1 THE MINUTES OF THE 411th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 13 November 1996 City Council Caucus, Room 401 City Hall Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Present Wayne S. Spilove, Chair David Brownlee, Ph.D. Duane Bumb, Deputy Director, Department of Commerce Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Property Barbara Kaplan, Executive Director, City Planning Commission Arlene Matzkin Ed McLaughlin, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Caroline Wischmann Stephanie Wolf, Ph.D. Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Jeffrey R. Barr, Historic Preservation Technician Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Specialist Mark Zecca, Deputy City Solicitor Also, with affiliation and/or project S. Daniel, Philadelphia School District Gene Becker, Philadelphia School District Thomas Schweiker, Philadelphia School District, Dept. of Design Kenneth Brinkley, Philadelphia School District, Dept. of Design Sammie Devoe, Kingdom Hall, 1725 W. Tioga Street Chad Pickeral, 2028 Locust Street Randy Black, Preservation Specialist, Columbus, Ohio Lance Thomas, Nicetown Congregation of Jehovah's Witness Joseph P. Joseph, Philadelphia School District Judith Eden, Center City Residents Association (CCRA) Tim Donahue, TNT-Prime Construction, Inc. George Brodie, CCRA Bobbye Burke, Preservation Alliance Milton Marks, Preservation Alliance Ed Pridgeh, TNT-Prime Construction, Inc. M. Brown, Fitler Square Association Stephen Herman Paul Hirshorn, Fitler Square Improvement Association Tama Williams 2 Wayne S. Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 411th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 10:00 A.M. MINUTES of the 410th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Brownlee and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the Minutes of the 410th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 9 October 1996, Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. Mr. Spilove welcomed Ed McLaughlin, the Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Licenses and Inspections, to the Commission. Mr. McLaughlin serves as the designee for Commissioner Frances Egan. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE REPORT, 29 October 1996, Arlene Matzkin, Chair Ms. Matzkin read the Committee's recommendations before the discussion of each proposal. 325 South 18th Street Teresa Kennedy, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1860; c. 1890 alterations PROPOSAL: New areaway Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin explained that, without a permit, the owner had rebuilt the foundation, owing to its poor condition, and included a new basement door and areaway. Mr. Tyler noted that the court had ordered the work permitted and
c. 1860; c. 1890 alterations PROPOSAL: New areaway Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin explained that, without a permit, the owner had rebuilt the foundation, owing to its poor condition, and included a new basement door and areaway. Mr. Tyler noted that the court had ordered the work permitted and completed shortly. After the Committee recommended approval, Mr. Tyler, following consultation with Mr. Spilove, approved the plans and permit application. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 402 Lombard Street AKA 502 South 4th Street Helen Wang, Owner Andrij Cozak, Applicant DATE: 1794; c. 1870 alterations PROPOSAL: Rebuild wall, new door Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to approve brick-work match. 3 Ms. Matzkin described the rebuilding of the west wall. Mr. Tyler noted that the proposal conforms to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards because the work entails the replacement of a deteriorated feature based on physical evidence. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 231 Chestnut Street Tina Hu, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850; c. 1950 - 1st floor alterations PROPOSAL: Window gates Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of a simplified gate design. Ms. Matzkin explained that the proposal for the exterior gates included ornate detailing. The Committee suggested a simpler design of plain vertical bars more appropriate for the building. Ms. Hu agreed, noting that the simpler design would cost less. Mr. Tyler stated that Standards allow for work that would protect the building from arson or vandalism. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. 785 South Front Street Rosa Marino, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1795; c. 1860 alterations PROPOSAL: New roof, rebuild front facade Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to approve details. Ms. Matzkin stated that the structural condition of the building's facade necessitated rebuilding. Mr. Baron explained the importance of the pitch of the gambrel roof and that the staff will ensure the accuracy of the reconstruction. Mr. Tyler noted that replacement in kind conforms to the Standards. Mr. Bumb made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 4 13-21 South 5th Street, The Bourse Building Ron Zaker, Owner Ed Bance, Applicant DATE: 1893-1895 PROPOSAL: Awning Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial but approval
