Historical Commission — Aug 13, 1997

1 THE MINUTES OF THE 420th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 13 August 1997 City Council Caucus, Room 401 City Hall Wayne S. Spilove, Chair Present Wayne S. Spilove, Chair David Brownlee, Ph.D. Duane Bumb, Deputy Director, Department of Commerce Frances Egan, Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Property Barbara Kaplan, Executive Director, City Planning Commission Arlene Matzkin Shelly Merhige, Office of City Council President Steve Mullin, Director, Department of Commerce Michael Sklaroff, Esq. Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Caroline Wischmann Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Jeffrey R. Barr, Historic Preservation Technician Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Gina Frese, Intern Mark Zecca, Esq., Deputy City Solicitor Also, with affiliation and/or project Judith Eden, Center City Residents Association (CCRA) John Tucker, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects Richard Thom, Old City Civic Association- HEMS Kishor Jethava, Capital Program Office Randy Cotton, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Kiki Bolender, Schade & Bolender Architects Fred Kroon, 2021 Rittenhouse Square Street Arcangelo Guida, 2021 Rittenhouse Square Street Chuck Legradi, Fire Department George Wolfer, Jr., Girard Estate John Cluver, Voith & Mactavish Architects Curtis Kaller, C.A. Kaller, Inc. Fritz Doerstling, Omnipoint Communications Ron Avery, Daily News Lenore Millhollen, CCRA Leroy Kean Christian Busch, DeSilets Architects Robert DeSilets, DeSilets Architects 2 Wayne S. Spilove, Chair, recognized the presence of a quorum and called the 420th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission to order at 10:15 a.m. MINUTES of the 419th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Ms. Kaplan stated that Robert Vance, Chair, City Planning Commission, wished to review the tapes of the July meetings before the Commission adopted the minutes. The Commission discussed the adoption of the minutes. Mr. Zecca explained that the Commission adopts the record of actions it made, not necessarily the description of the discussion. After adoption any Commission member may listen to the tapes and ask for a change in the record and the Commission may adopt the changes. Mr. Sklaroff agreed. The Commission then made a motion and voted on the adoption of the minutes for 9 July 1997; however, because of some confusion, the Chair struck the motion and vote from the record. Upon a new motion made by Mr. James and duly seconded, the Commission approved the Minutes of the 419th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical

on the adoption of the minutes for 9 July 1997; however, because of some confusion, the Chair struck the motion and vote from the record. Upon a new motion made by Mr. James and duly seconded, the Commission approved the Minutes of the 419th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 9 July 1997, Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. Ms. Kaplan abstained. MINUTES of the Continuation of the 419th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. James and duly seconded, the Commission approved the Minutes of the Continuation of the 419th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 17 July 1997, Wayne S. Spilove, Chair. Ms. Matzkin dissented. Mr. Brownlee, Ms. Kaplan, Mr. Sklaroff and Ms. Wischmann abstained. Mr. Sklaroff stated that he abstained because he was not present at the meeting and represents an owner of one of the properties discussed. Mr. Tyler noted that the writing of these minutes involved several staff members and accounted for a great amount of the staff's time. Mr. Spilove commended the staff for its work. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE REPORT, 29 July 1996, Arlene Matzkin, Chair Ms. Matzkin read the Committee's recommendations before discussion of each proposal. 3 2021 Rittenhouse Square Street Fred Kroon, Owner Arcangelo Guida, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1890 PROPOSAL: Remove balcony; install bay window Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal for the property. The 2000 block of Rittenhouse Square Street has a number of carriage houses that have been adapted into residences. A significant feature of these carriage houses are the doors on the upper floors for loading hay. This house still has doors on the third floor, but a balcony had been added before the designation of the property. Mr. Baron noted that the balcony may have been required to satisfy safety codes. Mr. Brownlee emphasized the importance of the property. A significant feature of the Rittenhouse-Fitler Historic District is the integration of residences with buildings associated with the services to those dwellings. This block of carriage houses represents a service required by the many residents in the area. The doors and other unique features of these stables and carriage houses require preservation. Mr. Brownlee also stated that if an owner altered a property before designation the Commission has allowed the changes to remain. However, if an owner performs work on a building, even one that has been altered,

