Historical Commission — Apr 8, 2005

THE MINUTES OF THE 512th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 8 April 2005 1515 Arch Street, Room 18025 Michael Sklaroff, Esq., Chair Present Michael Sklaroff, Esq., Chair Warren Huff, Director of Urban Design, City Planning Commission Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Property Sara Merriman, Special Assistant to the Director, Department of Commerce Kathleen Murray, Special Assistant to the President of City Council David Perri, P.E., Chief Code Official, Department of Licenses and Inspections Vincent Rivera, AIA Thomas Sugrue, Ph.D. Norman Tissian Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Randal Baron, Historic Preservation Specialist Jorge Danta, Historic Preservation Planner Jonathan E. Farnham, Historic Preservation Planner Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Lawrence Copeland, Esq., Senior Attorney, Law Department Also Constance L. Kirker, 240 Spruce Street Martin Jay Rosenblum, 2019 Pine Street Theresa Shephard, Klein & Hoffman for Hopkinson House Jim Rowe, Agoos/Lovera, 3905 Spruce Street Richard W. Thom, 300-314 North 3rd Street, Preservation Consultant Amy Talvacchia, 4301 Main Street Gerry Gutierrez, 109 Elfreth's Alley Dan McLaughlin, 2301 Green Street Eric Deiss, Agoos/Lovera Architects Nick Wexler, 1711 Spring Garden Street Maria G. Koulas, 1711 Spring Garden Street Carolina Penta, YCH Architect Scott A. Cronin, 109 Elfreth's Alley David Amburn, Amburn/Jarosinski Architects George Ritchie, Amburn/Jarosinski Architects Susan Mariano, 1424 Chestnut Street John Ryan, 1424 Chestnut Street James Campbell, 2301 Green Street Jackie Gusic, Friday Architects Jay Tackett, Jay Tackett & Company Al Kilcuchi, Jay Tackett & Company Robert Powers, Powers & Company Gregory Below, Northstar Property Group John Tucker, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects John Gallery, Preservation Alliance Paul J. Deegan, PIDC Sam Hagerman, Northstar Property Group Todd Strine, 421 Chestnut Street Partners, LP Dan Pellicciotti, 4163 Main Street Nate Sanders, 4163 Main Street John O'Neill, 113 Kenilworth Street Daniel Collins, 2124 Fairmount Avenue Jane Glen, Manayunk Neighborhood Council Kevin Smith, Manayunk Neighborhood Council Elizabeth Longstreth, Chestnut Hill Academy Hans Stein, Stein Architects Sam Bradstreet, 18 South Letitia Street Sam Bradstreet, Jr., 12-16 South Letitia Street R. Lyde, 120-122 Market Street Eric Rahe, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects Mark Wiener, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects Marjorie Samoff, 2120 Green Street J. Sieminski, Chestnut Hill Academy Peter Miller, Towers & Miller, 2320 Spruce Street Don Ventresca, 1708 Pine Street Peter Rothberg, Front Street Associates Frank Steel, Chestnut Hill Academy Michael Sklaroff, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called

Mark Wiener, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects Marjorie Samoff, 2120 Green Street J. Sieminski, Chestnut Hill Academy Peter Miller, Towers & Miller, 2320 Spruce Street Don Ventresca, 1708 Pine Street Peter Rothberg, Front Street Associates Frank Steel, Chestnut Hill Academy Michael Sklaroff, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 512th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 9:25 a.m. Minutes of the 511th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission Upon a motion made by Mr. Sugrue and seconded by Mr. Wilds, the Commission voted to approve the minutes of the 511th Stated Meeting, 11 March 2005, as corrected, Michael Sklaroff, Chair. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 29 March 2005 Vincent Rivera, AIA, Chair 113 Kenilworth Street Owner: Jack O'Neill Applicant: Carolina Pena, Architect History: c. 1765, rehabilitated c. 1830 Project: two-story addition at rear, third-floor addition on rear ell, roof deck with stairs The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the third-story rear ell addition, roof deck with stairs, and side yard addition, provided the entirety of the curved portion of the rear ell is retained and repaired, with staff to review details. This application proposes additions to a single-family row house in Queen Village. It proposes the construction of a two-story rear addition in the side yard at the piazza; a 2 spiral stairway on the two-story addition; a one-story addition atop the two-story rear ell; and roof deck on the addition on the rear ell. The building was erected in the mid-eighteenth century and then updated in the Greek Revival style about 1830. The addition in the side yard would not be visible from the public right-of-way, but would significantly alter this early building. The characteristic curve at the intersection of the piazza and rear would be lost and the shared alley would be partially blocked, destroying historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The construction of the rear ell addition and deck would not damage the historic character of the property. The roof on the rear ell is now virtually flat; its historic half-gable roof was removed before designation. Mr. Farnham presented the proposal. He notified the Commission that, after meeting with the Architectural Committee, the applicant had agreed to retain the curved wall. Mr. Wilds inquired about the date of the curved wall. Mr. Farnham responded that it dates to the c. 1830 alterations. Mr.

removed before designation. Mr. Farnham presented the proposal. He notified the Commission that, after meeting with the Architectural Committee, the applicant had agreed to retain the curved wall. Mr. Wilds inquired about the date of the curved wall. Mr. Farnham responded that it dates to the c. 1830 alterations. Mr. Wilds noted that as a result of the proposed alterations the curved wall would become an interior feature. Carolina Pena, the architect, presented drawings to reflect the Architectural Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised submission. Mr. Surgrue seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 4 Boathouse Row Owner: Philadelphia Rowing Society/City of Philadelphia Applicant: Tom Ryan, Contractor History: reconstructed, 1912, C.E. Schermerhorn, architect Project: Legalize asphalt shingles and vinyl siding The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, 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.]. This application proposes the legalization of the reroofing of the Philadelphia Rowing Society boathouse. On 14 March 2005, a contractor submitted an application to the Commission staff to reroof the Tudor Revival style boathouse with Grand Manor asphalt-fiberglass shingles. The shingles are brown, Queen Anne style shingles with clipped corners. The building was historically roofed with rectangular grey slates. It now has an inappropriate asphalt shingle roof. The appropriate asphalt shingle would be a grey Slateline, Grand Slate, or similar shingle. The staff could not approve the application because the brown Grand Manor shingle does not replicate the visual appearance of the historic roofing. The staff informed the applicant that his proposal required a review by the full Commission and the application was placed on the Commission's 8 April 2005 agenda. After meeting with the staff, the contractor began replacing the boathouse without the Commission's approval or a building permit over the weekend of 19 and 20 March 2005. A permit is required for this type of roofing project regardless of the building's designation status. The staff immediately notified the Department of Licenses & Inspections of the illegal work. The Department dispatched 3 an inspector, who stopped the work. The staff has also requested that the Department investigate the contracting company's licensing and sanction the company if appropriate.

