Historical Commission — May 10, 2002

THE MINUTES OF THE 477th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 10 May 2002 at 9:00 a.m. Commission Conference Room 18th Floor, 1515 Arch Street James Cuorato, Acting-Chair Present James Cuorato, Director, Commerce Department, Acting Chair Gary Hack, Chair, City Planning Commission Melissa Heller-Batzer, Director of Economic Development, Office of City Council President Michael Sklaroff, Esquire Denise J. Smyler, Esquire Harris Steinberg, AIA Norman Tissian Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer John Monklak, Esq., Law Department Also Roger Bieberbach, Printcrete Incorporated Suzanne Ryan, PECO Mike Giduck, Exelon Ed McBride, PECO Jim Garrison, Hillier Erwin Apell, American Swedish Historical Museum Richard Waldron, American Swedish Historical Museum Frederick Vidi J. Bradica, Exelon A. Ryan, Exelon John Gallery, Preservation Alliance Suzanna Barucco, Martin Jay Rosenblum and Associates Ursula Hobson, 1828 Waverly Street Elan Prystowsky, Queen Village Development Amy Chorey, Campbell Thomas and Company Robert Thomas, Campbell Thomas and Company Sheth Jones, Capital Programs Office James McAndrew, Tague Lumber Michael Stern, Community College of Philadelphia Jeffrey Brummer, Eric Hafer and Associates Christian Busch, The Sullivan Company Kathy Dowdell, Blackney Hayes Architects Mr. Wilds made a motion to designate James Cuorato the acting-chair for the meeting. Mr. Hack seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 1 James Cuorato, Acting-Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:20 a.m. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 30 April 2002 Daniel McCoubrey, Acting-Chair. City Hall, Broad and Market Streets City of Philadelphia, Owner Dominic Aspite, Applicant DATE: 1871-1901, John McArthur Jr., Architect PROPOSAL: Louvers Mr. McCoubrey recommended approval of the installation of the louvers in the top of the existing top sash and asked that an overall plan for the entire building be submitted. The Commission apprized the applicant of the absence of quorum and Sheth Jones, representative from the Capitol Programs Office, gave his permission as applicant to proceed without a quorum. This proposal involves adding a louver to a window on the courtyard façade of City Hall to vent HVAC equipment. The drawing and photographs seem to be at odds in terms of design. The photographs show windows that have had new smaller sash installed with vents above a new transom bar. The drawing shows a full size window with vents installed in the top and glass below. Mr. Wilds made

The drawing and photographs seem to be at odds in terms of design. The photographs show windows that have had new smaller sash installed with vents above a new transom bar. The drawing shows a full size window with vents installed in the top and glass below. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously with 7 votes. 13-27 South Independence Mall, aka 13-27 South 5th Street, The Bourse Building Kenneth Kaiserman, Owner Roger Bieberbach, Applicant DATE: 1895, Hewitt Brothers, Architect PROPOSAL: Terrace paving The Architectural Committee recommended denial as submitted but approval of 2-foot by 2-foot slate as the bordering design with a darker red brick in the fields, with the staff to review samples. The Commission acknowledged the absence of a quorum and Roger Bieberbach, the applicant, gave his approval to proceed absent a quorum. This proposal involves removing the brick and installing brick pattern stamped concrete on the platform in front of the Bourse building. The existing brick does not appear to be original. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously with 7 votes. 1715-1717 Walnut Street Midwood Management Corporation, Owner Michael Schade, Architect DATE: Mid 19th Century; refaced c. 1950 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations The applicant withdrew the proposal. 2 1900 Pattison Avenue, American Swedish Historical Museum City of Philadelphia, Owner Robert Thomas, Architect DATE: 1929, John Nyden, Architect PROPOSAL: Elevator tower and ramp in concept The Architectural Committee recommended approval in concept of the proposal. The Commission acknowledged the absence of a quorum, and Robert Thomas, the architect, agreed to proceed absent a quorum. This proposal involves building an elevator tower addition to provide accessibility. The tower, which will sit next to the central pavilion on the Pattison Avenue side will unfortunately damage the symmetry of a major façade in spite of the best efforts of the architect to reduce its impact. Mr. Steinberg inquired about visibility, and it was noted that the visibility would be from Pattison Avenue, but not from the park. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously with 7 votes. Mr. Cuorato recognized the arrival of a quorum and proceeded with the original agenda. Minutes of the 476th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by

Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously with 7 votes. Mr. Cuorato recognized the arrival of a quorum and proceeded with the original agenda. Minutes of the 476th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Steinberg and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the 476th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 12 April 2002, James Cuorato, Acting Chair. THE REPORT of the Committee on Historic Designation, 14 September 2001 Thomas Sugrue, Acting Chair 3901 North Delaware Avenue, Richmond Power Station Exelon Corporation (formerly Philadelphia Electric), Owner DATE: 1923-25, John Windrim, Architect, William C. L. Elgin, Engineer Ms. Spina gave a presentation of the complex of buildings that constitute the Richmond Power Station, which meets criteria a, c, d, e, f, h and j of the Preservation Ordinance. As a result of a major expansion campaign, the Philadelphia Electric Company built the Richmond Power Station in 1923-25, the third of three new stations. The complex consists of four separate buildings: the coal tower, which loaded coal from barges; the strainer house, which strained the river water of any foreign material; the main building, housing the boilers, turbines and switches; and the converter building, which converted the electricity’s cycles for railroad use. Over the years, Philadelphia Electric added smaller buildings and fuel tanks to the property; however, only these four buildings date to the original design and function of the station. Ms. Spina described the history of the Philadelphia Electric Company and the importance of the station in the history of electric generation. Designed by the team of John Windrim and William C. L. Elgin, the station became a symbol of the Philadelphia Electric Company. Its classically inspired exterior evoked the stability of ages past, while the interior embodied the modern age. Michael Giduck, Exelon Corporation, attended the meeting. He presented photographs to show the station’s conditions, including spalling concrete and a failing glass cross-gabled roof. He said that the site should not be designated and that the cost to maintain it is prohibitive. He also noted that, for safety reasons, the coal tower needs to be demolished. He referenced the Chester Power Station, and noted the major improvements around the plant itself, while the Richmond Station is 3 located in a predominantly industrial arena. In addition, he said that

maintain it is prohibitive. He also noted that, for safety reasons, the coal tower needs to be demolished. He referenced the Chester Power Station, and noted the major improvements around the plant itself, while the Richmond Station is 3 located in a predominantly industrial arena. In addition, he said that in trying to sell the site, he contacted various developers who could not find a viable re-use for the property. He also noted that re-powering the station would not be an option, owing to its configuration. Mr. Tissian inquired if the site had ever aroused the interest of historians or students. Ms. Spina noted that the site was toured in 1994 by the Oliver Evans Chapter of the Society for Industrial Archaeology. Ms. Heller-Batzer stressed the security issues for visitors and the dying port business. Mr. Wilds commented that although the site meets the criteria, the overall deteriorated condition is a compelling deterrent for a viable re-use. He also said that if a hardship exists from the onset, the designation would be an unwise use of staff time and therefore would not be a wise decision because the location is not suitable for commercial business. In addition, Mr. Wilds said that designation would entail the immediate maintenance of the buildings. Ms. Smyler expressed concern with the effects of the surrounding industrial waste. Commission members pointed out that designation does not mean that it can not be demolished. Mr. Steinberg strongly believed that the site is worthy of designation. He noted the significance of James Windrim and the importance of the development of the Philadelphia Electric Company in the early 20th century. Mr. Hack also stated support for the station’s designation. He noted that the City Planning Commission finished a plan for this section of the Delaware waterfront and that the rehabilitation and reuse of the station would play a significant part. He emphasized that although there may not exist a reuse for the building at the moment, that designation would ensure that the building would stand until a reuse is found and financing is available. He noted that good planning takes a long-range view of resources. Jim Garrison, a preservation architect who is working on the rehabilitation of the Chester Power Station, said that both stations were built with the public interest in mind and he believes that the Richmond Station still has value. He noted that the Chester Station

