Committee on Historic Designation — Nov 30, 2022

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 1 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 30 NOVEMBER 2022, 9:30 A.M. REMOTE MEETING ON ZOOM EMILY COOPERMAN, CHAIR CALL TO ORDER START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:00:00 The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. The following Committee members joined her: Committee Member Present Absent Comment Emily Cooperman, Ph.D., chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen, Ph.D. X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy, Ph.D. X The meeting was held remotely via Zoom video and audio-conferencing software. The following staff members were present: Jon Farnham, Executive Director Kim Chantry, Historic Preservation Planner III Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner III Shannon Garrison, Historic Preservation Planner II Heather Hendrickson, Historic Preservation Planner I Allyson Mehley, Historic Preservation Planner II Ted Maust, Historic Preservation Planner I Alex Till, Historic Preservation Planner I The following persons attended the online meeting: David Traub, Save Our Sites Meeka Outlaw Raymond Rola John Cacciamani Charlie Warre Eloise Young Jay Farrell Robert Careless, Esq. Celeste Morello Tim Kerner, CRCA Brenda Bailey Oscar Beisert Sean Whalen, Esq., Vintage Law Catherine Brzozowski COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 2 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Leah Silverstein Michael Phillips, Esq., Klehr Harrison Dennis Carlisle Wale Mabogunje, Parkway Lawrence McEwen Rocco Quagliariello Christopher Daniels E. Hammel Kevin McMahon John Millon Deborah Gary, SPPAAA Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance Karen Hammel Joseph Pagano Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance Conor Larkin, Esq. Matthew McClure, Esq., Ballard Spahr Mark Gonzalez Joyce Lenhardt Melissa Brown Marian Ciaccia Brian Berson, Parkway Corporation Leannett Hill Brody Hale Colleen Hammel Celeste Morello Brenda Bailey Steve Izen Meredith Trego, Esq., Ballard Spahr Bonita Veltronte AGENDA ADDRESS: 647-59 N 42ND ST Name of Resource: Mount Olivet Tabernacle Baptist Church Review: Designation Property Owner: Mount Olivet Tabernacle Baptist Church Nominator: University City Historical Society Staff Contact: Heather Hendrickson, heather.hendrickson@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the Mount Olivet Tabernacle Baptist Church building at 647-59 N. 42nd Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the two-and-a-half story Gothic Revival church satisfies Criteria for Designation A, B, and J. The nomination contends that Mount Olivet Tabernacle Baptist Church (MOTBC), built by the hands of its African American congregants in 1923, has significant character as part of the development of the African American community in West Philadelphia during the

Gothic Revival church satisfies Criteria for Designation A, B, and J. The nomination contends that Mount Olivet Tabernacle Baptist Church (MOTBC), built by the hands of its African American congregants in 1923, has significant character as part of the development of the African American community in West Philadelphia during the early twentieth century, fulfilling Criteria for Designation A and J. The nomination also argues that MOTBC satisfies Criterion for Designation B through its association with both civil rights activism and the COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 3 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Great Migration, which was characterized by the mass relocation of millions of migrants from the South to the North from 1910-1970. Rev. Marshall L. Shepard, famed civil rights activist and close colleague to Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., pastored MOTBC from 1926 until his death in 1967. Only the church building is included in this nomination. The surrounding parking lots and senior housing complex are excluded from the proposed boundary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the church building at 647-59 N. 42nd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, B, and J, and should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, with an amended period of significance to end in 1967 with the passing of Rev. Marshall L. Shepard. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:08:50 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Hendrickson presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • No one represented the nominator. • Brenda Bailey represented the church. DISCUSSION: • Ms. Milroy stated that the church building is a worthy candidate for historic designation. She stated that the nomination was thoroughly researched. She highlighted that the church was built by its parishioners. • Ms. Cooperman suggested that the nomination would have benefited from a footnote that cited sources for the information about the Great Migration. • Ms. Barucco agreed with the staff recommendation to limit the period of significance from 1923 until 1967. Ms. Barucco expressed support for designating a building that was a result of the Great Migration, an aspect that may not be well-represented on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. o Ms. Cooperman agreed concerning the amended period of significance and the comments made about the Great Migration and its significance for this designation. • Ms. Miller expressed support for the designation. She stated that the nomination highlighted the power of the

well-represented on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. o Ms. Cooperman agreed concerning the amended period of significance and the comments made about the Great Migration and its significance for this designation. • Ms. Miller expressed support for the designation. She stated that the nomination highlighted the power of the church and the local community to provide a place for displaced migrants, and demonstrated the power of buildings in creating place, community, and safe spaces. • Ms. Milroy stated that use of initials “MLK” in the nomination is disrespectful and suggested that Dr. King’s full name should be written out. • Ms. Bailey stated that she is a member of the Church and that the Church is in support of the historic designation. PUBLIC COMMENT: • None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The period of significance should be amended to end in 1967 with the passing of Rev. Marshall L. Shepard. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 4 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION • Only the church building is included in this nomination. The surrounding parking lots and senior housing complex are excluded from the proposed boundary. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • Mount Olivet Tabernacle Baptist Church has significant character as part of the development of the African American community in West Philadelphia during the twentieth century, fulfilling Criteria for Designation A and J. • Mount Olivet Tabernacle Baptist Church is associated with both civil rights activism through the work of Rev. Marshall L. Shepard and his congregants, and the Great Migration in Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion for Designation B. • The period of significance should be amended to span 1923 to 1967, ending with the passing of Rev. Marshall L. Shepard. This constitutes a shorter period of significance than proposed in the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the church building at 647-59 N. 42nd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, B, and J and should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, with a period of significance ending in 1967. ITEM: 647-59 N 42nd St MOTION: Designate, Criteria A, B, and J MOVED BY: Laverty SECONDED BY: Miller VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty

Register of Historic Places, with a period of significance ending in 1967. ITEM: 647-59 N 42nd St MOTION: Designate, Criteria A, B, and J MOVED BY: Laverty SECONDED BY: Miller VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 6 ADDRESS: 1722-24 CHESTNUT ST Name of Resource: Peck & Peck Store Review: Designation Property Owner: SG National LLC Nominator: Center City Residents Association Staff Contact: Alex Till, alexander.till@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1722-24 Chestnut Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. A three-story masonry commercial building known as the Peck & Peck Store Building, built in 1929 in the Art Deco style and designed by the architecture firm of Silverman & Levy, stands on the property. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 5 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION The nomination contends that the Peck & Peck Store Building satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E. It argues that the building reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style and embodies many of the distinguishing characteristics of the Art Deco architectural style as seen on attached commercial buildings, satisfying Criteria C & D. The nomination also argues that the Silverman & Levy architecture firm, designers of the building, had a significant influence on the development of Art Deco and other modernist styles of architecture in the city of Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1722-24 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E and should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:18:10 PRESENTERS: • Mr. Till presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Tim Kerner represented the nominator. • No one represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Mr. Kerner offered support for the nomination on behalf of the Center City Residents Association. He praised the building’s architectural style and expressed hope that the Committee would support the nomination. He highlighted a period drawing of the building that was included in the nomination. • Ms. Cooperman asked if there was a representative of the property owner present at the meeting. o Mr. Farnham responded that the staff has not had contact with

