THE MINUTES OF THE 392nd STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 8 March 1995 Stephanie Wolf, Vice Chairperson City Council Caucus Room Room 401 City Hall Present Stephanie Wolf, Vice Chairperson David Brownlee William Candelori Barbara Kaplan, City Planning Commission Arlene Matzkin Stephen Mullin, Commerce Department Susan Rabinovitch Robert Vance, City Planning Commission Peter VanderHeide, Department of Public Property Scott Wilds, Office of Housing and Community Development Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Lori Plavin Salganicoff, Historic Preservation Specialist Jeffrey Barr, Historical Research Technician Also Harry Perks, PA Convention Center Authority Lee Waldron, Grenald Waldron Associates Hyman Myers, Vitetta Group The 392nd Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission was called to order at 10:10am by Wayne Spilove, Chairperson. THE MINUTES of the 391st Stated Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 8 February 1995, Wayne Spilove, Chairperson, were approved by unanimous vote and adopted upon a motion made by Dr. Brownlee and seconded by Mr. Wilds. THE MINUTES of the Special Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission held on 23 February 1995, Wayne Spilove, Chairperson, were approved by unanimous vote and adopted upon a motion made by Dr. Brownlee and seconded by Mr. Wilds. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 392nd Stated Meeting Minutes, Page 2 REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE of 28 February 1995, Arlene Matzkin, Chairperson FAIRMOUNT WATERWORKS ENGINE HOUSE Philippe Daouphars, Applicant PROPOSAL: Conceptual Approval, Window alteration for door opening Architectural Committee Recommendation: The Committee recommended approval in concept of the proposal. The Applicant, Mr. Daouphars, is currently negotiating with the City of Philadelphia for the use of the Engine House as a restaurant. For this use, Mr. Daouphars proposes to create a service door opening by altering a window on the building's south facade. A preliminary design shows the opening filled with a wood paneled door with true divided lights and a transom which matches the upper three lights of adjacent windows. The building is currently mothballed. The Applicant must return to the Commission for further discussion of the door's design. Dr. Brownlee made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wilds, to accept the recommendation of the Committee and approve the proposal in concept. The motion passed by unanimous vote. 149 SOUTH HANCOCK STREET Leonard Ciccotello, Architect Joseph Pacitti, Applicant PROPOSAL: Conceptual Approval, Partial Demolition Architectural Committee Recommendation: Deny the proposal owing to lack of information, with the notation that it would
accept the recommendation of the Committee and approve the proposal in concept. The motion passed by unanimous vote. 149 SOUTH HANCOCK STREET Leonard Ciccotello, Architect Joseph Pacitti, Applicant PROPOSAL: Conceptual Approval, Partial Demolition Architectural Committee Recommendation: Deny the proposal owing to lack of information, with the notation that it would revisit the issue if presented with a more concrete proposal. In this, their second visit to the Commission to discuss the parcels located between Walnut, Sansom, Front and Hancock Streets, the Applicants requested conceptual approval of their proposal to demolish all but the front facade of 149 South Hancock Street. 149 Hancock Street faces west and also has a south- facing alley wall with windows. Both of the other facades were formerly party walls. The parcel to the south of 149 Hancock Street is not under agreement of sale. A similar treatment for the 103-105 and 107-109 Walnut Street parcels was proposed at the 391st Stated Commission Meeting by the same applicant. Mr. Pacitti holds an Agreement of Sale on these Walnut Street buildings. The Commission voted at the 391st Stated Meeting that the Walnut Street buildings should be mothballed until the submission of a more developed proposal. Once presented, the Commission would then reconsider the proposal to demolish most of the buildings. Ms. Matzkin reported that the current request received a negative response from the Committee since they found the proposal to be insufficiently developed. Mr. Tyler recounted that in 1987, the owners of Bookbinder's restaurant came before the Commission with a request for the total demolition of 149 South Hancock Street. At the suggestion of Ms. Kaplan of the Planning Commission and Councilman Street, the Redevelopment Authority acquired the property and entered into an agreement with the Bond House Bed and Breakfast to develop the building as an annex. This plan never materialized, and the building was eventually mothballed by the Redevelopment Authority, which still owns it. Mr. Wilds noted that a lot of work went into saving this building when the demolition threat appeared. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 392nd Stated Meeting Minutes, Page 3 Ms. Wolf added that the Commission has previously considered schemes such as these in concept, but that this project demonstrates well the need for sufficient development of conceptual proposals before they come before the Commission. Mr. Tyler restated the Committee's sentiment that, absent a demonstrable need to demolish all but the Hancock Street facade,
the Commission has previously considered schemes such as these in concept, but that this project demonstrates well the need for sufficient development of conceptual proposals before they come before the Commission. Mr. Tyler restated the Committee's sentiment that, absent a demonstrable need to demolish all but the Hancock Street facade, no support should be given to this proposal. Dr. Brownlee moved to accept the recommendation of the Committee and deny the proposal in concept. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilds and approved by unanimous vote. 1115-1141 MARKET STREET, THE READING TERMINAL MARKET Lee Waldron, Grenald Waldron Associates PROPOSAL: Market Lights Architectural Committee Recommendation: The Committee recommended approval of the placement of the Filbert Street fixtures, and agreed to visit the site to view mockups of the pendant fixtures designed to identify the market entrances. For Twelfth Street fixtures, the Committee adopted a recommendation that includes two preferences. The first preference was that no lighting should be approved for the 12th Street facade, and that the holes drilled without permission should be covered with an appropriate plate. If the Historical Commission determines that the 12th Street facade must be lit, the Committee recommended as a second preference that the Applicant should propose a design for a light that enhances the character of the building. In addition, the Streets Department should be required to hire an historical consultant to assist with that design. The Commission saw this proposal to add lights to the 12th Street facade and Filbert Street walkway at its 391st Stated Meeting and returned it to the Architectural Committee for further consideration at its 28 February meeting with a suggestion for a simplified alternative design. Ms. Matzkin described that greater Committee member attendance at its February meeting resulted in the difference between that meeting's recommendation and the January meeting's recommendation. She reported that while discussing the inappropriateness of globe-shaped fixtures, the question of the desirability of the 12th Street fixtures itself was broached. Dr. Wolf suggested that a motion be placed on the table before discussion takes place. Dr. Brownlee made a motion, seconded by Mr. Vance, to adopt the recommendation of the Architectural Committee. Mr. Wilds stated his recollection that the concept of lighting on the 12th Street facade was broadly supported at the previous Commission meeting. He added that he finds lighting to be a necessity on this facade. Dr. Wolf noted that the second portion
