THE MINUTES OF THE 471st STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 9 November 2001, 9:30 a.m. Commission Conference Room 18th Floor, 1515 Arch Street James Cuorato, Acting Chair Present James Cuorato, Director & City Representative, Commerce Department, Acting Chair Melissa Heller Batzer, Office of City Council President, Director of Economic Development James Brown, IV Warren Huff, Urban Design Director, City Planning Commission Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Public Property Vincent Rivera, AIA Michael Sklaroff, Esquire Denise Smyler, Esquire Harris Steinberg, AIA Thomas Sugrue, Ph.D. Norman Tissian Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Mark Zecca, Senior Attorney, Law Department Also Michael Giduck, Exelon Corporation Carl Primavera, Esquire, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers Claire Donato, Old St. Joseph’s Historic Preservation Corporation Joseph Bradica, Exelon Corporation Herb Lewis, Ueland Junker McCauley Nicholson Architects Gina Williams, Steven Singer Jewelers, Incorporated, 739 Walnut Street Charles Robin, Robin Real Estate Mary Hunt, Kaiserman Company, Incorporated Thomas V. Dowd, OSJ Robert Graves, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects Al Ryan, Exelon Corporation Dan Sablosky Hugh Zimmers, 36 North 3rd Street Michael Prifti, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects Mark Ueland, Ueland Junker McCauley Nicholson Architects Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents’ Association/Preservation Alliance Andre Stephano, 2005 Brandywine Street Savva Navrosidis, 2000 Fairmount Avenue Joel Spivak David Orphanides, Esq. Sandy’s Restaurant Sabrina Soong, Soong Associates, Incorporated Kiki Bolender. AIA, Schade and Bolender Architects Larry Copeland, City Law Department Christian A. Busch, The Sullivan Company 1 Mr. Wilds made a motion to designate James Cuorato the chair for the meeting. Mr. James seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. James Cuorato, Acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. Mr. Tyler passed a written oath of office to the appointed Commission members for each to sign. Minutes of the 470th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Tissian and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the 470th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 12 October 2001, Duane Bumb, Acting Chair. The applicants of the following properties requested a continuance: 320 Walnut Street Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Owner Herbert Lewis, Architect/Applicant 216-20 West Washington Square, W.B. Saunders Building West Washington Square Partnership, Owner Christian Busch, Architect/Applicant 2026 Locust Street Robin Apartments, Owner Carl Zucker, Esq., Applicant 3901 North Delaware Avenue, Richmond Power
The applicants of the following properties requested a continuance: 320 Walnut Street Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Owner Herbert Lewis, Architect/Applicant 216-20 West Washington Square, W.B. Saunders Building West Washington Square Partnership, Owner Christian Busch, Architect/Applicant 2026 Locust Street Robin Apartments, Owner Carl Zucker, Esq., Applicant 3901 North Delaware Avenue, Richmond Power Station Exelon Corporation (formerly Philadelphia Electric Company) Mr. Wilds made a motion to grant the continuances for a period not to exceed six months. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried with 11 votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself owing to his firm’s involvement with PECO. The following proposals have been withdrawn from the agenda: Old York Road at Tabor Road, Albert Einstein Hospital Albert Einstein Hospital, Owner Neil Sklaroff, Esq., Applicant 2135 Green Street William Merewether and Eve Chaloner, Owners/Applicants NEW BUSINESS 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 four 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 2 use of a material to match the existing limestone in texture and color. In addition, a metal roof, new storefront doors and awnings are shown. The applicant’s design shows a central bay with a nine-light window and a circular window at the curved top. A mechanical penthouse tops the building stretches three bays in length. Carl Primavera, attorney for the project, presented revised drawings, which reflect the compromise reached between the applicant and the owner of the adjacent building. The revised drawings include a twenty-five foot setback on all new floors along the western edge. Commission members noted that the revised plans for the addition is compatible with the streetscape. Mr. Wilds questioned whether the height was ever in question, and it was not. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to approve the revised proposal. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried with 11 votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 30 October 2001, Vincent Rivera, AIA, Chair. 1600 Arch Street SAS 1600 Arch LP, Owner Robert Graves, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1925, Stewardson and Page, architects PROPOSAL: Cut new doorways The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the Cuthbert Street entrance, on the condition that
