Historical Commission — May 14, 2021

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 1 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES THE MINUTES OF THE 705TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION FRIDAY, 14 MAY 2021 REMOTE MEETING ON ZOOM ROBERT THOMAS, CHAIR CALL TO ORDER START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:00:00 Mr. Thomas, the Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. and announced the presence of a quorum. The following Commissioners joined him: Commissioner Present Absent Comment Robert Thomas, AIA, Chair X Donna Carney (Philadelphia City Planning Commission) X Emily Cooperman, Ph.D., Committee on Historic Designation Chair X Mark Dodds (Department of Planning & Development) X Kelly Edwards, MUP X Steven Hartner (Department of Public Property) X Sara Lepori (Commerce Department) X Josh Lippert (Department of Licenses & Inspections) X John Mattioni, Esq. X Dan McCoubrey, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Architectural Committee Chair X Jessica Sánchez, Esq. (City Council President) X Kimberly Washington, Esq. X Owing to public health concerns surrounding the COVID-19 virus, all Commissioners, staff, applicants, and public attendees participated in the meeting remotely via Zoom video and audio- conferencing software. The following staff members were present: Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Kim Chantry, Historic Preservation Planner III Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner II Meredith Keller, Historic Preservation Planner II Allyson Mehley, Historic Preservation Planner II Leonard Reuter, Esq., Law Department Megan Cross Schmitt, Historic Preservation Planner II PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 2 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES The following persons attended the online meeting: Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance Sara Merriman Robert Saxon Chris Strom, Esq., Eckert Seamans Zach Jones, CANNO design Kevin Kilcoyne, Seiler + Drury Architects Mike Kess Mark Hansen Steve Black Linda Polgar Michael Koep Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society Doug Seiler, Seiler + Drury Architects Pri Seebadri Nathan Farris, Esq., Ballard Spahr Jay Farrell Matt Dering Mary McGettigan Briana Wilkins, Parkway Corporation Carolyn Campbell, Studio CCLA Dennis George, Esq., Arangio & George, LLP Reginald Johnson David Traub, Save Our Sites J. M. Duffin Sean Whalen, Esq., Vintage Law Susan Wetherill Becky Sell Adam Hunt Gina Dallago, CANNO design ADOPTION OF MINUTES, 704TH STATED MEETING, 9 APRIL 2021 START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:05:05 DISCUSSION:  Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioners, staff, and members of the public if they had any additions or corrections to the minutes of the preceding meeting of the Historical Commission, the 704th Stated Meeting, held 9 April

704TH STATED MEETING, 9 APRIL 2021 START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:05:05 DISCUSSION:  Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioners, staff, and members of the public if they had any additions or corrections to the minutes of the preceding meeting of the Historical Commission, the 704th Stated Meeting, held 9 April 2021. No corrections were offered. ACTION: Ms. Carney moved to adopt the minutes of the 704th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, held 9 April 2021. Ms. Edwards seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 3 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: Adoption of the Minutes of the 704th Meeting MOTION: Adoption of minutes MOVED BY: Carney SECONDED BY: Edwards VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 RESOLUTION THANKING BETTY TURNER FOR HER SERVICE TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:05:35 DISCUSSION:  Mr. Farnham asked the Commissioners to formally thank Ms. Turner for her service. He explained that Ms. Turner, a civil rights and community service veteran, resigned recently from the Historical Commission after nearly a decade as a leader of the agency. Mayor Michael Nutter appointed Ms. Turner as the community organization representative on the Historical Commission on 16 February 2012. She was reappointed to the same position on the Historical Commission by Mayor Jim Kenney in 2016. On 10 March 2017, Ms. Turner was elected vice chair of the Historical Commission. Ms. Turner was a founder of the Germantown Community Connection, a civic organization, and a graduate of the Philadelphia Citizens Planning Institute, the education and outreach arm of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. In 2020, the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) gave Ms. Turner the prestigious Paul Philippe Cret Award, which recognizes individuals who have made “an outstanding and lasting contribution to the design of buildings, structures, landscapes, and the public realm of Greater Philadelphia.” Mr. Farnham asked the Commissioners to formally thank Ms. Turner by resolution for her years of service to the Historical Commission and City of Philadelphia. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to formally thank Ms. Turner by resolution for her years of service to the Historical Commission and City of Philadelphia. All

Mr. Farnham asked the Commissioners to formally thank Ms. Turner by resolution for her years of service to the Historical Commission and City of Philadelphia. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to formally thank Ms. Turner by resolution for her years of service to the Historical Commission and City of Philadelphia. All other Commissioners in attendance jointly seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 4 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: Adoption of resolution thanking Betty Turner MOTION: Adoption of resolution MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: All VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 27 APRIL 2021 CONSENT AGENDA START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:07:10 DISCUSSION:  Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioners, staff, and public for comments on the Consent Agenda. None were offered. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to adopt the recommendations of the Architectural Committee for the applications for 2000-24 Arch Street, 207-09 and 211 Vine Street, 4204 and 4206 Parkside Avenue, and 718 Bradford Alley. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which adopted by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 5 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: Consent Agenda MOTION: Approval MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 AGENDA ADDRESS: 2000-24 ARCH ST Proposal: Relocate gas station to Aviator Park Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: 2000 Arch Associates LP Applicant: Becky Sell, Ascent History: 1930; Gulf Gasoline Station Individual Designation: 8/6/1981 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This application proposes to relocate an historic Gulf gas station that stands along the west side of 20th Street, south of Arch Street. The gas station is the only historic resource on the property at 2000-24 Arch Street, which was designated in 1981. The very large lot was used as a car rental facility for many years. When the facility closed, the non-historic buildings at the site were demolished. With the exception of

The gas station is the only historic resource on the property at 2000-24 Arch Street, which was designated in 1981. The very large lot was used as a car rental facility for many years. When the facility closed, the non-historic buildings at the site were demolished. With the exception of the gas station, which is located at the edge of the site high above the remainder of the site at a different grade, the lot is now dedicated to surface parking. The new owner plans to redevelop the site. Section 14-203(88) of the preservation ordinance indicates that the removal of a building from its site is considered a demolition in the legal sense. Therefore, owing to the limitations of approvals of demolitions at Section 14-1005(6)(d) in the preservation ordinance, the Historical Commission may approve this application only after finding that there is no feasible reuse for the building and/or that the relocation is necessary in the public interest. The small gas station was constructed in 1930 and has been vacant and unused for many decades. The building is in poor condition. A former owner of the property sought the Historical Commission’s approval to demolish the building in the mid 1980s. The Historical Commission PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 6 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES worked with the owner for several years seeking a new site for the small building. The building was unsuccessfully offered to Gulf, the Smithsonian Institute, Henry Ford Museum in Michigan, SEPTA, and the Fairmount Park Commission. Although some potential relocation sites were identified, for example at a recycling center in Fairmount Park, moving the building more than a short distance was ultimately deemed infeasible, owing to obstacles including bridges, underpasses, and utility lines. Eventually, in 1988, after exhausting options for relocation, the Historical Commission approved the demolition of the building, provided the owner continued to seek a relocation site until it was demolished. Despite the approval, the building was not demolished, and it stands today at its original site. The current plan calls for moving the building two blocks to the north, to Aviator Park at Logan Circle, where it would be held under the auspices of the Department of Parks and Recreation. The rehabilitation of the building for its new use as a park amenity will be proposed is a subsequent application in a later phase of the project. The application claims

