THE MINUTES OF THE 463rd STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 14 March 2001 Commission Conference Room 18th Floor, 1515 Arch Street Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Present Wayne S. Spilove, Chair David Baldinger, Deputy Director, City Planning Commission David Brownlee, Ph.D. James J. Cuorato, City Representative and Director of Commerce Gary Hack, Chair, City Planning Commission Melissa Heller Batzer, Office of City Council President, Director of Economic Development David J. Perri, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Robert Thomas, AIA Scott Wilds, Assistant Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Carolyn Wischmann Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Mark Zecca, Esq., Senior Attorney, City of Philadelphia Law Department Also Ed Rahme, H2L2 Architects Nicholas Aloi, 124 Queen Street Roger Doherty, 100 Delancey Street C.J. Hazell, Penn Knox Neighborhood Association Arthur Smith, 332 Front Street Sally W. Smith, 332 Front Street Carol Raviole, 103 Pine Street Jean Bryan, 316 South Front Street Ronald Patterson, Esq., Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers Roland Davies, 303 South American Street Michael Jacobs, 1803 Spring Garden Street Ira Kauderer, Esq., Ballard Spahr Andrews and Ingersoll Joseph Fischgrund, Pennsylvania School for the Deaf Jerry Roller, J.K. Roller Architects Catharine Franklin, 56 West Penn Street Bill Knudson Jack Parry, J. Randolph Parry Architects Laurie Phillips, Prudential Fox Roach Kathleen and Ted Polett, 1721 Addison Street Melanie Piltch, Marguerite Rodgers LTD Charles Tonetti, Independence National Historic Park Tina LeCoff, Penn Knox Sandy Bates, Penn Knox 1 Robert Powers, Powers and Company John Gerbner, Ewing Cole Cherry Brott, Franklin Institute Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents’ Association/Preservation Alliance Richard Dodridge, Penn Knox Georgette Bartell, Penn Knox Emily Law, Penn Knox Barry Levine, Penn Knox Neighborhood Association Dominic Aspite, 308 South Front Street Vito Chimenti, Peirce College Phil Kunz, PDK Architects Kathleen Schatz, Penn Knox Neighborhood Association Neale Quenzel, John Milner Associates Robert Graves, Bower Lewis Thrower Ramel Cooper, 121 West Coulter Street David Gilfillan, Vice-Chair, Penn Knox Neighborhood Association Sue Gilfillan, Penn Knox Neighborhood Association Donna Dubert, 5324 Knox Street Robert Dubert, 5324 Knox Street Karin Loewy, 36 West Coulter Street Sue B. Gefet, 162 West Penn Street James and Peggy Bishop, 118 West Coulter Street Laryssa Mykyta, 117 West Coulter Street Frederick A. Swope, Joseph Dugan Incorporated Wayne Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 463rd Stated Meeting of the
Karin Loewy, 36 West Coulter Street Sue B. Gefet, 162 West Penn Street James and Peggy Bishop, 118 West Coulter Street Laryssa Mykyta, 117 West Coulter Street Frederick A. Swope, Joseph Dugan Incorporated Wayne Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 463rd Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 9:10 Minutes of the 462nd Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr.Brownlee and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes as corrected of the 462nd Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 14 February 2001, Stephanie G. Wolf, Vice-Chair, as corrected. Mr. Sklaroff asked that the minutes reflect his abstention from participating in comments on the Upper Roxborough Historic District nomination. Mr. Spilove welcomed Gary Hack, Chairman of the City Planning Commission, to the Commission. OLD BUSINESS 2226 Green Street Alson Alston, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1866 PROPOSAL: Revised development of multi-family dwelling The Commission granted the request of the owner to defer a decision on this application for a period not to exceed six months. 321 Chestnut Street, National History Museum Irvin Borowsky, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1905 PROPOSAL: Install video screen on front facade The Commission staff received a request for withdrawal in writing from the applicant. 2 THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 27 February 2001. 100 Delancey Street Roger and Jeanne Doherty, Owners Christopher Beardsley, Architect DATE: c. 1970 PROPOSAL: Rear addition with elevator The Architectural Committee recommended approval in concept of the mass of the addition abutting Delancey Street instead of the party wall side of the property with the retention of the existing rear fence wall with the staff to review details. However, the applicant should return to the Committee with new elevations and material samples. This application calls for a rear addition with elevator as well as a new design for the exposed rear wall and the brick fence. The staff recommended denial per Standards 9 and 10. The staff thought that the new materials do not complement the existing architecture of the building and that the extension of the building compromises the view into and design of the courtyard shared by the row. This proposal was seen previously by the Commission; however, the addition was much larger in size. At that time, the Commission had concerns about the importance of the architectural space as well as the building itself.
