l _J REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Robert Thomas, Chair Commission Conference Room, One Parkway, 13th Fl., 1515 Arch St. 23 February 1999 Present Robert Thomas, Chair Tony Atkin J. William Cornell Suzanne Pentz Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Elizabeth Harvey, Historic Preservation Planner R. Scott Jacob, Executive Secretary Laura Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Mark Zecca, Esq., Deputy City Solicitor Also Aliki Strakes, Preservation Alliance David Schaaf, City Planning Commission William Burke, Art Commission Mark Wieland, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects John Thrower, Bower Lewis Thrower Architects Carl Dranoff Mark Wade Joanne Philips, Esq., Ballard Spahr Andrews and Ingersol, Attorneys Patricia Aden, Preservation Alliance Matthew DeJulio, Society Hill Civic Association (SHCA) Ruthanne Madway, East of Broad Improvement Association Ellen Miller, SH CA Elizabeth Armour, SHCA Lorna Katz, SHCA Robert DeHaven, Robert M. DeHaven Architect Joshua Bernstein, Esq. Craig Klofach, Deland Junker McCauley Nicholson Architects (DJMN) Mark Deland, UJMN Kenneth Kulick, Amtrack Nicole Westerman, Capital Programs Office Yves Gauthier, Kieran, Timberlake and Harris Architects Sarah Elk, Pennsylvania Prison Society Lenore Millhollen, Center City Residence Association (CCRA) Sherman Aronson, Dan Peter Kopple Associates Amy Sherwood Dyan Krajnikovich Pamela Diaconis John Collins, Delta Group Garth Connor, Environmental Protection Agency Janet Potter, Foundation for Architecture Joseph Alteari, DAS Architects Christopher Beardsley, Christopher Beardsley Architect Edward Palmer, G. Niles Bolton, Architect Judith Eden, CCRA George Manos, George Manos Architect Vincent Cho William G. Schwartz, Esq., Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell and Rippel, LLP, Attorneys Jessica Yen, Rittenhouse Row Kris Seedorff, Campbell Thomas and Company Cary Barish Jay Barish George O'Connell, Esq. Geoffrey Jarvis, Esq., Sprague and Sprague Attorneys Alexander Messinger Susan Newman Dana Heigy, WHYY Shawn Evans Lisa Armstrong, Armstrong Kaulbach Architects Frederick Kaulbach, Armstrong Kaulbach Architects Charles Mottershed Caroline Pitts, National Park Service (NPS) William Bolger NP S William Menke Lauren Bornfriend, Friends of Philadelphia Parks Beth Ounsworth, Friends of Philadelphia Parks Kelly McCabe, AIA Philadelphia Claire Donato, Mark B. Thompson Associates, Fairmount Water Works Edward Grusheski, Philadelphia Water Department, Fairmount Water Works Amy Freitag, Fairmount Park Commission Theresa Stuhlman, Fairmount Park Commission Stephanie Craighead, Fairmount Park Commission Mark Thompson Victoria Steiger, Schusterman and Steiger Heidi Schusterman, Schusterman and Steiger Michael N aim, South Street Design Company Ernesta Ballard, Commissioner, Fairmount Park Commission Mr. Thomas recognized a quorum and called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. 2 700-718 Walnut Street; 201-219 South 18th Street Samuel Rappaport Family
Mark Thompson Victoria Steiger, Schusterman and Steiger Heidi Schusterman, Schusterman and Steiger Michael N aim, South Street Design Company Ernesta Ballard, Commissioner, Fairmount Park Commission Mr. Thomas recognized a quorum and called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. 2 700-718 Walnut Street; 201-219 South 18th Street Samuel Rappaport Family Estate, Owner John Thrower, Architect/Applicant DATES: 1868; 1898 700-710 Walnut Street c. 1807 712-716 Walnut Street c. 1950 718 Walnut Street 1961; 1969 201-219 South 8th Street PROPOSAL: Partial demolition and complete demolition; build residential tower Review in concept This submission for a Review in Concept proposes the mixed use development of the entire block bounded by Seventh Street, Walnut Street, Eighth Street, and St. James Street. It includes the adaptive reuse of the PSFS Complex, the consrruction of a nearly forty-story luxury residential high-rise with approximately 320 to 325 rental units, parking on the western portion of the parcel and the creation of an entry court off St. James Street. It will preserve three houses of York Row to a depth of fifteen feet. The Committee and Commission approved in concept a comparable proposal by a different architect and developer in 1995. John Thrower, architect for the proposal, described the locations of different aspects of the proposal. He stated that the front exteriors of the existing group of historic buildings at the northeast corner of Walnut and 7th Streets will remain intact and restored. Addison Hutton, Frank Furness and George Howe, some of Philadelphia's most celebrated architects, each designed sections of these former Philadelphia Savings Fund Society (PSFS) buildings. Mr. Thrower explained that the Walnut Street Theater has expressed an interest in occupying a portion of these structures with a "studio theater." He stated that the developers of this proposal eagerly anticipate working with the Walnut Street Theater and incorporating it into the new use. Committee and community members recognized the importance of restoring and reusing these neglected and highly significant strUctures. The proposal will entail the demolition of several additions in the interior of the block to make way for the entry court off of St. James Street. The proposal will also include substantial demolition of the three remaining houses of York Row. Mr. Thrower explained that their earlier proposal called for the demolition of everything except for the skins of the facades, but discussions with Historical Commission staff resulted in the scheme to retain the front fifteen
