THE MINUTES OF THE 436th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 9 December 1998 Commission Conference Room, One Parkway, 1515 Arch St., 18th Fl. Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Present Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Duane Bumb, Deputy Director, Department of Commerce David Brownlee, Ph.D. Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Property Barbara Kaplan, Executive Director, City Planing Commission David Perri, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Robert Thomas Dennis Ward III Scott Wilds, Assistant Director for Housing, Office of Housing and Urban Development Caroline Wischmann Stephanie G. Wolf, Ph.D. Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Kristin Cardi, Historic Preservation Planner Elizabeth Harvey, Historic Preservation Planner R. Scott Jacob, Executive Secretary Laura Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Mark Zecca, Esq., Deputy City Solicitor Also Virginia Kieffer, Mellon Bank Aliki Strakes, Preservation Alliance Michael Hauptman, Brawer and Hauptman, Architects James Piatt, Piatt Associates Gail Trimble, Episcopal Community Services Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents Association (CCRA) Robert Pisani Christopher Beardsley, Architect Howard Dunn, Mellon Bank Robert Krimetz, Mellon Bank Sally Raezer Judith Eden, CCRA Jeffrey Thomas J. Raymond Shea Mark Sanders, Philadelphia Street and Railway Historical Society Joshua Grimes, Esq. James Quilliyad Deborah Ledisu James Eiseman, Jr. Michael Gordon Victor Gordon 2 Catherine Franklin, Penn-Knox Neighborhood Association Joseph Baker Janet Greentein Potter, Philadelphia’s Historic Northeast Coalition Brian Weiss Robert Carlson Judith Eden, CCRA William Schwartz, Esq. M. Borgese Joyce Robinson Mark Davis, Philadelphia Inquirer Dimitra Tsekoura Wayne Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 436th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 10:00 A.M. MINUTES of the 435th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Ms. Wolf and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the 435th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 12 November 1998, Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 24 November 1998, Robert Thomas, Chair. 5926 Germantown Avenue, at corner of Haines Street Engelos Farfaras, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1790 PROPOSAL: Legalize rebuilding of shopfront Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of legalizing the existing storefront. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for legalizing a glass and aluminum storefront installed on this corner property without a permit. A car ran through the former storefront which dated from the mid- 20th century. Mr. Thomas stated that Committee members reviewed several old photographs of the
existing storefront. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for legalizing a glass and aluminum storefront installed on this corner property without a permit. A car ran through the former storefront which dated from the mid- 20th century. Mr. Thomas stated that Committee members reviewed several old photographs of the building that showed various storefronts over the years, and that the Committee agreed that the applicant should apply wood trim details over the new storefront. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1900-1938 Park Mall, Temple University - Main Campus Temple University, Owner Michael Hauptman and James Piatt, Architects/Applicants DATE: 1860s PROPOSAL: Ramp and terrace Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of: 1. The terrace and ramps constructed of taupe colored cast stone by Ariscraft, with staff to review and approve details. 3 2. The revised railing scheme with the mesh panels, with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that this application returns for a final review of the ramp and terrace in front of the rowhouses. Mr. Thomas stated that architect for the project presented the Committee with color options for the base of the terrace that would complement the adjacent landscaping details. The university has chosen a limestone color for the curbs and some other details along Park Mall. Mr. Thomas explained that Committee members agreed to recommend approval of a taupe cast stone by Ariscraft, which they thought complemented the brownstone base of the rowhouses and the new curbs. Mr. Thomas also explained that the Committee reviewed two schemes for the railings on the terrace reflecting the Committee’s recommendations to incorporate more verticality in the design. He also noted that the second scheme, which the Committee preferred, incorporates metal mesh panels between the balusters. Mr. Ward made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with nine votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. 833 South 3rd Street Rossa Pallante, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1830 PROPOSAL: Legalize vinyl windows, cornice, roofing Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of: 1. The new roof, with metal flashing installed at the joints of the dormer and the roof, in place of the shingles. Denial of: 1. The cornice 2. The vinyl windows The Committee also voted unanimously to recommend that the Commission refer the application to the Hardship Committee. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for legalizing work