The doors and other unique features of these stables and carriage houses require preservation. Mr. Brownlee also stated that if an owner altered a property before designation the Commission has allowed the changes to remain. However, if an owner performs work on a building, even one that has been altered, the changes must conform to the Standards. Mr. Tyler noted that the proposal violates Standards 2, 3 and 9. Standard 2 states that the historical character of a property will be retained and preserved. According to Standard 3, each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. And Standard 9 notes that exterior alterations shall not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property. Ms. Matzkin observed that while the proposed design resembles doors flung open, the original doors never would have opened outward. Also the glass does not disappear; instead it obscures the large opening and will read as a void. Mr. Wilds stated that the window may highlight the large opening. Fred Kroon, owner and long-term resident of the block, testified that he had installed the balcony in 1985. He proposed the bay window to emphasize the opening. Arcangelo Guida, architect for the project, knew that doors were an important feature of the building but noted that nothing in the opening is original fabric. Philadelphia has numerous buildings with bay windows, so the presence of a bay window would not be out of 4 place. The bay will have non-reflective glass and will protrude only 15 inches. Mr. Baron noted that the bay will resemble a greenhouse window. Mr. Kroon, in answering a question, stated that he wished to have a bay window rather than doors to have more light in the room and to gain extra space. Mr. Sklaroff noted that the building no longer has the original use, a carriage house, and likened the bay window to roof decks. Mr. Brownlee objected to the design of the window. He agreed with the Architectural Committee members who stated that the present design has an element of fakery. If the owner installs a bay window, it should look like a window and not try to be something else. Ms. Merhige made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation and deny the proposal. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which failed to pass with a vote of four to five. Mr.

the owner installs a bay window, it should look like a window and not try to be something else. Ms. Merhige made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation and deny the proposal. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which failed to pass with a vote of four to five. Mr. Brownlee, Ms. Kaplan, Ms. Matzkin and Ms. Wischmann voted for the motion. Ms. Merhige abstained. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to approve the proposed window as long as the lintel and sill of the window opening are visible with staff to approve details. Ms. Egan seconded the motion which passed with a vote of seven to four. Mr. Brownlee, Ms. Kaplan, Ms. Matzkin and Mr. Wilds dissented. Mr. Wilds noted that he voted against the motion because he wished to see a reworking of the window design. 729 South 9th Street John Luciano, Jr., Owner Larry Gilbert, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1835 PROPOSAL: Front facade restoration; rear facade alterations Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval on condition that dormer roof is metal, with staff to approve details of the windows, dormer and cornice, and pointing and patching samples. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal. The owners wish to replace the windows in the rear garage and patch and point the brickwork. The proposal for the front of the house calls for installing new wood sash, patching the marble steps, installing new shutters, restoring the dormer, repairing the cornice and replacing the deteriorated fanlight with one from the interior. On the rear of the house, the work includes stuccoing the wall and installing wood windows. The Committee asked the owner to install a metal roof on the dormer instead of shingles. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the recommendation of the 5 Committee. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2101 South College Avenue, Girard College Chapel Fritz Doerstling/Omnipoint, Applicant DATE: c. 1930 PROPOSAL: Antennas on roof Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. Ms. Matzkin explained that the unique design of the roof precludes the installation of any equipment because it would be highly visible. Mr. Tyler noted that proposal does not conform to the Standards because of the visibility of the equipment. Mr. Doerstling stated that the company has plans to use other sites in the area. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed by a unanimous vote. 1218 Arch Street Corporate Realty Management

Standards because of the visibility of the equipment. Mr. Doerstling stated that the company has plans to use other sites in the area. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed by a unanimous vote. 1218 Arch Street Corporate Realty Management Co., Owner Fritz Doerstling/Omnipoint, Applicant DATE: 1902 PROPOSAL: Antennas on roof Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval on conditions that the staff approve details; the antennas are pushed back as far as possible, painted to match the background and removed when obsolete. Ms. Matzkin described the application for antennas on this building which the Committee asked to be placed as far from the edge as possible, painted to match the background and removed when obsolete. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Sklaroff noted that the cellular phone industry uses antennas as the plural for the word antenna and asked that the spelling be changed in the minutes. Mr. Wilds countered that antennae is the proper plural form of the word. Mr. Sklaroff reiterated that the record should use the form of the word accepted by the industry. 7500 Germantown Avenue New Covenant Church, Owner 6 Fritz Doerstling/Omnipoint, Applicant DATE: 1890 PROPOSAL: Antennas on smokestack Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with antennas and cable tray painted to match background, and the equipment removed when obsolete. Ms. Matzkin stated that the church has agreed to allow Omnipoint to remove the existing maintenance ladder and replace it with its cable tray. Mr. Doerstling explained that the ladder no longer meets Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) codes and any maintenance to the smokestack would be done from a crane. Mr. James noted the overuse of the smokestack by the various cable companies and objected to approving any new installation until the Comcast application has been settled. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Mullin seconded the motion which passed with ten votes. Mr. James dissented. 4313-17 Main Street, Masonic Lodge Mason-on-Main, Owner Fritz Doerstling/Omnipoint, Applicant DATE: 1860 PROPOSAL: Antennas on roof-top deck Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval on several conditions: the cables run on the interior of the building; all equipment on roof deck is pushed to the north side; antennas are even with the top of the deck railings and painted to match; staff review of a

