Architectural Committee — May 27, 1997

REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Arlene Matzkin, Chair commission conference Room suite 1301, 1401 Arch street Present Arlene Matzkin, Chairperson Tony Atkin Penelope Batcheler J. William Cornell Herbert Levy Daniel Mccoubrey Suzanne Pentz 27 May 1997 Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Laura Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Also Robert Pooner, Fast Doors & Gates Howard Raske, Pella Windows Michael Lane, Philadelphia Society for Preservation of Landmarks Tang De Wong, 274 South 20th Street Ted Stopkoski, 2200 Green Street Ed Siravo, 2200 Green Street Bill Gillin, Barclay Condo Association John Brown Stuart Rosenberg, Stuart G. Rosenberg Architects William Isenberg, Developer, Stanley Hardware John Hubert, Stuart Rosenberg Architects Robert Powers, Powers & Company, Inc. Park ow, Banana Republic Jerome Donovan, The Irish Table Sabrina Soong, Soong Associates Fritz Doerstling, Windsor Construction Ed Weintraut, 735 Walnut Street Anthony cutrufello, 2031 Delancey Street Andrew Callaghan, 326 South Juniper Street Judith Eden, Center city Residents Association (CCRA) Laura Blaw, 1722 Pine Street Taylor Frome, 806 South Front street Sandra Safran, 425 South 20th Street Lenore Millhollen, CCRA Rachels. Schade, 2035 Delancey street Peggy MacLaren, CCRA Brett Webber, 2415 Pine Street Robin Kohles, 2433 Pine Street Michael Mattioni, Esq., 110-112 South Front Street Frank DiCianni, 110-112 South Front Street Ms. Matzkin called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. <• 5267-69 Germantown Avenue, Grumblethorpe Philadelphia Society for the Preservation of Landmarks, Owner Theodore Nickles, Contractor/Applicant DATE: 1744 PROPOSAL: New roof Theodore Nickles, contractor, explained that cement shingles, cast to resemble wood shakes, comprise the present roof. The cement, now approximately forty years old, has worn, exposing the metal reinforcements. The proposal calls for removing the cement shingles and installing asphalt/fiberglass shingles that resemble wood shingles. The cement shingles on the tenant house will remain, but the contractor will reinforce the rafters. The cement shingles are extremely heavy and the contractor has a concern that their weight would affect the structure. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 1601 Rowan street Bob McCleary, Owner Albert Pooner, Applicant DATE: c. 1885 PROPOSAL: New roll-down gate Robert Pooner, from the roll-down door company, presented the proposal to replace the wood garage door with a solid metal roll-down gate. He explained that the owner has concerns for safety. Mr. Baron and the Committee members noted that the building has had many changes since the designation photograph, including the removal of the Queen Anne

company, presented the proposal to replace the wood garage door with a solid metal roll-down gate. He explained that the owner has concerns for safety. Mr. Baron and the Committee members noted that the building has had many changes since the designation photograph, including the removal of the Queen Anne windows, replacement of the wood porch railings with wrought iron, new asphalt shingle roof, and the painting of the brick a pink color. The Committee voted to recommend approval on the condition that the new garage door is painted a dark color. 231 Chestnut street Tina Hu, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850; c. 1960 - 1st floor alterations PROPOSAL: Signage Mr. Baron described the two signs proposed for the building. Tina Hu, owner, wishes to install a flat wood sign over the front door and an arm pointing towards the building under the pent eave. The Committee noted that the building already has three flags and decided that the two signs in addition to the three flags would overwhelm the storefront. The Committee voted to recommend approval on the condition that Ms. Hu removes the present three flags. 2 1131 Pine street Larry Gricio, Owner Joseph Serratore, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1800 PROPOSAL: New addition, window, extend roofline Mr. Baron described this complex proposal. The application no longer includes cleaning of the facade. First, the owners wish to put an addition on the rear of the building. This addition would require the extension of the roofline at the front elevation to accommodate a cathedral ceiling on the third floor. The Committee decided that the roofline should not be extended because it is characteristic of the time period in which it was built. Instead, members discussed with Joseph Serratore, the architect for the project, options for various rooflines that would provide the needed space on the third floor and leave intact the present roofline at the front of the building. They decided on pushing back the rear gable at least six feet from-the ridgeline of the roof. The rear addition would totally remove the rear wall of the building. Ms. Batcheler voted against the addition. She believed that the complete removal of the rear wall meant losing too much historic fabric. A second part of the proposal includes glazing the transom above the front door. The original door had a three-light arched transom. When the building was converted to a storefront, the floor

