Historical Commission — Jun 14, 2002

THE MINUTES OF THE 478th STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 14 June 2002 at 9:00 a.m. City Council Caucus Room, 4th Floor, City Hall James Cuorato, Acting-Chair Present James Cuorato, Director, Commerce Department, Acting Chair Warren Huff, City Planning Commission Melissa Heller-Batzer, Director of Economic Development, Office of City Council President David Perri, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Licenses and Inspections Vincent Rivera, AIA Michael Sklaroff, Esquire Denise J. Smyler, Esquire Harris Steinberg, AIA Scott Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Housing and Community Development Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Lawrence K. Copeland, Esq., Senior Attorney, Law Department Also Virgil Procaccino Jeff Groff David W. O’Donnell, Queen Village Neighbor’s Association Al Fuscaldo, Ballard Spahr Andrews and Ingersoll, LLP, Pennsylvania School for the Deaf Collen Puckett Terry Kennedy, Kelly Maiello Architects, Pennsylvania School for the Deaf Bruce Thompson, Kelly Maiello Architects, Pennsylvania School for the Deaf Emanuel Kelly, Kelly Maiello Architects, Pennsylvania School for the Deaf Jason Stevens, Capital Program Office, City Hall Nan Gutterman, Vitetta, City Hall Glenn Mueller, Chocolates by Mueller David Amburn, Amburn/Jarosinski Architects Daniel R. Neducsin, Main Street Properties Stephen Verner, Cecil Baker and Associates Cecil Baker, Cecil Baker and Associates Christopher Beardsley, Christopher Beardsley Architects Jay G. Crammer, MCW Enterprises Michael E. Menkle, MCW Enterprises Scott Menkle, MCW Enterprises Christopher A. Busch, The Sullivan Company Anthony Tsirantonakis, Architect, Foster’s Reading Terminal Market Marc Brookman, Esq., Duane Morris and Heckscher, 1914-16 Rittenhouse Square Street Wesley Wei, Wesley Wei Architects William G. Schwartz, Esq., Obmeyer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel Jerry Slipakoff 1 Tina LeCoff, Penn-Knox Neighbors Association Jim Bishop, Penn-Knox Neighbors Association Robert McCormac, Penn Neighbors Association Rachel Schade, Schade and Bolender Architects Daphne Holzman Ken Foster, Foster’s Gourmet Cookware Tim Cwiek, Philadelphia Gay News Raymond F. Rola, Architect, 1728 Chestnut Street Charles Evers, Atkin Olshin Lawson Bell and Associates Lawrence Gilbert, Architect, 126-28 League Street Paul Steinke, Reading Terminal Market C. Sherry L. Mennett, 1935 Manning Street, 1914-16 Rittenhouse Square Street Mr. Wilds made a motion to designate James Cuorato the acting-chair for the meeting. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. James Cuorato, Acting-Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Minutes of the 477th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Steinberg and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved as

the acting-chair for the meeting. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. James Cuorato, Acting-Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Minutes of the 477th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Upon a motion made by Mr. Steinberg and duly seconded, the Commission unanimously approved as corrected the minutes of the 477th Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held 10 May 2002, James Cuorato, Acting-Chair. Mr. Sklaroff asked that the minutes reflect that in addition to abstaining from the vote, he also did not participate in the discussion on the nomination of 3901 Delaware Avenue for the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. Tyler informed the Commission that the following proposals have requested continuances: 227 Market Street, aka 216 Church Street Ilan Seidenwar, Owner Mary Ann Duffy, Architect DATE: c. 1830 PROPOSAL: Legalize storefront on Market Street and masonry work on Church Street Applicant requested a one-month continuance. 2112 Mt Vernon Street Eli Nelson & Elizabeth Judge, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1855, Oliver Parry & Nathaniel Randolph, builders PROPOSAL: Rear addition and roof deck Applicant requested a two-month continuance. 410 South 15th Street, SW corner of Waverly Street Michael Sher, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1850; altered c. 1885 PROPOSAL: Legalize mural on stuccoed base of sidewall Applicant requested a one-month continuance. Mr. Sklaroff expressed his dismay about the decision of the Board of License and Inspection Review Board to remand this proposal back to the Commission. He asked that the Commission members receive a letter explaining this decision. Mr. Steinberg made a motion the grant the continuances. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT of the Committee on Historic Designation, 16 May 2002 2 Harris Steinberg, Acting-Chair 229 Fitzwater Street Virgil and Norma Procaccino, Owners/Applicants DATE: c. 1859, new façade, c. 1950 PROPOSAL: Rescission of historic designation Mr. Huff made a motion to approve the rescission of the designation. Ms. Klein seconded the motion which was approved by three members. Mr. Steinberg opposed the motion. At a previous Commission meeting, the applicants were offered two options: the rescission of the designation or proceeding with the demolition subject to the Commission’s review of the new design. At that time, the applicants chose to proceed with the demolition with full knowledge of the Commission’s jurisdiction over the new construction. Mr. Procaccino now says that owing to time constraints, he applied for the demolition permit to move