PROPOSAL: Antennas on roof-top deck Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval on several conditions: the cables run on the interior of the building; all equipment on roof deck is pushed to the north side; antennas are even with the top of the deck railings and painted to match; staff review of a roof penetration detail, and all equipment is removed when obsolete. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal. Omnipoint has returned with an application to run the cables on the interior of the building. The cables will penetrate the roof at the same point as the electrical cables for the existing air conditioning units and staff has approved a roof penetration detail. The air conditioning units already occupy the north side of the roofdeck, so Omnipoint cannot mount their equipment on that side. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to approve the antennas as long as the cables run on the interior of the building, the antennas are even with the top of the deck railings and painted to match, staff approves a penetration detail and all equipment is removed when obsolete. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed with nine votes. Mr. James dissented and Mr. Sklaroff abstained. 109 Bainbridge Street Ann Moyer and Martin Burke, Owners/Applicants 7 DATE: c. 1840 PROPOSAL: New front steps Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to approve railing details. Ms. Matzkin explained that previously an owner replaced the original marble steps with concrete. The applicant wishes to reinstall the marble steps. The Committee recommends approval with staff to approve railing details. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 925 Chestnut Street, 10th Street Building of Federal Reserve Bank Jefferson Hospital/Rothman Institute, Owner Robert DeSilets, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1925 PROPOSAL: Cut front door and drive through; addition on alleyway- in concept Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of front door, drive through, addition on alleyway and skywalk. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal, submitted for approval in concept. The site is one of several buildings previously a part of the Federal Reserve Bank Complex. The majority of the work will effect the building designed by Bunting and Shrigley on the northwest corner of the lot at 10th and Ludlow Streets. The Rothman Institute wishes to install a pedestrian door in the center bay of the building on the 10th Street facade. A drive through would cut the first floor

will effect the building designed by Bunting and Shrigley on the northwest corner of the lot at 10th and Ludlow Streets. The Rothman Institute wishes to install a pedestrian door in the center bay of the building on the 10th Street facade. A drive through would cut the first floor of the building with an entrance on the alleyway facade and the egress on the Ludlow Street facade. A narrow, eight-story addition would be erected at the rear of the alleyway, next to another building in the complex and a skywalk would connect the Bunting and Shrigley building with the building designed by Paul Cret on the corner of 10th and Chestnut Streets. The proposal also includes reconfiguring the Cret-designed gate across the alleyway. Mr. Brownlee questioned the need for the pedestrian entrance on 10th Street. He stated that once people enter through the door they must cross the vehicular drive to enter the building on the other side. The masonry base of the building exhibits excellent workmanship and a new door would constitute a loss of fabric. Ms. Matzkin noted that the Committee also questioned the need for the door, but the architect stated that to enter through the other openings would resemble entering a service drive. Mr. Brownlee also questioned the design of the elements for the new door for perhaps they convey a false historical impression. Mr. Sklaroff suggested that the Commission visit the site. Other 8 Commission members agreed and asked staff to organize a tour of the property. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried by ten votes. Mr. Brownlee dissented because of the proposed pedestrian door on 10th Street. Mr. Bumb replaced Mr. Mullin. 1401-07 East Bristol Street, Carl Mackley Apartments Canus Corporation, Owner John Tucker, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1933 PROPOSAL: Complete rehabilitation; landscape changes Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval on condition that the frames of the windows installed in the former balconies have a dark color instead of the proposed white. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal submitted for final approval, including the changes approved by the Commission in concept. The new aspects of the proposal include new signage and awnings, removal of a flagpole, and restoring the windows at the stairtowers. The Committee voted to recommend approval on the condition that the frames of the windows installed in the former balconies have a dark color