the addition. She believed that the complete removal of the rear wall meant losing too much historic fabric. A second part of the proposal includes glazing the transom above the front door. The original door had a three-light arched transom. When the building was converted to a storefront, the floor levels changed and the door lowered.· At that time the previous owner installed a solid paneled transom, under the original arched transom. The present proposal includes removing the panel transom and installing glazed panes. The Committee decided that the second transom should be interpreted as a part of the door, highlighting the glazing of the original transom. The transom should have two panels, reflecting the paneling of the door. The Committee asked the architect to redraw the door and transoms. The proposal also included new windows for the front facade. The previous owner removed the large storefront window and installed double-hung windows in an opening smaller than the storefront, but larger than the original windows. The present owner wishes to keep the same opening. The Committee and Commission have never approved the use of the proposed Pella window. The window has applied muntins on the exterior and interior of the sash with metal spacer bars. The proposed window box makes the sash appear to float in the opening. Mr. Serratore stated that the contractor would build the sash into new, plank frames which would eliminate the floating appearance. The Committee decided that the muntins proved substantial enough for the window to appear to have true-divided lights and asked that the frame have a bead. Ms. Batcheler voted against the windows, stating that they should have true muntins and that the original pegged box frame should not be removed. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the addition with the rear gable pushed back at least 6 feet from the original 3 ) ridge of the roof; approval of the windows on the condition that the frame have a bead; door and transom design must return to the Committee. Ms. Batcheler voted against the addition and windows. 937 Lombard Street John Brown, owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1820 PROPOSAL: Legalize aluminum covered dormers John Brown stated that when he bought the property the dormers already had aluminum. He did not know of the historic nature of the property or that the Department of Licenses and Inspections had issued a violation for the dormers.

Brown, owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1820 PROPOSAL: Legalize aluminum covered dormers John Brown stated that when he bought the property the dormers already had aluminum. He did not know of the historic nature of the property or that the Department of Licenses and Inspections had issued a violation for the dormers. The Committee, when reviewing historical photographs decided that the dormers originally had sheet metal cheeks, creating strong shadow lines. With the aluminum surfacing, the shadow lines no longer exist. After much discussion, the Committee voted to recomm~nd approval; however, when Mr. Brown replaces the roof of the building, he must also restore the dormers. The Committee voted to recommend approval on the condition that when the owner wishes to re-roof the building, he must restore the dormers as well. 232-34 Market street. Stanley Hardware Building William Isenberg, Owner Andrew Phillips, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1865; c. 1930 - 1st floor alterations; c. 1955 - 1st floor alterations PROPOSAL: Complete rehabilitation, new windows Mr. Baron explained this multi-faceted proposal. The building, constructed in the 1860s, became a Horn and Hardart {H&H) in the 1930s. H&H altered the first floor, installing new windows in the original five bays separated by decoratively incised marble pilasters. Each bay has stained-glass windows above large-paned glazed panels. In the 1960s, the owner covered the ornate storefront with metal panels. In order to attach the panels, the contractor chipped off the cornice above the first floor. After investigative demolition, the new owner has found the H&H storefront intact except for the cornice. The first part of the proposal includes the restoration of the front facade, including the H&H storefront. The stained- glass windows and decorative pilasters will remain and the entire facade will be cleaned. Stuart Rosenberg, architect for the project, stated that the owner wishes to have two single door entrances for both a new restaurant on the first floor and offices on the upper floors. The proposal includes installing a new cornice above the first floor. The new cornice, made of fiberglass or metal from stock profiles, would have the same projection as the other cornices on the building, but may not have the same profile. The owner will keep the signs on the 4 ) upper cornices as well. The Committee voted to recommend approval. The second part of the proposal includes windows. The owner wishes to repair and restore the wood windows on the

