THE MINUTES OF THE 469TH MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 12 September 2001 Duane Bumb, Interim Chair Commission Conference Room, 1515 Arch Street, 18th floor Present Duane Bumb, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce, Interim Chair James Brown, IV Gary Hack, Chair, City Planning Commission Thomas Kilkenny David Perri, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Harris Steinberg, AIA Thomas Sugrue, Ph.D. Norman Tissian Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Julianne L. Brennan, Historic Preservation Planner Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Mark Zecca, Senior Attorney, Law Department Also Nicholas J. Aloi, Mainline Construction William Kerr, Esq., Blank Rome Comisky McCauley Constance and Richard Carter Thomas and Barbara Holland Crisante Ianni A. Kondor, Mattioni & Mattioni Scott Merkle Shannon and Kelly Shirman Hugh Zimmerman, Zimmerman Associates James Pearl, Esq., Law Department Ron Bowlan Jay G. Cranmer Mike E. Merkle Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents Association Michael Jacobs Ursula Reed Michael Prifti, Bower Lewis Thrower Yuly Vinogradov Rudy Ponzio, C.A.T.C.H. Robert Dick, Trefz Consulting Engineers Janet Potter, Foundation for Architecture Cory Hunnicut William McDowell, National Railroad Passenger Corporation 1 Stephanie Craighead, Fairmount Park Commission Theresa Stuhlman, Fairmount Park Commission Matt Radar, Fairmount Park Commission Lillian Gaskins-Green Audrey Johnson Thornton Paulette G. O’Neill Freda Lippes, Capital Program Office Maksym Szpilczak Linda B. Watson Laura Griffith, Fairmount Park Art Association Mary Hunt, Kaiserman Company, Inc. Brett Feldman Albert Taus Michael Ytterberg, Bower Lewis Thrower Duane Bumb called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to designate Duane Bumb the chair for the meeting. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Commission observed a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the attacks of 11 September. The Report of the Architectural Committee, 28 August 2001, Randal Baron and Julianne Brennan, Staff 1501-1509 Spruce Street, NW corner of South 15th Street Parkway Corporation, Owner Brett Feldman, Esq., Applicant DATE: 2001 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations and new building signage Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of the proposed façade, awnings, signage and statues by a vote of three to one. Ms. Brennan presented the proposal, including a new brick façade, awnings, lighting and signage, for a Bucca de Beppo restaurant in the new garage complex. The restaurant, situated on the 15th Street section of the building, is a part of a national
statues by a vote of three to one. Ms. Brennan presented the proposal, including a new brick façade, awnings, lighting and signage, for a Bucca de Beppo restaurant in the new garage complex. The restaurant, situated on the 15th Street section of the building, is a part of a national chain and the look reflects that of other sites. Brett Feldman, attorney for the restaurant chain, stated that the Art Commission reviewed the proposal and made some minor changes. The new proposal does not include a stone base, the canopy awning will be cloth and the signage on the canopy has been eliminated. The restaurant will not install lights in the windows or on the statues and none of the lighting will flash. The large neon sign projecting sign will remain animated. He noted that the restaurant would create a sense of a streetscape for the pedestrian on 15th Street. Ross Wilson, representative of Parkway Corporation, owner of the garage, stated that the company supports the proposal. Another restaurant will occupy the corner space and a coffee shop may occupy the space closer to Latimer Street. Mr. Tissian noted that this area of South 15th Street is highly commercial in nature. 2 Mr. Sugrue made a motion to approve the revised proposal. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion, which passed with six votes. Mr. Hack dissented and Mr. Sklaroff abstained. 233 South 24th Street Henry Stirman, Owner Sabrina Soong, Architect DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Legalize/cure addition Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of option #3 retaining the existing building’s footprint subject to changing the framing of the roofline to slope from north to south, with the reduced number of vinyl windows on the addition. Mr. Baron explained the proposal for this project, seen by the Committee and Commission on previous occasions. The owners, without a permit or Commission approval, built a large three- story addition to the rear of the house. The Department of Licenses and Inspections issued a stop- work order and a violation for the work. The addition, visible from two different streets, transforms the historic half-gable roofline of the original house into a full gable and has only a one-foot setback from the plane of the original sidewall. As built, the addition does not meet building code requirements because too many windows penetrate a wall that sits near the property line. Sabrina Soong, architect for the project, stated that revised