Aviator Park at Logan Circle, where it would be held under the auspices of the Department of Parks and Recreation. The rehabilitation of the building for its new use as a park amenity will be proposed is a subsequent application in a later phase of the project. The application claims that the relocation is necessary in the public interest, in that it would ensure the preservation of the historic resource while providing for its use and appreciation by the public. In addition, decades of failed attempts to find a reuse for this building have demonstrated that its reuse is not feasible in its current location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Section 14- 1005(6)(d) of the preservation ordinance; the building has no feasible reuse in its current location; the relocation is necessary in the public interest for the preservation and adaptive reuse of the historic resource. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Section 14-1005(6)(d) of the preservation ordinance. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 207-09 AND 211 VINE ST Proposal: Construct 6-story multi-family building and two townhouses, remove rear ell Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Greythorne Development Corporation Applicant: Carey Jackson Yonce, CANNO design History: 209 Vine Street, 1825 Individual Designation: 10/1/1981 District Designation: Old City Historic District, 12/12/2003 207 Vine Street: Non-contributing 209 Vine Street: Contributing 211 Vine Street: Non-contributing Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov BACKGROUND:  Located at the northeast corner of Vine Street and N. American Street, the properties currently known as 207-09 and 211 Vine Street extend the full block from Vine Street to Wood Street, and include a combination of parking lots, non-contributing buildings, and the individually-designated and contributing building historically known as 209 Vine Street. The northern boundary of the Old City Historic District is along Wood Street. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 7 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES This application calls for the construction of two townhouses on the existing parking lot at 207 Vine Street; the removal of the majority of the rear ell of 209 Vine Street and the rehabilitation of its front façade; and the demolition of the non-contributing buildings at 211 Vine Street and construction of a six-story building. The new townhouses at 207 Vine Street would feature three-story brick facades with regular fenestration. A fourth floor clad in standing seam

of 209 Vine Street and the rehabilitation of its front façade; and the demolition of the non-contributing buildings at 211 Vine Street and construction of a six-story building. The new townhouses at 207 Vine Street would feature three-story brick facades with regular fenestration. A fourth floor clad in standing seam metal siding would be set back from the front façade and feature a series of terraces and decks. At 209 Vine Street, the application calls for the rehabilitation of the front façade and main block, but the staff notes that the elevation drawings do not accurately reflect the existing or restored conditions. The final details could be worked out at the staff level. The applications also proposes to remove the historic building’s rear ell, which has been heavily modified since its original construction. The c. 1825 main block originally featured two-story ell and narrow piazza. Between 1910 and 1917, a tapered two-story addition had been appended to the rear of the main block, and a third-story with a mansard roof added to the two-story ell. It is not clear when other alterations were made, but no curved or tapered corners are presently visible, nor does the mansard roof remain. In 1983, a zoning permit was issued for the demolition of a two-story portion of the rear and construction of a three-story addition. The majority of the existing ell is covered in rough stucco. The proposed new construction would eliminate the visibility of the rear of the building from the public right-of-way. The proposed six-story building would extend from the corner of Vine Street north along American Street and onto Wood Street. The Vine Street elevation would be clad in brick with cast stone belt courses and feature four columns of industrial-size window openings. The brick cladding would turn the corner onto American Street for two bays, and then transition to two floors of brick cladding with charcoal grey cement board and batten panels above for both the American and Wood Street elevations. The American Street elevation would feature ground- floor windows as well as garage openings, and floors four through six would feature balconies with glass railings. SCOPE OF WORK:   Demolish non-contributing buildings  Remove rear ell of historic building and rehab facade  Construct townhouses  Construct six-story building STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:  Standard 2: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal

six would feature balconies with glass railings. SCOPE OF WORK:   Demolish non-contributing buildings  Remove rear ell of historic building and rehab facade  Construct townhouses  Construct six-story building STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:  Standard 2: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. o This application proposes to demolish non-contributing buildings and the heavily altered rear ell of an historic building and avoids the removal of historic materials and features that characterize the properties, satisfying this Standard.  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 8 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES o The new construction would be independent of the existing historic building, and the materials, size, scale, proportion, and massing of the new construction is consistent with the Old City Historic District, which is characterized by a variety of architectural styles ranging from 2 ½ to 3 ½ story red brick residential buildings to early twentieth-century mid-rise commercial and industrial buildings. The immediate context along Vine Street is that of three to four story historic buildings interspersed with new construction and vacant lots where new construction has recently been proposed. Along this stretch of American and Wood Streets there are additional vacant lots and new construction. The application satisfies this Standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the applicant explore the reduction of the number of garage doors along American Street; a base is added to the townhouses at 207 Vine Street; the drawings and renderings are updated to accurately reflect proposed rooftop conditions at 207 Vine Street; and a material other than board and batten that is compatible with the historic district is used for the party wall and elevations of the new construction along American and Wood Streets, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 4204

and a material other than board and batten that is compatible with the historic district is used for the party wall and elevations of the new construction along American and Wood Streets, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 4204 AND 4206 PARKSIDE AVE Proposal: Construct rear addition and roof deck with pilot house; rehabilitate buildings Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: 4204 Parkside Development Applicant: German Yakubov, Haverford Square Properties History: 1895 Individual Designation: None District Designation: Parkside Historic District, Significant, 12/11/2009 Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This application proposes to rehabilitate two vacant but significant buildings in the Parkside Historic District. The buildings have stood unoccupied for years and have suffered substantial damage at the rear, including the loss of windows, exterior stairs, projecting bays, and cornices. This application proposes to restore some of the missing features, including reconstructing the two rear bays, and to construct a rooftop addition, roof decks, and pilot houses. The small rooftop addition would connect the existing historic masonry fire escape to the roof decks. One pilot house would be located at the center of each building’s roof. Both the addition and pilot houses would be clad in stucco. The roof decks would be set back 5-feet from the front façade and from the sides of the buildings. The application proposes to install new black vinyl windows in the side and rear openings where many windows are currently missing. Two new egress wells would be constructed at the rear. The existing rear door openings, which are missing staircases, would be infilled with brick recessed one inch. SCOPE OF WORK: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 9 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Construct rear addition to connect fire escape to roof deck;  Construct roof deck and pilot houses;  Install vinyl windows at sides and rear;  Reconstruct rear bays;  Infill openings at rear; and  Install egress wells at rear. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by

 Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. o Many windows on the side and rear have been lost. The new vinyl windows would replicate the old in configuration, though not material; however, the location of the windows provides minimal visibility from the public right-of-way, and a substitute material may be appropriate. Similarly, the rear bays should be constructed to match the historic bays in appearance, though a substitute material may also be appropriate. Photographic evidence shows that while the bay-window structure remains at 4206 Parkside Avenue, the metal cladding has been lost for about ten years. The entire bay at 4204 Parkside Avenue is currently missing. Owing to the extent of loss at the two buildings, the work to restore the visual appearance of these features using substitute materials complies with this standard.  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o The proposed rooftop addition is small, does not destroy historic materials, and could be removed without damage to the historic structures. It is compatible in massing, size, and scale; would provide access from the roofs of the buildings to the existing stair tower; and would allow for the retention and rehabilitation of the historic masonry fire escape. The work complies with this standard.  Roofs Guideline | Recommended: Designing rooftop additions, elevator or stair towers, decks or terraces, dormers, or skylights when required by a new or continuing use so that they are inconspicuous and minimally visible on the site and from the public right-of- way and do not damage or obscure character-defining historic features. o The proposed roof decks and pilot houses would be inconspicuous from the public rights-of-way. Provided the pilot houses are constructed within and not atop the parapet walls of the historic buildings, the work complies with this standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the pilot houses are constructed within and not atop

The proposed roof decks and pilot houses would be inconspicuous from the public rights-of-way. Provided the pilot houses are constructed within and not atop the parapet walls of the historic buildings, the work complies with this standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the pilot houses are constructed within and not atop the parapet walls of the historic buildings, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standards 6, 9, and the Roofs Guideline. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 10 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, pursuant to Standards 6, 9, and the Roofs Guideline, provided the following:  the connection between the stair tower and roof deck is minimized, and a catwalk is considered in place of the proposed stucco addition;  the deck is setback farther from the front façade to allow for the placement of mechanical equipment;  a section drawing is included to show the deck and pilot houses; and  the pilot houses are reduced in height, width, and massing. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 7204 BOYER ST Proposal: Demolish rear addition; construct two-story rear addition Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Edwin Whatley and Linda Polgar Applicant: Mark Hansen, Cadence Ad, LLC History: 1920; W.H. Megargee, architect Individual Designation: None District Designation: Lutheran Seminary Historic District, Contributing, 11/9/2018 Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov OVERVIEW: The property at 7204 Boyer Street was designed in the Arts and Crafts style by architect W.H. Megargee in 1920 as a private residence and was acquired by the Lutheran Seminary six years after its construction. The building is classified as contributing in the district, though it differs significantly from the neighborhood’s Victorian Eclectic and Queen Anne style buildings designed by Frank Furness. This application proposes to demolish a small shed structure at the rear and to construct a two- story addition that would be clad in horizontal wood board with vertical lap siding. The addition would feature a standing-seam metal roof and aluminum-clad, wood, double-hung sash windows. Though large in size, the addition would be positioned just below the ridgeline of the main structure and would leave the rear wall of the existing building largely intact. It would, however, be visible from the northeast on Boyer Street, though the buildings in the district are set back significantly from the street. SCOPE OF WORK:  Demolish rear shed addition.  Construct

of the main structure and would leave the rear wall of the existing building largely intact. It would, however, be visible from the northeast on Boyer Street, though the buildings in the district are set back significantly from the street. SCOPE OF WORK:  Demolish rear shed addition.  Construct two-story rear addition. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o The proposed addition, while large, would require little demolition and would not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The addition would be PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 11 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES differentiated from the old and would have little impact on the historic district, owing to the significant setback from the street. The staff recommends using materials appropriate to the district to allow the proposed addition to comply with this standard.  Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. o The proposed addition would require the demolition of a small portion of the rear roof and a shed addition, but would allow for the retention of the rear wall of the historic building. The future removal of the addition would have limited impact on the historic structure and its environment. The work complies with this standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the addition materials and pattern of the window openings are appropriate to the district and the west elevation is slightly recessed behind the historic building, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:08:55 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Mark Hansen and property owner Linda Polgar represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The proposed two-story addition would require

OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:08:55 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Mark Hansen and property owner Linda Polgar represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The proposed two-story addition would require the demolition of a small shed structure and the removal of one shed dormer.  The addition would be clad in wood siding and would feature aluminum-clad windows and a standing seam metal roof. The original building is clad in stucco.  The applicant revised the application to address the Architectural Committee’s comments. The revisions include reducing the height of the addition so that it matches the height of the front dormer; introducing shed dormers; and modifying details such as the window pattern and including porch columns. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The finish of the addition appears as raw wood in the elevation but should be a painted finish. The color should be reviewed by the staff.  The proposed addition has been reduced in mass and is compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features. The work complies with Standard 9.  The proposed addition would require little demolition and would allow for the retention of the rear wall of the historic building. The addition has limited impact on the historic structure and its environment and complies with Standard 10. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 12 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Mr. McCoubrey moved to approve the revised application, with the staff to review details especially the color of the exterior cladding, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. Mr. Mattioni seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 7204 BOYER ST MOTION: Approval MOVED BY: McCoubrey SECONDED BY: Mattioni VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 718 BRADFORD ALY Proposal: Install solar panels Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Michael Kessler Applicant: Evan Haberman, Pinnacle Exteriors History: 1882, Starr’s Row Individual Designation: 12/31/1984 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov BACKGROUND: The building at 718 Bradford Alley is part of a row of houses with mansards that was constructed by philanthropist Theodore Starr in 1882. Starr was

Michael Kessler Applicant: Evan Haberman, Pinnacle Exteriors History: 1882, Starr’s Row Individual Designation: 12/31/1984 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov BACKGROUND: The building at 718 Bradford Alley is part of a row of houses with mansards that was constructed by philanthropist Theodore Starr in 1882. Starr was an early housing reformer who sought to improve unsanitary slums and provide social services for the poor. This application proposes to install solar panels at the flat roof of 718 Bradford Alley. Although the staff believes the solar panels themselves will be inconspicuous from the public right-of-way, the disconnect box is proposed to be attached onto the front façade of the house and would be highly visible. SCOPE OF WORK:  Install solar panels and associated equipment. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 13 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Roofs Guideline: Recommended: Installing mechanical and service equipment on the roof (such as heating and air conditioning units, elevator housing, or solar panels) when required for a new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features. o The proposed location of the six panels is at the flat roof of the house. Owing to the extremely narrow width of Bradford Alley, as well as the building’s mansard, the flat portion of the roof is not visible. The proposed location of the panels is appropriate.  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. o The disconnect box is proposed to attach directly on to the front façade and would be highly visible from the public right-of-way. The staff has worked with other applicants in the past to install these boxes at less conspicuous locations and recommends that this applicant find another location, including possibly at the interior or the rear of the house. Alternatively, the applicant could consider installing the disconnect box free-standing in front of the house if possible. o The staff asks the applicant to explain where any associated conduit would be located and how

