Historical Commission — Aug 9, 2002

THE MINUTES OF THE 480th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 9 August 2002 at 9:00 a.m. City Council Caucus Room, 4th Floor, City Hall Duane Bumb, Acting-Chair Present Duane Bumb, Commerce Department, Acting Chair Warren Huff, Director of Urban Planning, City Planning Commission Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Property David Perri, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Denise Smyler, Esquire Harris Steinberg, AIA Thomas Sugrue, Ph.D. Norman Tissian Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Randal Baron, Historic Preservation Specialist Jonathan Farnham, Historic Preservation Planner Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Lawrence K. Copeland, Esq., Senior Attorney, Law Department Also Stewart Chandler, 2217 Locust Street William T. Hannan, 2217 Locust Street Tim Atkins, 924 Irving Street Eli Nelson Elizabeth Judge Stephen Stack Kiki Bolender, AIA, Bolender and Schade Architects Jennifer Stark, AIA, 1513-1523 Brandywine Street Carl Primavera, Esq. Don Marquardt, 804 Lombard Street Lenore Millhollen, Center Residents’ Association/Preservation Alliance Jerel Hopkins and Tracy Shannon Hopkins, 2063 Brandywine Street Penelope Benith, AIA, Cecil Baker and Associates Jerry Roller, J.K. Roller Architects Spence Kass, Kass and Associates Stephen White, Spring Garden Civic Association Richard Wesley, AIA, Wesley Architects Dan Mehan, 1127 Pine Street John Bushnell, 2121 Mt. Vernon Street Mr. Wilds made a motion to designate Duane Bumb the acting-chair for the meeting. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Duane Bumb, Acting-Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m. 1 Minutes of the 479th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Wilds and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the 479th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held 12 July 2002, Duane Bumb, Acting-Chair. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 30 July 2002 Daniel McCoubrey, Acting-Chair. 924 Irving Street, SW corner of Hutchinson Street Timothy Atkins, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1853 PROPOSAL: Rear/side addition, alterations The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal with staff to review details and masonry samples, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.]. The owner

construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.]. The owner proposes to build a second floor and deck on top of the existing rear ell of this corner rowhouse. Mr. Baron presented the proposal. The Commission agreed with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1221 Rodman Street Jennifer Hurley, Owner Kiki Bolender, Architect DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Rear addition, full screens on front windows The Committee recommended approval of the application with staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9[New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.]. This application calls for a rear addition visible from Lombard Street through a parking lot. The work involves demolishing an existing rear ell and building a new full width extension. The rear of this house and all the others in the row have been extensively altered and stuccoed, removing any sense of historic context. The owner would also like to install full height screens on the front windows Mr. Baron explained the proposal. Mr. Wilds noted that full-length screens are appropriate because historically storm windows were replaced with full-length screens. Commission members concurred with the Committee’s recommendation. 2 Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1127 Pine Street, NW corner of Quince Street Paul Boukidis, Owner Daniel Mehan, Applicant DATE: c. 1827 PROPOSAL: New sash with applied muntins The Architectural Committee recommended denial, based on the applied muntin design and the subframe that will reduce the glazed opening, pursuant to Standard 5 [Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.] and Standard 6 [Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old

Standard 5 [Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.] and Standard 6 [Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.]. This application calls for the installation of new sash in existing frames. The new Pella sash will have applied muntins and will be installed in the existing frames. These sash only come with a sub frame and, therefore, will add to the width of the frame and reduce the glass area. Mr. Baron presented the proposal and said that the applicant preferred the Pella window; however, no one was present to represent the proposal. Commission members concurred with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 804 Lombard Street Robert and Diane Klein, Owners Donald Marqardt, Applicant DATE: c. 1805 PROPOSAL: Rebuild roof, new rear dormer The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal with simulated divided light windows for the party wall and rear dormer; the true divided light window for the front dormer; the new roof pursuant to Standard 6 [Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.], and the new rear dormer pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.] This application calls for demolishing and rebuilding the gambrel roof on this early house to add living space at the third floor level. The rear slope of the roof would receive a very wide dormer. The architect claims that reusing the early roof framing would greatly increase the homeowner’s costs. He also proposes cutting new windows in the west party wall façade

