Historical Commission — Jul 12, 2002

THE MINUTES OF THE 479th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 12 July 2002 at 9:00 a.m. City Council Caucus Room, 4th Floor, City Hall Duane Bumb, Acting-Chair Present Duane Bumb, Commerce Department, Acting Chair Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Property Thomas Kilkenny Kathleen Murray, Special Assistant to Council President Anna Verna David Perri, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Vincent Rivera, AIA Michael Sklaroff, Esquire Denise Smyler, Esquire Thomas Sugrue, Ph.D. Norman Tissian Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Jonathan Farnham, Historic Preservation Planner Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Lawrence K. Copeland, Esq., Senior Attorney, Law Department Also Timothy A. Gallogly, Ben Franklin Associates Paula Legere, Musical Hall Fund Mary Jane Barrett, 334 South Camac Street Charles Kelly, 334 South Camac Street Ann Gitter, Knit Wit, 1718 Walnut Street Cameron Lacy, DCL Architects Joanne Phillips, Ballard Spahr Andrews and Ingersoll, LLP Joe Graci, Franklin Engineers, Incorporated Michael Fuchs, 1608 Mt. Vernon Street Meir Seidenwar, 227 Market Street Robert Levitt, 231 North 2nd Street Michael Rigolizzo, 231 North 2nd Street Robert Powers, Powers and Company John Ciccone, John Ciccone Architects Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents’ Association/Preservation Alliance Mary Jo Ratigan, Ben Franklin House James Campbell, Campbell Thomas and Company Marlene Cantoral, Cantoral’s Painting and General Contractor John S. Dorward, Vision Mastors, Incorporated Josh Horenstein David Fields, 253 South 20th Street Richard Thom, 121-35 Walnut Street 1 Alex Garth, 400 Chestnut Street Sasha Issenberg, Philadelphia Magazine William G. Schwartz, Esq., 231 North 2nd Street Alden Blyth, 129 League Street Tim Cwiek, Philadelphia Gay News Mr. Tissian made a motion to designate Duane Bumb the acting-chair for the meeting. Mr. Kilkenny seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Duane Bumb, Acting-Chair, called the meeting to order at 9: 05 a.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION An executive session was held to discuss pending litigation. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to adjourn to an executive session. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Minutes of the 478th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Sklaroff and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes, as corrected, of the 478th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held 14 June 2002, James Cuorato, Acting-Chair. Mr. Sklaroff asked that the minutes reflect his departure from the meeting

Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Sklaroff and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes, as corrected, of the 478th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held 14 June 2002, James Cuorato, Acting-Chair. Mr. Sklaroff asked that the minutes reflect his departure from the meeting after the 1214 Arch Street proposal was heard. Mr. Tyler informed the Commission that the following proposal has requested a continuance: 410 South 15th Street, SW corner of Waverly Street Michael Sher, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850; altered c. 1885 PROPOSAL: Legalize mural on stuccoed base of sidewall Applicant requested a one-month continuance. Mr. Sher, the owner requested a continuance; the appellant Pierce College agreed to the continuance. Mr. Sklaroff expressed his opposition to the one-month continuance, owing to his being unable to attend the August meeting, and requested that a two-month continuance be granted. Mr. Wilds made a motion to grant a two-month continuance. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 25 June 2002 Vincent Rivera, Chair. 2214 Brandywine Street Fred Duling, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Legalize roof decks The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the legalizing of the deck as submitted, with a gray stain on the wood. This application is for legalizing three decks, one at the first floor, one on the roof of the rear ell and the third on the roof of the main building. Although the deck on the main building is not visible from Brandywine Street, it is highly visible from Spring Garden Street and dwarfs the buildings flanking it. 2 Ms. Spina explained the proposal. No one attended the meeting to represent the proposal. Mr. Sklaroff stated that he believes that the Architectural Committee’s recommendation was based on aesthetics and argued that this approval deals with policy issues. He said that the applicant could not give a reason for proceeding without a permit; therefore, he strongly urged the Commission to disallow the entire construction because the work violates the law. He emphasized that it is important to enforce the Commission’s jurisdiction and not set a precedent. Mr. Wilds cited a previously approved proposal in Manayunk where the owner did work without a permit as a business decision. Mr. Sugrue concurred with Mr. Sklaroff but emphasized the cost issue of removing the decks. Mr. Sklaroff stated that the additional cost was a self-induced hardship. Mr. Tissian