adopt the recommendation of the Architectural Committee. Mr. Wilds stated his recollection that the concept of lighting on the 12th Street facade was broadly supported at the previous Commission meeting. He added that he finds lighting to be a necessity on this facade. Dr. Wolf noted that the second portion of the Committee's motion acknowledged the possibility that Commission members would agree with lighting the facade. She suggested that a separate motion be voted upon to accept or deny the concept of lighting. Ms. Matzkin related the Committee's uneasiness with the shape of the globe fixture, stating that it closely resembles the lights at the Marriot. Mr. Tyler suggested that Harry Perks of the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority be invited to speak about the perceived need for lighting the 12th Street facade. Mr. Perks apologized for the work PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 392nd Stated Meeting Minutes, Page 4 performed without the benefit of a permit. He explained that the original intent was to replace the 1960s light fixtures which were surface mounted. He stated that since the Authority had spent the money available for the Market and since the proposed lighting would illuminate the street and sidewalk to some extent, Mr. Syrnick of the Streets Department offered to pay for the fixtures. They agreed that the power would be drawn from and maintained by Streets Department facilities and that the Convention Center Authority would select fixtures. The lights would give a sense of security to Conventioneers walking from the Convention Center to the Marriot after the Market closes at 6 pm. Mr. Perks described that each agency thought the other would secure the appropriate approvals. He added that any changes to the proposal at this point would incur costs for which the Convention Center Authority would be responsible. The Authority's board has authorized a limited expenditure for their simplification, but not for their complete redesign. Mr. Perks' stated that his consultant, Hyman Myers, thinks that either the ornamented or the simplified 12th Street bracket meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, for neither represents a conjectural historic treatment. Mr. Perks also noted that some elements within the Market dating back to the same period as the c. 1960 12th Street light fixtures were restored with great care, and appealed to Commission members to allow that the lights proposed be installed. Ms. Matzkin restated that the Committee expressed a preference for no
noted that some elements within the Market dating back to the same period as the c. 1960 12th Street light fixtures were restored with great care, and appealed to Commission members to allow that the lights proposed be installed. Ms. Matzkin restated that the Committee expressed a preference for no light over that proposed, and that the greatest objection was to the Marriot-like globe. Mr. Perks responded that this fixture was chosen because the 1960s fixture had the same size and shape globe. Dr. Brownlee agreed that the simplified bracket meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, but stated that it is not a particularly handsome fixture. Committee members commented that the size of the proposed globes seems too small. Dr. Wolf stated that most members of the Commission appear to concur that fixtures on 12th Street are needed and that their design is the only remaining issue. Mr. Perks agreed with Ms. Matzkin's assertion that if the fixtures proposed are rejected, none would be installed at this time. He added, however, that funding for a redesigned fixture may be available at a later time. Mr. Wilds and several other Commission members expressed a preference for the more decorative brackets and maintained that they make a design statement for 1995, not 1893. Wolf reminded Commission members of the motion on the table to accept the concept of installing light fixtures on the 12th Street facade. Mr. Vance called the question. All but Ms. Matzkin voted to reject the recommendation of the Architectural Committee and approve the concept of installing lights on the 12th Street facade of the Reading Terminal Market. Mr. Wilds moved to accept the more decorative lighting fixture design. Mr. VanderHeide seeonded the motion. Dr. Brownlee reiterated that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, which the Commission routinely uses as a guide, counsels against such "faux historic" designs. Stating his concern for the public's perception of consistent Commission behavior, he asserted his preference for the simpler fixture. Mr. Tyler concurred, stating that historic replication would be appropriate if there was a precedent, but that contemporary fixtures fit where no precedent exists. The simplified version would not fool the non- historian as the ornamental fixture might. Ms. Matzkin added that the bracket of the simplified fixture looks less odd in its juxtaposition to the globe. Mr. Wilds called the question. Five Commission members voted in favor of accepting the
no precedent exists. The simplified version would not fool the non- historian as the ornamental fixture might. Ms. Matzkin added that the bracket of the simplified fixture looks less odd in its juxtaposition to the globe. Mr. Wilds called the question. Five Commission members voted in favor of accepting the ornamental fixture design. Ms. Matzkin, Dr. Brownlee, & Mr. Candelori cast the dissenting votes. PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 392nd Stated Meeting Minutes, Page 5 REPORT of the Activities of the Historical Commission Staff, February 1995, Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer. Commission members had no questions about the Report. A motion to adjourn was made by Dr. Brownlee, seconded by Mr. Wilds, and approved by unanimous vote at 11:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lori Plavin Salganicoff