Committee on Historic Designation — Nov 13, 2019

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 1 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 13 NOVEMBER 2019, 9:30 A.M. 1515 ARCH STREET, ROOM 18-029 EMILY COOPERMAN, CHAIR CALL TO ORDER START TIME IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:00:00 The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. The following Committee members joined her: Committee Member Present Absent Comment Emily Cooperman, Ph.D., chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen, Ph.D. X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy, Ph.D. X Douglas Mooney X The following staff members were present: Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Kim Chantry, Historic Preservation Planner II Meredith Keller, Historic Preservation Planner II Allyson Mehley, Historic Preservation Planner I Megan Schmitt, Historic Preservation Planner I The following persons were present: Robert O’Donnell, Christopher Columbus Charter School Willis Berry Leah Silverstein, Chestnut Hill Conservancy Don Ratchford Nancy Dickson Walt Sommers Robin Sommers Adrian Trevisan David Berry Dylan Abram, Boys Latin Charter School Tamir Lett, Boys Latin Charter School Kerry Woodward, Boys Latin Charter School W. Lewis, Boys Latin Charter School Celeste Morello J.M. Duffin Ian Toner Vern Anastasio, Esq. Grace Maiorano, South Philly Review Oscar Beisert K. Block COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 2 Tim White, Jr., Boys Latin Charter School Mickah Mercer, Boys Latin Charter School Linda Coard, Boys Latin Charter School Trudy Allen, Boys Latin Charter School Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Steven Peitzman Lori Salganicoff, Chestnut Hill Conservancy Noah Tennant, Boys Latin Charter School Nancy Pontone David S. Traub, Save Our Sites E. Doley, Germantown United CDC Kimberly Haas, Hidden City Karen Williams COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 3 CONTINUANCE REQUESTS ADDRESS: 7709 CHEROKEE ST; 540 W MORELAND AVE; 545 W MERMAID LN Name of Resource: Keewaydin Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Robin Sommers (7709 Cherokee St); Ganos LLC (540 W. Moreland Ave); Donald J. Ratchford and Nancy A. Dickson (545 W. Mermaid Ln) Nominator: Chestnut Hill Conservancy Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 7709 Cherokee Street, 540 W. Moreland Avenue, and 545 W. Mermaid Lane and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The three properties historically comprised the main buildings of the Keewaydin estate. The nomination contends that the buildings satisfy Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. Under Criteria

Cherokee Street, 540 W. Moreland Avenue, and 545 W. Mermaid Lane and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The three properties historically comprised the main buildings of the Keewaydin estate. The nomination contends that the buildings satisfy Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination argues that Keewaydin stands as a characteristic example of the Dutch Colonial Revival style, which operated as a particular mode within the broader Colonial Revival movement. Under Criterion E, the nomination contends that the estate was designed by notable Philadelphia architect George T. Pearson. Under Criterion J, the nomination argues that the estate was constructed for Edward W. Clark Jr. and his wife Lydia Jane (Newhall) Clark, a distinguished Philadelphia family and fixture of Chestnut Hill society. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 7709 Cherokee Street, 540 W. Moreland Avenue, and 545 W. Mermaid Lane satisfy Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:03:37 PRESENTERS:  Attorney Vern Anastasio represented the property owner of 540 W. Moreland Avenue.  Lori Salganicoff, Chestnut Hill Conservancy, represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Anastasio stated that he had initially requested to continue the review of the nomination to the February 2020 Committee on Historic Designation meeting but that he would like to withdraw that request. He commented that he has no objection to the designation of the building, though he asked that the boundary be reconsidered to remove the open space from the designation. o Ms. Cooperman asked whether the nominator is in agreement with proceeding. o Ms. Salganicoff responded that she and the property owners of 7709 Cherokee Street and 545 W. Mermaid Lane would like to proceed with the review of the nomination at today’s meeting.  Several Committee members stated that they had not read the nomination in anticipation of granting the continuance request and were not prepared to review the nomination at this time. They suggested that the nomination be continued to the January 2020 Committee on Historic Designation meeting.  The nominator and property owners strenuously objected to delaying the review because they had gone to significant efforts to attend the meeting and because they were all in agreement regarding the designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 4 o The Committee refused to

meeting.  The nominator and property owners strenuously objected to delaying the review because they had gone to significant efforts to attend the meeting and because they were all in agreement regarding the designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 4 o The Committee refused to conduct the review and instead decided to postpone it. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The attorney representing the owner of 540 W. Moreland Avenue first requested a continuance of the review of the nomination and then, later, withdrew the request. The nominator and the property owners are opposed to continuing the review of the nomination.  In anticipation of the recommending in favor the continuance request, some Committee member did not read the nomination and are not prepared for the review.  If the continuance is granted, the properties would remain under the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction during the continuance period but the 90-day clock for permit reviews would run if a permit application is submitted. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination of 7709 Cherokee Street, 540 W. Moreland Avenue, and 545 W. Mermaid Lane and remand it to the January 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ITEM: 7709 CHEROKEE ST; 540 W MORELAND AVE; 545 W MERMAID LN MOTION: Continue and remand to January 2020 CHD meeting MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Milroy VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 145 SUMAC ST Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Heather Baumgardner and Robert J Marcin Nominator: Philadelphia Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 145 Sumac Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The Historical Commission first considered the historic designation of 145 Sumac Street in 2015. At its 10 July 2015 meeting, the Commission tabled the review of the nomination at the request of the property owner and author of the nomination, to allow for both parties to come to an agreement on the redevelopment of the property. The property has remained under the Commission’s jurisdiction during this tabling COMMITTEE

2015 meeting, the Commission tabled the review of the nomination at the request of the property owner and author of the nomination, to allow for both parties to come to an agreement on the redevelopment of the property. The property has remained under the Commission’s jurisdiction during this tabling COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 5 period. During the tabling period, the property was rehabilitated. Since being tabled, the nomination has been updated by the Historical Commission’s staff. The nomination contends that the building, one half of a twin comprising 145 and 147 Sumac Street, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. Satisfying Criteria A and J, the nomination argues that the building has significant interest or value as part of the city’s development related to Manayunk textile mills and is associated with an important individual, Manayunk mill owner James Z. Holt, son of Edward Holt, who was among the first Manayunk Mill owners. It was second-generation mill owners, like James Holt and Wilde mill owners, the brothers John and Thomas Wilde, who provided much of the impetus for Wissahickon’s development as the location for elegant park-side homes along the Wissahickon Creek. The building was among the first grand homes built in Wissahickon during this Victorian era period of development, and exemplifies the economic, social, and historical heritage of the community. Satisfying Criterion D, the nomination contends that the building reflects an extraordinary example of Eastlake Victorian styling, with trim ornaments, spindles and door carvings with geometric patterns and incised lines. It is only one of a few remaining examples in Wissahickon, a neighborhood developed when Queen Anne style was in vogue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 145 Sumac Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. ADDRESS: 147 SUMAC ST Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Deborah Gribbin-Zameska and James Zameska Nominator: Philadelphia Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 147 Sumac Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The Historical Commission first considered the historic designation of 147 Sumac Street in 2015. At its 10 July 2015 meeting, the Commission tabled the review of the nomination. The property has remained under the Commission’s jurisdiction during this tabling period. Since being tabled, the nomination has been updated by the Historical Commission’s

