THE MINUTES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION David Hollenberg, Chairman 30 November 1989 Present: David Hollenberg, Architect, Chairman of the Committee Penelope H. Batcheler, Historical Architect for the Independence National Historical Park Dr. David DeLong, University of Pennsylvania, Historic Preservation Program Herbert W. Levy, American Institute of Architects Donald Stevenson, Architect Patricia A. Siemiontkowski, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Randal Baron, Preservation Planner Daniel W. Simcox, Executive Secretary Also: Vincent Maiello, Kelly/Maiello Architects Brian W. Yachyshen, Kelly/Maiello Architects Charles W. Nearon, Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority Alvin Holm, Architect Tami Siegal Theodore Agoos, Agoos/Lovera Architects James Hemmerly, Agoos/Lovera Architects Philip Scott, John Milner Associates Robert F. Brown, Geddes Brecher Qualls Cunningham David Dobbins, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Susan Sayer, Thomas Jefferson University Seth Cooley, Esq., Duane Morris & Heckscher Roger Keyser, Parkway Corporation J. Tackett, Partridge Tackett Associates Juan Levy, Francis John Kakos, Architect Michael Morres, 408-410 S. 18th Street Brian Henning, Oldham and Seltz Architects Marita Osborne, Kevin F. Donahue Kay Githens, 521 S. Leithgow ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 2 30 November 1989 SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 30 NOVEMBER 1989 Final Approval - Dickens Inn, 2nd and Pine Streets: Final approval. Approval in Concept - Reading Terminal Market: Approval in concept with the following recommendations: 1) placement of exhaust fans behind parapet on west side of train shed, 2) retention and restoration of the original storefront in the southwest corner of the Market facing Filbert Street, and 3) exploration of alternatives for fire protection to the proposed wrapping of the iron columns and beams. - Chestnut Street, 900 block: Approval in concept, with the reduced 12'8" floor-ceiling height where necessary to maintain the continuity between the front facades and the proposed new interiors. (Mr. Levy abstained from discussion and voting). - 521 S. Leithgow Street: Approval in concept of the proposed dormer, subject to pulling it back to make it flush with the chimney. Approval of proposed facade alterations subject to submission of shop drawings for all windows, and re-design of the basement window to a multi-paned, double-hung sash. Approval, Contingent upon Conditions - 2017-2025 Moravian Street: Approval, contingent upon staff review of the proposed masonry cleaning and re-pointing. - 4207 Walnut Street, The Restaurant School: Approval, contingent upon redesign of the louvers on the south elevation of the new addition. - Alden Park Manor, 5500 Wissahickon Avenue: Approval
Approval, Contingent upon Conditions - 2017-2025 Moravian Street: Approval, contingent upon staff review of the proposed masonry cleaning and re-pointing. - 4207 Walnut Street, The Restaurant School: Approval, contingent upon redesign of the louvers on the south elevation of the new addition. - Alden Park Manor, 5500 Wissahickon Avenue: Approval of proposed iron fence around the perimeter of the property, and of the proposed placement of the mechanical equipment on the grounds. The Committee requested a revision of the proposed gate-house treatment.(Mr. Hollenberg abstained from discussion and voting). - 408-410 S. 18th Street: Approval, contingent upon staff review of the specifications of the proposed alterations. - Curtis Center, 6th & Walnut Streets: Approval contingent upon agreement that another entrance would be permitted only in a similar position on the other side of the Seventh Street facade, in order to maintain the symmetry of that facade. [HANDWRITTEN NOTES: Checkmarks (✓) appear in the left margin before the following items: - "Final Approval" section header - "Approval in Concept" section header - "Chestnut Street, 900 block" entry - "521 S. Leithgow Street" entry - "Alden Park Manor, 5500 Wissahickon Avenue" entry - "Curtis Center, 6th & Walnut Streets" entry] ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 3 30 November 1989 SUBMISSIONS FOR ALTERATIONS - Reading Terminal Market, Vincent Maiello and Brian W. Yachyshen, Kelly/Maiello Architects, Charles W. Nearon, Convention Center Authority. Mr. Maiello presented preliminary plans for proposed alterations to the Reading Terminal Market as part of a comprehensive plan for the proposed construction of the Pennsylvania Convention Center. These alterations include: - the provision of new code complying electrical and plumbing systems and the upgrading of the recently installed HVAC system; - the complete renovation and upgrading of existing toilet facilities; - the repair of existing iron columns and beams which have deteriorated; - the construction of four new fire stairs in each corner of the existing market; - the installation of a new sprinkler, fire suppression system; and - the renovation of the storefronts on the south side of Filbert Street. Mr. Hollenberg expressed concern regarding the placement of a fire stair in the southwest corner of the Market. Mr. Maiello responded that the placement of that stairwell had been changed in order to allow the continual use of the Market entrance on 12th Street at Filbert. The original storefront at this corner, along Filbert Street, will be preserved and restored. Mr. Maiello next discussed