early house to add living space at the third floor level. The rear slope of the roof would receive a very wide dormer. The architect claims that reusing the early roof framing would greatly increase the homeowner’s costs. He also proposes cutting new windows in the west party wall façade facing the owner’s parking area. 3 Mr. Baron explained the project. Mr. Wilds inquired if the simulated windows were simply a sandwiched muntin and the applicant responded that the window would have interior and exterior muntins with a spacerbar. The applicant also said that he intends to restore the dormer window to its original configuration. Mr. Wilds thought that the staff should obtain additional photographs of the roof for documentation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation, with the staff to review details. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1922-28 Delancey Street Dennis Hummel, Owner Charles Evers, Architect DATE: c. 1920 rebuild of older mews into Spanish Revival apartment building. PROPOSAL: Cut garage door in front façade, windows The applicant requested a continuance for a period of one month, which was granted by staff. 1601 Locust Street, aka 226 South 16th Street, University Club Allan Domb, Owner Penelope Benith, Architect DATE: 1929, Grant Simon, architect PROPOSAL: Façade alterations, enlarge windows, new entry and canopy in concept The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial of the northernmost stairtower window openings at the 5th and 6th floors on the 16th Street (east) façade pursuant to Standard #9 [Exterior alterations will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.]. The Committee voted to recommend denial of the enlargement of the southernmost window opening on the east and west facades at the 16th floor pursuant to Standard #9. The Committee recommended approval of the following: 1. New entrance doors and canopy in concept pursuant to Standard #9. 2. Enlargement of the existing window openings and addition of new windows on the 5th and 6th floors except for the stairtower window openings. 3. Restoration of the windows on the 15th floor pursuant to Standard #6 [Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will

windows on the 5th and 6th floors except for the stairtower window openings. 3. Restoration of the windows on the 15th floor pursuant to Standard #6 [Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.]. 4. Enlargement of the existing window openings on the 16th floor except for the southernmost window opening on the east and west facades. 5. Re-opening of one window opening on the north façade pursuant to Standard 6 [Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.]. The new owner of this building wishes to convert the building to residential use. The new plans differ from those plans previously approved by the Committee and Commission. First, they wish 4 to change the non-historic doors and add a canopy on the 16th Street façade and reopen the original door opening on the Locust Street façade. However, the plans do not include details, such as materials, types of doors or canopy dimensions. Second, the application includes replacing numerous windows, which have fixed six-light sash with casement windows, and opening transoms above other casement windows. Third, many of the smaller windows stand within reveals that have stone detailing. The application calls for removing the stone and creating larger window openings. Also several new windows would be cut into the facades. Ms. Spina presented the proposal. Cecil Baker and Penelope Benith, the architects, attended the meeting. Mr. Baker stated the windows in their current state present a challenge to residential conversion and gave a brief overview of the entire project. He noted that the limestone surround of the side windows would be tooled. Those details will return to Committee and Commission for review. Commission members asked if the applicant agreed with the Committee’s recommendation and the applicant responded in the affirmative. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1617 J.F.K. Boulevard, NE corner of 17th Street Suburban Station Associates, Owner Jerry Roller, Architect

members asked if the applicant agreed with the Committee’s recommendation and the applicant responded in the affirmative. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1617 J.F.K. Boulevard, NE corner of 17th Street Suburban Station Associates, Owner Jerry Roller, Architect DATE: 1929-30, Graham Anderson Probst & White, architects PROPOSAL: New doors and sign The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the storefront entrances with black metal doors as well as the ramped sidewalk pursuant to Standard 9 [Exterior alterations will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.] and the door guideline [Recommended: designing and installing additional entrances in a manner that preserves the historic character of the buildings]. The Committee voted to recommend approval of a modified metal box sign with cut illuminated lettering. This proposal is for new doors and signage in the storefront at the corner of 17th and JFK Boulevard. The entrance on JFK Boulevard will retain the decorative metal mullions and have a new revolving door. The entrance on 17th Street will include a new glazed, single-leaf sliding door installed in the existing metal mullions. The proposal also calls for a new plastic box sign to hang in the glazed transoms over the door on 17th Street. The Commission agreed with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation, with the staff to review details. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2217 Locust Street Stewart Chandler, Owner William T. Hannan, Contractor DATE: 1872 PROPOSAL: Roof deck 5 The Committee recommended approval of the roof deck with a 10-foot setback from the front roof edge pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.] and the roofing guideline [Recommended: designing additions to roofs, such as decks, so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining details]. This proposal calls for a very large deck on the roof of the building. The rear has