The proposal will also include substantial demolition of the three remaining houses of York Row. Mr. Thrower explained that their earlier proposal called for the demolition of everything except for the skins of the facades, but discussions with Historical Commission staff resulted in the scheme to retain the front fifteen feet. The proposal calls for the complete demolition of a mid- twentieth century building on the corner of Walnut and South 8th Streets and another building on the east side of South 8th Street. Mr. Baron read a statement from Penelope Batcheler asking the applicant to preserve the three rowhouses back to the roof ridge so they still read as houses, and not awkward fragments. Committee and community members echoed Ms. Batcheler's concerns, and expressed concern that the demolition of the corner building will exaggerate that awkwardness. Mr. Baron asked the applicant to consider bringing a section of the new construction up to the sidewalk line along Walnut Street to conceal the side of the westernmost rowhouse, to enhance the illusion of its completeness. 3 Several members of the community opposed the height of the proposed residential tower, as well as the parking garage that will occupy the lower levels of the structure. Bernice Hamel, representing the Society Hill Civic Association, called for a ten-level reduction of the tower, including the exclusion of at least one level of the parking garage. Committee members thought the windows of the Tower's first floor appeared too diminutive for the base of such a large-scale building. Mr. Atkin suggested raising the lobby level windows and creating a building face to accentuate the first floor of the tower. Lorna Katz, a resident of Society Hill, asked the applicant to ensure that the garage portion, i.e. lower levels, of the tower relate to the neighboring buildings. Mr. Thrower stated that he designed the garage windows in an orthogonal manner to hide the garage ramps and to correlate with the neighboring buildings. He intends to use facing materials that complement both the brick of the rowhouses and the granite of the old bank buildings. Other members of the community noted that the increased population density generated by this tower and other new projects on South 8th Street such as Disney Quest and additions to Pennsylvania Hospital, necessitates careful consideration of aspects that may create traffic congestion. Carl Dranoff, the developer of the site, responded that the project
the community noted that the increased population density generated by this tower and other new projects on South 8th Street such as Disney Quest and additions to Pennsylvania Hospital, necessitates careful consideration of aspects that may create traffic congestion. Carl Dranoff, the developer of the site, responded that the project could not work without the proposed height of the tower and the number of parking spaces owing to the spatial constraints of the site. He also asserted his preference to leave the corner of Walnut and 8th Streets open, but was willing to compromise. In response to community concern over traffic congestion, Mr. Dranoff explained that the rear court off of St. James Street will serve as the main vehicular entrance. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval in concept of 1. Demolition of the miscellaneous additions at the rear of the PSFS buildings. 2. Partial demolition of the rowhouses along Walnut Street with a retention and restoration to a depth of fifteen feet. 3. Demolition of the building at the corner of Walnut and 8th Streets) conditioned upon the construction of a clearly contemporary building in its place) with details submitted for approval. 4. Demolition of the garage/office along South 8th Street. 5. The proposed facade treatment for the new construction) with the lobby level windows raised to accentuate the first floor of the tower 6. The proposed height of the residential tower and parking garage. 1115-1131 Market Street, Reading Terminal Headhouse, Red Bell Brewery, at Filbert Street Redevelopment Authority, Owner Robert DeHaven, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1895 PROPOSAL: Neon blade signs This proposal involves installing two blade signs to mark the Red Bell Brewery. The applicant explained that the new sign scheme will provide greater visibility from the sidewalk under the Filbert Street overpass, and addresses design requests from the Art Commission. The Committee did not object to the new signs, or the method of installation. The architect for the proposal asked the Committee to review a new aspect in the development stage involving the already approved relocation of the Filbert Street entrance to the adjacent bay. The architect asked 4 _) whether it he could use salvaged stone that will not match the joint pattern of the existing, or use new stone that may not match the existing stone's color. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of 1. The signage 2. Relocating the Filbert Street entrance) using