that the Committee would support the nomination. He highlighted a period drawing of the building that was included in the nomination. • Ms. Cooperman asked if there was a representative of the property owner present at the meeting. o Mr. Farnham responded that the staff has not had contact with the property owner, but that the required notice letters were mailed to the owner and to the building. • Ms. Milroy asked for clarification on the period of significance and questioned extending it to coincide with the lifespan of the Peck & Peck Company. o Ms. Cooperman responded that the nomination highlights design significance, but not necessarily the significance of the Peck & Peck Company. She questioned whether the Committee thought that the nomination also makes a case for the significance of the company. o Ms. Milroy asked if there was a connection between the Art Deco style and clothing stores. She emphasized that this connection would need to be made to support an argument for expanding the period of significance to cover Peck & Peck. o Ms. Cooperman added that the Committee would further need to see evidence of Peck & Peck’s history among other similar companies. She added that this importance was only suggested in the nomination, but not fully documented. o Ms. Barucco agreed and offered that it was not the intent of the nomination to argue for the significance of Peck & Peck. She added that the nomination focused on the importance of the architecture and design. o Ms. Cooperman added that the architecture dates to 1929, supporting the period of significance listed in the nomination. • Mr. Laverty stated that the building and its architectural style stands on its own and would not recommend changing the period of significance. o Mr. Cohen agreed. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 6 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION o Ms. Cooperman added that it would be nice to make a connection between the Art Deco style and women’s clothing and fashion history, but that it does not apply to this nomination as written. • Ms. Cooperman posed a question about the importance of the Silverman & Levy architectural firm. She wondered whether the firm was important enough to qualify under Criterion E. o Mr. Cohen commented that reputation of architects is hard to define, and the focus should be on the building. o Ms. Cooperman clarified that she wanted

about the importance of the Silverman & Levy architectural firm. She wondered whether the firm was important enough to qualify under Criterion E. o Mr. Cohen commented that reputation of architects is hard to define, and the focus should be on the building. o Ms. Cooperman clarified that she wanted to know if Criterion E was appropriately used in the nomination. o Mr. Cohen added the Silverman & Levy firm was influential in affecting the design of commercial buildings even without a famous reputation and they were very “au courant” in their use of Modernist designs. o Mr. Laverty added that an architect does not need to be a household name to qualify for Criterion E and thinks the nomination supports this concept. He added that he would like to see future research focused on the architecture of women’s fashion businesses. • Ms. Milroy recommended that nominations be better copyedited and noted that the word “Fairmount” was misspelled twice. PUBLIC COMMENT: • David Traub, representing Save Our Sites, supported the nomination and highlighted the quality of the buildings along Chestnut Street. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The building is an excellent example of Art Deco commercial architecture in Philadelphia. • The Silverman & Levy architecture firm did have a significant influence on Art Deco architectural design in the city of Philadelphia. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The building reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style and embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, the Art Deco style, satisfying Criteria C and D. • The Silverman & Levy architecture firm had a significant influence on the development of Art Deco and other modernist styles of architecture in Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion E. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1722-24 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and E and should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 7 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ITEM: 1722-24 Chestnut St MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, and E MOVED BY: Milroy SECONDED BY: Barucco VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X

NOVEMBER 2022 7 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ITEM: 1722-24 Chestnut St MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, and E MOVED BY: Milroy SECONDED BY: Barucco VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 6 ADDRESS: 1700-06 RACE ST Name of Resource: James McGinnis Co. Building/Arthur Mallie Residence/Ellison Apartments Review: Designation Property Owner: PD Investments LP Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1700-06 Race Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the group of brick buildings satisfies Criteria for Designation C and D. According to the nomination, the James McGinnis Company Building and Arthur Mallie Residence at 1700-02 Race Street, built in 1902, and the Ellison Apartments at 1706 Race Street, built in 1909, exemplify the Georgian Revival style of architecture, a more formal version of the Colonial Revival mode that became dominant in urban residential construction in Philadelphia and other American cities beginning around 1895. The four-story building at 1704 Race Street is included in the parcel proposed for designation. However, this circa 1850, Italianate-style rowhouse has been subject to alterations that have largely covered the historic front facade and removed several significant original features. For this reason, and because it significantly predates the period when the Georgian Revival style became dominant, for the purposes of this nomination under Criteria C and D, 1704 Race Street is considered non-contributing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1700-06 Race Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C and D, with the building formerly known as 1704 Race Street classified as non-contributing. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:35:07 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Patrick Grossi represented the nominator. • Attorney Sean Whalen and architect Raymond Rola represented the property owner. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 8 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION DISCUSSION: • Mr. Grossi summarized the historic significance of the property as outlined in the nomination. He stated that these buildings are rare survivors of urban renewal. • Mr. Whalen stated that the nomination is misguided and attempts to assign significance that does not exist. He stated that the buildings are “Georgian Revival knock-offs" similar to

historic significance of the property as outlined in the nomination. He stated that these buildings are rare survivors of urban renewal. • Mr. Whalen stated that the nomination is misguided and attempts to assign significance that does not exist. He stated that the buildings are “Georgian Revival knock-offs" similar to modern-day McMansions that have no historic significance associated with architectural style, historical individuals, or events of importance. He noted that the architect is unknown, and the builder is of no significance. He stated that the individuals named in the nomination have no significance other than having lived 100 years ago and having conducted business. He concluded that it would be inappropriate to designate this property as historic. • Mr. Rola outlined reasons why the buildings are not significant for their architectural style. He stated that 1706 Race Street has incorrect windows and window proportions for the Georgian Revival style. He stated that the Georgian Revival style is not specific to this era, but rather is still being used today. He stated that the original brick façade of 1706 Race Street, much like that of 1704 Race Street, has been covered over with stucco to emulate Pompeian brick. Mr. Rola described alterations made to 1700-02 Race Street, including at the front entrance. He stated that stucco has been applied over limestone and that it would be very difficult to restore the masonry. He opined that the quality of workmanship is poor. He noted that this location is not within a historic district, and therefore any individual designation should be exemplary, not boilerplate architecture. • Mr. Cohen commented that the building at 1700-02 Race Street is more eclectic than simply a Georgian Revival building. He opined that Charles Denny may have designed the building. He remarked that the buildings are vestiges of the area before the Parkway changed everything. • Ms. Milroy stated that trying to pigeonhole a style by using modern-day style books does a disservice to the design of the building. She stated that these buildings are significant as survivors in an area of Philadelphia which was systematically torn down to make way for the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. • Ms. Cooperman stated that the buildings are significant as satisfying Criteria for Designation C and D. o Ms. Milroy agreed, noting that the nomination makes no claims for significance based on individuals who lived or worked here, so the argument that