Commission first considered the historic designation of 147 Sumac Street in 2015. At its 10 July 2015 meeting, the Commission tabled the review of the nomination. The property has remained under the Commission’s jurisdiction during this tabling period. Since being tabled, the nomination has been updated by the Historical Commission’s staff. The nomination contends that the building, one half of a twin comprising 145 and 147 Sumac Street, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. Satisfying Criteria A and J, the nomination argues that the building is associated with the life of Maurice F. Wilhere, a Magistrate and prominent figure in the local Democratic Committee in Philadelphia, who lived in the home from 1892 until his death in 1908, and the property exemplifies the economic, social, and historical heritage of the community, as a speculative housing development directed at the wealthier class looking to live in the developing Wissahickon neighborhood. Satisfying Criterion D, the nomination contends that the building reflects an extraordinary example of Eastlake Victorian styling, with trim ornaments, spindles and door carvings with geometric patterns and incised lines. It is only one of a few remaining examples in Wissahickon, a neighborhood developed when Queen Anne style was in vogue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 147 Sumac Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:05:30 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 6 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the continuance requests for 145 Sumac Street and 147 Sumac Street to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owners. DISCUSSION:  Ms. Chantry explained that the owner of 145 Sumac Street and the equitable owner of 147 Sumac Street have submitted a joint request for a continuance to a future meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  It typically supports continuance requests proffered by property owners.  The property would remain under the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction during the continuance period. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nominations of 145 Sumac Street and 147 Sumac Street and remand it to a future meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ITEM: 145 SUMAC

the continuance period. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nominations of 145 Sumac Street and 147 Sumac Street and remand it to a future meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ITEM: 145 SUMAC ST AND 147 SUMAC ST MOTION: Continue and remand to future CHD meeting MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Milroy VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 5901-13 AND 5915-41 GERMANTOWN AVE & 61-71 AND 73 E HAINES ST Name of Resource: Germantown High School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 5301 Germantown Avenue Investment Partners; 5901 Germantown Ave In. Nominator: Germantown United CDC, The Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 5901-13 and 5915-41 Germantown Avenue and 61-71 and 73 E. Haines Street, four individual parcels that comprise the former Germantown High School, and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the buildings satisfy Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G, COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 7 H, I, and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that Germantown High School represents a pivotal moment in the history of public education in Philadelphia in response to Pennsylvania’s 1914 passing of the Cox Child Labor Law, which restricted work hours for children and allowed them to enroll in secondary schools. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination contends that the original building is a monumental example of Georgian Revival public school architecture and is reflective of the style of other Philadelphia school buildings constructed in the same period. Under Criterion G, the nomination argues that the open space separating the school buildings from Germantown Avenue was intentionally developed into a park-like setting to serve the high school. Under Criterion H, the nomination argues that the open space embodies “an important visual continuum along Germantown Avenue, a singular place that has offered the public a window to architectural and landscape beauty and grandeur since the 1850s.” Under Criterion I, the nomination contends that portions of the property that comprise the open space along Germantown Avenue potentially contain archaeological resources related to seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and early nineteenth-century structures.

singular place that has offered the public a window to architectural and landscape beauty and grandeur since the 1850s.” Under Criterion I, the nomination contends that portions of the property that comprise the open space along Germantown Avenue potentially contain archaeological resources related to seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and early nineteenth-century structures. Under Criterion J, the nomination asserts that Germantown High School was inextricably tied to the Germantown community and its students were reflective of the local population and lingering inequalities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff finds that the nomination’s argument for Criterion H, that the original school building, 1959-60 addition, and grounds form a familiar and established visual feature from Germantown Avenue, does not accurately reflect the original design intent. The staff contends that the open space along Germantown Avenue creates a buffer and serves to disguise the mass of the original school building from Germantown Avenue, though the building does present an established and familiar visual feature from E. Haines Street. The staff further finds that the nomination fails to formulate a cogent argument for Criterion J; therefore, the staff recommends that the series of later additions be deemed non-contributing, since they are only addressed under Criterion J. The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the original building and open space of Germantown High School, located at 5901-13 and 5915-41 Germantown Avenue, and not the E. Haines Street properties, satisfy Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G, and I. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:05:59 PRESENTERS:  Oscar Beisert and Jim Duffin represented the nomination.  No one represented the property owner. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Beisert stated he was represented the Keeping Society and Germantown United CDC. He explained that at the time of notice, the Germantown High School Coalition, which consists of neighbors and interested parties, raised concerns about the nomination and what designation would mean for the building. He stated that the group would like additional time to conclude their meetings with the property owner and developer. He added that, because of their position, he is requesting a 90-day continuance to the February 2020 Committee on Historic Designation meeting, with the understanding that if a building permit application was submitted that the Commission may need to act on the nomination prior to the conclusion of the 90-day period. o Mr. Farnham asked whether Mr. Beisert is aware of the property owners’ positions on the continuance request.

Historic Designation meeting, with the understanding that if a building permit application was submitted that the Commission may need to act on the nomination prior to the conclusion of the 90-day period. o Mr. Farnham asked whether Mr. Beisert is aware of the property owners’ positions on the continuance request. o Mr. Beisert replied that he is not aware of the property owners’ positions. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 8 o Mr. Farnham stated that continuance requests are typically proffered by the property owner rather than the nominator or a third party. He added that his only concern is that if this is continued without the property owner’s consent and a demolition permit application is submitted tomorrow, it puts Historical Commission on a very short timeline to complete the nomination review and review the building permit application. o Mr. Beisert responded that the nomination could be placed on the next agenda if that were the case. o Mr. Farnham answered that it is possible but that it creates some risk without the property owner agreeing to waive any rights for a quick review of a building permit application. o Mr. Duffin stated that there is that possibility but the likelihood is low, since his understanding is that the developer does not plan to demolish the buildings on the site. Their plans, he continued, include retaining all buildings. He further stated that he does not believe the developer intends to include new construction in his plans. He provided a similar scenario that occurred with another property in the past. o Mr. Farnham clarified that he raised the issue only to make the Committee aware of the potential risk. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  It typically supports continuance requests proffered by property owners and not by nominators or a third party.  The property would remain under the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction during the continuance period but could potentially be at risk if the property owner submits a building permit application during that time. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination of 5901-13 and 5915-41 Germantown Avenue and 61-71 and 73 E. Haines Street and remand it to the February 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ITEM:

ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination of 5901-13 and 5915-41 Germantown Avenue and 61-71 and 73 E. Haines Street and remand it to the February 2020 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ITEM: 5901-13 AND 5915-41 GERMANTOWN AVE & 61-71 AND 73 E HAINES ST MOTION: Continue and remand to February 2020 CHD meeting MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Milroy VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 9 AGENDA ADDRESS: 8819 RIDGE AVE, 700-06 AND 708-16 CALEDONIA ST Proposed Action: Rescission Property Owner: Barwel Development LLC History: 1859; Absalom Loyle House; demolished 2019 owing to imminently dangerous condition Individual Designation: None District Designation: Ridge Avenue Historic District, Contributing, 10/12/2018 Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This application proposes to rescind the designations of 8819 Ridge Avenue, 700-06 Caledonia Street, and 708-16 Caledonia Street. The property at 8819 Ridge Avenue was designated and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places in 2018 as part of the Ridge Avenue Roxborough Historic District. At the time of designation in 2018, a detached, three-story house, shed, and garage stood on the site. At its meeting on 9 November 2018, the Historical Commission approved a complete demolition application as necessary in the public interest to abate the imminently dangerous condition, pursuant to Section 14-1005(6)(d) of the Philadelphia code. The Caledonia Street addresses were the result of a subdivision of the lot at 8819 Ridge Avenue and contain no historic resources. In 2019, the historically designated resource at 8819 Ridge Avenue was demolished. The current owner has requested the removal of these properties from the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, as the resources now cease to satisfy any Criteria for Designation because the qualities that caused the original entry have been removed through the Historical Commission-approved demolition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Historical Commission rescind the designations for 8819 Ridge Avenue, 700-06 Caledonia Street, and 708-16 Caledonia Street, pursuant to Section 5.14.b.1.a of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations, as the resources have ceased to satisfy any Criteria for Designation because the qualities that caused the original entries have been removed through demolition.

