Historical Commission — Sep 10, 1997

THE MINUTES OF THE 421st STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 10 September 1997 City Council Caucus, Room 401 City Hall Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Present Wayne S. Spilove, Chair David Brownlee, Ph.D. Duane Bumb, Deputy Director, Department of Commerce Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Property Arlene Matzkin Shelly Merhige, Office of City Council President Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Robert Vance, Jr., Esq, Chair, City Planning Commission Maria J. Walker Dennis P. Ward, III Caroline Wischmann Stephanie Wolf, Ph.D. Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Jeffrey R. Barr, Historical Preservation Technician Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner R. Scott Jacob, Historic Preservation Specialist Mark Zecca, Esq., Deputy City Solicitor Also, with affiliation and/or project Rosemary Rau, Philadelphia Canoe Club Richard Thom, Old City Civic Association, Historic East Market Street Sheryl Joslers, Richard Thom, AIA M. Patricia Carroll, Esq., 2201 Delancey Street Michael Hannigan, Blackney Hayes Architects, YWCA 2025 Chestnut T. Lyons Bradley, 4414 Ridge Avenue Warren Huff, City Planning Commission Ellen Metz, Renovation Design, 327 Spruce Street Barbara McGinley, 2201 Delancey Street Lance Kraemer, Lance R. Kraemer Architects Ernest Varalli, Jr., 1231 Rodman Street Robert Powers, Powers and Lamp, YWCA Marc Pinard, Architect Allen Roth, Joseph Callaghan, Inc. Tom Ferrick, Inquirer Christian A. Busch, Robert DeSilets Architects Robert L. DeSilets, Architect, 925 Chestnut Street Greta Greenberger, City Hall Tours Margaret L. MacLaren, Center City Residents Association 2 Wayne S. Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 421st Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 10:00 A.M. MINUTES of the 420th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Brownlee and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the Minutes of the 420th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 13 August 1997, Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. Mr. Spilove welcomed R. Scott Jacob, the new Historic Preservation Specialist to the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Mr. Ward made a motion to observe a moment of silence to commemorate the death of Richie Ashburn. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Tyler announced the tour of 925 Chestnut Street, requested by the Historical Commission at its meeting on 13 August 1997, scheduled for Monday, 15 September 1997 at 10:00 a.m. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE REPORT, 26 August 1997, Arlene Matzkin, Chair Ms. Matzkin read the Committee's recommendations before discussion of each proposal. Philadelphia Canoe

announced the tour of 925 Chestnut Street, requested by the Historical Commission at its meeting on 13 August 1997, scheduled for Monday, 15 September 1997 at 10:00 a.m. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE REPORT, 26 August 1997, Arlene Matzkin, Chair Ms. Matzkin read the Committee's recommendations before discussion of each proposal. Philadelphia Canoe Club, Fairmount Park Philadelphia Canoe Club, Owner Rosemary Rau, Applicant DATE: c. 1830; several 20th century alterations PROPOSAL: New wood windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of new six- over-six wood sash and approval of any repairs to the extant frames. Approval of new frames in certain windows if staff finds the extant frame beyond repair. Applicant should install sash and frames from the interior. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal. The owners wish to replace the existing six-over-six windows, and the frames. The new windows installed in existing frames would slightly change the proportions of the window, closing down the window by 1-1/2 inches. 3 Mr. Baron stated that he had visited the site and noted that the Club had already replaced a number of the windows, and some had missing fabric. In the interest of uniformity, Mr. Baron recommended total replacement of the windows, but to retain the shutters and hardware. Mr. Tyler noted that replacement in kind conforms with Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Ms. Walker made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 123 South Broad Street First Union Bank Corporation, Owner Allen Roth, Applicant DATE: 1927-28 PROPOSAL: Masonry cleaning, repair Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to approve a stone match and cleaning samples on the condition that the cap-flashing is of lead-covered copper. Ms. Matzkin explained that this proposal primarily involved cleaning and repairing the masonry of the building. The main problem consists of water infiltration on horizontal surfaces, especially at the several projecting cornices and corners. The proposal also called for the installation of copper flashing. The Committee asked that they install lead-coated copper instead, because the copper has a propensity to bleed and stain the stone after oxidizing. Mr. Baron stated that the flashing is not an extant feature of the building, but would remedy a problem in the original design. Mr. Tyler noted that the improvements follow the Standards. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Ms. Walker seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 306 Market Street Ilan Seidenwar, Owner/Applicant DATE: c.