project regardless of the building's designation status. The staff immediately notified the Department of Licenses & Inspections of the illegal work. The Department dispatched 3 an inspector, who stopped the work. The staff has also requested that the Department investigate the contracting company's licensing and sanction the company if appropriate. The application also proposes vinyl siding for the west-facing façade. Mr. Farnham explained the application and noted that there was no one in attendance to represent the project. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation and deny the legalization application. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1908-14 Delancey Street Owner: Albert and Rosa Esquinazi Applicant: Arlene Matzkin, Architect History: c. 1880 Project: Revise design of approved additions, install metal door The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the Hardiboard siding on the stair tower, provided it is installed in approximately 1'-9" x 3'-9" pieces (as previously approved) and is coated to replicate dark grey slate; approval of the revisions to the middle addition; approval of the light fixture, and denial of the metal door; with staff to review details; 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 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 proposes significant revisions to three additions (stair tower, middle, and rear) approved by the Commission for the carriage house at 1908-1914 Delancey Street. The Commission approved them in concept at its September 2003 meeting and adopted a final approval at its November 2003 meeting. In March 2004, the staff approved construction drawings for the project that did not include the rear addition, which had been deleted to reduce costs. In November 2004, the staff approved a revision of the materials for the east façade; brick was substituted for stucco and wood siding. The changes of March and November 2004 were approved under the "staff

project that did not include the rear addition, which had been deleted to reduce costs. In November 2004, the staff approved a revision of the materials for the east façade; brick was substituted for stucco and wood siding. The changes of March and November 2004 were approved under the "staff to review details" aegis. The current proposal exceeds the staff's jurisdiction. The architect now proposes to redesign the remaining additions. Rather than the approved slate tiles, the architect would like to clad the stair tower with painted Hardiboard, a fiber-cement siding. The middle addition would also be reconfigured and Hardiboard panels would replace the proposed aluminum panels. A steel pergola would be added to the middle addition at the second story. The architect also proposes a flush metal door on the front façade in place of the approved wood door. Mr. Farnham presented the proposal and noted that the Architectural Committee asserted that the smaller panels of Hardiboard better replicates slate. 4 Arlene Matzkin, the architect, attended the meeting. She argued that the larger panels of Hardiboard would not negatively impact the overall character of the property. She also disclosed that there is a cost issue with the use of slate. Mr. Wilds pointed out that the slate proposed for the stair tower was intended to correspond to the historic slate roof. After a discussion, the Commissioners agreed that the Hardiboard should be used efficiently and appropriately and not configured to replicate the smaller slate tiles. Mr. Sklaroff stated that the change in material does not affect the character of the building. The Commission members agreed that the proposed front door should be wood, not metal. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to approve the amendments to the design of the additions as submitted, but to deny the metal door. Mr. James seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 832-836 Lombard Street Owner: Masada Custom Builders Applicant: David Amburn History: 1848, William L. Johnston, architect; completed by Thomas U. Walter upon Johnston's death Project: Façade rehabilitation, rear penthouse addition – in concept The Architectural Committee recommended approval in concept of the reconstructed flanking additions, first-story side French doors, skylights, and rear rooftop addition, provided the front façade, front roof section, and side façades are restored to their historic appearances. This in-concept application proposes the rehabilitation of the façades, reconstruction of the flanking additions, the addition of skylights, and the construction of a

flanking additions, first-story side French doors, skylights, and rear rooftop addition, provided the front façade, front roof section, and side façades are restored to their historic appearances. This in-concept application proposes the rehabilitation of the façades, reconstruction of the flanking additions, the addition of skylights, and the construction of a rear rooftop addition. Important architect William Johnston designed the former church building for an African American Presbyterian congregation. Front and Side Façade Restoration The application proposes the restoration of the front and side façades. Some details need reconsideration. The proposed fully glazed, central doors do not match the historic doors. The historic double-leaf doors were wood and related to the extant transoms; each door included a pair of tall, thin glazed openings over two pairs of tall, thin wood panels. The proposed one-over-one windows for the first-story front façade do not match the historic windows. The historic windows were one-over-one wood windows with stained glass and unusual Queen Anne-like framing muntins. The proposed single-light transoms over paired five-light casements at the second-story front façade do not match the historic windows. The historic transoms were divided to relate to the paired casements. The slate roof proposed for the front portion of the building does not match the historic standing-seam metal roof. Rear Alterations The proposed rear addition would replace the rear section of the gable roof. It would be significantly taller than the historic roof and would exceed the historic roofline at every point. It would be faced with aluminum and glass. It would be minimally visible from both Lombard Street at the north and South Street at the south. The skylights would not be visible from the public right-of-way. 5 Mr. Farnham presented the in-concept application to the Commission. He noted that several aspects of the restoration of the front and side facades need further refinement. He suggested that the applicant provide more details on the restoration and new construction before submitted an application for final approval. David Amburn, the architect, said that property has been vacant for many years in a deteriorated state. The alterations will include the restoration of the front and side facades. Mr. Tyler commented that this is a very important building. Mr. Huff noted that this long-neglected property deserves restoration and rehabilitation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation to approve the proposal in concept. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which carried

of the front and side facades. Mr. Tyler commented that this is a very important building. Mr. Huff noted that this long-neglected property deserves restoration and rehabilitation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation to approve the proposal in concept. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 2301 Green Street Owner: Pearl Properties Applicant: James Campbell, Architect History: Benjamin Fleisher House, 1890, Willis Hale, architect Project: Replace existing roof deck The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the decks with the structure and flooring as built, provided simple, black, metal railings are installed on the line of the 1987 approval, with staff to review details. This application proposes the reconstruction of a series of roof decks on the Fleisher Mansion at the northwest corner of 23rd and Green Streets. The Commission approved the decks at its April 1987 meeting. That approval stipulated that the decks on the rear ell be set back from the side facade behind a line running north-south from the east façade of the rear stair tower. The decks were not constructed to comply with that approval. They extended east of that line toward the side façade approximately 18 inches. As built, the decks were highly visible from 23rd Street. In late 2004, the current owner, who did not own the building when the non-compliant decks were constructed, dismantled the decks and began to erect new decks without the Commission's approval or a building permit. After calls from neighbors, an inspector from the Department of Licenses & Inspections visited the property and issued violations for the illegal work. When the work was suspended, the decks had been partially completed. The owner now seeks the Commission's approval to reconstruct the decks to comply with the 1987 approval. Mr. Farnham presented the application to the Commission. James Campbell of Campbell-Thomas Architects represented Pearl Properties, the owner of the building. Mr. Campbell stated that the owner requests that the Commission adopt the Committee's recommendation and approve the decks as built provided simple, black, metal railings are installed along the 1987-approval line. He added that the extant wood posts, which would have supported wood railings, would be removed. Robert Powers, a neighbor and a historic preservation consultant, stated that the wood 6 railing posts, which have already been installed on the new decks, are very visible from North 23rd Street. Mr. Sklaroff commented that the Commission