the demolition subject to the Commission’s review of the new design. At that time, the applicants chose to proceed with the demolition with full knowledge of the Commission’s jurisdiction over the new construction. Mr. Procaccino now says that owing to time constraints, he applied for the demolition permit to move the process along and would like the designation status removed. Demolition of the property has occurred, and it s now a vacant lot. Mr. Sklaroff stated that he opposed the rescission, because at the previous Commission meeting, he strongly advocated the rescission as an option, but conceded to the applicant’s wishes to demolish subject to the Commission’s review of the new design. Mr. Wilds also concurred with Mr. Sklaroff and stated that his vote was based on the applicant’s choice of options. He also believed that the chosen option would pose very little burden on the applicants, because Commission members thought the new design appropriate with only a few minor changes. In addition, he said that the Commission went out of its way to find a solution. Mr. Tyler stated that he thinks that once a resource is legally demolished, jurisdiction should cease; however, owing to the procedural process in this situation, he recommended denial. Mr. Steinberg agreed, because the Commission acted in good faith and should stand by its decision. Mr. Huff said that the Commission’s decision is not a practical one and supported the rescission. Mr. Cuorato stated that the Planning Commission and the Department of Licenses and Inspections do not regard the rescission as inappropriate. Mr. Procaccino, the owner, said that he thought that he could ask for a rescission at a later date. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to reject the Committee’s recommendation and deny the rescission. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which failed. Mr. Huff, Mr. Rivera, Ms. Heller-Batzer, Mr. Perri and Mr. Cuorato opposed the motion. Mr. Perri made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation for rescission. Mr. Huff seconded the motion which passed with 5 votes. Ms. Smyler, Mr. Sklaroff, Mr. Steinberg and Mr. Wilds opposed the motion. THE REPORT of the Architectural Committee, 28 May 2002 Vincent Rivera, Chair. 116 Fountain Street Fountain Street Partners, LLP, Owners Kevin Green, Applicant DATE: c. 1920 PROPOSAL: Window replacement and infill, demolish chimney and water tower structure This proposal was reviewed under the Manayunk Ordinance, Section PM-704-0 of the Philadelphia Code, and it was