house into a full gable and has only a one-foot setback from the plane of the original sidewall. As built, the addition does not meet building code requirements because too many windows penetrate a wall that sits near the property line. Sabrina Soong, architect for the project, stated that revised drawings reflect the changes required by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The revised proposal includes legalizing the three-story addition with two symmetrically spaced vinyl windows on the second and third floors of the side elevation, vinyl windows and door on the rear elevation, and a sloped roof perpendicular to the original half-gable roof, reflecting a rear-ell configuration. Mr. Baron stated that the Committee wanted a larger setback from the plane of the original sidewall, but the placement of the stairwell prevents that change without great expense. Mr. Sklaroff noted that the expense and resultant financial hardship were self-induced. William Kerr, attorney for the owner, stated that the contractor had assured the owners that the proper permits had been secured. The owners had acted in good faith on the contractor’s information. Mr. Tissain questioned if the owner would now comply. Kelly Stirman, the owner, stated that he and his wife want to have the house finished and all permits in order, and fully intend to comply with the approvals of the Commission and the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised proposal, i.e. option #3 as revised to comply with the building code, including the changes in the windows, subject to the changed roofline. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to send a request to the Department of Licenses and Inspections for a report on the Department’s investigation of the contractor for the project. Mr. Kilkenny seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 3 1924-28 Delancey Street Dennis Hummel, Owner Charles Datner, Architect DATE: c.1855 as dwellings; stables by 1875; residential c 1922 PROPOSAL: Alter façade, cut door and garage openings Architectural Committee recommendation: denial per Standards 1, 2, 4 and 9. The owners of the property requested a continuance to the October meeting. 1913 Pine Street Cory Hunnicut, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: Façade renovation Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of 1. four-panel door configuration; 2. six over six windows except the first floor with six over one; 3. reconstruction of the cornice; 4. marble
the property requested a continuance to the October meeting. 1913 Pine Street Cory Hunnicut, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: Façade renovation Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of 1. four-panel door configuration; 2. six over six windows except the first floor with six over one; 3. reconstruction of the cornice; 4. marble water table with cellar doors at the base; 5. approval of both options for the cupola with double doors, and 6. insertion of a rectangular side window subject to code requirements and the approval of the owner of the neighboring house. with the staff to review all details, based on Standards 6, 9, and 10. Ms. Brennan explained this multi-faceted proposal. The owner wishes to refurbish the façade of the house with a new watertable, cornice and stucco, 2/2 windows and a four-panel door with three-light transom, and to construct a rear addition with a cupola. The Committee noted that originally the house had 6/6 windows rather than 2/2 and a photograph from 1906 confirms this information. Cory Hunnicut, owner of the property, stated that he investigated other houses on the block. Only one house has the original configuration of 6/6 windows and a four-panel door. Also, historically, other houses did have 2/2 windows. Mr. Wilds noted that the original configuration is found on another house and the photograph supports the 6/6 windows. Mr. Sugrue made a nomination to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the nomination, which passed by unanimous vote. 1409 Lombard Street C.A.T.C.H., Owner Rudolph Ponzio, Applicant DATE: 1915 PROPOSAL: Façade renovations/ramp Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of the proposal with a ¼ inch clearance between the face of the brick and back of the steel channel with the staff to review details, based on Standards 6, 9 and 10. Ms. Brennan described the proposal, which included a new handicap-access ramp on the east side of the building, demolition of the non-historic chain-link fence, and erection of a new wrought iron fence. 4 Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sugrue seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 340-342 South 5th Street, NW corner of Pine Street Richard and Margaret Ullman, Owners Nicholas Aloi, Jr., Applicant DATE: c. 1972 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of 1. façade materials of brick and metal; 2. metal four-light windows; 3. the gate and lowering the wall; 4. addition with metal cladding and metal clad casement