Commission rescind the designations for 8819 Ridge Avenue, 700-06 Caledonia Street, and 708-16 Caledonia Street, pursuant to Section 5.14.b.1.a of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations, as the resources have ceased to satisfy any Criteria for Designation because the qualities that caused the original entries have been removed through demolition. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:16:40 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the rescission request to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  In November 2018, the Historical Commission approved a complete demolition application for the building on the property in question as necessary in the public interest to abate the imminently dangerous condition, pursuant to Section 14- 1005(6)(d) of the Philadelphia code. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 10  The resource has ceased to satisfy any Criteria for Designation because the qualities that caused the original entry have been removed through demolition. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the designation of the properties at 8819 Ridge Avenue, 700-06 and 708-16 Caledonia Street be rescinded, pursuant to Section 5.14.b.1.a of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations, as the resource has ceased to satisfy any Criteria for Designation because the qualities that caused the original entry has been removed through demolition. ITEM: 8819 RIDGE AVE, 700-06 AND 708-16 CALEDONIA ST MOTION: Rescind designation MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 231 REED ST Name of Resource: Sacred Heart of Jesus Parochial School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Christopher Columbus Charter School Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 231 Reed Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former Sacred Heart of Jesus Parochial School, constructed in 1893, satisfies Criteria for Designation D, H, and J. Under Criterion D, the nomination argues that the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of Romanesque Revival architecture. Under Criterion H, the nomination argues that the imposing school building, cited on a prominent corner of

Sacred Heart of Jesus Parochial School, constructed in 1893, satisfies Criteria for Designation D, H, and J. Under Criterion D, the nomination argues that the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of Romanesque Revival architecture. Under Criterion H, the nomination argues that the imposing school building, cited on a prominent corner of Moyamensing Avenue where most other buildings are smaller-scale, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood. Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the building exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 231 Reed Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D and H. The staff fails to comprehend the argument for the satisfaction of Criterion J proffered in the nomination. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:19:05 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 11  Attorney Robert O’Donnell represented the property owner, Christopher Columbus Charter School.  Celeste Morello represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Mr. O’Donnell stated that Christopher Columbus Charter School offers no comments on the merits of the nomination, because it is its understanding that the designation would only affect the four exterior facades, and they intend to reopen the building as a school. This would require significant interior renovations, but the façades would be preserved.  Ms. Morello stated that the building served the Irish Catholic community, and therefore it is significant under Criterion J. o Mr. Cohen commented that an articulate argument about the demographics of the neighborhood would have better supported Criterion J. o Ms. Barucco agreed that the building may merit listing under Criterion J, but that the nomination fails to make the argument. o Ms. Cooperman questioned whether all historic churches are significant under Criterion J, given that most are associated with a particular ethnic group in a particular area. o Ms. Milroy suggested that the nomination could benefit from a discussion about the architectural style decision of the building and if there is something inherently Catholic about the design. o Ms. Morello stated that she tried to imply that the school was constructed when the neighborhood was a settled community. o Mr. Cohen opined that the nomination is not hurt by the removal of Criterion J.  Mr. Cohen commented on the remarkable design of

Catholic about the design. o Ms. Morello stated that she tried to imply that the school was constructed when the neighborhood was a settled community. o Mr. Cohen opined that the nomination is not hurt by the removal of Criterion J.  Mr. Cohen commented on the remarkable design of the building, and offered support for significance under Criteria D and H.  The Committee thanked the staff for including supplemental photographs in the nomination. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The former Sacred Heart of Jesus Parochial School was constructed in 1893 at the intersection of E. Moyamensing Avenue and Reed Street. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building embodies distinguishing characteristics of Romanesque Revival architecture, satisfying Criterion D.  The imposing school building, cited on a prominent corner of Moyamensing Avenue where most other buildings are smaller-scale, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, satisfying Criterion H.  While the building itself may satisfy Criterion J, the argument made by Ms. Morello in the nomination for the satisfaction of the Criterion is insufficient.  Despite the nomination’s many deficiencies, the building is worthy of designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 12 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 231 Reed Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D and H. ITEM: 231 REED ST MOTION: Designate, Criteria D and H MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 20-24 N 40TH ST Name of Resource: Hotel Powelton; Powelton Cafe Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Bridge Venture LLC Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 20-24 N. 40th Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former Hotel Powelton, constructed in 1893, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination outlines the building’s association with Albert C. Barnes, who operated his laboratory out of the building from the 1900s to the 1920s. Under Criterion C, the nomination argues that

that the former Hotel Powelton, constructed in 1893, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination outlines the building’s association with Albert C. Barnes, who operated his laboratory out of the building from the 1900s to the 1920s. Under Criterion C, the nomination argues that the building survives as one of relatively few intact Queen Anne structures in its immediate West Powelton neighborhood. Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the Powelton Café chapter of the building’s history exemplifies the cultural, economic, social and historical heritage of the community, as a leading venue for African American musicians and audiences to gather in the 1940s and 1950s. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 20-24 N. 40th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:33:25 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner.  Patrick Grossi and Paul Steinke represented the nomination. DISCUSSION: COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 13  Mr. Steinke stated that the building reflects three important eras in the City’s history, being the cultural assimilation of German Americans, the enduring Barnes Foundation, which got its start here, and the jazz culture of African Americans.  Mr. Cohen commented that the nomination is an impressive piece of research and writing. He lamented the fact that the ambitious architect is not known.  Ms. Cooperman suggested that the nomination be laid out so that each Criterion is followed by an argument for the satisfaction of that specific Criterion. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The building at 20-24 N. 40th Street was constructed in 1893 as the Hotel Powelton. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building was associated with Albert C. Barnes, who operated his laboratory out of the building from the 1900s to the 1920s, satisfying Criterion A.  The building is a relatively intact example of Queen Anne architecture, satisfying Criterion C.  The Powelton Café chapter of the building’s history exemplifies the cultural, economic, social and historical heritage of the community, as a leading venue for African American musicians and audiences to gather in the 1940s and 1950s, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION

Queen Anne architecture, satisfying Criterion C.  The Powelton Café chapter of the building’s history exemplifies the cultural, economic, social and historical heritage of the community, as a leading venue for African American musicians and audiences to gather in the 1940s and 1950s, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 20-24 N. 40th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J. ITEM: 20-24 N. 40TH ST MOTION: Designate, Criteria A, D, and J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 14 ADDRESS: 339 N 63RD ST Name of Resource: Our Lady of the Holy Rosary Roman Catholic Church Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Choice Academics Inc. Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the church building at 339 N. 63rd Street in West Philadelphia and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Historically known as Our Lady of the Holy Rosary Roman Catholic Church, the building was designed by architect Frank R. Watson and constructed between 1887 and 1890. The nomination contends that the building satisfies Criterion for Designation C. Under Criterion C, the nomination argues that the building reflects the late nineteenth-century period of popularity of the Romanesque Revival style in ecclesiastical architecture. The property at 339 N. 63rd Street includes a former church, school, rectory, and convent buildings. The former church is the focus of this nomination with the other buildings considered non-contributing resources. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 339 N. 63rd Street satisfies Criterion for Designation C. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:40:20 (ends 1:23:40) PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Noah Tennant and Kerry Woodward, CEO and COO of Boys Latin Charter School, respectively, represented the property owner.  Celeste Morello represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Farnham stated that the Historical Commission has received several letters and emails in opposition to the designation. He added that they were provided to the Committee members prior to the meeting and in digital form