Architectural Committee, 28 May 2002 Vincent Rivera, Chair. 116 Fountain Street Fountain Street Partners, LLP, Owners Kevin Green, Applicant DATE: c. 1920 PROPOSAL: Window replacement and infill, demolish chimney and water tower structure This proposal was reviewed under the Manayunk Ordinance, Section PM-704-0 of the Philadelphia Code, and it was approved at the Architectural Committee level. 3 4401 Cresson Street, NE corner of Carson Street Robert Morganstein, Owner Jamie Kokenberger, Applicant DATE: c. 1890 PROPOSAL: New addition This proposal was reviewed under the Manayunk Ordinance, Section PM-704-0 of the Philadelphia Code, and it was approved at the Architectural Committee level. 4417-19 Main Street Derek Davis, Applicant DATE: c. 1860 PROPOSAL: Legalize removal of storefront and installation of new storefront The Architectural Committee split on the issue. Ms. Pentz stated that the new windows should reflect the historic storefronts, with transoms in 4417 and fewer vertical mullions. Mr. Rivera thought the changes should be legalized as built. Without a permit or Historical Commission approval, the applicant demolished two historic storefronts and replaced them with new storefronts of a different design. Designation photographs of the two buildings show storefronts with transoms and large plate glass windows on the first floor. The corner building, 4419, now has multiple, vertical, operable windows with transoms, though the transoms do not match the historic dimensions. 4417 originally had transoms above the large windows, but the new windows do not have them. The applicant also installed new fixed awnings above the doors and retractable awnings over the windows with four, large, suspended heat lamps. Also the granite step at the corner entrance was removed and the sidewalk sloped to accommodate handicapped access. Mr. Baron explained the proposal and expressed concern about the removal of the transoms. Daniel Nedescin, the owner, and Allen Newman attended the meeting. Mr. Nedescin stated that the difference in height of 4417 and 4419 necessitated the lowering of the floor and that the steps were removed for ADA requirements. He also stated that the new storefront in 4419 still has transoms. However, Ms. Spina noted that the new transoms are not the same proportions as the historic transoms. Mr. Nedescin cited the lengthy time lines for the construction and review. He believed that there was a risk of losing a viable business, and therefore stated that as a business decision, he proceeded without a permit. Mr. Sklaroff objected to the owner’s disregard for

proportions as the historic transoms. Mr. Nedescin cited the lengthy time lines for the construction and review. He believed that there was a risk of losing a viable business, and therefore stated that as a business decision, he proceeded without a permit. Mr. Sklaroff objected to the owner’s disregard for the permit process as a business decision. Mr. Steinberg agreed with Mr. Sklaroff, that the Commission is being put in a very difficult situation. He supports Ms. Pentz’s recommendation that the storefront’s design is inappropriate. Mr. Rivera stated that he believes that enough of the historic fabric still remains. Ms. Smyler emphasized that businessmen should be held to the same standards as residents. Mr. Tyler commented that the new transoms are not compatible with the historic and that a staff level approval of a more historic design could have been given in one day. Mr. Cuorato noted that the Architectural Committee recommendation was based on two members’split opinion. Mr. Sklaroff made a motion to approve the design as submitted. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Wilds and Mr. Steinberg opposed the motion. 6026 Germantown Avenue, Wyck Wyck Charitable Trust, Owner Jeff Groff, Applicant 4 DATE: c. 1690 PROPOSAL: Construct two new structures, renovate garage, and site-work in concept The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with staff to review details. This proposal involves adding two wooden structures to the wood yard of Wyck house museum for toilets and renovating the garage for teaching facilities. The new structures will be built along the line of an historic fence, separating the historic garden from the wood yard. Also, the garage will be altered to accommodate a new seminar room. Mr. Baron explained the proposal and noted that the Commission’s motion would give the project final approval. Ms. Heller-Batzer made a motion to give final approval to the proposal, with the staff to review details. Mr. Sklaroff seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Steinberg recused himself. 143 (131-43) West Coulter Street, Philadelphia School for the Deaf Philadelphia School for the Deaf, Owner Emanuel Kelly, Architect PROPOSAL: Construction of new two-story school building in concept The Architectural Committee recommended approval in concept of the plan as submitted with dark gray facing on the gabled section of the building and a hip on the western edge of the porch roof. It further recommended the approval of the