on the building, but may not have the same profile. The owner will keep the signs on the 4 ) upper cornices as well. The Committee voted to recommend approval. The second part of the proposal includes windows. The owner wishes to repair and restore the wood windows on the front facade. The proposal includes replacing some of the sash on the second floor to match the four-over-four sash found on the rest of the facade. The side facade, along Bank Street, consists of three separate buildings linked into one. The southernmost building, the stairtower, has metal clad wood windows which the owner proposes to repair. The middle building and northern most building have five stories, each with wood windows. The profiles of the frames of the two buildings differ. The second through fourth stories have windows with four-over-four. The fifth story has two-over-four sash. The proposal includes installing aluminum windows that have four-over-four panes for the second through fourth stories and two-over-two windows on the fifth' floor. The profiles of the proposed aluminum windows do not resemble the present profiles of either building's. Mr. Baron noted that the profiles could be matched exactly with wood windows. Mr. Rosenberg stated that the price of wood windows and the aluminum windows proved about equal, but the owner wishes to have the aluminum windows for less maintenance. Mr. Baron noted that the Committee and Commission have never approved frame profiles that deviated from the original so drastically. The windows proposed for Bank Street also deviate from the originals in the width of the muntins. In the four-over-four sash, the vertical muntins are much wider than the horizontal muntins. This gives a strong vertical, french door effect. The proposed windows also have a wider vertical muntin, but the dimensions of all of the muntin widths do not match the originals. The Committee discussed the differences of the proposed windows and the originals. Mr. Rosenberg stated that the owner cannot afford the maintenance required of wood windows. The proposed windows are made of stock frame and muntin profiles. The window company · could replicate the original windows in aluminum, but as a custom order. The owner has leases signed for tenants to move in during August. The custom windows would take too long to produce, forcing the owner to break the lease contracts with the tenants. Losing tenants would ruin the entire project financially.

the original windows in aluminum, but as a custom order. The owner has leases signed for tenants to move in during August. The custom windows would take too long to produce, forcing the owner to break the lease contracts with the tenants. Losing tenants would ruin the entire project financially. Despite the differences, the Committee voted to recommend approval of the windows. The proposal also includes painting the first floor of the Bank Street elevation a red color to cover the graffiti. The Committee discussed the option of cleaning the brick and applying a clear graffiti shield. Mr. Rosenberg stated that the cleaning would occur on the first floor only, the site of the graffiti, creating a drastic contrast to the uncleaned brick of the upper stories. The owner would prefer painting over any graffiti, at 5 J ) J least tor now. The Committee voted to recommend approval. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the rehabilitation of the front facade, including the new cornice above the 1st floor; approval of the new windows along Bank Street; approval of painting the 1st floor of the Bank Street facade; approval of cleaning the front facade with staff to approve a cleaning sample. 123 Chestnut street, Corn Exchange P&A Associates, Owner Albert Paris, Restaurant Owner/Applicant DATE: 1900; 1906 - addition PROPOSAL: Banner Albert Paris, owner of Rococo Restaurant, described his two banner proposals. One has a triangular shape, the other rectangular. The banner will hang from an extant, 16-foot flagpole on the building. The Committee expressed its preference for the rectangular banner. Mr. Atkin designed a third shape, a trapezoid, which three Committee members favored. The Committee asked that Mr. Paris hang the banner mid-pole instead of at the end. The Committee, with a vote of four to three, recommends approval of the rectangular banner, hung mid-pole. 123 Chestnut Street AKA 45-55 south 2nd street P&A Associates, Owner Jerome Donovan, Restaurant Owner Danny Chong, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1900; 1906 - addition PROPOSAL: New door, signage for 2nd Street facade Jerome Donovan, owner of The Plow and the Stars Restaurant, and Sabrina Soong, architect, explained that the doors previously approved by the Committee and Commission match the other doors of the building in size and scale. The Preservation Alliance, which owns a facade easement, wants taller doors and a smaller transom. The Committee decided that the doors and transom approved by the Committee

