Historical Commission — Nov 10, 1999

1 THE MINUTES OF THE 447th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 10 November 1999 Commission Conference Room, One Parkway, 1515 Arch St., 18th Fl. 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 Carol Lawrence Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Robert Thomas Dennis Ward III Scott Wilds, Assistant Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Caroline Wischmann Stephanie G. Wolf, Ph.D. Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Elizabeth Harvey, Historic Preservation Planner R. Scott Jacob, Executive Secretary Laura Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Mark Zecca, Esq., Senior Attorney, City of Philadelphia Law Department Also Kevin O’Toole, Temple University Cynthia Philo, Old City District Richard Thom, Old City Civic Association Virginia Restemeyer Edward Weiner Dorann Matthews, Forman Sign Company Michael Hauptman, Brawer and Hauptman Architects Jody Della Barba, Girard Estate Area Residents (GEAR) Andrew Terhune, Toll Brothers Thomas and Cynthia Gemin Paul Bottalla Stuart Mogell Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents Association (CCRA) Robert Krall Rita Gendani, Philadelphia Inquirer Todd Waskowitz Alfonso Gambone, GEAR Elise Vider, Preservation Alliance William Kingsly, Historic East Market Street 2 Michael Forman Judith Eden, CCRA Kevin Gallagher Wayne Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 447th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 9:00 A.M. MINUTES of the 446th 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 446th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 10 November 1999, Wayne Spilove, Chair. MINUTES of the Special Meeting of the Historical Commission, 21 October 1999 Upon a motion made by Mr. Bumb and duly seconded, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of the Commission regarding the application to remove Dream Garden from the Curtis Center, Wayne Spilove, Chair. MINUTES of the Special Meeting of the Historical Commission, 25 October 1999 Upon a motion made by Ms. Wolf and duly seconded, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of the Commission regarding the proposed designation of the Girard Estate Historic District, Wayne Spilove, Chair. THE REPORT of the Committee on Historic Designation, David Brownlee, Chair Mr. Brownlee explained that the Committee on Historic Designation

duly seconded, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of the Commission regarding the proposed designation of the Girard Estate Historic District, Wayne Spilove, Chair. THE REPORT of the Committee on Historic Designation, David Brownlee, Chair Mr. Brownlee explained that the Committee on Historic Designation reviewed the nomination of the Girard Estate Historic District for accuracy and completeness, and to determine if the nomination meets one or more of the criteria for designation prescribed in the Historic Preservation Ordinance at § 14-2007(5) of the Philadelphia Code. He reported that the Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the nomination and inventory of the proposed Girard Estate Historic District, and to enter this district on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Tyler explained that the address of the recently designated Manayunk Club was incorrect on the nomination form. He asked the Commission to designate the property under its correct address, 235-249 Gay Street. Mr. Thomas made a motion to designate the Manayunk Club under its correct address, 235-249 Gay Street. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 26 October1999, Robert Thomas, Chair. 3 Valley Green Inn, Fairmount Park City of Philadelphia, Owner Gianne Conard, Applicant DATE: Mid-19th century PROPOSAL: Material change for addittion Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal as submitted, and approval of horizontal wood siding and a larger barge board or cornice at the roof line of the additions. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for a change of material for the approved additions to the historic building. To lower the expense of the work, the architect now proposes the use of board and batten siding in place of the approved stone to match the reconstructed horse shed. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not find the board and batten appropriate for the design, and requested horizontal wood siding. He also explained that Committee members asked for a larger barge board or cornice at the roof line of the additions. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2300-2498 Grays Ferry Avenue, Naval Home Toll Naval Associates, Owner Andrew Terhune, Applicant DATE: Biddle Hall - 1827; Governor’s and Surgeon’s Houses - 1844 PROPOSAL: Conceptual Approval -

