THE MINUTES OF THE 466th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 13 June 2001 Commission Conference Room 18th Floor, 1515 Arch Street Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Present Wayne S. Spilove, Chair David Brownlee, Ph.D. 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 Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Robert Thomas, AIA Dennis P. Ward, III Stephanie G. Wolf, Ph.D. Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Mark Zecca, Esq., Senior Attorney, City of Philadelphia Law Department Also Alfred D. Whitman, Esq., Church of Christ Clarence Norman, Principal Officer, Church of Christ Willie Rupert, Jr., Pastor, Church of Christ Monika Klatte James D. Grainge, 2202 Brandywine Street Lenore Millhollen, Preservation Alliance/Center City Residents’ Association David Amburn, Amburn/Jarosinski Associates Michael Jacobs, MRC Craig LaBan Maria Frizelle Roberts, MFR Consultants, Incorporated Vanessa Wallace, MFR Consultants, Incorporated Allan Rubin Eric Rymshaw, Fury Design Daniel Glynn, 3502 Frankford Avenue Philip Price, The Woodlands Cemetery Company Mark Bojanoski Robert Galli, Fairmount Rowing Association Cecil Baker, Cecil Baker & Association Penelope Benith, Cecil Baker & Association Peter Miller, Towers and Miller Architects Christian Busch, The Sullivan Company Craig Rosenfeld, The Barclay Michael Bitny, 208-210 Fitzwater Street Neil Sandvold, 208-210 Fitzwater Street 1 Elizabeth Bressi-Stoppe, University of the Sciences Ariel Bierbaum, Philadelphia Mural Arts Program Deena Parham, Philadelphia City Planning Wayne S. Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 466th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 9:10 a.m. Minutes of the 465th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Ms. Wolf and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the 465th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 9 May 2001 as corrected, the spelling of Paula Zyats, an interested party, Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 29 May 2001. 101 B Lombard Street, NW corner of Front Street John Wong, Owner Charles Thompson, Contractor DATE: c. 1978 PROPOSAL: Replace 3rd floor front green house The Architectural Committee recommended: 1. Denial of the proposal as submitted. 2. Approval of a revised proposal that maintained the shed shape of the original submission with the glazing and muntin pattern to replicate the historic appearance of this feature. 3. Approval of the removal of the original
green house The Architectural Committee recommended: 1. Denial of the proposal as submitted. 2. Approval of a revised proposal that maintained the shed shape of the original submission with the glazing and muntin pattern to replicate the historic appearance of this feature. 3. Approval of the removal of the original solarium subject to its replacement as suggested in Recommendation 2. The proposal involves legalizing the removal of the original metal and glass solarium from the front façade of a 1978 row house in Society Hill and installing another greenhouse that more closely matches the neighboring house but does not match the historic design. The staff recommended denial per Standards 5 and 6. This block consists of a mix of original and altered front facades and therefore some Commission members questioned the significance of alterations in respect to the original. Mr. Hack thought the Commission’s interpretation too fine in regards to a 1978 building, but Ms. Wolf said that the building would have significance in later years. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which carried with 5 votes; three members opposed the motion. 300-318 North 63rd Street, NW corner of Vine Street Patterson Memorial Presbyterian Church Church of Christ, Clarence Norman, Principal Officer Alfred Whitman, Esq., Applicant DATE: 1888, 1895, T.P. Chandler, Architect PROPOSAL: Complete demolition of all structures 2 The Architectural Committee recommended: 1. Denial of this application on architectural and historical grounds. 2. Referral of the application to the Committee on Financial Hardship. This proposal involves the complete demolition of this church. A fire caused extensive damage to the sanctuary of this church a number of years ago; insurance proceeds helped the congregation rebuild it. Since then, a portion of the west wall of Fellowship Hall collapsed. Although the congregation had it repaired, this structure evinces further distress. A structural engineer has found the tower at the junction of the hall and the sanctuary very perilous. The congregation lacks the funds, an estimated $92,000 for the tower alone and yet more for the hall, to undertake remediation. Owing to these conditions, attempts to sell the property to another religious organization have failed; the only interest in acquiring it comes from persons interested in a cleared development parcel. The staff recommended denial of the application, the exploration of the availability of preservation grants, and possible