precedent. Mr. Wilds cited a previously approved proposal in Manayunk where the owner did work without a permit as a business decision. Mr. Sugrue concurred with Mr. Sklaroff but emphasized the cost issue of removing the decks. Mr. Sklaroff stated that the additional cost was a self-induced hardship. Mr. Tissian inquired about the aggressiveness of the Department of Licenses and Inspections in acting upon the removal of the decks. Mr. Perri responded that the department would pursue action, although litigation could take up to a year. Mr. Bumb as well as several of the members thought that the Commission’s jurisdiction still could be asserted by approving only those portions of the construction, the 1st floor and rear ell decks, which would be allowable if a permit had been obtained. Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents’ Association/Preservation Alliance, said that she is disturbed by work consistently being done without a permit and concurred with Mr. Sklaroff. Mary Jane Barrett, attending for another agenda item, said that she believed the action of the Commission is vindictive, and that her proposal will be affected by the position it takes. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and require the removal of the three decks. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Rivera, Mr. Wilds and Mr. Sugrue opposed the motion. 2212 Brandywine Street James Pavlock, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Deck on rear ell The Architectural Committee recommended approval with the staff to review details. This proposal is for a deck on the roof of the rear ell. The historic roofline of the rear ell will remain and a window will be cut down to a single-leaf door. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 533 North 22nd Street, aka 2130 Brandywine Street Joel Marucheck and Helena Grady, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Rear deck The Architectural Committee recommended approval with a simplified railing of vertical boards; the height of the front should not exceed 4 feet. This proposal calls for a second-floor deck on the rear of the property, which runs along Brandywine Street. The proposed seven-foot railing will create a second story wall and has a wood lattice design with finials on the posts. A rear window will be cut down to a single-leaf door to access the deck. 3 No one attended the

rear of the property, which runs along Brandywine Street. The proposed seven-foot railing will create a second story wall and has a wood lattice design with finials on the posts. A rear window will be cut down to a single-leaf door to access the deck. 3 No one attended the meeting to represent the proposal. Mr. James said that the proposed deck compromises the historic features of this building. Mr. Sklaroff emphasized that this is a very important structure in the district. He questioned the Committee’s recommendation and believes that it is hypothetical since the applicant did not meet with the Committee. Mr. Bumb said that he believes the Committee’s recommendation to be appropriate. If the applicant is willing to accept the recommendation, then it should be approved. Mr. Tyler thought that the applicant should present revised drawings to reflect the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian stated that the proposal should be remanded to the Architectural Committee. Mr. Sugrue commented that the proposal, as submitted, does not have enough information. Mr. James made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and deny the proposal. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Wilds abstained from the vote. 810 Locust Street, Musical Fund Hall Musical Fund Hall, Owner Paula Legere, Applicant DATE: 1824, William Strickland, architect, alterations: 1891, Addison Hutton, architect PROPOSAL: Bird netting The Architectural Committee recommended approval with the staff to review details. This proposal for bird deterrence returns to the Committee. The new proposal, worked out with staff, involves netting the tympanum of the pediment, wires and posts on capital tops and ledges and Nixilite on the rooftop of the pediment. The Nixilite was preferred for that location because it is installed with adhesive, whereas wires would require drilling through the roofing. Ms. Spina explained the proposal and the Commission members concurred with the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 334 South Camac Street Charles Kelly, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1823-25 PROPOSAL: Legalize deck, install rear door and transom, HVAC, new light fixtures and new basement window The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the following: 1. The deck; 2. The rear lights; 3. The relocation of the air conditioning unit between the front and rear chimneys; 4. The basement window/vent; 5. The water spigot; 6. Replacement of two rear windows in wood; 7. Removal

