Vargas, you heard my representations to the board today?
Correct, yes.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief?
Yes. And you adopt them as your own testimony.
Correct. And Mr. Chair, I do have
Adam Dens, who is our design professional, available for any
questions, should the board have any. Okay. So questions from the
board? No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Questions or comments from the
virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Good morning, Chair. Ian Hegarty for
the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Ian Hegarty, I-A-N-H-E-G-A-R-T-Y. Right. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Proceed. Thank
you. Good morning, everyone. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA3
single family zoning at this location however the proposed dimensions are extremely similar to those
of the adjoining attached building consistent with the surrounding neighborhood we further
believe that the variance for parking is the minimum necessary to enable viable economic
use of the property and is also consistent with development patterns on this and surrounding
blocks city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance thank you
mr ward talk to hillary beforehand we're going to close the record on this
except for a follow-up letter from the RCO
and we're going to give it 30 days.
Is that right?
Yeah, I discussed this with Hillary via email
suggesting that maybe we could be given time
to provide them the rendering that they so requested
and that we have no objection to that request.
Okay. All right, Hillary?
Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Case number eight.
MI-2022-003-547-2321 North Ford Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Mr. Anastasio has been promoted.
Thank you.
Good morning, sir.
Could you spell your name, please?
state your name and spelled for the court reporter. Sure, it's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. So let me read this into the record. All testimony and evidence from the October 14,
2020 hearing before the ZBA on this matter is incorporated into the record for this hearing.
This hearing is limited to the presentation of testimony from the project architect as per
December 22, 2021, remand order from the Court of Comma, please. No public testimony will be
taken. Do we have your architects here? I do. Can I please have Mr. Logan Dry be promoted as panelist?
Do we see his hand?
Yes, I see him. I'm promoting him now.
Okay, thank you.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Sure. First name's Logan, L-O-G-A-N. Last name's Dry, D-R-Y.
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
i do proceed counsel thank you mr dry are you the designer for the current set of plans that
we are submitting today yes and please tell the board how they slightly differ original set of
plans uh we basically looked at the uh previous refusal which i believe was for a five foot
side yard setback and the previous iteration only had a three foot side yard so we basically
took the existing building envelopes we you know kept them exactly the same as what was previously
proposed we reduced the number of residential units inside them and then we just slid one of
the buildings over you know towards the center of the property two feet so that we have you know
the required five-foot setback for the side yard in a CMX 2.5 zoning. Everything else in terms of
site design, building height, you know, etc. remained exactly the same. We just
rearranged the insides to get, you know, a lower number of units and slid one of the buildings over
to be in compliance with the side yard requirement. Okay, so just to be clear, we were before the
Zoning Board for two reasons. There was a referral for having two mid-sized buildings on the same
lot, which required a special exception, and there was a refusal for the side yard needing
of variance. Based on what you've just testified, is it correct that the need for a variance has
now been completely eliminated? Correct, because the only variance we were seeking was for that
side yard that was formerly not in compliance but with the redesign is within compliance of five
feet. Okay and I just want to walk through the four points on the proviso plan. Also as you said
the side yard has changed making it removing the zoning refusal. Also there is a reduction in lot
coverage reduced from 49.1 to 45 percent. Is that correct? Correct. And also a proposed increase in
open area from 50.9 to 55 percent. Is that correct? Correct. And finally, a proposed reduction further
in the number of units from 48 units to 36 units now. Is that correct? Correct. And that was
basically just to make the units that were inside the building a little bit larger, a little bit
more livable than what was previously proposed. Very good. Now, having obviated the need for
dimensional variance. Architecturally, is this no different than what one would expect on such
a property of this size, in your opinion? In my opinion, it's probably underdeveloped,
but I would say the reason for the particular massing and the multiple buildings on the lot
has a lot to do with the existing building that sits towards the back of the lot. So,
So, you know, because it's historic, you know, we have to work around that and do something that, you know, sort of allowed for development while still featuring and not blocking the existing building on the site.
You know, compared to what CMX 2.5, you know, ordinarily permits, you know, we could build at least 10 to 15 feet higher, much more dense with units.
But again, you know, based on the site constraints, you know, we have to be a little bit more respectful based upon the existing building on site and, you know, doing something that didn't cover up, you know, sort of the existing courtyard and existing historic building that's on site.
So your testimony is that this proposed development actually has less impact than a similarly situated property would be expected to have. Is that right?
Absolutely.
Okay. I have nothing further.
Does does anyone on the board have a question for the architect?
No, Chair. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, should I have my client adopt my presentation?
You can have your client adopt the architectural testimony.