takes a long-range view of resources. Jim Garrison, a preservation architect who is working on the rehabilitation of the Chester Power Station, said that both stations were built with the public interest in mind and he believes that the Richmond Station still has value. He noted that the Chester Station also sits in an industrial area and that it’s become the cornerstone of the revitalization of Chester’s waterfront. Mr. Garrison showed drawings of the Chester Station, illustrating the adaptability of the expansive interior spaces. Kathy Dowdell, of Blackney Hayes architects who is also working on the conversion of the Chester Station, stated that the Philadelphia Chapter of the AIA is awarding this year’s Landmark Building Award to the three existing power stations, which represent the development of industry along the riverfront. She noted that demolition of the Richmond Station would remove a major piece of industrial history in Philadelphia. She stated that the cranes and other machinery in the Chester Station were reactivated to use in the building’s rehabilitation andnew use and this could also be done in the Richmond Power Station. John Gallery, of the Preservation Alliance, strongly supported the designation. He noted that the criteria for designation, created by City Council, do not include an evaluation for reuse nor the condition of the resource. He argued that the Richmond Station clearly meets seven of the ten criteria; therefore, the Commission is bound by the ordinance to designate it. If financial hardship should occur in the future, the Ordinance establishes a set protocol to follow to test out the financial viability of the site with real studies rather than vague assertions, but it should not be a part of the Commission’s deliberations on the site’s designation. Sheth Jones, Capital Programs Office, said that industrial sites are being used; however, the environment around this site is not conducive for office or commercial use. Suzanne Barucco, of the Rosenblum Associates and a consultant for the rehabilitation of the Chester Power Station, also supported the designation. She noted that the Richmond Power Plant was the model for electric generation stations around the world. For reuse of the property, she 4 stated that it could certainly be reused for an industrial or port purpose if the area should remain industrial in nature. Alfred Ryan, Esquire, counsel for Exelon Corporation, said that he is not against preservation but the condition of the building is

world. For reuse of the property, she 4 stated that it could certainly be reused for an industrial or port purpose if the area should remain industrial in nature. Alfred Ryan, Esquire, counsel for Exelon Corporation, said that he is not against preservation but the condition of the building is an important issue. He referenced various factors, which exist at the Chester site, but do not exist around Richmond, such as the building’s condition and the tax status of the surrounding area. Michael Stern, a preservation architect, stated that the preservation of the Richmond Power Station contributes to the public good. Its high visibility on the Delaware River allows it to be seen by many people, either from the river, the Betsy Ross Bridge or the railroad bridge that sits beside the station. He believed that the hardship issue owing to the interior condition of the power plant should be taken separately. Mr. Wilds made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and not designate the Richmond Power Station. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried with 5 votes. Mr. Hack and Mr. Steinberg opposed the motion. Mr. Sklaroff abstained from the vote and did not participate in the discussion. The Commission returned to the Report of the Architectural Committee. 1340-48 Arch Street, SE corner of Broad Street, Arch Street Methodist Church Arch Street Methodist Church, Owner Martin Fricko, Applicant DATE: 1864, Addison Hutton, Architect PROPOSAL: Masonry wall coating The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the pointing, but denial of the waterproof coating until more information about the sustained damage is submitted. This proposal involves coating a brick wall with a waterproof coating. These coatings are normally discouraged by the Historical Commission because they trap moisture in the masonry, creating more damage. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 319-21 South 3rd Street Lisa Colton, Owner/Applicant DATE: Addition 1978 Louis Goldberg, architect PROPOSAL: 2nd floor addition The Architectural Committee recommended final approval of the proposal. This proposal involves altering a one-story entrance addition to accommodate another floor. The Committee and Commission last month approved the design for the front and side façade in concept. The applicant has returned with a design for the rear façade. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 757 South Front Street 5 Frederick