to make way for the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. • Ms. Cooperman stated that the buildings are significant as satisfying Criteria for Designation C and D. o Ms. Milroy agreed, noting that the nomination makes no claims for significance based on individuals who lived or worked here, so the argument that the individuals are not significant is not relevant. • Ms. Milroy noted an error in the nomination and stated that Philadelphia did not become an archdiocese until 10 years after the Cathedral was built. PUBLIC COMMENT: • David Traub, representing Save Our Sites, commented in support of the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The buildings at 1700-02, 1704, and 1706 Race Street were constructed separately but have since been consolidated into one parcel, being 1700-06 Race Street. • The nomination classifies the building formerly known as 1704 Race Street as non- contributing. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 9 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION • 1700-02 Race Street and 1706 Race Street exemplify an eclectic Georgian Revival style of architecture which became dominant in urban residential construction in Philadelphia and other American cities beginning around 1895, satisfying Criteria C and D. • The nomination makes no argument for significance based on individuals who designed, built, lived in, or worked in these buildings. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1700-06 Race Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C and D and should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. ITEM: 1700-06 Race St MOTION: Designate, Criteria C and D MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Miller VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 6 ADDRESS: 1424-26 CHESTNUT ST Name of Resource: Jacob Reed’s Sons’ Store, Main Sales Floor Review: Reconsider Designation on Remand Property Owner: Sunny Spring LLC Appellant: Michael Phillips, Esq., Klehr Harrison Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov OVERVIEW: The Historical Commission designated the first-floor interior of the building at 1424- 26 Chestnut Street, historically known as the Main Sales Floor of the Jacob Reed’s Sons’ Store, on 13 May 2022. The owner of the property appealed the interior designation to the Court

Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov OVERVIEW: The Historical Commission designated the first-floor interior of the building at 1424- 26 Chestnut Street, historically known as the Main Sales Floor of the Jacob Reed’s Sons’ Store, on 13 May 2022. The owner of the property appealed the interior designation to the Court of Common Pleas, which has remanded the matter to the Historical Commission for reconsideration. That reconsideration will take place at the meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation on 30 November 2022 and the meeting of the Historical Commission on 13 January 2023. The Historical Commission designated the exterior of the building in 1966. During its review of the nomination in May 2022, the Historical Commission found that the interior satisfied Criteria C, D, E, and F. The nomination argued under Criterion E that the Main Sales Floor of the Jacob Reed’s Sons’ Store is the primary public interior space in this landmark building designed by prominent Philadelphia architect William L. Price for Alan H. Reed, successor to one of the leading menswear merchants of the nineteenth century in Philadelphia. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination contended that the store, constructed between 1904 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 10 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION and 1905, was the first commercial building in Philadelphia constructed of reinforced concrete, a structural system which is most expressed by the public interior space of the Main Sales Floor. The nomination also argued that the Main Sales Floor is also the only major Arts and Crafts style commercial interior in Philadelphia, serving as a significant early example of Price’s influential ideas on the appropriate expression of materials, structure, and labor. Finally, under Criterion F, the nomination asserted that the interior space features craftsmanship and artistry in the form of tilework from Henry Chapman Mercer’s Moravian Pottery and murals by local artist Gertrude Monaghan, which reflect Price’s thinking on architecture and its relationship with ornamentation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the interior main floor of 1424-26 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E and F. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:03:40 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Mehley presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Patrick Grossi of the Preservation Alliance represented the nominator. • Attorney Michael Phillips represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Ms. Cooperman asked Mr. Farnham if there are any specific instructions the Committee needed

ZOOM RECORDING: 01:03:40 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Mehley presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Patrick Grossi of the Preservation Alliance represented the nominator. • Attorney Michael Phillips represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Ms. Cooperman asked Mr. Farnham if there are any specific instructions the Committee needed to review the remanded nomination. She stated that the Committee wished to comply with instructions from the Court of Common Pleas. o Mr. Farnham advised the Committee that they should proceed as usual and conduct the review as if it was the first review of the nomination. • Mr. Grossi said that the staff summary well states the reasons the Preservation Alliance proposed the nomination as a public interior. He contended that it is a fitting addition to the Philadelphia Register and would be one of only a handful public interiors that are listed on the Register. Mr. Grossi pointed out that care and attention must be paid when nominating these types of spaces and should be reserved only for remarkable works such as this one. He noted that it is a work of architect William Price and a rare surviving Art and Crafts commercial space, with Moravian Pottery and Monaghan murals still visible within the space. He said the interior layout is a flexible space, and, although it is currently empty, it could certainly be occupied in the future by a tenant who could elevate these historic features. • Mr. Philips said the owner’s opposition to the nomination is rooted in constitutional and legal arguments concerning the interior designation of private property that has not been open to the public for a year. He noted that the property is currently vacant. Mr. Philips said owing to the technical advisory scope of the Committee on Historic Designation’s review, he said they will reserve their argument on legal and constitutional grounds for the Historical Commission meeting. • Ms. Cooperman asked Mr. Philips if there was anything else that he would like the Committee to know prior to proceeding with their review. o Mr. Philips said the nomination speaks for itself but noted the building has been vacant for a year. He said that he and the owner recently met with Mr. Steinke and Mr. Grossi to discuss the nomination and walk through the property. • Ms. Cooperman said it is notable that the remarkable surviving elements are largely at the top

noted the building has been vacant for a year. He said that he and the owner recently met with Mr. Steinke and Mr. Grossi to discuss the nomination and walk through the property. • Ms. Cooperman said it is notable that the remarkable surviving elements are largely at the top of the columns and above that. She remarked that the interior retains not COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 11 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION just the open space and the columns, but the leaded glass above and it is remarkable that all of those features are still intact in this in this interior space. • Ms. Barucco agreed with Ms. Cooperman’s comments. She said it is a great interior even in its simplicity that is reflective of its time. Ms. Barucco remarked that with the murals, stained glass, and tilework, it is a real package, and she thinks as an interior it is very worthy of designation. She noted that the material integrity is high, and it is really impressive • Mr. Laverty said this is a building designed by a widely accepted master of architecture and design who spans two worlds from the Arts and Crafts movement to high-rise commercial and hotel structures. He said Price created that bridge between the handcrafted homespun of Rose Valley to Horn & Hardart and the Art Deco. Mr. Laverty stated that this interior space is a similar story to the Grand Court at Wanamaker’s Department Store in that it was a grand public space created for mercantile use which was seen as extraordinarily important use in the in the first decade of the twentieth century. • Ms. Milroy said this interior space was a collaborative effort that included not only the architect but other artists and designers. She pointed out that the interior is in great condition and has not been compromised. Ms. Milroy said that the comment on page 23 that notes “the un-Quaker pursuit of art” is not relevant to someone of artist Gertrude Monaghan’s generation. She stated there are lots of Quakers making art by the 1890s. She said the physical integrity of the space is wonderful. • Mr. Laverty said Ms. Milroy’s comment about the collaboration of artists working in different media at that time is an important one. He added there are few places that that show it so clearly as this interior does. • Ms. Milroy