this applicant find another location, including possibly at the interior or the rear of the house. Alternatively, the applicant could consider installing the disconnect box free-standing in front of the house if possible. o The staff asks the applicant to explain where any associated conduit would be located and how it would interact with the mansard. The staff recommends against running conduit across or over the mansard roof. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of location of panels as proposed, but denial of the disconnect box at the front façade, pursuant to the Roofs Guideline and Standard 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the installation of the panels at the roof with the condition they are pushed back approximately one foot from the roof edge, and denial of the disconnect box at the front façade as proposed, pursuant to the Roofs Guideline and Standard 9. ACTION: See Consent Agenda. ADDRESS: 331 QUEEN ST Proposal: Demolish rear roof slope and dormer; construct sloped roof addition at third floor Review Requested: Final Approval Owner: Libby J Goldstein Applicant: Raymond Rola, Raymond F. Rola Architect History: 1820 Individual Designation: 3/25/1969 District Designation: None Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application proposes to demolish the rear roof slope and rear dormer of this c. 1820 rowhouse and replace it with a new low-slope roof with French doors leading to a small roof deck over the existing second-floor rear addition. No work is proposed for the front façade. The rear of the property is currently visible from Kauffman Street, although the applicant’s cover letter indicates that visibility may be blocked in the future by new construction. SCOPE OF WORK: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 14 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Demolish rear roof slope and rear dormer.  Construct low slope roof at rear with doors to deck. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. o Removal of the historic rear dormer and rear roof alters features that characterize the historic property.  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships

of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. o Removal of the historic rear dormer and rear roof alters features that characterize the historic property.  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. o The proposed alteration would destroy historic materials and features that characterize the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:16:35 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Chantry presented the application to the Historical Commission.  No one represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  Rear dormers and rear roofs are character-defining features of historic buildings.  It has a practice of approving modifications to rear dormers in the recent past, but not the complete removal of original rear roof slopes and rear dormers. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The removal of the historic rear dormer and rear roof alters features that characterize the historic property and therefore the proposal fails to satisfy Standard 2.  The proposed alteration would destroy historic materials and features that characterize the property and therefore the proposal fails to satisfy Standard 9. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to deny the application, pursuant to Standards 2 and 9. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 15 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 331 QUEEN ST MOTION: Denial MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 ADDRESS: 241-43 CHESTNUT ST Proposal: Construct roof deck and pilot house Review Requested: Final Approval  Owner: Steven Gelbart Applicant: Douglas Seiler, Seiler + Drury Architecture History: Borie Brothers Bank Individual Designation: 11/4/1976 District Designation: Old City Historic District, 12/12/2003 Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application proposes

10 2 ADDRESS: 241-43 CHESTNUT ST Proposal: Construct roof deck and pilot house Review Requested: Final Approval  Owner: Steven Gelbart Applicant: Douglas Seiler, Seiler + Drury Architecture History: Borie Brothers Bank Individual Designation: 11/4/1976 District Designation: Old City Historic District, 12/12/2003 Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application proposes a roof deck and pilot house at 241 Chestnut Street. A roof deck located on the adjacent building, 239 Chestnut Street, which is shown on sheet A0.0 of the application materials, was approved by the Architectural Committee and Historical Commission in 2006. The adjacent building with deck was demolished after a major fire in 2018. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct roof deck and pilot house. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines include:  Roofs Guideline | Recommended: Designing rooftop additions, elevator or stair towers, decks or terraces, dormers, or skylights when required by a new or continuing use so that they are inconspicuous and minimally visible on the site and from the public right- of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining historic features.   o The overall location and dimensions of the deck area are appropriate. The application’s renderings show the proposed pilot house to be partially visible from specific locations. Reducing the overall size of the pilot house, which is larger PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 16 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES than the minimum needed, would render the deck and pilot house inconspicuous and minimally visible from the public right-of-way and thereby in compliance with this guideline and the Standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the overall mass of the pilot house is reduced, with the staff to review details, pursuant to the Roofs Guideline. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial of the application as presented, but approval provided the size and glass area of the pilot house is minimized, the color of the pilot house and the color and reflectivity of its glass are revised, and the double doors are reconsidered, pursuant to Roofs Guideline. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:20:03 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the revised application to the Historical Commission.  No one represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The revised application directly addressed the comments of the Architectural Committee.  The revised

ZOOM RECORDING: 00:20:03 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the revised application to the Historical Commission.  No one represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The revised application directly addressed the comments of the Architectural Committee.  The revised roof deck will be minimally visible from the public right-of-way. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The overall location and dimensions of the deck area are appropriate. The renderings show the proposed pilot house to be minimally visible from specific locations in the public right-of-way. The overall size of the pilot house has been reduced in the revised application and renders the deck and pilot house inconspicuous and minimally visible from the public right-of-way, and thereby in compliance with Roofs Guideline. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to approve the revised application, pursuant to the Roofs Guideline. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 17 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 241-43 CHESTNUT ST MOTION: Approval of revised application MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 ADDRESS: 327-29 N FRONT ST Proposal: Construct building Review Requested: Review and comment Owner: 327-29 N Front Street LLC Applicant: Rustin Ohler, Harman Deutsch Ohler Architecture History: vacant lot Individual Designation: none District Designation: Old City Historic District, non-contributing, 12/12/2003 Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov BACKGROUND: This application proposes to construct a four-story building with a pilot house and roof deck on a currently vacant lot. The Historical Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to review and comment because the lot has been vacant since the designation of the district and is considered an “undeveloped” site. The height of the main portion of the building would be approximately 52 feet above average grade, with the pilot house extending an additional 10 feet in height. The grade of Water Street is lower than that of N. Front Street. The building would be clad in brown/tan brick and feature metal panel-clad bay windows and recessed balconies. The N. Front Street elevation would feature a residential entrance and sidelite, while the rear along Water Street would feature a double-width garage

Water Street is lower than that of N. Front Street. The building would be clad in brown/tan brick and feature metal panel-clad bay windows and recessed balconies. The N. Front Street elevation would feature a residential entrance and sidelite, while the rear along Water Street would feature a double-width garage door and single entry door. The staff notes that both blocks of N. Front Street and N. Water Street are historically paved with granite block and are designated as part of the Historic Street Paving Thematic District. SCOPE OF WORK:  Construct four-story building with roof deck and pilot house STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:  Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 18 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. o The proposed construction is generally in keeping with the scale and massing of the Old City Historic District, which includes a range of building sizes. The use of brick is consistent with the district as well. The use of metal panels and bays and recessed balconies is not consistent with the district. The application partially complies with this Standard. STAFF COMMENT: The staff comments that, with modifications, the proposed design could be compatible with the Old City Historic District. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Architectural Committee did not offer a motion, but allowed its comments as documented in the minute to stand as its recommendation. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:25:45 PRESENTERS:  Ms. DiPasquale presented the application to the Historical Commission.  Architect Steve Black represented the application. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. HISTORICAL COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Historical Commission commented that:  The design did not change following the meeting of the Architectural Committee.  Features of the proposed design, including the deep recesses, balconies, and angled and white metal panels, are inconsistent with the characteristics of the district.  The height of the building is taller than the neighboring properties, but the block is varied. THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 APRIL 2021 FRENCH VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT Proposed Action: Designation; Request for continuance to October 2021 CHD Mtg Property