extant wood posts, which would have supported wood railings, would be removed. Robert Powers, a neighbor and a historic preservation consultant, stated that the wood 6 railing posts, which have already been installed on the new decks, are very visible from North 23rd Street. Mr. Sklaroff commented that the Commission finds itself in a difficult situation. First, the Commission approved the original decks, but they were not constructed according to the approval. Second, the original decks were demolished and partially reconstructed without the Commission's review. Mr. Wilds asked for clarifications. He noted that the upper decks including their structures are highly visible from the north and asked if they had been reconstructed according to the 1987 approval. Mr. Farnham replied that they complied with the approval. Mr Wilds asked if the structure of the lower or rear ell deck is visible from the street. Mr. Farnham answered that he did not believe the structure to be visible from the street. He added that the difference in visibility of the ell railings wnen set at the approval and as-built lines was indiscernible. Mr. Tyler remarked that decks had historically served as places to dry laundry. He doubted that the Fleisher family, which erected the mansion, ever hung laundry out to dry on this building. Mr. Wilds moved to approve the roof decks as rebuilt, provided simple, back, metal railings are installed along the 1987-approval line. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 421 Chestnut Street Owner: 421 Chestnut, LP Applicant: Jay Tackett, Architect History: 1857-1859, John M. Gries, architect; rear addition, 1903, Theophilus Chandler, architect Project: Window and door replacement, revised penthouse design, lighting The Architectural Committee voted to recommend the following: 1. Approval in concept of the revised penthouse design submitted at the Architectural Committee meeting (shorter and without the starburst), provided the façade color is a darker grey and the windows have larger panes; 2. approval in concept of the west party wall revisions, provided the windows have larger panes; 3. approval of paired four-light wood casement windows that look like four-over-four double-hung windows for the front façade, with staff to review shop drawings; 4. denial of both versions of the frameless glass front vestibule doors; 5. approval of the restoration of the west rear bay windows, provided the transoms are deleted and the pane configurations follow those on the rear, with staff to review details and shop

with staff to review shop drawings; 4. denial of both versions of the frameless glass front vestibule doors; 5. approval of the restoration of the west rear bay windows, provided the transoms are deleted and the pane configurations follow those on the rear, with staff to review details and shop drawings; 6. approval of the replacement of the rear windows in kind, with staff to review details and shop drawings; 7. approval in concept of the conversion of some east rear bays to balconies, provided that the bay windows in the outer or northernmost tier of windows are not altered; that all of the conversions are executed in the same manner, and that all of the conversions are limited to one column of windows; 8. approval of the lighting, with staff to review details. 7 These recommendations are made pursuant to Standard 4 [Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.]; 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.]; Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will be compatible with 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.]; and the Roofs Guideline [Recommended: Designing additions to roofs such as residential, office, or storage spaces; elevator housing; decks and terraces; or dormers or skylights when required by the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features.]. This application proposes alterations and additions to the former Bank of Pennsylvania building, a highly significant building on Bank Row in the Old City Historic District by important architect John Gries. At its July 2004 meeting, the Commission approved a penthouse with terrace, front windows, and some new openings and windows in the west façade. This application proposes revisions to that approved project. It proposes the construction of a revised penthouse with terrace; the addition of new windows on the west façade; the replacement

2004 meeting, the Commission approved a penthouse with terrace, front windows, and some new openings and windows in the west façade. This application proposes revisions to that approved project. It proposes the construction of a revised penthouse with terrace; the addition of new windows on the west façade; the replacement of windows and main door on the front façade; the restoration of bay windows on the west rear façade; the conversion of bay windows to balconies on the east façade; and the addition of lighting on the front façade. Many aspects of the application are not completely defined or documented. Mr. Farnham presented the application to the Commission. He explained that the Architectural Committee, applicants, and interested parties had discussed the application at length. The Committee reached compromises on all aspects of the application but the frameless front doors, which it flatly rejected. Jay Tackett, the architect, introduced himself and stated that he agrees with the entirety of the Committee's recommendation except the denial of the frameless front doors. He reported that recent investigations indicate that the rear bay windows at the lower floors may not have been truncated during an earlier rehabilitation as first postulated, but may have always been shorter than the bays themselves. He offered to work with the staff to determine the appropriate sizes and configurations for the bay windows. He also noted that additional analysis should be undertaken to determine an appropriate façade color for the penthouse addition. John Gallery of the Preservation Alliance reported that the Alliance holds a façade easement on the building. He stated that the Alliance agrees with the Architectural Committee's recommendation. Messrs. Sklaroff and Wilds inquired about the extent front doors. Mr. Tackett explained that they probably date to the major renovations undertaken at the end of the nineteenth century. He also noted his compromise frameless door plan that retains the historic transom bar. Mr. Wilds questioned the Commission's jurisdiction over the doors, which he described as vestibule doors. He asked Mr. Tackett if the grand, decorative metal 8 doors at the exterior of the vestibule are ever closed. Mr. Tackett replied that they may be closed at night after the conversion of the building to condominiums. Some Commission members doubted they would ever be closed. The interior vestibule doors should therefore be treated as exterior doors. The Commissioners decided to vote up or down on the doors before voting

Tackett replied that they may be closed at night after the conversion of the building to condominiums. Some Commission members doubted they would ever be closed. The interior vestibule doors should therefore be treated as exterior doors. The Commissioners decided to vote up or down on the doors before voting on the remainder of the proposal. Mr. James opposed the severing of the doors from the remainder of the proposal. Mr. Sugrue moved to deny both versions of the frameless glass front doors. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of eight (8) in favor and two (2) opposed. Messrs. Sklaroff and Tissian dissented. Mr. Wilds moved to adopt the Committee's recommendation without Point 4, which was already addressed in the previous motion. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which passed with a vote of nine (9) in favor and one (1) opposed. Mr. James dissented. 109 Elfreth's Alley Owner: Scott and Caren Cronin Applicant: Gerry Gutierrez, Architect History: 1811 for Ephraim Haines, cabinet maker, Significant in Old City Historic District Project: Demolish 1-story rear addition, construct 3-story rear addition The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with staff to review details, pursuant to the Standards. [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 proposes the demolition of a non-historic one-story rear addition and the construction of a three-story rear addition. The historic building, which stands at the northwest corner of Front Street and Elfreth's Alley, is listed as Significant in Old City Historic District. The rear yard is large and extends to the north along Front Street, which was relocated with the construction of Interstate 95. The small garden between the building and Front Street is owned by the Elfreth's Alley Association. The Architectural Committee reviewed and recommended denial of an application to erect an inappropriate rear addition in November 2004; the applicant withdrew the proposal before its referral to the Commission for review. After that recommendation of denial, the owner and his architect worked diligently with the staff and representatives of the Elfreth's Alley Association to forge an acceptable compromise. The design that resulted from those deliberations