the physical integrity of the space is wonderful. • Mr. Laverty said Ms. Milroy’s comment about the collaboration of artists working in different media at that time is an important one. He added there are few places that that show it so clearly as this interior does. • Ms. Milroy agreed and stressed that this was also in a commercial context. She pointed out that the design team included a woman. • Ms. Miller said that this interior reminds her of the state capital building in Harrisburg with the inclusion of the tiles and murals. She said that in this interior you have a commercial space designed for the greater community. Ms. Miller agreed that the integrity of the materials is high. She said she is not aware of another place where you would have the opportunity to see something like this in Philadelphia. • Mr. Cohen said he agreed with much of the other Committee members’ comments and noted that what has been said reaffirms the importance of this interior space. He continued that it really is remarkably in a category by itself. Mr. Cohen said that one of the things you may not suspect from the outside of the building is this structural use of reinforced concrete and it is a remarkable thing on the inside. He pointed out how much more of the structure is shown in the 1905 photograph in comparison to the 2021 photograph. Mr. Cohen stated that this is one of the most important interiors in Philadelphia. • Ms. Barucco said the space is similar to a sanctuary with the columns and the stained-glass clerestory windows. She said it is curious that the stained-glass craft person was not identified but they often were not. Ms. Barucco said she would not be surprised if it was the work of Nicola D’Ascenzo. • Mr. Laverty said D’Ascenzo was a good friend of architect William Price. He noted that he agreed with Ms. Barucco that the stained glass could have been made by D’Ascenzo. PUBLIC COMMENT: • None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 12 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The Main Sales Floor interior space is one of the most important interiors on this period in Philadelphia. • The number of interior spaces listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places is

HISTORICAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The Main Sales Floor interior space is one of the most important interiors on this period in Philadelphia. • The number of interior spaces listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places is small. If designated, this would only be the fifth designated interior space on the Register and the second privately owned commercial space. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The Main Sales Floor of 1424-26 Chestnut Street is the only major Arts and Crafts- style commercial interior in Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion C. • Constructed between 1904 and 1905, 1424-26 Chestnut Street was the first commercial buildings in Philadelphia constructed of reinforced concrete, a structural system that is expressed by the public interior space of the Main Sales Floor, satisfying Criterion D. • The Main Sales Floor was designed by prominent Philadelphia architect William L. Price and serves as a significant early example of Price’s influential ideas on the appropriate expression of materials, structure, and labor, satisfying Criterion E. • The Main Sales Floor features craftsmanship and artistry in the form of tilework from Henry Chapman Mercer’s Moravian Pottery and murals by local artist Gertrude Monaghan, satisfying Criterion F. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the first-floor interior of the building at 1424-26 Chestnut Street, historically known as the Main Sales Floor of the Jacob Reed’s Sons’ Store, satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and F and should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. ITEM: Interior of 1424-26 Chestnut St MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, E, and F MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Miller VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 6 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 13 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ADDRESS: 2000-24 ARCH ST Name of Resource: Gulf Gas Station Review: Rescind/Amend Designation Property Owner: 2000 Arch Street Associates LP Applicant: Robert Careless, Esq., Cozen O’Connor Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This request proposes to rescind the designation of the property at 2000-24 Arch Street at the point in time that a small, historic gas station, which is located at the corner of 20th and

Arch Street Associates LP Applicant: Robert Careless, Esq., Cozen O’Connor Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This request proposes to rescind the designation of the property at 2000-24 Arch Street at the point in time that a small, historic gas station, which is located at the corner of 20th and Arch Streets, along the edge of large property, is moved to a new location. The gas station was constructed in 1930 for the Gulf Refining Company. The Historical Commission designated the gas station as historic in 1981, soon after it ceased operation, because it was one of the few surviving unaltered buildings representing the early years of the automobile age in Philadelphia. The property was designated for the gas station only; there are no other historic resources on the large property, which is used as a surface parking lot. The building was not reused after it ceased to serve as a gas station. Throughout the 1980s, the property owner and the Historical Commission sought a new site for the gas station building, offering it to numerous parties including the Henry Ford Museum outside Detroit, but moving the building more than a short distance was ultimately deemed infeasible. After exhausting options for relocation, the Historical Commission approved the demolition of the building in 1988. Despite the approval, the building was not demolished. It sat empty for decades and suffered a fire in the 1990s. In 2019, the Historical Commission began discussions with consultants working for a new owner of the property at 20th and Arch Streets, who sought to relocate the structure for use as a public amenity. In the spring of 2021, the Historical Commission and its advisory Architectural Committee formally reviewed and approved an application to move the gas station to Aviator Park at Logan Square. The approval included the relocation of the building to Aviator Park, construction of a foundation, and installation of utilities, but not the restoration of the building for a new use, which will be reviewed for approval during a later phase of the project once an operator has been identified. This application requests that the Historical Commission rescind its designation of the property at 2000-24 Arch Street, effective upon the relocation of the gas station building. No historic resources will be present at the site after the gas station is moved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that Historical Commission amend the designation of the

the Historical Commission rescind its designation of the property at 2000-24 Arch Street, effective upon the relocation of the gas station building. No historic resources will be present at the site after the gas station is moved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that Historical Commission amend the designation of the gas station building by rescinding the designation of the property at 2000-24 Arch Street and designating the gas station building itself as an object as satisfying Criterion for Designation J, pursuant to Section 5.14.a of the Historical Commission’s Rules and Regulations, which addresses the amendment of designations. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:24:08 PRESENTERS: • Mr. Farnham presented the application to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Attorney Robert Careless and developer Brian Berson represented the property owner. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 14 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION DISCUSSION: • Mr. Careless introduced himself to the Committee on Historic Designation and summarized the proposal to rescind the designation of the property at 2000-24 Arch Street once the gas station building is moved. • Ms. Cooperman asked about the timeline for moving the building. o Mr. Farnham stated that Philadelphia Parks and Recreation has issued a letter stating that it would take possession of the building when it moved to Aviator Park. He noted that a timeline for the move has not yet been finalized because other City agencies are still reviewing the proposal, especially the Art Commission, which reviews all construction proposals that involve City-owned property. He stated that the Art Commission reviewed the proposal to move the building recently and requested additional information. Therefore, the Art Commission will review the proposal a second time, after the information is submitted. o Mr. Careless confirmed that the proposal to move the gas station was presented recently to the Art Commission, which requested additional information. He stated that his client and Philadelphia Parks and Recreation are working to provide that information and no date is set for a return to the Art Commission. Once the regulatory approvals are obtained, the building will be moved. • Ms. Milroy stated that it is great that the gas station is being preserved. • Ms. Barucco stated that she is glad that the many parties are working to see that this building is preserved. She stated that preservation standards typically object to the relocations of buildings, but relocation seems to be the right decision in