architect, explained that the doors previously approved by the Committee and Commission match the other doors of the building in size and scale. The Preservation Alliance, which owns a facade easement, wants taller doors and a smaller transom. The Committee decided that the doors and transom approved by the Committee and Commission are more appropriate for the building. The proposal also includes a sign next to the door. The sign will have a metal plate with the lettering punched out. Neon lights behind the plate will shine through the openings. Mr. Donovan wishes to have four flagpoles installed. The Committee believed that four flags overwhelmed the building and voted to approve two, flanking the door. The flagpoles will carry a version the Irish flag and will not have banners with any wording. The Committee voted to recommend denial of the door change; approval of the sign, attached in the mortar joints; approval of two flagpoles flanking the door, attached in the mortar joints. 6 ) 4313-17 Main street, Masonic Lodge Banana Republic, Owner Park ow, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1860 PROPOSAL: New 1st floor windows, signage, ADA ramp Park ow, architect for the Banana Republic, presented the proposal for the Masonic Lodge. Mr. Baron noted that this is the only building in Manayunk designated by the Historical Commission. The staff of the Historical Commission reviews proposals for other buildings in the Manayunk commercial district as a part of a separate ordinance passed by City Council. This proposal includes several parts. The three first floor bays originally had solid wood doors. A previous owner removed the doors and installed multi-paned windows, with a door in the central bay. Mr. ow proposes to remove the non-historic windows and install new windows and door. The proposed central bay would have a metal and glass double-leaf door. The transom above would have a sand-blasted glass panel with black lettering for signage. The flanking bays would have eight-paned transoms above two large panes of glass. The Committee asked that the panes of the transoms have a more horizontal dimension to match the panes of the windows on the upper stories. The Committee also asked that the transom above the door have panes as well. The store could have signage on the windows flanking the doors. The proposal includes new windows on the 1st floor rear facade, reflecting the fenestration of the front. The proposal calls for erecting

the upper stories. The Committee also asked that the transom above the door have panes as well. The store could have signage on the windows flanking the doors. The proposal includes new windows on the 1st floor rear facade, reflecting the fenestration of the front. The proposal calls for erecting a ramp along the front of the building to the front doors. The ramp would travel over the open well in front of the basement windows. Shoppers gain access to the basement area from steps at the left of the building. The Committee asked that the ramp have perforated metal to allow light into the basement and a railing that matches the extant railing around the open well. The architect agreed. The store wishes to have two banners, one on either end of the building, at the third floor level. This requires a zoning variance. Mr. ow asked the Committee to approve banners at the third floor level and the first floor level, in case he does not receive a variance. The Committee stated that the banners should be attached in the mortar joints. The Committee voted to recommend approval of changing the first- floor windows on the front and rear facades, but with more horizontal panes, with staff to review window details; approval of signage in the side windows not over the door; approval of the ADA ramp with the railing to match the original; approval of the banners in either location, attached in the mortar joints. 7 J 735 Walnut street Edward Weintraut, owner/Applicant DATE: 1799 PROPOSAL: Legalize windows, aluminum cladding on dormer Edward Weintraut, owner of the building, stated that the building suffered a fire. The Commission approved a permit to re-roof the building and reinstall glass in the third floor and dormer windows. Mr. Weintraut could not reinstall glass into the metal frames which were bent and out of shape. Instead, he replaced the third floor and dormer windows entirely with metal one-over-one windows. Also without a permit, he put aluminum on the dormer. The Committee acknowledged that the windows should have six-over-six wood sash. However, the designation photo shows one-over-one windows. After some discussion the Committee voted to recommend a compromise of an approval of legalizing the third story windows, but denial of the metal dormer window or the aluminum on the dormer, asking Mr. Weintraut to replace the dormer window with an appropriate wooden