in November 2004; the applicant withdrew the proposal before its referral to the Commission for review. After that recommendation of denial, the owner and his architect worked diligently with the staff and representatives of the Elfreth's Alley Association to forge an acceptable compromise. The design that resulted from those deliberations would be erected at the rear of the property and would face Front Street, not Elfreth's Alley. It would connect to the historic building at the rear of the rear ell, where the non-historic addition approved by the Commission in 1977 would be demolished. At the second story, the link from new to old would be very slender, thereby maintaining the historic half-gable shape of the rear ell. Along Front Street, the addition would be tied to a non-historic addition approved by the Commission in 1988. Mr. Farnham presented the application. Gerry Gutierrez, the architect, attended the meeting and offered his appreciation to Messrs. Tyler and Farnham of the staff who, 9 along with the Elfreth's Alley Association, worked to devise an appropriate design. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Sugrue seconded the motion, which carried with eight (8) votes. Mr. James dissented. 604 South Washington Square, Hopkinson House Owner: Hopkinson House Applicant: Dominic Aspite, expediter; Thorcsa Shephard, engineer, Klein & Hoffman, Inc. History: 1961, Oskar Stonorov, architect, Contributing to the Society Hill Historic District Project: Replace windows and patio doors The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, 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.]. It suggested that the engineer redesign the horizontal mullion to better replicate the historic mullion before resubmitting the application to the Commission. This application proposes replacing 2,170 windows and doors in Hopkinson House, a residential high-rise on the south side of Washington Square. The building was designed in 1961 by famous architect Oskar Stonorov as part of the redevelopment of Society Hill and is classified as Contributing to the Society Hill Historic District. The proposed windows and doors would match the historic windows and doors in material, configuration, color, and operation, but the detail dimensions would deviate significantly. In many cases, the light openings would be

of the redevelopment of Society Hill and is classified as Contributing to the Society Hill Historic District. The proposed windows and doors would match the historic windows and doors in material, configuration, color, and operation, but the detail dimensions would deviate significantly. In many cases, the light openings would be reduced by several inches horizontally and vertically. The applicant has supplied an elevation of a typical window keyed to a comparison chart with detail dimensions for the historic windows and doors, for the replacements approved by the staff in 2003, and for the currently proposed units. Mr. Farnham explained the proposal. Theresa Shephard, the engineer, represented the project. She said that the current windows and doors, which are original, have deteriorated. Ms. Shephard enumerated the many reasons for selecting the proposed windows, which must meet the rigorous building code for hi-rise buildings. She offered that she has worked with the manufacturer to develop windows and doors that replicate the originals as closely as possible. She presented a revised detail for the horizontal mullion as suggested by the Committee. Mr. Tissian asked Ms. Shephard to elaborate on the problems with the old windows and advantages of the new. She stated that the old windows leak in wind-driven rains. The new windows contain reservoirs to store and dissipated the rain. She also explained that the building was not constructed to tight tolerances; therefore, the new windows had to account for significant variations in opening sizes. She stated that the proposed detail dimensions were worst-case dimensions. In most cases, the dimensions would be significantly less. Mr. Wilds stressed that the applicant has presented a strong case that an exact replication is not possible; the rest of the Commission members concurred. Mr. Tissian made a motion to approve the revised submission. Mr. Wilds seconded the 10 motion, which carried unanimously. 4163 Main Street Michele David, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: Legalize new front façade The Architectural Committee recommended denial, pursuant to §§ 703 and 704 of the Property Maintenance Code which governs the Manayunk Historic District. Original architecture features such as cornices and bay shall not be removed. Deteriorated features shall be repaired where possible. Replacement material where necessary shall duplicate the original as closely as possible (PM 704.2.3); and New storefronts shall be compatible with the proportion, form and materials of the original building (PM-704.2.6). In November 2003, the owner of 4163 Main

shall not be removed. Deteriorated features shall be repaired where possible. Replacement material where necessary shall duplicate the original as closely as possible (PM 704.2.3); and New storefronts shall be compatible with the proportion, form and materials of the original building (PM-704.2.6). In November 2003, the owner of 4163 Main Street applied to the Historical Commission to demolish the front façade of this building and construct a new contemporary façade. At the Architectural Committee, his attorney argued that the historic façade was not conducive for commercial use. The Committee recommended denial of the application, but noted that the first floor was non-historic and offered suggestions for a more open storefront design. The owner then withdrew the proposal before the Commission voted. On 11 March 2004, the owner submitted an engineer's report to the staff that the front wall was unsafe and required reconstruction along with a violation from the Department of Licenses and Inspections. On 5 April 2004, staff approved a permit application to rebuild the front wall to match the historic wall at the second and third floors with segmentally-arched, two-over-two windows, re-installing the historic cornice and a stucco finish. The first floor would have had a central, double-leaf, fully-glazed door flanked by large storefront windows. In April and May 2004, staff also approved new interior walls and roof framing, interior demolition and breaking through the party wall to 4161 Main Street. Instead of building the front wall according to the approved plan, the owner built a front façade similar to the 2003 proposal that the Committee recommended be denied. The owner now requests legalization of that new front façade. Ms. Spina summarized the property's history. Dan Pellicciotti, the contractor, attended the meeting. He noted that he proceeded with the alterations to the storefront, acting on behalf of the owner, who rejected the building's design as approved by the Commission at staff level. Mr. Wilds, along with other members of the Commission, expressed dismay at the applicant's disregard for the permit process. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion, which carried with 8 votes. Ms. Merriman dissented. 1428-32 Chestnut Street Chest-Pac Associates, LP, Owner David Blumenfeld, Applicant DATE: 1922, Ritter and Shay, architects PROPOSAL: Temporary signage The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the temporary signage for a maximum of six months, provided it is removed by 25 December 2005 regardless of

with 8 votes. Ms. Merriman dissented. 1428-32 Chestnut Street Chest-Pac Associates, LP, Owner David Blumenfeld, Applicant DATE: 1922, Ritter and Shay, architects PROPOSAL: Temporary signage The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the temporary signage for a maximum of six months, provided it is removed by 25 December 2005 regardless of the date of installation and provided the masonry is cleaned and patched, with staff to review details, immediately after the signs are removed. Ms. Spina presented the proposal, which calls for three signs attached to the limestone at the second floor of the building. One will be located on South 15th Street and two on the Chestnut Street façade. Signs once hung in these same positions. They were illegally installed by the current owner. After a violation was issued, the owner appeared before the Commission in September 2003. The Commission legalized the three temporarily, until December 2003, provided the owner clean and repair the limestone upon their removal. The owner did not remove the signs by the deadline, but instead came to the Commission for an extension. The Commission denied the extension and the signs were removed in March 2004. The owner has not undertaken the cleaning and repair. The building is now being converted to condominiums and the owner wishes to advertise them. The owner has, therefore, submitted a new signage application. The application claims that the new signs will only be attached in the mortar joints, but uses photographs of the previous signs, which were attached with holes in the masonry, to illustrate the proposed installation. Also, the application stipulates that the signs will be temporary, but it does not specify a time limit. An earlier occurrence for a similar proposal for temporary signage at this location proved problematic. Mr. Sugrue said that the applicant did not demonstrate good faith since the previous signs were not taken down in a timely manner. Mr. Wilds pointed out that the applicant did not comply with the provisions of the permit, which specified that the masonry be patched and cleaned, noting the existence of large holes and shadow lines depicting the location of the previous signage. David Blumenfeld took exception with the allegation since he said that the masonry had been repaired and cleaned. He argued that massive signs exist on other buildings while the proposed signs are of a much smaller scale and that competitiveness in the real estate market