great that the gas station is being preserved. • Ms. Barucco stated that she is glad that the many parties are working to see that this building is preserved. She stated that preservation standards typically object to the relocations of buildings, but relocation seems to be the right decision in this case because it will allow the building to be saved. • Ms. Cooperman asked how the building would be tracked for regulatory purposes if it were redesignated as an object and then relocated to a different property. o Mr. Farnham explained that the staff is recommending that the Committee recommend that the Commission amend the designation to redesignate the building as an object so that its designation is not tied to any specific address. While the gas station is slated to be moved to a particular location in Aviator Park, that location may be revised to elsewhere in the park or even somewhere outside the park. If it is designated as an object, the staff can then flag its final address in the eclipse permitting system, regardless of that address. If it is designated as a building typically is, it would be designated by address and then that designation would need to be amended again if the address changed. He noted that the Historical Commission has already approved moving the building to Aviator Park. If the building is proposed to be moved elsewhere, the Historical Commission along with the Architectural Committee will have an opportunity to review the proposal and ensure that preservation standards are met. • Ms. Barucco asked if the building has been documented. o Mr. Farnham stated that the property owner retained two consultants, architect Sam Olshin and preservation consulting firm Ascent, to fully document the building with historic and current photographs, a conditions report, and measured drawings. Those documents were reviewed when the Historical Commission considered the relocation. The building is thoroughly documented. • Ms. Miller stated that moving a building should not be taken lightly. Moving a building removes it from its context. o Mr. Farnham noted that the Historical Commission has already approved the relocation of the building. The question before the Committee today is whether COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 15 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION the designation can be removed from 2000-24 Arch Street once the building is moved. • Ms. Miller stated that Mr. Careless wrongly asserted that there are

the relocation of the building. The question before the Committee today is whether COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 15 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION the designation can be removed from 2000-24 Arch Street once the building is moved. • Ms. Miller stated that Mr. Careless wrongly asserted that there are no other historic resources at this site other than the gas station building. She stated that there used to be several rowhouses on this site that is now a surface parking lot and there are undoubtedly archaeological resources in the ground. o Mr. Farnham stated that he, not Mr. Careless, had asserted that there are no other historic resources at this site. He stated that he meant that there are no designated historic resources at this site other than the gas station. The designation of the site relates to the gas station building only, as is documented in the minutes from the designation. o Ms. Barucco asked Ms. Miller if any archaeological resources related to gas station would survive at the site. o Ms. Miller respond that finding archaeological resources related to gas station is unlikely because the removal of the gas tanks would have likely disrupted the site. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance stated that this building might be altered or demolished without the Historical Commission’s review if it is designated as an object, rather than being attached to a specific street address. He stated that there will be no way for the Department of Licenses and Inspections to identify a building permit application as needing review by the Historical Commission if the building is designated without a street address. He stated that this building should be associated with a street address and not simply designated as an object so that the Department and Historical Commission can track it. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The Historical Commission designated the property at 2000-24 Arch Street for the historic gas station in 1981. The Historical Commission has not identified or designated any other historic resources at the site. • The Historical Commission approved the relocation of the gas station building from 2000-24 Arch Street to Aviator Park at Logan Square in 2021. • The Department of Licenses and Inspections and the Historical Commission can track historic resources and ensure that building permit applications for those resources are

site. • The Historical Commission approved the relocation of the gas station building from 2000-24 Arch Street to Aviator Park at Logan Square in 2021. • The Department of Licenses and Inspections and the Historical Commission can track historic resources and ensure that building permit applications for those resources are referred to the Historical Commission for review, even if the resources are designated as objects and the designations does not specify particular street addresses. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The gas station building represents the early years of the automobile age in Philadelphia, thereby satisfying Criterion J. • The nomination for the gas station may be amended, rescinded the designation of 2000-24 Arch Street and designating the gas station as an object, because the Historical Commission has not identified or designated any other historic resources at 2000-24 Arch Street. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that Historical Commission amend the designation of the gas COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 16 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION station building at the time of its relocation by rescinding the designation of the property at 2000- 24 Arch Street and designating the gas station building itself as an object as satisfying Criterion for Designation J, pursuant to Section 5.14.a of the Historical Commission’s Rules and Regulations. ITEM: 2000-24 Arch St MOTION: Rescind designation of 2000-24 Arch St, redesignate gas station as an object MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Milroy VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 6 ADDRESS: 8835 GERMANTOWN AVE Name of Resource: Julia Hebard Marsden House Review: Designation Property Owner: Chestnut Hill Hospital LLC Nominator: Chestnut Hill Conservancy Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the former Julia Hebard Marsden residence and stable, two buildings on the Chestnut Hill Hospital campus, at 8835 Germantown Avenue and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the buildings satisfy Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination argues that the house and stable are representative examples of the Colonial Revival “country houses” that appeared in Chestnut Hill following the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia. Under Criterion E, the nomination contends that the buildings were designed by the

E, and J. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination argues that the house and stable are representative examples of the Colonial Revival “country houses” that appeared in Chestnut Hill following the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia. Under Criterion E, the nomination contends that the buildings were designed by the nationally significant and Philadelphia-born architect Charles Barton Keen. Under Criterion J, the nomination argues that the residence and stable contributed to the neighborhood’s status as an elite residential enclave at the turn of the twentieth century. Temple University Health System, Redeemer Health, and Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine have formed a consortium and are attempting to purchase Chestnut Hill Hospital from Tower Health, the current owner. Tower Health and the hospital have faced significant financial challenges in recent years and the sale may prevent the closure of the facility, which provides essential services to the community. The nominator, the Chestnut Hill Conservancy, and the property owner’s attorney have been discussing a possible compromise that would reduce the extent of the designation, allowing the COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 17 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION non-profit hospital to expand in the future with fewer constraints. Correspondence between the nominator and the hospital is included. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the site at 8835 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. The staff also recommends that the Historical Commission seek a compromise designation that would allow the not-for-profit health care provider, which provides essential services to the community, to reuse the site effectively while protecting and preserving the most important historic resources at the site. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 02:00:30 PRESENTERS: • Mr. Farnham presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • No one represented the nominator, the Chestnut Hill Conservancy. Ms. Cooperman asked several times if anyone representing the nominator was present, but no one stepped forward. Mr. Farnham noted that he had been included on emails that indicated that the Conservancy was aware of today’s meeting. • Attorneys Matt McClure and Meredith Trego, architects Lawrence McEwen and Joyce Lenhardt, and hospital chief executive officer John Cacciamani represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Mr. McClure stated that his client is not opposing the designation of the property and recognizes that the building is unique and part of the history of Chestnut Hill. He stated, however, that his client opposes