asked 4 _) whether it he could use salvaged stone that will not match the joint pattern of the existing, or use new stone that may not match the existing stone's color. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of 1. The signage 2. Relocating the Filbert Street entrance) using salvaged masonry. 421 Spruce Street Mark Wade, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1950 - facade PROPOSAL: Reface facade This proposal involves a complete refacing of a mid twentieth century facade. The existing facade consists of multicolored, tapestry brick features and wood multipane sash windows. The architect proposes a new facade of stucco, scored to resemble masonry. The new elongated windows will contain casement type sash. Mr. 'Baron suggested the Committee recommend approval because the current facade contributes to the district only in terms of scale and rhythm and the proposed design will maintain that contribution. Mr. Baron read a statement from Penelope Batcheler asking the applicant to reduce the size of the faux ashlar blocks created by scoring the stucco, or to consider refacing the building in red brick to correlate with the neighboring facades. Mr. Baron noted that another withe of brick would stick out too far, and a thin brick veneer will appear artificial. Committee members preferred stucco to a brick veneer. Bernice Hamel of the Society Hill Civic Association suggested tinting the stucco to approximate the color of the neighboring bricks. The applicant stated that he intends to tint the stucco a creamy beige color to complement the stuccoed synagogue across the street. The Committee thought staff could approve the final color. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval) with staff to review and approve details. 311 Lawrence Court John DiTunno, Owner Robert LaRouche, Applicant DATE: 1970 PROPOSAL: Fourth-floor greenhouse This proposal involves enclosing a fourth floor roof deck as a greenhouse. The Commission approved the concept of the greenhouse at their December meeting but asked the Committee to review the design. The applicant presented two designs options, and stated that the owner prefers the scheme with the steeper roof pitch. Committee members agreed that the steeper pitch of the glass-top roof allows water runoff to keep the windows clean. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the design scheme with the steeper pitch. 5 500 West Willow Grove Avenue, Chestnut Hill Academy Chestnut Hill Academy, Owner Craig Klofach, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1882-1884 PROPOSAL: Addition This application calls
the glass-top roof allows water runoff to keep the windows clean. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the design scheme with the steeper pitch. 5 500 West Willow Grove Avenue, Chestnut Hill Academy Chestnut Hill Academy, Owner Craig Klofach, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1882-1884 PROPOSAL: Addition This application calls for demolishing an incompatible addition and building a larger, more compatible addition for the Art Department. Mr. Baron recommended pulling the entrance pavilion back to reveal the corner of the historic U-shaped building. Mr. Atkin expressed concern that the proposed addition will obscure the historic Math Department Addition. Mark Deland, architect for the proposal, noted that a gated service court between the old and new additions will allow for increased visibility of the former. He explained that the school chose this location to replace some less compatible additions that also partially obscured the Math Addition. Committee members discussed the appropriateness of the materials proposed for the new addition, and reminded the architects that the new construction should not resemble the historic building to closely. The Committee thought the shingled, top portion should extend farther down the facade to complement the historic building more. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the new addition) with the shingled) top portion to extend farther down of the facade) with staff to review and approve details. 2125 Fairmount Avenue, Eastern State Penitentiary City of Philadelphia, Owner Nicole Westerman, Capital Programs Office, Applicant DATE: 1829; c. 1850 - addition at end of subject cell block PROPOSAL: Temporary roof This proposal involves demolishing the non-historic second story of one of the cell blocks and installing a temporary roof that covers over the skylights, the cell block and the former exercise yards. Mr. Baron noted that the cost of the correct historical roof would be approximately 1/5 to 1/2 more than this temporary roof. He suggested that the money would perhaps be better used to restore a portion of the roof accurately rather than to build a temporary roof that will need to be removed later, and asked the applicants to try raise the extra $100,000 for a correct, permanent roof rather than waste over $400,000 on a temporary one. Sally Elk of the Pennsylvania Prison Society explained that the Society plans to undertake some costly interpretive improvements in this cell block) and the existing roof condition jeopardizes that project, as well as the historic fabric
