THE MINUTES OF THE 473rd STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 11 January 2002, 9:30 a.m. Commission Conference Room 18th Floor, 1515 Arch Street James Cuorato, Acting Chair Present James Cuorato, Director & City Representative, Commerce Department, Acting Chair James Brown, IV Gary Hack, Chair, City Planning Commission Melissa Heller-Batzer, Director of Economic Development, Office of President of City Council Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Property Thomas Milkenny Michael Sklaroff, Esquire Denise J. Smyler, Esquire Harris Steinberg, AIA Thomas Sugrue, Ph.D. Norman Tissian Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Lawrence K. Copeland, Senior Attorney, Law Department Mark Zecca, Senior Attorney, Law Department Also Nicholas Aloi, 124 Queen Street Edward Jackson, Department of Licenses and Inspections Ruth Eldridge Elizabeth Armour, Society Hill Civic Association Lorna Lawson Katz, Society Hill Civic Association Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residents' Association/Preservation Alliance T. Brian Heverin, Sunesys Incorporated John Gerbner, Ewing Cole Cherry Brott Architects Mimi Dahiel, Historic Landmarks for Living Paulette Maddox, Historic Landmarks for Living Rebecca Stoloff, Society Hill Civic Association Michael McPhilmy, 123 Queen Street Bart Kaplan, 809 South Hancock Street Peter Quinn, 900 South Front Street Aristo Martin, 236 South 22nd Street Christian A. Busch, The Sullivan Company Mr. Baron made several announcements including an explanation that Mr. Tyler regrets being absent because of his recuperation from surgery. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to designate James Cuorato the acting-chair for the meeting. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. James Cuorato, Acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. Minutes of the 472nd Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Tissian and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the 472nd Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 14 December. Mr. Cuorato noted that the names of the members opposing a motion should be recorded. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 18 December 2001, Vincent Rivera, Chair. 2000 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Franklin Institute Franklin Institute, Owner John Gerbner, Applicant DATE: 1932, John T. Windrim, architect PROPOSAL: New ramp, canopys, railings and louvers The Architectural Committee recommended the following: 1. Approval of the pavilions with a simplified design and a change in the columns to flat corner angles; 2. Approval of the gate with the edge
Owner John Gerbner, Applicant DATE: 1932, John T. Windrim, architect PROPOSAL: New ramp, canopys, railings and louvers The Architectural Committee recommended the following: 1. Approval of the pavilions with a simplified design and a change in the columns to flat corner angles; 2. Approval of the gate with the edge design repeated in the center; 3. Approval of the handrail and staircase railing, and 4. Expansion of the vents painted in a stone color With the staff to review all details. This proposal includes revised handicap entrances flanking the monumental staircase, with pavilions and ramps, new railings on the monumental staircase, and HVAC louvers. The handicap entrances will have new metal gates at the historic wall at the sidewalk, opening to pyramidal-shaped glass and metal pavilions. Ramps then are from the pavilions to the entrances that sit below street-grade. The fencing pattern for the gates is also used on the new railing and handrail for the monumental staircase. The railing will sit inside the historic knee-wall of the staircase. On the sides of the monumental stairs, existing louvers become enlarged to accommodate necessary fresh air-intake for the new HVAC system. John Gerbner, the architect, attended the meeting. In response to Mr. Sklaroff's comment that the handrails would set a precedent, Mr. Gerbner responded that the handrails are being installed for safety reasons. Mr. Steinberg had a concern with the design of the railing, he thought the lightning bolt design too juvenile and thought the design should be more sophisticated. However, Mr. Tissian disagreed and thought it added fun and humor and is in keeping with the purpose of the museum. Mr. Sklaroff concurred and noted that the design did not detract from the building. Mr. Steinberg questioned the design of the pavilions and Mr. Gerbner stated that the design creates a place for signage and announces the entrances. He also noted that the pavilions are not attached to the building itself. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the revised proposal. Mr. Hack seconded the motion. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 of the Architectural Committee's recommendations passed unanimously. Number 3 of the Architectural Committee's recommendations passed with 11 votes. Mr. Steinberg opposed the design of number 3. 2 1000 block Noble Street City of Philadelphia, Owner T. Brian Heverin, Applicant PROPOSAL: Replace Belgian block with asphalt for utility trench The Architectural Committee recommended denial per Standard 5. This application is