to undertake remediation. Owing to these conditions, attempts to sell the property to another religious organization have failed; the only interest in acquiring it comes from persons interested in a cleared development parcel. The staff recommended denial of the application, the exploration of the availability of preservation grants, and possible removal of the tower if that enables the preservation of the sanctuary and hall. The building has considerable architectural significance and its demolition does not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards. The Architecture Committee should advise the Commission to submit the application to the Committee on Financial Hardship. Commission members expressed concern about the demolition of a building with such significance and said that before going to the Committee on Financial Hardship, other options should be pursued. It even thought that this issue should be brought to the attention of the Mayor’s office and City Council. Mr. Sklaroff recommended the establishment of a sub- committee to research other possibilities before considering demolition. Mr. Spilove, the Chair, designated, Mr. Sklaroff, to head a sub-committee consisting of Mr. Hack, Ms. Wolf, Commission staff along with the Preservation Alliance in the hopes of finding funding or a adaptive re-use for the property. Alfred Whitman, attorney for the church, thought the recommendation had merit, and said that he would work with the Commission in the hope of arriving at the best possible solution. Lenore Millhollen spoke on behalf of the Preservation Alliance and asked that it be given more time to evaluate and research other options. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to refer the application to the Committee on Financial Hardship and to establish a sub-committee to seek the possibility of funding or the adaptive re-use of the property. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. #2 Boathouse Row, Fairmount Park Rowing Association Fairmount Park Rowing Club, Owner Robert Galli, Applicant DATE: 1904, Walter Smedley, Architect PROPOSAL: Install new terrace rails The Architectural Committee recommended: 1. Denial of the application as submitted. 2. Approval of a design that duplicates as closely as possible the historic rail, consistent with the Building Code and its lateral load requirements with staff to review details. 3 The proposal involves installing a new railing on both the front and rear facades. The former wood rail on the river elevation was replaced with cinderblock and the cornice removed. The new rail fails to match the old in many details
lateral load requirements with staff to review details. 3 The proposal involves installing a new railing on both the front and rear facades. The former wood rail on the river elevation was replaced with cinderblock and the cornice removed. The new rail fails to match the old in many details because the applicant seeks to use a substitute material with different structural properties than wood. The staff recommended denial per Standards 5 and 6. Mr. Ward made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Hack seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2208 Brandywine Street Thomas C. Buck, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Rear alterations The Committee agreed and determined that the staff should process this application pursuant to Section 6.3.c.1 of the Rules and Regulations. The Commission need take no action on this application. Mr. Buck proposes to renovate the rear of his house which has visibility through a parking lot on Spring Garden Street. He seeks to install new 1/1 windows, widen one window and stucco a frame addition, currently covered in asphalt siding. He thinks that the staff should review and approve his submission owing to the very limited visibility from Spring Garden Street and the mixed character of the rears of Brandywine Street houses. The staff brought this submission to the Committee as one that falls on the cusp of staff review provided by the Rules and Regulations. In the event of review by the Committee and Commission, the staff recommended denial per Standards 4 and 6; the applicant should install 6/6 sash and either wood clapboard or wood shingle siding. The Committee agreed with Mr. Buck’s view of this matter. 2202 Brandywine Street Kevin Klatte, Owner James D. Grainge, Architect DATE: c. 1859; altered 1924 PROPOSAL: Windows, rear alterations The Architectural Committee recommended: 1. Approval of the proposal as submitted for the rear elevation. 2. Retention by repair or replication of the existing three-part window at the first floor of the front façade. 3. Installation of either 2/2 or 6/6 double hung wooden windows at the second and third floors of the front elevation, for either conforms with the Standards. Mr. Grainge seeks to install new wood 2/2 windows on both the front and rear façades of this much-altered row house. On the first floor of the rear the applicant proposes altering two windows to become a new door. The staff recommended approval per Standard
either conforms with the Standards. Mr. Grainge seeks to install new wood 2/2 windows on both the front and rear façades of this much-altered row house. On the first floor of the rear the applicant proposes altering two windows to become a new door. The staff recommended approval per Standard 9 because of the recent vintage and massive alterations to the building. The front façade, however, should retain its present window configuration per Standards 4 and 6. James D. Grainge, the applicant, attended the meeting and presented revised drawings for the first floor windows; however, the Commission said that the revised drawings should be presented to the Commission staff. 4 Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Hack seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2146 Green Street Allen W. Rubin, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1854; Parry and Randolph, developers; altered 1892 PROPOSAL: Wall removal, new garage/deck The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the submission with staff to review details. This proposal calls for the construction of a parking garage and deck on the rear of this row house in place of an existing fence and deck. The construction will have some visibility from 22nd Street. The staff recommended approval per Standard 9. In reponse to Mr. Sklaroff’s inquiry about the architect of record, it was determined that in 1854 Parry and Randolph were the developers, and that the property was altered in c. 1892. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Batzer seconded the motion which carried with 9 votes. Mr. Thomas recused himself. 1600 Mt. Vernon Street, SW corner of 16th Street Uriel Tedgi, Owner/Contractor DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Legalize roll down gate The Architectural Committee recommended: 1. Denial of the application as submitted per Standard 6. Approval in concept of the installation of a door and window with transom lights. This proposal calls for legalizing the installation of a metal roll down door in a former storefront opening. Staff recommendation: Denial per Standard 6, the design should have a door and storefront window. The applicant requested in writing the withdrawal of his proposal. 301 South 17th Street, SE corner of Spruce Street Robin Reshetar, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1865 PROPOSAL: Rooftop addition and deck, legalize glass block, glazing dormer pediments The Architectural Committee recommended: 1. Erection of a mockup of the proposed penthouse for inspection by a member of the Committee and staff
proposal. 301 South 17th Street, SE corner of Spruce Street Robin Reshetar, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1865 PROPOSAL: Rooftop addition and deck, legalize glass block, glazing dormer pediments The Architectural Committee recommended: 1. Erection of a mockup of the proposed penthouse for inspection by a member of the Committee and staff with approval of the submission if this inspection demonstrates acceptably minimal visibility. 2. Removal of the glass block and the installation of a frame glazed with Plexiglass or similar material with an appropriate security grate 3. Denial of the glazing of the dormer pediments. 4. No determination on the balcony owing to the incompleteness of the application 5 This proposal calls for constructing a penthouse and roof deck on the mansard roof of this corner building. Mr. Reshetar also seeks to cure violations issued owing to the installation of glass block in the window in the main entrance stoop of the building and glass in place of beaded board in the pediments of the roof dormers. Staff recommendation: Denial per Standards 6 & 9. The new addition will have high visibility and sits atop a mansard. Commission members thought that the addition will change the roofline, thus changing the character of the building. Therefore, it believed that the applicant should be afforded the opportunity to erect a mock-up, and the application should be then referred back to Committee and Commission. Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents’ Association, cited the property’s openness and that the addition will change the zoning envelope. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to defer action on #4 and the rooftop work for a period not to exceed six months pending the erection of a mock-up and accept #2 and #3 of the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2224 Pine Street Peter Askey, Owner Peter Miller, Architect DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: Rear addition The Architectural Committee recommended approval. This proposal involves constructing a rear addition and deck. The addition will have some visibility from Croskey Street. The staff recommended approval, except that the existing masonry should not receive stucco. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1818 Addison Street Craig LaBan, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850; altered c. 1960 PROPOSAL: Roof deck and stair house The Architectural Committee recommended approval with staff to review details and also any detail changes required by code. This
to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1818 Addison Street Craig LaBan, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850; altered c. 1960 PROPOSAL: Roof deck and stair house The Architectural Committee recommended approval with staff to review details and also any detail changes required by code. This proposal calls for the construction of a roof deck and stair house on the roof of this row house. The house has a tall parapet wall, which will hide most of the deck from the front. It will have visibility from Lombard Street through a parking lot. The Staff recommended approval per Standard 10. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 6 1703 Spruce Street Mark Bojanoski, Owner Daniel J. Glynn, Contractor DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: New front door and surround The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the door surround and the door as submitted, but approval of a new door surround in marble to match the original and a single or double door that uses the details of the doors at 1707 Spruce Street with two panels on the bottom and two larger glass panels at the top with the staff to review details. This proposal seeks to legalize the removal of a decorative marble door surround and its replacement with concrete and cast stone shapes that do not match the original form. The applicant also seeks to install a new door. Staff recommendation: Denial per Standards 5 & 6 on the surround and the door per Standard 6. The new door should match the original double door in the row two houses down. Mark Bojanoski, David Richards and Daniel Glynn attended the meeting. Mr. Bojanoski stated that owing to neglect and water infiltration, the door surround was protruding and coming apart which necessitated its removal. He thought the replacement not exact but that it closely replicated the original. Commission members questioned the work’s being done absent a permit. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1706 Delancey Place Jeffrey Yablonovitz, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Legalize revised roof deck The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the revised proposal The applicant seeks to legalize his rooftop and rear deck by further reducing its size. Because of its height, staff thinks it will still have visibility from both