for a correct, permanent roof rather than waste over $400,000 on a temporary one. Sally Elk of the Pennsylvania Prison Society explained that the Society plans to undertake some costly interpretive improvements in this cell block) and the existing roof condition jeopardizes that project, as well as the historic fabric in general. She stated that the temporary roof could last up to twenty years. She described the prison's necessity of using the limited funds to their best advantage, which, she maintained, the temporary roof constitutes. Ms. Elk proposed setting the new roof back slightly, to mitigate its appearance. The Committee thought that improved the proposal. 6 .) J Mr. Baron suggested restoring a small piece of the prison so that the organization could show some progress to the funding agencies. He also asked if the central rotunda, which constitutes the most singular aspect of the penitentiary, merits earlier restoration than the arms, of which there are several. Ms. Elk confirmed plans to restore the rotunda eventually. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal) with the roof set back) and staff to review and approve details. 2931 Market Street, 30th Street Station Amtrak, Owner Sherman Aronson, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1929-1934 PROPOSAL: New signage This proposal calls for installing new signage on the traffic islands around the train station. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 233 Bainbridge Street Amy Sherwood, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1830; c. 1920 - facade PROPOSAL: Cover over yard This proposal calls for covering over a rear yard to create an addition. The addition faces a courtyard of houses. This proposal may require a zoning variance. The Committee did not object . The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 215 Lombard Street W. M. Garage Associates, Owner Joseph Alteari, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1977-1981 PROPOSAL: Storefront alterations; cafe doors This proposal calls for installing a coffee shop in a set of modern nondescript storefronts. The windows will now operate as doors. Committee members expressed some minor objections to the tiled panels at the bases of the widows, but agreed to recommend approval as submitted. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. 7 2116 Pine Street, at se corner of Van Pelt Street Christopher Beardsley, Owner/ Architect/ Applicant DATE: C. 1870 PROPOSAL: Demolish rear addition; new garage; roof deck; window restoration This proposal calls for the demolition of a one story addition on the back of this
voted unanimously to recommend approval. 7 2116 Pine Street, at se corner of Van Pelt Street Christopher Beardsley, Owner/ Architect/ Applicant DATE: C. 1870 PROPOSAL: Demolish rear addition; new garage; roof deck; window restoration This proposal calls for the demolition of a one story addition on the back of this corner property to create a parking space with a new garage gate. The owner proposes to restore windows on the side facade that a former owner had altered. He also proposes a roof deck on the top of the building with a rail constructed of steel and canvas. The staff recommendation called for a paneled fence-like gate and a roof deck made much less visible. The Committee recommended eliminating the screening at the base of the proposed deck, and using steel supports, painted a dark color to mitigate their appearance, to reveal the slope of the roof. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of 1. The demolition of the rear addition. 2. The garage gate 3. Window restoration The Committee voted unanimously to recommend preliminary approval of the roof deck) using steel supports) painted a dark color to mitigate their appearance) to reveal the slope of the roof; applicant to return for final approval. Judith Eden of the Center City Residents Association objected to the proposed garage door after the Committee voted. She will restate her objections at the next Commission meeting. 1709 Walnut Street Green Village Food Market, Owner George Manos, Architect/ Applicant DATE: C. 1928 PROPOSAL: Storefront alterations This proposal calls for installing a flush fire door in the eastern most bay of this storefront facade and covering it with a photo mural. The architect also proposes a logo attached to the parapet wall at the top of the building. Mr. Baron stated that the Commission staff opposes the photomural. Committee members asked the applicant to install a second door and side light similar to those on the other end of the facade instead of the mural. They suggested incorporation of the mural behind the glass of the second doorway and sidelight. Commission members inquired about the elongated light fixture above the proposed logo on the parapet. George Manos, architect for the proposal, explained that the long fixture will provide the desired uniform light over the logo. Mr. Atkin asked the applicant to use a more discrete lighting scheme, and suggested using multiple small gooseneck lamps. The