in kind conforms to the Standards. Mr. Bumb made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 4 13-21 South 5th Street, The Bourse Building Ron Zaker, Owner Ed Bance, Applicant DATE: 1893-1895 PROPOSAL: Awning Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial but approval of painting the interior glass a dark color if necessary. Ms. Matzkin explained that the awkward placement of the awning would obscure too much of the greenhouse. The Commission discussed the need for the awning and its exact position. Mr. Tyler noted that the Standards set by the Secretary of the Interior do not recommend the introduction of a new design incompatible in size, scale, material or color with the historic building. The Commission agreed that the awning was not compatible. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 2425 Pine Street John Kaulbach, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1835 PROPOSAL: Facade restoration Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with details to match 2409 Pine Street. Staff to approve details. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal as an accurate restoration of the mid-century building. Mr. Tyler explained that the Standards recommend cleaning with the gentlest means possible and designing new windows and entrances using historical, pictorial and physical documentation. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. 239 Chestnut Street David Cuirlino, Owner Lawrence Gilbert, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1852 PROPOSAL: New door; access ramp; rebuild cornice Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of removing 5 the hatch and replacing it with a solid metal panel; approval of a metal ramp to the front door; approval of a new door, and approval of a new cornice with details to match exactly the existing cornice. Staff to approve cornice details. Ms. Matzkin described the various parts of the proposal, explaining the desire of the Committee to save as much of the iron and glass sidewalk as possible. Mr. Tyler noted that the proposal conforms to Standard two: the removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. 140 Chestnut Street Passport Photo Center, Owner Diane Zadlo, Applicant DATE: c. 1840; c. 1920 alterations PROPOSAL: Signs Architectural
and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. 140 Chestnut Street Passport Photo Center, Owner Diane Zadlo, Applicant DATE: c. 1840; c. 1920 alterations PROPOSAL: Signs Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of four signs. On the north elevation, one sign in the window opening and one in the central transom above the window. On the west elevation, one sign in the window opening and one sign in the central transom above the window. Also, approval of the sign on the west wall. Ms. Matzkin explained that the original proposal obscured too much of the glass transoms and detailing of the building. The applicant has submitted revised drawings that include the changes requested by the Committee. Mr. Tyler noted that the original proposal did not conform to the Standards which do not recommend inappropriately scaled signs or logos which obscure the character-defining features of the building. The revised proposal does conform. However, the owner wishes to have the original proposal approved because it provides more visibility. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee and approve the revised proposal. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 300 South Juniper Street Gianni Fragala, Owner Michael Mahoney, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Basement door 6 Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the new door, frame and transom to match 302 S. Juniper St.; approval of removal of all security grates. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal which includes the replacement of the front door, frame and transom, the replacement of the alley door, and the removal of the security gates. Mr. Tyler explained that the proposal conforms to the Standards. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. 251 South Quince Street Joseph Baker, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Remove paint; clean and point masonry Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to approve cleaning and pointing samples. Ms. Matzkin stated that the owner seeks to remove the paint and repoint the mortar where needed. Mr. Tyler noted that the Standards call for cleaning with the gentlest means possible. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 310 Gaskill Street Denison and Peg Hatch, Owners/Applicants
to remove the paint and repoint the mortar where needed. Mr. Tyler noted that the Standards call for cleaning with the gentlest means possible. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 310 Gaskill Street Denison and Peg Hatch, Owners/Applicants DATE: 1818 PROPOSAL: Restore dormer Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to approve details. Ms. Matzkin explained that the owners want to restore the dormer; however, the exact size and placement of the window needs investigation. Mr. Tyler noted that the proposal conforms to Standard six: the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. 7 908 South Front Street Joseph Orlando, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: New doors, frames, transoms and windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of wood, true-muntin, six-over-six windows; four panel front door, and the transom details with final approval by staff. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal. Mr. Sklaroff questioned the request of the Committee for a four-panel door. Ms. Wolf explained that a six-panel door is a Colonial Revival feature not appropriate for a mid-century vernacular building. Mr. Bumb made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2030 Latimer Street Wendy Bennett, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1923 PROPOSAL: Storm windows and door; restucco bay; rebuild brick planter Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of storm windows, door and paint; approval of restucco; approval of new brick planter with a drain installed in the bottom with flashing designed to protect the wall of the house. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal which includes the restucco of the bay, exterior storm windows and door, and the rebuilding of the brick planter. Mr. Sklaroff asked if the building was in the district. Mr. Baron confirmed that the building contributes to the Rittenhouse-Fitler District. Mr. Bumb made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed unanimously. [Note: The Commission itself reviews proposals for buildings listed as "contributing" or "significant" in the districts. The staff reviews buildings classified as "non- contributing".] 1625-1645 Spring Garden Street, Masterman Public School School District of Philadelphia, Owner Thomas Schweiker, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1932 PROPOSAL: Legalize new windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. 8 Ms. Matzkin explained that the
proposals for buildings listed as "contributing" or "significant" in the districts. The staff reviews buildings classified as "non- contributing".] 1625-1645 Spring Garden Street, Masterman Public School School District of Philadelphia, Owner Thomas Schweiker, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1932 PROPOSAL: Legalize new windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. 8 Ms. Matzkin explained that the School District performed work without a building permit or the Commission's approval. The District replaced all of the original sash, except for a few larger windows, with new sash and frames, installed within the original wood frames. Many of the new windows have thin, tape-like, applied muntins on the lower sash and sandwiched muntins on the upper sash. Some of the new windows have no muntins at all. Several large, ornate arched windows on the rear of the building remain intact, but the District has already ordered the replacement windows. Also, the School District plans to replace the doors on the building and has ordered the new doors which do not match the existing. The Committee told the applicants to stop work on the windows and doors. The applicants will return to the Committee with a formal proposal to replace the doors. Thomas Schweiker, an architect for the School District of Philadelphia, explained the process which the School District follows when ordering and installing windows. He stated that the School District did recognize the historic nature of the building and changed the windows normally installed to have snap-in and applied muntins. However, the School District did not know that the school appeared on the Philadelphia Register and the work required the approval of the Historical Commission. The Commission members emphasized the fact that if the contractor had applied for a permit before ordering and installing the new windows the School District would have known of the requirements before work began and money spent. Mr. Schweiker stated that the contractor had applied for the permit and went ahead with the work in anticipation of its issuance. He did not learn until several weeks later that he should contact the Historical Commission. The Commission reiterated that the work should have waited until the permit was in hand. Mr. Schweiker offered, with the School District's absorbing the added expense of $145,000, to have applied muntins attached to the upper sash to match the lower sash. The muntins would measure 3/4 of an inch in width and 3/8 of an inch in depth. Ms.
the permit was in hand. Mr. Schweiker offered, with the School District's absorbing the added expense of $145,000, to have applied muntins attached to the upper sash to match the lower sash. The muntins would measure 3/4 of an inch in width and 3/8 of an inch in depth. Ms. Wolf stated that those dimensions are the visual equivalent of masking tape. It is worse to give the impression that these shallow muntins are historically correct than to have no muntins at all. For the color of the windows, Mr. Schweiker and Mr. Brinkley, another architect, noted that they chose the darker color of the replacement windows because it hides the dirt better than the light color requested by the Architectural Committee. The Commission members conceded that the lighter color may show the dirt; however, the dark color is 9 inappropriate for the Colonial Revival style of the school. The School District expressed its willingness to paint the sash and muntins at an additional cost of approximately $150,000-170,000. To replace the windows entirely would cost approximately $800,000. Mr. Schweiker explained that the School District has systematically replaced the windows of all of the schools with safe, energy-efficient windows. None of the previous schools needed the Historical Commission's approval so it came as a surprise that Masterman School was on the Register. Since the Architectural Committee meeting, he has checked the Register for any other schools. After reviewing the addresses of over one-third of the properties, he has only found three, Masterman School, Ridgeway Library, now the School for Performing Arts, and the Board of Education Building. Mr. Brownlee stated that while only a few appear on the Philadelphia Register, over 150 form a thematic district on the National Register of Historic Places. He asked if the District used federal monies for the replacement windows in any of the buildings and if it had complied with §106. Mr. Schweiker stated that the District had no federal monies for this project. The capital budget supplies funds from bond issues. Mr. Tyler explained that the replacement windows violate two of the Standards set by the Secretary of the Interior. Standard five states that distinctive features that characterize an historic property shall be preserved. Standard six states that when a feature is replaced, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Ms. Wolf noted that the same