location of the previous signage. David Blumenfeld took exception with the allegation since he said that the masonry had been repaired and cleaned. He argued that massive signs exist on other buildings while the proposed signs are of a much smaller scale and that competitiveness in the real estate market make the signs necessary. Mr. Sklaroff commented that the building in question is an important building and owing to the applicant's continual disregard for the permit process and requirements imposed by the Commission, he questioned the credibility of the applicant. Mr. Wilds said that the Commission's denial does not preclude the applicant from returning with a different approach, such as banners. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to deny the proposal. Mr. James seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 300-14 North 3rd Street 300-14 North Third Street Associates, LLC, Owner James Hellyer, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1835 for the Manufacturers & Mechanics Bank; extensively rebuilt in 1870-1871 for the Bank of the Northern Liberties, James H. Windrim, architect, and James Rorke, contractor; additions, 1880-1885; addition, 1985 – significant in Old City Historic District PROPOSAL: Façade alterations, 5-story side addition The Architectural Committee recommended conceptual approval with modifications to the cornice and the openings on the North 3rd Street ground floor elevations, with staff to review details. This significant bank building at the corner of North 3rd and Vine Streets has two additions, one in the 1880s and a larger one next to it in 1985. Ms. Spina presented the proposal for the conversion of the property into condominiums with a 5-story addition to the north with first-floor parking and the façade rehabilitation of the existing building. The proposed addition has a rusticated base with modular brick on the upper floors, aluminum windows and a flared fiberglass cornice. The balconies at the northeast corner and on the north side will have aluminum railings. The ingress and egress to the parking will occur on Wood Street and the openings will have aluminum and glass overhead doors with jack arches. The façade of the 1985 addition will be changed to match the elements of the new addition. The roof section will have rooftop terraces for the penthouse units. Last, the rear façade will have a door cut for the second means of egress. The 1880-85 addition will be altered in two ways. This section of the building will become the primary pedestrian entrance for the

new addition. The roof section will have rooftop terraces for the penthouse units. Last, the rear façade will have a door cut for the second means of egress. The 1880-85 addition will be altered in two ways. This section of the building will become the primary pedestrian entrance for the property. The large storefront window at the monumental first floor will be altered to a wood, double-leaf, fully-glazed door with side-lights and transom; cascading stairs with railings will be added. The second alteration occurs at the rear façade. Three casement windows will be cut in the stuccoed façade. The original building will be restored. The section of the Vine Street façade that had been altered for a storefront in the 20th century will be removed and restored with stone and two-over-two windows to match the originals. The original staircase leading to the front door will be cordoned off with a metal railing. Mr. Rivera asked about modifications to the main entrance and it was noted that the entrance would be preserved and that both doors to the garage will be located on Wood Street. Richard Thom and James Hellyer, the architect, attended the meeting and presented revised plans that addressed the cornice issue as discussed by the Architectural Committee. Mr. Thom commented that the stone work on the original building is in excellent condition. He requested that the Commission consider final approval instead of a conceptual approval for the proposal. 13 Mr. Huff inquired if the proposed glass for the garage windows is transparent. Mr. Hellyer responded that in order to maintain the rhythm of the street he intends to replicate the glass used on the St. James Street project, which is a translucent type of glass. Mr. Wilds made a motion to grant final approval with staff to review details. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 213 Chestnut Street Eli Gabay, Owner Todd lean, Applicant DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Legalize kitchen fan The Architectural Committee recommended denial, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize a property.]. The louver should be installed to match what the Commission approved in 1993. The Committee tabled this application last month pending more information. In 1993, the Historical Commission approved ductwork and an interior fan with a grill that would be flush with the window frame. This

that characterize a property.]. The louver should be installed to match what the Commission approved in 1993. The Committee tabled this application last month pending more information. In 1993, the Historical Commission approved ductwork and an interior fan with a grill that would be flush with the window frame. This application calls for legalizing a new, projecting dome and fan for the kitchen ductwork. The tenant claims that a pre-existing projecting fan was damaged by a truck and he simply replaced it. The Department of Licenses and Inspections notes that exterior ventilation of kitchens is not required by code; interior ventilation can exist. However, the exterior "mushroom" vent as proposed is the most common and easiest form of ventilation. Ms. Spina explained the application. No one was in attendance to represent the proposal. Mr. Wilds asked if the mushroom vent pre-dated the 1993 approval. Ms. Spina responded that the date of the ventilation installation was unknown. Richard Thom, Old City Civic Association, noted the Civic Association's opposition to projecting fans. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion, which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Wilds abstained. 1228-32 Arch Street North Star Property Group, LLC, Owner John Tucker, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1909, Charles Bolton, architect PROPOSAL: Rehabilitate façade, construct 1-story roof top addition, and install new storefront windows and doors The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal above the ground floor level with sloped screen walls on the rooftop decks and research for a determination of the color for the spandrels and cornice; but denial of the ground level design as submitted. The Committee acted pursuant to Standards 6 [Deteriorated 14 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.], 7 [Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.], 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 differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of

[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 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.] and 10 [New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.]. Ms. Spina presented this multi-faceted proposal that calls for a penthouse addition and façade rehabilitation of this Beaux-Arts Classical loft building to convert it into condominiums. The penthouse addition will stand fourteen feet above the roof, which will have setbacks from Arch and North 13th Streets as well as the rear façade. Access to the penthouse will occur within the individual condominium units, precluding the need for an elevator to extend the height of the penthouse. A roof deck will wrap the penthouse; the cornice sits high enough to act as the railing for the deck on the Arch and North 13th Street facades. At the south elevation, a metal railing will be installed. The penthouse will have painted, corrugated metal facing with aluminum-clad windows. On the upper floors of the building, the window frames will be repaired and retrofitted with new, insulated sash-kits. The terra cotta and brick will be cleaned and pointed. The Philadelphia fire tower on the North 13th Street façade will no longer be used, but the proposal calls for fixed, half-glazed doors on it. At the first floor, the historic easternmost entrance that led to the upper floors remains. All other bays have been altered. The plans call for removing the non-historic metal storefronts, signage and lighting. The paint on the cornice and pilasters will be removed. The Arch Street façade will receive two new doors, one leading to the first floor commercial space and one leading to the upper floors. The historic entrance will act as the second means of egress as required by the fire code, since the old fire stair on North 13th Street will now be blocked off. The two new entrances have double-leaf, fully-glazed doors with transoms. The North 13th Street elevation also has one entrance with a similar design leading to the commercial space. All of