elongated light fixture above the proposed logo on the parapet. George Manos, architect for the proposal, explained that the long fixture will provide the desired uniform light over the logo. Mr. Atkin asked the applicant to use a more discrete lighting scheme, and suggested using multiple small gooseneck lamps. The Committee requested the applicant return to staff with a new lighting proposal for review and approval. 8 Judith Eden of the Center City Residents Association stated that at a recent Zoning Committee meeting the applicant agreed to limit the signage to one blade sign, and to delete the photomural and logo sign from the proposal. Jessica Yen stated that Rittenhouse Row objects to the current proposal. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposal as submitted) and to approve: 1. A second) glass and metal door and side light similar to those on the other end of the facade instead of the mural) with no exterior hardware. 2. The logo) with staff to review and approve details of the lighting scheme. 1807 Delancey Street Martin Weinberg, Owner Joseph Graci, Contractor/ Applicant William Schwartz, Esq., Counsel for Owner DATE: c. 1864; c. 1890 - facade alterations PROPOSAL: Rear garage and deck This proposal calls for the addition of a garage and deck at the rear of this Delancey Street house. Mr. Baron recommended the applicant use six-over-six, true divided light windows, rather than the nine-over-nine sash shown in the submission. The applicant agreed to comply. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal) six-over-six) "true divided light windows) with staff to review and approve details. 1509 Walnut Street Avado Brands, Incorporated, Owner William Palmer, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1902 PROPOSAL: Signage This proposal calls for revised signage for this pizza restaurant including two metal stars with internal illumination. Committee members objected to the illumination of the sign. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval) without the illumination. 1839 Spruce Street, a.k.a. 275 South 19th Street, Rittenhouse Place Rittenhouse Place Condominium Association, Owner of building's common areas and facade Cary Borish, Co-owner of ground-floor restaurant condominium unit/Applicant DATE: 1924 PROPOSAL: Ramp Mr. Thomas recused himself from the discussion and the vote owing to his architectural firm's affiliation with the proposal. 9 This proposal calls for the installation of an ADA ramp at the Spruce Street entrance to the restaurant. The Committee did not object to the proposal. The remaining
PROPOSAL: Ramp Mr. Thomas recused himself from the discussion and the vote owing to his architectural firm's affiliation with the proposal. 9 This proposal calls for the installation of an ADA ramp at the Spruce Street entrance to the restaurant. The Committee did not object to the proposal. The remaining three Committee members voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal. 601-45 Walnut Street, a.k.a. 124-48 South 6th Street, Curtis Building Lobby, Dream Garden Estate of John W. Merriam, Owner Geoffrey Jarvis, Esq., Attorney for owner/Applicant DATE: 1912-1916 - execution of mosaic mural and its installation PROPOSAL: Removal (defined in Ordinance as "Demolition") The applicant submitted a bare Licenses and Inspections permit application to remove the Dream Garden mosaic mural from the lobby of the Curtis Center. The application does not state where the mosaic mural will go, or any other details except for the name of a contractor and a cost estimate. The ordinance defines removal as demolition. Mark Zecca, Deputy City Solicitor, Counsel to the Historical Commission, explained that the staff of the Commission does not think the applicant submitted a complete application. He stated that a letter was sent to the applicant detailing what the Commission requires. Geoffrey Jarvis, Esq., Counsel to the owner of the mural, distributed material at the meeting. Neither the staff nor the Committee had an opportunity to review the material prior to the meeting. Mr. Thomas made a motion to recommend the Commission postpone this matter until such time as staff and Committee members can review the information and respond as appropriate. Mr. Atkin seconded the motion which earned unanimously. 2318 Delancey Street Russell Newman, Owner Alexander Messinger, Architect/ Applicant DATE: 1875 PROPOSAL: Modify rear deck and cut new gate This proposal calls for building a new rear deck and a rear fence facing Fitler Square. The Committee did not object to the deck or fence, but did ask the applicant to withdraw the globe lights from the proposal. The applicant agreed to comply. The Committee also approved a bare wood finish for the work. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal) without the illuminate globe lights) and with a bare wood finish. 1 Vine Street, a.k.a. 300 North Delaware Avenue Penn's Landing Development Corporation, Owner Dominic Aspite, Applicant PROPOSAL: illuminated signage at a parking lot 10 This proposal involves the installation of illuminated signs on this parking lot.