with the characteristics of the district.  The height of the building is taller than the neighboring properties, but the block is varied. THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 APRIL 2021 FRENCH VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT Proposed Action: Designation; Request for continuance to October 2021 CHD Mtg Property Owner: Various Nominator: Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate a historic district comprised of 24 properties along Emlen and Huron Streets and Gate, Elbow, and E. Allens Lanes in the West Mount Airy section of Philadelphia. The district also includes six gas street lights, three masonry gates, and a stone plaque. All 24 properties are classified as contributing. The nomination argues that the district satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination contends that the district is significant for its connection to the Henry Houston estate and for George S. Woodward’s Philadelphia contribution to the national trend in developing utopian planned suburbs. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination argues that the development of PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 19 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES French Village reflects the environment of the 1920s and ‘30s era of suburban planning and European Revival architecture and, more specifically, the French Normal Revival style. Under Criterion E, the nomination notes that significant Philadelphia architects, including Robert Rhodes McGoodwin, H. Louis Duhring, Willing, Sims & Talbutt, Mellor & Meigs, and Tilden, Register & Pepper, designed the district’s buildings. Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the French Village suburban plan intersects with the wider developing Mount Airy community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the proposed district satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination for the French Village Historic District to the October 2021 Committee on Historic Designation meeting. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:31:05 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the continuance request and explained that the owners of the French Village properties met as a group with Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. At the end of the meeting, she continued, the owners decided as a group to request a continuance to allow time for a meeting with the Historical

explained that the owners of the French Village properties met as a group with Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. At the end of the meeting, she continued, the owners decided as a group to request a continuance to allow time for a meeting with the Historical Commission’s staff to discuss designation and permit review processes. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to continue the review of the nomination for the French Village Historic District to the October 2021 Committee on Historic Designation meeting. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 20 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: French Village Historic District MOTION: Continue to October 2021 CHD meeting MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 ADDRESS: 1006 BAINBRIDGE ST Name of Resource: Frances Ellen Watkins Harper House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Jay Stolzenberg Nominator: Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1006 Bainbridge Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criterion for Designation A, for its association with the life of Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, who owned the property from 1871 until her death in 1911. Frances E. W. Harper achieved acclaim as a reformer as well as a literary figure among African Americans. Harper’s achievements as a reformer in the anti-slavery movement, women’s rights movement, temperance movement, and post-Civil War civil rights movement spanned many decades and many states. Her poetry and essays were numerous and told of the Black female experience, advocating for equal rights, job opportunities, and education for the Black community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1006 Bainbridge Street satisfies Criterion for Designation A. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1006 Bainbridge Street satisfies Criterion for Designation A and should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:33:45 PRESENTERS:

DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1006 Bainbridge Street satisfies Criterion for Designation A and should be designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:33:45 PRESENTERS: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 21 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Historical Commission.  No one represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Jim Duffin spoke in support of a designation. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The property at 1006 Bainbridge Street was owned by Frances Ellen Watkins Harper from 1871 until her passing in 1911.  Frances Ellen Watkins Harper was prominent as a poet and essayist and a reformer in the anti-slavery, women’s rights, temperance, and post-Civil War civil rights movements. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The property at 1006 Bainbridge Street satisfies Criterion for Designation A, for its association with the life of Frances Ellen Watkins Harper. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to find that the property at 1006 Bainbridge Street satisfies Criterion for Designation A, and to designate it as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 1006 BAINBRIDGE ST MOTION: Designate, Criterion A MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 22 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 1615 WALNUT ST Name of Resource: The Clarke & Sarah Merchant House Proposed Action: Designation; Request to Withdraw Property Owner: Honey Nuts LLC Nominator: Center City Residents’ Association Staff Contact: Megan Cross Schmitt, megan.schmitt@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1615 Walnut Street, located in Center City, as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Historically known as the Clarke and Sarah Merchant House, it was constructed in 1832 with substantial alterations completed in 1892 and 1911. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that the building is associated with the life of Clarke Merchant, whose career as a manufacturer and merchant of

of Historic Places. Historically known as the Clarke and Sarah Merchant House, it was constructed in 1832 with substantial alterations completed in 1892 and 1911. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that the building is associated with the life of Clarke Merchant, whose career as a manufacturer and merchant of metal and tin-plate architectural and building materials made a significant impact on the built environment of Philadelphia and beyond. The nomination further contends that the building qualifies under Criterion E, owing to the alterations and addition completed in 1892 by prominent Philadelphia architect Addison Hutton. Finally, the nomination asserts that the building is significant under Criterion J because it is a rare surviving urban mansion on a principal street that was once home to expensive residences but is now lined with purpose-built commercial structures. The period of significance begins in 1892, when the Merchant family purchased the property and engaged architect Addison Hutton, and ends in 1931, when the building was sold out of the Merchant family. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1615 Walnut Street, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, E, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation recommended that the Historical Commission allow for the withdrawal of the nomination for the property at 1615 Walnut Street without prejudice. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:38:38 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Schmitt presented the request to withdraw the nomination to the Historical Commission.  Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society represented the nomination on behalf of the Center City Residents Association.  Attorney Nathan Farris represented the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance spoke in support of the request to withdraw the nomination. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission concluded that:  A façade easement is an alternative method to protect the building that can benefit the property owner, the nominator, and the public. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 23 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  The designation of the subject property in advance of the conclusion of the easement process could have an adverse impact on the economic incentive available through the façade easement. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to accept the withdrawal of the nomination for the property at 1615 Walnut Street on the grounds that sufficient measures have been taken to guarantee its preservation while the

the easement process could have an adverse impact on the economic incentive available through the façade easement. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to accept the withdrawal of the nomination for the property at 1615 Walnut Street on the grounds that sufficient measures have been taken to guarantee its preservation while the terms of the façade easement are finalized. Ms. Carney seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 1615 Walnut St MOTION: Allow for withdrawal of the nomination MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Carney VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 ADDRESS: 413 S PERTH ST Proposed Action: Classify Property in Historic District Inventory Property Owner: Matthew Dering and Caroline Price Initiator: Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, jon.farnham@phila.gov OVERVIEW: The Historical Commission designated the Society Hill Historic District on 10 March 1999. At the time it created the historic district, the Historical Commission adopted an inventory for the district, which lists every property in the district, provides a description and brief history of it, and a classification for it. Each property in a historic district is classified as Significant, Contributing, or Non-contributing, and then subsequently regulated based on that classification. Owing to an apparent error, the property at 413 S. Perth Street was included in the inventory, but not described or classified. To correct this error, the staff of the Historical Commission has initiated a proposal to amend the district inventory and provide a complete entry for 413 S. Perth Street. The property is located at the southeast corner of Perth and Addison Streets. A three- story building stood on the property as late as 1931. It appears that the remnants of that building were demolished in 1939. The building that currently stands on the property was PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 24 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES constructed by Bernard Shapiro in 1940 as a one-story hardware storage building, which supported his hardware business, B. Shapiro Inc., at 728-30 Lombard Street. The property was categorized as commercial on the 1952 and 1962 Philadelphia Land Use Maps. The building was converted to a residence in 1964. The extant building is two stories in height and clad in stucco. The entry for