at the joints of the dormer and the roof, in place of the shingles. Denial of: 1. The cornice 2. The vinyl windows The Committee also voted unanimously to recommend that the Commission refer the application to the Hardship Committee. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for legalizing work completed without a permit. Ms. Pallante installed: 1. A new roof 2. New vinyl windows with applied muntins. 3. A new very large box cornice built of wood and metal flashing. Mr. Thomas stated that Ms. Pallante seeks legalization of this work based on the hardship provision of the ordinance, and that the Architectural Committee and the Historical Commission must comment on the appropriateness of the design before recommending a referral to the Hardship Committee. He explained that Committee members found the cornice too large and inappropriate for the historic character of the building. The windows do not match the historic type in either material or design. Mr. Thomas explained that the applicant replaced the shingles on the face of the roof, not on the dormer, but that the new roofing material continues partially up the side of the 4 dormer. He stated that the Committee asked the applicant to have those shingles trimmed back, and to install metal flashing at the joints of the dormer and the roof. Mr. Wilds expressed concern over the increasing instances in which the Commission refers applications to legalize work performed without a permit to the Hardship Committee. Ms. Wolf and other Commission members suggested that increasing owner awareness regarding their buildings’ designated status and the proceeders to follow for building permits would mitigate this problem, by decreasing the amount of work done without a permit or Commission approval. The Commission discussed several possibilities to remedy the situation, including future additions to the City Certification from the Department of Licenses and Inspections informing new owners of designated status, and a mass mailing to all owners of historically designated buildings in the city. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the new roof, with metal flashing installed at the joints of the dormer and the roof, in place of the shingles. The Commission also voted to refer the issues of the cornice and the vinyl windows to the Financial Hardship Committee. 225 South 3rd Street, Old St. Paul’s Church Episcopal Community Services, Owner Gail Trimble, Applicant DATE: 1761 PROPOSAL: Signage Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of
roof, in place of the shingles. The Commission also voted to refer the issues of the cornice and the vinyl windows to the Financial Hardship Committee. 225 South 3rd Street, Old St. Paul’s Church Episcopal Community Services, Owner Gail Trimble, Applicant DATE: 1761 PROPOSAL: Signage Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the sign, with the height of the individual pin letters reduced to twelve inches, with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for individual grey pin-on letters for signage above the door. The letters will match the color of the building’s trim. Mr. Thomas stated that Committee members thought the letters appeared larger than necessary, and had asked the applicant to reduce the letters to twelve inches. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 215 South 15th Street Bookbinder’s Restaurant, Owner Dominic Aspite, Applicant DATE: 1870 PROPOSAL: Handicap ramp; remove side shed Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the original proposal, and to approve a new scheme that retains the arched door opening and transom. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the poured concrete handicap accessible ramp, with a black, one and one half inch pipe rail. Mr. Thomas stated that this proposal calls for installing a handicap accessible ramp on the north side of the building. In order to complete this, the owner will remove a shed addition and partially fill in an arched opening the new door will occupy. Mr. Thomas stated that Committee members did not object to the removal of the small side shed, or the installation of a handicap accessible ramp, but asked the applicant to preserve and restore the arched opening 5 and transom. Mr. Thomas also explained that the Committee asked the architect to install a black, one and one half inch pipe rail on the poured concrete ramp, and did not think the applicant should stucco the side of the ramp. Mr. Baron showed the Commission revised drawings reflecting these recommendations. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with ten votes. Mr. James dissented. 225 South 18th Street, Rittenhouse Regency Rittenhouse Regency Affiliates, Norman Dimson, Managing Partner, Owner Brad Shaw, Applicant DATE: 1929 PROPOSAL: New storefront with café windows and metal awning Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal as submitted; the applicant to
the motion which carried with ten votes. Mr. James dissented. 225 South 18th Street, Rittenhouse Regency Rittenhouse Regency Affiliates, Norman Dimson, Managing Partner, Owner Brad Shaw, Applicant DATE: 1929 PROPOSAL: New storefront with café windows and metal awning Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal as submitted; the applicant to return to the Architectural Committee with a revised submission reflecting the Committee’s recommendations, as well as an elevation drawing showing the entire facade of the building showing the relationship of the different shopfronts to this proposal. This application involves several alternate proposals to install new storefronts in place of existing non-original fabric. The applicant prefers glass and metal marquees over each of the openings. In response to comments made by Lenore Millhollen of the Center City Residents Association, as well as some Committee members, the Committee considered design options that would complement the other shopfronts of this building that face Rittenhouse Square. Mr. Baron showed the Committee elevations and photographs of other shopfronts on the building. The Committee thought the applicant should work to unify the new shopfront elements with those of the Square Bar, which occupies the space on the other side of the main building entrance. This design would involve canvas awnings instead of the glass and metal marquees. Mr. Ward made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2056 Locust Street, s. e. corner at 21st Street William and Patricia Solvibile, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1930 PROPOSAL: Legalize/install vinyl windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal because the proposed windows do not match the originals in design, material or detail. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves legalizing the removal of the wood casement windows at the top floor. In addition the applicant proposes to remove the rest of the wood multi-pane windows from the building and replace them with vinyl one-over-one windows. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1709 Walnut Street 6 Green Village Restaurant, Owner George Manos, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1929 PROPOSAL: New storefront Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal as submitted: the applicant to return to the Architectural Committee with a revised design that retains the historic features exposed and is more compatible the remaining Art Deco elements of the facade, using the historic photograph for guidance. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal
Committee Recommendation: Denial of the proposal as submitted: the applicant to return to the Architectural Committee with a revised design that retains the historic features exposed and is more compatible the remaining Art Deco elements of the facade, using the historic photograph for guidance. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves removing the existing non-original storefront from this Deco-era building and installing a new Neo-colonial storefront. He stated that Committee members objected to several elements of the proposed storefront, including the size of the window panes, the first-floor projecting bay, and obscuring and removing remaining historic fabric. Mr. Thomas explained that the Committee asked the applicant to resubmit a revised design that retains the historic features exposed and is more compatible the remaining Art Deco elements of the facade, using the historic photograph to achieve this goal. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 321 South 25th Street, n. e. corner at Delancey Street Steven Carlino and Dennis Fee, Owners Chris Beardsley, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: New roof on modern rear building Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves installing a roof, a skylight, and a new window on the rear modern section of this private house. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2212 Pine Street, s. e. corner at Croskey Street Gary and Maryann Ruby Emmet, Owners R. J. Pisani, Applicant DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: New wood garage doors at side yard of building Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, with staff to review and approve details. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves removing a fence and gate from the side yard facade of this corner house and installing a sliding wood gate to allow a car to enter more easily. He stated that Committee members asked the applicant to consider rebuilding the new door/fence to match the existing paneled one. Mr. Thomas explained that the applicant intends to incorporate panels into the new design and unite the height of the fence with the section of fence that turns back toward the house. Mr. Baron showed the Commission revised 7 drawings reflecting the Committee’s recommendations. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised proposal reflecting the Committee’s recommendations. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1411-1419 Walnut Street Mellon Bank,
with the section of fence that turns back toward the house. Mr. Baron showed the Commission revised 7 drawings reflecting the Committee’s recommendations. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised proposal reflecting the Committee’s recommendations. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1411-1419 Walnut Street Mellon Bank, Owner Virginia Kieffer, Applicant DATE: 1911 PROPOSAL: Three banners Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the proposal as submitted. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves installing three banners on the front facade of this office building. Howard Dunn, representing Mellon Bank, showed the Commission an example of the proposed banners and the aluminum poles to which they will attach. Mr. Thomas stated that Committee members expressed concern over the amount of new holes in the masonry required to install these banners. Mr. Brownlee expressed concern that the proposed signage really constitutes hanging signs, not banners as the applicants claims, and asked that the Commission approve only one sign. Mr. Tyler also urged the Commission to approve one banner/sign. Mr. James suggested tethering the bottoms of the banners instead of using two poles to mitigate the damage caused by the holes required, while preventing the banners from becoming tangled. Mr. Dunn explained that Mellon Bank does not want to tether, owing to the noise generated by flapping and the threat of tearing. Judith Eden of the Center City Residents Association (CCRA) objected to the banners/signs of this proposal. She stated that the CCRA objects to the proliferation of overhanging signs in the area because they impede the view corridors. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried with seven votes. Mr. Brownlee, Mr. Wilds, Ms. Wischmann and Ms. Wolf dissented. 2000-2004 Walnut Street, s. w. at 20th Street Mellon Bank, Owner Virginia Kieffer, Applicant DATE: 1988 PROPOSAL: Two banners Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal calls for the installation of two banners on this new parking garage. Howard Dunn, representing Mellon Bank, showed the Commission an example of the proposed banners and the aluminum poles to which they will attach. Judith Eden of the Center City Residents Association (CCRA) objected to the banners/signs of this proposal. She stated that the CCRA objects to the proliferation of 8 overhanging sign in the area because they impede the view corridors. Ms. Eden noted that none of the other retail spaces
will attach. Judith Eden of the Center City Residents Association (CCRA) objected to the banners/signs of this proposal. She stated that the CCRA objects to the proliferation of 8 overhanging sign in the area because they impede the view corridors. Ms. Eden noted that none of the other retail spaces in the building have projecting signs, and expressed concern over the possibility of other applications for projecting signage to compete with Mellon Bank. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried with nine votes. Mr. Brownlee and Ms. Wolf dissented. 1614 Locust Street, Locust Club Locust Club, Owner Philippe Chin, Applicant DATE: 1960 PROPOSAL: Legalize facade alterations Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of: 1. The new front door 2. The french doors within the first floor window openings 3. Decorative iron work to the metal balcony railings and widening of the first floor balconies 4. Refinishing the second-floor windows to match the first-floor windows Denial of: Legalization of the metal and glass canopy over the front door. Mr. Thomas explained that this proposal involves legalizing changes made to a non- contributing structure within the Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District. The applicant installed: 1. A new front door 2. French doors within the first floor window openings 3. Decorative iron work to the metal balcony railings and widened first floor balconies 4. A metal and glass canopy over the front door Mr. Thomas stated that Committee members discussed the appropriateness of the new elements, but agreed to recommend approval of most of the them owing to the building’s non- contributing status in the Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District, and because the new features consist of individual artistic creations that do not mimic any historical style. Mr. Thomas explained that some Committee members objected to the canopy. The Commission agreed that the new canopy does not constitute an appropriate addition to this facade. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT of the Committee on Historic Designation, 1 December 1998, David Brownlee, Ph.D., Chair. Mr. Brownlee explained that the Historic Designation Committee reviewed the nomination of the Historic Street Paving Thematic District for accuracy and completeness, and to determine if the nominated resources meet one or more of the criteria for designation as set forth in the Historic Preservation Ordinance at § 14-2007(5) of
Mr. Brownlee explained that the Historic Designation Committee reviewed the nomination of the Historic Street Paving Thematic District for accuracy and completeness, and to determine if the nominated resources meet one or more of the criteria for designation as set forth in the Historic Preservation Ordinance at § 14-2007(5) of the Philadelphia Code. In the process of this review, the Committee modified the inventory of the proposed district to omit certain blocks the 9 Committee deemed unsuitable for the district owing to their condition or because, as “recreations,” they may not truly represent an accurate historic appearance. He stated that the Committee voted unanimously to recommend designation of the Historic Street Paving Thematic District as modified. Mr. Brownlee introduced Laura Spina of the Historical Commission staff, who, along with Elizabeth Harvey and Kristin Cardi of the staff, worked on the nomination. Ms. Spina presented the nomination for the Historic Street Paving Thematic District to the Commission. She gave the definition for “district” as outlined in Section 14-2007(2)(i) of the Philadelphia Code, which includes non-contiguous elements that may be linked by association, plan, design or history. The historic paving materials for streets constitutes the common theme of this district. The proposed district originally included 338 blocks on 159 streets in 35 different neighborhoods that retain historic paving materials. Owing to deletions made by the Committee on Historic Designation, the proposed district now includes 326 blocks on 154 streets. Ms. Spina emphasized that the district includes only the cartway of the street; curbs and sidewalks are not included in the nomination. In preparation for these meetings, the Historical Commission sent notice letters announcing the meetings for this nomination to the Streets Department, Water Department and owners of any privately owned streets, and placed posters on the affected blocks. Ms. Spina stated that the Historic Street Paving Thematic District meets five criteria enumerated in the historic preservation ordinance at Section 14-2007, subsection (5)(a, d, f, h and j) to qualify as an historic district: 1. The district “[h]as significant character, interest or value as part of the development of the City . . . ” The creation of streets and their maintenance reflect the development of Philadelphia. 2. It “[e]mbodies distinguishing characteristics of . . . an engineering specimen.” This district reflects that criterion. Paving – or lack thereof – proved a problem from early on. The issue was addressed in the 1760s