an extant feature of the building, but would remedy a problem in the original design. Mr. Tyler noted that the improvements follow the Standards. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Ms. Walker seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 306 Market Street Ilan Seidenwar, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Signage; legalize storefront Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the storefront on the condition that the frame of the opening is painted to match the window frames; approval of the three- pane transom; approval of cleaning the bricks below the second floor windows with staff to approve details. 4 Ms. Matzkin stated that the Committee and Commission had approved new windows for the storefront in 1995, but that the owner's installation does not follow the approved plans. The owner returned to apply for legalization of the work on his storefront. The Committee also approved a signband as long as the sign covered only the rough brick. Mr. Baron stated that the three courses of "good brick" found behind the non- historic signband will enable the owner to reduce the size of the new signband. Mr. Baron added that the tenant of the building intends to open a restaurant and brought in details of the new sign after the Committee meeting, despite notification to do so before the meeting. Mr. Baron asked that the Commission review and approve the plans so that she could begin business sooner. The sign design includes a metal fork and two oval number plates. Mr. Tyler stated that this storefront design conforms with the historic character of the building, as mandated by the Standards. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Brownlee then amended his motion to include approval of the new sign. Ms. Wolf seconded the amendment. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. 2001-2007 Spring Garden Street, Spring Garden Methodist Church Marvin Fagg, Applicant DATE: 1863-65 PROPOSAL: Ramp Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval on the condition that the contractor use stainless steel for the railing's plates and anchors. The Committee suggested painting the railing a brown color. Ms. Matzkin explained the proposal to install a handicap access ramp to the side door of the church. Mr. Brownlee expressed reservations in allowing so many cubic feet of concrete to be attached to an historic building and urged seeking less damaging alternatives. Ms. Matzkin pointed out that the

color. Ms. Matzkin explained the proposal to install a handicap access ramp to the side door of the church. Mr. Brownlee expressed reservations in allowing so many cubic feet of concrete to be attached to an historic building and urged seeking less damaging alternatives. Ms. Matzkin pointed out that the proposed height of the ramp only reaches 16 inches. Mr. Tyler noted that the Standards allow A.D.A. ramps with minimized impact on historic property Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 5 132 North 3rd Street Wesley Wei, Owner/Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1830; c. 1940 - top 3 floors removed; 1986 - storefront altered PROPOSAL: Facade rehabilitation; window, door replacement Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of new windows and door as long as the second-floor windows have a six-over-six configuration; approval of cleaning and repointing with staff to approve samples and window details. Ms. Matzkin specified that the proposal, which includes new one-over-one windows, a new garage door, and cleaning of the facade, primarily deals with the south facade, not the ornate west facade. Mr. Tyler stated that the proposed work must follow the Standards' requirements of cleaning, repointing, and replacing the windows in-kind. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Ms. Walker seconded the motion which carried unanimously. #11 Boathouse Row, University of Pennsylvania Boat Club University of Pennsylvania, Owner Frank Mellor, Contractor/Applicant DATE: 1875-76; 1975 addition PROPOSAL: Re-roof with asphalt shingles Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of Slateline dark grey shingles. Mr. Sklaroff and Mr. Brownlee recused themselves from the discussion and the vote. Ms. Metzkin described the University's proposal to re- roof the building with asphalt-fiberglass shingles. Mr. Baron stated the boathouse does not now have historic fabric on the roof. Mr. Tyler noted that replacing the roof with compatible substitute material conforms to the Standards. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried with nine votes. 925 Chestnut Street, Federal Reserve Bank Jefferson Hospital-Rothman Institute, Owner 6 Robert DeSilets, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1925 PROPOSAL: Driveway gate, signage in concept Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval in concept with staff to approve a stone sample. Ms. Matzkin explained that the proposal, submitted for approval in concept, now entails: the hanging of a Jefferson Hospital flag in an existing flagpole socket; the reconfiguration of the iron gate; the installation of two

