THE MINUTES OF THE 467th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 11 July 2001 Commission Conference Room 18th Floor, 1515 Arch Street Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Present Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Melissa Heller Batzer, Office of City Council President, Director of Economic Development Duane Bumb, Deputy Director, Department of Commerce Gary Hack, Chair, City Planning Commission Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Public Property Carol Lawrence, Director of Public Art David Perri, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Robert Thomas, AIA Scott Wilds, Office of Housing and Community Development, Assistant Director of Housing Carolyn Wischmann Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Julianne Brennan, Historic Preservation Planner Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Also Charles Simpson, CHR Construction Nan Gutterman, Vitetta Group Ed Chinchillo, E.J. Chinchillo Contracting Incorporated Audrey Johnson-Thornton, Belmont Mansion Katherine Ramey, Glen Foerd on the Delaware Gianne Conard, Valley Green Inn Karen Lloyd Borski, Fairmount Park Commission Scott Schwarz, Mattioni and Mattioni Mike Jacobs, MDC Philip Smith, Philip Smith Interior Design Peter Rittenhouse, Friends Center Corporation Stephanie Craighead, Fairmount Park Commission Baird Brown, Fairhill Burial Ground Claire Donato, Mark B. Thompson Associates Charles Datner Van M. Potteiger, Van Potteiger Architects Rachel Schade, Schade and Bolender Architects Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents’ Association/Preservation Alliance Adrian Scott Fine, National Trust for Historic Preservation John Starkey, Capital Programs Office Ira Kauderer, Esq., Ballard Spahr Andrews and Ingersoll Dan Johnson, Henkels and McCoy Antonio Rowan, AT&T Wireless 1 Lee Pearst, Bechtel Corporation Craig Klofach, UJMN Architects Lisa Armstrong, Armstong Kaulbach Architects Peter Miller, Tower and Miller Architects Albert Taus, Albert Taus and Associates Jim Pearl, Law Department M.D. Robinson, American Women’s Heritage Society Ursula Reed, Fairmount Park Council for Historic Sites Wayne S. Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 467th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 9:15 a.m. Minutes of the 466th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Wilds and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the 466th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 13 June 2001, Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 26 June 2001. Valley Green Inn, Springfield Avenue at Wissahickon Creek City of Philadelphia, Owner Irving Shapiro, Architect DATE: c.1820 PROPOSAL: Demolition and additions The Architectural Committee recommended approval with staff to review details. Mr. Levy
on 13 June 2001, Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 26 June 2001. Valley Green Inn, Springfield Avenue at Wissahickon Creek City of Philadelphia, Owner Irving Shapiro, Architect DATE: c.1820 PROPOSAL: Demolition and additions The Architectural Committee recommended approval with staff to review details. Mr. Levy abstained from voting. This proposal, seen several times before, has undergone modifications to reduce cost. On the plans, the addition now sets away from the rear retaining wall and the material of the walls has changed to wood siding. The terrace area has semi-permanent roof panels to afford protection in inclement weather. The staff recommended approval per Standards 9 and 10. Mr. Baron presented the proposal and stated that the applicant has worked with the staff to reduce the addition’s height. Mr. Wilds questioned the approval with wood; however, owing to the existing wood clapboard, this is an appropriate material. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 5001 Grant Avenue, Glen Foerd Fairmount Park Commission/Glen Foerd Conservation Corporation, Owners Lisa Armstrong, Architect DATE: c.1850; William J. McAuley, Architect PROPOSAL: New boathouse The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the boathouse design with staff to review material samples and details. This application calls for the construction of a new boathouse on an existing foundation and the utilization of an existing stairway. Plans show a one-story structure, built into the seawall and clad with fiber cement clapboards and trim, and aluminum clad wood windows. A balcony 2 protrudes slightly over the existing stone foundation on the east elevation. In addition, the application shows a concrete on metal roof deck with a gazebo atop the first story. A roof of asphalt or copper shingles would cover the gazebo supported by steel posts. Staff recommended approval of the project. Ms. Brennan presented the proposal. Commission members raised questions about the 1850s foundation and the proposed roofing material. Lisa Armstrong, the architect, stated that the Friends of Glen Foerd has raised money, the budget is restricted but the proposed asphalt shingles could be changed to copper if there is adequate funding. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 4250 Belmont Mansion Drive, Belmont Mansion City of Philadelphia, Owner Claire Donato, Architect DATE: c. 1742; additions; c. 1744-45, 1755, 1762, 1850, 1867, 1876 PROPOSAL: Restoration