. ” The creation of streets and their maintenance reflect the development of Philadelphia. 2. It “[e]mbodies distinguishing characteristics of . . . an engineering specimen.” This district reflects that criterion. Paving – or lack thereof – proved a problem from early on. The issue was addressed in the 1760s with Street Wardens who paved streets using cobblestone. Subsequent transportation and paving improvements yielded new methods, especially in this century to accommodate the automobile. 3. The district “[c]ontains elements of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship, which represent a significant innovation.” Pavers needed special skills to lay cobblestone, brick and granite block; skills that are not readily available today. The district also contains streets that were designed with a sense of artistic appearance, as well as durability. 4. “Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic,” the district represents “an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or City.” These blocks are found in 35 different neighborhoods. Many communities, such as Germantown, Manayunk and Old City recognize these historically paved streets as integral parts of their neighborhoods. 5. Lastly, the district “[e]xemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social or historical heritage of the community.” As outlined in the statement of significance, the development of the paved street in Philadelphia is closely tied to the political and economic stability of the municipal government as well as the social, developmental and economic history of Philadelphia in general. For instance, in 1799, when Joseph Sansom built Sansom Row on the 700 block of Walnut Street he had trouble selling the properties because the city had not paved the street. In order to 10 make the properties more marketable, Sansom himself had the road paved. As outlined in the statement of significance, the development of the paved street in Philadelphia is closely tied to the political and economic stability of the municipal government as well as the social, developmental and economic history of Philadelphia in general. Ms. Spina, using slides for illustration, described the primary materials that constitute the district. These include cobblestone, vitrified brick, granite block, wood block, and bluestone. Ms. Spina explained that, in the inventory, each block has a rating of its condition: High, Moderate or Low Integrity. The definitions for each rating are: 1) High Integrity: The street remains completely or nearly intact with no large patches or damage; 2) Moderate: Streets with some patching or noticeable repairs, and
explained that, in the inventory, each block has a rating of its condition: High, Moderate or Low Integrity. The definitions for each rating are: 1) High Integrity: The street remains completely or nearly intact with no large patches or damage; 2) Moderate: Streets with some patching or noticeable repairs, and 3) Low: Extensive visible repairs have been made to the street. Ms. Spina explained that the materials that comprise the Historic Street Paving Thematic District include: Cobblestone: The earliest street paving material, cobblestone has been used since the Middle Ages. In Philadelphia, cobblestone paving persisted throughout the first three quarters of the 19th century. It is the oldest form of street paving in Philadelphia, and one of the rarest today. Vitrified Brick: Brick, when heated to the point of vitrification, can bear the weight of vehicles. The City laid the first brick street in 1887 and the material remained popular for at least the next thirty years. While the brick streets were easy to clean and repair, the vitrification process was not uniform and many of the bricks quickly deteriorated. The brick appeared red, orange and yellow. Sometimes the pavers would pattern the bricks or use all headers to add aesthetic interest. Granite Block: Also known as “Belgian Block,” granite block could bear the weight of the heaviest traffic. Since its first use in the late 19th century, granite block proved durable, uniform and inexpensive. Still used, it now exists on over half of the proposed streets in the thematic district. Pavers also dressed granite block with blue glazing, creating what is known as “Belgian Blues.” Only nine blocks remain of these bright blue streets. Wood Block: In the second decade of the 20th century, Philadelphia’s engineers discovered that wood block provided for very quiet streets and began using the material for streets around hospitals and schools. Unfortunately, the wood did not have the durability of other materials and the experiment was soon abandoned. Only one street, Camac Street in Washington Square West, survives intact and exposed. Bluestone: Only one street in Philadelphia has slabs of bluestone as a paving material, St. James Place in Rittenhouse Square. Sheet Asphaltum: Thomas Macadam patented his invention, named for himself, in the United Kingdom in 1801. In the United States, engineers began experimenting with asphalt in 1875, but abandoned the material because it proved unstable and the horses could not get the needed