of Pine Street Richard and Margaret Ullman, Owners Nicholas Aloi, Jr., Applicant DATE: c. 1972 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of 1. façade materials of brick and metal; 2. metal four-light windows; 3. the gate and lowering the wall; 4. addition with metal cladding and metal clad casement windows 5. removal of the planters and reopening of exterior front steps; per Standards 6 and 9 6. denial of side triple window on the 5th Street façade, and 7. denial of center window on the Pine Street façade as proposed, but approval of a scheme for two side windows in the recesses, per Standard 6. with the staff to review all details. Ms. Brennan introduced the proposal for a 3rd-floor addition, new window openings, new windows and restoration of an entrance stair. She explained that the Committee noted that the original design included metal elements, such as the windows and the vertical spandrel on the 5th Street elevation, and the use of metal should continue. The Committee objected to the proposed new window on the Pine Street façade, noting the strong solid wall of the brick versus the vertical voids of the windows flanking it. Mr. Sklaroff questioned the importance of the building, since its construction dated only to 1972. Mr. Wilds and Mr. Tyler noted that the Commission recognized the importance of the Redevelopment period of the neighborhood as a part of the district designation. The building appears as “contributing” in the district’s inventory. Mr. Sklaroff asked if the original architect had been consulted. Nicholas Aloi, contractor for the project, noted that the original architect, Steven M. Goldner, had not been contacted. Mr. Sugrue noted that although this building had an architect, because one is now required by building code, it is equal to the vernacular architecture of the 19th century that normally was not designed by an architect. Mr. Harris noted that the new window on the 3rd floor of the 5th Street elevation should be centered in the metal spandrel. He also questioned the addition on the 3rd floor. Mr. Sugrue stated that the gate should have a squared top, not an arch. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the seven points of the Committee’s recommendation with two changes: the gate should have a squared top, eliminating the arch, and the window on the 3rd floor of the 5th Street elevation should be centered in
have a squared top, not an arch. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the seven points of the Committee’s recommendation with two changes: the gate should have a squared top, eliminating the arch, and the window on the 3rd floor of the 5th Street elevation should be centered in the metal spandrel. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote. Mr. Sklaroff reiterated that, if an architect for a building is available, he or she should be consulted on any changes to the building. 5 227 South 6th Street MCW Enterprises, Owner Eric Leighton, Architect DATE: 1900; William Prichett, Architect PROPOSAL: Conceptual review of rooftop two-story addition Architectural Committee recommendation: conceptual approval of option #1 subject to a mock- up to determine the addition’s visibility, scale, and amount of setback needed. Mr. Baron described the proposal to add two stories to the roof of the Lippincott Building on the east side of Washington Square. The architect submitted three different proposals for the skin of the addition, but all would have the same massing and setbacks from the cornice lines. The architect, Cecil Baker, erected a mock-up on the building to show visibility of the addition and deck railing. Mr. Baron noted that the Italian Renaissance style, of which this building is a revival, included wide cornices for a strong visual cap on the buildings. The visibility of the second story dilutes this strong statement. Mr. Baker stated that the economics of the project dictated the need for a two-story addition. Owing to a dispute with the property owner to the north of the building, many windows on the north façade at the first and second stories may be lost. This eliminates that section of the building to be used for residences because of building code restrictions. Mr. Tissian noted that the building has been sitting empty for several years and is becoming a blight to the Square. Carl Primavera, Esq., attorney for the project, stated that the feasibility of the development project rests on the ability to add the two stories. Jay Cranmer, one of the developers, also noted that the building has a large amount of asbestos and lead paint, adding to the expense of redevelopment. Richard Carter, a neighbor in Independence Place, stated that his unit looks directly at the Lippincott Building and that a two-story addition would block his view of Washington Square.