in concept Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval in concept with staff to approve a stone sample. Ms. Matzkin explained that the proposal, submitted for approval in concept, now entails: the hanging of a Jefferson Hospital flag in an existing flagpole socket; the reconfiguration of the iron gate; the installation of two bronze plaque signs flanking the front door, and stone lintel signs over the two proposed drive-through openings. Ms. Matzkin and Mr. Baron also stated that the skywalk no longer forms a part of the design, and that the proposal for windows on the alleyway had changed since the previous submission, but the Committee preferred the originally proposed rectangular windows. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation and to approve the new graphics in concept. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1231 Rodman Street Ernest Varalli, Jr., Owner/Applicant DATE: 1852 PROPOSAL: Facade rehabilitation Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the door surround; approval of a new door, sash with muntins to match the existing; approval of shutters, cornice and cleaning with staff to approve shop drawings and a masonry cleaning sample; approval of a wood gate with staff to approve all details. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to restore the facade, which includes new shutters, windows, transom, cornice, door, and door surround. Mr. Tyler stated that the proposed work must follow the guidelines found in the Standards concerning cleaning surfaces with gentlest method possible, designing and installing new windows and entry based on historic and physical documentation in the absence of original fabric. In response to Mr. Sklaroff's question, Mr. Baron stated that the owner does not agree with Committee's recommendation to install a metal-reinforced wood gate instead of replacing the extant wooden with a metal security gate. Mr. Baron also stated that the ostensibly original and rotted gate requires replacement. 7 Ms. Walker made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1300 Locust Street, Historical Society of Pennsylvania Nathalie Peeters, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1902-04 PROPOSAL: Masonry restoration; new fence; side door Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the door on 13th Street; approval of the gate and moving the railing; approval of the cleaning and pointing with staff to approve samples and a site visit by the Committee. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the discussion and vote because his law firm represents the owner. Ms. Matzkin explained that the owners

13th Street; approval of the gate and moving the railing; approval of the cleaning and pointing with staff to approve samples and a site visit by the Committee. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the discussion and vote because his law firm represents the owner. Ms. Matzkin explained that the owners wish to remove the existing metal fence from the bottom step of the front portico, and to replace it with a similar fence two steps up. The proposal also calls for the cleaning and repointing of masonry features, and alterations to a side door. Mr. Tyler specified that the cleaning and repointing must conform to the Standards. Mr. Baron pointed out that the applicant will clean the stone using a new method wherein the stone is consolidated first. He also informed the Commission of the site visit scheduled for Wednesday morning, 17 September 1997, to examine the masonry. Mr. Baron also stated that the proposed door will require cutting into historic stone to comply with A.D.A. regulations. It will match an extant historic entry. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation with an amendment that the Committee review and approve details of the door in concept. Ms. Wischmann seconded the motion which carried with ten votes. 132 Christian Street Charles Burdumy, Owner Lance Kraemer, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1810 PROPOSAL: New windows, door, chimney, fence Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the chimney, fence with a simpler iron detail, new windows, new door with a three-light transom, new shutters, and cedar shingle roof with staff to approve all details. 8 Ms. Matzkin explained that the applicant's proposal entails: reconstructing a chimney; building a fence of brick and wrought iron; installing new windows, shutters and doors. The proposal also calls for a new cedar-shingle roof. If this proves too expensive the owner wishes to install an asphalt/fiberglass roof. Mr. Baron stated that the roof currently has asphalt shingles. Mr. Tyler noted that the use of asphalt/fiberglass shingles instead of cedar affords the property a better fire rating, and that replacement of shingles composed of compatible material conforms with the Standards. Ms. Matzkin also pointed out that fire-treated cedar shingles do not last any longer than asphalt/fiberglass shingles. Ms. Wolf asked if the owner agreed to simplify his fence design as recommended by the Committee. Mr. Burdumy, owner of the building, responded affirmatively. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the