new basement window The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the following: 1. The deck; 2. The rear lights; 3. The relocation of the air conditioning unit between the front and rear chimneys; 4. The basement window/vent; 5. The water spigot; 6. Replacement of two rear windows in wood; 7. Removal of the vinyl dormer cladding, and 8. The double-leaf door to the deck, subject to the installation of true-divided-light doors. With the staff to review all details. Denial of: 1. The lantern over the front door as submitted; however the Committee recommended a recessed light beneath the transom. 4 The proposal involves work to a house with visibility from both the front and back. This application calls for legalization of work commenced without a permit, the correction of some of that work and approval for some elements that have not been started. The completed work involves an air conditioning unit attached to the rear chimney, installing a water spigot in the cheek of the bulkhead, and the cutting of a single window into a double width doorway to access a rear deck. This double-leaf door will feature applied muntins. The rear dormer was covered with aluminum and a vinyl window replaced the historic wood window. The applicant proposes to rectify several of these elements: removing the cladding from the dormer, installing new wood true-divided-light windows on the rear dormer and façade, and moving the air conditioner to a less visible location between the front and rear chimneys. The owner wishes to construct a deck, which will have visibility from the side and rear, and add a transom to the recently cut door. He also proposes to replace a jalousie window in the basement front façade with an awning window with a dryer vent all hidden behind screening. The plans show new lights to be hung at the transom bar of the front door and on the rear façade. Ms. Spina explained the proposal. Commission members inquired if the opening presently exists. Charles Kelly and Mary Jane Barrett, the owners, attended the meeting. Ms. Barrett stated that her wish is not to do true-divided-lights in the double-leaf door. She noted that the proposed door glazing details would have limited visibility owing to the trees and the brick wall in the rear. She said that the cost for the replacement door with true divided lights would be $2,100.00. In addition, she believes

to do true-divided-lights in the double-leaf door. She noted that the proposed door glazing details would have limited visibility owing to the trees and the brick wall in the rear. She said that the cost for the replacement door with true divided lights would be $2,100.00. In addition, she believes that the installation of the transom would align the doors with the neighboring window. Mr. Sklaroff commented that the proposed lantern is similar to the one proposed by an applicant last month and said that the applicant could work with staff to choose a simplified light. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation with single-light double- leaf doors and the elimination of the transom. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 822-38 Chestnut Street, Ben Franklin House Ben Franklin Association, LP, Owner James Campbell, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1923, Horace Trumbauer, architect PROPOSAL: Install garage openings on Sansom Street The Architectural Committee recommended further study to determine the exact proportions within the columns. This proposal is for installing a parking garage on the lower level of this apartment house. Ingress and egress will occur on the Sansom Street façade in the third and fourth bays closest to 9th Street. The openings will be wider than the present window openings and do not rise to the point of the historic transom bar. Plain metal roll-down gates will close the openings. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion for acceptance, but upon the realization that the Committee did not make a formal recommendation, he thought that the proposal should be tabled for a period not to exceed six months. By remanding the application to the Architectural Committee, it would allow the Committee to make a written report based on the revised drawings. He believed that the Commission meeting should not be the forum for members to review plans for the first time. James Campbell, the architect, and Timothy Gallogly attended the meeting. Mr. Campbell 5 presented a revised drawing to reflect the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Spina explained that the applicant did the investigation of the columns and revised the drawings to reflect their findings, which were faxed to the Committee members. The Committee recommended that only the center column should be cut and that the curb should be eliminated. Mr. Gallogly said that the revised submission would require the removal of a much smaller portion of historic fabric. Mr. Campbell said that