developers, also noted that the building has a large amount of asbestos and lead paint, adding to the expense of redevelopment. Richard Carter, a neighbor in Independence Place, stated that his unit looks directly at the Lippincott Building and that a two-story addition would block his view of Washington Square. He and his wife, knowing that the building sits in a historic district, believed that changes such as proposed would not be allowed by the Commission. He suggested that the Commission follow the staff’s recommendation of approving only a single-story addition. The Commission members discussed the ramifications of an “approval in concept” and the architectural merit of the proposal. Mr. Tissian made a motion to approve, in concept, a two-story addition with the proposed setbacks from the cornice lines. Mr. Hack seconded the motion, which passed with seven votes. Mr. Brown dissented and Mr. Perri abstained. 1122 East Berks Street Thomas and Barbara Holland, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1820 PROPOSAL: Vinyl siding and windows Architectural Committee recommended approval of the side and rear proposed alterations, but referral of the front façade to the Committee on Financial Hardship. Mr. Baron explained that this is one of the rare wood-frame houses in the city. The Commission in 1971, before they officially adopted the Secretary’s Standards, had approved aluminum siding for the house. The current proposal calls for installing vinyl windows and vinyl siding on both the front and rear façades. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the vinyl windows and siding on the non-visible rear façade, but denied the proposal for the front, noting that the 6 front façade should have wood windows and siding. They noted that if the architecturally accurate materials posed a burden, the owners could make a financial hardship application. Ms. Howard, owner, stated that she wants to make the house energy efficient, but that she does not have a financial hardship. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and to approve the proposal. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 51 North 3rd Street Brandywine Construction, Owner Theresa Snow, Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Louvers in transoms Architectural Committee recommendation: denial of the proposed vents, based on Standard 9. Ms. Brennan described the proposal for inserting exhaustion vents in the glass transoms. The applicant could also seek to use a ventless system or investigate an alternate placement of the vents on the side
PROPOSAL: Louvers in transoms Architectural Committee recommendation: denial of the proposed vents, based on Standard 9. Ms. Brennan described the proposal for inserting exhaustion vents in the glass transoms. The applicant could also seek to use a ventless system or investigate an alternate placement of the vents on the side elevation. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation and deny the proposal. Mr. Tissian seconded the proposal, which passed unanimously. 1514 Waverly Street Hugh Zimmers, Owner/Architect DATE: c. 1880 PROPOSAL: Cut/reopen doors Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of the restoring of the carriage opening with the removal of the transom and cutting a new door opening to be filled with a salvaged door. Mr. Baron described the proposal for replacing a non-historic transom and garage door with carriage doors that have a cross-buck pattern and cutting a new pedestrian door opening. The new opening will have a cross-buck door that the owner found in the building. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote. 128 Bainbridge Street Michael Samschick, Owner Joel Spivack, Architect DATE: 1771-1792 PROPOSAL: Legalize/cure rear addition, façade restoration Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of the revised submission subject to the restoration of the front façade. Mr. Baron presented the latest proposal for the building. The original frame house has a half- gable roof. The Commission approved a three-story addition with a 24-foot setback. The owner then built a four-story addition with only a 17-foot setback. The Committee and the owner 7 compromised with a proposal for a 4-story addition with a 24-foot setback, subject to the restoration of the front portion of the house. Mr. Baron noted, however, that the latest drawings do not include the retention of the chimney. Mr. Wilds questioned the windows on the side elevation of the original house. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee and to approve the proposal subject to the restoration of the front portion of the house at its historic plane and the retention of the chimney. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion, which passed with seven votes. Mr. Wilds and Mr. Perri dissented. 544 Queen Street Maksym Szpilczak, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Rebuild front façade, add side addition Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of the revised submission with the change on the addition, door and windows subject to retention of