Ms. Matzkin also pointed out that fire-treated cedar shingles do not last any longer than asphalt/fiberglass shingles. Ms. Wolf asked if the owner agreed to simplify his fence design as recommended by the Committee. Mr. Burdumy, owner of the building, responded affirmatively. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation with approval of asphalt/fiberglass shingles. Ms. Walker seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 251 Quince Street Joseph Baker, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1825 PROPOSAL: New wood shutters Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin explained that this proposal calls for solid shutters on the first floor and Venetian shutters on the second floor windows. Mr. Tyler stated that replacing historic features based on documentation follows the guidelines set in the Standards. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Ms. Walker seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 327 Spruce Street Ellen Metz, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1812 PROPOSAL: New windows, shutters, roof Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to review details. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to install a new 9 dormer with a six-over-six arch top window with true muntins, louvered shutters on the third floor, and a new shingle roof. Mr Tyler stated that the proposed work conforms with the Standards. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1729 Mt. Vernon Street, Thomas Eakins House City of Philadelphia, Owner Nicole Westerman, Applicant DATE: c. 1855; 1880s - floor added and facade alterations. PROPOSAL: New fence Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin explained that the Commission approved the owner's proposal to replace the extant wooden fence with a reproduction of the historic wood fence, but that for security reasons the owners now desire a vertical iron fence. Mr. Tyler pointed out that securing historic property from vandalism complies with the Standards. Mr. Sklaroff questioned the appropriateness of the metal fence. Mr. Baron explained that the newly proposed fence is appropriate to the 1880s addition and renovation of the building and that the current fence does not match the historic fabric. Mr. Tyler also stated that redesigning a missing historic feature to be compatible with the historic character of the property meets the Standards. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried with ten votes. Mr. James recused himself because he works in the Department of Public Property. 1830 Rittenhouse

historic feature to be compatible with the historic character of the property meets the Standards. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried with ten votes. Mr. James recused himself because he works in the Department of Public Property. 1830 Rittenhouse Square Street Nancy Conner, Owner of unit Robin Komita, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1913 PROPOSAL: New windows, cut vents in wall Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the window changes; approval of the vents as long as they exit through the window and not the masonry. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to install several new windows. The original proposal called for the cutting of two bathroom vents through the limestone masonry facade, 10 which the Committee disapproved. Ms. Matzkin further stated that the owner has withdrawn the proposal to cut the vents into the wall. Mr. Baron explained that an extant vent will remain reduced in size under the proposal. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2027-29 Chestnut Street Mid-City Residential Association, Owner Ingerman Construction, Applicant DATE: 1927 PROPOSAL: Facade rehabilitation; new windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with the exception of the aluminum at the base of the building. Staff to review any masonry restoration samples. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the discussion and vote because his law firm represents the owners. Ms. Merhige also recused herself owing to her association with the YWCA. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to remove the 1950s horizontal window and brick veneer and install new windows similar in configuration to early 20th century windows. The original proposal called for a covering of the base below those windows with aluminum panels. The Committee disapproved that treatment and recommended restoring the stone below or creating a new design, with staff to approve details. Mr. Baron circulated a copy of the newly proposed window configuration that would have a panel at the bottom. Mr. Tyler stated that the cleaning, protecting, maintaining, and identifying masonry features is compliant with the Standards. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2117 Spruce Street Linda Brenner, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1860; 1890 - floor added PROPOSAL: Repointing Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to review samples. 11 Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to repoint this rowhouse. She further stated that the sample