copper if there is adequate funding. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 4250 Belmont Mansion Drive, Belmont Mansion City of Philadelphia, Owner Claire Donato, Architect DATE: c. 1742; additions; c. 1744-45, 1755, 1762, 1850, 1867, 1876 PROPOSAL: Restoration of roof, chimneys, cornices, porch and other features The Architectural Committee recommended approval based on restoration to c.1816 with the staff to review details. Mr. D’Alessandro abstained from the vote. This proposal to remove the structurally unsound third floor and install a new roof has received approval in concept in the past from the Committee and Commission. The main difference involves adopting the end of the 18th and early 19th century as the period of significance and rebuilding a front porch seen in an 1816 image of the house. The staff recommended approval per Restoration Standards 4 and 7. Mr. Wilds who was present at the previous meeting of the Commission which approved in concept the removal of the third floor, stated that it’s decision was based on the structural condition of the building and the cost issue. Mr. Tyler also present at the previous meetings, observed that the Committee and Commission discussed the removal of the third floor at length and granted its approval in concept on credible engineering evidence that the stabilization of the third floor would require intervention that would seriously compromise the integrity of the highly significant ornamental plaster work of the lower floors. Mr. Sklaroff stated that, for informational purposes, the minutes of the previous meeting, The Historic Structure Report as well as the engineer’s report should be distributed to the current Commission members. Some Commission members also believed that since the building has undergone many changes over time, the restoration should enhance the period that is most significant. Audrey Johnson-Thornton, American Women’s Heritage Society, expressed concern about the history of the building and the most significant period. She believes that the Fairmount Park Commission should hire an independent historian to document and research the Mansion’s history. Ms. Johnson-Thornton also faxed a letter to the Committee and Commission members, which further expresses her opposition to the removal of the third floor owing to its importance as part of the history of the building and the possible resulting structural damage. She believed that a continuance should be granted to allow for more research into its history
Committee and Commission members, which further expresses her opposition to the removal of the third floor owing to its importance as part of the history of the building and the possible resulting structural damage. She believed that a continuance should be granted to allow for more research into its history and structural integrity. 3 Scott Schwartz said that he believed the Commission’s consideration was done without consulting The American Women’s Heritage Scoiety. Ursula Reed, Fairmount Park Council for Historic Sites, spoke in support of Ms. Johnson-Thornton. Adrian Fine, National Trust for Historic Preservation supported the requested continuance. Stephanie Craighead, Fairmount Park Commission, said that the overall reason for the removal is to maintain the structural integrity of the building. Thomas Klein, Chief Engineer, stated that the building has undergone extensive studies including numerous walk throughs to assess the stability of the 3rd floor. They yielded a determination that if retained the third floor would not have a viable use and the stabilization’s cost would be prohibitive. He explained that the additional structure to retain the 3rd floor would add weight on the brick walls that were only built to carry a two-story structure. He also presented drawings to show the evolution of the complex over the years and a painting, which is the earliest depiction of the two-story mansion. Mr. Sklaroff recommended a continuance to provide the opponents of the proposal time to rebut the conclusions based on structural conditions and to address the question of the period of significance. Any additional information must be presented within 45 days for the submission. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to amend the previous motion to allow a continuance for a period not to exceed 60 days. Mr. Wilds seconded the amended motion which carried unanimously. 2901 Germantown Avenue, Fairhill Cemetery Fairhill Burial Ground Corporation, Owner Craig Klofach, Architect Tony Junker, Architect DATE: Established 1703; Ornamental fence c.1875 PROPOSAL: Replacement of cemetery fence The Architectural Committee recommended the referral of the proposal to the Committee on Financial Hardship. The proposal involves replacing the damaged fence along Germantown Avenue with a new simplified fence as installed along Indiana Avenue in 1998. The contractor estimates the cost of restoring the existing fence at approximately $164,000 versus $74,000 for replacement with the modern fence. Staff recommendation: Denial per Standards 5 and