and Commission last month approved the design for the front and side façade in concept. The applicant has returned with a design for the rear façade. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 757 South Front Street 5 Frederick Vidi, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1800 PROPOSAL: Rear addition The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the proposal based on insufficient information, but recommended that the air-conditioning unit be relocated and that the proposed structure be painted. They also recommended that the applicant meet with the community association. This application involves adding a large dining facility to the visible rear of this restaurant on land that the owner has leased from Penn Dot. The large wood structure has the look of a barn. Staff recommendation: Approval if the wood is painted. The HVAC should be placed in a less visible location unless it was installed with a permit. John Ramaldi and Frederick Vidi, the owner, attended the meeting. Mr. Ramaldi stated that the relocation of the air conditioning unit would greatly impact the building and that the unit existed in 1992 when the owner purchased the building. He said that the proposed addition which is half built, will be used as storage for the restaurant. He also noted that an existing retaining wall would limit visibility of the addition. Mr. Wilds inquired if the air conditioning unit could be relocated on the proposed addition. The applicant said that the unit could be enclosed; however, ductwork would be needed which would be an enormous financial impact. Ms. Smyler thought the application should be modified to reflect the actual proposed work. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to table the proposal for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 129 League Street Michael Samschick, Owner Alden Blyth, Owner/Applicant/Under agreement of sale DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: Partial demolition The Architectural Committee recommended approval in concept, but recommended that the applicant work with staff for alternate door options. This application in concept calls for hollowing out the area behind the front wall of this rowhouse with garage to create an atrium. The car will park in this atrium which will bring light to the inside of the building. The design also calls for revisions to the garage door. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation.

behind the front wall of this rowhouse with garage to create an atrium. The car will park in this atrium which will bring light to the inside of the building. The design also calls for revisions to the garage door. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 314 Catherine Street, Unit 403 Don Foster, Owner George Tait, Applicant DATE: 1911, Magaziner & Potter, architects PROPOSAL: New windows The Architectural Committee recommended approval, with the staff to review details, and that this window should be the prototype for the rest of the building. 6 This proposal calls for replacing windows in one unit of this condominium building with new wood sash. Mr. Sklaroff questioned whether individual owners have the authority to proceed with window replacement without written consent of the Condominium Association. Mr. Baron noted that the existing condition warrants immediate attention. Mr. Hack stated that a policy for future window replacements should be implemented. Mr. Cuorato took issue with the motion, he believed that it goes beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction for future applications. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to approve the proposal with staff to review details, subject to the receipt of a letter from the Condominium Association giving the applicant the authority to proceed with window replacement, and that the windows should be the prototypes for the rest of the building. Mr. Hack seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Cuorato opposed the motion. 4401 Cresson Street, SE corner of Carson Street, Manayunk Train Station Bobby Morganstein, Owner/Under agreement of sale Jamie J. Kokenberger, Applicant DATE: c. 1910 PROPOSAL: Addition in concept The Architectural Committee recommended denial of this proposal. However, Committee members offered suggestions for a possible addition that would not touch the roofline of the existing building. This proposal involves adding a huge dining area onto the front façade of the building hiding the façade from public view. The roof of the new area would slope downward from the ridgeline of the train station hiding the building’s roof and facade. At the request of the applicant, the Commission voted to table the proposal for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Mr. Wilds made a motion to table the proposal for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Mr. Hack seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 116 Fountain Street Nolen Companies, Owner