line of the additions. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2300-2498 Grays Ferry Avenue, Naval Home Toll Naval Associates, Owner Andrew Terhune, Applicant DATE: Biddle Hall - 1827; Governor’s and Surgeon’s Houses - 1844 PROPOSAL: Conceptual Approval - attach large addition to west (rear) side of Biddle Hall; demolish rear ell of Governor's House; and construct residential units and parking on site Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the conceptual proposal, except the demolition of the rear ell of the Governor’s House. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal in concept calls for rehabilitating Biddle Hall, the Surgeon’s House and the Governor’s House as part of the phase one development of the property. Plans show a large wing added to the altered west facade of Biddle Hall. A parking area in front of Biddle Hall and the demolition of the rear ell of the Governor’s House have continued as part of the proposal. This scheme also greatly reduces the height of the building at the corner of Grays Ferry and Bainbridge Street from its most recent past incarnation. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to the various aspects of this conceptual plan, except for the demolition of the rear ell of the Governor’s House. He explained that Committee members suggested reconfiguring the parking design and housing layout to accommodate its retention. The unusual shape of the property has presented some spatial problems, and the developer is trying to maximize the usable space without compromising the view corridors to the historic buildings. The rear ell of the Governor’s House, although a relatively small portion of the building, is apparently 4 situated so as to impede the development of that section of the property. Mr. Thomas noted that Committee members did not agree that the loss of two parking places in Phase 1 of the proposal and the slight crowding of housing units in the master plan warrants the demolition of the rear ell and requested further study of the condition of the ell and possible reuse before making any recommendations regarding its demolition. Commission members questioned the necessity of demolishing the rear ell of the Governor’s House, but did not object to the other aspects of the conceptual proposal. Ms. Merhige made a motion to approve the conceptual phase one and the conceptual master plan, both dated 1

any recommendations regarding its demolition. Commission members questioned the necessity of demolishing the rear ell of the Governor’s House, but did not object to the other aspects of the conceptual proposal. Ms. Merhige made a motion to approve the conceptual phase one and the conceptual master plan, both dated 1 October 1999, without the demolition of the rear ell of the Governor’s House. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion which carried with ten votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself. 18 North Front Street Penn’s View Hotel, Owner Sabrina Soong, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1825 PROPOSAL: Building renovation and rooftop addition Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, with staff to review and approve details of the storefront and rear brickwork. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal includes the construction of a rooftop addition set back from both the front and side elevations of this corner building. Plans also show the removal of a much altered one story rear addition and its replacement with a five-story addition. The developer plans to restore the front facade. Mr. Thomas noted that the new addition will conceal a less sympathetic earlier alteration, thus improving the Church Street facade. He stated that Committee members did not object to the rear addition, if stepped back as shown in the drawings, and suggested salvaging some of the historic brick from the existing rear structure and using it at the corner to ease the transition where the new section will begin. Mr. Thomas explained that the Committee did not object to the rooftop addition, owing to its minimal visibility, and that Committee members thought the storefront should have a two-leaf configuration in all three openings. The architect was amenable to the suggestion. Ms. Batcheler asked the staff to show the applicant drawings she made for the restoration of a similar storefront at 112 South Front Street. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 216 Market Street Mirmor Corp., Owner Sabrina Soong, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: Demolish historic storefront; construct new storefront 5 Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval on the basis of the poor integrity of the existing storefront and because the center entrance and the narrow dimensions of the showcases will not accommodate the proposed new use, with glass transom panels above the storefront on both sides, and staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for the

integrity of the existing storefront and because the center entrance and the narrow dimensions of the showcases will not accommodate the proposed new use, with glass transom panels above the storefront on both sides, and staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for the demolition of the historic recessed center entrance storefront and its replacement with an off-center entrance storefront. Plans show a new storefront cornice as well. According to the applicant the center entrance will not accommodate the deli counter and seating section for the proposed new use. The applicant also noted that the deep display windows to either side of the entrance fail to provide any functional space for the new use, as they are too narrow for seating. The Committee discussed the possibility that remnants of the earlier Victorian storefront remain beneath the Art Deco metal storefront. Committee members agreed that the existing condition is of poor integrity, and that the current configuration could hinder the new use. Mr. Tyler stated that staff does not agree with the Committee and that the proposal does not meet the guidelines set forth in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties regarding storefronts. The Standards recommend “ replacing a storefront in kind that is too deteriorated to repair using the physical evidence as a model” and recommend against “changing a storefront’s main entrance.” Mr. Thomas stated that he suggested installing glass transom panels above the storefront on both sides instead of the proposed wood panels. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Richard Thom of the Old City Civic Association spoke regarding that organization’s efforts to preserve historic storefronts, and of the rarity of the subject storefront. He reminded the Commission that it did not condone the destruction of a neighboring storefront, and asked for the same in this case. Commission members discussed the importance of historic storefronts in this section of the city. Mr. Sklaroff withdrew his first motion and made a new motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and deny the proposal. Mr. Ward seconded the new motion which carried unanimously. 922 Spruce Street Jinoua Kazemi, Owner Frank Reis, Applicant DATE: 1832; altered c. 1870s PROPOSAL: Full window screen installation 6 Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the proposal because the previously approved sash do not have muntins, with the