property and its environment.] and the roofing guideline [Recommended: designing additions to roofs, such as decks, so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining details]. This proposal calls for a very large deck on the roof of the building. The rear has a projecting bay that will have a small landing with a spiral staircase that leads to the roof of the rear ell. The deck will extend for the entire rear ell (31-½ feet by 15 feet) and then step up to cover most of the main building (23 by 20 feet). Unlike many other houses we have seen, there is very little difference in the height of the rear ell compared to that of the main building. Ms. Spina presented the proposal and the Commission concurred with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2000 Mt. Vernon Street, SW corner of 20th Street Steven Stack, Owner Alan Heilman, Applicant DATE: 1860-1861, Jacob B. Shannon, builder/developer PROPOSAL: New deck and trellis The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposed deck, with the east railing at a maximum height of four-foot six inches, pursuant to Standard 9 [Exterior alterations will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment] and approval of the triple door. This application proposes the addition of a deck on the rear ell of the Italianate rowhouse at the southwest corner of North 20th and Mt. Vernon Streets. The design stipulates a 7-foot high cedar fence along the eastern (North 20th Street) and southern (alley) edges and a 10-foot high trellis along the western edge of the deck. The design also stipulates the removal of a 1983 window and door as well as some original brick to allow for the installation of a tripartite French door for deck access. The two eastern leaves of the proposed French door will be operable. Mr. Farnham presented the project. Steven Stack, the owner, attended the meeting and presented revised drawings to reflect the Committee’s recommendation. He noted that the proposed door is still a triple door with two operable leafs. Mr. Wilds inquired if the

leaves of the proposed French door will be operable. Mr. Farnham presented the project. Steven Stack, the owner, attended the meeting and presented revised drawings to reflect the Committee’s recommendation. He noted that the proposed door is still a triple door with two operable leafs. Mr. Wilds inquired if the applicant consulted with the Preservation Alliance regarding the railing height and recommended that he work with the Alliance with regard to the height issue owing to the easement on the property. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised drawings, with the staff to review details. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 6 606 North 22nd Street, SW corner of Mt. Vernon Street Stuart Schmidt, Owner/Applicant DATE :c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Cut vents in sidewall, front doors The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the vents, reglazing the windows and approval of the double-leaf doors with bolection molding in the lower panels and glazing in the upper panels, pursuant to Standard 9 [Exterior alterations will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.]. This application proposes the expansion of a residence into the first-floor commercial space in the Italianate building at 606 North 22nd Street. The project involves the addition of two small vents to the garden façade, the restoration of the 22nd Street storefront doorway to its original dimensions, and the replacement of the existing door with a double-leaf, raised-panel door. Mr. Farnham explained the proposal and the Commission concurred with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2063 Brandywine Street Jerel Hopkins and Tracy Shannon Hopkins, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Decks on 2nd and 3rd floor, conceptual review The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the deck on the rear ell and conceptual approval of the deck on the main building, with a twelve-foot setback at the front façade and a five-foot setback from the side façade. Subject to receipt and approval of scale drawings and details by the staff on Thursday, 1 August 2002. The recommendation would then be for final approval. This application proposes the construction of two roof decks, one on the rear ell and

façade and a five-foot setback from the side façade. Subject to receipt and approval of scale drawings and details by the staff on Thursday, 1 August 2002. The recommendation would then be for final approval. This application proposes the construction of two roof decks, one on the rear ell and one on the main body of the Italianate rowhouse at 2063 Brandywine Street. Both the main body and rear ell are highly visible from public rights-of-way because the rowhouse stands at a corner. Mr. Farnham presented the proposal and apprised the Commission that the Committee asked the applicants to submit revised drawings by Thursday, 1 August 2002; however, the drawings were not received until Friday, 2 August 2002. The revised drawings were not to scale and did not include information requested by the Committee. Carl Primavera, Esq., counsel for the applicants, Jerel and Tracy Hopkins, the owners, attended the meeting. Mr. Primavera said that the applicants propose to comply with the regulations of the Commission. He stressed that the applicants were unaware of the process as well as the requirements for submission. Mr. Primavera noted the existence of many decks in the neighborhood. Mr. Tyler stressed the importance of detailed drawings, and cited the property on Quince Street, which went before the Board of License and Inspection Review, which sustained the appeal of the owners. The Commission discussed the proposal at length, Ms. Smyler emphasized that the submitted drawings do not show details of the construction. Members also noted the high 7 visibility of the decks, that structurally the upper deck would sit on the brick wall, and the absence of details showing its proximity to the parapet wall. Mr. Perri stressed the need for an architectural design, which will address code as well as structural issues. Mr. Primavera inquired about moving ahead with the lower deck, and returning with detailed drawings of the upper deck; however, Commission members thought the entire project should be re-submitted. Mr. James recommended tabling the proposal for a period not to exceed six months. Mr. Copeland recommended that the permit be returned to the applicants, which will allow for the re-submission of the application. Mr. James made a motion to table the proposal for a period not to exceed six months and recommended that the staff return the building permit application to the applicants to allow its re-submission with detailed drawings. Mr. Wilds seconded