the designation photo shows one-over-one windows. After some discussion the Committee voted to recommend a compromise of an approval of legalizing the third story windows, but denial of the metal dormer window or the aluminum on the dormer, asking Mr. Weintraut to replace the dormer window with an appropriate wooden one and to remove the aluminum. The Committee noted that this building is one of a row designed by Benjamin Latrobe for the Sansom Development Company. It is part of one of the first row of houses built in Philadelphia. The Committee voted to recommend a compromise of an approval of the third floor windows with the restoration of the dormer, including installing a multi-paned, true-muntin, wood window, with staff to approve details. 326 south Juniper Street Carl and Elizabeth Spitko, Owners Andrew Callaghan, Applicant DATE: c. 1835 PROPOSAL: New windows Andrew Callaghan stated that the owners, without a permit, installed vinyl sash with snap-on grills in the original frames. The Department of Licenses and Inspections issued a violation. The owners now wish to install wood, six-over-six, true-muntin sash. The proposed windows, by Marvin, are made with a rabbet to accommodate an exterior energy panel. The owners do not want an energy panel, but the window does not come without the rabbet. Mr. Baron showed the Committee samples of windows made by Marvin. The proposed window, despite the rabbet, has features that are historically accurate. Mr. Callaghan noted that the proposed windows are half the cost of other windows produced by Marvin. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the new sash installed in existing frames. 8 ) 210 West Washington Square, N.W. Ayer Building 210 West Washington Square Associates, Owner Fritz Doerstling, Applicant DATE: 1930 PROPOSAL: Antennae Fritz Doerstling presented the proposal for antennae on the penthouse and parapet of this building. The staff, in the past, approved proposals for antennae on the penthouse of the building, to be painted to match the building, but only on the secondary facades. However, photographs show that the previous companies have not painted out their antennae. The Committee stated that it will not approve antennae on the parapet of the building, even if they are attached behind the parapet. The Committee voted to recommend approval of antennae on the . . penthouse, no higher than the penthouse roof, painted to match the building and removed when they become obsolete. 806 south Front

not approve antennae on the parapet of the building, even if they are attached behind the parapet. The Committee voted to recommend approval of antennae on the . . penthouse, no higher than the penthouse roof, painted to match the building and removed when they become obsolete. 806 south Front street Taylor Frame, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1754 PROPOSAL: New roof, windows, bulkhead doors; legalize french doors Mr. Baron described the various aspects of the proposal. A previous owner installed inappropriate windows on the front facade. The Department of Licenses and Inspections issued a violation. Ms. Frome proposes to install wood, true-muntin windows on the front facade to cure the violation. Also cited in the violation, Ms. Frome installed french doors and a balconette on the visible rear facade of the building. She wishes to have the new doors legalized. The cheeks of the dormer now have asphalt shingles. The contractor will remove the shingles and install ship-lapped siding. The Committee asked staff to investigate the dormers to determine the direction of the siding. Ms. Frome wishes to replace the asphalt shingle roof with asphalt/fiberglass shingles that will resemble wood shakes. She will also replace in-kind the wood bulk-head doors. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the extant rear _french doors and balconette; approval of new wood, true-muntin windows on the front; approval of replacing in-kind the wood bulkhead doors; approval of restoring the dormer cheeks with ship-lap siding, with staff to review details; approval of a new asphalt-fiberglass shingle roof to replace an asphalt roof. 9 ) 425 south 20th street Sandra Safran, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: Replace flashing, some slate; re-paint Sandra Safran, the owner, explained that the cornice and gutter system leak. The contractor will remove some of the slate and replace the flashing. Several years ago another contractor had painted the slates a green color. Ms. Safran stated that this contractor will try to reverse the slate to expose its original finish. The Committee noted that any new slates used to replace broken ones must match the shape of the originals. The proposal also calls for re-painting the painted facade green. The Committee noted that if the slates cannot be reversed the contractor should paint them a slate-grey color, not green. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the flashing replacement; approval of re-painting the facade a green color; if slate needs painting, paint a

for re-painting the painted facade green. The Committee noted that if the slates cannot be reversed the contractor should paint them a slate-grey color, not green. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the flashing replacement; approval of re-painting the facade a green color; if slate needs painting, paint a slate-grey color. 2035 Delancey street Frank Lundy, Owner Rachel Simmons Schade, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1865 PROPOSAL: Rear facade alterations Rachel Schade, architect for the project, described the proposal. On the rear of the property, the building has a two- story addition with a roof-top deck. The owners park their cars on the lot and have a roll-down gate at the property line. The proposal includes building a one-story garage to the property line with a breakfast room and deck above. The owner will cover the two-story addition with stucco, install a bow window and create a parapet wall for the roof-top deck. This proposal requires a zoning variance because the building will occupy 100% of the lot. Ms. Schade stated that the proposal goes before the Zoning Board of Adjustment in July and the Center city Residents Association will not oppose it. The Committee voted to recommend approval. Mr. Levy abstained. 2415 Pine street Brett Webber, owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1835 PROPOSAL: New windows Brett Webber, owner, described the proposal for new wood, true-muntin, double-glazed windows. The present windows have muntins that measure 7/8 of an inch. Mr. Webber proposes windows that have 1-1/8 inch muntins, required of the double-glazed windows. He stated that he has already replaced the basement windows with the larger-width muntin windows and he wants to keep 10 the windows consistent on the facade. Mr. Webber showed pictures of the proposed windows, stating that the larger muntin width appears appropriate for the building. Mr. Baron noted that, in the past, the Committee and Commission have not approved windows that did not match the originals in muntin width. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 237-47 south 18th street, Barclay Hotel Claybar Associates, Owner Bill Gillin, Contractor/Applicant DATE: 1928 PROPOSAL: Legalizing removal of masonry covered water tank Bill Gillin of Claybar Associates explained to the Committee that the owners of the building hired a contractor to remove ,the water tank on the roof of the building because it posed a danger. Parts of the masonry cladding needed repair and the water tank leaked. The contractor proceeded with the demolition