building compromises the view into and design of the courtyard shared by the row. This proposal was seen previously by the Commission; however, the addition was much larger in size. At that time, the Commission had concerns about the importance of the architectural space as well as the building itself. Stanley R. Krakower, attorney for Sally Smith, sent a letter to the Historical Commission, requesting that the proposal be referred back to the Architectural Committee. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to table the proposal for a period not to exceed six months, and to refer the submission to the Architectural Committee. Ms. Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1902 Spring Garden Street Marc Ginsburg, Owner Jerry Roller, Applicant DATE: c. 1886 PROPOSAL: Legalize removal of stone façade and replacement with brown stucco The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the legalization of the removal of the stone façade and its replacement with brown stucco. This proposal involves legalizing the demolition of a marble façade undertaken without a permit. The Department of Licenses and Inspections issued a stop work order, and Mr. Tyler explained the Commission’s review process to the applicant and the need for the Commission to review his proposed scope of work. Subsequently the applicant applied for a permit and through error at the Department received a permit which it subsequently revoked. Meanwhile, the contractor rebuilt the wall in cinderblock and brown stucco. The staff recommended denial. The applicant should remove the cinderblock and rebuild the façade in marble. The Spring Garden Civic Association sent a letter to the Historical Commission in support the Committee’s recommendation for denial of the legalization of the work. 3 Jerry Roller attended the meeting to explain the application and presented photographs of what previously existed. In addition, he stated that the previous owner applied paint to the facade. Some Commission members questioned the restoration materials and the matching of the existing marble. However the Standards state that restoration should be done with original materials if possible. Mr. Tyler stated that after his site visit, the contractor continued the work absent a permit. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation for denial. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 124 Queen Street Nicholas Aloi, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1815 PROPOSAL: Rear addition and alterations The Architectural Committee recommended approval with the staff to review details. Ms. Pentz abstained from the vote
Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation for denial. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 124 Queen Street Nicholas Aloi, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1815 PROPOSAL: Rear addition and alterations The Architectural Committee recommended approval with the staff to review details. Ms. Pentz abstained from the vote owing to her late arrival. The applicant has worked with the Commission staff on the restoration of the front façade of this rowhouse. He now wishes to work on the rear removing some aluminum siding and an addition from the rear to expose the original brick wall. He proposes to add a small addition and a two level deck at the rear. This work will have some visibility from a side street through the yards of two neighboring houses. The staff recommended approval per Standards 9 and 10. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 143 and 151 West Coulter Street, Pennsylvania School for the Deaf Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, Owner Ira A. Kauderer, Esq., Applicant DATE: c. 1860 and c. 1870 PROPOSAL: Demolition of two houses The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the demolition based on the architectural merits and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Mr. Levy said he did not think the information sufficient to make that determination and he abstained This application requests permission to demolish two houses on Coulter Street to the rear of the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf. The houses, which have remained empty for a number of years, formerly served as a rooming house and attracted drug use and other problems to the neighborhood. After meeting with the neighborhood, Mayor Rendell had the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation acquire the properties with the intention that the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf would acquire them. One additional property in the row, not listed by the Historical Commission, is also under consideration for demolition as part of this project. The School will add a high school program and needs an additional school building to house its pre- school. It also seeks to construct a second building to house an auditorium for use by the school and the community. 4 The submission shows several options which include the demolition of one, two or three of the existing houses. The School can construct the preschool without demolishing a designated building, but seeks to demolish the two