of the Architectural Committee's recommendations passed with 11 votes. Mr. Steinberg opposed the design of number 3. 2 1000 block Noble Street City of Philadelphia, Owner T. Brian Heverin, Applicant PROPOSAL: Replace Belgian block with asphalt for utility trench The Architectural Committee recommended denial per Standard 5. This application is for legalizing the removal of the granite block street-paving along the southern edge, from the trolley track to the curb, and replacing it with asphalt. T. Brian Heverin, the applicant, presented photographs and plans and noted that a letter was sent to the Commissioner of Streets requesting a waiver of the Belgian block replacement and at that time was told that the street is designated historic. He also said that a building permit was not required for the work. Although the applicant's contract with the City required that he had to replace the materials in kind. Mr. Hack questioned the previous existing conditions. Ms. Spina explained the designation of the Historic Street Paving Thematic District and the integrity of the paving. Mr. Tissian said that the preservation of historic street paving is very important to the city. Mr. Wilds questioned the location of the Belgian block. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried with 10 votes. Mr. Wilds opposed the motion owing to the location of the street and Mr. James abstained. 700-28 Walnut Street, between 7th & 8th Streets St. James Walnut Association, Owner Mark Brodsky, Applicant DATE: 700-10 Walnut Street, 1868-69, Addison Hutton, architect; altered 1885-86, Frank Furness, architect 712-16 Walnut Street, c. 1807 718 Walnut Street, c. 1950 PROPOSAL: Approval of the tower with revisions in external appearance of parking floors in first 9 stories and rooftop of tower and restoration of façades of 700-16 Walnut Street The Architectural Committee recommended approval for the project, only approval in concept for the louvers at the garage level, and asked for more details before recommending final approval, and recommended final approval of the panels at the top of the tower, with staff to review all details. This application received approval in concept in August 1999. The proposal is returning for final approval. Two main changes from the previous application: the treatment of the façade at the parking garage level and treatment at the roof. The Committee and Commission originally approved in concept the glazing of the tower at the
approval in concept in August 1999. The proposal is returning for final approval. Two main changes from the previous application: the treatment of the façade at the parking garage level and treatment at the roof. The Committee and Commission originally approved in concept the glazing of the tower at the garage level, the tower's first nine stories. The applicant now wishes to have metal grills instead. At the roofline, the original application had glazing in the angled section. The proposal now calls for metal sheathing. The application also includes rehabilitation of the remaining historic façades, including masonry cleaning and repair and painting of wood windows and doors. 3 Ms. Spina explained the project and asked if the blades could be wider than 2 inches; however, the architect said that a grill blade wider than two inches requires a custom-made blade. Mr. Tissian stated that additional changes are a major issue. Mr. Sugrue questioned the glazing, and it was noted that the glazing presented a problem for ventilation. The louvers will give off light at night and Mr. Hack thought that light shining down on the district at night is a significant change, which could overwhelm the environment. Rebecca Stoloff, Society Hill Civic Association, said that this is a very large and important project and that changes should not be approved in pieces. She noted that the views from 8th Street and Washington Square are impacted by this project. In addition, the architect is scheduled to meet with the civic association and she requested that the Commission defer any decision until after that meeting. Lorna Katz Lawson, Society Hill Civic Association, noted that demolition has already occurred, and that the remaining portions are not protected from the elements and are incurring damage. She also expressed concern because the changes will further decrease the amount of historic fabric to be preserved. Mr. Baron stated that the demolition permit was approved and that the interior is not protected under the Commission's jurisdiction but if the front facade portions show damage, then the Commission could intervene. He also noted that the interior railings are being salvaged for reuse. Mr. Sklaroff reiterated that minutes from previous Commission meetings should be included in the Commission packets when a proposal has received conceptual approval. Mr. Tissian thought a clause should be added that the applicant appear before the community's civic association; but Mr. Sklaroff noted that the