by the Secretary of the Interior. Standard five states that distinctive features that characterize an historic property shall be preserved. Standard six states that when a feature is replaced, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Ms. Wolf noted that the same situation came before the Commission from other schools, including the University of the Arts and Moore College of Art. If the Commission requires the appropriate windows, and related costs, in private institutions, fairness requires the same of a city agency. Other Commission members agreed that consistency is important. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Milton Marks of the Preservation Alliance reiterated the need for §106 review of any project that uses federal monies. Mr. Tyler stated that the federal lead agency providing the funds has the responsibility for the §106 review, but commonly the agency asks the applicant for all of the necessary information. 10 2028 Locust Street Donald Wolfe, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1840; 1889 alterations PROPOSAL: Legalize new roof, windows and shutters Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of new windows, but trim should be painted dark; denial of shutters and asphalt roof. The shutters should be removed and the slate roof reinstalled. Ms. Matzkin described the work done without a building permit and without Commission's approval. The owner installed six-over-six windows on the second and third floors, removed the slate shingle roof and installed an asphalt shingle roof, and installed paneled shutters on the second and third floor. The Committee decided to recommend approval of the windows because the six-over-six windows did exist on the third floor. Chad Pickeral, representing the owner, Donald Wolfe, stated that the owner did not know of the importance of the building or its designation when he bought it in June of this year. He has slowly been making many improvements, both interior and exterior. A slate shingle had fallen from the roof, so Mr. Wolfe replaced it with asphalt shingles like those on the house next door. He now is willing to reinstall the slate shingles. Mr. Wolfe's hobby is carpentry and he made the new shutters himself. He patterned the shutters after ones on a house a few doors down. The Commission discussed the appropriateness of the solid shutters. A photograph from 1939 does not show shutters and Mr.
willing to reinstall the slate shingles. Mr. Wolfe's hobby is carpentry and he made the new shutters himself. He patterned the shutters after ones on a house a few doors down. The Commission discussed the appropriateness of the solid shutters. A photograph from 1939 does not show shutters and Mr. Brownlee noted that the removal of the shutters could have been Wilson Eyre's way of modifying the second and third stories of the house. Mr. Sklaroff stated that he believed that the shutters do not detract from the house and should be allowed. Mr. Brownlee disagreed, stating that the shutters are not appropriate for the alterations made by Wilson Eyre in 1889. Bobbye Burke of the Preservation Alliance testified on the importance of this block of Locust owing to the many architect-designed houses on it. This house has significance because of the changes made by Wilson Eyre. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee and approve the reinstallation of the slate roof. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion. Mr. Sklaroff then made a motion for an amendment to approve the shutters. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion for the amendment. The motion for 11 the amendment failed with Messrs. Bumb, Sklaroff and James for the motion and six members voting against. The Commission then passed the original motion with a unanimous vote. Ms. Wolf thanked Ms. Burke for her expertise and diligence in the preservation of the Rittenhouse-Fitler Square district. 2021-2023 Sansom Street, Roxy Theater Bernard Nearey, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1960 - 2021; c. 1850 - 2023 PROPOSAL: Paint facade; new lights Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of lights and paint conditional upon the installation of a molding over the first floor to create a horizontal transition. Ms. Matzkin stated that Mr. Nearey plans to reopen the Roxy Theater. The Committee asked for a molding above the first floor to delineate between the older section of the building from the altered first floor and to demarcate the changes of stucco finish. Ms. Kaplan made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 2227 Pine Street Dmitri Chimes, Owner Sam Olshin, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1870; c. 1930 alterations PROPOSAL: Facade alterations Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the discussion and vote. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal which includes installing new windows and doors on the first floor,