second building to house an auditorium for use by the school and the community. 4 The submission shows several options which include the demolition of one, two or three of the existing houses. The School can construct the preschool without demolishing a designated building, but seeks to demolish the two buildings for the auditorium in the second phase of construction if it can raise the funds. It calculates the entire project with demolition of the three houses at 8 million dollars. The premium for keeping the two houses as part of the project would be 3.1 million, three houses, 3.7 million. Retaining one of the houses raises the cost 1.5 million dollars. In addition, a report by Louis Iatarola explains that the cost of rehabilitating the houses substantially exceeds their market value. The School seeks to demolish all of the houses based on the public interest as well as based on economic hardship. As the Commission has no jurisdiction, the staff thought that the school could move ahead and build the preschool on the site of the non-designated building. The staff consensus favors an attempt to raise funds for a version of the project that saves the two historic structures. If it proves impossible to raise the funds for the more expensive option, the school should come back to the Commission with that information. Because the School does not yet own the properties and has none of the money to build even the least expensive option, it is difficult to evaluate the hardship to this non-profit institution. Eventual demolition approvals should be contingent upon securing funding for that portion of the project as well as design review by the Commission of the new buildings and landscaping. The staff did not object to the immediate removal of the modern additions to the historic houses. Ed Rahme, Joseph Fischgrund and Ira Kauderer attended the meeting to answer questions and explain the project. Mr. Fiscgrund introduced a sign language interpreter, hired by the Historical Commission to allow the hearing impaired to access the proceedings. He also gave a demonstration of the necessity of having a high school where hearing impaired children could attend school. Mr. Kauderer stated the proposal has been revised to allow for the preservation and sale of 151 West Coulter Street, subject to its being restored as a single family dwelling with no more that one apartment. The amended proposal
having a high school where hearing impaired children could attend school. Mr. Kauderer stated the proposal has been revised to allow for the preservation and sale of 151 West Coulter Street, subject to its being restored as a single family dwelling with no more that one apartment. The amended proposal is scaled down and requires an achievable amount of funding. It involves demolishing two buildings, only one of which is listed as historical, and constructing a combined school and auditorium. In addition, the applicant intends to work closely with the neighbors and community organization. James Bishop, Sub-committee, Penn Knox Neighborhood spoke in support of the proposal. Tina LeCoff, Chair , Penn Knox Neighborhood Association, supports the proposal and wants the retention of the school and residents in the city. Connie Winters sent a letter to the Historical Commission staff and expressed her opposition to the demolition. She strongly believes if properly marketed, 143 West Coulter could be rehabilitated for a single-family dwelling. Reimel Cooper, 121 West Coulter Street expressed her support of the school’s proposal. Sandy Day stated that the properties previously were marketed for multi-tenant usage and not residential usage. Richard and Emily Law gave support to the school’s proposal. C.J. Hazell, Penn Knox Neighborhood Association, supports the proposal and stated that the 5 preservation and sale of 151 meets the needs for keeping continuity in the streetscape. Georgette Bartell supports the proposal since only one property is being demolitioned. Carolyn Sprogell, a Schoolhouse Lane resident, expressed her opposition to the demolition. Robert McCormac expressed his desire to purchase 131 West Coulter Street. Mr. Spilove requested a show of hands on the school’s proposal. An overwhelming number of residents in attendance supported the school’s position. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to approve the revised proposal in the public interest subject to the approval and review of the new construction for the entire site and the preservation of 151 West Coulter Street for a single family dwelling with no more than one apartment. Ms. Batzer seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself. 1900-38 North Park Avenue 1900 Campus walk LP, Owner J. Randolph Parry, Architect DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: Renovations to rowhouses and mall The Architectural Committed voted to recommend approval of the raised terrace provided the development team mount an interpretative display of historic photographs of the Park Mall rowhouses for public view within
Avenue 1900 Campus walk LP, Owner J. Randolph Parry, Architect DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: Renovations to rowhouses and mall The Architectural Committed voted to recommend approval of the raised terrace provided the development team mount an interpretative display of historic photographs of the Park Mall rowhouses for public view within the building. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the freezer box addition in concept with the final design subject to Committee and Commission approval. The dumpsters, transformers, light fixtures, awnings, banners, plaques and hanging metal lettering were recommended for approval with staff to review details. The Committee voted to recommend denial of the rear exhaust chimney, as proposed, and suggested a re-design subject to Committee and Commission approval. The Temple Park Mall development team has changed, and the new architect now proposes several revisions to the approved plans. This proposal includes: 1. Raising the terrace across the front of 1916 and 1926 and the proposed new glass pavilions to create a continuous platform across both groups of rowhouses. Encapsulation of the two remaining brownstone stoops. 2. Installation of an ATM machine within an approved new window opening on the south façade of 1900. 3. Construction of a new freezer box addition at rear of 1904. 4. Dumpster and transformer locations at various locations at rear. 5. Wall and pole light fixtures for approved locations at front. 