deny the proposal. Mr. Ward seconded the new motion which carried unanimously. 922 Spruce Street Jinoua Kazemi, Owner Frank Reis, Applicant DATE: 1832; altered c. 1870s PROPOSAL: Full window screen installation 6 Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the proposal because the previously approved sash do not have muntins, with the inclusion of a meeting rail within the screen that lines up with the meeting rail of the window itself, and with screen frames painted to match the window frames. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for the installation of full length screens on this rowhouse. He stated that the Committee agreed to recommend approval of this proposal with the inclusion of a meeting rail within the screen that lines up with the meeting rail of the window itself. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 7212 Cresheim Road, Allen Lane Train Station Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Owner Frank Reis, Applicant DATE: 1885 PROPOSAL: HVAC units, vents Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the air conditioning compressor set away from the building, landscaped with bushes, and the “B” vent, painted to match the roof. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for the installation of an HVAC unit on the porch of the train station. The applicant also provided an alternate placement set away from the building and landscaped with bushes. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee voted to approve the alternate proposal. The applicant also asked for approval of a four inch “B” vent on the roof. Mr. Thomas said that the Committee did not object as long as the vent is painted to match the roof. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 739 Walnut Street Steven Singer, Owner Jerry Roller, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1927 PROPOSAL: New storefronts and window panels Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, with the material for the bases changed to a dark stone such as black granite or another dark material, and, if feasible, the removed sections of the cast stone reapplied to the new pilasters, with staff to review and approve details. 7 Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for stabilizing the cast stone facade of this corner commercial property. The owner also wishes to remove the cast stone bases of the existing storefronts and construct new angled window show cases with

new pilasters, with staff to review and approve details. 7 Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for stabilizing the cast stone facade of this corner commercial property. The owner also wishes to remove the cast stone bases of the existing storefronts and construct new angled window show cases with roll down grates. On the upper floors, plans show new metal panels above existing non- historic window treatments and in-fill glazing on the stair tower bays. The new window panels will replace a similar existing treatment. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to glazing the stair tower bays or the window panels. Mr. Thomas explained that the owner of the property believes that the current shopfronts are not conducive to marketing jewelry successfully, and that the proposed storefronts will draw potential customers to examine the displays. He stated that the Committee recommended approval of the new storefronts if the material for the bases was changed to a dark stone such as black granite or another dark material. Mr. Thomas noted that the Committee also asked that the removed sections of the cast stone be reapplied to the new pilasters. Mr. Tyler stated that staff does not agree with the Committee regarding the removal of the storefront bases and that the proposal does not meet the guidelines set forth in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties regarding storefronts. Commission members examined photographs of the storefronts, and wondered whether the existing bases could be salvaged. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to deny the proposal as submitted. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Spilove asked the Commission members to visit the site to examine the condition of the cast stone bases. 1401 Arch Street B & A Associates, Owner Anthony Ciocca, Applicant DATE: 1898; enlarged/altered 1926 PROPOSAL: New doorway Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for removal of both revolving and hinged front doors and the installation of new metal hinged doors to match the color of the existing frame. Mr. James objected, owing to the absence in the proposal of mechanical details relating to handicap accessibility requirements. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried with eleven votes. Mr. James dissented. 232 North 2nd Street Artimede Inc., Owner 8 Michael Drury , Applicant DATE: c. 1870