the Commission in concept. The new aspects of the proposal include new signage and awnings, removal of a flagpole, and restoring the windows at the stairtowers. The Committee voted to recommend approval on the condition that the frames of the windows installed in the former balconies have a dark color because the glass will read as black. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. James seconded the motion which passed with ten votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused himself. At the request of Mr. Spilove, Mr. Brownlee made a motion to have a short recess. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 237-47 South 18th Street, Barclay Hotel Claybar Associates, Owner Rick Thorpe, Contractor/Applicant DATE: 1928 PROPOSAL: New windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to approve details. Ms. Matzkin described the window proposal for the Barclay Hotel. The windows on the first two floors will receive wood replacements. The applicant proposes to install aluminum windows matching the original wood sash, including the putty slope on floors three through seven. The floors eight and above will receive aluminum windows with thicker glass, eliminating the putty slope. Mr. Brownlee expressed concern that the change in 9 aluminum windows at the eighth floor coincide with an architectural change to minimize the visual difference. Curt Kaller, the contractor, stated that the change does coincide with a change in the building's design. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed with ten votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. 147-149 North 2nd Street, Fire Museum City of Philadelphia, Owner Christine Bolender, Applicant DATE: 1898 PROPOSAL: New windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal for aluminum replacement sash and frames by Traco Company for the Museum. The Committee expressed concern that so much of the glass surface would be lost with the new windows and asked Kiki Bolender, the architect for the project, to investigate aluminum clad or wood windows. Ms. Bolender also presented another window proposal from a different aluminum window company. The second company could match the size of the glass of the original windows, but has other flaws. The Fire Department wants the Traco windows. Mr. Baron noted that the building has a residential scale with ornate window elements. Chuck Legradi, a representative of the Fire Department, stated that the Museum does not want aluminum clad windows because

the glass of the original windows, but has other flaws. The Fire Department wants the Traco windows. Mr. Baron noted that the building has a residential scale with ornate window elements. Chuck Legradi, a representative of the Fire Department, stated that the Museum does not want aluminum clad windows because the interior wood elements would have to be painted. The Fire Department only wants windows that have the least amount of maintenance. Mr. Wilds stated that the Commission would approve aluminum windows as long as they exactly match the details of the originals. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried with ten votes. Mr. Sklaroff dissented. 715 Walnut Street Joan Pileggi, Owner Christine Bolender, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1805; c. 1960 - 1st floor alterations PROPOSAL: Awnings, 1st floor alterations; facade lighting Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal for the storefront. This work will be partly funded by the Center City District storefront 10 rehabilitation program. Mr. Baron stated that the applicant wishes to have approval of both black and beige awnings because she has not decided which color she prefers. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee and approve either black or beige awnings. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. 220 Market Street Michael Fasone, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1840; c. 1930 - 1st floor alterations PROPOSAL: Legalize new storefront Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial. Mr. Tyler stated that Mr. Fasone cannot attend the meeting. He has asked the Commission to table its discussion and vote. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to table the discussion and vote for a period not to exceed six months. 118 North 3rd Street Susan Spiegel, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: Banner Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval if banner to hang between the windows and secured in the mortar joints. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal for a banner to hang over the front door. The Committee believed that the banner should hang between the windows. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to approve the banner and its placement anywhere the applicant sees fit. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which failed to pass with a vote of two to eight. Mr. Bumb and Mr. Sklaroff cast the only votes for the motion. Mr. Brownlee then made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion

placement anywhere the applicant sees fit. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which failed to pass with a vote of two to eight. Mr. Bumb and Mr. Sklaroff cast the only votes for the motion. Mr. Brownlee then made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed with a vote of eight to two. Mr. Bumb and Mr. Sklaroff dissented. 3700 Chestnut Street, United Tabernacle Theater University of Pennsylvania, Tenant David Searles, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1884-86 PROPOSAL: Ramp, terrace, retaining wall 11 Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal for a new retaining wall, terrace and ramp to accommodate a second handicap-accessible entrance into the church. Mr. James made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed with nine votes. Mr. Sklaroff and Mr. Brownlee recused themselves. Mr. Spilove turned the chair over to Mr. Brownlee. 20-30 North Front Street and 103-107 Church Street George Wolfer/Girard Estate, Owner DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Rear demolition; new windows Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of windows with staff to review and approve details; denial of the demolition until the Committee receives more information. Ms. Matzkin described the two aspects of the proposal. First, Girard Estate wishes to install aluminum-clad-wood, double-hung windows in the Front Street and Church Street buildings. Second, the owner wishes to demolish the rears of the buildings. The Committee would not make a recommendation on the demolition until it has seen an engineers report and a development plan for the site. Ms. Kaplan asked if a development plan exists. George Wolfer, representing Girard Estate, replied that they have not devised a plan for the buildings. He went on to say that the rear ells of the buildings are only one or two stories in height and do not have basements. Two of the buildings were declared dangerous in an engineer's report in 1993. Richard Thom of the Old City Civic Association testified that the poor condition and the proposal for demolition results from neglect by Girard Estate. The owner has not maintained the buildings for decades. The Commission should not approve demolition as a result of the lack of maintenance on the owner's part. He did express his approval of the proposed windows. Mr. James made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which passed with ten votes. Mr. Brownlee returned the