their findings, which were faxed to the Committee members. The Committee recommended that only the center column should be cut and that the curb should be eliminated. Mr. Gallogly said that the revised submission would require the removal of a much smaller portion of historic fabric. Mr. Campbell said that the revised plans would keep the existing fabric on the side columns. Owing to the narrowness of the opening and its use as a means of egress, safety is an issue; but the applicant proposes to make it as safe as possible. Larry Copeland, counsel for the Commission, thought consideration should not be given, because the revised plans have not been made available to the public. Mr. James asked the applicant if there are any plans for exhaust because of car engines, while other members inquired about a variance for sight lines. Mr. Campbell responded that the exhaust is tied into the existing ventilation system and the plan calls for mirrors for sight lines. In response to the query about signage, he said that there is no illuminated signage. Mr. Tissian inquired if a delay in the approval would pose a hardship, and the applicant responded in the affirmative. Mr. Rivera reiterated that the Committee is sometimes asked to expedite a revised proposal at which time the recommendation is relayed via telephone. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to table the proposal for a period not to exceed six months and remand the proposal to the Architectural Committee. Mr. James seconded the motion which failed with a 2 to 7 vote. Mr. Rivera, Mr. Sugrue, Mr. Tissian, Mr. Kilkenny, Mr. Perri, Mr. Wilds and Mr. Bumb opposed the motion. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised drawings, which reflect the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. James opposed the motion while Mr. Sklaroff abstained from the vote. 400-14 Walnut Street Walnut Street Association, LLP, Owner Joanne Phillips, Esq., Applicant DATE: 400-02: 1908, Frank Watson, architect; 404-14: 1923-24, Frank Watson, architect PROPOSAL: New 1st floor windows, one-story penthouse addition, and façade restoration The Committee voted to recommend approval of the project in concept with a 10-foot setback for the rooftop addition and suggested the applicant finalize details of the door treatment and return to the Committee. Two buildings make up this property, a six-story, three-bay limestone and buff-colored brick building at the corner

Committee voted to recommend approval of the project in concept with a 10-foot setback for the rooftop addition and suggested the applicant finalize details of the door treatment and return to the Committee. Two buildings make up this property, a six-story, three-bay limestone and buff-colored brick building at the corner and a 10-story plus penthouse, 8-bay limestone addition. This proposal includes cleaning and pointing the masonry of both buildings, refurbishing all of the windows, and restoring both metal cornices. On 400-02 Walnut, the proposal calls for restoring the storefront windows on the first floor with those that match the second floor, as shown in a drawing from 1951. All of the entrances will be rehabilitated. On the corner building, the original Walnut Street entrance will be reopened with wood paneled, double-leaf door with three-light transom. A glazed double-leaf door and transom will be installed on the east elevation, replacing the non- historic door. In 404-14 Walnut, the replacement doors will remain. The double-leaf doors leading to the rooftop terrace will also remain. On 404-14 Walnut, the application includes a one-story addition to the existing penthouse, set back 8 feet from the main façade. It has a roofline that falls below the existing penthouse and 6 will be minimally visible since the parapet wall measures 5 feet in height. The Department of the Interior, in reviewing the project for the rehabilitation tax credits, asked for a setback of 10 feet. Joanne Phillips, Esq., counsel for the project, and Robert Powers, consultant, attended the meeting. Since the Architectural Committee meeting, documentation from 1915 showing the original doors was presented and Mr. Powers said that it is the intention of the applicant to replicate the details of the original doors. In addition, the applicant proposes to duplicate the windows shown in a 1951 drawing. To comply with the Department of Interior’s review, the applicant will incorporate a setback of 10 feet in the penthouse addition. Mr. Tissian noted that the Society Hill Civic Association was not represented at the meeting, and inquired if the association had seen the proposal. Mr. Wilds made a motion to give final approval to the proposal with the replication of the original door details, and the staff to review details. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Tissian abstained and Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the vote and did not participate in the discussion.

motion to give final approval to the proposal with the replication of the original door details, and the staff to review details. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Tissian abstained and Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the vote and did not participate in the discussion. 421 Chestnut Street Renaissance Properties Incorporated, Owner Ronald Lewis, Applicant DATE: 1857-59, John Gries, architect, for Philadelphia National Bank PROPOSAL: Install exhaust piping and vent line The revised proposal was reviewed and approved at the staff level. 231-35 North 2nd Street PTM Group Corporation, Owner Liz Zimmers, Applicant DATE: 231: c. 1865; 233: c. 1855; 235: c. 1825, new façade, c. 1890; 235-37 Rears c. 1825 PROPOSAL: Legalize demolition of rear building, build new six-story garage structure The Architectural Committee recommended approval of legalizing the demolition and approval in concept of the garage, with the salvaged materials incorporated into the details of the façade. 231 North 2nd is not in the jurisdiction of the Historical Commission; however, 233 and 235 are on the Philadelphia Register and the owner has combined the three properties. The Department of Licenses and Inspections declared the buildings at 233 and 235 North 2nd imminently dangerous. As a result, the staff approved the applications for demolition, with the condition that pieces from the façade of 233 be salvaged for use in the redevelopment of the site. Two houses sat at the rear of 235 and 237 North 2nd Street and the owner originally applied to demolish both of them. That application went to the Committee, which recommended denial, but was withdrawn before going to the Commission. One of the buildings, in the course of the demolition of 233, became severely damaged and L&I declared it imminently dangerous. The owner then, without a permit, demolished the building. The application now submitted is for the legalization of the demolition of the one rear building, based on financial hardship, and the construction of a new parking structure that would stretch from 231 to 235 North 2nd Street. The proposal includes retaining the one remaining rear house that sits behind 237 North 2nd. 7 The façade of the parking structure resembles the design of the building originally at 233 and will have commercial space on the first floor. The entrance and exit from the garage will be in the middle of the building, not the southern end as shown in