applicants, which will allow for the re-submission of the application. Mr. James made a motion to table the proposal for a period not to exceed six months and recommended that the staff return the building permit application to the applicants to allow its re-submission with detailed drawings. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 410 Queen Street Settlement Music School, Owner Robert Wexler, Applicant DATE: c. 1840, cornice added c. 1885 PROPOSAL: Demolition of rear ell and shed for garden, review in concept The Architectural Committee recommended denial owing to an incomplete application, and asked the applicant to submit detailed drawings. The proposal is for the demolition of the rear ell of this building. The staff considers this an application in concept because of the lack of plans and information. The Settlement Music School owns the large school building as well as the three neighboring rowhouses, including this one. As a part of a larger plan for the complex, the school has demolished the rear ells of 414 and 412 Queen for a three-story addition to the school. It wishes to demolish the rear ell of this building to expand a memorial garden. Ms. Spina presented the project; however, no one was present to represent the proposal. Mr. Wilds inquired about the open side wall of the property. Mr. Tyler emphasized the importance of the institution and urged approval of the proposal. In addition, he noted that the context of the rear has very little architectural merit. Mr. Wilds thought that the demolition could be approved; however, the applicant would then return to the Committee with detailed drawings, which would detail the infill of the wall, cornice and brickwork. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Wilds opposed the motion. 1515-23 Brandywine Street Jeanne Ruddy Dance, Owner Kevin Smith, Applicant DATE: 1515-1519 Brandywine Street, c. 1922 1521-1523 Brandywine Street, c. 1886 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations, windows and doors The Architectural Committee recommended approval pursuant to Standards 2 [The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided] and 6 [Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.], with the staff to review details. 8 This project encompasses the rehabilitation of a series of buildings

and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided] and 6 [Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.], with the staff to review details. 8 This project encompasses the rehabilitation of a series of buildings for use as a dance studio. This application proposes exterior work entailing the removal of brick infill from original door and window openings; repair or replacement of stone and brick to match existing; repointing of brick as needed; repair or replacement of lintels to match existing; replacement of terra cotta coping to match existing; repointing and/or reconstruction of chimneys to match originals; installation of nine doors; installation of guard rails behind the two upper doors with shutters; installation of 16 windows; the installation of security grills on the six first-floor windows; and the installation of mechanical systems on the roof. Mr. Farnham explained the proposal, and the Commission members concurred with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 57-63 North 3rd Street Michael Yaron, Owner Daniel Magno, Architect DATE: 57 North 3rd Street, c. 1850 59 North 3rd Street, c. 1925 61-63 North 3rd Street, 1852, John Riddell architect PROPOSAL: Windows in lightwell and new storefront The Architectural Committee recommended approval. The overall project consists of the rehabilitation of three industrial/commercial buildings as a residential complex. This application proposes two separate pieces of the project. The first is the addition of four window openings in the side façade at the rear of 57 North 3rd Street, facing onto a lot recently vacated with the demolition of the building at 246 Arch Street, and the Betsy Ross House beyond, on the north side of Arch Street. The proposal stipulates one new tripartite window per floor on the second through fifth floors. The second is the alteration of the storefront at 59 North 3rd Street to serve as the main entrance to the complex. The most significant modification to the storefront is the widening of the doorway, which would no longer correspond to the transom, and the rebuilding of the side windows, brick panels, and bulkhead, all in smaller forms. Richard Wesley, the architect, attended the meeting and said that this proposal encompasses four buildings. The complex must comply with ADA regulations and using the entrance of the