School, respectively, represented the property owner.  Celeste Morello represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Farnham stated that the Historical Commission has received several letters and emails in opposition to the designation. He added that they were provided to the Committee members prior to the meeting and in digital form on the meeting iPads.  Mr. Tennant, the CEO of Boys Latin Charter School, spoke on behalf of the property owner. He explained that Choice Academics, a component of their school, purchased the building in 2014 as reflected in the nomination materials. Mr. Tennant noted that since this time the ownership name for the property has been changed to the Boys Latin Foundation, a fact that has not yet been updated by the Office of Property Assessment (OPA). He stated that Boys Latin Foundation sole purpose is to acquire, construct, and lease property to Boys Latin Charter School. Mr. Tennant added that the two entities are financially unified, thus the school is and has been the functional owner of the property. He stated that their public charter school serves students in grades 6 to 12 and the church building is on the middle school campus, which serves grades 6 to 8. Mr. Tennant acknowledged that a shared value of everyone in the room is an appreciation of all that can be learned from history and that the Historical Commission exists and was established with the recognition that we must honor the institutions and creations of the past to provide direction for our future. He added that he did want to posit that the bricks and mortar that are reflective of our history, while certainly important, should be secondary to the history of the lives and struggles and fights that have occurred for many generations in order to give students like ours the right to an education. Mr. Tennant continued that one of COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 15 the important lessons that we take from history is that separate but equal cannot coexist and inherently there is no equal when groups of people are separated from resources, options, and opportunities, as Brown vs. Board of Education told us over 60 years ago. He continued that here we stand in 2019 facing vestiges of that same system when we feel that people are trying to deny our students resources and accommodations we believe they deserve. Mr.

from resources, options, and opportunities, as Brown vs. Board of Education told us over 60 years ago. He continued that here we stand in 2019 facing vestiges of that same system when we feel that people are trying to deny our students resources and accommodations we believe they deserve. Mr. Tennant stated that the school was founded with the express intent of serving the most educationally marginalized population in our City, boys of color. Since the school’s inception in 2007, no other school in Philadelphia is sending more boys of color to college than Boys Latin. He noted that the middle school provides for their students and serves them well, and, while the school has met with great success, it can and must do better because the students deserve better. Mr. Tennant stated that students of ages 12 to 14 attend school on campus where a small asphalt parking lot is their gymnasium, field, and playground. Their only opportunity to learn wellness and physical fitness and the social value of play happens among the cars in the parking lot. He added that he does not think this would happen in other areas of the city. He stated that school officials know that they must do more for them and their plan is to do more them. Mr. Tennant continued that, since acquiring the property for the middle school campus from the Archdiocese, their vision has been to create a space for their students for physical education and for the community to convene and learn together. He stated that he believes that creating a space like this is the best use of the church building they own and they are supported by the community, by the neighbors, and by the City’s leadership in this vision. Mr. Tennant pointed out that the Committee and public will hear from the school’s neighbors and community members today. He stated that, as mentioned earlier, letters of support have been submitted from local leadership like Councilman Curtis Jones and Senator Anthony Williams. He continued that the school’s Chief Operating Office will dispel some of the misinformation that they believe was presented in the nomination. Mr. Tennant commented that the nomination depicts a building of great significance but was long ago abandoned. He stated that they have the opportunity to resurrect it and repurpose it for their students and they respectfully ask that the Committee question and

that they believe was presented in the nomination. Mr. Tennant commented that the nomination depicts a building of great significance but was long ago abandoned. He stated that they have the opportunity to resurrect it and repurpose it for their students and they respectfully ask that the Committee question and consider whether or not the building as it stands is more important than the students and their right to access to a strong education.  Ms. Cooperman thanked Mr. Tennant for his statement. She reminded everyone of her statement at the beginning of the meeting, that the Committee on Historic Designation provides a technical review of nominations and does not address other matters. She explained that the Committee’s purview is the technical points of the nomination. She continued that the Committee does not take other factors into consideration as it formulates its recommendation for the Commission. Ms. Cooperman added that the Commission has the latitude to take other factors into consideration, whereas the Committee on Historic Designation does not. She noted that she hopes everyone will confine their remarks to those technical points. Ms. Cooperman stated that the Committee focuses on historical significance, the Criteria for Designation in the preservation ordinance.  Ms. Milroy offered a point of clarification. She stated that as far as the physical fabric of the building is concerned the Committee is considering the significance of the building as an architectural design and the Commission’s jurisdiction pertains to the exterior façade only.  Ms. Cooperman added that the Committee does not consider condition. She noted that the Historical Commission has designated ruins. Ms. Cooperman stated that the Committee will not entertain statements about the physical condition of the building. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 16  Ms. Woodward, COO of Boys Latin Charter School, stated she wished to reiterate three material errors in the nomination, which impact the merit of the nomination. She noted that the nomination states the building is in good condition and they believe it is in very poor condition. She added this was included in the letter sent to the Historical Commission on 16 October 2019. Ms. Woodward continued that the nominator cited the building as occupied and this is inaccurate. She contended that it is unsafe for occupancy by students and vacant as it has been for seven years. Ms. Woodward concluded that in the nomination

sent to the Historical Commission on 16 October 2019. Ms. Woodward continued that the nominator cited the building as occupied and this is inaccurate. She contended that it is unsafe for occupancy by students and vacant as it has been for seven years. Ms. Woodward concluded that in the nomination the date of construction is 1887 to 1890 but fails to note the material alterations that subsequently occurred to the exterior of the building prior to Boys Latin’s purchase of the building. She added that this omission is of critical importance. In fact, three of the character-defining features that are noted in the description section, on page four of the nomination, are absent from the building today. Ms. Woodward noted that first, the distinctive red tile roofing is missing from the upper stories was removed by the Archdiocese in 1951 and replaced with non-historic wood siding. She continued, second, the historic bell tower with spire and 40 feet of stone were removed by the Archdiocese in 1951. She added, third, the rose window and all original stained glass were replaced by the Archdiocese with plexiglass when they sold the building to Boy’s Latin in 2014. Ms. Woodward stated these character-defining elements of the structure have been removed, but the nomination does not make that clear. She added that the original slate roof tile has been removed and replaced with an inexpensive and faulty asphalt- shingle roof. Ms. Woodward concluded that the building that stands today is materially different from the structure that was designed and built 132 years ago and therefore fails to satisfy Criterion C for designation.  Ms. Morello, the nominator, stated that she has always been met with hostility from the Boys Latin group, from the time she was at the premises. She continued that she thinks this group is very misinformed about the process. She asserted that the information in the nomination was accepted, not rejected, by the Commission’s staff. Ms. Morello commented that the nomination describes the building as it had appeared in 1890. She noted the church had a spire, but it was removed. She acknowledged that the building has been altered but asserted that it retains some original features. Ms. Morello acknowledged that the Archdiocese removed the stained-glass windows and anything else of value within the church. She stated she is looking at a building that stands as a reminder of a Richardsonian

She acknowledged that the building has been altered but asserted that it retains some original features. Ms. Morello acknowledged that the Archdiocese removed the stained-glass windows and anything else of value within the church. She stated she is looking at a building that stands as a reminder of a Richardsonian Romanesque. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Linda Coard, a neighbor of the Boys Latin Middle school who has lived in the community for 45 years, stated that the building is not what it once was. She opposed the designation and advocated for permitting the school to use its campus to best serve its students.  Dwayne Lewis, a father of a Boys Latin student, opposed the designation and stated that the school should be able to use the building to provide neighborhood children with a safe place to play and community members with a place to meet. o Ms. Morello interrupted and asked the Committee to reject the statement offered by Mr. Lewis. Ms. Cooperman stated that Ms. Morello was out of order. Ms. Morello attempted to speak out again. Ms. Cooperman stopped her and told her that she was out of order. Ms. Morello replied that she has been treated very rudely and in a very course way. Ms. Cooperman disagreed. Ms. Morello again interjected. Ms. Cooperman asked Ms. Morello to step away from the meeting table to allow others to comment. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 17  Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, stated that the nomination does make the case that this building deserves protection on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. He noted he knows the owner is concerned about the long-term vacancy of the property and the maintenance that it needs. Mr. Steinke continued that he is not familiar with the details but claimed that such problems are common to church buildings all over Philadelphia. He stated that there are many examples of historic church conversions to other uses including schools in this city and elsewhere. Mr. Steinke noted that the Preservation Alliance would be happy to help Boys Latin connect with experts who have converted vacant and crumbling churches. He commented that he happens to live close to the Cedar Avenue campus of Boys Latin, which was repurposed from a parochial school. He noted that, unfortunately, the church building on the campus was lost. Mr. Steinke stated that this