237 North 2nd. 7 The façade of the parking structure resembles the design of the building originally at 233 and will have commercial space on the first floor. The entrance and exit from the garage will be in the middle of the building, not the southern end as shown in the rendering. An alley exists between 235 and 237 North 2nd, leading to the rear house, and will be retained. Liz Zimmers, the architect, and William Schwartz, Esq., counsel for the project, attended the meeting. Mr. Schwartz noted that ownership of the remaining small rear building will be transferred with the deed to the owner of 237 North 2nd Street. Mr. Wilds inquired if the small rear building has accessibility to the garage and the applicant said that the proposal for the new garage structure incorporates the alleyway leading to the small building. Mr. Sklaroff commented on the design issue and said that the salvaged cast iron should be incorporated into the facade; however, it should be differentiated from existing structure. Some Commission members suggested using the salvaged metal in other city buildings. Mr. Wilds thought that a plaque identifying the salvaged materials should be installed. Richard Thom speaking for the Old City Civic Association, said that it met with the owner to discuss the demolition of the rear building without a permit and believed that the owner did not take steps for proper protection of the rear buildings. In addition, he expressed its objection to the proposed design and the loss of historic fabric. He believes the demolition of 233 was a result of neglect and a violation of the Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Sugrue commented on the lack of sufficient information in regards to the demolition. Mr. Tyler said that the design should not be too elaborate and that the new portion should have a contemporary design. Mr. Tissian asked about what portion of the new design would include the salvaged elements. The applicant said that the salvaged materials would only encompass approximately 2% of the new design. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation to legalize the demolition of the rear building and conceptual approval for a garage structure with a plaque describing the history of the salvaged materials. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Tissian opposed the motion. 220 West Washington Square, W.B. Saunders Building 220 West Washington Square

legalize the demolition of the rear building and conceptual approval for a garage structure with a plaque describing the history of the salvaged materials. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Tissian opposed the motion. 220 West Washington Square, W.B. Saunders Building 220 West Washington Square Condominium Association, Owner John Ciccone, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1911 PROPOSAL: Exterior sprinklers on north façade The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the metal windows. The Committee and Commission previously approved new wood windows for this building. The north side of the building presently has original metal-clad wood window frames with wire glass and metal sash. This does not meet fire code requirements; however, the previously approved wood windows do not meet code either. To meet code, the applicant proposes installing sprinklers over each window. The sprinklers would have exterior lines across the façade above the line of windows at each floor and a vertical pipe running up the façade. 8 The proposal changed to new metal windows with wire glass or fire-rated glass. The metal windows would be true-divided light, but would have very flat muntins with no depth or details. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 121-35 Walnut Street Renaissance Properties Incorporated, Owner Richard Thom, Architect/Applicant DATE: 121-25: c. 1830; 127: c. 1830, façade; 129-35: 1961 PROPOSAL: Demolition of Moravian Street; partial demolition of buildings; rear seven-story addition, and restoration of facades in concept The Architectural Committee recommended approval in concept with the following conditions: 1. All of the rears of the buildings should be documented prior to demolition. 2. The south façade of the tower should have more windows at the corner and other means of relief of the expansive red brick, perhaps with reveals. 3. The restoration of the windows, including the historic pane configurations, on the east façade of 121 Walnut Street. 4. Any leftover granite blocks from Moravian Street should be given to the Streets Department to be used in repairs of other streets. 5. The creation of an archeology plan in case any artifacts are found. With staff to review details, including shop drawings of windows. Several buildings along Walnut Street make up the Bookbinder’s Restaurant. The owner wishes to develop the property into 17 units of housing with a restaurant on the first floor. The proposal includes restoring the fronts of the