material, St. James Place in Rittenhouse Square. Sheet Asphaltum: Thomas Macadam patented his invention, named for himself, in the United Kingdom in 1801. In the United States, engineers began experimenting with asphalt in 1875, but abandoned the material because it proved unstable and the horses could not get the needed traction on such a smooth surface. In the early part of the 20th century scientists perfected the chemical make-up of asphalt and in the 1920s it became the primary paving material in Philadelphia. Ms. Spina noted that many of the streets have interesting details. Granite or bluestone slab gutters, either along the curbs or down the middle, facilitated the drainage of water in the street. Along Erie and Germantown Avenues, and some other blocks in the City, trolley tracks 11 define the street. In some cases, the historic material is only between the tracks with asphalt along the curbs. Ms. Spina explained that there is a list of blocks not included in this nomination despite their having historic paving material. These are not included because of low integrity. She then showed slides that illustrated different blocks in approximately twelve different neighborhoods. Ms. Spina concluded by saying that the Historic Street Paving Thematic District, if designated, would preserve one of the most threatened historic resources in the City of Philadelphia. Since the first inventory was made of these streets in 1993, Philadelphia has lost 28 of them. Commission members discussed such issues as adding more streets to the inventory at subsequent Commission meetings and how to handle blocks with good integrity currently underneath blacktop. Ms. Wolf stated that the Committee on Historic Designation decided to include only those blocks with historic paving material presently exposed. The Commission chose not to act on the three new additions proposed for the inventory at this meeting to allow the staff the opportunity to post notice at least sixty days prior to designation. The Commission discussed ways of assisting the residents of Winona Street with the replacement of the street’s historic paving materials. Commission members did not vote on the issue. Victor Gordon asked the Commission to delete the unit block of South Bodine Street. He testified that Bodine Street forms the only access he has to his property, a surface parking lot, and stated that the street has low integrity. [The inventory lists the street with high integrity on the northern half and moderate
Commission to delete the unit block of South Bodine Street. He testified that Bodine Street forms the only access he has to his property, a surface parking lot, and stated that the street has low integrity. [The inventory lists the street with high integrity on the northern half and moderate integrity on the southern half.] He noted that he feared that the Historical Commission would close the street, cutting off access to his property. Commission members assured Mr. Gordon that the Historical Commission does not have the authority to close any street, and that it only seeks to protect the historic materials of the cartway. Mr. Gordon stated that the Streets Department offered the street to him and now he fears that the Department will retract the offer. Mr. Tyler stated that the City has no plans to strike that block of Bodine Street from the City Plan. Several members of the community, representing various neighborhoods, voiced their support for the proposed district, some of whom also requested the Commission to include more blocks in their neighborhoods. Commission members thanked those individuals for their interest and asked them to assist the Commission staff by notifying them of any possible new additions. Aliki Strakes of the Preservation Alliance read from the Alliances official letter advocating the designation. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee on Historic Designation to designate the Historic Street Paving Thematic District as modified. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The Report of the Historical Commission Staff November 1998, Richard Tyler Mr. Tyler noted a few highlights from the staff report. Mr. Tyler and Mr. Spilove acknowledged the efforts of the Commission staff in recent months regarding the Dream Garden mosaic mural designation and the new historic districts. The Commission thanked Laura Spina, 12 Elizabeth Harvey and Kristin Cardi of the staff for their work on the Historic Street Paving Thematic District with a round of applause. Mr. Sklaroff asked Mr. Spilove and the staff to consider having a Historical Commission holiday party. Mr. Spilove agreed to look into it. Harry A. Batten Fund Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve an expenditure of $50.00 as an honorarium for expert witness regarding the Dream Garden mosaic mural designation. Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the expenditure. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with three votes. Mr. Brownlee, Ms. Wolf
A. Batten Fund Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve an expenditure of $50.00 as an honorarium for expert witness regarding the Dream Garden mosaic mural designation. Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the expenditure. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with three votes. Mr. Brownlee, Ms. Wolf and Ms. Kaplan abstained owing to their involvement with heirs of the John Merriam Estate, part owners of the Dream Garden mosaic mural. Note: Other Commission members present at this meeting left prior to this vote. Mr. Wilds made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, R. Scott Jacob Executive Secretary