6. Reduced awnings over front doors. 7. Sign banners, wall plaques and hanging metal lettering on glass pavilions previously reviewed in concept only. Installation of light fixtures to illuminate the proposed banners. 8. Kitchen exhaust chimney at rear stuccoed infill area between 1926-28. Staff recommendation: 1. Denial of the raised terrace connection. The Commission’s initial conceptual approval of the terrace required retention and encapsulation of all the original brownstone steps. Prior to construction, Temple University removed and disposed of most of the original steps. The Commission required the retention and repair of the remaining original brownstone steps and 6 wrought iron front basement grates at 1916 and 1926 in the 13 December 1999 final approval. In addition, an expanded terrace will cover the original watertables and obscure the two remaining rowhouse facades. 2. Denial of the exterior ATM. The ATM should be located within a vestibule with the building. 3. Denial of the freezer box addition. As these buildings are undergoing a complete rehabilitation and reconfiguration, the freezer boxes should be installed with
original watertables and obscure the two remaining rowhouse facades. 2. Denial of the exterior ATM. The ATM should be located within a vestibule with the building. 3. Denial of the freezer box addition. As these buildings are undergoing a complete rehabilitation and reconfiguration, the freezer boxes should be installed with the building. 4. Approval of the transformer and dumpster locations if equipment can be sufficiently obscured by compatible fencing and landscaping with staff to review details. 5. Approval of the wall and pole light fixtures. 6. Approval of the awnings 7. Approval of the sign banners with light fixtures, wall plaques and hanging metal lettering with staff to review details. 8. The development team should explore locating the kitchen exhaust chimney within the building and consider a solution that can be utilized for future restaurant tenants. Any other item shown in the elevations or rendering is not under review and should not conflict with the final plans as approved by the Commission on 13 December 1999. J. Randolph Parry, the architect attended the meeting and stated that the ATM is withdrawn from the proposal. In addition, he thought that the raised continuous terraces do not effect the end houses and presented renderings showing the continuous terraces. Mr. Tyler stated that the staff opposed the continuous terrace and that the freezer box should be located on the interior. Mr. Brownlee thought that the vertical appearance with a simple end should be preserved to reflect the historic buildings. However, some members believed that owing to the insertion of modern additions the continuous terraces are appropriate. Mr. Cuorato made a motion to approve the proposal but referred the design of the chimney exhaust to the Architectural Committee. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained and Mr. Brownlee opposed the motion. 1600 Arch Street, SW corner of South 16th Street SAS-1600 Arch Street, LP, Owner Robert B. Graves, Architect DATE: 1925 PROPOSAL: Exterior signage, awnings, marquees, lighting and planters The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the following: 1. Two marquees; 2. Awnings installed at the transom bar; 3. Paving and streetlights; 4. Cuthbert Street openings with flush doors and transom windows retained until an established need for replacement with louvers with staff approval; 5. Planters, and 6. Lighting fixtures attached to the sides of the pedestal. With staff to review all details. The Architectural Committee recommended denial of
Paving and streetlights; 4. Cuthbert Street openings with flush doors and transom windows retained until an established need for replacement with louvers with staff approval; 5. Planters, and 6. Lighting fixtures attached to the sides of the pedestal. With staff to review all details. The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the pylons as submitted. The proposal involves installation of metal and glass marquees over the 16th Street and Arch Street doorways, canvas awnings in the windows, decorative paving and planters as well as back 7 lit plastic faced signage pylons, uplighting and streetlights. Plans propose the cutting of a new entry on Cuthbert Street to accommodate bicycles. The staff recommended approval of the marquees, awnings, paving and streetlights. Denial of the bicycle access door, the planters, the plastic backlit aspect of the signage pylons and any holes cut in the top of the granite to attach the uplighting. Robert Graves attended the meeting and presented revised plans for the pylon design. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation, but referred the revised pylon design to the Architectural Committee for further study. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 200 South Broad Street, SW corner of Walnut Street, The Bellevue The Bellevue Associates, Owner Frederick Swope, Contractor DATE: 1902-04, 1910-11 PROPOSAL: Masonry repair and replacement This proposal involves repairing and replacing damaged or missing masonry elements on the Broad Street façade of the Bellevue Stratford Hotel building. The proposal calls for using cast stone, and masonry patching material. The staff recommended approval with the staff to review details. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Baldinger seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1115-1141 Market Street, NE corner of 12th Street, Reading Terminal Headhouse Headhouse Retail Associates, LP, Owner F. Neale Quenzel, Applicant DATE: 1891-93 PROPOSAL: Move flagpoles The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal to move the flagpoles from the second floor balcony to just above the first floor. The proposal involves lowering flagpoles on the primary facade from the second floor balcony to just above the first floor. The staff recommended denial since moving the flags would overcrowd the building’s entryway. Staff suggested that a mechanism be devised to lower and raise the flags from their present location. Mr. Cuorato made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1115-1141 Market Street, NE corner