which passed unanimously. 2227 Pine Street Dmitri Chimes, Owner Sam Olshin, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1870; c. 1930 alterations PROPOSAL: Facade alterations Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the discussion and vote. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal which includes installing new windows and doors on the first floor, new awnings, new lights and painting the building a brick color. The Committee recommends approval of all of the work. Paul Hirshorn, a neighbor, testified that nearby residents have a concern over the type of windows proposed. He stated that these large casement windows, when open, will flood the street with noise. Fitler Square is a quiet area and the neighbors fear the disruption of crowds and 12 noise generated by the restaurant. He asked if the Commission can dictate when and if the windows can be open. Mr. Tyler stated that the use of the building does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Historical Commission. The Commission can only assess the changes as they relate to the historic structure. Tama Williams, another neighbor, also testified that noise from the restaurant is a valid concern of the neighborhood. She understood that the Commission does not regulate use of the building, but she wanted to state her concerns for the record. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. 2131-2133 Pine Street Hong Hyon Ko, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1895 PROPOSAL: Legalize roll-down gates and signs Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of interior gates and approval of signs within the existing sign band. Staff to approve sign details. Approval of investigating the corner pillar. Ms. Matzkin explained that Frank Herz, the lawyer for Mr. Ko, presented to the Committee an alternative of interior gates that would resemble those of 339 South 21st Street. Also the new signs will be cut down to fit in the existing sign band. Ms. Matzkin also noted that the owner wants to investigate restoring the corner pillar. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. 1701 Walnut Street, The Allman Building The Limited, Inc., Owner Vern Lei, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1910 PROPOSAL: New door, awnings & signs Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of installation of one awning frame on 17th Street and solid red matte canvas-type awnings on all frames. Approval of
carried by unanimous vote. 1701 Walnut Street, The Allman Building The Limited, Inc., Owner Vern Lei, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1910 PROPOSAL: New door, awnings & signs Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of installation of one awning frame on 17th Street and solid red matte canvas-type awnings on all frames. Approval of non-illuminated surface-mounted metal letters for signage. Approval of a new metal door with glass panel on 17th Street to match the doors on the Walnut Street facade. Approval of plaque on Walnut Street facade with attachment to match 13 existing holes. Approval cleaning the masonry with staff to approve specifications and a cleaning sample. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal and the changes required by the Committee. Mr. Tyler stated that, with the changes, the proposal conforms to the Standards. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1830 Spruce Street Stephen Herman, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1860; c. 1925 alterations PROPOSAL: New windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: The owner to meet with staff to create a plan for the replacement of the rear windows and all windows to be painted black. Ms. Matzkin explained that the owner has already purchased white, vinyl, one-over-one windows for the rear of the building which faces Cypress Street. Part of the rear is visible from 19th Street as well as Cypress Street. The Commission discussed the visibility of the various windows and the appropriateness of one-over-one replacements. The Commission did agree that all of the windows are to be painted black to match existing trim. Stephen Herman testified that most of the windows are not visible from 19th Street. The windows are deteriorated beyond repair and his heating bills are very expensive. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the purchased vinyl windows for all rear windows except any of the six that face Cypress Street that may require another type of window. The replacement windows for the remaining six must maintain the original window type and design and all of the windows must be painted black. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 2121 Delancey Street Phillipa Campbell, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1865 PROPOSAL: New wall, garage door Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin explained that the owners along Delancey 14 have access to the rears of their buildings and use their backyards for parking. The owner wishes to erect a brick wall