Lenhardt, and hospital chief executive officer John Cacciamani represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Mr. McClure stated that his client is not opposing the designation of the property and recognizes that the building is unique and part of the history of Chestnut Hill. He stated, however, that his client opposes the extent of the nomination and seeks to reduce the area covered by the nomination. He stated that they realize that this proposal involves many competing interests. He stated that the Historical Commission must balance historic preservation with the provision of health care. The building has been the home of a woman’s health center for decades and provides essential services for women. He stated that the women’s center is an amazing community asset that serves not only the women of Chestnut Hill but also the women of surrounding communities, many of whom are of lesser means. It is a community asset. He noted that the area proposed for designation includes not only the house but also a non-historic parking garage and the access ramps to that garage. The women’s center is not connected to the rest of the campus. There is no indoor connection from the women’s center to the rest of the hospital. The hospital is located on a very tight site with little room for expansion. Deed restrictions prevent expanding forward toward Germantown Avenue. The hospital would like to expand the building and integrate it into the campus. Mr. McClure explained that the hospital has had financial trouble lately and will be sold in January to a non-profit consortium that will continue to provide medical services. The new owner will need to expand the facilities for women. Before the nomination was submitted, the hospital had engaged architects Lawrence McEwen and Joyce Lenhardt to plan the expansion of the women’s center. Both architects live in the Chestnut Hill community. Ms. Lenhardt is an expert in health care architecture. They have created massing models but not final plans. They would like to preserve the main building with its portico and adaptively reuse the rest of the building, with the understanding that anything that is built at the site will be subject to community review. He reported that they sought a compromise with the nominator, the Chestnut Hill Conservancy, but did not get a COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 18 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION positive response. He noted that the

that anything that is built at the site will be subject to community review. He reported that they sought a compromise with the nominator, the Chestnut Hill Conservancy, but did not get a COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 18 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION positive response. He noted that the Conservancy raised many issues that were unrelated to this building and historic preservation during their discussions. Mr. McClure asked the Committee to balance historic preservation and women’s health care needs and noted that any new construction at the site would require the Historical Commission’s review if any part of the property is designated. The hospital needs to be able to reasonably adaptively reuse this building to provide essential services. • Ms. Lenhardt stated that she has been working with the hospital on this expansion for several years. She stated that she has planned to save the main section of the women’s center building throughout her study of the expansion. She showed site plans of the hospital. She summarized the needs and goals of the hospital. She stated that the women’s center is a “rabbit warren” of small spaces and needs updating and expansion. She stated that they need to provide adequate spaces for new medical technologies. She showed a site plan of the proposed expanded women’s center. • Mr. McEwen stated that expanding the parking garage would displace the carriage house. He stated that their plans call for maintaining the main block and portico of the women’s center and expanding with new construction to the sides and rear. The women’s center would be directly connected to the parking garage and the remainder of the hospital and would take advantage of an existing elevator and stair tower. To achieve a state-of-the-art facility, the hospital would retain the central or main block and portico of the women’s center and replace the side and rear appendages. He displayed several photographs of the existing conditions. He stated that the rear ell is not visible from the street and needs to be removed for the expansion. o Ms. Cooperman told the property owner’s consultants that they had used their allotted 10 minutes and to end their presentation. • Ms. Lenhardt stated that all of the character-defining features of the Colonial Revival building that are called out in the nomination are contained within the main block of the building, which is proposed for retention. • Mr.

they had used their allotted 10 minutes and to end their presentation. • Ms. Lenhardt stated that all of the character-defining features of the Colonial Revival building that are called out in the nomination are contained within the main block of the building, which is proposed for retention. • Mr. McClure concluded that the Historical Commission should balance the needs of the hospital, which provides essential services to the community, with the historic preservation needs. He reported that his client would like to be a good partner and collaborate with the Historical Commission and community. He asked the Historical Commission and Committee on Historic Designation to use its discretion and preserve the most important feature of the site while allowing the hospital to undertake its mission. • Ms. Cooperman noted that Mr. Cacciamani, the chief executive officer of the hospital, had his hand raised. She told him that his attorney had already used their allotted time for his presentation. She told him that she would permit him to speak if he did so very briefly. o Mr. Cacciamani stated that his hospital serves a very diverse community and a majority of users of the women’s center are women of color. He stated that his patients love the women’s center building and want to continue to use it. However, the building can no longer support state-of-the-art medical technologies, especially those used to diagnose and treat breast cancer. He reported that the patients feel at home in the building, but the building cannot provide for their needs. He stated that they want to find a way to retain the primary section of the building, which the patients love, and add facilities to COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 19 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ensure that the patients receive the best medical care. He concluded that their challenge is balancing preservation with health care. • Ms. Milroy observed that the women’s center building, which was a doctor’s residence, and the adjacent hospital were constructed at about the same time, but the nomination provides no information about any potential connections. She stated that the nomination should have addressed the connections between the house and hospital. • Mr. Cohen stated that he appreciated the clarity provided by the hospital about its plans. He stated that the hospital is proposing to remove the side and rear wings of the house and the carriage house. Mr. Cohen

nomination should have addressed the connections between the house and hospital. • Mr. Cohen stated that he appreciated the clarity provided by the hospital about its plans. He stated that the hospital is proposing to remove the side and rear wings of the house and the carriage house. Mr. Cohen stated that the asymmetries of the house enliven it. He stated that the wing to the right of the main block retains its historic appearance but the wing to the left has been altered. It was an open porch originally. Mr. Cohen wondered whether the rear wing was an addition. He stated that the one-story wing to the right and the carriage house are significant, but the left and rear wings are not. • Ms. Milroy and Ms. Miller stated that the nomination fails to explain whether there were any connections between the original owner of the house and the nearby Chestnut Hill Hospital, which was established at about the same time. • Ms. Miller stated that the right-side wing with the doctor’s office is very unusual. o Ms. Cooperman disagreed and stated that many Colonial Revival buildings had side wings. • Ms. Cooperman stated that she has used the services of the women’s center. She noted that it does feel like a home, which is important. She stated that it is also important to have a facility dedicated to women’s health. Ms. Cooperman stated that striking a compromise and excluding parts of the property is outside the Committee’s purview. She stated that that is the prerogative of the Historical Commission. She indicated, however, that the left wing could be excluded because it is not original and has been altered. • Ms. Miller asked if the Historical Commission should also be protecting the viewshed of the historically designated church on a nearby street. An addition to the hospital as described could be seen when viewing the historic church. • Mr. Cohen asked why the Chestnut Hill Conservancy did not participate in the review as the nominator. o Ms. Cooperman stated that the Conservancy expressed its opinion in a letter. It would like to have the property designated as presented in the nomination. o Ms. Milroy responded that the Conservancy stated that it would not object to the removal of the carriage house. o Ms. Barucco stated that the proposed boundaries of the designation should be revisited. She stated that she