absence in the proposal of mechanical details relating to handicap accessibility requirements. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried with eleven votes. Mr. James dissented. 232 North 2nd Street Artimede Inc., Owner 8 Michael Drury , Applicant DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: Facade and sidewalk alterations Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of: 1. painting the facade, 2. adding Pennsylvania blue marble steps, and 3. replacing the concrete sections of the sidewalk with smaller bluestone pavers or tinted concrete. Denial of: 1. removal of the existing bluestone sidewalk sections. Mr. Thomas explained that the proposal calls for repainting the facade in cream and green tones and removing the bluestone sidewalk and replacing it either with new smaller stone pavers or tinted concrete. The applicant also seeks to add Pennsylvania blue marble steps between the existing steps. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to repainting the facade or the new steps, but wanted the repair and retention of the existing bluestone sidewalk. He explained that the Committee did not object to replacing the concrete sections of the sidewalk with smaller bluestone pavers or tinted concrete. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 621 B South American Street Angela Roach, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1875 PROPOSAL: Rooftop HVAC and platform; paint stucco green Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that the Applicant seeks to gain approval to rebuild a visible roof top platform with HVAC units. She also seeks to repaint the facade pale green. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to the proposal. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1900-1938 Park Mall, Temple University Temple University, Owner Michael Hauptman and James Piatt, Architects/Applicants DATE: c. 1870s 9 PROPOSAL: Final approval for rehabilitation of and additions to rowhouses for offices and commercial spaces Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of: 1. the end pavilion additions; 2. the platforms with ramps and kiosks, with brownstone pavers the dimension of the former steps placed in front of the doorways to remember the steps; 3. legalization of the removal of the front steps; 4. the retention and restoration of the historic front doors on the end buildings, where the steps are still extant and visible, and the proposed new doors in

the former steps placed in front of the doorways to remember the steps; 3. legalization of the removal of the front steps; 4. the retention and restoration of the historic front doors on the end buildings, where the steps are still extant and visible, and the proposed new doors in the other locations, with a four light configuration including a split transom, and in the historic frames; 5. the revised inn entrance, with a narrower entrance canopy centered over the door; 6. the front awnings, stepped to match the elevations of the row houses and in a canvas material; 7. the rooftop mechanicals; and 8. the rear in-fills, with vinyl windows. All with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Spilove recused himself from the discussion and the vote. Mr. Thomas explained that most of the components of this proposal had come before the Architectural Committee and Historical Commission several times, and this final approval application, in large measure, responds to the recommendations and determinations of the Committee and Commission. The current plan also contains some alterations and additions not seen before. This proposal includes: 1. an elevated platform in front of this row of houses, with the demolition rather than encasement of the front stoops; 2. glass and steel pavilions at the party wall ends of the rows; 3. a new entranceway and window that will access the inn; 4. new in-fill construction connecting the rear ells of the former row houses; 5. display cases on the raised terrace; 6. canvas awnings attached along the width of the front facades; 7. new glass and metal front doors and transoms; 8. new windows on the upper floors, and, 9. rooftop mechanicals. Several Commission members wanted the proposal tabled until the entire Park Mall project can be reviewed by the Commission at one time. Ms. Wolf made a motion to table the proposal until the next Stated Commission meeting when Temple University delivers a complete presentation for the 1800 and 1900 Blocks of Park Mall. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried with eleven votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself. Mr. James made a motion not to legalize the removal of the historic front steps. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried with eleven votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused 10 himself. Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Washington Square City of Philadelphia, Owner Winchell Carroll, American Revolution Patriots Fund, Applicant DATE: 1957 PROPOSAL: Conceptual

