeast Asian immigrant community, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1601 S. 13th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D and J, and that the period of significance should end in 2000. ITEM: 1601 S 13TH ST MOTION: Designate, D and J, revise end date of period of significance to 2000 MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 5 1 ADDRESS: 527-37 W GIRARD AVE Name of Resource: North Sixth Street Farmers Market House and Hall Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Franklin Berger Nominator: Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 527-37 W Girard Avenue as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former North Sixth Street Farmers’ Market House and Hall, which is composed of several interconnecting masses constructed between 1886 and 1887, is significant under Criteria for Designation A, E, and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that the property represents the development of Philadelphia in the second half of the nineteenth century as the city COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 32 transitioned from the use of outdoor, public food markets to privately-owned, multi-purpose, indoor markets and halls. Under Criterion J, the nomination asserts that the mixed-use building played an important role in the cultural, social, and economic

as the city COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 32 transitioned from the use of outdoor, public food markets to privately-owned, multi-purpose, indoor markets and halls. Under Criterion J, the nomination asserts that the mixed-use building played an important role in the cultural, social, and economic lives of the local and predominantly German-American community. The nomination also argues that the building is significant as the work of architects Hazelhurt & Huckel, satisfying Criterion E. The nomination places the period of significance between the date of construction in 1886 and 1908, the year it ceased operations as a farmers’ market, but notes that the community significance may extend through the 1940s, until which time the building remained in use as a public hall and movie theater. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 527-37 W Girard Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, E, and J. START TIME IN WEBEX RECORDING: 03:37:08 PRESENTERS:  Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Property owner Franklin Berger and his daughter Deena Gothelf represented the property owner.  Oscar Beisert represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Ms. DiPasquale noted that the staff distributed four letters of support for the nomination to the Committee members ahead of the meeting.  Mr. Berger read a prepared statement, noting that the property has been in his family for 62 years. He noted that the building had been home to many businesses and divided into several units, renovated, repaired, and evolved many times. He noted that the nomination asserts that the property only serves as the North Sixth Street Farmers Market House and Hall for approximately 21 years. Addressing the Criteria cited in the nomination, he argued that the building does not have any more significant character, interest or value than any of the other private market houses that were developed during the time. He opined that designating the property would halt the economic development and improvement of the neighborhood. He argued that Hazelhurst & Huckel were best known for their suburban and country house residential architecture, and that this building was designed in the firm’s early years and is understated in comparison to many of their designs. He noted that the nomination contends that this building was like many other private market houses of the time, built as an open space market house with

residential architecture, and that this building was designed in the firm’s early years and is understated in comparison to many of their designs. He noted that the nomination contends that this building was like many other private market houses of the time, built as an open space market house with a meeting hall on the second floor.  Mr. Berger explained that he has a BA in History and general love of history, and can recognize and appreciate beautiful and historical architecture. He opined that the architectural details of this property pale in comparison to many of the rich cultural and historical properties in the area.  Mr. Berger explained that the property was under contract for sale when he received notice of the nomination, noting that the agreement of sale was signed on 15 January 2020, and the notice letter was dated 11 February 2020. As a result of the nomination, the buyer backed out of the negotiations on 12 March 2020, as they had plans to demolish and redevelop the property. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 33  Mr. Cohen expressed appreciation for Mr. Berger’s concerns in terms of the financial implications on him, but contended that such matters are not within the purview of the Committee. He opined that this building represents community-centered buildings like markets that had function halls above, which are very significant aspects in neighborhood development and expansion historically.  Mr. Cohen explained that Hazelhurst & Huckle were a very significant firm, and that, if one strips away the paint and some of the signage on the property, it is still remarkably intact.  Mr. Cohen noted that the building was constructed in opposition to the open market sheds, which was a citywide occurrence beginning in the 1850s and which had made it to this area in the 1880s. He opined that the depth of research in the nomination looking at markets across the city makes the case for the property’s significance.  Mr. Farnham explained to the property owner that the Committee is advisory only and has a narrow purview related to the technical aspects of the nomination. The Historical Commission has a broader purview and can take other factors into account. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Marco Gorini, president of South Kensington Community Partners, spoke in support of the nomination. A letter from the association was submitted in advance

narrow purview related to the technical aspects of the nomination. The Historical Commission has a broader purview and can take other factors into account. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Marco Gorini, president of South Kensington Community Partners, spoke in support of the nomination. A letter from the association was submitted in advance of the meeting.  Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia spoke in support of the nomination. He noted that the history of public markets in Philadelphia is remarkable and sometimes forgotten, but this building well exemplifies the privately owned public markets at a time when they were being built throughout the city. Very few of them are survive. He opined that it does reflect an important social and culture chapter of Philadelphia’s history, and is remarkably intact.  John Manton spoke in support of the nomination, noting that his research corroborates that in the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The Committee’s purview is limited to the merits of the nomination and the historic nature of the property.  Despite some minor alterations and the obscuring of historic features behind paint and signage, the property is remarkably intact. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The property represents the development of Philadelphia in the second half of the nineteenth century as the city transitioned from the use of outdoor, public food markets to privately-owned, multi-purpose, indoor markets and halls, satisfying Criterion A.  The mixed-use building with markets below and a function hall above played an important role in the cultural, social, and economic lives of the community, satisfying Criterion J.  The building is the work of architects Hazelhurt & Huckel, a significant architectural firm whose work influenced the development of the city, satisfying Criterion E. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 527-37 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 34 W. Girard Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, E, and J, and should be listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. ITEM: 527-37 W GIRARD AVE MOTION: Designate, A, E, and J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X

the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. ITEM: 527-37 W GIRARD AVE MOTION: Designate, A, E, and J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADJOURNMENT The Committee on Historic Designation adjourned at 1:29 p.m. PLEASE NOTE:  Minutes of the Committee on Historic Designation are presented in action format. Additional information is available in the video recording for this meeting. The start time for each agenda item in the recording is noted. CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION §14-1004. Designation. (1) Criteria for Designation. A building, complex of buildings, structure, site, object, or district may be designated for preservation if it: (a) Has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth, or nation or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past; (b) Is associated with an event of importance to the history of the City, Commonwealth or Nation; (c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style; (d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen; (e) Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or designer, or professional engineer whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation; (f) Contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant innovation; (g) Is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area that should be preserved according to a historic, cultural, or architectural motif; (h) Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or City; COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 20 MAY 2020 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 35 (i) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history; or (j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community.