would like to have the property designated as presented in the nomination. o Ms. Milroy responded that the Conservancy stated that it would not object to the removal of the carriage house. o Ms. Barucco stated that the proposed boundaries of the designation should be revisited. She stated that she would not object to removing the left wing, which is later and altered. She advocated for the retention of the rear wing and carriage house. o Ms. Milroy agreed with Ms. Barucco. She stated that the Committee’s task is to evaluate significance. The Historical Commission has the ability to consider other factors. • Mr. Cohen stated that the domestic, smaller-scale portions of the building should be protected. He stated that the portico is not domestic; it looks like the University of Virginia is visiting for the weekend. o Mr. Laverty disagreed and stated that Mr. Cohen was failing to consider the context. In Chestnut Hill, the portico has a domestic feel. He added that he appreciates the challenges faced by twenty-first-century hospitals. He stated that COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 20 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION the Chestnut Hill Conservancy, the nominator, should have appeared to discuss a possible compromise but did not. He stated that the Committee should not be pushing for more than the nominator is seeking. Again, he stated that the Conservancy should have appeared. o Ms. Barucco asked Mr. McClure if the Conservancy was still negotiating with the hospital regarding the nomination. o Mr. McClure replied that the Conservancy is asking for many concessions and agreements from the hospital in exchange for a compromise on the nomination that have nothing to do with the women’s center or historic preservation, but instead relate to traffic, operations, and other hospital activities. He concluded that the Historical Commission needs to balance the health care needs of a diverse group of women with the preservation of a site associated with a very wealthy white doctor. He hypothesized that the Historical Commission would not have nominated this property itself because its designation priorities and focus are elsewhere these days. He stated that average Philadelphians would be frustrated to learn that a nominator is seeking to limit the ability of a non-profit health care provider to expand its services for underserved people because of unrelated town-gown issues. Mr. McClure stated that his client wants to compromise; the Conservancy does not. PUBLIC COMMENT:

that average Philadelphians would be frustrated to learn that a nominator is seeking to limit the ability of a non-profit health care provider to expand its services for underserved people because of unrelated town-gown issues. Mr. McClure stated that his client wants to compromise; the Conservancy does not. PUBLIC COMMENT: • David Traub of Save Our Sites raised his hand but stated that he had nothing to say when called upon. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The property is owned by Chestnut Hill Hospital, a non-profit medical services provider. • The Women’s Center at Chestnut Hill Hospital occupies the nominated house. The center provides women’s health services. • The property was nominated by the Chestnut Hill Conservancy, a non-profit community organization. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The house and stable are representative examples of the Colonial Revival “country houses” that appeared in Chestnut Hill following the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, satisfying Criteria C and D. • The house and stable were designed by the nationally significant and Philadelphia- born architect Charles Barton Keen, satisfying Criterion E. • The house and stable contributed to the neighborhood’s status as an elite residential enclave at the turn of the twentieth century, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the Julia Hebard Marsden House at 8835 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J and should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, with the boundary amended to exclude the large non-historic parking garage structure. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 21 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ITEM: 8835 Germantown Ave MOTION: Designate, Criteria C, D, E, and J, excluding parking garage MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Milroy VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 5 1 ADDRESS: 401-09 N 65TH ST Name of Resource: St. Donato’s Roman Catholic Church Review: Reconsider Designation on Remand Property Owner: Archdiocese of Philadelphia/Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Parish Appellant: Conor Larkin, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov OVERVIEW: The Historical Commission designated the property at 401-09 N. 65th Street on 9 April 2021, finding that

Roman Catholic Church Review: Reconsider Designation on Remand Property Owner: Archdiocese of Philadelphia/Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Parish Appellant: Conor Larkin, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov OVERVIEW: The Historical Commission designated the property at 401-09 N. 65th Street on 9 April 2021, finding that the church originally called St. Donato’s and now called St. Frances Xavier Cabrini satisfied Criteria for Designation A, E, and J. The property owner did not participate in the Historical Commission’s review of the nomination on 9 April 2021 or the Committee on Historic Designation’s review of it on 3 March 2021. In August 2021, the property owner appealed the designation, claiming that it did not receive notice of the reviews. In response to the appeal, in June 2022, the Court of Common Pleas remanded the matter to the Historical Commission for a new review providing the property owner with an opportunity to participate. Attorney Neil Sklaroff filed the appeal on behalf of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Parish, the property owner. St. Donato’s had merged with Our Lady of Lourdes in 2013. Recently, attorney Conor Larkin has taken over the appeal case on behalf of Our Lady of Lourdes. The property remains under the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction during the new review of the nomination. On 24 October 2022, Celeste Morello, who had submitted the nomination for St. Donato’s, sent a message to the Historical Commission’s attorney indicating that she wanted to withdraw her nomination. The Historical Commission no longer allows nominators to unilaterally withdraw their nominations but does consider and sometimes accept withdrawal requests. However, in this case, the property has already been designated and is being reconsidered on appeal, and, therefore, a withdrawal request may have little or no bearing on the proceedings. The nomination contends that St. Donato’s Roman Catholic Church, completed in 1922, satisfies Criteria for Designation A and E. Criterion J is also checked on the nomination form, but is not discussed in the nomination. Under Criterion A, the nomination contends that St. Donato’s Roman Catholic Church is significant for its association with St. Frances Xavier COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 22 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Cabrini, the first Roman Catholic saint in the United States, whose order focused on ministry to Italians in this West Philadelphia neighborhood, resulting in sufficient funds to finish the construction of the church building. Under Criterion E, the

Xavier COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 22 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Cabrini, the first Roman Catholic saint in the United States, whose order focused on ministry to Italians in this West Philadelphia neighborhood, resulting in sufficient funds to finish the construction of the church building. Under Criterion E, the nomination argues that the church building is the work of Francis Ferdinand Durang, the son of Edwin Durang, whose firm specialized in the ecclesiastical design of Roman Catholic churches, which significantly influenced the architectural development of the City and Commonwealth. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff suggests that the Committee on Historic Designation provide a recommendation on the merits of the claims made in the nomination and leave questions regarding a potential withdrawal to the Historical Commission. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 02:54:25 RECUSAL: • Mr. Laverty recused because of a disagreement between the nominator and the organization at which he works. PRESENTERS: • Mr. Farnham presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Celeste Morello participated as the nominator. • Attorney Conor Larkin represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Ms. Morello was unable to unmute herself and therefore unable to speak first. • Mr. Larkin appeared on behalf of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, the owner of the property. He thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. He displayed a Powerpoint presentation. He asked the Committee to reconsider its earlier recommendation. He stated that the church does not satisfy the Criteria for Designation laid out in the nomination. He explained that the church closed in 2013. The nomination was submitted in December 2019. The notice letters were issued in December 2020. The Historical Commission designated the property in April 2021. The designation was appealed to the Court of Commons Pleas, which remanded the nomination back to the Historical Commission and this Committee for new reviews in June 2022. Ms. Morello, the nominator, submitted a letter requesting to withdraw the nomination in October 2022. The Historical Commission will consider her request to withdraw at its January 2023 meeting. Regarding the Criterion A, the nomination misconstrued St. Frances Xavier Cabrini’s relationship with the church. Mother Cabrini’s work was focused on the school, not the church, and Mother Cabrini died in in Chicago in 1917, five years before the church was dedicated in 1922. Regarding Criterion E, the church was designed by Ferdinand Durang, who is not a significant architect. The