artifacts are found. With staff to review details, including shop drawings of windows. Several buildings along Walnut Street make up the Bookbinder’s Restaurant. The owner wishes to develop the property into 17 units of housing with a restaurant on the first floor. The proposal includes restoring the fronts of the buildings on Walnut Street, including restoring the cast-iron elements of 127 Walnut, the reconstruction of the ornate iron canopy at 125 Walnut, the restoration and reinstallation of the neon “Bookbinder’s” sign at the corner of 121 Walnut, and the reopening of windows on the Hancock Street (east) façade. The development would include the demolition of the rears of the Walnut Street properties and most of Moravian Street, a granite-block street in the Historic Street Paving Thematic District. The new seven-story rear addition will face Welcome Park and appear set back from the Walnut Street properties. The façades will have red brick and stucco panels and painted aluminum windows and balconies. The first floor will house a parking area, with the entrance from Hancock Street. The loading dock for the restaurant will also be on Hancock Street. The section of Moravian Street, from 2nd Street to the new building will be restored and a plaque installed explaining the historic street. Stanley Taralla and Richard Thom, the architect, attended the meeting to answer questions and explain the project. Mr. Thom stated that the additions along Second Street, behind 129-135 Walnut Street were built in 1966, and will be demolished. He said that the current view from Welcome Park is a mix of mechanicals and the new construction will provide an enclosure to Welcome Park. He reiterated that the Old City Civic Association as well as the National Park Service support the project. As part of the proposal the original canopy at 125 Walnut Street would be restored, which will give Bookbinder’s a new identity on Walnut Street. Mr. James inquired about the removal of the historic block on Moravian Street. Ms. Spina said that the proposal would retain the granite pavers from Second Street leading up to the condominiums and referenced the proposed plaque, which would explain the historic significance of the block. She said that portions of the street lack integrity. 9 Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried with 9 votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the vote and did

proposed plaque, which would explain the historic significance of the block. She said that portions of the street lack integrity. 9 Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried with 9 votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the vote and did not participate in the discussion. 129 League Street Horn Blyth and Partners, Owners Alden Blyth, Applicant DATE: 1885 PROPOSAL: Partial demolition, new skylight, windows and doors The Architectural Committee recommended final approval. This proposal calls for a final approval of a project, which was approved two months ago in concept. The applicant seeks to create an internal atrium and to build new wood carriage doors in an existing garage opening. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with 9 votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained from the vote. 253 South 20th Street LTMM Association, LP, Owner David Fields, Applicant DATE: 1930 PROPOSAL: New storefront windows The Architectural Committee denied the proposal as submitted, but recommended approval of installing operable windows in the flanking openings of the 20th Street window, and replacing the Rittenhouse Square Street window with a tripartite design with a fixed central window and operating sidelights. This property on the corner of 20th and Rittenhouse Square Streets has large storefront windows, some with decorative mullions. The proposal includes removing the original plate-glass windows and installing vertical operable windows. Ms. Spina explained the proposal. Joanne Phillips, Esq., counsel for the proposal, and David Fields attended the meeting. Ms. Phillips explained that this vacant building would house a small restaurant, and to make it a viable business it is important to bring the outside in. Mr. Fields explained that he did not want the design suggested by the Committee and explained his initial proposal. Mr. Wilds inquired whether the proposed window would fit within the existing frame and if, when opened, it would retain the same similarity as the tripartite design. Commission members asked about the proposed color, which would be a thin steel material painted to match the existing frames. Mr. Tissian made a motion to approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. James and Mr. Rivera opposed the motion. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the vote and did not participate in the discussion. 10 1608 Mt. Vernon Street Ashley and Michael