Committee's recommendation. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2117 Spruce Street Linda Brenner, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1860; 1890 - floor added PROPOSAL: Repointing Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to review samples. 11 Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to repoint this rowhouse. She further stated that the sample the owner submitted contains undisclosed ingredients. Mr. Baron stated that the color and consistency of the new mortar closely match the original. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 251-57 South 17th Street, Medical Arts Tower Towmed Limited, Owner Judi Plasket, Applicant DATE: 1930 PROPOSAL: New doors Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with the condition that the panel on the bottom of the sidelight be raised to match the lower panel of the door. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal for new doors at the ground floor to replace the two pairs of doors in the central entry way. The alteration would provide easier access for elderly and disabled people. Mr. Brownlee recommended motorization of the doors rather than replacement. Mr. Tyler stated that the doors represent original features of the building. Several members of the Commission noted the artistic and historical significance of the doors. Mr. Spilove commented that the doors constitute integral features of the facade's design. Mr. Brownlee suggested that this issue was not sufficiently raised at the Committee meeting. Ms. Wolf made a motion to reject the Committee's recommendation in favor of further discussion with the owner about motorizing one set of the extant historic doors. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion. Mr. Sklaroff recommended accepting the Committee's decision with an amendment that staff and owner must reach an agreement. Ms. Wolf rejected the amendment, and the original motion carried with ten (10) votes. Mr. Sklaroff opposed. 249 South Van Pelt Street Jon Merz, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: Facade rehabilitation; new doors, windows, balconettes Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the 12 plans, altered to show three-pane doors in the center bay window of the second floor, four-over-four panes in the flanking windows, squared-off rather than round moldings on the carriage door and a more brick-like color for the masonry. Staff to approve details. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to replace a modern garage door with a carriage door design taken from similar carriage house models; to replace the upper floor windows with two-over-two windows, which the Committee

on the carriage door and a more brick-like color for the masonry. Staff to approve details. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to replace a modern garage door with a carriage door design taken from similar carriage house models; to replace the upper floor windows with two-over-two windows, which the Committee considered less appropriate for the building than the extant four-over- four windows; installation of Committee-approved central balcony doors and balconettes, and for permission to paint the exterior blue. The Committee asked that the applicant use four-over-four windows on the fourth floor and to use a more brick-like color paint on the masonry. Mr. Baron asked the Commission to review a revised proposal received after the Committee meeting. The revised drawing Mr. Baron circulated reflects the Architectural Committee's recommendations. The owner now requests permission for paint removal with staff to review samples. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendations. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Ms. Wolf made a motion to approve paint removal with staff to review samples. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 261-63 South 22nd Street George Poulos, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1890 PROPOSAL: Legalize stucco on side wall. Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin explained that the applicant restuccoed a previously stuccoed side wall and requests legalization of the work. Ms. Walker motioned to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2039 Delancey Street Daniel Neducin, Owner David Amburn, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1865 13 PROPOSAL: Facade rehabilitation Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to review details. Ms. Matzkin explained that this facade rehabilitation includes the installation of new windows, cornice repair, masonry cleaning, pointing, and brownstone repair. Mr. Baron stated that the owners wish to use a brownstone- colored mortar to replace eroded brownstone around the steps and base of the building. Mr. Tyler affirmed that the masonry replacement and repair, as well as the installation of new windows, follows the Standards. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Ms. Walker seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2101 Cypress Street Jo Buyske and Joseph Friedburg, Owners Marc Pinard, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1885 PROPOSAL: Enlarge garage door, cut pedestrian access in carriage doors, remove balcony and replace it with a railing. Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval on the condition that the garage door is widened symmetrically, only one foot to each side; approval of the pedestrian