supported his hardware business, B. Shapiro Inc., at 728-30 Lombard Street. The property was categorized as commercial on the 1952 and 1962 Philadelphia Land Use Maps. The building was converted to a residence in 1964. The extant building is two stories in height and clad in stucco. The entry for 413 S. Perth Street in inventory for the Society Hill Historic District adopted in 1999 directs the reader to an entry for 720-22 Addison Street, an alternate address, but there is no such entry. The staff proposes the following entry for 413 S. Perth Street as an amendment to the Society Hill Historic District inventory: 413 Two-story, stucco-clad, vernacular house with roof deck. Built: 1940 for hardware storage. Alteration: Converted to dwelling in 1964. Non- contributing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Amend the Society Hill Historic District inventory entry for 413 S. Perth Street as proposed above. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation recommended that the Historical Commission amend the entry for 413 S. Perth Street in the inventory of the Society Hill Historic District with the description and classification of non-contributing offered by the staff, with the deletion of the word “vernacular” from the description. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:54:43 PRESENTERS:  Mr. Farnham presented the staff’s request to amend the Society Hill Historic District inventory to the Historical Commission.  Matthew Dering, the property owner, attended the review and offered to answer any questions about the property. PUBLIC COMMENT:  None HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The original entry for 413 S. Perth Street in the Society Hill Historic District inventory is incomplete.  The building at 413 S. Perth Street was constructed in 1940.  No historic resources are located at 413 S. Perth Street. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The inventory should be amended to describe the property and classify it as Non- contributing to the district. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 25 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to amend the entry for 413 S. Perth Street in the inventory of the Society Hill Historic District with the description and classification of non-contributing offered by the staff, with the deletion of the word “vernacular” from the description. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 413 S PERTH ST MOTION: Amend entry in Society Hill

the inventory of the Society Hill Historic District with the description and classification of non-contributing offered by the staff, with the deletion of the word “vernacular” from the description. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. ITEM: 413 S PERTH ST MOTION: Amend entry in Society Hill Historic District inventory MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 ADDRESS: 514 S 4TH ST  Proposed Action: Amend Historic District    Property Owner: Sandra & Joseph Lichtman   Applicant: Sandra & Joseph Lichtman    Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov  OVERVIEW: This application requests to reclassify the property at 514 S. 4th Street from significant to non-contributing in the Society Hill Historic District. The property includes a three- story building fronting S. 4th Street and a two-story building with a half-gambrel roof at the rear of the lot. A one-story infill structure adjoins the buildings. The property is described as follows in the entry from the Society Hill Historic District inventory: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 26 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES The application asserts that the property is unsalable, owing to its classification as a significant resource in the Society Hill Historic District. The applicants, in this case the property owners at the time of designation, contend that they received notice of the property’s designation but not notice of the nomination, which would have provided them with information regarding public meetings and a means to participate in the process. The application argues that the Historical Commission staff has “not approached the issuance of demolition permits in a reasonable and practical way,” though no demolition permits have ever been submitted. The application fails to provide any evidence that the property lacks historic value or that the property no longer meets the criteria that caused its entry on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Instead, the application seeks to reclassify the property to allow for the demolition of its significant buildings and redevelopment of the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the reclassification of 514 S. 4th Street as non-contributing, pursuant to Section 5.14 of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to

to allow for the demolition of its significant buildings and redevelopment of the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the reclassification of 514 S. 4th Street as non-contributing, pursuant to Section 5.14 of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to deny the reclassification of 514 S. 4th Street as non-contributing, pursuant to Section 5.14 of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:59:05 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Keller presented the reclassification request to the Historical Commission.  No one represented the property. PUBLIC COMMENT:  David Traub of Save Our Sites opposed the reclassification.  Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society opposed the reclassification.  Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance opposed the reclassification. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The property at 514 S. 4th Street is considered significant in the Society Hill Historic District. The property consists of a three-story structure fronting S. 4th Street and a two-story building with a half-gambrel roof at the rear of the property that was historically accessed from a private alley.  The district inventory incorrectly dates the property to c. 1760, with façade alterations of the building fronting S. 4th Street dating to c. 1920. Research shows that the front building was constructed between 1791 and 1798, and the façade was reconstructed in 1951. The two-story rear building was constructed between 1832 and 1846.  Alterations to the buildings, including the reconstruction of the front façade of the front building, rear additions, and stuccoing of the walls, were noted in the inventory entry. The Historical Commission concluded that: PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 27 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES  While the inventory entry incorrectly dates the property to c. 1760, the error does not diminish the significance of the buildings.  The property derives significance from its early period of construction and the continued retention of its forms, which include the main block with piazza, three- story kitchen, and two-story frame addition that comprise the structure fronting S. 4th Street, and the two-story structure with a half-gambrel roof at the rear.  Because the qualities that caused the property’s original entry on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places survive, the property should remain classified as significant in the Society Hill Historic District. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to

S. 4th Street, and the two-story structure with a half-gambrel roof at the rear.  Because the qualities that caused the property’s original entry on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places survive, the property should remain classified as significant in the Society Hill Historic District. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to deny the reclassification of 514 S. 4th Street as non-contributing, pursuant to Section 5.14 of the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. ITEM: 514 S 4th ST MOTION: Denial of reclassification MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 ADDRESS: 915-23 N BROAD ST Proposed Action: Remove property from Historic District Property Owner: Z Realty LLC Applicant: Dennis George, Esq., Arangio & George, LLP District Designation: Automobile Row Thematic Historic District, Contributing, pending Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This application proposes to amend the inventory of the proposed Automobile Row Thematic Historic District and remove three resources from it. All three resources stand on the same parcel, 915-23 N. Broad Street. The inventory for the proposed district classifies all three buildings, at 915-17, 919-21, and 923 N. Broad Street, as contributing. The property owner requests that the Historical Commission amend the nomination and remove the three resources from the proposed historic district because the owner made a significant financial commitment to the redevelopment of the property prior to the Historical Commission’s announcement that it planned to consider the designation of a thematic district that includes PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 28 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES these three buildings. In a letter dated 28 December 2020, an attorney representing the owner states that a designation of the property will cause extensive hardship to the property owner. Eight months before Historical Commission sent its first notice letters on 17 January 2020, the owner and its architect began the zoning process with the intention of demolishing the existing buildings and constructing a mixed-use building on the site. During the period between April 2019 and the notice letter in January 2020, the redevelopment plan for the site was reviewed twice by Civic Design Review (CDR) and at four meetings with

zoning process with the intention of demolishing the existing buildings and constructing a mixed-use building on the site. During the period between April 2019 and the notice letter in January 2020, the redevelopment plan for the site was reviewed twice by Civic Design Review (CDR) and at four meetings with the Registered Community Organization Committee Board members (14th Ward Democratic Executive Committee). The owner applied for zoning permits for demolition and new construction beginning on 10 April 2019 and was issued a zoning permit on 24 June 2020. The owner submitted a completed application for demolition to the Department of Licenses & Application on 25 February 2021. Section 6.9.a.10 of the Historical Commission’s Rules and Regulations, the so-called “transition rule,” allows the Commission, its committees, and staff to consider development plans in place at the time of the issuance of the notice announcing the consideration of a designation, including but not limited to executed contracts, substantial design development, or other evidence of a material commitment to development in the review of applications.” While this rule is intended to be applied while reviewing permit applications, the spirit of it may also apply to designation reviews. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff notes that the application makes no claims regarding the historical significance of the three buildings in question or of the merits of the Automobile Row Thematic Historic District nomination generally. The staff suggests that it would be premature for the Committee on Historic Designation to formulate a recommendation on the merits of the district nomination, or the place of these three resources in it, and recommends that the Committee forward this application to the Historical Commission without a recommendation so that the Commission may determine whether the redevelopment plans in place at the time of the notice qualify this property for special consideration under provisions in the Historical Commission’s Rules & Regulations.   COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend denial of the request to remove the property at 915-23 N. Broad Street from the proposed Auto Row Thematic Historic District prior to the consideration of the nomination for the historic district. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:16:50 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the amendment request to the Historical Commission.  Patrick Grossi of the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia represented the nominator.  Attorney Dennis George represented the property owner. DISCUSSION:  Mr. George