as required by the fire code, since the old fire stair on North 13th Street will now be blocked off. The two new entrances have double-leaf, fully-glazed doors with transoms. The North 13th Street elevation also has one entrance with a similar design leading to the commercial space. All of the other bays on the first floor have a storefront configuration based on an historic photograph of July 1914. The historic storefront windows had a single plate glass window topped by operable three-light transoms with the middle window wider than the side ones as at the upper windows. The proposed storefront windows have tripartite windows topped by three-light transoms. On the south elevation, the proposal calls for cleaning the brick, including the removal of painted signage, and rehabilitating the steel windows. 15 John Tucker, the architect, Craig Below and Robert Powers, the consultant, attended the meeting. Mr. Wilds inquired if the historic fabric of the Arch Street door exists. Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that the historic fabric does not exist at the first floor and the developer proposes to replicate the historic using a similar material. His design of two new doors along Arch Street is predicated on the need for two exits; the original door would only be used as a fire exit. In order to preclude the loss of square footage in the commercial space, the center door would be re-located to the side. Mr. Sklaroff commented that the proposed first floor alterations are consistent with the rest of the building. Ms. Spina pointed out that original storefronts consisted of a tripartite transom, but a single storefront window. Mr. Tucker responded that economics dictated the change in the window configuration. Mr. Wilds and Mr. Sugrue asked if the historic storefront windows could be reinstalled and the architect then showed a revised drawing demonstrating the historic configuration. Commission members concluded that research for a determination of the color for the spandrels and cornice should be pursued. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised proposal, with sloped screen walls on the rooftop decks and research for a determination of the color for the spandrels and cornice, with the staff to review details. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 537 Queen Street. Owner: Maksym Szpilczck Applicant: Maksym Szpilczck History: c. 1825; third story and cornice added c. 1855, demolished and rebuilt 2004 Project: Roof deck and

determination of the color for the spandrels and cornice, with the staff to review details. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 537 Queen Street. Owner: Maksym Szpilczck Applicant: Maksym Szpilczck History: c. 1825; third story and cornice added c. 1855, demolished and rebuilt 2004 Project: Roof deck and penthouse addition. The Architectural Committee recommended approval, with staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property.]; Standard 10 [New additions and related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired]; and the Roofs 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 features.]. The applicant proposes to construct a roof deck and penthouse addition. The Department of Licenses and Inspections declared the original rowhouse imminently dangerous in 2003 and it was demolished with staff approval. In 2004, the owner rebuilt a close replica of the original rowhouse on the lot. The Commission approved a third floor addition to this property at its February 2005 meeting. The proposed roof dock and penthouse addition is a scaled down version of the addition approved by the Commission at its February 2005 meeting. The earlier design proposed a cubic, full-width penthouse addition with a setback from the front facade. The new design would be an 8'5" by 3'8" addition opening onto a 30'3" by 16" roof deck. The deck would have a 7' setback from the front façade and 2' from the back facade. 16 Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Sugrue seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1741 Spring Garden Street. Owner: George and Marie Koulas Applicant: George & Marie Koulas History: c.1878, Second Empire rowhouse - contributing to Spring Garden Historic District Project: Rebuilding of second floor roof dock and construction of new third floor roof deck. The Architectural Committee recommended approval, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property.]; Standard 10 [New additions and related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential

Committee recommended approval, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property.]; Standard 10 [New additions and related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired]; and Roofs 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 features.]. This property is located in the middle of the 1700 block of Spring Garden Street. The row originally extended to the corner of 17th Street, and has been subsequently shortened. Currently, 1741 is second in from the end of the row. The rear of the property faces Brandywine Street, which in this block is an alley with only backyards and garages facing it. The proposed work would be located on the property's rear ell facing Brandywine Street. The proposed two decks would both be located on the rear ell of the property. The deck on the second floor would replace an existing one, which appears to have been in place at the time of designation. This second floor deck would measure 9' by 10' with a 36" wood picket railing. It would have a setback from the rear wall and rest equidistant from the sides of the building and flush with the third floor wall. The proposed new third floor deck would be accessed by an existing door at the rear of the mansard and measure 11'4" by 12' 3" with a 36" wood picket railing. This third floor deck would have a considerable setback from the rear wall of the ell and rest flush with the west parapet wall. Note: L & I Code may require railings 42" in height. Applicant should confirm this measurement with code regulations. Commission members emphasized that the proposed railing should be code compliant. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 17 1424-26 Chestnut Street, Owner: Sunny Spring LLC Applicant: CVS Pharmacy History: Built 1904, Arts & Crafts Commercial, William L. Price architect Project: New flat wall mounted sign The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the proposal, pursuant to Standard 2 [The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.

1424-26 Chestnut Street, Owner: Sunny Spring LLC Applicant: CVS Pharmacy History: Built 1904, Arts & Crafts Commercial, William L. Price architect Project: New flat wall mounted sign The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the proposal, pursuant to Standard 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 Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property.]. This property is located in the Chestnut Street commercial corridor and directly across from an empty lot, currently used for parking. Prominent Philadelphia architect William Price, one of the best known practitioners of the Arts & Crafts movement in the region, designed the building. Originally constructed in 1904 as the Jacob Reed's Sons men clothing store, this building was among the first reinforce concrete structures for public use in Philadelphia. It is also one of the most accomplished and best preserved examples of the Arts & Crafts in center city. The applicant proposes to install a 4'9" by 20" sign on the entablature that delineates the ground from the upper floors. This sign would have the CVS logo on it. Currently, the tenant has four signs on the façade of the building. There are two bronze plaques with the CVS logo on the pilasters at either end of the façade. These plaques replaced two identical signs with the Jacob Reed's Sons logo that were of the same dimensions, material and location. There is a CVS Pharmacy sign over the entrance, which mimics the original, Jacob Reed's sign and a CVS banner hangs from the left balcony. In addition, the front alcove has a stained-glass fanlight with the CVS logo visible from the sidewalk. Mr. Danta presented the application. John Ryan, Esq. and Susan Mariano attended the meeting. Mr. Ryan expressed his disagreement with the Architectural Committee's recommendation. He believes that the property requires more signage to give it presence to attract pedestrians. Mr. Ryan said that his client believes that signs in the window are more disruptive and that the landlord will not approve such signs. He contended that that proposed signage does not violate the Standards and upon the sign's removal, the masonry would be repaired. Mr. Sugrue pointed out that signs currently exist and stressed