recused himself. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 30 October 2001, Vincent Rivera, AIA, Chair. 1600 Arch Street SAS 1600 Arch LP, Owner Robert Graves, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1925, Stewardson and Page, architects PROPOSAL: Cut new doorways The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the Cuthbert Street entrance, on the condition that the removed historic fabric be used to restore the entrance already created on the façade; approval of the Arch Street entrance; all doors must be fully glazed with bronze frames. The proposal involves cutting two new entrances, one on Cuthbert Street and one on Arch Street, each in the eaternmost bays. The Committee already approved a new entrance further west on Cuthbert Street, which has been cut. The floor plan for the first floor has changed to accommodate a tenant in a space larger than first anticipated, thus eliminating the proposed hallway and fire exit on Cuthbert Street. The tenant wishes to have the door closer to 16th Street for more visibility. The secondary egress and necessary handicap entrance will be diverted to Arch Street which necessitates a new entrance on that façade. Michael Prifti and Robert Graves attended the meeting to explain the project and answer questions. Mr. Prifti stated that the need for an additional opening is due to leasing considerations. He stated that the frameless door appropriate in character with that which was previously approved and compatible with the existing mullions. In addition, the doors have the approval of the State and the National Park Service. Mr. Tyler stated that in view of the approval of the State and the National Park Service, deference should be made to the State colleagues. The alignment of the door jam elements was a major concern of the Commission. Mr. Sklaroff noted that the frameless door would not be mistaken for historic fabric. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation and approve the Cuthbert Street opening subject to the reusing of the historic fabric and the approval of the Arch Street opening, but to allow frameless doors in the new openings to meet State approval. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Boathouse Row #14 Girls Rowing Club, Owner 3 Kiki Bolender, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1861, William S. Andrews and J.C. Sidney, architects; altered, c. 1930 PROPOSAL: New deck and railing The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the new deck and cross-brace railing with the stainless-steel wire threaded
the motion which carried unanimously. Boathouse Row #14 Girls Rowing Club, Owner 3 Kiki Bolender, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1861, William S. Andrews and J.C. Sidney, architects; altered, c. 1930 PROPOSAL: New deck and railing The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the new deck and cross-brace railing with the stainless-steel wire threaded through the railing or sandwiched between the cross- bracing. The proposal calls for the rebuilding of the riverside deck and railing. The original railing had a cross-brace design and the club wishes to replicate it. However, the design does not meet code. Kiki Bolender, the architect, attended the meeting and expressed her opposition to the Architectural Committee’s recommendation. She stated that she would like less detail and believes the proposed railing has limited visibility from West River Drive and is less intrusive. Ms. Bolender stated that she could use a matte finish to eliminate the glare. Mr. Sklaroff questioned the possibility of a variance to eliminate the wire. Commission members discussed different types of wire. Sandwiching of the wire is a more expensive option. Vertical wire would eliminate the ladder effect; however, Ms. Bolender believed horizontal wire more appropriate. Members also stressed the importance of choosing an appropriate material and thought a limited number of connections better. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to reject the Architectural Committee’s recommendation, and approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 739 Walnut Street Steven Singer Jewelers, Owner Gina Williams, Applicant DATE: c. 1928; new storefronts, 1998 PROPOSAL: Internally-illuminated signage The Architectural Committee recommended approval of a resin sign with a flange attachment, with the staff to review details. The original application called for a plastic, back-lit box sign. The applicant wishes to install a sandblasted resin sign with raised letters, made to resemble a carved wood sign. Mr. Rivera thought the connections should be angled with the angles of the sign. In addition, Commission members recommended a frame around the sign and that the attachment should be minimized. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried with 11 votes. Mr. James dissented. 220 West Washington Square, W.B. Saunders Building 220 West Washington Associates, Owner Mark Idisis, Applicant DATE: 1911 PROPOSAL: Legalize bird netting 4 The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the present bird netting. The applicant should investigate less visible options and return to the Committee. The proposal involves
Mr. James dissented. 220 West Washington Square, W.B. Saunders Building 220 West Washington Associates, Owner Mark Idisis, Applicant DATE: 1911 PROPOSAL: Legalize bird netting 4 The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the present bird netting. The applicant should investigate less visible options and return to the Committee. The proposal involves legalizing bird netting in each of the openings of the stairwell; however, the netting is highly visible. Mark Idisis, the owner, attended the meeting and further reiterated his concerns about the pigeons. Mr. Tyler cited other bird systems in place that are not highly visible. Mr. Sklaroff questioned whether the existing netting could remain in place until the issue is resolved. Mr. Tissian thought that both the netting issue and the HVAC placement issue should be consolidated as one proposal. Mr. James expressed his opposition to the legalization of this proposal. Mr. Sugrue made a motion for a continuance for a period not to exceed sixty days for both the bird netting and the placement of the HVAC units. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 36 North 3rd Street Phil Cohen, Owner Elizabeth Zimmers, Hugh Zimmers Architect, Applicant DATE: 1852 PROPOSAL: Rear and rooftop additions; deck The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the additions with several revisions: the cornice line of the rear ell should extend across the entire addition, the penthouse and elevator shaft be set back, the greenhouses remain smaller and without a wedge at the top; addition subject to the restoration of the front façade, with staff to review details. This proposal entails the rehabilitation of this property into nine rental units. To accomplish this, the applicant wishes to add a four-story addition to the rear ell, with a penthouse and roof decks. The rear elevation will have greenhouses and decks on each floor with glass enclosures. Hugh Zimmers, the architect, attended the meeting and stated that the proposal does include restoration of the front facade, which replicates the fenestration on the adjacent property. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Huff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 116-18 Chestnut Street 116-18 Chestnut Street LP, Owner Joel Spivak, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1905 PROPOSAL: Fill-in and install windows on side elevation The Architectural Committee recommended approval of CMU supports in the window openings and new coupled, one-over-one double-hung windows on the second floor of the side elevation. The side elevation
Chestnut Street 116-18 Chestnut Street LP, Owner Joel Spivak, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1905 PROPOSAL: Fill-in and install windows on side elevation The Architectural Committee recommended approval of CMU supports in the window openings and new coupled, one-over-one double-hung windows on the second floor of the side elevation. The side elevation of this property only has windows at the second floor; however, the support system for them has deteriorated greatly. The application calls for installing CMU supports on 5 either of the side windows, closing the openings slightly. The owner wishes to install new plate- glass single-pane windows. Joel Spivak, the architect, noted that the proposed modern windows would be aluminum with a painted finish. Mr. Sklaroff questioned the approval of aluminum. Ms. Spina stated that the windows in the side elevation are non-historic openings. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2227 Delancey Street Harvey Spear, Owner Gilbert Mercado, Contractor/Applicant DATE: 1879 PROPOSAL: Rebuild rear fence The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the design, with flat boards squared at the top and painted, with staff to review details. This revised proposal involves the installation of a CMU wall from the main part of the house to the gate. The Committee in a previous meeting noted that the garden part of the wall should be wood, not masonry. The application now calls for attaching a wooden wall, with rounded boards, to the CMU wall. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2130 Wallace Street Jay Kottoff, Owner/Applicant Date: c. 1859 Proposal: Restucco façade in brick-face The Architectural Committee recommended approval, with staff to review details. The proposal involves removal of the Permastone on the front façade. Owing to the condition of the original brick, the applicant proposes to install a stucco finish that mimics brick. Mr. Tyler noted that the Spring Garden Civic Association sent a letter supporting this proposal. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1929 Spring Garden Street Christopher Jones, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1875 PROPOSAL: Vinyl windows in rear The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal, with the staff to review details. 6 This application involves installation of vinyl windows on the rear of the property. The property is partially visible from 20th Street,
Spring Garden Street Christopher Jones, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1875 PROPOSAL: Vinyl windows in rear The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal, with the staff to review details. 6 This application involves installation of vinyl windows on the rear of the property. The property is partially visible from 20th Street, but Monterey Street only has rears of properties. Mr. Tyler noted that the Spring Garden Civic Association supports the proposal. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motions which carried unanimously. 1600 Mount Vernon Street Uriel Tedgi, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations The Architectural Committee recommended approval of four-over-four windows, with larger vertical muntins, and two-over-two windows on the fourth floor; approval of a double-leaf, half- glazed front door or a single-leaf door made to mimic a double-leaf design; approval of storefronts, with a beveled corner door and simplified panels below windows, without upper panels; staff to review details and shop drawings. The proposal includes the rehabilitation of this long-vacant house. The building originally had four-over-four windows on the second and third floors and two-over-two windows on the fourth floor. The four-over-four windows should have larger vertical muntins, to mimic a casement window. The proposal for the front door has a single-leaf, four-panel door with a transom above. This proposal also involves eliminating the bevel and squaring off the storefront corner. The proposed storefront has wood panels at the top, transom windows, and then three windows with wood panels below. In a previous meeting the Committee stated that the storefront on 16th Street should have a door, since a stoop exists as evidence of a former door. The proposed storefront has a four-light storefront window with wood panels above the transoms and below the windows. The historical significance of the storefront, and its being reminiscent of a period, was discussed at length by Commission members. Members questioned restoration versus rehabilitation, but the application is for rehabilitation, which the Spring Garden Civic Association supports. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brown seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2005 Brandywine Street Andre Stephano, Owner Sabrina Soong, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Façade rehabilitation; rear decks and stucco The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the new windows and door with staff to review details and shop drawings; approval of a front garden, dimensions to match neighboring gardens, with either