PROPOSAL: Construction of new two-story school building in concept The Architectural Committee recommended approval in concept of the plan as submitted with dark gray facing on the gabled section of the building and a hip on the western edge of the porch roof. It further recommended the approval of the issuance of a demolition and foundation permit. This proposal involves seeking conceptual approval for the construction of a school building. Last year, the Historical Commission approved the demolition of 143 Coulter Street subject to review and approval of the design of the new school building and its site as well as the preservation of 151 Coulter Street. The new design differs significantly from that seen before, for the School retained new architects for the project. The proposed new building has the look of an institutional building with long flat areas along the front facade facing Coulter Street. In addition, the front lawn has now has become a vehicular drop-off lane, and the building is faced with brick rather than stone. The applicant also wishes to receive a permit for the demolition of the historic building and for the foundation of the new facility based on a conceptual approval of this design rather than a review and approval for the design of the whole site as specified in the Commission’s 14 March 2001 conditional approval. Emanuel Kelly, the architect, stated that there are 3 possible options: a darker gray brick in gabled front with the hipped roof, the entire front in gray, and all gray with the west end of the porch cut off straight. Ms. LeCoff, of the Penn-Knox Neighborhood Association, stated that it is important to match the extended porch across the bay in the same color with an affordable material and in addition the long flat areas need to be blank because of the classrooms. Mr. Rivera believes that the gable design and the blank part of the building should be differentiated, therefore he still supports option #1 as more appropriate. Mr. Baron suggested that the staff review the details. Mr. Harris inquired if the Wissahickon schiste could be salvaged. Mr. Kelly responded that it could not. He also noted that a hairpin fence will surround the property. Mr. Wilds made a motion for final approval of option # 3 and approval for the issuance of the permits for the demolition and the new design. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded

be salvaged. Mr. Kelly responded that it could not. He also noted that a hairpin fence will surround the property. Mr. Wilds made a motion for final approval of option # 3 and approval for the issuance of the permits for the demolition and the new design. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried with 7 votes. Mr. Rivera opposed the motion and Mr. Sklaroff abstained from the votes as well as participating in the discussion. 5 151 West Coulter Street Robert McCormac, Owner/Applicant DATE: c 1845 PROPOSAL: New faux-slate roof The Architectural Committee recommended approval of this proposal with staff to review and approve details. This application involves removing the badly damaged slate roof from this house shell and installing Majestic rubber faux-slate. Mr. Baron explained the proposal. Mr. McCormac, the owner, attended the meeting and noted his acceptance of the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 163 North 3rd Street, SW corner of Race Street Lisa Hwang, Owner Janice Woodcock, Architect DATE: c. 1805, 1830 PROPOSAL: New door and ramp The Architectural Committee recommended approval of this proposal with staff to review and approve details. This proposal involves adding a ramp and new door to create handicap accessibility for this corner store. No one attended the meeting to represent the proposal. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion that carried unanimously. 227 South 6th Street, Lippincott Building MCW Enterprises, LLC, Owner Stephen Verner, Architect DATE: 1900, William Pritchett, architect PROPOSAL: New underground garage, two-story penthouse, rooftop terraces and gardens The Architectural Committee recommended approval of this proposal with staff to review and approve details. This proposal returns to the Commission for final approval. Following a meeting with neighbors, the architect has revised the rooftop additions to show a hipped roof, without the historic looking dormers, and with modern fenestration. The applicant also seeks to modify the rear (east) façade with a garage opening, a new door and alterations to doors to create windows. Mr. Steinberg thought the addition appropriate, but he commented on its impact on the square itself and questioned if the addition should extend to the facia of the building. Mr. Huff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused. 6

the addition appropriate, but he commented on its impact on the square itself and questioned if the addition should extend to the facia of the building. Mr. Huff made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Sklaroff recused. 6 227 Fitzwater Street Colleen Puckett, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1825 PROPOSAL: New light fixture The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the proposed light. This proposal involves installing a very large lantern over the door of this rowhouse. The owner has purchased the lantern and her shutters preclude placement beside the door. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. City Hall, Broad and Market Streets City of Philadelphia, Owner Jason Stevens, Applicant DATE: 1871-1901, John McArthur Jr., Architect PROPOSAL: Bird netting Mr. Rivera recommended approval of the more extensive netting proposal. This proposal involves installing bird netting on City Hall. While initially the applicant proposed netting of the column capitals, now they propose netting in front of the whole columns. This will be more visible but also provides substantially more protection. Nan Gutterman, the architect, and Jason Stevens of the Capital Programs Office attended the meeting. Ms. Gutterman said that the netting would be installed on the columns, the center pavilions and at the cornice. The proposed netting would be a permanent solution, and noted that other solutions have been tried on this building. Mr. Rivera questioned the more extensive netting and Ms. Gutterman responded that the columns and capitals have had netting but at the base of the columns there is extensive perching; however, netting at the base is not an option because it has to go straight up. Mr. Steinberg inquired about other solutions in the city to this problem. Ms. Gutterman cited other buildings in the city such as the Free Library, which have netting, and the Cathedral, which has a copper wiring around it. She also noted that the hawk and decoy options do not work. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 642 North Broad Street, NW corner of Wallace Street Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging, Owner Christian Busch, Architect DATE: 1903, William Steele, architect PROPOSAL: Extend elevator penthouse The Architectural Committee recommended in favor of extending the shaft in brick and demarcating the new