client believes that signs in the window are more disruptive and that the landlord will not approve such signs. He contended that that proposed signage does not violate the Standards and upon the sign's removal, the masonry would be repaired. Mr. Sugrue pointed out that signs currently exist and stressed that the applicant has not made the case, that a backlit sign is vital to the store. Commission members believe that there is adequate signage at this location. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 18 2100 block of Fairmount Avenue, Eastern State Penitentiary. Owner: City of Philadelphia Applicant: Friends of Eastern State Penitentiary Park, Daniel J. Collins History: undeveloped green space adjacent to Eastern State Penitentiary's perimeter wall Project: Installation of new playground. The Architectural Committee recommended approval in concept, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or new construction will not destroy historic features and spatial relationships that characterize a property.]; and Standard 10 [New additions and related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired] The applicant proposes the approval in concept of the installation of a new playground on undeveloped green space at the SE corner of Brown and North 22nd Streets. The entire block is owned by the City of Philadelphia. The penitentiary complex that occupies this block predates the expansion of Thomas Holme's grid; this open space is a direct result of the development northward of the city. The proposed playground would contain a children's playground area encircled by a 4' high planted fence screen, which would rise to 12' in height at the corner of Brown and North 22nd Streets. The enclosed area would have a toddler play area, water play, small children's ride and a play structure. This, in turn, would be surrounded by various trees and planting circles. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Huff seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 2120 Green Street History: built 1845 Owner: Marjorie Samoff Applicant: John Bushnell, architect PROPOSAL: Rear addition and deck The Architectural Committee unanimously recommended approval. This proposal calls for rebuilding much of this row house that suffered a fire. In particular, the applicant would like to alter the now largely demolished rear

Green Street History: built 1845 Owner: Marjorie Samoff Applicant: John Bushnell, architect PROPOSAL: Rear addition and deck The Architectural Committee unanimously recommended approval. This proposal calls for rebuilding much of this row house that suffered a fire. In particular, the applicant would like to alter the now largely demolished rear ell to extend the full width of the lot to allow for a larger kitchen. The rear addition would rise three stories along the line, removing the historic side yard. These four foot wide side yards built in pairs have historically provided an eight foot wide court that gives light to the windows along the sides of row houses. The new rear ell would have visibility only from Wilcox Street which is a service alley. Mr. Baron presented the proposal. Marjorie Samoff, the owner, and John Bushnell, the architect, attended the meeting. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 19 3905 Spruce Street History: Joseph Potts Mansion, built 1850, altered 1876, architect Wilson Brothers Applicant: Jim Rowe, Agoos Lovera, architects Owner: University of Pennsylvania PROPOSAL: Replace front door The Architectural Committee unanimously recommended approval, provided the doors fit the original opening, an astragai is added, the side panels are simplified, and the frame approximates the original, with staff to review details, 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.]. This proposal calls for removing a non-original front door and replacing it with a door more in keeping with the architecture of the building. It bases the new single-leaf door on the double-leaf interior vestibule door. Mr. Baron explained the proposal and noted the receipt of revised drawings to reflect the Committee's recommendation. Jim Rowe, the architect, attended the meeting. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Sugrue recused and Mr. Sklaroff abstained. 240 Spruce Street History: built c. 1780 Owner/Applicant: Constance Kirker PROPOSAL: Roof deck on visible rear ell The Architectural Committee unanimously recommended approval, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials,

with 7 votes. Mr. Sugrue recused and Mr. Sklaroff abstained. 240 Spruce Street History: built c. 1780 Owner/Applicant: Constance Kirker PROPOSAL: Roof deck on visible rear ell The Architectural Committee unanimously recommended approval, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property. The new work 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 installing a deck on a visible rear roof. The applicant will cut down a window into a door and install a metal railing. Mr. Baron presented the proposal. Mr. Wilds inquired about the loss of historic fabric that would occur as a result of the enlargement of a window to a door. Mr. James thought that the removed brick should be retained on the property. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion, which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Wilds dissented. 20 2019 Pine Street History: c.1840 Owner: Salmi Simmons Applicant: Martin Rosenblum, R.A., and Associates PROPOSAL: Rear additions and alterations The Architectural Committee unanimously recommended approval of the proposal including: 1. the demolition and rebuilding of the rear one story brick addition with modified windows and doors; 2. the deck without a skirt, subject to a simplification of the deck rail to retain the existing height, but remove every other picket to create a more open design; 3. the first floor side yard addition, provided it is shortened approximately eight inches to avoid touching the side bay. It made the recommendations pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property. The new work 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 alterations to the rear of a row house which will have visibility from a service alley. The work includes a first floor addition set into the piazza between the rear ell and the wall of the neighboring house. The roof of this addition will intersect the side of a bay. A second

the rear of a row house which will have visibility from a service alley. The work includes a first floor addition set into the piazza between the rear ell and the wall of the neighboring house. The roof of this addition will intersect the side of a bay. A second greenhouse-like addition will sit on the second floor level at the back of the property. A new door will be cut into a rear addition and several window and door openings will be partially or entirely closed with a panel or shutter design. An existing rear deck will be altered with a new, more open railing. Mr. Baron explained the proposal and noted the receipt of revised drawings which reflect the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1708 Pine Street History: built c. 1840 Owner: Green Park Property Applicant: Donald Ventresca PROPOSAL: Roof deck on rear structure The Architectural Committee unanimously recommended approval, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property. The new work 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 application involves building a deck on the rear ell and an addition facing a service alley. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Rivera 21 seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 20-22 S. Front Street History: 20th century, two-story structure Owner: Revolution Development Group Applicant: Bill Harkins PROPOSAL: Demolish 2-story structure; construct 7-story, multi-unit building The Architectural Committee unanimously recommended denial, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property. The new work 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.] and Standard 10 [New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.] This proposal calls for the demolition of an existing non-contributing

environment.] and Standard 10 [New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.] This proposal calls for the demolition of an existing non-contributing structure and the construction of an eight-story residential structure facing on both Front and Letitia Streets. The glass and red brick structure is of a very large scale. It sits on a brick base with no windows lower than six and a half feet above the side walk. The Front Street façade has a tall inset stair and a large garage opening. It has no pedestrian scaled windows or openings along the street. The façade on Letitia Street turns its back on this important streetscape. Half of the façade features a nearly blank brick wall with over-scale openings. The building has an internal courtyard. Mr. Baron explained the proposed project and noted the receipt of a letter of opposition from a Letitia Street neighbor. Mr. Wilds asked for clarification of how the Standards apply as a basis for the denial of the proposal. Mr. Baron responded that the proposed alterations are within a district and will have an impact on the streetscape. Mark Kaplan, the developer, and Hans Stein, the architect, attended the meeting. Mr. Stein questioned the level of scrutiny for the demolition of a non-contributing building and the Commission's subsequent new development. He presented a revised drawing. John Gallery, Preservation Alliance, stressed that he is on the record as asking for clarification of the demolition of non-contributing buildings. He believes that a case that exists for review and comment only following the demolition of a non-contributing building. Mr. Tyler responded that the review and comment pertains only to a vacant lot at the time of designation. Mr. Gallery also noted that the revised design does not address the concerns of the Committee. He believes that Front Street is a street with a skyline of 4-story buildings and that the proposed building is out of scale with the character of Old City. He thinks an appropriate design is possible for this location; however, this submission is not. Mr. Gallery pointed out that even though the Letitia Street entrance is improved, the design should still be re-addressed. Finally, the predominantly glass façade is not in character with the historic context