connect with experts who have converted vacant and crumbling churches. He commented that he happens to live close to the Cedar Avenue campus of Boys Latin, which was repurposed from a parochial school. He noted that, unfortunately, the church building on the campus was lost. Mr. Steinke stated that this is an opportunity for Boys Latin to make a real statement about its commitment to the education of its students, which is noble, admirable, and necessary, by restoring the church building. He stated that the restoration would add to the preservation of the historic character of this part of West Philadelphia. He invited the school officials to have a conversation with the Preservation Alliance in greater detail about what might be possible.  Dave Traub, Save Our Sites, stated he wanted to make comments about the unique architecture of the church. He noted that, even though the steeple has been removed, the bell tower remains in an altered state and still is a distinctive architectural feature. Mr. Traub commented there are very few of these in Philadelphia. He continued that balancing the bell tower is the apse-like structure to the right of the entry, which is very unusual. Mr. Traub stated that Save Our Sites advocates for this designation.  Trudy Allen, the principal of Boys Latin Middle School, stated that she is new to the school and Philadelphia. She commented that the interior of the church is greatly deteriorated and part of the roof structure is collapsing. Ms. Allen noted that bricks are falling off the building; the school’s engineer routinely picks up bricks around the building.  Joseph Conwell, a trustee of Boys Latin Charter School and chair of the Facilities Committee, asked about the process. o Ms. Cooperman explained that the Committee on Historic Designation will offer a non-binding recommendation to the Historical Commission regarding whether the building merits designation. She stated that the Architectural Committee and Historical Commission review proposals to alter buildings. She stated that the Historical Commission would only regulate the exterior of the building.  Mr. Conwell stated that the Facilities Committee has been planning to significantly alter the church building. He stated that the will need to remove interior columns to create a large open space for activities. He stated that the school has no use for the building as it is currently configured. o Mr. Cohen spoke about the challenges of

been planning to significantly alter the church building. He stated that the will need to remove interior columns to create a large open space for activities. He stated that the school has no use for the building as it is currently configured. o Mr. Cohen spoke about the challenges of removing columns from church interiors. He noted that most churches are repurposed with the columns remaining in place. o Ms. Barucco stated that designation does not preclude changes to the exterior.  Mr. Conwell asked the Committee to describe at a high level the implications of designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 18 o Ms. Cooperman requested that Mr. Farnham address this question. Mr. Farnham stated that once a property is designated as historic, the Historical Commission then has the jurisdiction to review every building permit application submitted to the Department of Licenses and Inspections for the property. He pointed out that 95% of all applications are approved by the staff of the Historical Commission either because they have no impact on the historic resource or outside of the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction such as changes to the interior. Mr. Farnham continued that 5% of applications are presented to the Architectural Committee, which is an advisory committee, and then the Historical Commission which makes the final decision. He added that the criteria that they use to make that decision are Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is a list of guidelines and standards promulgated by the National Park Service within the Department of the Interior. He continued that the standards are not intended to prevent change but instead to ensure that historic buildings retain their historic character and character-defining features when altered. Mr. Farnham stated that, if this building were designated, every building permit submitted for it would be subject to review by the Historical Commission and the Commission’s approval would be required before a building permit could be issued. He explained that the arguments raised earlier about the school’s mission are within the Historical Commission’s purview to consider. Mr. Farnham explained that the Historical Commission will ultimately decide the designation of this property best promotes the public’s interest. He observed that the Historical Commission will consider the public’s interest in the educational opportunities offered by the school public interests and the public’s interest in the preservation of the church

Farnham explained that the Historical Commission will ultimately decide the designation of this property best promotes the public’s interest. He observed that the Historical Commission will consider the public’s interest in the educational opportunities offered by the school public interests and the public’s interest in the preservation of the church building. The Historical Commission will weigh the two and determine whether the public interest in the school’s ability to use this property effectively to educate children in West Philadelphia is greater than the historic preservation benefit that would be derived by preserving this building. The Historical Commission is never required to designate but may designate if it finds that designation is in the city’s interest. Mr. Farnham concluded that the Historical Commission is the appropriate venue for making arguments about the school’s needs and mission. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Cohen asked if the sides of the clerestory were once clad in red tile. o It was confirmed that the sides of the clerestory were originally clad in red tile, but that material has been removed. o Mr. Cohen noted that this alteration changed the appearance dramatically. He added however that the changes including the removal of the tower do not disqualify the building for designation. Mr. Cohen observed that Frank Watson is a very significant church designer. He continued that if he had written the nomination he would have cited another criterion related to the work of a prolific church architect Frank Watson.  Mr. Cohen stated that he rejects the notion that designating this church would constitute implicit support on the notion of separate but equal. Mr. Cohen continued that he thinks there is a third way to go that you could both endorse the mission of the institution without having the only choice being demolition or massive change to the building. He added that the question before the Committee is the significance of the historic structure as it exists today. Mr. Cohen stated that perhaps the COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 19 Preservation Alliance can take school officials on a great tour of renovated and reused church structures. He also suggested that, if the school cannot repurpose the church, it could be turned over to someone else who could. o Ms. Woodward stated they want to reuse the building for their students, as a gymnasium and a multi-purpose space, but they need to do

and reused church structures. He also suggested that, if the school cannot repurpose the church, it could be turned over to someone else who could. o Ms. Woodward stated they want to reuse the building for their students, as a gymnasium and a multi-purpose space, but they need to do it on a public- school budget. o Mr. Cohen responded that he understands that the columns would be in the way of a gymnasium. o Mr. Tennant stated that they have done researched this problem extensively. He stated that, in the end, they will have to decide whether spending millions of dollars to preserve this building is the best way to benefit their students. Mr. Tennant noted that their money might be better spent hiring teachers than restoring this building. He stated that the Historical Commission’s decision could have great implications for the school. He noted that they have been planning for a long time; the nomination was unexpected.  Mr. Cohen stated that Ms. Morello did a great deal of research and noted that he appreciated how thoroughly she considered other Watson churches and Romanesque churches in Philadelphia. He explained that she failed to understand the difference between a gable and a pediment. Mr. Cohen added that he read the letters from Councilman Curtis Jones and Senator Anthony Williams and others against the designation but noted they are endorsing the mission of Boys Latin much more than they are contesting the significance of the structure. Mr. Cohen concluded that he is hoping that those are not the only two choices.  Ms. Milroy encouraged the owners to talk to Mr. Steinke. She stated that you take on a big project when you acquire a structure like this and it comes with some challenges and the Preservation Alliance is there, along with the staff of the Historical Commission, to help.  Ms. Woodward commented on the list and photographs of other buildings attributed to the architect Frank Watson. She noted there were two full pages of these buildings in the nomination and inquired how many of the buildings are designated. o Mr. Cohen responded that he does not know. o Ms. Woodward asked if all Frank Watson designed buildings are designated or eligible for designation. o Mr. Cohen responded that they are all quite different. He noted that some have been adaptively reused such as St. Anthony of Padua in

o Mr. Cohen responded that he does not know. o Ms. Woodward asked if all Frank Watson designed buildings are designated or eligible for designation. o Mr. Cohen responded that they are all quite different. He noted that some have been adaptively reused such as St. Anthony of Padua in Grays Ferry, which is now apartments. It was noted that St. Anthony’s was nominated several years ago, but the nominator then withdrew the nomination based on the belief that the designation of the church would make the adaptive reuse less feasible. o Mr. Laverty stated that merely because this church is one of many churches designed by Watson does not devalue the importance of the church.  Mr. Laverty stated he wished to publicly recognize and thank the students from Boys Latin who were attending the meeting. He asked them to stand, which they did. He thanked the young men for taking the time to get involved with their government at a very basic and messy level. He stated this it is important that their voices are heard because this this decision will impact their future.  Ms. Morello stated that she wanted everyone to know that she volunteers her time to write nominations. Ms. Morello claimed that Philadelphia lags behind other major cities in historic preservation. Ms. Morello stated that she is a practicing Catholic and an observant Catholic and she does not like the fact that the church had to close. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 20 She stated that she sees merit in the architecture and wants to ensure that the building is treated appropriately by its new owners. She stated that this building was constructed to honor the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Holy Rosary. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  Although the church has undergone physical alterations over time including the removal of the spire, stained glass windows, roofing, and siding as well as other modifications to its exterior, the changes have not materially diminished the building’s significance.  The architect Frank Watson was a prolific church designer in Philadelphia during this period. Although he designed many churches, the design of Our Lady of the Rosary is distinct.  The nomination is well-researched and provides valuable information regarding other Frank Watson churches and Romanesque churches in Philadelphia. The Committee on Historic