not approve demolition as a result of the lack of maintenance on the owner's part. He did express his approval of the proposed windows. Mr. James made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Bumb seconded the motion which passed with ten votes. Mr. Brownlee returned the chair to Mr. Spilove. 500-530 Chestnut Street, Independence Hall Complex 12 Doris Fanelli/INHP, Applicant DATE: 1729 PROPOSAL: Security bollards Architectural Committee Recommendation: Tabling until the Committee has seen samples on site. Mr. Spilove stated that the Committee asked to table the proposal until it has seen samples installed on site. Mr. Wilds made a motion to table the discussion and vote for a period not to exceed six months. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. 1729 Mt. Vernon Street, Thomas Eakins House City of Philadelphia, Owner Nicole Westerman, Applicant DATE: c. 1855 PROPOSAL: New fence; facade cleaning and pointing Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to approve fence details and cleaning and pointing samples. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal for a fence, cleaning and pointing. The applicant has now withdrawn the application for the fence. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the cleaning and pointing with staff to approve details. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which passed with a unanimous vote. 306 Market Street Ilan Seidenwar, Owner Ellen Yin, Applicant DATE: c. 1850 PROPOSAL: Signage; lights; canopy; new door Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of the single- leaf door, a more narrow sign band only wide enough to cover the rough brick; approval of the paint colors and lighting fixtures; approval of an awning over the door with staff to approve details. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal for a new single-leaf door, signage, paint, lighting fixtures and an awning over the door with staff to approve details. The Commission approved a new storefront for the building in 1995, but the owner has not built the storefront according to the approved plans. The approval of this application does not approve the extant storefront. 13 Ms. Brownlee made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 1231 Walnut Street, Empire Building Empire Building Partners, Owner John Cluver, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1900 PROPOSAL: Storm windows; awnings; new door Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of awnings with attachment in the window frames; approval of the paint color for trim; approval of the new entrance doors;

the motion which passed unanimously. 1231 Walnut Street, Empire Building Empire Building Partners, Owner John Cluver, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1900 PROPOSAL: Storm windows; awnings; new door Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval of awnings with attachment in the window frames; approval of the paint color for trim; approval of the new entrance doors; denial of the exterior storm windows. Ms. Matzkin explained the proposal for awnings, paint, entrance doors and storm windows. Mr. Wilds questioned the approval of trim color. Ms. Spina noted that the applicant submitted the trim color as a courtesy; the Commission normally does not monitor the color of trim. Mr. Tyler explained the issue of storm windows. He spoke with the State Historic Preservation Office and they agree that exterior storms are preferred if the interior storm windows damage the historic window fabric with accumulated condensation. The Standards provide guidelines for both exterior and interior storms. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the awnings with attachment in the window frames, the new entrance doors and exterior storm windows with staff to approve details. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 1631 Walnut Street, Latham Hotel Ocean Properties, Owner Angelo Bucci, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. 1915 PROPOSAL: New sidewalk paving design Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval. Mr. Spilove stated that the proposal calls for new paving in front of the hotel. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 237-43 South 21st Street Dante Luciani, Owner/Applicant 14 DATE: 1885 PROPOSAL: New wood windows on side and rear Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to approve details. Ms. Matzkin described the proposal for new wood sash, eliminating the need for the extant storm windows. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. Mr. Spilove again passed the gavel to Mr. Brownlee. 112 South 20th Street Michael Goldstein, Owner Lance Wright/Rittenhouse Management Corp., Applicant DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: New wood sash Architectural Committee Recommendation: Approval with staff to approve details. Ms. Matzkin explained the proposal for new wood windows which will match the original, missing ones. Mr. James made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed with nine votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. Mr. Brownlee returned the chair to Mr. Spilove. 1340-48 Arch Street, Arch Street Methodist Church Rudy D'Alessandro,