The proposal involves replacing the damaged fence along Germantown Avenue with a new simplified fence as installed along Indiana Avenue in 1998. The contractor estimates the cost of restoring the existing fence at approximately $164,000 versus $74,000 for replacement with the modern fence. Staff recommendation: Denial per Standards 5 and 6. The original fence, though missing in spots, largely remains intact. The applicant should infill missing pieces with new pieces to match the original. Once the molds for the correct design exist, they will reduce the cost of the remaining two sides. Craig Klofach, the architect, and Baird Brown, Friends of the Fairhill Burial Ground Corporation, attended the meeting. Mr. Klofach stated that the posts are the most problematic elements in the fence replacement owing to the cost. He also said that the herringbone design portion at the bottom is being salvaged where possible. Mr. Brown gave a brief history of the burial ground 4 and said that the Friends preference for replacement is utter Quaker simplicity, keeping as much of the historic fabric as possible. Some Commission members questioned the amount of remaining historic fabric and noted that the cost issues should be referred to the Committee on Financial Hardship. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried with 10 votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. City Hall, Market and Broad Street City of Philadelphia, Owner City of Philadelphia Capital Program Office, Applicant James Bryan, Architect DATE: 1871; John McArthur, Jr., Architect PROPOSAL: Portal gates in concept The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the portal gates in concept with staff to review details. This application in concept calls for the fabrication of gates for the four portals of City Hall. The application utilizes City Hall architect John McArthur, Jr.’s design for the portal gates; however, it does not replicate them exactly so as not to suggest that they were made over 100 years ago. Plans show the new gates fashioned from modern materials for durability with a design that strongly draws from that of the original. Staff recommended approval with the addition of a date plaque to reflect the modern date of the gate construction. Nan Gutterman, the architect, stated that the intention is to interpret McArthur’s drawing. She presented a sample of the proposed material, solid aluminum cut by a water jet. Mr. Hack questioned the replication of a period and
of a date plaque to reflect the modern date of the gate construction. Nan Gutterman, the architect, stated that the intention is to interpret McArthur’s drawing. She presented a sample of the proposed material, solid aluminum cut by a water jet. Mr. Hack questioned the replication of a period and thought the design should draw on the present. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained and Mr. Hack opposed the motion. 1515 Cherry Street, Race Street Friends Meeting Friends Center Corporation, Owner Peter Rittenhouse, Applicant DATE: 1856 PROPOSAL: Security camera The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the camera on the building as submitted; however, it recommended approval of a camera mounted on a new, freestanding post and not on original building fabric. The proposal involves installing a security camera on the corner of the building to help deter a rash of robberies. After conducting a site visit, staff recommended denial of placing the camera on the building itself and suggested an alternate placement. The applicant submitted revised drawings to reflect the Committee’s recommendation. 5 Mr. James made a motion to approve the revised submission. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried with 10 votes. Mr. Sklaroff opposed the motion. 2034 Rittenhouse Square Harry Pastcan, Trust, Owner Ira Kauderer, Esq., Applicant DATE: 1915 PROPOSAL: Rooftop antennas and cabinet The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the equipment cabinet and antennas, with staff to review details and color, with the understanding that the obsolete antennas at the northeast corner of 19th and Spruce Streets be removed. In addition, when the approved equipment is rendered obsolete, the Architectural Committee stated that it must be removed. This proposal involves installing an equipment cabinet and antennas on the roof of a parking garage. Mr. Baron conducted a site visit where the applicant installed a mock-up which demonstrated minimal visibility. As a result, staff recommended approval of the equipment installation. Mr. Wilds thought it important that the owner of the property submit a letter agreeing to the contingency of the installation based on the removal of the obsolete antennas. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation subject to the receipt of a letter of agreement from the owner of the property. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. James opposed the motion and Mr.