Frank Watson was a prolific church designer in Philadelphia during this period. Although he designed many churches, the design of Our Lady of the Rosary is distinct.  The nomination is well-researched and provides valuable information regarding other Frank Watson churches and Romanesque churches in Philadelphia. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The church building, designed by Frank R. Watson, reflects the late nineteenth- century period of popularity of the Romanesque Revival style in ecclesiastical architecture, satisfying Criterion C. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 339 N. 63rd Street satisfies Criterion for Designation C. ITEM: 339 N 63RD ST MOTION: Designate, Criterion C MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 4111 MANTUA AVE Name of Resource: Keystone Battery A Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: TJ Properties Inc. Nominator: Philadelphia City Planning Commission Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 4111 Mantua Avenue, located in the Belmont neighborhood, and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the building, the former Keystone Battery constructed in 1892, COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 21 satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. Under Criterion C and D, the nomination contends that the building is an excellent example of a castellated Gothic—also known as “military Gothic”—style armory. The castellated Gothic style for armories became particularly popular in the 1880s to 1910s and armories built in this style sought to achieve the perfect balance between form, function, and symbol. Under Criterion J, the nomination outlines its history as a social space for guardsmen and later youth of West Philadelphia under the National Youth Administration and Company M of the Pennsylvania Defense Training Corp. Through its lifetime 4111 Mantua Avenue has adapted to its social context and been home to multiple community institutions. Its architecture and function as an armory represent a time of national and local civil unrest and the desire for defense and control. Regulation changes altered the operation and function of the National Guard, and as a result, the defense purpose of the property gave way to civic operations,

institutions. Its architecture and function as an armory represent a time of national and local civil unrest and the desire for defense and control. Regulation changes altered the operation and function of the National Guard, and as a result, the defense purpose of the property gave way to civic operations, and eventually private ownership. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 4111 Mantua Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:24:40 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner or nomination. DISCUSSION:  Ms. Cooperman inquired if the property owner or representative of the property owner was present. o Ms. Schmitt replied that the notice letter sent to the property address was returned. She then confirmed that the notice letter sent to the owner address on file with the Office of Property Assessment was not returned.  Ms. Cooperman noted that the property was nominated by the City Planning Commission staff. She asked if this was identified as a priority for designation in a district planning study. o Ms. Schmitt confirmed that this was correct.  Ms. Milroy pointed to a sentence on page 10 that stated, “Although the exact reason for the relocation is unknown…” She contended there were a couple of things to be aware of and noted that the superintendant of Fairmount Park Russell Thayer, who was a member of the militia, had presented a paper about the importance of the West Park should there ever be riots in Philadelphia. Ms. Milroy remarked that 4111 Mantua Avenue is exactly where you would want to put an armory, right beside the railroad and the park. o Ms. Cooperman stated this very thoroughly explains the choice of this location.  Ms. Barucco noted that the middle bay had been completely reconstructed and it looks good. She added that the window could have replaced the window that was there.  Mr. Cohen pointed out a photograph on page 11. He noted that the original building was opened up to allow more light in. Mr. Cohen added that it is a shame that the parapet was removed from the center of the building.  Mr. Cohen commented that it is a distinctive place in the neighborhood and there are houses adjoining it at a

original building was opened up to allow more light in. Mr. Cohen added that it is a shame that the parapet was removed from the center of the building.  Mr. Cohen commented that it is a distinctive place in the neighborhood and there are houses adjoining it at a different scale. He noted the photograph of the original building on page 16. Mr. Cohen stated the entrance has been changed dramatically, COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 22 from a round arch to a flat arch. He continued that he would not call the front windows lancets because lancets in medical terms are pointed and sharp whereas these windows are just attenuated round arches.  Mr. Cohen stated that the nomination is a very detailed history and it really gets at the issues. He added that Ms. Milroy’s comment about choice of location was an important point, as well as its subsequent history as a community resource. Mr. Cohen stated that this building made a couple of transitions. He observed that the change of the center window probably accompanied the transition from a solely defensive structure to a social club. Mr. Cohen stated that it was a very well researched nomination and he would endorse it. o Ms. Milroy agreed with Mr. Cohen. She noted that the main door looked to be taller than the original door and wondered if it related to the size of the vehicles stored in the building. Mr. Cohen concurred, adding that there is an armory at 33rd and Arch Street that is used to store large vehicles. o Ms. Cooperman pointed out that the central first-floor entry door was widened and raised but the keystone has survived. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The location of the building is historically important due to its proximity to the West Fairmount Park and the railroad.  The nomination presents a very detailed history of the building.  Physical alterations were dictated by the occupants’ needs and reflect the building’s evolution from an armory to social club to community center. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building is an excellent example of a castellated Gothic style armory, also known as “military Gothic.” The castellated Gothic style for armories became particularly popular in the 1880s to 1910s and

evolution from an armory to social club to community center. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building is an excellent example of a castellated Gothic style armory, also known as “military Gothic.” The castellated Gothic style for armories became particularly popular in the 1880s to 1910s and armories built in this style sought to achieve the perfect balance between form, function, and symbol, satisfying Criteria C and D.  The building reflects its history as a social space for guardsmen and later youth of West Philadelphia under the National Youth Administration and Company M of the Pennsylvania Defense Training Corp, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 4111 Mantua Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 23 ITEM: 4111 MANTUA AVE MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, and J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Mooney VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 5301-15 N FRONT ST Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church of Olney Nominator: Philadelphia Historical Commission staff for Karen Williams, Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 5301-15 N. Front Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Constructed in 1928 by German-American architects Ritcher & Eiler for a German-American congregation, Zion Lutheran Church exemplifies the cultural, social and historical heritage of the Olney neighborhood of Philadelphia, which developed as a German-American suburb in the first half of the twentieth century and has since become one of the most diverse communities in the city, satisfying Criterion J. The remarkably intact building is also reflective of the simple and precise late-Gothic Revival style popular for ecclesiastical architecture in the early decades of the twentieth century, satisfying Criterion C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5301-15 N. Front Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:32:04 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Karen Williams represented the property owner and the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Ms.

demonstrates that the property at 5301-15 N. Front Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:32:04 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Karen Williams represented the property owner and the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Ms. Cooperman asked Ms. Schmitt to confirm whether the staff had worked with the nominator to prepare the nomination. o Ms. Schmitt confirmed that this was correct. o Ms. Williams explained that not only was she a member of the church, she also worked at the church’s community programming.  Mr. Laverty asked Ms. Williams if she was in favor of the nomination. o Ms. Williams responded that she was in favor and that she had nominated it. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 24  Ms. Barucco asked why the period of significance extended until the present.  Mr. Cohen asked Ms. Barucco if she had any problem with including the additions in the period of significance. Ms. Baruco said she had no issue keeping the additions within the period of significance, but that it was problematic to extend the period of significance to 2019.  Mr. Cohen remarked that it would have been interesting to do a comparison of nineteenth-century Gothic Revival and twentieth-century Gothic Revival because they are very different.  The Committee members agreed that the additions from the 1960s were remarkably sensitive to the historic church. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The building at 5301-15 N. Front Street was constructed in 1928 as the Zion Lutheran Church by German-American architects Ritcher & Eiler. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building, constructed in 1928 by German-American architects Ritcher & Eiler, is reflective of the simple and precise late-Gothic Revival style popular for ecclesiastical architecture in the early decades of the twentieth century, satisfying Criterion C.  Built for a German-American congregation, the Zion Lutheran Church exemplifies the cultural, social and historical heritage of the Olney neighborhood of Philadelphia, which developed as a German-American suburb in the first half of the twentieth century and has since become one of the most diverse communities in the city, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the