Thank you. It should be in the audience if you could raise his hand.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hi, good morning. My name is Itai Argaman. E-T-A-I. My last name is A-R-G-A-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Argaman, did you hear what was presented before the board this morning?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, having redesigned the project, eliminating the need to seek a variance, we
Mr. Chair having redesigned the project eliminating the need to seek a variance
we are left with just a special exception the elements for which we have met both today and
prior testimony and for which demonstrable opposition is just not part of the record
and it is that record of the previous hearing that is being folded into this record and I
thank you for that and therefore I ask that this special exception be granted.
planning commission
thank you chair
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission
board members the
proposed use would have no more of an impact
than would be expected at this location and therefore
meets the requirements for the granting
of a special exception city planning recommends
that the board grant the special exception
thank you counsel the vote
on this matter is being held for the
preparation of supplemental
findings of fact and conclusions
of law that will be incorporated through proviso into the board decision.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Case number one, MI-2022-001-308, 8330 Millman Street, call Promovero and Paul Boney, please.
Mr. Primavera has been promoted.
Good morning, Mr. Primavera.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Carl Primavera, P-R-I-M-A-B-E-R-A, with my colleague Melanie Lacey, L-A-C-E-Y.
we're here for the applicant David Lockhart. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Good morning, Mr. Bonney.
Could you please spell for the court reporter? Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Paul Bonney,
B-O-N-I, and I represent Joan and Brooke Lau, L-A-U. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. So where we are, direct examination
of Joe Lau, right? And then it'll be crossed by Mr. Primavera, and then redirect Mr. Bonius.
Am I correct? That's correct, Mr. Chair. We have five new exhibits, and if I could,
I can breeze through them in one minute. Sure. Less than one minute. And then I would
um present my sole witness uh whose test whose direct testimony will take less than 10 minutes
okay thank you and then uh i uh the only other part of our case is closing argument which we
hope we can deliver orally today uh but if the board chooses we could submit it in writing
I, I, unless I'm, I, you know, we'll, we'll talk to you about that, but I think Mr. Primavera has already said his statement, his closing statement. Am I right, Mr. Primavera?
That's correct.
Okay. And so Mr. Boney, if, Bonnie, if you want to send your statement in the same way, it's, it's, it's okay. Or if you want to take a few minutes and, and deliver it, that's also okay. Okay.
Okay. Let, let's cross that bridge when we get to it.
if you don't mind. Okay. All right. Okay. Let's see how quickly we can be. We've
really prepared a lot to try and make this go quickly. Okay. Good. Thank you. I'm going to
share my screen. Okay. These are our new exhibits and very quickly, exhibit BB is a collage of
photographs. Exhibit CC and DD are two more sources of information about the Venturi house,
which include quotes from Robert Venturi himself stating that the house was designed for his
mother, quote, as an elderly widow with her bedroom on the ground floor, and also, quote,
for a maidservant and the possibility of a nurse. As you probably recall, this adds to our previous
information about all the people that lived in the house. And moving on, we have our last two
exhibits, which are excerpts from the city's comprehensive plan. First, the 2011 citywide
vision contained in exhibit EE. And second, the 2018 Upper Northwest District Plan contained in
exhibit FF. And with that, I would like to call Ms. Lal to the witness stand.
Ms. Lau, to the witness stand.
If she could be activated.
Ms. Lau, you're allowed to speak?
Good morning, Ms. Lau.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Hi, can you hear me?
We can.
Great.
My name is Joan Lau, J-O-A-N-L-A-U.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Good morning, Ms. Lau, and please introduce yourself to the board very quickly.
Yes, good morning, and good morning to the members of the board.
I'm Joan Lau, and I'm the CEO of a gene therapy company located in West Philadelphia.
and along with my wife Brooke and our daughter our family has lived at 8336 Millman for over
six years. Thank you. Ms. Lau, explain very briefly why you moved to your current house.
Sure. Years ago we lived around the corner on Gravers Lane. We had a daughter and we wanted
a bigger house. So we found it here on Millman Street. Thank you. You've heard everything I said
in my opening statements, and you've seen the exhibits we've submitted, some of which you and
I both collected at the library. And of course, Exhibit R, which contains a statement that you
wrote. And so I ask you, do you adopt all of that as your own and as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Among the exhibits that we've shown in the past, you'll remember, and I think the board will remember this too,
we showed numerous photos of the beautiful interior of the applicant's house, including the marble floor, the beautiful living room, etc.
And I'd like to ask you, have you ever been inside that house?
uh yes and when uh mr lockhart uh hosted two of the rco meetings inside his house
um and as you say it's beautiful inside it's it's very open with a great floor plan and lots of
windows it feels it feels spacious um such that for one of those rco meetings one of the two
there were 12 people in attendance all sitting quite comfortably and we were spread out because
of COVID. Ms. Lau from living next door to Mr. Lockhart for several years it's fair to say that
you observed him living there? Yes he seems to love it he has people over it's a great functional
house. Let's talk about the two parcels yours and his I'm going to show you an aerial view of the
parcels. Mr. Chairman, all of these exhibits are already submitted for the board. You've seen
all of them. I've just pulled out a few for this direct examination. So this first slide that
we're showing is from the applicant's exhibits, and it shows the two properties, Millman Street
on the bottom left and a diagonal, and then the applicant's property shaded in blue. You can see
off of Millman the applicant has a pretty long driveway leading back to his existing house and
in the corner of his property he has a small shed right where my cursor is. My client's house is my