corner of the Market. Mr. Maiello responded that the placement of that stairwell had been changed in order to allow the continual use of the Market entrance on 12th Street at Filbert. The original storefront at this corner, along Filbert Street, will be preserved and restored. Mr. Maiello next discussed the proposed restoration of the facade on the south side of Filbert Street. The Committee expressed its support for this proposal. The south side will be restored to conform with the restoration work on the north side of the street undertaken several years ago. A discussion of the limitations on the design of the internal ductwork followed. Owing to code requirements, the architects decided to vent the exhaust system through the roof of the train shed. The Committee approved the placement of the relatively small, black, baked-enamel exhaust fans on the roof, but recommended their placement at a lower level on the roof, behind the parapet, particularly on the west side of the shed. Mr. Maiello informed the Committee that the Department of Licenses and Inspections required wrapping the iron columns and beams within the Market. Mr. Hollenberg reaffirmed the Committee's position that the architects should explore alternative means for fire suppression, including, but not ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 4 30 November 1989 limited to the use of intumescent paint and special sprinklers. Mr. Hollenberg stressed that the matter was one of special concern to the Committee. Mr. Maiello concluded, stating that all masonry and metal work on the exterior of the building was scheduled for repair. Mr. Hollenberg noted that this work would require the submission of specifications before a final approval could be granted. Mr. Hollenberg provided a summary of the issues, stating that the Committee would recommend an approval in concept with the following recommendations: 1) placement of exhaust fans behind parapet on west side of train shed; 2) retention and restoration of the original storefront in the southwest corner of the Market; 3) placement of the stairwell proposed for the southwest quadrant in a location which will not intrude upon the 12th Street entrance or destroy the original storefront on Filbert Street; and 4) exploration of alternatives for fire protection to the proposed wrapping of the iron columns and beams. The Committee stressed the importance of this recommendation, noting that fire suppression was a vital concern, but that alternative methods of protection should be explored. 2017-2025 Moravian Street,
storefront on Filbert Street; and 4) exploration of alternatives for fire protection to the proposed wrapping of the iron columns and beams. The Committee stressed the importance of this recommendation, noting that fire suppression was a vital concern, but that alternative methods of protection should be explored. 2017-2025 Moravian Street, Alvin Holm, Architect and Tami Siegal. Mr. Holm presented his proposal for the rehabilitation of two existing structures and the construction of a new building proposed within the pending Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District. The new building, proposed on an existing vacant lot, would possess a facade similar in character to the present streetscape. The Committee informed Mr. Holm that any masonry restoration required review by the staff. The Committee recommended approval of this project, contingent upon staff review and acceptance of the proposed masonry cleaning and re-pointing method. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 5 30 November 1989 4207 Walnut Street, The Restaurant School, Theodore Agoos, and James Hemmerly, Agoos/Lovera Architects. The members expressed some concern regarding the relation of the design of the proposed new addition to the main building, the impact of that addition upon the 4200 block of Easton Street, and the potential for drainage problems resulting from the design of the link roof. The Committee also objected to the proposed shape of the louvers on the south elevation of the addition. Mr. Agoos reviewed the history of this project, including meetings with Mr. Tyler and various community groups. Throughout these meetings, all parties consulted were supportive of the design of the addition. Mr. Agoos presented a model of the proposed addition, and addressed the stated concerns of the Committee. He indicated that the addition would be set back approximately twenty-five feet from the property line on Sansom Street, and that the proposed addition would not loom over the residences of that block. He also noted that the addition would be screened with landscaping along that property line. Further, the drainage of the roof of the proposed addition had been considered at length, and a determination was made that the existing and proposed systems would suffice. Finally, Mr. Agoos addressed the concern regarding the louver design. Members of the Committee noted that the design appeared arbitrary, without relation to the historic building. Mr. Agoos noted that he would re-study and revise the louver design and re-submit to the Committee. Mr. Hollenberg acknowledged that the primary concerns of the Committee had been