made a motion not to legalize the removal of the historic front steps. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried with eleven votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused 10 himself. Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Washington Square City of Philadelphia, Owner Winchell Carroll, American Revolution Patriots Fund, Applicant DATE: 1957 PROPOSAL: Conceptual approval for replacement of the monument in granite Architectural Committee Recommendation: Table the conceptual proposal for one month, awaiting further information regarding the condition of the monument and its replacement. The applicant seeks conceptual approval for the replacement of the deteriorated limestone memorial to the Unknown Soldier of the American Revolution. The stone memorial has weathered badly, and has suffered from inappropriate maintenance. The applicant has applied to rebuild the memorial with a matching design, but in granite. The Commission tabled the conceptual proposal for one month pending the receipt of additional information. 213 -217 North 4th Street Philadelphia Veterans Multi Services and Education Center, Owner Timothy Donahue, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. 1840; facade - c. 1920 PROPOSAL: New doors in mid-20th century ground floor Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the proposal, or an alternate scheme with the proposed doors at the main entrance on Florist Street and plain flush doors in the other locations. Mr. Thomas explained that the contractor seeks to install new metal doors in place of existing faux-colonial wood doors on an altered mid-20th century ground floor. He also proposes to cut a new door and louvers in the Florist Street facade of this same storefront to provide access to a room to hold transformers for electrical service. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to the proposal, but suggested installing plain flush doors so that when the “Colonial Revival” pent is removed the doors do not appear out of place. The applicant agreed, but wants to use the proposed doors at the main entrance off of Florist Street. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 245 South 7th Street Michael Halprin, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1963 PROPOSAL: New wood muntin grid windows 11 Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that the applicant seeks to install wood windows with an applied muntin grid within the existing frames. The grid has a deep putty slope and spacer bars fill the space between the glass. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee

Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that the applicant seeks to install wood windows with an applied muntin grid within the existing frames. The grid has a deep putty slope and spacer bars fill the space between the glass. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 247 South 7th Street Rosa Myers, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1963 PROPOSAL: New wood muntin grid windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that the applicant seeks to install wood windows with an applied muntin grid within the existing frames. The grid has a deep putty slope and spacer bars fill the space between the glass. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 226 South 20th Street VCA, Inc., Owner Dorann Matthews, Applicant DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: signage and awning Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal as submitted, and approval of adding signage to the sides of a canvas type awning. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for installation of a wood sign, illuminated with a goose neck lamp, and a vinyl awning over the door. He stated that the Committee found the proposed sign too large, and recommended adding signage to the sides of a canvas type awning. At the Committee meeting, Mr. Baron noted that such a scheme requires a zoning variance, as awnings with advertising on the sides are considered projecting signage. The Commission agreed with the Committee’s recommendation. Dorann Matthews, the applicant, explained that the owner now wishes to reduce the size of the proposed sign. The Commission explained that the revised application requires Architectural Committee review. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 12 259-261 South 20th Street Audrey Claire Taichman, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Ground-floor alterations Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of: 1. expanding the storefront, without the proposed cornice and simplified transoms; 2. replacing the existing storefronts with accordion fold casement doors, with thin wood frames Denial of: 1. the proposal to continue the historic cornice over the extended storefront. All with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that the applicant seeks to cut new windows into the stucco side wall of this corner building, and plans to extend the storefront cornice and create lift-out removable windows within the existing storefront.

historic cornice over the extended storefront. All with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that the applicant seeks to cut new windows into the stucco side wall of this corner building, and plans to extend the storefront cornice and create lift-out removable windows within the existing storefront. Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant attempted, but was unsuccessful, to locate an old photograph to determine the location of any original openings were along the side wall beyond the storefront. He stated that Mr. Baron suggested the applicant obtain a permit to remove a sufficient amount of stucco on the side wall to determine where previous openings existed and use those openings for new windows. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to expanding the storefront, but wanted the applicant to eliminate the proposed cornice from the new section and use a simplified transom to avoid creating a sense of false history. He explained that the Committee also thought the existing plate glass storefronts could be replaced with accordion fold casement storefront doors, with thin wood frames. Commission members wanted the applicant to remove a horizontal strip of stucco to see where the original domestic windows were, if there was ever a storefront, or if a sufficient amount of historic fabric is missing. Mr. Wilds suggested empowering the staff and two Commission members to visit the subject property and examine the wall with a long strip of the stucco removed. If this group determines that the proposal as submitted at the Commission meeting will not remove original fabric, it may be approved at staff level. If evidence survives revealing historic openings, the design should be adjusted to use those openings. The Commission chose Mr. Thomas and Mr. Brownlee to accompany staff. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the replacement of the existing storefronts with accordion fold casement storefront doors with thin wood frames and the retention of the transoms, to deny the proposal to extend the storefront along Manning Street until further evidence is ascertained regarding the remaining historic fabric beneath the stuccoed finish, and to empower the staff and two Commission members to visit the subject property and examine the wall with a long strip of the stucco removed. If this group determines that the proposal as submitted at the Commission meeting will not remove original fabric, it may be approved at staff level. If