based on the removal of the obsolete antennas. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation subject to the receipt of a letter of agreement from the owner of the property. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. James opposed the motion and Mr. Sklaroff recused himself. 1801 Pine Street, NW corner of 18th Street Pine Street General Partnership, Owner Peter Miller, Architect DATE: c. 1870; altered c. 1950 PROPOSAL: Remove masonry grills and replace with metal; replace door The Architectural Committee recommended approval of removing the cast stone grilles and the glass block. The Architectural Committee recommended that the basement windows either be replaced with clear glass basement sash or those with existing sash be repaired. The Architectural Committee also recommended approval of the addition of iron grilles with staff to review details. This proposal calls for removing the damaged cast stone window grates and installing new iron grilles in their place. A former owner installed glass block in those openings without a permit and a violation issued at that time. The removal of the cast stone grates will further expose that glass block. The second problem is that the building received exterior alterations in the 1950s or 60s which may have some significance. Staff recommended denial and suggested that the applicant restore the cast stone elements as they form an integral part of the altered design of the building and help to hide the inappropriate glass block. The Architectural Committee denied the proposal for a solid, flush door and suggested the applicant work with staff to determine an appropriate historic door. The Architectural Committee further suggested the applicant consider an application to the Hardship Committee. 6 Peter Miller, architect, proposes a solid, flush door to replace a currently damaged replacement door on the 18th Street façade. He believes that the cost of an historic door would be a hardship. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 233 South 24th Street Kell Stirman, Owner Charles Simpson, Contractor DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Legalize addition The Architectural recommended denial as submitted, but approval of the re-sloping of the roofline to the south, a greater setback from the existing side of the building and consultation with an architect to make sure the windows conform to code. The applicant seeks to legalize the construction of a
addition The Architectural recommended denial as submitted, but approval of the re-sloping of the roofline to the south, a greater setback from the existing side of the building and consultation with an architect to make sure the windows conform to code. The applicant seeks to legalize the construction of a large rear addition visible from both Locust and 24th Streets. The addition “completes the gable” on this half gable house. The new structure will have stucco walls and already has vinyl casement windows. Staff recommendation: Denial per Standards 9 and 10. The addition should have a roof that slopes sideways to the south and pulls back from the existing side of the building. Staff members had a mixed opinion on the vinyl windows. This project has doubled the size of the house, and the work was done without a permit. The original one-story portion of the back had a distinct offset; however, the new portion has a smaller amount of offset and rises up three-stories. Charles Simpson, the contractor, spoke in defense of the proposal and said that another contractor had started the work. However, Mr. Simpson continued the work without a permit. Mr. Perri questioned the issuance of a violation and stated that a violation and a cease operations order shall be issued. Mr. Hack made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and deny the proposal. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Spilove passed the gavel to Mr. Wilds. 1723-1729 Walnut Street AIG Baker Enterprises, Owner Van Potteiger, Architect DATE: c. 1961 PROPOSAL: Three-story addition The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the addition with the use of limestone to match the existing structure with staff to review details. This application calls for the addition of three floors to an existing two-story retail building. Plans show the three new stories as continuing the general fenestration pattern of the existing and the use of a material to match the existing limestone in texture and color. In addition, a metal 7 roof, new storefront doors and awnings are shown. The applicant’s design includes a central bay with a nine light window and a circular window at the curved top. A mechanical penthouse atop the building stretches three bays in length. Staff recommended approval of the addition. Although this is a non-contributing building, Commission members expressed concern about compromising the neighboring contributing building with the blockage of windows. It