nomination for the historic district. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:16:50 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the amendment request to the Historical Commission.  Patrick Grossi of the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia represented the nominator.  Attorney Dennis George represented the property owner. DISCUSSION:  Mr. George stated that they started the development process of 915-23 N. Broad Street in April 2019. He summarized their meetings with Civic Design Review and especially with the registered community organization. Mr. George stated they met with the community on numerous occasions and executed a community agreement with the community to provide support for a local elementary school, the playground, PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 29 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES and also to provide affordable housing. Mr. George explained the project is for 70 units and the first two floors will be commercial. He noted that they set aside a percentage of the units for affordable housing in cooperation with the community. He stated that they have been delayed in starting the project not only because of those items but also owing to Covid-19. Mr. George requested that it is their position they would like the property to be removed from the historic district nomination so that they can start the project. He said it has been two years and a substantial amount of money has been spent and they would like to move forward with their project.  Mr. Thomas asked for guidance from Mr. Farnham. o Mr. Farnham noted that meeting materials sent to the Commissioners did provide some guidance on this matter. He stated that given the timeline of this project and the timeline of the review of the historic district nomination, the demolition permit application for this property will likely not be able to be reviewed by the Historical Commission. Mr. Farnham said it is regrettable but likely that these buildings will be lost. He stated that despite the timeline he does recommend that the Historical Commission deny this request to remove the properties from the historic district with the hope that the buildings might be saved. He commented that this is the best hope for the survival of these buildings. Mr. Farnham explained that by denying the request there is a potential that these buildings will survive not because of the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction, but perhaps because of circumstances with the project.

buildings might be saved. He commented that this is the best hope for the survival of these buildings. Mr. Farnham explained that by denying the request there is a potential that these buildings will survive not because of the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction, but perhaps because of circumstances with the project. Mr. Farnham reiterated that it appears that the demolition application for this property will not be subject to the Historical Commission’s review because the 90-day clock will expire. He noted that they have seen more and more of these cases recently where he submission of a nomination and subsequent notification of the property owner overlaps with permitting for redevelopment of properties. This is an unfortunate circumstance where the timing is beyond the Historical Commission's control. Exacerbating the situation, the Covid-19 shutdown delayed the consideration of the district nomination. Mr. Farnham restated the Commission has the ability to deny this request, but stated that a denial of this request is unlikely to save these buildings. They might still be saved if the project changes for one reason or another.  Ms. Cooperman said the Committee believed it did not make any sense to review this property out of the context of the larger nomination. She noted that some Committee members commented that these buildings appear to be very much in keeping with the theme of automobile production and district. Ms. Cooperman added that, although the Committee did not provide a full review, they certainly felt that these buildings had had the potential to be contributing resources within this district. Ms. Cooperman said these buildings should be allowed the potential for a review, with the understanding that as a Commission they may have no control over their fate until the full Commission votes on whether they should be designated or not.  Mr. Grossi said they would be comfortable with the direction that the Commission seems to be considering at this moment, potentially denying the owner’s request for today while still acknowledging a considerable timeline of activities both formal and informal that went into consideration of this site. He noted that the Commission is only really talking about procedural matters at this moment and there has been no argument offered on behalf of the owners as to the historical significance or lack of historical significance of these properties. Mr. Grossi said the Committee on Historic Designation Committee and the Commission have not

Commission is only really talking about procedural matters at this moment and there has been no argument offered on behalf of the owners as to the historical significance or lack of historical significance of these properties. Mr. Grossi said the Committee on Historic Designation Committee and the Commission have not had an opportunity to fully evaluate the nomination and hopefully there can be some clarity one way or the other in the coming weeks. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 30 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES PUBLIC COMMENT:  Jim Duffin stated that individual properties should not be removed or reviewed separately prior to review of the full review of the Auto Row Thematic Historic District. He said separating parcels out prior to the review of the entire historic district would set a negative precedent for future reviews.  Carolyn Campbell encouraged the developers to maintain the building facades at 915-23 N. Broad Street rather than demolishing them in their entirety and asked if the Historical Commission would include her recommendation in its action.  Oscar Beisert stated his concerns and frustrations with the delays in reviewing historic district designations during the Covid-19 pandemic. He encouraged the Commission to move forward with these reviews. Mr. Beisert also noted there is no reason the facades of 915-23 N. Broad Street could not be incorporated in the new design.  David Traub agreed with the other public comments that the building facades at 915- 23 N. Broad Street could be incorporated into a new building.  Reginald Johnson, representing People For People at 800 N. Broad Street, said that reviewing 915-23 N. Broad St along with all other properties identified in the proposed district would be most fair to all property owners. HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  The development timeline for 915-23 N. Broad Street indicates that work on the site began before the historic district designation notice was sent to the owner.  The buildings at 915-23 N. Broad Street appear to be contributing resources to the historic district but the review of the nomination’s merits has not been completed by the Committee on Historic Designation.  Denying the removal of the property at 915-23 N. Broad Street from the Auto Row Thematic Historic District will not prevent the current demolition permit application from being issued by the Department of Licenses & Inspections.

the nomination’s merits has not been completed by the Committee on Historic Designation.  Denying the removal of the property at 915-23 N. Broad Street from the Auto Row Thematic Historic District will not prevent the current demolition permit application from being issued by the Department of Licenses & Inspections. In the event that the current project changes or is abandoned, the designation of the property at 915-23 N. Broad Street would provide the Historical Commission with jurisdiction over future demolition and building permits. The Historical Commission concluded that:  The property at 915-23 N. Broad Street should remain in the inventory of the Auto Row Thematic Historic District nomination, which will be reviewed at the 2 June 2021 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved deny the request to remove the property at 915-23 N. Broad Street from the inventory of the proposed Auto Row Thematic Historic District. Ms. Carney seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 31 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 915-23 N BROAD ST MOTION: Denial of amendment MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Carney VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 AUTOMOBILE ROW THEMATIC HISTORIC DISTRICT Proposed Action: Designation; Request for continuance of 60 to 90 days Property Owner: Various Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the Automobile Row Thematic Historic District and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. North Broad Street was an early center for the automobile trade in Philadelphia, with numerous small and large showrooms, assembly and distribution plants, and parts and accessories stores on what was known as “Automobile Row” as early as 1906. The thematic district covers an approximately 2.8 mile-long stretch between Cherry Street (at the south end) and Lehigh Avenue (at the north end) and includes 29 properties that are known to have been built by or for the automobile industry between 1909 and 1930. Under Criteria A and J, the nomination contends that the district is representative of the burgeoning automobile industry in Philadelphia between 1909 and 1930. Automobile Row was an outgrowth of the general