Rivera seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 642 North Broad Street, NW corner of Wallace Street Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging, Owner Christian Busch, Architect DATE: 1903, William Steele, architect PROPOSAL: Extend elevator penthouse The Architectural Committee recommended in favor of extending the shaft in brick and demarcating the new brick with a beltcourse or other detail to be worked out with staff. This application is for extending the elevator penthouse. The penthouse is made of brick; the proposal calls for painted CMU. Ms. Spina explained the proposal and noted that the Committee’s recommendation was based on misinformation and that this is the only location that will be able to hold the weight. Christian Busch, the architect, attended the meeting. Ms. Busch said the proposed structure 7 would be parallel to the parapet wall and extend to the cornice line in order to sustain the additional weight. Commission members agreed that either painting the stucco a brick color or new brick appropriate. Mr. Busch said that the painting of the stucco to match the existing brick is the lower cost option, which he believed more viable. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the proposal with the use of brick or stucco painted to match existing brick. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Cuorato recused himself and asked Mr. Perri to chair the next two proposals. 1113-31 Market Street, Foster’s, Reading Terminal Market Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority, Owner Anthony Tsirantonakis, Architect DATE: 1891-93, Francis Kimball and Wilson Brothers, architects PROPOSAL: New enclosed store The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the project, subject to changes including the elimination of the solid upper panels, glazing of the barn door, and reduction of the solid storefront area by increasing the glazing, or open area, at front. This proposal calls for a new, enclosed store within the Reading Terminal Market. Foster’s has an enclosed store already in the Market, but it sits along an exterior wall. The proposed store will sit in the middle of the Market’s open space and replace one of the few areas of common seating. Under a separate City Ordinance, City Council gave the Historical Commission the jurisdiction to review any interior alteration to the Reading Terminal Market. Mr. Tyler expressed his opposition to the proposal because he believed that the proposed enclosure is too solid for such an open space

areas of common seating. Under a separate City Ordinance, City Council gave the Historical Commission the jurisdiction to review any interior alteration to the Reading Terminal Market. Mr. Tyler expressed his opposition to the proposal because he believed that the proposed enclosure is too solid for such an open space and it would mean a significant loss of seating space. Paul Steinke, Reading Terminal’s general manager, stated that Foster’s current location does not allow for growth and that the relocation will strengthen the northeast corner of the market. He also noted that the lost seating would be made up in other locations. Mr. Wilds emphasized the need to keep the terminal as an open market, which would mean keeping influx of enclosures to a minimum. He also questioned the shelving at the front and along the sides. He noted that these higher walls will make the area seem more contained. Mr. Steinke said that a majority of the stands are open and as the representative of the tenants, he can say no to further enclosures. Mr. Steinberg inquired if the expansion could happen in the current location. Mr. Steinke stated that the space adjacent is already occupied, and the neighboring tenant took down walls to open up the location for merchandising. Mr. Baron commented that the Commission should use clear guidelines consistent with the Standards. Mr. Wilds asked about the amount of clear space remaining with the removal of the panels and the applicant responded that 3-feet will remain. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Rivera seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Cuorato recused. 1113-31-Market Street, Mueller’s Chocolates, Reading Terminal Market Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority, Owner 8 DATE: Glenn Mueller, Applicant PROPOSAL: Expand enclosed store and kitchen The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the project as submitted. This proposal is for extending an enclosed kitchen within the Reading Terminal Market. The Commission approved a small, enclosed kitchen in 1999 tucked into a corner of the Market, along an exterior wall. The owners now wish to expand the kitchen with a two-story addition, which will wrap around a wall and be highly visible from one of the doors on 12th Street. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Cuorato recused. Mr. Perri passed the chair back to