of the proposal) without the illuminate globe lights) and with a bare wood finish. 1 Vine Street, a.k.a. 300 North Delaware Avenue Penn's Landing Development Corporation, Owner Dominic Aspite, Applicant PROPOSAL: illuminated signage at a parking lot 10 This proposal involves the installation of illuminated signs on this parking lot. Mr. Baron stated that the Commission designated this vacant lot as an archeological site with significance as the site of an shipyard from the late seventeenth century into the early nineteenth century. He explained that the staff thought the proposed locations around the periphery will not interfere with the former excavation site. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. Fairmount Water Works City of Philadelphia, Owner Claire Donato, Architect/ Applicant DATE: c. 1812-1872 PROPOSAL: Parking and landscaping Mr. Atkin recused himself from the discussion and the vote. This proposal in concept calls for the lowering of the area of the forebay to expose a portion of the landside wall of the mill house and the masonry bridge and for the reconfiguration of parking within the Water Works complex. For an understanding of the context of this project, the applicant also laid before the Committee the plans to reorganize and expand the parking facilities in the precincts of the Italian fountain, the former Fairmount Avenue and Lloyd Hall. The parking will serve the Waterworks, Lloyd Hall, the Art Museum and general Park usage. Claire Donato, architect for the proposal, explained that other aspects of the proposal involve site developments including a bike paths and landscaping. Ms. Donato described the proposed placement for the parking lots, which includes established as well as new locations. She explained the removal of about 20 parking spaces from the Forebay of the Water Works and near the Italian Fountain. The lots which will lie at the intersection of the Water Works complex, the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Plaisted/Lloyd Hall sites will accommodate about 330 cars. She explained that existing lots currently accommodate 203 cars, so the proposal will only increase the number by about 127 spaces. Ms. Donato described the various landscape elements that should serve to partially screen the cars, including shrubbery and the lower grade of the proposed locations. She also listed the reports conducted over the last decade regarding a need for parking on the site, including; The Cultural Resource Study, Fairmount Park, July 1998, by CLR Design and Orth-Rogers and
should serve to partially screen the cars, including shrubbery and the lower grade of the proposed locations. She also listed the reports conducted over the last decade regarding a need for parking on the site, including; The Cultural Resource Study, Fairmount Park, July 1998, by CLR Design and Orth-Rogers and Associates; Engineering Study for the PMA Landscape Rehabilitation, September 1994, by Pennoni Associates; The PMA Traffic Circulation and Parking Study, November 1993, by Orth-Roberts and Associates; The Plaisted Hall Area Master Plan Phase 1 and Boathouse Row Master Plan Phase 1, September 1992, by Simone and Jaffe, and other related studies of the Water Works and the park. Amy Freitag of the Fairmount Park Commission explained the different levels of significance of the site, and the decision to reduce parking of the Water Works site itself because of its significance to the historic development of the Park. Stephanie Craighead of the Fairmount Park Commission described other proposed parking and signage improvements around Fairmount Park. 11 Several members of the community, including many landscape architects, expressed strong objections to the proposed parking lots along Fairmount Venue and Aquarium Drive. Frederick Kaulbach, an architect, explained that the count of 203 existing parking spaces the park refers to as "existing" actually includes a temporary lot that has not been approved by the Historical or other Commissions. Heidi Schusterman, a landscape architect, thought that construction of that lot a flagrant violation of public trust. Michael Nairn, also a landscape architect, expressed concern over the introduction of a "year 2000 car park" intrusion into a very significant historic landscape. He explained that he worked for Central Park and likened this proposal to the unlikely prospect of using the famed "Sheep Meadow'' there as parking for patrons of the Tavern on the Green. John Collins, another landscape architect, believed the lots too large for the locations, and also asked the applicant to consider non-traditional paving material to mitigate their appearance. Lisa Armstrong expressed the opinion that the Fairmount Avenue lot expansion sits on the site of the Paul Cret designed grounds of the Art Museum, and that the Aquarium Drive parking lot will actually sit on the site of the National Historic Landmark site for Boathouse Row. She also said that she has not had access to all the studies Ms. Donato mentioned as "supporting'' this proposal, but has read the Simone and Jaffee report and