the motion, which passed with seven votes. Mr. Wilds and Mr. Perri dissented. 544 Queen Street Maksym Szpilczak, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Rebuild front façade, add side addition Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of the revised submission with the change on the addition, door and windows subject to retention of historic materials where possible with staff to review details, and approval of the removal of the basement grate. Mr. Baron explained the proposal for the property. The building’s front façade has separated from the rest of the building and as a result the Department of Licenses and Inspections has declared the building “Dangerous.” The owner wishes to restore the building, but to make it into two units, one in the basement and first floor and the second in the second and third floors. This change requires two major changes to the façade. First, he wants to rebuild the front façade, but raise the height of the first floor two bricks. This added height along with an excavation of the basement would allow the basement enough room for livable space. This change would add another step to the front stairs and shorten the space between the lintels of the first floor windows and door and the sills of the second floor windows. Second, the proposal includes installing a staircase in the small open space between this building and the one next door. This would become the entrance to the unit on the second floor. Mr. Wilds questioned the raising of the first floor door and windows, stating that he preferred eliminating the transom and shortening the first floor windows. Mr. Perri noted that building code requirements dictate a minimum opening for windows in bedrooms. The proposed basement windows may not meet those requirements. Mr. Steinberg asked about the roofing material for the stair addition. Mr. Szpilczak stated that he had not decided on a material and would defer to the Commission. Mr. Wilds noted that if the basement was not used for living space, he wanted to see the original dimensions of the façade restored. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the proposal with staff to review details including the roofing materials. Mr. Brown seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote. 925 Chestnut Street Thomas Jefferson Hospital, Owner Michael Prifti, Architect DATE: c. 1925 PROPOSAL: Rooftop HVAC Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of the cooling towers with staff to review
approve the proposal with staff to review details including the roofing materials. Mr. Brown seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote. 925 Chestnut Street Thomas Jefferson Hospital, Owner Michael Prifti, Architect DATE: c. 1925 PROPOSAL: Rooftop HVAC Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of the cooling towers with staff to review details including color, per Standards 9 and 10. 8 Mr. Baron described the proposal for cooling towers. Ron Boland, Associate Vice-President of Jefferson Hospital, noted that the site proposed was the least intrusive and visible. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation and approve the proposal with staff to review details. Mr. Perri seconded the motion, which passed with eight votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. Mr. Wilds noted that a blue awning, temporarily erected for the construction, still exists at the rear of the garden and asked for its removal now that construction has finished. Mr. Boland stated that he would see to its removal. 1113-31 Market Street, Reading Terminal Headhouse Headhouse Realty Associates, Owner Albert Taus, Architect DATE: 1891-1893; Francis Kimball and Wilson Brothers PROPOSAL: Signage Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of the proposed signage and stated that its height and size will serve as the model should any additional applicants appear before the Committee and Commission. Ms. Brennan described the proposal for one of the tenants in the Reading Terminal Headhouse. She noted that although this sign is made of individual letters, it matches the other approved signs in size, height and attachment. Mr. Baron noted that the building without this or the other signage previously approved by the Commission for the other tenants already exceeds zoning allowances. Mr. Wilds questioned the attachment of the sign to the masonry in the arch. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation and approve the proposal, stating that its height and size would serve as a model for future signage of tenants. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 1830 Shunk Street Mario Falcione, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1910; James and John Windrim Architects PROPOSAL: Remove slate roof and install asphalt Architectural Committee recommendation: denial of the asphalt shingle roof as proposed; referral of the application to the Committee on Financial Hardship. The owners asked for a continuance until the October meeting. 4250 Belmont Mansion Drive, Belmont Mansion City of Philadelphia, Fairmount Park Commission, Owner Claire Donato, Architect/Applicant PROPOSAL: Restoration of roof, chimneys, cornices, porch and other features
