MINUTES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE MEETING, 20 October 1966 Present: Mr. George K. Trautwein, Chairman Mr. John F. Lloyd for the Redevelopment Authority Mr. Erling H. Pedersen, for Old Philadelphia Development Corp. Dr. Margaret B. Tinkcom, Historian Mrs. Charles J. Maurer, Secretary SUBMISSIONS None RESUBMISSIONS 135 Pine Street. Conditional approval is given with the understanding that a drawing of the door and doorway, as the architect proposes to assemble it, be submitted. Interior work may begin, but nothing may be done on the exterior until the drawing of the doorway has been approved. 125 Lombard Street. Approved 127 Lombard Street. Approved. In both cases, however, profiles of all moldings are required. Interior work only until these are approved. "Shiloh Place",11th to 12th; Lombard to Rodman Streets. Nineteen certified buildings are involved. It is recommended that where there is evidence of shutters having existed, there be replaced at the first floor level. All shutters must be operable. Profiles of all door, window and shutter moldings are required. The elevation drawings are in all other aspects approved. PLAQUES REQUESTED 231 Spruce Street. Approval of this stands upon word from Mr. Lloyd, still pending. 318 S. American Street. Approved 235 S. Camac Street. It was resolved that a plaque is not to be authorized because changes to the fabric, necessary to the operation of the Sketch Club, have been made and no intention to fully restore this building is intended. It was recommended that an Award of Merit be given to the Club. 141-143 N. Fourth Street. It was resolved that the rehabilitation of this commercial building be recognized by an Award of Merit. To be worthy of a plaque, it would be necessary to return the building to its original domestic appearance, which would not be compatible with the need of the firm which owns it. Masonic Temple, 1 North Broad Street. Approved. 21 East Penn Street. It is recognized that this is a house in transition, representing an interesting architectural period in Germantown's history, having a combination of two distinct styles. Since the building is not to be fully restored to its original state, it is recommended that an Award of Merit be given to the owner in recognition of the excellent state in which the building is maintained. [HANDWRITTEN NOTES: Top right corner: "OK- EH7 11-29.66" (appears to be initials and a date, handwritten)] Architectural Committee Meeting 10.20.66 Page 2
its original state, it is recommended that an Award of Merit be given to the owner in recognition of the excellent state in which the building is maintained. [HANDWRITTEN NOTES: Top right corner: "OK- EH7 11-29.66" (appears to be initials and a date, handwritten)] Architectural Committee Meeting 10.20.66 Page 2 PROBLEMS 213 S. Sartain Street: A letter from the Deputy Commissioner of L&I which enclosed a copy of the attorney's report was read. It was recommended that the Commission stand upon its letter of April 1964, saying that unauthorized alterations to the street facade cannot be approved. Redevelopment Authority, letter from Mr. Altart, regarding the program for re- habilitation with limited funds. It was recommended that in lieu of a drawing, presentation be made by a head-on photograph of the property, together with a list of changes proposed. It was further agreed that any change to the exterior of a certified house, to the cornice, dormers, door or doorway, window sash, etc, must be correctly executed; and that no further change in the original fabric be allowed. 525 Pine Street. The Historical Commission is informed that this is an ex- ample of the kind of presentation mentioned above. The contractor asks whether to install shutters or not, and if so, plans to repair those existing on the rear of the building. It is recommended that no shutters be hung unless they are correct, and then only if the Redevelopment Authority requires them at this time. 121 Lombard Street. It was reported that the developer telephoned in reply to a letter from the Commission regarding the windows and their frame. He claims the present frames are original. The Architectural Committee believes this may be true since the survey states that the original Venetian window was removed and two windows installed in 1892. The developer, therefore, has a choice of restoring to that period, which entails little change except to replace the correct four over four glass and shutters of the 1892 period of or rebuilding the front to restore the 1821 facade. The present door appears to be original. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at five o'clock. Respectfully submitted George K. Trautwein Chairman GKT:mrm