of Old City. He thinks an appropriate design is possible for this location; however, this submission is not. Mr. Gallery pointed out that even though the Letitia Street entrance is improved, the design should still be re-addressed. Finally, the predominantly glass façade is not in character with the historic context of the district.. 22 [HANDWRITTEN NOTES: Located in top right corner: curved bracket marking with small dots Located on right margin at three points down the page: three curved bracket marks (one near top third, one near middle, one near bottom third)] Mr. Stein pointed out that the non-contributing building is on a separate parcel and that 85% of the property is vacant. He noted that the proposal has been re-designed, with the Front Street 1st floor windows lowered to a pedestrian scale, the internal ramp for the garage setback 20 feet, and the glass curtain wall redesigned. The Letitia Street entrance has been moved to the north with a view to the garden area and windows added to the stair tower. He observed that, although the proposed structure is higher than the nearby buildings, Front Street is a commercial area and that the neighborhood consists of varying heights of buildings. Mr. Sklaroff said that the scale of the proposed building's effect on the adjoining building is a vital issue. Mr. Sugrue noted that the Old City Civic Association has not reviewed the revised plans. Mr. Tissian inquired if the Preservation Alliance would accept the height if the design changed. Gie Lim, the owner of 8-10 Letitia Street, expressed his opposition to the current design. He said that he supports construction on the site; however, he thought that the proposed design is out of scale with the streetscape. He believes that the massing will kill the neighborhood. Mr. Kaplin informed the Commission that the Planning Commission suggested that a public courtyard space be considered, although the Old City Civic Association objects to this public space. He stressed that reducing the size of the construction would place a burden on the project. Mr. Sklaroff concluded that as a practical matter, the proposal has a possible trade-off which could benefit all parties. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the demolition and the new construction as revised. Mr. Huff seconded the motion, which carried with 5 votes. Mr. Sugrue, Mr. Tissian, Mr. Rivera and Mr. Sklaroff opposed the motion. 2320 Spruce Street

proposal has a possible trade-off which could benefit all parties. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the demolition and the new construction as revised. Mr. Huff seconded the motion, which carried with 5 votes. Mr. Sugrue, Mr. Tissian, Mr. Rivera and Mr. Sklaroff opposed the motion. 2320 Spruce Street History: built c. 1870 Owners: Scott and Margie Kasner Applicant: Peter Miller, Towers and Miller Architects PROPOSAL: Demolish 1-story rear addition; construct 1-story rear addition The Architectural Committee unanimously recommended approval, pursuant to Standard 9 [New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property. The new work 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 involves the demolition of a small shed addition at the visible rear of the property and its replacement with a larger one story addition. The addition will be somewhat taller and cut into the existing rear bay. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 23 Mr. Sklaroff passed the gavel to Mr. Wilds. THE REPORT of the Financial Hardship Committee, 22 March 2005 Scott Wilds, Chair Upon a review of the several schemes the Committee found that Chestnut Hill Academy has shown a financial hardship that warrants demolition of the Kline, Kingsley and Woodward buildings, and the preservation of the Commons Building, with additions, as presented in Option 6, a new approach for the school's master plan. Mr. Wilds briefly summarized the meeting of the Committee. He noted that the school has revised it plans to retain the Commons Building but to demolish the Kline, Kingsley, and Woodward buildings. Mr. Sugrue commented on the revised proposal, which he believes is a significant improvement. Mr. Rivera added that, after a site visit, he concluded that option 5 would not work and that the revised proposal is more appropriate. Mr. Huff remarked with the revised proposal there is a balance between preservation and environmental issues, with both interests being met. In response to Mr. Rivera's query about the open space issue, it was noted that the Chestnut Hill Academy's Board will meet in May. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Huff seconded the motion,

balance between preservation and environmental issues, with both interests being met. In response to Mr. Rivera's query about the open space issue, it was noted that the Chestnut Hill Academy's Board will meet in May. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Huff seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 4301 Main Street R. Talvacchia, Owner Patty Peristein, Applicant DATE: c. 1845 PROPOSAL: Legalize vinyl windows The Architectural Committee recommended denial pursuant to Standard 6. Mr. Baron presented the application, which proposes legalizing one-over-one vinyl windows installed without a permit. The windows were installed several years ago, but did not come to the Commission's attention until very recently when a building inspector visited the site for other reasons. The building originally had wood two-over-two windows. Amy Talvacchia, one of the building owners, stated that the vinyl windows were installed by the previous owner before she purchased the building in 1994. Ms. Talvacchia offered to replace the vinyl windows several at a time over time. Commission members asked for a time line for the replacement of the historic windows. Ms. Talvacchia said that she would commit to replacing 4 windows a year. Mr. James asked that it be clarified that the approval of the legalization of the vinyl windows is predicated on the basis that the windows were installed by the previous owner. 24 [HANDWRITTEN NOTES: Located in the upper right corner of the page: a curved bracket or parenthesis mark "(" Located in the right margin, middle of page: a curved bracket or parenthesis mark "(" Located in the right margin, lower portion of page: a curved bracket or parenthesis mark "("] Ms. Murray made a motion to approve the legalization. Mr. Huff seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. THE REPORT of the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, March 2005 Mr. Tyler asked if members of the Commission had any questions about the report. They had none. HARRY A. MEMORIAL FUND Mr. Tissian made a motion to approve the $40.07 expenditure for lunches for the Architectural Committee. Ms. Murray seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ms. Murray made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Huff seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diarie M. Hughes Executive Secretary 25 [HANDWRITTEN NOTES: 1. "Respectfully submitted," - handwritten in cursive script above the typed signature line, located in the center-right portion

unanimously. Ms. Murray made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Huff seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diarie M. Hughes Executive Secretary 25 [HANDWRITTEN NOTES: 1. "Respectfully submitted," - handwritten in cursive script above the typed signature line, located in the center-right portion of the page 2. Signature in cursive script on the line below "Respectfully submitted," - appears to read "Diarie M. Hughes" or similar] [Page appears to be blank or nearly blank with minimal visible text] [HANDWRITTEN NOTES: Three curved parenthesis marks "(" visible on the right side of the page at approximately the top, middle, and bottom positions. A small mark or character visible near the center of the page.]