uh thank you um i'm trying my best okay the house is not that old uh ms lyle isn't that correct it
was built in 1964 it was occupied in 1964 it finished completion in late 1963 i believe
okay thank you um it was designed by uh mr venturi for his elderly mother is that correct
I don't know how old Van Aventuri was.
Okay, but for his mother who was a widow at the time, is that correct?
He was a widow.
Okay, and his mother lived there beginning in 1964, is that correct? She moved in in 64?
In 1964.
Okay, and Robert Venturi, the architect, lived with her beginning in 1964, is that correct?
I don't have the answer to that.
The mother lived there until 1973 when it was transferred to the Hughes.
Is that correct?
Are you aware that she was 80 at that time?
I am not aware of her age.
Are you aware from looking at the house over the past year,
whether you're aware are you aware of whether she made any modifications to the house
you know for purposes of accessibility or her her advanced age I am not aware okay
although I can say that I know the plans at the house and I know that what is there is what's
always been there. So if there's a modification, it is slip me. Right. And so the next owners would
be the Hughes. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And they lived there from 1973. And even after Mrs.
Hughes passed, Mr. Hughes continued to live there until 1985. Are you aware of that?
um i i don't know when he was alive and when he passed away i'm not aware okay um i want to um
just quickly flash to the mother's house venturi uh we we just looked up some data and apparently
She was 58 when she moved in in 1964, which put her at 69 when she moved out.
Is that right?
Well, why don't we agree or disagree for the moment?
One of this is not correct.
That's correct.
I agree with you.
So I guess we need to know when her birth date was, when she was born, and then we can
see how old she was in 1973.
So, and then you're aware that after the Hughes, then their daughter lived there for several
years.
I am not aware of the Hughes family transitions, or who lived there during their tenure.
Well, I'll show you the Mother's House book, which your husband owns here on the screen.
And it says Robert and Denise were married in 67.
I'm sorry, on the top.
And April 64, Vanna and Robert moved into the house.
And then Robert even lived there with Denise.
Denise moved in until 67.
So that's where I was coming from with that.
and then and the next page it says um that vana was very happy in the house that her son designed
venturi recalls my mother loved the house and then at the bottom it says uh the house was sold to agassi
And then at the bottom it says, the house was sold to Agatha and Thomas Hughes, who've lovingly cared for the house, lived there happily for the past 19 years.
You don't have any reason to argue with that, do you?
No, I wouldn't.
Okay, I'm going to move on.
I want to look at the building that you are proposing to build.
I've shown the updated drawing that your team submitted a few days ago, just to orient the board and you to what's going on here.
So the lot that's highlighted is your client's lot, Mr. Lockard's lot.
It's a flag lot.
Millman Street is at the bottom.
There's a long driveway, and then the Venturi house is sort of in the middle-ish of the large area in the back.
And the ADU that you're proposing is on the bottom right-hand corner of that back area.
And you can see it right where my cursor is, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Vice Chair and all the other members of the board.
My client lives right here.
You don't see her house on this sketch.
you do see her driveway and a little parking area and her shed I think that's what that square is
so that that's where we are and the distance between our property line and the building that
you're proposing I believe is 12 feet correct okay thank you so now I'm going to go to the next page
which is a larger sketch. I thought it was a larger sketch. Okay, so this is a closer
up of the dwelling unit that you're proposing. And just to orient yourself, so you're showing
two bedrooms on uh two bedrooms and two bedrooms on the right hand side no that's one bedroom and
one bathroom okay one bedroom and bath on the right hand side one bed and one bath on the left
hand side yes and then going back to the middle right there's a living area that you're showing
a piano and a table and then there's a kitchenette and then you're showing this courtyard um is it
fair to say that this is an open area open to the elements it's not an enclosed space it's an
outdoor space and that it has a tree in it it's going to have a very small tree um but it was
inspired by a japanese tree that exists on the site um we're hoping to retain it but if not it
will be a smaller version right that is an open courtyard right it's a notch it's a big it's a
notch in the building for a tree or for some nature.