Delancey Place Jeffrey Yablonovitz, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Legalize revised roof deck The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the revised proposal The applicant seeks to legalize his rooftop and rear deck by further reducing its size. Because of its height, staff thinks it will still have visibility from both the front and rear. Staff recommendation: Denial of the rooftop portion of the deck per Standard 9. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 250 South 18th Street, corner of Rittenhouse Square Street Jack Wolgin, Owner Penelope Benith, Architect DATE: 1923; McIlvaine & Roberts, Architect PROPOSAL: Window and porch infill The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the porch infill but denial of the windows as submitted. 7 This proposal calls for re-glazing some windows on the south side of the building with single panes as opposed to the historic wood multi-pane windows. On the west façade, the applicant seeks to create an enlarged greenhouse enclosure on the fire balcony. Staff recommendation: Denial of the windows per Standard 6, Approval of the glazed porch. Cecil Baker, the architect, attended the meeting and presented photographs of the windows to show that they are not the original windows and that his proposed windows replicate the existing windows in those openings which do not have muntins. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 237 South 18th Street, NE corner of Rittenhouse Square Street The Barclay Barclay Owner’s Association, Owner Christian Busch, Architect DATE: 1928; J.E.R. Carpenter, Architect PROPOSAL: Conceptual review of cooling tower and screen The Architectural Committee recommended conceptual approval of some type of architectural screening which fits with the architecture of the building. This application in concept addresses both a violation for the removal of a former, architecturally significant water tower and the need to install central cooling towers in the building. The towers will allow for the removal of all the air-conditioning units from the stair balconies of the courtyard. Mr. Busch proposes to site the towers on the location of the former water tower because this is the only place on the roof that has the structural capability to carry the load. He proposes to clothe the units with the architectural vocabulary of the former water tower. The staff recommended approval. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept
location of the former water tower because this is the only place on the roof that has the structural capability to carry the load. He proposes to clothe the units with the architectural vocabulary of the former water tower. The staff recommended approval. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 233 South Quince Street Kenneth Panciera, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1811,1838 PROPOSAL: Side elevation rear deck The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the deck flush with the side elevation of Latimer Street in a cream or green color with the staff to review details The owner proposes to install a visible wood deck on the rear ell of this corner property. He will enlarge a previously altered window to accommodate a door. Staff recommendation: Approval, per Standards 9 & 10 if the deck is painted cream to match the existing trim and the door has multi-pane true divide lights. Mr. Ward made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which carried with 6 votes. Mr. Sklaroff and Ms. Wolf opposed the motion. 8 1902 North Park Avenue, Park Mall Temple University, Owner John R. Parry, Jr., Architect DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: Front façade/ATM installations The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the proposal. The applicant proposes to install cash machines in the door and window of this row house, removing the historic material. Staff recommendation: Denial per Standards 2, 5 and 9. The machines should sit inside a lobby. The applicant requested in writing the withdrawal of his proposal. 724 and 726 Pine Street 724 Pine Street, Bruce Comens, Owner, 726 Pine Street, Tom Bernas, Owner Eric B. Rymshaw, Architect DATE: 724 Pine Street, c. 1830; altered c. 1930 726 Pine Street, façade c. 1940 PROPOSAL: Conceptual review of exterior restoration/reconstruction, rear addition, and new building on Addison Street The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal in concept, including the restoration of the front facades of 724 and 726 Pine Street, the rear two-story addition and the addition to the house on Addison Street. This proposal in concept involves removing a stucco coating from the front façade of 724 Pine Street and a 20th century brick façade from 726 Pine Street and restoring/reconstructing both facades to their c. 1830 design. Both buildings have dormers of c. 1830. At the rear, the architect proposes to