nine light window and a circular window at the curved top. A mechanical penthouse atop the building stretches three bays in length. Staff recommended approval of the addition. Although this is a non-contributing building, Commission members expressed concern about compromising the neighboring contributing building with the blockage of windows. It thought that a setback should be considered. Mr. Wilds said that the building should extend upward and setback to the east at the 4th floor or the applicant should explore other options to realign with other building’s setbacks. Some members believed that the use of structural beams would allow for the setbacks. Van Potteiger, the architect, presented photographs of the roofscape and stated that he is allowed to go up 40 feet. In response to questions about the roofline of the new building in relationship to the adjacent building, he stated that the lightwell will be preserved to a depth of 8 feet. He also said that the existing 3rd floor has HVAC equipment. Wayne Spilove, owner of the neighboring building, expressed great concern about the blockage of windows and the mass of the proposed addition. In addition, he requested that the proposal be tabled for at least a month. Carl Primavera, the attorney, said that since the addition conforms to zoning, the tabling should not exceed 30 days. Commission members recommended tabling the proposal for a period not to exceed 60 days and without referral back to the Architectural Committee. Mr. Hack recommended that the motion be amended to allow the re-submission of the proposal earlier if necessary and asked that the applicant reconsider the design of the addition. Mr. Wilds made a motion to table the proposal for a period not to exceed 60 days; however, the applicant may resubmit earlier. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Sklaroff and Mr. Spilove recused themselves. Mr. Wilds returned the gavel to Mr. Spilove. 1820 Delancey Street Ralph Scott, Owner Rachel Simmons Schade, Architect DATE: c. 1855 PROPOSAL: Demolition and two-story addition at rear The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the demolition of the existing two-story structure and the construction of a new two-story addition, with staff to review details, and a modified parapet wall to break the massing of the addition. This application calls for the demolition of an existing two-story brick structure and the construction of a new, larger, two-story structure facing Panama Street.
structure and the construction of a new two-story addition, with staff to review details, and a modified parapet wall to break the massing of the addition. This application calls for the demolition of an existing two-story brick structure and the construction of a new, larger, two-story structure facing Panama Street. The first story would align with the current brick structure set back from the property line with a new second floor projecting over the first to the property line. Some Commission members questioned the parapet wall’s modification and the date of the addition. 8 Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 316 South American Street Paul Cohen, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1847; William and Francis Carpenter, builders PROPOSAL: Rear deck The Architectural Committee recommended approval with staff to review details. The proposal calls for the installation of a deck on the rear of the property which is visible through a parking lot. The applicant seeks to cut and partially fill in an existing rear window to create a door onto the deck. Staff recommended approval of the deck and door. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 431 Spruce Street Mark Wilcox, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1803; William McDonough, builder PROPOSAL: Second story addition at rear The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the addition with staff to review details. This application calls for a second story addition on top of an existing garage that faces Manning Street. The plans show the addition stretching about three-quarters of the garage in length, about 15 feet, with the remaining 5 feet as a balcony. The proposal calls for 4-inch horizontal cedar siding for the entire addition. A set of double doors behind a hinged gate and a window face Manning Street. A new exterior steel spiral stair placed behind the addition connects the second story and the rear yard. Staff recommended approval of the addition. Some members questioned the impact on the rear open space which reflects the Redevelopment period. However, the addition would be built atop the garage and it was established that the rear yards have a mix of structures. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 57-63 North 3rd Street, SE corner of Arch Street Dr. Michael Yaron, Owner Albert
be built atop the garage and it was established that the rear yards have a mix of structures. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 57-63 North 3rd Street, SE corner of Arch Street Dr. Michael Yaron, Owner Albert Taus, Architect DATE: 57 North 3rd Street, c. 1855 59 North 3rd Street, c. 1920 façade 61-63 North 3rd Street, c. 1852; John Riddell, architect PROPOSAL: Cut light wells, add roof deck, stair house and HVAC The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the lightwells, deck, stair house, HVAC units and the addition of a doorbell placed in the doorjamb, all with staff to review details. 