shingle roof as proposed; referral of the application to the Committee on Financial Hardship. The owners asked for a continuance until the October meeting. 4250 Belmont Mansion Drive, Belmont Mansion City of Philadelphia, Fairmount Park Commission, Owner Claire Donato, Architect/Applicant PROPOSAL: Restoration of roof, chimneys, cornices, porch and other features Owing to the time and the length of expected discussion, Mr. Wilds made a motion to postpone the discussion and vote for the Belmont Mansion proposal for a period not to exceed two weeks. Mr. Perri seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 9 2319-2321 South 21st Street Crisante Ianni and Bin Dang, Owners/Applicants DATE: 1911; James and John Windrim, Architects PROPOSAL: Gates between houses Architectural Committee recommendation: denial of the proposed gate. Ms. Brennan presented the proposal to install an iron gate between the two houses. Mr. Ianni and Mr. Dang stated that they wish to have the gate for security purposes. The Commission discussed the efficiency of the gate for security and the precedent that an approval would set. Mr. Wilds made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and to propose a simplified iron gate, no more than six feet in height and set near the front plane of the building behind the masonry quoin, with staff to review details. Mr. Sugrue seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote. 612 Spruce Street Rosa Myers, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1804-05; altered 1845, 1854, 1968; George Summers PROPOSAL: Rubber slate roof Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of rubber slate roofing, copper flashing and cedar dormer cheeks, all with staff to review details. Ms. Brennan explained the proposal for rubber slate roofing. The house originally had cedar shakes. In the late 19th-century it had a slate roof and then in the early 20th-century a standing- seam metal roof. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation and to approve the proposal with staff to review details. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 2951 Market Street, 30th Street Station Amtrak, Owner Michael R. Ytterberg, Architect DATE: 1929-30; Graham, Anderson, Probst & White, architects PROPOSAL: Arch Street Pedestrian Bridge Architectural Committee recommendation: approval of the permanent bridge with the staff to review details, and conceptual approval of the temporary bridge and the garage subject to review of the design. Mr. Baron explained the proposal for the garage and pedestrian bridge. The Committee and Commission approved the bridge over Arch Street
Committee recommendation: approval of the permanent bridge with the staff to review details, and conceptual approval of the temporary bridge and the garage subject to review of the design. Mr. Baron explained the proposal for the garage and pedestrian bridge. The Committee and Commission approved the bridge over Arch Street in concept and now the proposal has returned for final approval. The bridge, constructed of metal with glass sides, will have a paint scheme that reflects the stone of the railroad station and the muntin color of the windows. Mr. Steinberg questioned the colors. William McDowell, representing the National Passenger Railroad Corporation, stated that the temporary bridge would span the gap between the permanent bridge and the parking garage. The company plans to build the garage immediately. At a later date, the company hopes to construct commercial space, which would stand between the garage and the pedestrian bridge, eliminating the temporary span. 10 Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation to approve the pedestrian bridge and to approve, in concept, the temporary bridge and garage. Mr. Kilkenny seconded the motion, which passed with six votes. Mr. Sklaroff and Mr. Wilds abstained. 1723-29 Walnut Street AIG Baker Enterprises, Owner Van Potteiger, Architect PROPOSAL: Three-story addition Carl Primavera, attorney for the applicant, requested a continuance until the October meeting. The Report of the Committee on Historic Designation, 12 July 2001, Richard Tyler, Staff The Eagle Statue Grand Court, Wanamaker Building, 1300 Market Street Mr. Tyler stated that everyone is familiar with the Eagle statue and it clearly is eligible for designation. He noted that the staff had discussed the nomination with the May Company, the statue’s owner. Mr. Tissian made a motion to designate the Eagle statue. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion, which passed with seven votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. Pennsylvania Railroad War Memorial Concourse, 30th Street Station, 2901-51 Market Street Mr. Tyler noted that Amtrak did not object to the designation. Mr. Tissian made a motion to designate the Pennsylvania Railroad War Memorial. Mr. Brown seconded the motion, which passed with six votes. Mr. Sklaroff and Mr. Wilds abstained. Harry A. Batten Fund Mr. Tyler stated that $23.57 was spent to purchase lunches for the Architectural Committee. Mr. Wilds made a motion to withdraw $23.57 from the Harry A. Batten Fund. Mr. Perri seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Sklaroff suggested that the former Commission members purchase
abstained. Harry A. Batten Fund Mr. Tyler stated that $23.57 was spent to purchase lunches for the Architectural Committee. Mr. Wilds made a motion to withdraw $23.57 from the Harry A. Batten Fund. Mr. Perri seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Sklaroff suggested that the former Commission members purchase a gavel to present to former Chairman, Wayne Spilove, to show appreciation for his tenure. The Commission members agreed. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to pass a resolution commending the preceding Commission members for their years of service. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. 11