This proposal in concept involves removing a stucco coating from the front façade of 724 Pine Street and a 20th century brick façade from 726 Pine Street and restoring/reconstructing both facades to their c. 1830 design. Both buildings have dormers of c. 1830. At the rear, the architect proposes to reverse the door and garage opening in the façade of 725 Addison Street and construct an identical structure on the open ground at 723 Addison Street. He also seeks to build an addition on the rear of the Pine Street houses. Staff recommendation: Approval if enough information can be gleaned about the historic façade’s design to inform the restoration per Standard 6. Mr. Tyler questioned the date and significance of the façade at 726 Pine Street and whether it should be protected. The Commission thought the architect should be guided towards a modern design for 725 Addison inspired by the early nineteenth century, and that each building should be examined upon removal of the stucco. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation amended to include that the new building on Addison Street be distinguished from the neighboring house. Ms. Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 9 600 South Washington Square, SW corner of 6th Street Gene and Sueyun Locks, Owners David Amburn, Architect DATE: 1923, Earle Nelson Edwards, Architect PROPOSAL: Rooftop addition and stair towers The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval in concept of the stair tower and denial of the fourth floor and sculpture garden as proposed. This proposal calls for constructing two stair towers and a penthouse gallery addition to the roof level of this Renaissance Revival structure. The plans show tall metal walls surmounted by an open roof garden space. Staff recommendation: Denial per Standard 9. The staff thought the design should set the new addition over to the west side of the building where the Hopkinson House blocks visibility. The metal mansard on the roof garden would have too much visibility from the Square. The applicant withdrew his proposal in writing. 141-45 North 2nd Street, a.k.a. 138-40 North Front Street 141-45 North 2nd Street Partners-Zeev, Owner David Amburn, Architect DATE: 141-43, 1905 145, 1830 PROPOSAL: Exterior renovations and windows The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval with the storefront of 145 North Front modified to match the historic photograph and staff to review details. This proposal calls for converting these several
North 2nd Street Partners-Zeev, Owner David Amburn, Architect DATE: 141-43, 1905 145, 1830 PROPOSAL: Exterior renovations and windows The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval with the storefront of 145 North Front modified to match the historic photograph and staff to review details. This proposal calls for converting these several buildings into residential units. On 141 N. 2nd Street, the architect proposes to retain the windows of the front façade, install a new aluminum storefront at the first floor and install a new aluminum window on the upper floor. On the north party wall façade the architect proposes cutting new windows and installing aluminum one over one windows and on the rear façade cutting new openings and installing windows to match those above. On 145 N. 2nd Street the architect proposes installing a wood storefront in place of the current aluminum one. On the side façade he shows true divide light windows in the existing openings as well as in several new openings. On the rear façade he shows the installation of an aluminum storefront in an existing opening. On 140 N. Front Street, the architect shows cutting new openings in the cinderblock infill of the loading dock and installing aluminum windows to match those above. The loading dock area will receive stucco over the cinderblock. On the Quarry Street façade, he proposes to reopen windows to their original size and install steel windows to match those above. Staff recommendation: Approval per Standards 9 & 10, except that the front doors for 145 N. 2nd Street should match the double doors of our historic photo. All with staff to review details. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 10 46 North Front Street, a.k.a. 101 Cuthbert Street Jim and Ellen Curry, Owners Gerry Gutierrez, Architect DATE: c. 1785 PROPOSAL: Window and door replacement The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the windows with applied muntins and a spacer bar because of the necessary soundproofing with staff to review details. This proposal involves removing the existing windows and installing new wood windows with shop drawings to be reviewed by the staff. The applicant proposes a window with an applied muntin because of the specific sound conditions associated with the highway running in front of the building. The window and door configuration shows a restoration to the period of the
new wood windows with shop drawings to be reviewed by the staff. The applicant proposes a window with an applied muntin because of the specific sound conditions associated with the highway running in front of the building. The window and door configuration shows a restoration to the period of the Greek Revival storefront. Staff Recommendation: Approval per Standard 6. The Commission questioned the uniformity of the Committee’s recommendation owing to the fact that the proposed windows will have applied muntins but they will have the proper profile. An established need, owing to the noise of Interstate 95 influenced the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Batzer made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 153 North 3rd Street William Whalton, Owner Richard W. Thom, Architect DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Rear deck The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval. The architect proposes a rebuilding of an existing rear deck. Staff Recommendation: Approval per Standard 9. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 3900 Woodland Avenue, Woodlands Cemetery Woodlands Cemetery Company of Philadelphia, Owner Mark Blum, Applicant DATE: 1748-1786 PROPOSAL: Fence construction The Architectural Committee voted to recommend legalizing the fence and to approve the fence around the ravine. The application proposes the legalization of a black vinyl covered chain link fence installed to fence off property now leased to the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. 11 Staff Recommendation: Approval per Standard 9 & 10, with landscaping to be applied only sparingly to preserve the openness of the landscape. The staff had concerns, however, about the possible landscaping or construction on the portion leased to the University. The applicant presented photographs which show the fence’s proximity to the Woodlands Mansion as requested by the Committee. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 208 and 210 Fitzwater Street Michele Armstrong, Owner Neil Sandvold, Architect DATE: 1790 PROPOSAL: New construction, roofing The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the weathered wood colored shingles on 210 Fitzwater, and a new building as designed at 208 Fitzwater Street, with staff to review details. The applicant proposes to construct a new building on the lot of the demolished building on Fitzwater Street as well as re-roofing the house at 210 Fitzwater Street with black shingles. Staff Recommendation: Approval
Fitzwater, and a new building as designed at 208 Fitzwater Street, with staff to review details. The applicant proposes to construct a new building on the lot of the demolished building on Fitzwater Street as well as re-roofing the house at 210 Fitzwater Street with black shingles. Staff Recommendation: Approval of re-roofing 210 Fitzwater Street with weathered wood color shingles. Denial of new design for 208 Fitzwater Street per Standard 9. The new design disrupts the streetscape with its height and vertical orientation of openings. The top floor should perhaps consist of a dormer within the roof. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1524 North 16th Street Templetown Properties II, Owner Jonathan Weiss, Developer DATE: 1882-86 PROPOSAL: Window replacement The Architectural Committee voted to recommend legalizing the aluminum sash. The proposal involves legalizing some aluminum one over one windows on the barely visible side and rear of this long abandoned house. The window frames remain. The staff recommended approval. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 411 Manheim Street, Germantown Cricket Club Germantown Cricket Club, Owner Van M. Potteiger, Architect DATE: 1890-1891, 1902, 1907 12 PROPOSAL: Skylight and roof replacement The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval The proposal involves re-roofing a formerly glass roofed structure with corrugated fiberglass. The current fiberglass roof has worn out. Mr. Sklaroff and Ms. Batzer’s recusal created the absence of a quorum. Therefore the applicant must be notified and given the opportunity to waive the quorum requirement. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation subject to an objection by the applicant owing to the absence of a quorum. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which carried with 5 votes. Mr. Sklaroff and Ms. Batzer recused themselves. Mr. Wolf abstained from the vote. THE REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, May 2001. Mr. Tyler asked if members of the Commission had any questions about the report. There were none. NEW BUSINESS 1535 Lombard Street Bernadette Buckley, Owner Ariel Bierbaum, Mural Arts Program, Applicant Mural This application proposes a mural on the building at 1535 Lombard Street, located in the Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District. The applicant proposes that the mural will beautify the wall, which is currently hit regularly by graffitti. Enclosed with the application is a letter
Ariel Bierbaum, Mural Arts Program, Applicant Mural This application proposes a mural on the building at 1535 Lombard Street, located in the Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District. The applicant proposes that the mural will beautify the wall, which is currently hit regularly by graffitti. Enclosed with the application is a letter of authorization and a release form from the owner of the wall. In addition the owner of the adjacent lot granted permisssion for the erection of scaffolding on their property. The mural, depicts an Irish landscape, and will be painted by Tish Ingersoll. The Commission established that the actual owner of the party wall is the owner of the adjacent vacant lot. This requires authorization from the owner accepting and acknowledging its responsibility for the mural. Ariel Bierbaum, Mural Arts Program, attended the meeting and stated that there are time constraints owing to the artist’s schedule. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to approve the proposal subject to the receipt of a letter from the true owner accepting responsibility for the mural. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. HARRY A. BATTEN MEMORIAL FUND Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve the expenditure of $45.35 for the Architectural Committee lunches. Ms. Wolf made a motion to approve the expenditure. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 13 Ms. Batzer made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary 14