two-story addition, which will wrap around a wall and be highly visible from one of the doors on 12th Street. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried with 8 votes. Mr. Cuorato recused. Mr. Perri passed the chair back to Mr. Cuorato. 1214 Arch Street Theresa Stigale,, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1907, Milligan & Weber, architects PROPOSAL: Cut new side windows and infill window openings The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposal with the condition that the front six windows are retained and closed up from the inside, if necessary, with staff to review details. This proposal calls for infilling 14 historic window openings and cutting new openings for windows on the east façade of the building. The existing window openings have segmental- arched openings with 9/9 windows with square-head glazing. The proposed windows are 9/9 square-head windows in square-head openings. No one attended the meeting to represent the project. Commission members agreed that the old and new would be differentiated by their types. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Sklaroff excused himself for the duration of the meeting. 1914-16 Rittenhouse Square Street, aka 1917-19 Manning Street Henry McNeil, Owner Marc Brookman, Esq., Applicant DATE: c. 1859, entrance addition, 1957 PROPOSAL: Revised Manning Street elevation The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the project as submitted. The Committee and Commission previously approved the demolition of the entrance pavilion and the construction of a four-story addition. This proposal calls for a revised Manning Street façade. The façade approved by the Commission had numerous casement windows in a three-story section and a one-story section with a garage. The proposal now calls for the same massing, but uses larger windows that wrap around the corner of the three-story section, includes both brick and stucco for the walls and calls for solid roll-down doors instead of open ones that allowed a view into the garden. Marc Brookman, Esq., counsel for the applicant, and Wesley Wei, the architect, attended the meeting. Mr. Brookman said the proposed alterations of the property are in keeping with the 9 Standards. He also presented a petition signed by neighbors in support of the proposed alterations. William Schwartz, Esq., counsel for Myles Kelly, a neighbor, stated that demolition of the property is not seen as

meeting. Mr. Brookman said the proposed alterations of the property are in keeping with the 9 Standards. He also presented a petition signed by neighbors in support of the proposed alterations. William Schwartz, Esq., counsel for Myles Kelly, a neighbor, stated that demolition of the property is not seen as a hardship and that zoning refused the proposed alterations. He asked that without zoning, how the proposal could move forward. Commission members reiterated that zoning issues are heard before a separate forum. Mr. Wilds inquired about the design’s approval and whether the demolition was part of the original approval. He asked Mr. Schwartz whether his client opposed the design, Mr. Schwartz said that his client’s opposition is not based on the design but the procedural process. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2201 St. James Street, NW corner of 22nd Street Daphne and Edgar Holzman, Owners Rachel Schade, Architect DATE: c. 1870, attributed to Frank Furness PROPOSAL: Rear door and deck The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of Option B with staff to review details. The owner wishes to install a rear deck off the first floor of the house, cutting a window down to a door. The brick garden wall hides the deck itself, but the window is visible from 22nd Street. Mr. Steinberg questioned the differences between option C and B. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Smyler seconded the motion. 1728 Chestnut Street Elan Zaken, Owner Raymond Rola, Architect DATE: 1914, Frank H. Keisker, architect PROPOSAL: Rear addition The Architectural Committee recommended approval of a flattened and more simplified design in a brick color stucco with the elimination of the window surrounds, and the staff to review details; however, one member thought the projecting balcony should be eliminated, while two members approved the proposed balcony. This long vacant building will be rehabilitated into a commercial space with apartments above. The building has a four-story front with a long one-story rear ell that extends to Ionic Street (now known as Stock Exchange Way). The proposal calls for building a three-story addition onto the rear ell along Ionic Street, and a two-story addition on the connection between the front building and the rear. The Ionic Street façade will keep the extant brick wall and window openings and have stucco on the