concern regarding the louver design. Members of the Committee noted that the design appeared arbitrary, without relation to the historic building. Mr. Agoos noted that he would re-study and revise the louver design and re-submit to the Committee. Mr. Hollenberg acknowledged that the primary concerns of the Committee had been addressed by the complete presentation. The Committee recommended an approval, contingent upon redesign of the louvers on the south elevation of the new addition. Alden Park Manor, 5500 Wissahickon Avenue. Philip Scott, John Milner Associates. Mr. Hollenberg abstained from the discussion and from voting on the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Scott presented the proposal for site improvements to the property, including the installation of an iron fence with gates along a section of the perimeter of the property, modifications to the gate-houses, a new security system, and the placement of mechanical equipment on the grounds. These improvements are part of an overall project involving exterior repairs and interior rehabilitation to the Alden Park complex. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 6 30 November 1989 The Committee approved the proposed fence, and agreed that the placement of the transformers on the property was not intrusive. Mr. Scott next discussed the proposed gate-house treatment. The existing openings on the gate-houses would be filled, with glazing on three sides and a door on the fourth. The Committee suggested that the design of the proposed infill retain the shape and sense of the original opening. The Committee suggested two alternative designs for the proposed new front door: a doorway containing a transom and side lights, or one with French doors. Members also suggested cutting a small circular window facing away from the street. These treatments would retain the shape of the openings, while allowing the sight-lines desired for security purposes. In summary, the Committee recommended an approval of the proposed iron fence and of the proposed placement of the mechanical equipment on the grounds. The Committee requested a re-study and revision of the proposed gate-house treatment. 408-410 S. 18th Street, Juan Levy, Francis John Kakos, Architect and Michael Morris, Owner. Mr. Levy presented plans to add a third story to the two-story rear "L"s of these rowhouses. The rear sections face onto Waverly and Addison Streets, both of which are lined with rowhouses. These particular houses were altered previously with inappropriate aluminum windows and modern doors prior to the Historical Commission's jurisdiction. The Committee recommended an approval,
third story to the two-story rear "L"s of these rowhouses. The rear sections face onto Waverly and Addison Streets, both of which are lined with rowhouses. These particular houses were altered previously with inappropriate aluminum windows and modern doors prior to the Historical Commission's jurisdiction. The Committee recommended an approval, contingent upon staff review of the specifications of the proposed alterations. Curtis Center, 6th and Walnut Streets, Brian Henning, Oldham and Seltz Architects, Marita Osborne, Kevin F. Donahue. Mr. Henning presented a proposal to convert an existing window on the 7th Street facade into a new tenant entrance. This work involves cutting an existing granite watertable and installing new marble infill panels, as well as using new wood and glass doors and transom in a wood frame. Bronze letters applied to the facia were proposed to identify the tenant. The Committee asked if the applicants intended to install any additional doors on the Seventh Street facade. The applicants informed the Committee that at this time there ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 7 30 November 1989 were no plans for additional entrances. The Committee recommended an approval contingent upon the understanding that it would not approve any other door except for one in a similar position on the other side of the main gate in order to maintain the symmetry of the facade. Dickens Inn, 2nd and Pine Streets, Edward Taraskus, Esq. The applicant proposed the enlargement and enclosure of an existing wood deck at the rear of Dickens Inn, 411 S. 2nd Street. The deck, constructed of aluminum with wood trim and vertical siding, would face onto the interior courtyard at New Market. The Committee recommended a final approval. Chestnut Street, 900 block, Robert Brown, Architect, Geddes Brecher Qualls Cunningham. Mr. Levy abstained from the discussion and from voting on the recommendation of the Committee. At its meeting of 8 November, 1989, the Historical Commission reviewed a preliminary proposal for a health care complex on the south side of the 900 block of Chestnut Street. The plan for this development was presented in two phases. Phase I development would occur in the center of the block, and Phase II at each of the two corners. This development will involve alterations to the three buildings proposed for designation, located at 920-922, 926 and 930 Chestnut Street. The designation of these buildings will be discussed and voted upon at the Commission meeting in December. At
of the block, and Phase II at each of the two corners. This development will involve alterations to the three buildings proposed for designation, located at 920-922, 926 and 930 Chestnut Street. The designation of these buildings will be discussed and voted upon at the Commission meeting in December. At the 8 November meeting, the Commission advised the development team to present its proposal to the Architectural Committee for review. Mr. Brown outlined the interests of the development team in this project: the usefulness of the structure, the preservation of the facades, the problems and possibilities of retaining the Bundy building, and the set-back of the new structure. After a survey of the interiors, the team concluded that the interiors were deteriorated, and of no architectural value. Having studied the existing floor- ceiling heights in comparison to those desired for modern medical