Tissian made a motion to approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. James and Mr. Rivera opposed the motion. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself from the vote and did not participate in the discussion. 10 1608 Mt. Vernon Street Ashley and Michael Fuchs, Owners Marlene Cantoral, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Rebuild front wall The Architectural Committee recommended the rebuilding of only the top one-and-a-half floors, with the replication of the sills in cast stone. This application is to demolish and rebuild the front wall. The owners have a report from a structural engineer, who says that shoring with tieback rods would only be temporary. The contractor recommends rebuilding the entire wall. Marlene Cantoral, the contractor, and John Dorward attended the meeting. Mr. Dorward expressed concern about the abutting house’s stability with only rebuilding a portion of the wall. He said that water infiltration is a continuing problem and rebuilding only a portion is a temporary fix. He also believes that the integrity of the building cannot be determined until the brick is removed. Ms. Spina thought that the butter-joints should be replicated, while Mr. Wilds believed that the bricks should be salvaged for re-use in the rebuilding of the wall. Mr. Dorward agreed to salvage the original bricks and to replicate the thin butter joints. Mr. Tyler noted that the bricks of the second and third wythes will a different brick and not usable for the first wythe. Mr. Tissian made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and approve the proposal as submitted, with the staff to review details. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Sklaroff excused himself for the duration of the meeting. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 9 July 2002 Vincent Rivera, Chair 201 South 18th Street, aka 1718 Walnut Street D. Cameron Lacy III, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1955; architect, Samuel O’Shiver PROPOSAL: New storefront This application proposes renovations to the commercial façade at 1718 Walnut Street, one of several storefronts in a larger building. The store is part of 201 South 18th Street, the Rittenhouse Claridge, a high rise International Style apartment building. Mr. Lacy attended the meeting with revised drawings to reflect the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Farnham questioned the projecting section, which is described as flat metal but reads as corrugated metal. The applicant responded that the curved metal band is only segmented.

Rittenhouse Claridge, a high rise International Style apartment building. Mr. Lacy attended the meeting with revised drawings to reflect the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Farnham questioned the projecting section, which is described as flat metal but reads as corrugated metal. The applicant responded that the curved metal band is only segmented. Mr. Tissian made a motion to approve the revised proposal. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion which carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 11 227 Market Street, aka 216 Church Street Ilan Seidenwar, Owner Mary Ann Duffy, Architect DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Legalize storefront on Market Street and masonry work on Church Street The Architectural Committee recommended: 1 The denial of the legalization of the cement coating of the Church Street marble columns and entablature; 2. The approval of the roof vents subject to the restoration of the Church Street marble columns and entablature; 3. The approval of the Market Street shop front as built subject to the application of moldings to match those shown in the previously approved drawing and the historic photographs, and 4. The approval of the Market Street transom as built subject to the application of a molding at the top of the transom. With staff to review and approve details. This proposal involves the legalization of work that exceeded the approval given by the Historical Commission. This work includes the installing of visible exhaust vents on the roof, the covering of the marble storefront columns with cement on the Church Street property, and the rebuilding of the storefront on Market Street set back a number of inches within the property contrary to the approved plans as well as failing to match the historic details. The applicant shows drawings to modify the new storefront to match better the original details. Commission members believed that the illegal alterations to the Market Street façade are a critical streetscape loss. Meir Seidenwar attended the meeting to answer questions and explain the proposal. He said as a result of the removal of the framing on the round columns, the storefront was rendered structurally unsound, which resulted in its demolition. He asked if the addition of wood moldings is appropriate, since the drawings show a wood column. He also noted that he is in the process of removing the cement from the marble on the Church Street façade. Mr. Wilds inquired if the original storefront had remained intact would this condition have existed and

addition of wood moldings is appropriate, since the drawings show a wood column. He also noted that he is in the process of removing the cement from the marble on the Church Street façade. Mr. Wilds inquired if the original storefront had remained intact would this condition have existed and also inquired if the door, which does not appear in the designation photograph, had been approved. Mr. Baron said that rebuilding of the storefront with an additional door required the beefing up of the columns. The approved details were not followed and the storefront was setback. Mr. Tyler said that structurally a strong shopfront treatment is needed and noted the six inch setback of the storefront, which is not shown on the drawings. Commission discussed the recessed storefront. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Sugrue seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. James opposed the motion. THE REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, June 2002 Mr. Tyler then asked if members of the Commission had any questions about the report. There were none. Mr. James made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Sugrue seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. 12 Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes Executive Secretary 13