2005 Brandywine Street Andre Stephano, Owner Sabrina Soong, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Façade rehabilitation; rear decks and stucco The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the new windows and door with staff to review details and shop drawings; approval of a front garden, dimensions to match neighboring gardens, with either the replicated historic fence or a simplified fence; approval of a deck on the rear ell, but denial of the deck on the main building; approval of removing the paint on the marble elements, with staff to review details. This is a multi-faceted proposal. The owner wishes to install a front garden and replicate a neighboring garden fence; install a two-part deck on the rear with a spiral staircase; and install new two-over-two windows and a four-panel door on the front façade. 7 Andre Stephano, the owner, attended the meeting and expressed his wish for the deck on the main roof. He also stated that the houses to the north have four-stories. However, the houses immediately behind his, Spanish Village, are only one-story. Sabrina Soong, the architect, noted the existence of many roof decks in this neighborhood. Mr. Huff stressed the importance of making the city attractive and conducive to new residents. The Spring Garden Civic Association opposes both decks, as well as the trim and watertable painting Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation, but to approve of both decks. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried with 10 votes. Mr. Wilds and Mr. Rivera opposed the motion. 1701 North Street Sean Trainor, Owner Sabrina Soong, Architect/Applicant PROPOSAL: New house The Architectural Committee recommended approval with two-over-two windows instead of six- over-six. The proposal is to build a new house on a vacant lot. The Commission only reviews and comments on the submission because the vacant lot existed at the time of designation. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with 11 votes. Mr. Tissian opposed the motion. 1705 North Street Sean Trainor, Owner Sabrina Soong, Architect/Applicant PROPOSAL: New house The Architectural Committee recommended approval with two-over-two windows instead of six- over-six. The proposal is to build a new house on a vacant lot, which the Commission will only review and comment on the submission because the vacant lot existed at the time of designation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr.
two-over-two windows instead of six- over-six. The proposal is to build a new house on a vacant lot, which the Commission will only review and comment on the submission because the vacant lot existed at the time of designation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried with 11 votes. Mr. Tissian opposed the motion. 2000 Fairmount Avenue Savva Navrosidis, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1949 PROPOSAL: Awnings; wall infill at 2nd floor 8 The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the wood wall at the second story; approval of a continuous awning wrapping around the building, with a bevel edge at the corner; approval of painting the building a putty color. This proposal for this non-contributing building involves three parts: erecting a wood board wall on the second floor along North 20th Street, an awning wrapping around the building’s two façades, and painting the building a putty color. Savva Navrosidis, the owner, attended the meeting. Commission members questioned the corner awning and it was determined that the Spring Garden Civic Association requested the awning. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried with 10 votes. Mr. Steinberg and Mr. Sugrue opposed the motion. 2528 South 18th Street Bill Paoletti, Owner Jay Felkoff, Applicant DATE: 1908, James and John Windrim, architects PROPOSAL: Vinyl windows The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the proposal. Committee members suggested replacing the storm windows on the front façade and refurbishing the original windows. The proposal calls for vinyl windows on the front and visible side of this house in Girard Estate, except the front window on the porch. Bill Paoletti, the owner, has hired a painter to refurbish the front window Commission members thought storm windows a viable solution for energy efficiency. The Girard Estate Area Residents Association opposes the proposal. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1 East Penn Square Granite Penn Square, Owner Neale Quinzel and Lorraine Schnabel, Architects/Applicants DATE: 1930, Ritter and Shay, architects PROPOSAL: New glazing in windows The Architectural Committee recommended approval. The Committee and Commission previously approved the new windows for this project, with staff to review details. The window frames match the historic window configurations and the salmon color was determined after paint analysis of the original window frames. However, the proposed
glazing in windows The Architectural Committee recommended approval. The Committee and Commission previously approved the new windows for this project, with staff to review details. The window frames match the historic window configurations and the salmon color was determined after paint analysis of the original window frames. However, the proposed glazing for the windows proves highly reflective and the staff did not want to approve it without the Committee’s review. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 9 OLD BUSINESS 231 South 24th Street Stella and Nikolaus Mitoulis, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Storefront alterations The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the submission based on Standards 2 and 9, as well as the incompleteness of the submission. This proposal involves alterations to two storefront facades on this c. 1840 building in the Rittenhouse-Fitler Historic District. An atlas from 1850 shows the first floor use as commercial; such a building typically would have had two doors at the corner for access to both streets. The owners wish to increase the light within the restaurant and modernize the look of the building. They propose removing the original windows and frames at the first floor on Locust Street and installing casement windows. They also seek to remove the non-historic door and frame on Locust Street to install a glass door with a metal or wood frame. On South 24th Street, they wish to remove a non-historic door and frame and replace it with brick infill and a casement window. The Committee suggested that the owner meet with staff to consider new doors that would be historically accurate, yet allow more air and light into the restaurant. They emphasized that the new submission should include an architectural drawing in order to be considered a complete application. David Orphanides, the attorney for the applicants, reiterated the proposal. He stated that he did not meet with staff because he had a misconception on how to proceed. He offered to remove the penteave and globe light fixtures. Commission members noted that this building has contours of an 1840’s structure. The plans propose to remove historic windows that have plank frames. Ms. Spina stated that the staff and Committee strongly believed that the historic windows and frames should be retained. Mr. James stated that owing to the absence of drawings the application is incomplete. Members thought the
an 1840’s structure. The plans propose to remove historic windows that have plank frames. Ms. Spina stated that the staff and Committee strongly believed that the historic windows and frames should be retained. Mr. James stated that owing to the absence of drawings the application is incomplete. Members thought the applicant should meet with the staff for guidance and based on that discussion, resubmit a revised proposal to the Committee. Mr. James made a motion to grant a continuance for a period not to exceed 60 days. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Cuorato turned the chair over to Mr. Sklaroff. THE REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, October 2001 Mr. Tyler asked if members of the Commission had any questions about the report. There were none. CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENT ON NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION 1. 245-47 West Chelten Avenue, Smyser & English Pharmacy This nomination makes a convincing argument on the place of this building in the history of health care, particularly the professionalization of the pharmacy as a business. This assumes yet greater importance in the context of Philadelphia’s also being a center of quack medicine 10 then. It clearly meets criterion A. The property, as a prototype of the design and plan of the neighborhood drug store, also meets criterion C. Mr. Tissian made a motion to recommend placement on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2. 311 South Juniper Street, Social Service Building This nomination is a convincing presentation of the professionalization of social services, akin to the Architects Building and Medical Arts Building with a growth of social service organizations in the early 20th century. This provision of social services was extraordinarily important socially until greater public involvement after World War II, criterion A. With Horace Trumbauer, as the architect, and an interior by Mellor, Meigs and Howe, and Yellin iron work, makes this property eligible under criterion C. Mr. Steinberg made a motion for the recommendation of the nomination on the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 3. Fairmount Avenue Historic District This district is distinguishable from the adjacent Spring Garden District in use and history even with buildings of similar vintage. Fairmount Avenue has a mixed usage while the Spring Garden neighborhood is residential. The proposed district has only three non- contributing
motion which carried unanimously. 3. Fairmount Avenue Historic District This district is distinguishable from the adjacent Spring Garden District in use and history even with buildings of similar vintage. Fairmount Avenue has a mixed usage while the Spring Garden neighborhood is residential. The proposed district has only three non- contributing buildings, and a high degree of integrity. The distinguishing character obviates a problem common in defining boundaries for later 19th century and early 20th century residential districts. The role of the automobile in early 20th century in the transformation and definition of district can not be exaggerated. The district clearly meets criterion A. The architects, materials and construction reflect criterion C. Commission members commented on local designations in retrospect to national nominations, and how local designations could impact development in neighborhoods. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to recommend the nomination for the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. HARRY A. BATTEN MEMORIAL FUND Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve the expenditure of $33.16.for the Architectural Committee lunches. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the expenditure. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Zecca commented on the press release from Mayor Street, in regards to Dream Garden. All litigation is suspended and the mosaic will remain in the Curtis Center. Mr. Sklaroff stated that Mr. Zecca, should be commended for his tireless endeavors to keep the Dream Garden mosaic at its present location. Mr. Tyler noted that Ms. Spina and Ms. Harvey were instrumental in the writing of the case statement and the staff spent a considerable amount of time on the case. A celebration is planned for some time in the near future. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Sugrue seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes 11