relationship with the church. Mother Cabrini’s work was focused on the school, not the church, and Mother Cabrini died in in Chicago in 1917, five years before the church was dedicated in 1922. Regarding Criterion E, the church was designed by Ferdinand Durang, who is not a significant architect. The church was not designed by significant architect Edwin Durang, Ferdinand’s father. The church is a minor, later work by the Durang Office and there are many better examples of Edwin Durang’s work throughout Philadelphia. Mr. Larkin noted that the nominator has requested to withdraw the nomination because the former parishioners of St. Donato’s Church are indifferent to it and have relocated from the area. The Italian American community that attended the church has left the area. He stated that it is in the best interest of the community to not designate the church, so that it can be adaptively reused for a new purpose as efficiently and economically as possible. Mr. Larkin concluded that the property owner, Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, which took control of St. Donato’s Church when COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 23 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION it closed in 2013, is opposed to the designation and contends that the property does not satisfy any Criteria for Designation. • Ms. Cooperman asked Mr. Larkin to explain who actually holds the title to the property. o Mr. Larkin stated that the Archdiocese holds the title through the parish, Our Lady of Lourdes. He added that the parish is working with the blessing of the Ardiocese. • Ms. Morello stated that it is her wish and desire, as the nominator, to withdraw the nomination. She remarked that her statement provided her reasons for withdrawing. She concluded that “that is the end of this.” • Ms. Barucco supported the designation of the church. • Mr. Cohen stated that this is one of Ms. Morello’s better nominations. Most of her nominations are idiosyncratic, but this one in fact discusses the historical context of the church. He stated that this church is representative of the Italian American community that existed in the area. He stated that this church is evocative of Italian churches. It is less inventive than the work of Edwin Durang, the father, but is representative of the work Ferdinand Durang, the son. • Ms. Milroy agreed with Mr. Cohen. • Ms. Miller stated that she sees no reason

the area. He stated that this church is evocative of Italian churches. It is less inventive than the work of Edwin Durang, the father, but is representative of the work Ferdinand Durang, the son. • Ms. Milroy agreed with Mr. Cohen. • Ms. Miller stated that she sees no reason to deviate from the Committee’s earlier recommendation. The church and its history have not changed. PUBLIC COMMENT: • John Millon stated that this church is important for its association to St. Frances Xavier Cabrini. He supported the designation of the property. He stated that the former parishioners should have an opportunity to redevelop the church as a shrine to St. Frances. • Joseph Pagano stated that the property should be designated for its relationship to St. Frances. He stated that the parish closed but the church did not; it was still used for funerals, weddings, and other events. The church looks like it is in Rome, Italy. He stated that he is in the process of creating a non-profit organization to run a shrine to St. Frances. • Karen Hammel introduced herself as a member of the Society of St. Frances Cabrini, which is seeking to turn the church into a shrine. She stated that nothing about the significance has changed since the last review. She supports the designation of the property. She concluded that Ms. Morello is seeking to withdraw her nomination for personal reasons unrelated to the church’s significance. • David Traub of Save Our Sites supported the designation. He stated that the church building is indeed very handsome. • Christopher Daniels introduced himself as a teacher at the St. Frances Cabrini School. He supported the designation. He noted that he is a lifelong resident of West Philadelphia. He stated that the church has aesthetic value. • Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance supported the designation of the church. • Bonita Veltronte noted that she was a parishioner at St. Donato’s. She stated that she is in support of the designation of the church, owing to the significance of St. Frances. • Leannett Hill introduced herself as a neighbor who resides across the street. She added that she is associated with the Friends of Granahan Playground, which is near the church. She stated that she and the Friends group are in support of the designation. She questioned Ms. Morello’s withdrawal request. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022

neighbor who resides across the street. She added that she is associated with the Friends of Granahan Playground, which is near the church. She stated that she and the Friends group are in support of the designation. She questioned Ms. Morello’s withdrawal request. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 24 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION • Meeka Outlaw stated that she is a teacher at St. Frances Cabrini School. She stated that she attended Catholic school and then taught at another Catholic church. She stated that the students attend a Catholic school adjacent to a Catholic church, but they cannot visit the church. She stated that the building is important because the children can see, touch, and feel it, rather than just looking at photographs of a lost church. She questioned Ms. Morello’s withdrawal request. She stated that it does not make sense because she usually fights for the designations of churches. • Eloise Young stated that she is a lifelong resident of the area and the RCO facilitator. She supported retaining the designation of the church. • Marian Ciaccia stated that she was raised on the block where the church stands. Her family worshipped at the church. She worked at the church. She stated that she supports the creation of the shrine and the designation of the church. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The church is associated with St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, the first Roman Catholic saint in the United States. • The church was designed by Ferdinand Durang and completed in 1922. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • St. Donato’s Roman Catholic Church is significant for its association with St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, the first Roman Catholic saint in the United States, whose order focused on ministry to Italians in this West Philadelphia neighborhood, resulting in sufficient funds to finish the construction of the church building, satisfying Criterion A. • The church building is the work of Francis Ferdinand Durang, the son of Edwin Durang, whose firm specialized in the ecclesiastical design of Roman Catholic churches that significantly influenced the architectural development of the City and Commonwealth, satisfying Criterion E. • The church exemplifies the heritage of the Italian American community, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 401-09 N.

significantly influenced the architectural development of the City and Commonwealth, satisfying Criterion E. • The church exemplifies the heritage of the Italian American community, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 401-09 N. 65th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, E, and J, and should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 25 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ITEM: 401-09 N 65th St MOTION: Designate, Criteria A, E, and J MOVED BY: Milroy SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 5 1 ADJOURNMENT The Committee on Historic Designation adjourned at 1:11 p.m. ITEM: Adjournment MOTION: Adjourn MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Milroy VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 5 1 PLEASE NOTE: • Minutes of the Committee on Historic Designation are presented in action format. Additional information is available in the video recording for this meeting. The start time for each agenda item in the recording is noted. CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION §14-1004. Designation. (1) Criteria for Designation. A building, complex of buildings, structure, site, object, or district may be designated for preservation if it: COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 NOVEMBER 2022 26 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION (a) Has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth, or nation or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past; (b) Is associated with an event of importance to the history of the City, Commonwealth or Nation; (c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style; (d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen; (e) Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or designer, or professional engineer whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation; (f) Contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant innovation; (g) Is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area that should be

whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation; (f) Contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant innovation; (g) Is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area that should be preserved according to a historic, cultural, or architectural motif; (h) Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or City; (i) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history; or (j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community.