being salvaged for reuse. Mr. Sklaroff reiterated that minutes from previous Commission meetings should be included in the Commission packets when a proposal has received conceptual approval. Mr. Tissian thought a clause should be added that the applicant appear before the community's civic association; but Mr. Sklaroff noted that the Commission did not have the authority to enforce such a provision. Mr. James thought that the proposal should go back to the Architectural Committee with the inclusion of a full package of drawings for a public meeting. Commission members also noted the absence of the applicant at the meeting. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to table the proposal and remand back to the Architectural Committee's next meeting. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried with 10 votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained and Ms. Heller-Baltzer recused herself. 4217 Main Street Robert and Maria Vlioras, Owners Ronald Patterson, Esq., Applicant DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Wall wrap sign 25'x 60' The applicant withdrew the proposal. 44 South 2nd Street 2nd Street Investments, L.L.C. Ronald Patterson, Esq., Applicant DATE: c. 1810 PROPOSAL: Wall wrap sign 20'x 60' The applicant withdrew the proposal. 4 2101 Chestnut Street, NW corner of 21st Street Harry Waloff, Owner Patrick Dewey, Applicant DATE: 1957 PROPOSAL: Install awning The Architectural Committee's vote was split. 2 members favored the proposal and 2 members recommended denial. The apartment building wishes to install a curved awning over the original marquee at the entrance to the building. Paulette Maddox, Historic Landmarks for Living, attended the meeting. She commented about the deteriorated condition of the previous awning and said that the proposed awning is a temporary solution. Ms. Heller-Batzer made a motion to approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried with 10 votes. Mr. Steinberg opposed the motion. 2025-29 Chestnut Street Freire Charter School, Owner Dave Terrell, Applicant DATE: 1923 PROPOSAL: Banner, façade alterations The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal with a revision in the material and design of the awning, with the staff to review details This application, which involves the conversion of the YWCA building into a charter school, has multiple parts. On the front façade, the proposal includes new aluminum windows at the second floor, a new banner to hang from an existing flagpole, and new brass plaques to flank the front door. On the rear elevation, the proposal calls for removing the doors at the
charter school, has multiple parts. On the front façade, the proposal includes new aluminum windows at the second floor, a new banner to hang from an existing flagpole, and new brass plaques to flank the front door. On the rear elevation, the proposal calls for removing the doors at the 3rd floor and infilling the openings with brick and aluminum windows to match others on the building, new HVAC vents at the 1st and 2nd floors, a result 1st floor with new glazed brick, three new exit doors and a single new window, and an internally-illuminated flex-face awning. Mr. Wilds noted that the building is owned by the Redevelopment Authority. James Pearl, Assistant City Solicitor, said that the charter school has a long-term lease for the first, second and third floors. Some Commission members took issue with the entrance to the school at the rear in an alley-like setting. Mr. Brown stated that rear entrance separates the students from the transitional housing of the remaining floors. Mr. James questioned the signage. Bart Kaplan, an alumnus of the school, explained the school's rear entrance. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried with 9 votes. Mr. James and Mr. Hack opposed the motion. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. 5 1214 Pine Street Ruth Eldridge, Owner Daniel Mehan, Applicant DATE: 1828, William F. Thorn, bricklayer PROPOSAL: New windows with applied muntins The Architectural Committee recommended denial per the window guidelines. The proposal calls for new wood, double-insulated windows, with applied muntins and a spacer-bar. The current windows have a non-historic brickmold. Daniel Mehan, the contractor, and Ruth Eldridge, the owner, attended the meeting. Ms. Eldridge stated that her intentions were to purchase the best type of window and that she has no record of the date of the previous window replacement. Mr. Mehan said that the proposed window does not have a snap on muntin but the spacer bar is visible; however the proposed window is a high quality and the only thing that is given up is the true divided light. Mr. Mehan presented a sample window to the Commission. Commission discussed the proposal at length and concluded that given the particulars of this case with its non-original windows, the proposed window adequately simulates true-divided lights. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to reject the Architectural Committee's recommendation and approve the proposal as submitted with