9 The proposal involves cutting two light wells into the building only one of which will have minor visibility. The roof will receive a deck, stair house and HVAC units all with minimal visibility. The applicant also requested approval for adding a doorbell for multiple units inside the doorjamb. The staff recommended approval of the project. Mr. Sklaroff asked about the existing fire escapes. They will be replaced by interior means of egress.. The historic design of the shutters was questioned and Mr. Baron said that some items depicted on the drawings have been approved at staff level pursuant to § 6.3.c.1 of the Rules and Regulations. Ms. Batzer made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2039 Mt. Vernon Street Stephen Gold, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1875 PROPOSAL: Windows The Architectural Committee recommended approval with the top frame of the sash blocked out behind the brick mold to ensure that the sash is behind the brick mold and have sash lined up with the inner most portion of the brick mold with the staff to review details. This building’s front façade is bowed inward and has pulled away from the cornice which has caused the window’s dimensions to be off-square. The proposal calls for installing Pella windows into the existing window frames. These have applied muntins on both the interior and exterior of the glass as well as a spacer bar between the glass. The problem arises out of the fact that the windows do not come as a sash kit, but rather only with a box that will reduce the sash opening. The staff recommended denial per Standards 5 and 6. Mr. Sklaroff questioned the establishment
as a spacer bar between the glass. The problem arises out of the fact that the windows do not come as a sash kit, but rather only with a box that will reduce the sash opening. The staff recommended denial per Standards 5 and 6. Mr. Sklaroff questioned the establishment of a precedent for approval of applied muntins. Mr. Baron stated that in the past there have been some approvals for Pella windows owing to structural issues. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Batzer seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Thomas abstained. 564 North 17th Street Eric Bisson, Owner James Schneider, Applicant DATE: 1988, John Bushnell, architect PROPOSAL: Roof deck and spiral stair The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the roof deck with staff to review details including color. This application calls for a 16-foot long roof deck on the rear portion of the top floor on this three-story row house. Plans show a 42-inch high wood railing and a metal spiral stair that would connect the second and third floors at the rear of the deck. Both the rail and the stair would have visibility from 17th Street owing to the one-story structure on the adjacent lot. Staff recommended denial of the application as shown and suggested moving the rail back from the 10 edge visible from 17th Street and moving the circular stair farther behind the house to limit visibility. Commission members thought that although the deck will have some visibility it is appropriate for this non-contributing building. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Hack seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 319 Market Street 319 Market Street Association, Owner Charles D. Datner, Architect DATE: 1831 PROPOSAL: Exterior alterations, exhaust fan, deck and windows The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the following: 1. Changing the front vinyl windows to wood; 2. Replacing the glass panels in the front door with solid panels; 3. Door in alley change from dutch door to a single door; 4. Legalize rear 1/1windows subject re-stuccoing east façade wall a smooth brick color finish; 5. Fire escape but should be higher than 8 feet; 6. Deck on rear ell; 7. Satellite dish moved to non-visible rear end of roof; 8. Replace plastic awning with a canvas awning, and 9. Exhaust fan denied as submitted but approval of a stucco screened vent to
color finish; 5. Fire escape but should be higher than 8 feet; 6. Deck on rear ell; 7. Satellite dish moved to non-visible rear end of roof; 8. Replace plastic awning with a canvas awning, and 9. Exhaust fan denied as submitted but approval of a stucco screened vent to look like a pier with louvers on the top With staff to review all details. This proposal involves re-application to correct violations and legalize much work that has been approved in the past as well as work never approved. The applicant seeks to install wood lower panels in the storefront door, correct the alley door to a single piece design, reinsert wood 2/2 windows in the upper floors of the façade and install a fire escape along the rear ell. All of this has received approval from the staff or Commission previously, but the applicant failed to execute it as approved. In addition, the applicant seeks approval to legalize a rear deck, a side kitchen exhaust fan encased in a stuccoed pier and the installation of aluminum windows in the rear ell visible along the abutting public walkway. This latter item has previously been recommended for denial by the Committee. Staff recommendation: Approval of all the work except the kitchen vent which the applicant can route through the interior of the house and the windows of the rear ell which should receive wood replacements to match the originals. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, June 2001 Mr. Tyler asked if members of the Commission had any questions about the report. There were none. 11 HARRY A. BATTEN MEMORIAL FUND Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve the expenditure of $30.52 for the Architectural Committee lunches and $750.00 for Julianne Brennan to attend the annual meeting of the National Trust. Ms. Wolf made a motion to approve the expenditures. Mr. Perri seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Ms. Batzer made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary 12