practices, Mr. Brown proposed a floor height scheme which would maintain the continuity between the front facades and the proposed new interiors. This scheme would allow fourteen (14) feet for the first three floors, while reducing the fourth floor to a height of twelve feet, eight inches, (12'8"). While this scheme could be adapted for the three buildings proposed for designation, as well as for 924 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 8 30 November 1989 Chestnut, it would not be suited for the Bundy Building. He also explained that the taller structure would be set- back between thirty and forty feet from the building line of Chestnut Street. The proposed new taller portion of the structure will be set-back to retain a sense of the mass of the designated structures as separate buildings. Before requesting a vote on a recommendation, Mr. Hollenberg reviewed the situation. He reminded the other members that three of the buildings had been nominated for designation and would be voted on at the December meeting of the Commission. The Committee stressed the importance of the rhythm of the streetscape, and encouraged the applicants to explore the feasibility of retaining the facade of the Bundy Building. The Committee commended the applicants for their presentation. The Committee recommended an approval in concept, with the following points understood as conditions of approval: - incorporation of a reduced floor-ceiling height, twelve feet, eight inches, (12'8") where necessary to maintain the continuity between the front facades and the proposed new interiors, - a set-back of the new taller construction to retain the
approval in concept, with the following points understood as conditions of approval: - incorporation of a reduced floor-ceiling height, twelve feet, eight inches, (12'8") where necessary to maintain the continuity between the front facades and the proposed new interiors, - a set-back of the new taller construction to retain the sense of the mass of the three buildings nominated for designation as separate structures; further that the set-back provide a sight-line of forty-five degrees. 521 S. Leithgow Street, Kay Githens, applicant. The applicant previously appeared before the Committee after a Stop Work Order was issued for a roof top addition under construction without a permit. The proposal, at that time, was to construct a shed "airplane" addition. The Committee requested that the addition be pulled back from the front wall so that it would not be visible from the street. The applicant redesigned the addition with the recommended set-back. However, a sight line study indicates that it will be visible. The applicant also proposed to glaze the entrance opening under her marble stoop for use as a shop window, and to install a single-pane show window in the basement window of the house. The applicant clarified that the basement window would not be enlarged, though she would like to install iron security bars in front of it. Finally, she proposed multi-pane windows on the other floors. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 9 30 November 1989 Members voted to recommend an approval in concept of the upper floor wood windows with true muntins; this approval was contingent upon the review and approval, by the staff, of shop drawings. Regarding the window under the stair, the Committee voted to recommend an approval in concept, contingent upon the set- back of the window from the face of the marble stoop, and upon the review and approval, by the Committee, of a detailed drawing. Mr. Levy suggested that the applicant use marble for a sill instead of brick. The Committee voted to recommend approval in concept of the replacement of the basement window, contingent upon the use of a three-over-three true-muntin window. The Committee discouraged the installation of security bars and informed the applicant that it would not approve the installation of exterior bars. They stated that the use of a true-muntin window offered a degree of security. The members suggested the installation of a window with bars on the inside aligned with the muntins, if desired.
of security bars and informed the applicant that it would not approve the installation of exterior bars. They stated that the use of a true-muntin window offered a degree of security. The members suggested the installation of a window with bars on the inside aligned with the muntins, if desired. The Committee expressed concern regarding the width of the proposed dormer and requested further clarification from Ms. Githens. She indicated that it would not extend to the party wall. The Committee recommended placement of the dormer flush with the chimney, and not to project beyond the chimney line. This placement would provide adequate weather protection and reduce visibility of the dormer. The Committee voted to recommend an approval in concept for the dormer, subject to the aforementioned conditions. Mr. Hollenberg offered a summary of the Committee recommendations. The Committee recommended an approval in concept of the proposed dormer, subject to the condition that the face of the dormer align with the face of the chimney. The Committee approval was also contingent upon the submittal of shop drawings of the proposed dormer. Further, the Committee recommended an approval in concept of the proposed facade alterations subject to the submission of shop drawings for all windows, and re-design of the basement window to a multi-paned, double-hung sash. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Daniel W. Simcox, Executive Secretary