would no longer correspond to the transom, and the rebuilding of the side windows, brick panels, and bulkhead, all in smaller forms. Richard Wesley, the architect, attended the meeting and said that this proposal encompasses four buildings. The complex must comply with ADA regulations and using the entrance of the building with the brick storefront’s façade will have the least disturbance of historic fabric. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 2112 Mt Vernon Street Eli Nelson & Elizabeth Judge, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1855, Oliver Parry & Nathaniel Randolph, builders PROPOSAL: Rear addition and roof deck The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the current proposal, per Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be 9 differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment], but made suggestions for a modified proposal that they thought would be acceptable. This building has a typical rowhouse plan. The main part of the house has three floors and a “flat” roof. The two-story rear ell has a half-gabled roof, which is the mirror image of the neighboring house. The proposal calls for removing the roof of the rear ell and adding a third floor that sits higher than the roof of the main house. The owners wish to replace the doors that lead out to the existing second-floor deck and install another deck at the third floor and a third deck on the roof. Ms. Spina explained the proposal. Mr. Tyler expressed his opinion, which differs from the staff and Committee. He also said that Clay Street is a mix of garages and backyards and that the substantial addition would have some visibility from 21st Street. Mr. Wilds remarked about a significant expansion on Delancey Street and Mr. James cited the Green Street proposal, which overwhelmed the streetscape in size and scale. Elizabeth Judge and Eli Nelson, the owners attended the meeting. Ms. Judge presented photographs showing the streetscape of Clay Street, which consists of the rears of houses. She said that the proposed addition would not extend out beyond the present building line. Ms. Judge explained that the reason for

scale. Elizabeth Judge and Eli Nelson, the owners attended the meeting. Ms. Judge presented photographs showing the streetscape of Clay Street, which consists of the rears of houses. She said that the proposed addition would not extend out beyond the present building line. Ms. Judge explained that the reason for the height difference of the front façade and the rear addition: the varying heights provide for a continuous third floor with a generous amount of light. In addition, the applicant also proposes a deck with french doors for additional light. Mr. Nelson presented about 50 signatures from neighbors in support of the proposal, as well as a letter from the next door neighbor supporting the project. Commission members discussed the proposal; some inquired about the access to the roof deck. Mr. Steinberg questioned the ceiling height of both the new addition and the current structure, which varies by 2 feet. Mr. Sugrue believed the proposal does not interrupt the streetscape. Steven White and John Bushnell, neighbors, spoke on behalf of the Spring Garden Civic Association, to express opposition to the proposed addition. Mr. White said that the addition’s height is overwhelming and that the tallest neighboring house is lower than the proposed structure. Mr. Bushnell emphasized that residents use Clay Street for gardening and that children play in the street. He also said that most of the houses step back and that the proposal changes the scale and character of the house. Mr. Huff commented that the location presents the least amount of disturbance to the streetscape and thought the proposal appropriate. Mr. Wilds made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. Huff seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. James opposed the motion. CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENT ON NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION 1414-50 Clearview Street, Suffolk Manor Apartments Mr. Tyler said that the property meets Criterion C, which embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master. The Tudor Revival apartment designed by Karl Otto, a prolific Philadelphia residential architect in growing sections 10 of the city. The site coverage offers a suburban alternative and the property possesses high integrity. He noted that, although Criterion A is not cited in the nomination, it is associated with this property owing to its significant contribution to broad patterns of history. Transportation is a primary

sections 10 of the city. The site coverage offers a suburban alternative and the property possesses high integrity. He noted that, although Criterion A is not cited in the nomination, it is associated with this property owing to its significant contribution to broad patterns of history. Transportation is a primary determinant in growth and migration, which helped change the character of neighborhood form after the electrification of street car lines and the building of the Market Street elevated. Here the opening of the Broad Street subway had a comparable effect on development. Mr. Tyler recommended that the property, which is owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority, be listed on the National Register. Mr. Tissian made a motion to recommend that the property be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 699 North Broad Street, Lorraine Apartments Mr. Tyler said that the property meets Criteria A and C. It characterizes the development of the residential apartment house at the turn of the century and the taste for opulence – vulgarity by the standards of old family Philadelphia-of the nouveau riche of north of Market Street. This hotel was not racially segregated; unfortunately, this made it unique. Willis Hale, the architect of the nouveau riche, designed this property. Mr. Tyler recommended that the property be listed on the National Register. Mr. Wilds inquired about the ownership of the hotel. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to recommend that the property be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, July 2002 Mr. Tyler then asked if members of the Commission had any questions about the report HARRY A. BATTEN MEMORIA FUND Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve an expenditure of $51.13, which is an accumulated amount, for the months of April, May and July for the Architectural Committee lunches. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to approve the expenditure of $51.13 for Architectural Committee lunches. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Wilds apprised the Commission of the removal of the canopy and trash receptacle at 925 Chestnut Street. Mr. Perri asked that the Architectural Committee’s recommendation include whether or not the applicant is in agreement with the recommendation. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously.

the Commission of the removal of the canopy and trash receptacle at 925 Chestnut Street. Mr. Perri asked that the Architectural Committee’s recommendation include whether or not the applicant is in agreement with the recommendation. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes Executive Secretary 11