the applicant, the Commission voted to table the proposal for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Mr. Wilds made a motion to table the proposal for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Mr. Hack seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 116 Fountain Street Nolen Companies, Owner Daniel F. Cullen, Applicant DATE: c. 1920, addition 1958 PROPOSAL: Partial demolition The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the demolition of the additions, and denial of the removal of the chimney, water tower structure and windows at this time. This proposal calls for conversion of this former textile related factory to a storage facility. The applicant wishes to demolish several sections of the structure, including a large 1958 addition, chimney and water tank support structure. The applicant also wishes to remove the original factory windows and install mostly metal infill panels and some cinderblock. In several cases the applicant would install aluminum storefront type windows. The building is listed as an intrusion within the Manayunk National Register district. The application is reviewed however, under the 7 Manayunk ordinance, which makes no distinction in the review of contributing and non- contributing structures. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Ms. Heller-Batzer abstained from the vote. The Commission again broke from the agenda to vote on several issues. CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENT ON NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION 1929 Sansom Street, Warburton House, Lucy Eaton Smith Residence The Warburton House, aka Lucy Eaton Smith Residence reflects the Italian Renaissance Revival architectural style and was designed by architect Arthur Loomis Harmon which meets Criteria C. Its affiliation with Emergency Aid, and its place in hotel development meets Criteria A. Following a brief discussion, the Commission agreed unanimously to recommend that the Warburton House should be entered on the National Register. Mr. Wilds made a motion for recommendation to the National Register. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, April 2002 Mr. Tyler then asked if members of the Commission had any questions about the report. There were none. HARRY A. BATTEN MEMORIAL FUND Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve the expenditure of $20.79 for the Architectural Committee’s lunch and $250.00 for a table at the Preservation Awards Luncheon in which a award will be presented for the Dream Garden Mural’s

questions about the report. There were none. HARRY A. BATTEN MEMORIAL FUND Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve the expenditure of $20.79 for the Architectural Committee’s lunch and $250.00 for a table at the Preservation Awards Luncheon in which a award will be presented for the Dream Garden Mural’s preservation. Ms. Heller-Batzer made a motion to approve the expenditures. Mr. Hack seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The Commission then returned to the Report of the Architectural Committee. 1236 Pine Street Queen Village Development, LP, Owner Elan Prystowsky, Applicant DATE: c. 1830, George Blackford, bricklayer PROPOSAL: Façade alterations and rear deck The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the project, with changes as recommended by the staff, with staff to review details. This proposal is for the rehabilitation of the façade of the building and a rear roof deck. The revised application calls for a new fixed storefront with a single, operational transom; a new four- panel wood door leading to the upper floors, and a double-leaf door (each with two panels) leading to the store. A wood panel will sit below the storefront windows and the cornice will be replaced in kind. The applicant proposes to remove the present signage and air-conditioning unit. The application also includes new 6/6 sash in existing frames on the second story and a new segmental-arched 6/6 sash in the dormer. The half-gambrel roof will get new Timberline shingles 8 in a weathered-wood color. The rear of the building has a glass curtain wall at the third floor. The rear deck is on the two- story rear ell with a door installed at the second floor. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised proposal, with the staff to review details. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1801 Spring Garden Street, NW corner of 18th Street, Highway Tabernacle Church Highway Tabernacle Church, Owner Reverend Otto Wegner, Applicant DATE: 1864, Alfred Biles, architect, sanctuary, 1884, Pursell, architect PROPOSAL: Handicap access ramp The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the ramp, with a stone facing to match the original stone of the church. The church wishes to install a handicap access ramp at the southeast entrance of the building. The ramp will have a simple wrought-iron picket railing. Although on a prominent street, the entrance proposed for the ramp is the secondary entrance to the church. Mr. Sklaroff inquired about the salvaged stone and