Philadelphia, which developed as a German-American suburb in the first half of the twentieth century and has since become one of the most diverse communities in the city, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5301-15 N. Front Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C and J, and that the period of significance should be changed to end at 1970. ITEM: 5301-15 N FRONT ST MOTION: Designate, Criteria C and J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Milroy VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 25 ADDRESS: 3501-25 N 6TH ST Name of Resource: St. Veronica’s Roman Catholic Church Rectory and Chapel-School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Archdiocese of Philadelphia Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: These nominations propose to designate the rectory and chapel-school buildings associated with St. Veronica’s Roman Catholic Church, both located on the parcel at 3501-25 N. 6th Street, and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The church building was designated in 1972. The chapel-school building, described in the nomination as Norman-Romanesque, was the first of three designs by renowned architect Edwin F. Durang for the St. Veronica’s Roman Catholic Church campus. Constructed between 1892-94, the chapel-school building first served as the site for religious services while the congregation raised money to build their church. Later, the rectory building was constructed between 1896-97, this time in the Second Empire style. They exemplify Durang’s breadth of ecclesiastical buildings designed for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Owing to their association with Edwin F. Durang, the nominations contend that both the chapel-school building and the rectory building satisfy Criterion E. Under Criterion C, the nomination for the rectory building argues that Durang frequently used the Second Empire style for residences commissioned by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The nomination contends that the Second Empire style “appeared elegant, but did not over shadow the [church attached].” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the St. Veronica’s Roman Catholic Church chapel-school and rectory buildings satisfy Criterion for Designation E. The staff recommends that the rectory building also satisfies Criterion for Designation C. START TIME OF

elegant, but did not over shadow the [church attached].” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the St. Veronica’s Roman Catholic Church chapel-school and rectory buildings satisfy Criterion for Designation E. The staff recommends that the rectory building also satisfies Criterion for Designation C. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 01:41:13 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner.  Celeste Morello represented the nomination. DISCUSSION:  Ms. Cooperman asked if there had been any response from the owner, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. o Ms. Schmitt responded that they had not received any response.  Ms. Morello commented that though the records were very clear that the church was designed in the Norman style, she did not know why the architect had chosen this style.  Mr. Cohen asked Ms. Morello why she did not describe the church as Gothic and suggested that she might want to consider this. o Ms. Morello responded that she could have described it as Gothic. She added that she believed that the architect was more influenced by Normandy with this design than other parts of France. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 26  Mr. Cohen stated that it would be nice to know the dates of the advertisements that Ms. Morello had included in the nomination. o Ms. Morello explained that the two Edwin F. Durang albums that she had consulted were not dated. o Mr. Laverty commented that the albums dated to approximately 1900 and 1910.  Mr. Cohen said that he thought that the nomination was very well done and that it had been well researched.  Ms. Barucco commented that she had an issue with the period of significance for the extending from 1894 until the present. She suggested that it made more sense to have the period of construction, from 1892-1894 as the period of significance.  Mr. Laverty commented that it was notable that the rectory building had survived so well intact. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub of Save Our Sites supported the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The nomination demonstrates that the St. Veronica’s Roman Catholic Church chapel-school satisfies Criterion for Designation E, owing to its association with the renowned architect Edwin F. Durang.  The

Save Our Sites supported the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The nomination demonstrates that the St. Veronica’s Roman Catholic Church chapel-school satisfies Criterion for Designation E, owing to its association with the renowned architect Edwin F. Durang.  The nomination demonstrates that the St. Veronica’s Roman Catholic Church rectory buildings satisfies Criterion for Designation E, owing to its association with the renowned architect Edwin F. Durang.  The nomination demonstrates that the St. Veronica’s Roman Catholic Church rectory also satisfies Criterion for Designation C as a fine example of the Second Empire style. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that St. Veronica Roman Catholic School, located at 3501-25 N. 6th Street, satisfies Criterion for Designation E. The Committee further recommended that the period of significance be revised to reflect the period of construction, from 1892-1894. ITEM: 3501-25 N 6TH ST – ST VERONICA RC SCHOOL MOTION: Designate, Criterion E MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 27 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that St. Veronica Roman Catholic Church Rectory, located at 3501-25 N. 6th Street, satisfies Criteria for Designation C and E, with a period of significance of 1896-1897, reflective of its date of construction. ITEM: 3501-25 N 6TH ST – ST VERONICA RC CHURCH RECTORY MOTION: Designate, Criteria C and E MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 1535 W GIRARD AVE Name of Resource: Charles T. Yerkes House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Willis W. Berry, Jr. Nominator: Philadelphia Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1535 W. Girard Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property, constructed between 1864 and 1865, is significant under Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. Under Criterion A, the

megan.schmitt@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1535 W. Girard Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property, constructed between 1864 and 1865, is significant under Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that the property is significant for its association with Charles Tyson Yerkes, Jr., one of shrewdest businessmen and most influential mass-transit financiers of the late nineteenth century. While Quaker-born Yerkes got his start in business in Philadelphia, his influence extended beyond the city, and even the nation, as he would go on to give Chicago its “L,” and London its “Tube” systems. Through his questionable morals and unfettered ambition, Yerkes exemplified the Gilded Age robber baron to such an extent that he was immortalized, shortly after his death, in Theodore Dreiser’s Financier trilogy of the early twentieth century. The nomination argues that the free-standing townhouse, located along Girard Avenue, just west of Broad Street was designed in a high-style Italianate or Italian Renaissance style, satisfying Criterion D, and also exemplifies the development of West Girard Avenue as it transitioned from a rural area to a streetcar suburb and ultimately a fashionable thoroughfare for the nouveau riche elite in the second half of the nineteenth century, satisfying Criterion J. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1535 W. Girard Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:06:48 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 28 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  Willis W. Berry, Jr. represented the property owner. DISCUSSION:  Mr. Berry identified himself as the owner of the subject property for the last 40 years. He stated that the building was originally a brownstone but had been altered with a veneer consisting of a foam covered in a nylon fabric and finished with a stucco-like material. Mr. Willis explained that he had done this work himself in 1988.  Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Berry if he had any photographs of what the building looked like before the work was done to the façade. o Mr. Berry replied that the photographs he had of the façade prior to the alterations were entered as evidence in a civil case and he therefore no

asked Mr. Berry if he had any photographs of what the building looked like before the work was done to the façade. o Mr. Berry replied that the photographs he had of the façade prior to the alterations were entered as evidence in a civil case and he therefore no longer had them. o Mr. Berry said that, if the building was nominated because of its association with Charles T. Yerkes, he could not say anything about that. o Mr. Berry asked how the designation would impact the mural that was painted on the side of his building. He asked if he would have to keep the mural intact, even if he were to sell the adjacent vacant lot. o Mr. Berry also remarked that he did not think that the building met the criterion for architectural significance since he had altered the façade.  The Committee chair directed Mr. Berry to pass copies of the memorandum he had prepared to the staff so that it could be provided to the members of the Historical Commission. o Mr. Berry said that he objected to the nomination because of the dubious character of Mr. Charles T. Yerkes and because of the financial burden designation would cause.  Mr. Cohen commented that Mr. Yerkes story was remarkable, so much so that author Theodore Dreiser created a fictionalized account of it in his Financier trilogy.  Mr. Cohen commented that the cladding did not really obscure the characteristics of the window frames.  The members of the Committee agreed that it would be very helpful to have an image of the original building.  Mr. Cohen said that he thought that the building certainly merited consideration under the suggested Criteria for Designation  Ms. Barucco suggested that the period of significance should be through 1882 based on the fact that Mr. Yerkes appears to have lived in the house until then, despite owning it until 1886. o Ms. Cooperman said that 1886 would encompass Mr. Yerkes ownership of the building, and Ms. Barucco replied that perhaps that was sufficient to leave it as suggested in the nomination.  Mr. Cohen said that if the property owner or their representative wanted to add information to the file that addressed the building’s more recent history, they could do so through the staff. He also asked the owner to attempt to locate a photograph of the