of Claybar Associates explained to the Committee that the owners of the building hired a contractor to remove ,the water tank on the roof of the building because it posed a danger. Parts of the masonry cladding needed repair and the water tank leaked. The contractor proceeded with the demolition without a permit and without Commission's approval. A very ornate Renaissance Revival pergola made of stone camouflaged the water tank which is highly visible from Rittenhouse Square Street and 18th Street. Mr. Gillin presented photographs of the deteriorated water tank taken after the removal of its masonry enclosure. Mr. Gillin stated that the contractor already discarded the masonry pieces. Mr. Cornell asked if the Department of Licenses and Inspections had inspected the water tank and declared it dangerous. Mr. Gillin stated that the Department was not involved in the decision to remove the water tank. An engineering report formed the basis of the owner's decision to remove it. Judith Eden of the Center City Residents Association asked about the cable that runs from the roof of this building to the building across the street and the white lattice on the roof. Mr. Gillin did not know the reason for the cable and stated that the white lattice belongs to one of the apartments. The Committee noted that the masonry cladding of the water tank was highly decorative, including a balustrade and cartouches. The original structure should have been repaired rather than demolished. The Committee decided that while the removal of the water tank may have justification, the owner of the building must present a proposal to replace the ornamental housing. Mr. Cornell did not believe replacement necessary. The Committee stated that any work on the building must come to the Committee and Commission for approval. The Committee voted to recommend denial. The applicant should return with a proposal to re-build the masonry structure. 11 ) 2433 Pine street Robin Kohles, owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1875 PROPOSAL: Alter 1st floor; new windows Robin Kohles, owner of the house, presented to the Committee a proposal to remove the non-historic pent eave and to restore the look of the Victorian storefront. The proposal includes reinstalling a cornice over the first floor with pilasters at each corner. The height of the first floor rises higher than the interior ceiling height, so she designed wood panels above the windows under the cornice. The Committee members stated

restore the look of the Victorian storefront. The proposal includes reinstalling a cornice over the first floor with pilasters at each corner. The height of the first floor rises higher than the interior ceiling height, so she designed wood panels above the windows under the cornice. The Committee members stated that the proposal does not go far enough to restore the storefront appearance. They suggested the continuation of the wood paneling above the windows for the entire area under the cornice, creating an entablature and adding capitals to the pilasters. Ms. Batcheler suggested including a dado under the windows as well. The Committee also suggested installing larger windows to evoke the storefront windows that would have existed. Ms. Kohles ; • stated that while she understands the request for larger windows, her family would also like the privacy of the present, smaller windows. She agreed to refine the proposal to include the entablature and capitals. The Committee noted that the extant brick planter should have a liner to stop moisture from entering into the brick wall. The proposal also includes wood, one-over-one windows on the second and third floors with the retention or replication of existing frame details. The Committee voted to recommend approval with staff to approve details. 110-112 south Front street Michael Mattioni, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1835 PROPOSAL: Deferral of obligation to re-erect columns and entablature Michael Mattioni, Esq., and Frank DiCianni, architect for the owner, presented the proposal. Several years ago the property suffered a major fire. The Commission approved the demolition of the building on the condition that the first story stone columns and entablature remain. In order to clear the land-locked site of the debris from the fire and demolition, the stone pieces were dismantled on the condition that the owner re- erect them within six months. Those six months have passed. Mr. Mattioni stated that the owner has the property up for sale. When a new owner finally develops the site, he/she would have to remove the stone columns and entablature for the construction. To erect the stone pieces, only to dismantle them at a later date, would in effect waste the $50,000 spent to re-erect them and would further stress the material. 12 The Committee understood the request but expressed concern that the new owner of the property will not re-erect the stone pieces either. Mr. Mattioni stated that the present owner notifies