Joseph Friedburg, Owners Marc Pinard, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1885 PROPOSAL: Enlarge garage door, cut pedestrian access in carriage doors, remove balcony and replace it with a railing. Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval on the condition that the garage door is widened symmetrically, only one foot to each side; approval of the pedestrian door as long as it extends to the edge of the door. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to enlarge the garage door and cut a pedestrian door into existing carriage doors. Mr. Baron stated that the owners submitted new drawings reflecting the Committee's recommended changes to the original proposal. Ms. Walker made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation and the modified drawings. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 237-47 South 18th Street, Barclay Hotel Jerry Pantelidis, Owner Christopher Beardsley, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1928 PROPOSAL: New metal canopy, doors, planters, paving design Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with the small pane glazing of the doors. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to replace an extant canvas awning over the front door with a new metal canopy. 14 New wood doors will replace modern aluminum ones, and free standing planters and a new paving pattern will adorn the sidewalk. Mr. Baron stated, in response to a question, that the metal canopy on this building has no historical precedent, but that a similar canopy exists on 1830 Rittenhouse Square. A photograph of the building shows a canvas awning. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the discussion and vote owing to his law firm's association with the owners. Mr. Ward made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried with ten votes. 2201 Delancey Street Barbara McGinley, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1865 PROPOSAL: Legalize replacement of slate with asphalt shingles Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of asphalt shingles on side and rear on the condition that the owner re-roof the Delancey Street facade in slate or a hard look- alike material which matches the original, and install the metal ridge rolls at the corners. If the proposal goes to the Financial Hardship Committee, that Committee should evaluate the financial hardship of re-roofing the entire roof with slate or a hard, slate-like substitute. The Financial Hardship Committee should not accept a compromise that is any less than the compromise reached by the Architectural Committee. Mr. Baron explained that the compromise recommended by the Committee would require the replacement of slate or hard,

re-roofing the entire roof with slate or a hard, slate-like substitute. The Financial Hardship Committee should not accept a compromise that is any less than the compromise reached by the Architectural Committee. Mr. Baron explained that the compromise recommended by the Committee would require the replacement of slate or hard, slate-like shingles on the Delancey or primary facade to remain in keeping with the rest of the buildings on the block. He added that the Committee recommended the reinstallation of the metal roof ridges to divide the asphalt shingles on secondary facades from the slate or slate-like shingles. Mr. Sklaroff questioned the use of "primary" and "secondary" in reference to the facades of this building, stating that the 22nd Street facade is highly visible. Mr. Baron explained that financial considerations and the highly complex chain of failures on the part of the people involved influenced the Committee in their recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff recommended tabling the application for up to six months and referring the matter to the Financial 15 Hardship Committee. Ms. Wolf agreed that the Architectural Committee may not prove the most appropriate forum for this matter. Patricia Carroll, attorney for the owner, stated that her client will gladly follow the compromise. She added that Ms. McGinley does not desire financial assistance. Ms. Wolf explained that the Financial Hardship Committee offers approval of cost-efficient alternatives, not monetary assistance. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to table the application for six months and to refer the issue to the Financial Hardship Committee. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 3609-25 Chestnut Street, Ralston House Chris McLaughlin, Applicant DATE: c. 1885 PROPOSAL: Repair, encapsulate chimneys Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval, but suggested using metal capping instead of plastic. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal to repair numerous chimneys and masonry and to seal them with a paint-on plastic called Decathane. She added that all good preservation practices recommend avoiding masonry sealants. Mr. Baron stated that the plastic coating does not allow the bricks and masonry to release trapped moisture. Ms. Walker made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Unfinished Business 124 South 18th Street AKA 1801-03 Sansom Street Leroy Kean, Owner/Applicant DATE: c.1885 PROPOSAL: Legalize boarded-up storefront on Sansom Street facade Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. Reinstall glass. Mr. Tyler explained that the applicant asked for a month continuance at the last Commission meeting on