empower the staff and two Commission members to visit the subject property and examine the wall with a long strip of the stucco removed. If this group determines that the proposal as submitted at the Commission meeting will not remove original fabric, it may be approved at staff level. If there is evidence revealing 13 historic openings, the design should be adjusted to use those openings. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 136 South 20th Street Jerold Batoff, Esq., Applicant DATE: 1928 PROPOSAL: Install ATM in storefront At the request of the applicant, the Commission tabled the proposal for one month. 1708 Locust Street Singer Financial Corp., Owner Paul Singer, Applicant DATE: 1830s; refaced 1902 PROPOSAL: Legalize sign cabinet on front door Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal seeks to legalize the installation of a sign cabinet on the front door of the building. He stated that the Committee wanted the applicant to place the sign cabinet within the storefront, and that the applicant thought the cabinet would block a significant amount of the view into the office if placed within the storefront. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee disagreed. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1732 Pine Street Carl Massara, Owner/Architect DATE: c. 1845; altered c. 1910 PROPOSAL: Rear alterations Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves an alteration to the rear of the house that was first partially approved at staff level. The previously approved application included removing a later addition and re-exposing the rear ell of the house. During construction the applicant found the rear wall weak and had it demolished. He now seeks approval for a new design with a stucco finish. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee agreed that the proposed work will not be visible from the public right-of-way. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 14 33 North 3rd Street William Vessal, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Alterations to Filbert Street facade Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for cutting new windows, adding balconies and HVAC platforms to the side facade of this corner property along Filbert Street. The side faces a constricted alleyway. He stated that the Committee found the location of the proposed

Street facade Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for cutting new windows, adding balconies and HVAC platforms to the side facade of this corner property along Filbert Street. The side faces a constricted alleyway. He stated that the Committee found the location of the proposed work minimally visible. The Applicant also wishes to build an elevator shaft addition on the rear of the roof. Mr. Thomas reported that the Committee did not object to the rooftop addition, if held back from the street enough to eliminate visibility. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Lawrence seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1625 Locust Street, St. Mark’s Church, Parish House St. Mark’s Church, Owner Charles Evers, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1892 PROPOSAL: Balcony and fire ladder on rear Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for the installation of a fire balcony and collapsible ladder on the rear (north elevation) of the St. Mark’s Church parish house. This will have visibility from a service alley, and minimally from 16th and 17th Streets. Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee did not object to the proposal. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT of the Committee on Financial Hardship, 10 November 1999 Wayne Spilove, Chair 1629 West Diamond Street Louise Clark Smith, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1885 PROPOSAL: Legalize new door and windows Mr. Tyler explained that the applicant came before the Commission last September seeking to legalize the installation of six vinyl windows and a single leaf non- historic door. The applicant’s now deceased husband installed the windows and door without a permit several years ago. The historic doors of this Furness-designed row house have not been stored, according to the applicant. Owing to the applicant’s 15 appeal of economic hardship, The Commission referred the issue to the Committee on Financial Hardship. Mr. Tyler stated that the Committee on Financial Hardship reviewed documentation relating to the applicant’s financial circumstance and determined that her income will not enable the work required to rectify the door and windows. He stated that the Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the work on the grounds of financial hardship. He also said that the Committee wanted the side panel portion of the new door painted so as to mitigate its appearance. Mr. Wilds