a later date, would in effect waste the $50,000 spent to re-erect them and would further stress the material. 12 The Committee understood the request but expressed concern that the new owner of the property will not re-erect the stone pieces either. Mr. Mattioni stated that the present owner notifies all interested parties of the requirement. He showed pictures of the site, with the stone pieces laying on the lot. The Committee stated that it would recommend in favor of the postponement of the re-erection of the pieces if owner will secure and protect the stones in a building, such as a Butler building, resting on treated wood supports. Mr. Mattioni agreed to erect a small building to house the stone pieces. The Committee voted to recommend approval on the condition that the owner erect a small building to house and protect the stone with staff to approve details. Ms. Pentz and Mr. Cornell abstained. 2031 Delancey Street Anthony Cutrufello, Architect/Applicant DATE: c. 1870; 1924 - 1st & 2nd floor alterations PROPOSAL: Repair chimney, cornice; repaint facade Anthony Cutrufello, architect for the project, presented the proposal to the Committee. He plans to repair the chimney and cornice, scrape any loose paint and re-paint the facade in approximately the same color green. The Committee stated that staff should review any repairs to the cornice. The Committee voted to recommend approval with staff to approve cornice repairs. 1722 Pine street Laura Blaw, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1845 PROPOSAL: Rear roof-top deck; planters on front facade Laura Blaw, owner, proposes to erect a roof deck on the rear of the property with a trellis around the perimeter. She stated that she had applied for a building and zoning permit. Zoning told her that the proposal requires a variance. Ms. Blaw proceeded to build the deck without a permit and the Department of Licenses and Inspections has issued a stop-work order. Mr. Tyler stated that the Ms. Blaw submitted the proposal at the last minute and it did not appear on the published agendas. Since several neighbors did not have a chance to come to the Committee meeting, he asked the Committee to defer the proposal until next month. Mr. Baron noted that the proposal also includes two flower boxes on the first floor windows on the front facade and two planters on the sidewalk between the basement windows. J The Committee voted to defer

the Committee meeting, he asked the Committee to defer the proposal until next month. Mr. Baron noted that the proposal also includes two flower boxes on the first floor windows on the front facade and two planters on the sidewalk between the basement windows. J The Committee voted to defer the deck proposal until next month; approval of the window boxes and planters. 13 226 south 21st street Dante Luciani, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1870 PROPOSAL: New rear windows Mr. Baron stated that the owner, Dante Luciani, wishes to replace the first floor, rear windows with new wood, true-muntin sash. The original windows have an arched head, four-over-four sash. The vertical muntins are larger than the horizontal ones, creating a door effect. The Committee voted to recommend approval of wood windows to match existing with staff to approve details. 2200-2216 Green street, Convent of Divine Love Ted Stopkoski, Contractor/Applicant DATE: c. 1930 PROPOSAL: Replace stringcourse Mr. Tyler presented the proposal to replace the damaged stringcourse near the roof of the property. Mr. Stopkoski explained that a leaky roof allowed water penetration at the stringcourse, damaging the limestone. Some pieces have already fallen. The contractor has repaired the roof. The proposal includes removing the damaged limestone stringcourse and replacing it with limestone. He noted that the present limestone projects three- four inches and the replacement will have only a one-inch projection, which will result in the loss of the shadow line. The Committee asked that the new stringcourse have a bevel on the top for water run-off and a drip line cut on the bottom. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 35 south 3rd street Yu Xiang Peng, owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1855 PROPOSAL: New windows Mr. Baron presented a proposal for the replacement of the front facade windows with wood, six-over-six, true-muntin sash in existing frames. The Committee voted to recommend approval with staff to approve details. ~ectfully submitted, o{ a.«,1.,.c ?k ~ Lin.,,.,,:... ~ Laura M. sifirtT -, -r- 14