denial since moving the flags would overcrowd the building’s entryway. Staff suggested that a mechanism be devised to lower and raise the flags from their present location. Mr. Cuorato made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1115-1141 Market Street, NE corner of 12th Street, Reading Terminal Headhouse Headhouse Retail Associates, LP, Owner F. Neale Quenzel, Applicant DATE: 1891-93 PROPOSAL: Awnings and signage on Market Street façade 8 The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the awnings to match the smaller awnings of the Hard Rock Café in profile with staff to review awning details and color. The Architectural Committee further recommended approval of the exterior signage provided that the face of the plastic individual letters sits at least one-foot recessed behind the outside stone facade. Mr. Baron described the proposal which involves adding awnings and back-lit plastic box signs or individual letters attached to the transoms of the eastern bays of the Market Street facade. The staff recommended approval of fabric, non-illuminated, open-sided awnings that match the shape of the smaller Hard Rock Café awnings. The staff further recommended denial of the illuminated signage and thought that the signs should be displayed from behind the storefront glass. Neal Quenzel attended the meeting and presented the project. At this time he stated his proposal would replicate as close as possible the previously approved signage, set behind the face of the stone surface. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to approve alternate A of the proposed signage. Mr. Cuorato seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1115-1141 Market Street, NE corner of 12th Street, Reading Terminal Headhouse Headhouse Retail Associates, LP, Owner Brian L. Newswanger, Applicant DATE: 1891-93 PROPOSAL: Signage on Market Street façade The Architectural Committee recommended denial of signage placed on the granite Market Street facade with lighting hung from the bottom of the Convention Center canopy. The Architectural Committee recommended approval of a strip sign, placed in an empty arch that flanks the Convention Center entrance, with staff to review details and placement of the signage. The proposal involves installing a sign for the brew pub on the granite Market Street facade with lighting hung from the bottom of the Convention Center canopy. The staff recommended denial and stated that the signage should be held back to the rear of the arcade, perhaps near the central doors. The applicant was receptive to the
the brew pub on the granite Market Street facade with lighting hung from the bottom of the Convention Center canopy. The staff recommended denial and stated that the signage should be held back to the rear of the arcade, perhaps near the central doors. The applicant was receptive to the Committee’s recommendations, and submitted revised plans. The Commission discussed the location of the signage and the importance of consistent placement. Mr. Tyler expressed his concern about too many signs; Mr. Sklaroff thought the medallion type sign appropriate as submitted. Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents’ Association, expressed her concern about placement of signage on the piers. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised submission to include consistent placement with the staff to review details. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2000 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, SE corner of South 20th Street, Franklin Institute Franklin Institute, Owner 9 John Gerbner, Applicant DATE: 1932 PROPOSAL: Fire door revised The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the fire door replacement. This application involves the location for cutting a new fire door approved at a previous Commission meeting. The applicant had agreed to move the new door out of the window area to an adjacent pier. Upon investigation, the architect found that the masonry pier contains the steel support structure and therefore must again propose the window location. This time the window glazing will remain. The staff recommended approval provided that the window glazing remain. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 308 South Front Street Robert and Lexis Potamkin, Owners Dominic Aspite, Applicant DATE: c. 1970 PROPOSAL: Enclose front porch The Architectural Committee recommended approval of glazing the second floor balcony on the building’s Front Street facade. Mr. Baron presented the application which involves closing in the open balcony on the front facade of this modern row house. Several porches in this row received glazing prior to designation. The glazing will not match the design of the adjacent row house. Staff recommended denial of the proposal believing that the chief characteristic of this architectural style is the relationship of solid to void. Closing this opening, therefore, seriously alters the design of the front facade. Mr. Baldinger made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 227-31 South 6th Street, Lippincott Building Albro Associates LP,