church wishes to install a handicap access ramp at the southeast entrance of the building. The ramp will have a simple wrought-iron picket railing. Although on a prominent street, the entrance proposed for the ramp is the secondary entrance to the church. Mr. Sklaroff inquired about the salvaged stone and Otto Wegner, the applicant responded that the stone is being salvaged from a former exterior wall. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the proposal with the reuse of salvaged stone. Ms. Heller- Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1802 Green Street Fabrize Saadoun, Owner Jeffrey Brummer, Architect DATE: c. 1863 PROPOSAL: Façade alterations and roof deck The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal, with staff to review details. This proposal includes the rehabilitation of the entire structure. On the front façade the owner proposes to restore the 2/2 windows and match the single-leaf door as found on the neighboring house. On the rear, the proposal includes rehabilitating the stair-tower with new stucco, restoring the brick three-story rear ell with 6/6 windows and rehabilitating the two-story rear addition with stucco. Two decks will be installed, one on the roof of the three-story rear ell and one extending over the yard at the second story. The existing one-story rear addition will be demolished. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1818 Fairmount Avenue Eugene McCrystall, Owner Larry Persofsky, Applicant PROPOSAL: New construction on vacant lot 9 The Architectural Committee suggested a simplified cornice, square panels for the front door and a traditional rail and stile garage door with recessed flat panels. This proposal is a 45-day review and comment owing to construction on a vacant lot in a historic district. The application calls for a new rowhouse with the same cornice detailing, window configuration on the upper floors, and entrance detailing as the neighbor’s house; however, the first floor has a garage door instead of windows. Mr. Tissian expressed his opposition to the proposed garage door on the front façade. Commission members recommended a simplified cornice and discussed its jurisdiction over the curb cut in an historic district. Mr. Tissian made a motion to approve the proposal with a simplified cornice, but denial of the curb cut. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Cuorato opposed the motion. 1709 North Street Gregory Ott, Owner/Applicant

its jurisdiction over the curb cut in an historic district. Mr. Tissian made a motion to approve the proposal with a simplified cornice, but denial of the curb cut. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Cuorato opposed the motion. 1709 North Street Gregory Ott, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1875, new façade, 1941 PROPOSAL: Legalize rear deck The Architectural Committee recommended legalization of the deck and the pointing, subject to the removal of the window capping on the front windows and a new wood four-panel front door, with staff to review details. This proposal calls for legalizing pointing on the front façade and a roof deck on the two-story rear ell. The deck is minimally visible from back street. Since fixing the pointing may cause more damage, the owner agreed to remove the panning on the windows on the front façade and changing the front door to a wood, four-panel door as a remediation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1428-34 Chestnut Street, SE corner of 15th Street, Packard Building Chest-Pac Associates, LP, Owners Bill Harkins, Applicant DATE: 1922-24, Ritter & Shay, architects Built: 1922-24, Ritter & Shay, architects PROPOSAL: Vents on floors 4 to 12 The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the multiple bathroom vents on the east façade and suggested a central duct with a rooftop vent. The Committee recommended denial of any new louvers on the Chestnut, Sansom or 15th Street facades. The Committee recommended approval of new vents if located behind existing louvers to maintain the existing appearance. The Committee recognized the need for louvers and would consider locations, within the light court on the east façade as part of a HVAC plan for the entire building. This proposal calls for new HVAC systems on floors four through twelve. Every even-numbered floor will have a fresh-air-intake vent and exhaust vent in window openings on the east façade of the building. An existing vent on the Sansom Street façade, just above the first floor, will be replaced and a new vent on the 17th floor on the Sansom Street façade will be installed in an existing window opening. Also, two twelve-inch fans to ventilate the bathrooms will penetrate the east façade on each floor. 10 Mr. Wilds inquired about the applicant’s response to the recommendation. Ms. Spina noted that communication has only