motion which carried unanimously. Unfinished Business 124 South 18th Street AKA 1801-03 Sansom Street Leroy Kean, Owner/Applicant DATE: c.1885 PROPOSAL: Legalize boarded-up storefront on Sansom Street facade Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. Reinstall glass. Mr. Tyler explained that the applicant asked for a month continuance at the last Commission meeting on top of the six-month delay the Commission initially approved. He added that no one had contacted the Historical Commission since, nor did anyone appear at the present meeting. 16 Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation to deny legalization of the storefront. Mr. Ward seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 220 Market Street Michael Fasone, Applicant/Michael Singer, Owner DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Legalize storefront Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. Ms. Matzkin described the application to legalize the new storefront. The applicant removed the historic storefront to allow larger pieces of furniture into the building, which now houses an antique store. Mr. Baron explained that although the Committee denied legalization, they offered design recommendations to the applicant. Richard Thom, Chair of the Old City Civic Association, stated that he witnessed the demolition of the storefront, and notified the applicant of the necessary permits and approval from the Historical Commission. He added that the owner's position as a major real estate owner in the City should and probably does increase his awareness of the obligations involving an historic property. He urged the Commission to deny legalization and to accept nothing less than a full reconstruction of the historic storefront. Ms. Wolf made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation and to request the restoration the historic storefront. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 118 North 3rd Street Susan Spiegel, Tenant/Applicant DATE: c.1860 PROPOSAL: Banner hung over door Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of banner on condition that it hang between the windows. Mr. Baron explained that, at the last meeting, the Commission rejected the proposal to hang the banner over the door. The applicant has returned to make a further argument as to why the Commission should approve the banner at the edge of the building. Susan Bruce, representing Animation Art Galleries, who occupies the building, stated that the business is quite successful and draws many visitors to the Old City area. 17 She circulated drawings illustrating the proposed location of the banner. She stated that the applicants want the banner over the front door, not between the windows

Animation Art Galleries, who occupies the building, stated that the business is quite successful and draws many visitors to the Old City area. 17 She circulated drawings illustrating the proposed location of the banner. She stated that the applicants want the banner over the front door, not between the windows as the Commission approved. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation and to allow the applicant freedom to install the banner anywhere they wish. Mr. Tyler asked that the motion be amended to specify approval only over the door to the store. Ms. Merhige seconded the amended motion which carried unanimously. 4414 Ridge Avenue, Undine Barge Club Lyons Bradley, Applicant DATE: boat club - 1875; stone house - c.1840 PROPOSAL: Demolition of stone building Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin explained the proposal to approve the demolition of the abandoned building on Undine Barge Club's property. Mr. Tyler stated that staff had researched a chain of title for the property and looked at several maps to identify the age of the building and its significance. The structure first appears on an 1888 atlas of Philadelphia as a hotel. He added that the building's stylistic elements date from the 1830s and 40s. He also added that the Department of License and Inspection has declared the building dangerous. Mr. Tyler stated that the lack of mention of the stone building on the 1981 nomination to designate the Undine Barge Club demonstrates that the Commission never intended to list it. Mr. Spilove said that the building may have possibilities for future preservation since the City has preliminary plans for the commercial development of much of this section of Ridge Avenue. Mr. Sklaroff agreed with Mr. Spilove, and expressed concern that an historic building is being "euthanized" because it does not appear on the 1981 nomination form. Ms. Wolf stated that this building no longer has enough significant historic interest except as an example of what happens when no one cares about an historic vernacular building. Ms. Wolf made a motion to approve demolition of the stone building with photographic documentation. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried with six votes. Mr. Vance, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Sklaroff opposed. 18 The Report of the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, August 1997, Richard Tyler. Mr. Tyler explained that the staff has been exceedingly busy over the last month, and made special

Mr. James seconded the motion which carried with six votes. Mr. Vance, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Sklaroff opposed. 18 The Report of the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, August 1997, Richard Tyler. Mr. Tyler explained that the staff has been exceedingly busy over the last month, and made special mention of Ms. Spina's efforts to transcribe the minutes and prepare a full record concerning 245 S. 17th Street for the Board of License and Inspection Review. Ms. Wolf made a motion formally to thank and commend the staff for their hard work. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Harry A. Batten Memorial Fund Mr. Tyler requested repayment of the $11.00 he spent for the Committee lunch. He also expressed discomfort with the Commission's decision last month to grant him full discretion to withdraw money from the fund. He asked the Commission to approve spending $11.00 from the Batten Fund. Mr. James made a motion to approve this expenditure. Ms. Wolf seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, R. Scott Jacob