unanimously. 2121 Delancey Street Phillipa Campbell, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1865 PROPOSAL: New wall, garage door Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin explained that the owners along Delancey 14 have access to the rears of their buildings and use their backyards for parking. The owner wishes to erect a brick wall and garage door for security. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 317 South 16th Street Franco Criniti, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Legalize aluminum covered cornice Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. The Committee requests the removal of the aluminum and the repair of the wood cornice. Mr. Criniti, without a building permit or the Commission's approval, covered the cornice with aluminum. The Committee agreed to the removal of the aluminum and the repair of the wood cornice. Mr. James made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. 2329 Spruce Street Bernard Applebaum, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1860; c. 1960 alterations PROPOSAL: Awning Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin explained that the owner would like an awning to cover the door and protect it from the elements. The door and the transom date to the 1960s. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1725 Tioga Street Kingdom Hall, Owner Sammie Devoe, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Demolition Mr. Tyler explained that the property was declared Imminently Dangerous by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. He contacted the Department and learned that 15 the violation stemmed from a deteriorated bargeboard and holes in the roof. The building did suffer a fire, but the fire was contained in one room on the second floor. Mr. McLaughlin stated that the building is set back on the lot away from the public right-of-way so the building does not present a danger to the public. Mr. Tyler and Mr. Baron visited the site and noted that the building's walls appear solid. The Department has confirmed this. Lance Thomas, the presiding elder for Kingdom Hall, testified that the congregation had owned the building from the 1950s to the mid-1970s. The congregation sold the building and purchased the land next door for a meeting house and parking. The present facilities became too small, and in 1990 the congregation repurchased this property to expand and provide
Hall, testified that the congregation had owned the building from the 1950s to the mid-1970s. The congregation sold the building and purchased the land next door for a meeting house and parking. The present facilities became too small, and in 1990 the congregation repurchased this property to expand and provide parking. Since the repurchase, squatters have inhabited the property. The congregation has recently forced the squatters to leave, but the building remains open. Mr. Thomas explained that the congregation has tried to create a plan that could utilize the existing building, but it is not feasible. The congregation needs new classrooms that are handicap-accessible and parking for its members. The Commission members decided that since the building does not endanger the public the application demolition should be reviewed by the Financial Hardship Committee. Mr. Sklaroff asked if the review by the Financial Hardship Committee constituted a burden and violated the rights of the congregation under the Religious Freedom Act. Mr. Zecca, the Commission's counsel, stated that the process is not a burden on their religious freedom and the application must be submitted for review by the Commission. Mr. Wilds made a motion to refer the proposal to the Financial Hardship Committee for review when a complete application is received. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Report of the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, October 1996, Richard Tyler. Certified Local Government Grant Mr. Tyler explained that the Preservation Alliance wishes to publish a manual for property owners in the Rittenhouse-Fitler Historic District. 16 Elise Vider testified that the Preservation Alliance wants to help educate the property owners in the various districts about architecture, preservation, and the requirements of the Historical Commission. She has asked a number of people to write various chapters of a publication that will include photographs and drawings as well as a glossary. It will be geared towards the Rittenhouse-Fitler District, but the Alliance hopes to adapt the information for other districts as they are created. Mr. Tyler stated that the Alliance has discussed this project with the staff and has proposed that the Commission apply to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission for a Certified Local Government grant of $10,000 to fund the printing and distribution of the publication. He explained that in past years the Commission used this program to retain persons under contract to perform various staff functions; then we could
Commission apply to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission for a Certified Local Government grant of $10,000 to fund the printing and distribution of the publication. He explained that in past years the Commission used this program to retain persons under contract to perform various staff functions; then we could reply upon grants of $22,000 to $25,000. With the increased number of qualified municipalities seeking assistance from an essentially unchanged pool of money, however, Philadelphia's anticipated share has fallen to but $10,000, an amount insufficient for meaningful personnel supplementation. Previously the staff applied for the grants without consultation with the Commission, for we used and controlled the funds internally. With the proposed external participation by the Alliance, Mr. Tyler brought the matter before the Commission. The Preservation Alliance will prepare the application and the subsequent reports. In addition, the staff will review the text of the proposed manual and will ask the appropriate Commission members to read various chapters of it. Mr. Tyler recommended the approval of this proposal. Mr. Wilds made a motion to authorize the staff to apply for a Certified Local Government grant of $10,000 to fund the printing and distribution of the Preservation Alliance's Rittenhouse-Fitler Historic District manual. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura M. Spina