suggested in the nomination.  Mr. Cohen said that if the property owner or their representative wanted to add information to the file that addressed the building’s more recent history, they could do so through the staff. He also asked the owner to attempt to locate a photograph of the building’s front façade prior to the alterations that were made in 1988; a photograph would be very helpful.  Ms. Barucco reiterated the comments of Mr. Cohen, remarking that it would be of great value to find a photograph of the building prior to the 1988 alterations and to add notes to the file that can further document the more recent history of the building. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 29  Mr. Laverty thanked the property owner for his stewardship of the building. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Scott Berry Wilson identified himself as a current resident of the subject property. He said that the significance of the building should begin at 1988 because that is when his father, the current property owner, Willis W. Berry Jr. began operating his law practice out of the building at that time. Mr. Wilson explained that his father had made the changes to the building’s façade in order to attract clientele to his law practice. Mr. Wilson commented that Mr. Berry and Henry Reddy were fixtures in the community, adding that several important campaigns had been run out of the subject property. He said that no one ever noticed the building until after his father made the improvements to the façade and that it had been one of the earliest buildings to be repaired in the area. Mr. Wilson remarked that if the building was going to be designated as historic, that it be recognized for what actually makes is significant, which is the association with Willis Berry, Henry Reddy and the alterations they made in 1988. He further commented that the Historical Commission would be doing the community service otherwise. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  Mr. Yerkes life made for a very compelling story.  Despite changes made to the façade by the current owner, the architectural details are sufficiently intact to read the building as an example of high-style Italianate or Italian Renaissance style. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The nomination demonstrates that

life made for a very compelling story.  Despite changes made to the façade by the current owner, the architectural details are sufficiently intact to read the building as an example of high-style Italianate or Italian Renaissance style. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criterion A, owing to the building’s association with Charles T. Yerkes, a shrewd businessman and influential mass-transit financier whose influence extended beyond the city, and even the nation, as he gave Chicago its “L,” and London its “Tube” systems.  The nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criterion D, owing to the building’s high-style Italianate or Italian Renaissance style.  The nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criterion J by demonstrating that the building exemplifies the development of West Girard Avenue as it transitioned from a rural area to a streetcar suburb and ultimately to a fashionable thoroughfare for the nouveau riche elite. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property located at 1535 W. Girard Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 30 ITEM: 1535 W GIRARD AVE MOTION: Designate, Criteria A, D, and J MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADDRESS: 5700-04 GERMANTOWN AVE Name of Resource: Langstroth Hall; Vernon Hall Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Robert A Canter Nominator: Adrian Trevisan Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 5700-04 Germantown Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the building satisfies Criteria for Designation A, E, H, and J. Under Criteria A, H, and J, the nomination contends that the prominent intersection of Germantown and Chelten Avenues has been at the commercial center of Germantown since its creation, and the building was constructed at the intersection to take advantage of the location’s commercial and social potential. The use of the building was adapted over time to satisfy changing commercial needs. As Langstroth Hall (1859-1872), it was a type of general store catering to many small merchants on the ground floor, and various social activities above. Visions

to take advantage of the location’s commercial and social potential. The use of the building was adapted over time to satisfy changing commercial needs. As Langstroth Hall (1859-1872), it was a type of general store catering to many small merchants on the ground floor, and various social activities above. Visions of operatic grandeur fueled by questionable financial transactions transformed it into Vernon Hall (1872-1899), followed by a period as mainstay of the Germantown commercial district under the name of The Vernon Building (1899-1925). Under Criterion E, the nomination contends that the 1920’s economic boom provided new owners with the means to commission prominent Philadelphia architect Frank E. Hahn, who is responsible for the current Art Deco façade. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5700-04 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation E and J, but not A and H. The staff suggests that arguments made in the nomination for satisfaction of Criterion A better satisfy Criterion J, and that a corner commercial building does not automatically rise to the level of required significance as an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or City. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN AUDIO RECORDING: 02:32:34 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation.  No one represented the property owner.  Adrian Trevisan represented the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 31 DISCUSSION:  Ms. Cooperman inquired whether the property owner has been in contact with the staff. o Ms. Keller replied that no one has contacted the staff.  Mr. Trevisan apologized for the lateness of the addendum, but stated that the information was so conclusive that he wanted to share it.  Mr. Cohen stated that the nomination is very well researched. He noted that the building remained consistent in use, even as it was transformed. He questioned whether there are portions of the interior that are original. o Mr. Trevisan stated that he would like to say yes but that his reading of the permits he located several weeks ago suggest that there are no original features inside.  Mr. Cohen found it interesting that Frank Hahn was involved, and stated that the building reflected the demographics of the neighborhood over time.  Ms. Cooperman asked the Committee to comment on the inclusion of Criterion H. o Mr. Cohen replied that the

there are no original features inside.  Mr. Cohen found it interesting that Frank Hahn was involved, and stated that the building reflected the demographics of the neighborhood over time.  Ms. Cooperman asked the Committee to comment on the inclusion of Criterion H. o Mr. Cohen replied that the staff does not support the inclusion of Criteria A or H. He added that he agrees with the staff, noting that Criterion A relates to significance at a citywide or national level. He contended that the building’s significance relates to the community rather than to a larger scale. He stated that including Criterion H is not important, since the building’s significance is as a community feature and not as a landmark. He added that the building is not even the most prominent structure at that corner. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that:  The building has been adaptively reused over time, though its exterior form has remained intact. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that:  The building was designed by prominent Philadelphia architect Frank E. Hahn, satisfying Criterion E.  The building has significance to the community for its continued use and reflection of the changing demographics of the neighborhood, satisfying Criterion J.  The building has local significance, but is not significant to the city, state, or nation. The nomination does not satisfy Criterion A.  The building is situated on a corner but does not have the prominence of a landmark. The nomination does not satisfy Criterion H. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property located at 5700-04 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation E and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 13 NOVEMBER 2019 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 32 ITEM: 5700-04 GERMANTOWN AVE MOTION: Designate, Criteria E and J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Douglas Mooney X Total 6 ADJOURNMENT The Committee on Historic Designation adjourned at 12:12 p.m. PLEASE NOTE:  Minutes of the Committee on Historic Designation are presented in action format. Additional information is available in the audio recording for this meeting. The start time for each agenda item in the recording is noted. CRITERIA FOR

ADJOURNMENT The Committee on Historic Designation adjourned at 12:12 p.m. PLEASE NOTE:  Minutes of the Committee on Historic Designation are presented in action format. Additional information is available in the audio recording for this meeting. The start time for each agenda item in the recording is noted. CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION §14-1004. Designation. (1) Criteria for Designation. A building, complex of buildings, structure, site, object, or district may be designated for preservation if it: (a) Has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth, or nation or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past; (b) Is associated with an event of importance to the history of the City, Commonwealth or Nation; (c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style; (d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen; (e) Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or designer, or professional engineer whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation; (f) Contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant innovation; (g) Is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area that should be preserved according to a historic, cultural, or architectural motif; (h) Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or City; (i) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history; or (j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community.