windows which will match the original, missing ones. Mr. James made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed with nine votes. Mr. Sklaroff abstained. Mr. Brownlee returned the chair to Mr. Spilove. 1340-48 Arch Street, Arch Street Methodist Church Rudy D'Alessandro, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. 1865 PROPOSAL: Cut opening, install louver in east wall Architectural Committee Recommendation: Tabling until the Commission receives more information. Ms. Matzkin stated that the Committee needed more information before it could make a recommendation. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Brownlee seconded the motion which passed with a unanimous vote. 15 Amendment to Architectural Committee Report 2039 Delancey Street Dan Nedusin, Owner David Amburn, Architect/Applicant DATE: PROPOSAL: Replace slate roof in-kind Mr. Baron explained that the roof allows substantial water infiltration and the owner cannot wait for the next Committee meeting. The building has a decorative slate mansard roof and the owner wishes to install a slate roof which will match the existing shingle pattern. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to approve the proposal. Mr. James seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Unfinished Business 124 South 18th Street AKA 1801-03 Sansom Street Leroy Kean, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1898 PROPOSAL: Legalize boarded-up shopfront on Sansom Street facade Architectural Committee Recommendation: Denial, but recommends approval of interior security bars if the owner wishes to have added security. Mr. Tyler stated that the applicant could not attend the meeting and asked the Commission to table its discussion and vote. However, the Commission has already tabled the proposal for six months. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to table the discussion and vote for a period of one month. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which passed with a unanimous vote. The Report of the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, July 1997, Richard Tyler. Mr. Spilove announced that on Saturday, 16 August a British reenactment will take place at the South 2nd Street Market Headhouse and Shambles. Harry A. Batten Memorial Fund 16 National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference Mr. Tyler explained that the Commission frequently sends a staff person to the Annual Conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. This year the conference will be held in Santa Fe, New Mexico and Laura Spina will be attending. The monies from this fund will help defray the costs. Mr. Wilds made a motion to

frequently sends a staff person to the Annual Conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. This year the conference will be held in Santa Fe, New Mexico and Laura Spina will be attending. The monies from this fund will help defray the costs. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the withdrawal of $850 for the National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the proposal which passed with a unanimous vote. Architectural Committee Lunch Mr. Tyler noted that again the Architectural Committee had an extremely long meeting and worked through lunch. He asked to be reimbursed $22.60 for the cost of the lunch. Mr. Brownlee made a motion to approve the withdrawal of $22.60 for the reimbursement of the Architectural Committee lunch and to institute a standing approval for expenditures for the Committee's lunch. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Certified Local Government Recommendation West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb National Historic District Mr. Tyler explained that the Historical Commission, as a Certified Local Government, reviews any nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The University City Historical Society has nominated the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb Historic District. Mr. Brownlee explained that an historic district should have three important elements. First, the district should have a high level of integrity. Only three percent of the buildings within the district have been labeled as non-contributing. Second, sensible boundaries should delineate the district. This district follows a specific pattern of development which varies discernibly from surrounding construction. Also, the district follows strong geographic lines. Third, the district should possess a strong significance to the area. The significance of this district is rooted in the large amount of quality architecture. Mr. Tyler agreed with Mr. Brownlee and explained that the district meets two criteria established for the National Register because it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Philadelphia history and it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or 17 method of construction, possesses high artistic values and represents a significant and distinguishable entity. However, Mr. Tyler did note that the statement of significance lacks several points which contribute to the overall importance of the district. The nomination mentions the impact of various institutions on the development of the district, yet fails to mention the relocation of the University of Pennsylvania to the area in the 1870s. Second, the

that the statement of significance lacks several points which contribute to the overall importance of the district. The nomination mentions the impact of various institutions on the development of the district, yet fails to mention the relocation of the University of Pennsylvania to the area in the 1870s. Second, the statement of significance does not discuss the importance and development of the African- American community which has existed in the district since the 1840s. Mr. Tyler stated that the significance should have more emphasis on the social and ethnic history of the area. Mr. Tyler explained that the University City Historical Society wished to nominate the district for two reasons: recognition for the neighborhood and the availability of the federal rehabilitation tax credit. The locally nominated Spruce Hill Historic District would fall into the boundaries of this district. Despite the omissions in the statement of significance, Mr. Tyler formally recommended endorsement of the nomination. Mr. James made a motion to endorse the nomination for the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Merhige seconded the motion which passed with nine votes. Mr. Brownlee and Mr. Wilds abstained. Mr. Spilove suggested that a member make a motion to allow the withdrawal of funds from the Harry A. Batten Memorial Fund for cold drinks for the Historical Commission meetings. Ms. Merhige made the motion and Mr. Brownlee seconded it. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura M. Spina