a sample window to the Commission. Commission discussed the proposal at length and concluded that given the particulars of this case with its non-original windows, the proposed window adequately simulates true-divided lights. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to reject the Architectural Committee's recommendation and approve the proposal as submitted with the brickmoldings preserved. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 236 South 22nd Street, SW corner of Latimer Street Harry Blackburn, Owner/applicant DATE: c. 1880, storefront c. 1925 PROPOSAL: Move AC units to roof and stucco chase for wires The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal replacing the chases with non-stuccoed downspouts with the staff to review details. This proposal involves curing a violation for air-conditioning mechanical tubes and wires on the side façade of the building. Mr. Blackburn proposes to move the HVAC units to the roof and install chases for the wiring. He proposes to stucco these to help hide them. Mr. Blackburn has said that a former owner installed the units. Aristo Martin was in attendance at the meeting to represent the owner. Mr. Hack made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 123-125 Chestnut Street, NE corner of 2nd Street 123-29 Chestnut Street Associates, Owner Dominic Aspite, applicant DATE: 1899, Frank Newman, architect PROPOSAL: Signage The Architectural Committee recommended approval. 6 This proposal involves re-facing a plastic box sign. We have no record of the sign's previous approval. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 423 South 16th Street Michael and Mario Carosella, Owners Thomas Citro, applicant DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: Front windows with applied muntins, legalize new rear of building The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposal with revision of 6/6 true divided light front windows. The Committee asked that the applicant provide a scaled elevation of the rear of the property and work with the staff on restoration details for the front door and windows. This proposal involves legalizing the alteration of the somewhat visible rear of this rowhouse. The staff in 1999 approved a permit to rebuild the front façade because of its Imminently Dangerous condition. The 1999 plans for the new front façade called for new true-divided light wood windows with 7/8 inch wide muntins. The new plans call for windows with an applied muntin grid. The Commission noted that
1999 approved a permit to rebuild the front façade because of its Imminently Dangerous condition. The 1999 plans for the new front façade called for new true-divided light wood windows with 7/8 inch wide muntins. The new plans call for windows with an applied muntin grid. The Commission noted that the drawings did not reflect that which was built and therefore believed the application incomplete. The applicant proposes to show the staff a sample window, for the front façade, which can be reviewed for approval at staff level. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to approve revised windows on the front façade but reject the rear alterations; however, he withdrew his motion. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to deny the proposal based on the incompleteness of the application. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 125 Queen Street Michael Carosella, Owner Thomas Citro, applicant DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Demolition, new construction of townhouses The Architectural Committee recommended tabling the proposal pending the determination of a site visit and the receipt of more information. This proposal calls for the complete demolition of a house with a passageway to small courtyard houses at the rear. A former owner incorporated these houses into the larger house to form a triplex. The building has a covering of Permastone. The applicant has submitted a citation from Licenses and Inspections saying that the house has Unsafe conditions. They also have a report from an engineer recommending that the house be torn down. What the application does not make clear is the work or cost necessary to make the house safe with star bolts or other measures. The second part of the application involves the construction of a new house on the site with a large setback for parking. 7 Suzanne Pentz, Vincent Rivera, Rudy D'Alessandro and Randal Baron made a site visit to determine the current condition of the property. The visit revealed that the property's condition is repairable. The owner intimated that the cost of repairs would be prohibitive and at that time he was given information about the Committee on Financial Hardship. Mr. Tissian stated that he strongly opposed the demolition. Michael McPhilmy, owner of the adjoining property, stated his opposition to the demolition and presented a petition from neighbors opposing the demolition. William Delaney, 103 Queen Street, stated the conditions exist owing to the longtime owner's neglect and also expressed his opposition to
stated that he strongly opposed the demolition. Michael McPhilmy, owner of the adjoining property, stated his opposition to the demolition and presented a petition from neighbors opposing the demolition. William Delaney, 103 Queen Street, stated the conditions exist owing to the longtime owner's neglect and also expressed his opposition to the demolition. The Commission believed this to be a classic case of demolition by neglect and thought the owner should be cited for enforcement of the repairs. The owner was not present at the meeting. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to request Mark Zecca, Senior Attorney for the Law Department, to file an enforcement action, to force the owner to repair the violations and bring the property into compliance with the Preservation Law and Philadelphia Code. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to deny the proposal. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 124 Queen Street Nick Aloi, owner/applicant DATE: c. 1825 PROPOSAL: Construct rooftop fire parapet along the party wall The Architectural Committee recommended approval. This proposal involves the construction of a cinderblock firewall between two row-houses which will rise above the roofline to create a parapet. The applicant will cover the parapet in copper. The Commission noted that the proposed parapet wall will follow the slope of the roofline and concurred with its construction. Mr. Tissian made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 702 South Front Street Jay Shapson, Owner Robert Boothroyd, applicant DATE: c. 1769 PROPOSAL: Vinyl replacement windows The Architectural Committee recommended denial per Standard 6 8 The proposal involves removing historic wood windows and replacing them with vinyl windows with applied grids. The age and significance of the property as well as the incompleteness of the application was noted. No one appeared to represent the application. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Tissian seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 900 South Front Street, SW corner of Christian Street Peter Quinn, owner/applicant DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Façade rehabilitation The Architectural Committee recommended approval with the staff to review conditions under the Permastone and review a revised design and details. The proposal involves the rehabilitation of this corner house that received a covering of Permastone in the mid-twentieth century. The applicant seeks to rehabilitate the first floor in a beginning phase. He seeks to remove
the staff to review conditions under the Permastone and review a revised design and details. The proposal involves the rehabilitation of this corner house that received a covering of Permastone in the mid-twentieth century. The applicant seeks to rehabilitate the first floor in a beginning phase. He seeks to remove the Permastone from the first floor, install a sign band, re-open former openings and install new doors. He will also move the HVAC units to the roof of the rear ell and hide them with a fence creating the appearance of a deck. The applicant seeks to base this work, in part, on an enclosed historic photo. Mr. Hack questioned why the entire façade was not being rehabilitated. Peter Quinn, the owner, attended the meeting and stated that the work was going to be done in phases owing to budgetary restraints. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1319 Pine Street Eileen Eckstein, applicant/owner DATE: 1836, Anthony Frazier, builder PROPOSAL: Legalize, repair roofing, aluminum cladding, masonry and windows The applicant requested a one month continuance. OLD BUSINESS 220 West Washington Square, W.B. Saunders Building 220 West Washington Associates, Owner Mark Idisis, Applicant DATE: 1911 PROPOSAL: Legalize bird netting and HVAC placement The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the present bird netting. The applicant should investigate less visible options and return to the Committee. The staff recommended granting a continuance to allow the architect to present both projects together. 9 Mr. Tissian made a motion to grant a continuance for both the bird netting and Christian Busch's HVAC application for a period not to exceed three (3) months. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 231 South 24th Street Stella and Nikolaus Mitoulis, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: Storefront alterations The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the submission based on Standards 2 and 9, as well as the incompleteness of the submission. Mr. Baron explained that the applicant needs more time and the Commission could grant an additional three (3) month continuance. He also explained a miscommunication and recommended the continuance to clarify the situation. Ms. Smyler made a motion to grant a continuance for a period not to exceed three (3) months. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Zecca apprised the Commission of the Board of License and Inspection Review's litigation of 1902 Spring Garden
the continuance to clarify the situation. Ms. Smyler made a motion to grant a continuance for a period not to exceed three (3) months. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Zecca apprised the Commission of the Board of License and Inspection Review's litigation of 1902 Spring Garden Street. THE REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, December 2001 Mr. Baron asked if members of the Commission had any questions about the report. There were none. HARRY A. BATTEN MEMORIAL FUND Mr. Baron asked the Commission to approve the expenditure of $17.81 for the Architectural Committee lunches. Mr. Sugrue made a motion to approve the expenditure. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Baron commended Mr. Zecca on his tireless efforts on behalf of the Historical Commission. Mr. Zecca will no act as legal counsel at the Commission meetings; however, he will still represent the Commission in litigations. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes Executive Secretary 10 [HANDWRITTEN NOTES: Signature above the typed name "Diane M. Hughes" in cursive script, located at the bottom of the page before the typed title "Executive Secretary"]