required to rectify the door and windows. He stated that the Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the work on the grounds of financial hardship. He also said that the Committee wanted the side panel portion of the new door painted so as to mitigate its appearance. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Proposal by the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia: CLG Grant Mr. Tyler presented the staff’s assessment of the Preservation Alliance’s proposals for two applications for Certified Local Government (CLG) grants: one to support and expand the Alliance’s Neighborhood Network, the other to publish and distribute an owners manual for the Girard Estate Historic District. He prefaced this by noting the value to preservation of a not-for-profit organization and the Commission’s part in the support of the creation and funding of the Alliance and its predecessors, the Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation and the Preservation Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. He also reviewed the CLG program and the past use of it, and stated that he thought the marked departure from this former practice posed by an application for the Neighborhood Network required a policy consideration by the Commission. The staff recommended that the Commission not endorse a third-party application for the Neighborhood Network. The staff adopted this stance owing to the potential for policy conflicts inherent in the different functions of the Commission as, in effect, a regulatory agency and the Alliance as, in part, an advocacy organization. The Neighborhood Network serves this advocacy purpose. He also noted that the present proposal lacks a clearly defined work product or deliverable and that the Alliance does not have the 40% match in hand required for an application. In addition, unlike previous third-party grants with the Alliance, the Commission would not exercise ultimate control over the direction and result of this CLG-FUNDED program. Nevertheless, the Commission would remain responsible for it, including, conceivably, the match. Finally, he suggested that the Commission could better use CLG grants for district inventories, data processing or district manuals. Elise Vider of the Appliance disputed Mr. Tyler’s comments concerning the Commission’s responsibilities and asserted that the proposal would enable the Alliance to assist the Commission in fulfilling its statutory obligation to engage in preservation education. Mr. Wilds responded that the applicant/grantee, i.e., the Commission, always bears the responsibility under federal grant

of the Appliance disputed Mr. Tyler’s comments concerning the Commission’s responsibilities and asserted that the proposal would enable the Alliance to assist the Commission in fulfilling its statutory obligation to engage in preservation education. Mr. Wilds responded that the applicant/grantee, i.e., the Commission, always bears the responsibility under federal grant programs. Ms. Kaplan thought retention of 16 consultants a better use of CLG funds with staff to determine the specific needs. Mr. Sklaroff and Mr. James also took exception to providing CLG funds to support the Alliance’s advocacy activities. Commission members suggested that the staff submit its own application for a CLG grant. Ms. Harvey and Ms. Spina responded that a late change in the application deadline and the delayed distribution of the application forms did not leave enough time to prepare an adequate nomination. Mr. Tyler advised the Commission that the staff supports the Alliance’s proposal to utilize a CLG grant to publish a Girard Estate Historic District manual. He also said that the Alliance would not provide the 40% match with in-kind services this year and suggested that the Commission satisfy the match requirement with Class 200 funds. This provoked a discussion on the appropriateness of making the Alliance a third-party applicant for the grant. Staff members replied that the experience of the Rittenhouse- Fitler and the Society Hill manuals gave the Alliance the expertise and contacts to produce the Girard Estate manual efficiently. Mr. Wilds moved that the staff apply for a CLG grant for the Girard Estate manual and work with the Alliance concerning its serving as a consultant with the stipulation that no Class 200 funds be used to retain the Alliance without a favorable opinion from legal counsel. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Commission continued to discuss possible ways of fulfilling its educational responsibilities. Mr. James spoke to the use of new technologies such as a web site. Mr. Spilove suggested establishing a subcommittee to deal with this question. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to form a subcommittee to address the education responsibilities of the Historical Commission as prescribed by ordinance with Mr. James as Chair. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed unanimously. HARRY A. BATTEN FUND Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve an expenditure for the Architectural Committee lunches. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to approve the expenditures. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE

ordinance with Mr. James as Chair. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed unanimously. HARRY A. BATTEN FUND Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve an expenditure for the Architectural Committee lunches. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to approve the expenditures. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, October 1999 Mr. Tyler asked for questions regarding the staff report. There were none. Mr. James made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:00 P.M. R. Scott Jacob Executive Secretary 17