of this architectural style is the relationship of solid to void. Closing this opening, therefore, seriously alters the design of the front facade. Mr. Baldinger made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 227-31 South 6th Street, Lippincott Building Albro Associates LP, Alan Sobel, Gerald Broker, Owners Charles D. Datner, Applicant DATE: 1900 PROPOSAL: Conceptual two-story addition The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the conceptual addition as submitted This application involves creating a two-story addition on top of this building. The design involves no setbacks and features horizontal fenestration. The staff recommended denial since the addition has visibility from all four sides and does not respect the design elements of the existing building. Perhaps a single-story penthouse pulled back from all sides could find approval, but would probably not provide a sufficient return on the expenditure. 10 Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation for denial. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 264 South 20th Street Greg Hanson, Owner Melanie B. Piltch, Applicant DATE: c. 1920 PROPOSAL: Alter storefront and door, exterior awnings and signage The Architectural Committee recommended approval of altering the storefront and adding a glass door in front of the existing vestibule, exterior awnings and signage with the staff to review details. The project involves alterations to a commercial building to install a dress shop. The applicant seeks to cut down the paneled brick base of the store window, install a glass door in front of the recessed vestibule and add awnings above the door and over the upper floor windows. Plans also show a projecting sign. The staff recommended denial of cutting down the storefront and the new glass door. The storefront awning should cover only the area of the window not the door. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1412-14 Pine Street, SW corner of Carlisle Street, Peirce College Peirce College, Owner James J. Mergiotti, Applicant DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Billboard and security cameras The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the cameras but denial of the billboard type sign. This project involves the installation of a billboard type sign on the side of 1412 Pine Street facing Broad Street to advertise Peirce College. The vinyl graphic will change periodically to give a new image for Peirce. Peirce installed the existing
the cameras but denial of the billboard type sign. This project involves the installation of a billboard type sign on the side of 1412 Pine Street facing Broad Street to advertise Peirce College. The vinyl graphic will change periodically to give a new image for Peirce. Peirce installed the existing billboard as well as the security cameras without Historical Commission review. The staff recommended denial. The applicant thought the Committee’s suggestion of a mural a good idea and plans to pursue this. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to approve the cameras, but to table the signage issue for a period not to exceed six months. Mr. Baldinger seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1721 Addison Street Ted Polett, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Legalize non-historic windows 11 The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the legalization of the non-historic windows but strongly recommended that the Commission consider the circumstances. This project involves legalizing vinyl windows installed on the front façade of this rowhouse. The windows installed by the former owner in 1997 received a violation immediately that year. Mr. Polett purchased the house in 1997 and the violation did not show up on the City certification. He now seeks to sell the property and the violation now appears on the City certification. He wishes to have the Commission legalize the work based on the premise that he did not do the work. The staff recommended denial per Standard 6. Kathleen and Ted Polett, the current owners, and Laurie Phillips, the realtor, attended the meeting to answer questions and to explain the circumstances of this proposal. Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents’ Association, spoke on its behalf and stated that the Center City Residents’ Association would like to see the historic windows restored. The Commission thought this a delicate situation and discussed the circumstances at length. Mr. Sklaroff recommended that the seller create an escrow account of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) at the time of settlement for the purpose of window restoration Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to approve the legalization of the windows subject to the applicant’s agreeing to create an appropriate escrow account of $5,000.00 at settlement which the buyer may utilize only for the restoration of historic windows. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 113 Elfreths Alley Albert Malmfelt and Brenda Frank Gerry Gutierrez, Architect DATE: c. 1811 PROPOSAL: Visible rear addition This proposal involves supplementing the addition
escrow account of $5,000.00 at settlement which the buyer may utilize only for the restoration of historic windows. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 113 Elfreths Alley Albert Malmfelt and Brenda Frank Gerry Gutierrez, Architect DATE: c. 1811 PROPOSAL: Visible rear addition This proposal involves supplementing the addition formerly approved by the Commission and covering more of the visible fabric of the original structure. The staff recommended denial per Standard 9 and 10. The applicant withdrew the application in writing. THE REPORT of the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, February 2001. Mr. Tyler 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 for the Architectural Committee lunches. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to approve the $20.60 expenditure. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 12 Ms. Batzer made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes Executive Secretary 13