properties that are known to have been built by or for the automobile industry between 1909 and 1930. Under Criteria A and J, the nomination contends that the district is representative of the burgeoning automobile industry in Philadelphia between 1909 and 1930. Automobile Row was an outgrowth of the general commercial and industrial activity that had flourished on North Philadelphia’s “Main Street” for more than half a century. The large number of automobile industry-related businesses that opened on North Broad Street during this period reflect Philadelphia’s major role in the early automobile industry. Virtually every major national brand – Buick, Cadillac, Ford, Oldsmobile, Studebaker, among many others – was represented. Not confined to the selling of cars, many of Automobile Row’s facilities operated as major assembly plants and/or distribution centers, serving networks of dealerships in Philadelphia and throughout the region. Under Criteria C, D, and E, the nomination asserts that the district includes major works of Beaux-Arts, Classical Revival, and Commercial Style buildings by many of Philadelphia’s and some of the country’s best known architects of the early twentieth century. Many of the buildings are faced in glazed white architectural terra cotta, comprising one of the finest collections of this popular and highly adaptable building material in the city. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 32 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the Automobile Row Thematic Historic District satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, and J.  COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission continue the review of the nomination of the Automobile Row Thematic Historic District and remand it to the June 2021 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:09:40 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the nomination and continuance request to the Historical Commission.  Patrick Grossi of the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia represented the nominator. Mr. Grossi said his organization has no objection to continuing the review of the nomination to the 2 June 2021 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation.  Leonard Reuter, the Historical Commission’s attorney, explained that attorney Kevin Greenberg, who is representing the owners of the properties at 227-29 N. Broad Street and 235-37 N. Broad Street and had requested the 60 to 90 day continuance, would not be present at the

the Committee on Historic Designation.  Leonard Reuter, the Historical Commission’s attorney, explained that attorney Kevin Greenberg, who is representing the owners of the properties at 227-29 N. Broad Street and 235-37 N. Broad Street and had requested the 60 to 90 day continuance, would not be present at the meeting. Mr. Reuter stated that Mr. Greenberg was confused and had thought that the Committee on Historic Designation’s 21 April 2021 recommendation was binding, not advisory. PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE HISTORICAL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Historical Commission found that:  Historic district nominations had been put on hold for most of 2020, owing to the Covid-19 pandemic.  Property owners received notice about the proposed district on 17 January 2020 and again on 19 February 2021. In the February 2021 notice, they were informed that the nomination would be reviewed at the 21 April 2021 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation.  A request for continuance was submitted to staff a few days prior to the April 2021 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. An attorney for the owners of 227-29 N. Broad Street and 235-37 N. Broad Street requested a 60 to 90 day continuance for additional time to prepare for the nomination review. The Historical Commission concluded that:  Continuing the Automobile Row Thematic Historic District nomination to the 2 June 2021 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation provides sufficient time for the owners of 227-29 N. Broad Street and 235-37 N. Broad Street to prepare for the nomination review. ACTION: Mr. Thomas moved to continue the review of the nomination of the Automobile Row Thematic Historic District and remand it to the 2 June 2021 meeting of the Committee on Historic Designation. Ms. Cooperman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 33 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: Automobile Row Thematic Historic District MOTION: Continue and remand to June 2021 CHD meeting MOVED BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: Cooperman VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 COMMENT ON NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS ADDRESS: 118-60 E INDIANA AVE Name of Resource: Hoyle, Harrison & Kaye Textile Mill Proposed Action: National Register Comment Property Owner:

X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 COMMENT ON NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS ADDRESS: 118-60 E INDIANA AVE Name of Resource: Hoyle, Harrison & Kaye Textile Mill Proposed Action: National Register Comment Property Owner: Impact Services Nominator: Bonnie Wilkinson Mark, Delta Development Group, Inc. Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov ADDRESS: 1221-25 N 4TH ST Name of Resource: Engine Company No. 29 Proposed Action: National Register Comment Property Owner: City of Philadelphia, Department of Public Property Nominator: Logan I. Ferguson, Powers & Co. Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov ADDRESS: 5115-39 BELFIELD AVE Name of Resource: Bellevue Worsted Mill Proposed Action: National Register Comment Property Owner: La Salle College Nominator: Kevin McMahon, Powers & Co. Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov ADDRESS: 4101 N DELAWARE AVE Name of Resource: Richmond Station, Philadelphia Electric Company Proposed Action: National Register Comment Property Owner: PECO Energy Company Nominator: Kevin McMahon, Powers & Co. Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 34 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADDRESS: 2215 E TIOGA ST Name of Resource: Sandoz Chemical Works Proposed Action: National Register Comment Property Owner: East Tioga Lofts, LLC Nominator: Kevin McMahon, Powers & Co. Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:42:40 PRESENTERS:  Ms. Mehley presented the National Register nominations to the Historical Commission. DISCUSSION:  The Historical Commission members noted that they had recently approved a redevelopment plan for 1221-25 N. 4th Street, Engine Co. 29 as the property was individually listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places in 1989.  Several members of the Historical Commission and public attested to the historical significance of 5115-39 Belfield Avenue, Bellevue Worsted Mill, and it was noted that the Historical Commission’s staff is currently reviewing a nomination proposing its designation to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The Commissioners pointed out that, given the extended development history of the site, consideration of Criterion D for this property may be relevant.  Although the Historical Commission fully supported the nomination of 4101 N. Delaware Avenue and agreed that the property should be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Commissioners noted that Richmond Station’s influential engineering and architecture extended beyond local significance for Criteria A and C. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Jim Duffin supported the National Register nomination

nomination of 4101 N. Delaware Avenue and agreed that the property should be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Commissioners noted that Richmond Station’s influential engineering and architecture extended beyond local significance for Criteria A and C. PUBLIC COMMENT:  Jim Duffin supported the National Register nomination for 5115-39 Belfield Avenue, Bellevue Worsted Mill. Mr. Duffin spoke about the historical importance of the site and stated that it was the oldest, continuously used industrial site along the Wingohocking Creek. He noted that it began operating in the 1730s.  Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia supported the National Register nomination for 5115-39 Belfield Avenue, Bellevue Worsted Mill. Mr. Steinke said that he was pleased to see the potential development and new use for the property. ADJOURNMENT START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 02:16:50 ACTION: At 11:19 a.m., Mr. Lippert moved to adjourn. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which was adopted by unanimous consent. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 14 MAY 2021 35 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: Adjournment MOTION: Adjourn MOVED BY: Lippert SECONDED BY: McCoubrey VOTE Commissioner Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Thomas, Chair X Carney (PCPC) X Cooperman X Dodds (DPD) X Edwards X Hartner (DPP) X Lepori (Commerce) X Lippert (L&I) X Mattioni X McCoubrey X Sánchez (Council) X Washington X Total 10 2 PLEASE NOTE:  Minutes of the Philadelphia Historical Commission are presented in action format. Additional information is available in the video recording for this meeting. The start time for each agenda item in the recording is noted.  Application materials and staff overviews are available on the Historical Commission’s website, www.phila.gov/historical.