the 17th floor on the Sansom Street façade will be installed in an existing window opening. Also, two twelve-inch fans to ventilate the bathrooms will penetrate the east façade on each floor. 10 Mr. Wilds inquired about the applicant’s response to the recommendation. Ms. Spina noted that communication has only been with the contractor, although the developer has received correspondence. Mr. Sklaroff reiterated the importance of this building. Mr. Cuorato commented that piece-meal applications hold up construction and would try to relay this to the owner owing to the time constraints for the construction. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Ms. Smyler abstained from the vote. 1526-28 Waverly Street, SE corner of Mole Street Ursula and Patrick Hobson, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1895; new front wall, 1950 PROPOSAL: 4th floor addition, new fenestration The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the project as proposed and suggested several revisions for the architect to consider for a future application. This late 19th-century building received a new glass curtain wall on the Waverly Street façade in the 1950s. The present owners propose to change the front windows to new units in an Arts and Crafts style, replace the windows on the side elevation and add a fourth story to the building. The addition will have a gabled roof and rooftop terraces at the front and rear. Ursula and Patrick Hobson, the owners, attended the meeting. Ms. Hobson said that the front windows are in very poor condition. She also said that the proposal’s intent is a simpler and more industrial design. She said that the gabled roof would enhance the interior space and they plan to install solar panels in the future. Mr. Tyler thought the revised design should be referred back to the Committee. Mr. Wilds noted his acceptance of the gabled roof. Mr. Hack believed that visibility is limited owing to its location in the rear. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the proposal as submitted with painted wood panels in the front windows instead of stucco. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Ms. Spina noted that the Commission consistently denies decks on the front portion of buildings. Ms. Hobson noted that any setback to the front deck would eliminate it entirely since it is only six feet wide. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve

Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Ms. Spina noted that the Commission consistently denies decks on the front portion of buildings. Ms. Hobson noted that any setback to the front deck would eliminate it entirely since it is only six feet wide. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the front deck, with a simplified railing set back behind the parapet wall. Mr. Hack seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 237 South 18th Street, NE corner of Rittenhouse Square Street, The Barclay Barclay Condominium Owner’s Association, Owners Christian Busch, Architect DATE: 1928, J.E.R. Carpenter, architect PROPOSAL: Streetscape alterations The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the project, with the bollards spaced 8 feet apart. The Commission denied this proposal last month because they wanted more information on the bollards. Christian Busch, the architect, attended the meeting. He said that the bollards will be stationary. He stated that the current non-historic planters are free-standing and the proposed planters will be mimic the balcony above. 11 Commission members questioned the dumpster and scaffolding removal and Mr. Busch responded that it should happen within 8 to 12 months. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1616 Walnut Street Walnut Chancellor Associates, Owners Brett Webber, Applicant DATE: 1929-30, Tilden, Register & Pepper, architects PROPOSAL: Rear windows The Architectural Committee recommended approval. This application is for twelve new windows on the Chancellor Street façade of the building at the 7th floor (5th floor according to the drawings). These openings have a metal double-leaf casement window above a fixed, single-light transom. The proposed windows differ slightly from the existing in several ways; however, exact matches are not available on the market. Since only twelve of the windows on this façade will be changed, the new windows may prove visible. The Commission members concurred with the Committee’s recommendation but noted that these windows should be the prototype for any future window replacement on this façade. Ms. Heller-Batzer made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation, making these the prototype for any future window replacements on this façade. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1911 Spruce Street Abraham Soidislawsky, Owner Shraga Berenfeld, Architect DATE: c. 1875, new façade, 1894 PROPOSAL: Elevator tower at rear The Architectural Committee recommended approval, with the staff to review details including the brick match. This proposal is for a four-story

façade. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1911 Spruce Street Abraham Soidislawsky, Owner Shraga Berenfeld, Architect DATE: c. 1875, new façade, 1894 PROPOSAL: Elevator tower at rear The Architectural Committee recommended approval, with the staff to review details including the brick match. This proposal is for a four-story brick elevator tower tucked into the corner where the rear ell meets the main building. The existing windows on the rear façade will become doors into the tower. The addition is minimally visible from Manning Street. Ms. Smyler made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2119 Delancey Street Harriet Berneman, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1865, mansard roof, c. 1875 PROPOSAL: Rear parking pad with gate The Architectural Committee recommended approval, with the painting of the garage door. This proposal calls for removing the non-historic rear garden wall and installing a metal roll- down garage door with a wood surround. This will match the existing wall and gate of the 12 neighboring building. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Cuorato asked that the Commission ratify the votes of the first three proposals that were heard absent the presence of a quorum. Ms. Heller-Batzer made a motion to ratify the proposals. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with seven votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. Ms. Heller-Batzer made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes Executive Secretary 13