that the Aquarium Drive parking lot will actually sit on the site of the National Historic Landmark site for Boathouse Row. She also said that she has not had access to all the studies Ms. Donato mentioned as "supporting'' this proposal, but has read the Simone and Jaffee report and asserted that it recommend reinitiating paths and keeping open the visual axes to the boathouses rather than parking on the space between the Italian Fountain and the boathouses. She said that this raises questions about the content of the other reports concerning the proposed parking. Ms. Armstrong showed the Committee historic maps to demonstrate that the Aquarium Drive site forms part of the historic Water Works complex. She provided photographs showing the existing temporary lots to demonstrate their low usage and high visual impact on the landscape. Ms. Armstrong explained that the restaurant will use valet parking and that the Art Museum closes by the dinner hour most nights, thus freeing up existing parking spaces for restaurant patrons. Caroline Pitts of the National Historic Landmark Program came from Washington D. C. to say that she finds this proposal as submitted damaging to these National Historic Landmark sites, both the Water Works and the Boathouses. She also stated that there is a Federal involvement, which should prompt a Section 106 review. William Bolger of the National Park Service echoed this opinion, but welcomed the opportunity to examine the plans himself and develop an opinion based on more information. They maintain that the area of the Fairmount Avenue extension and Aquarium Drive constitute sections of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and Lloyd Hall sites. A representative of the Friends of the Azalia Garden of Fairmount Park expressed concern that this parking proposal will resemble something like a supermarket parking lot next to the Azalia Garden, a significant cultural landscape. Kelly McCabe wondered whether further study may shed light on the true need for parking at different hours of the day, and how that need correlates with possibilities such as the Fairmount Park Trolley and the newly proposed Schuylkill Valley Trolleys. Patricia Aden of the Preservation Alliance described the Water Works grounds as a cultural landscape that warrants greater attention and respect than this proposal offers. Ms. Aden stated that the proposal should respond to the character-defining features such as the gardens, fountains, 12 .. ) J J • .. walkways and natural
of the Preservation Alliance described the Water Works grounds as a cultural landscape that warrants greater attention and respect than this proposal offers. Ms. Aden stated that the proposal should respond to the character-defining features such as the gardens, fountains, 12 .. ) J J • .. walkways and natural features. She expressed concern over the impact of the paving and the cars on the landscape and the view corridor from the Museum. Victoria Steiger questioned whether the Beaux Arts layout of the grounds in dispute does not also constitute an historically significant development. She also thought the issue should come before a larger public forum so the community can voice its concerns and views. Ernesta Ballard, a Fairmount Park Commissioner, stated that the Fairmount Park Commission has not reviewed this proposal. William Burke confirmed that the Art Commission has not reviewed the proposal either. Mr. Thomas and .Ms. Pentz voted to recommend approval of the parking lots adjacent to the Fairmount Water Works and the forebay praposal. Mr. Cornell abstained. Mr. Thomas and .Ms. Pentz found that the expansion of parking along and adjacent to Fairmount Avenue and Aquarium Drive requires further study before the Committee can vote on its conceptual approval. Mr. Cornell abstained. Respectfully submitted, ,(7~ R. Scott Jacob ,, Executive Secretary 13