Stock Exchange Way). The proposal calls for building a three-story addition onto the rear ell along Ionic Street, and a two-story addition on the connection between the front building and the rear. The Ionic Street façade will keep the extant brick wall and window openings and have stucco on the additional floors with contemporary fenestration. Mr. Huff commented that the Philadelphia Planning Commission reviews all alterations to facades on Chestnut and Walnut Street and reiterated his support of the Historical Commission’s position. Mr. Wilds asked the architect if he agreed with the Committee’s recommendation, to 10 which Mr. Rola noted his acceptance. Mr. Wilds made a motion to accept the proposal as submitted. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1832 Delancey Street Jerald Slipakoff, Owner Christopher Beardsley, Architect DATE: c. 1855 PROPOSAL: Rear addition, garage, and roof deck The Architectural Committee recommended approval of the following: 1. a stucco addition with steel at the rear and a modern door; 2. the garage as proposed, and 3. the roof deck, with the deck following the lines of the brick parapet. This property on Delancey Street has a two-story rear ell with a leaded glass window on the first floor and an ornate copper bay on the second. The proposal is to remove the wall at the basement level and install a roll-up garage door, creating on-site parking. The owners also wish to add a small addition on the rear of the main building, tucked into the corner of the rear ell, at the first floor, and a deck on the roof of the rear ell. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Ms. Heller-Batzer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2127 Porter Street Lyman Simpson, Owner/Applicant DATE: 1914, James & John Windrim, architects PROPOSAL: Remove slate roof and install asphalt shingles A modified proposal was approved at staff level. 2100 Porter Street, aka 2101 Shunk Street, Gentilhommiere City of Philadelphia, Owner Brett Powell, Architect DATE: Main House: c. 1760; central brick portion, 1798-1803; west wing, c. 1825 Auxiliary Buildings: c. 1810, steps added and one converted to bathrooms, 1901 PROPOSAL: New metal-shingle roof on main and auxiliary buildings The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the proposal, owing to the incompleteness of the application. This proposal calls for installing a metal-shingle roof on the main house as well as the two auxiliary buildings. No one representing the

to bathrooms, 1901 PROPOSAL: New metal-shingle roof on main and auxiliary buildings The Architectural Committee recommended denial of the proposal, owing to the incompleteness of the application. This proposal calls for installing a metal-shingle roof on the main house as well as the two auxiliary buildings. No one representing the project was present. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to accept the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Huff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 126-28 League Street 126-128 League Street History: c. 1810 Applicant/Owners: Michelle and Joseph Orlando 11 The Architectural Committee recommended a site visit to determine how to proceed but approved the proposal in concept with the retention of the chimney. This application seen in 2001 involves demolition of the rear portion of these two Imminently Dangerous frame houses and the addition of a two-story addition on the Washington Avenue side of the structures. The applicant now informs us that he wishes to demolish the chimney of the house to free up the interior space. He also has concerns about retaining the roof because of the difficulties in supporting it; however, he has explained that he will try. Ms. Pentz’s site visit determined that a reasonable compromise would be to allow the demolition of the chimney in exchange for the restoration of the front façade. The chimney, which currently is covered with black tar, would be rebuilt as a faux chimney in brick veneer. This compromise is consistent with the applicant’s proposal. It was noted that wood buildings are very rare, and at least the façade should be saved. Mr. Steinberg questioned the pole gutter, historic siding, dormers and the cornice and thought that as many elements as possible should be saved, but if not possible then they should be replicated. Mr. Wilds made a motion to approve the retention and restoration of the front façade with the replication of elements that cannot be saved, the building of a faux-chimney, and the restoration of the front slope and dormer with the retention of fabric if possible, with the staff to review details. Mr. Steinberg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. THE REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, May 2002 Mr. Tyler commended to the Commission Mrs. Hughes on the excellent job she did in orchestrating the relocation of the Commission offices. He also noted the hiring of Dr. Jonathan Farnham as an Historic Preservation Planner. HARRY A. BATTEN

REPORT on the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, May 2002 Mr. Tyler commended to the Commission Mrs. Hughes on the excellent job she did in orchestrating the relocation of the Commission offices. He also noted the hiring of Dr. Jonathan Farnham as an Historic Preservation Planner. HARRY A. BATTEN MEMORIAL FUND Mr. Tyler asked the Commission to approve the expenditure of $15.96 for the Architectural Committee’s lunch. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to approve the expenditures. Mr. Huff seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Steinberg made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wilds seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Hughes Executive Secretary Corrected/7/02 12