This is the slide that you showed to the Historical Commission, who asked you to consider
doing without that courtyard. And this was part of the arguments that you and your colleague
put forth to retain the courtyard. And you did say that in item number four, that if you eliminated
that courtyard, you would get a reduction in the size of the building, but you didn't think it was
worth it. And here in the top, you said that it could only be decreased in size, the courtyard
could only be decreased in size by a foot and really not any more than that because
there has to be sufficient separation between the kitchenette and the piano area because
humidity damages pianos. Is that correct?
We've been told by some of the people who are playing the instrument that uncontrolled
humidity can be very damaging to pianos. The minimum size of the courtyard was reduced
and it was reduced to what would make just a barely usable kitchenette. The courtyard was
central to the design of the ADU. It's part of integrating the landscape into the building,
bringing light into the kitchenette, bringing light further into the living space. And it's
something that the client really liked about this particular scene. Right, because in number six,
Right, because in number six, you say he has a great fondness for gardening and taking care of the grounds.
you say he has a great fondness.
But correct me if I'm wrong, the Historical Commission did not tell you that you must have this courtyard.
They said it was okay when you gave them your arguments.
They said it's acceptable.
They actually liked it.
I don't know if that's in the minutes or not, but it was the impression that we got that it was, that they actually liked it at the time.
I understand they liked it.
I'm just saying it's there by your request and their acquiescence, not by their demand.
Correct.
You mentioned in, let me just go to the next page.
Okay. You mentioned in your, in many of your presentations, I think, I think last hearing at
last session, you said that the Vanna Venturi House is not ADA compliant, American with Disabilities
Act compliant. And I'd like to touch on that for a moment. But it sounds like as an architect,
you're well versed in the requirements of the ADA. So my question to you is are you aware
that the ADA applies only to places of public accommodations?
And so that the Venturi House as a private house is not covered by the ADA.
I am completely aware of that. The owner has requested that we make ADA
toilet adjacent to the bedroom in the ADU with anticipation of potentially having an elder
mother there, perhaps, you know, a personal or private reason he may have. So I would assume
that if one is going to take up that much square footage in the ADA rather than living room space,
that it's pretty important to have an ADA-compliant toilet.
Yes, I'm speaking about the Venturi House, though.
That's the one I'm talking about.
If he wants it so bad to lose space in the ADA,
then in the ADU,
then, because it does take up additional square footage,
that it would be equally as important
to have an ADA toilet in the Van Venturi House.
Okay, well, I...
And it is not compliant.
I don't dispute that he wants an ADA compliance in the Venturi House.
All I'm establishing is that that's his preference, not a legal requirement.
That is not a legal requirement.
It's civil law.
It's civil law.
It's not a legal requirement.
The House is not in violation right now of the ADA.
The ADA doesn't apply to the House.
It's a private premises.
That's right.
Okay, thank you. I want to move on to the Historical Commission process that you went through. I assume you've been there a few times in your career, is that correct?
Are you telling me to the Historic Commission?
Yes, I have.
Okay. And so you're aware, generally speaking, that the Historical Commission considers applications to alter the exterior of historic buildings, including additions to historic buildings, and does allow change in appropriate circumstances in their discretion. Is that fair to say?
Yes, they are the ones who allow it or not.
That's right.
um you went to the historical commission at the end of last year in the beginning of this year
um the commission i think as you can confirm basically in most cases of alterations or
additions or new construction basically has a two-step process where you first go to the
architectural committee which generates a non-binding recommendation and then on a later
date, you go to the full commission, which actually makes the decision. And that in this
case, you went through that two-step process twice, first with an in-concept application,
and then with a final application for a total of four public meetings. Did I get that right?
you did get that right we went to them initially because um just to do anything
because of the obvious stature of this property to do anything um was in question yes i don't
um was in question yes i don't mean any disrespect but i'm under incredible time pressure so
mean any disrespect but i'm wondering
I'll see you later.
you can elaborate on when when mr primavera has you back um i don't mean to berate you but i just
want to ask you to if you could just answer my questions and we can move on that would be great
but i understand so if you need to say something you can and all the meetings due to covet all
All these meetings that we just mentioned with the Historical Commission and its architecture
review committee were by Zoom.
Is that correct?
They were.
Would you agree with me that my clients were not invited to any of those meetings by you
or anyone on your team as far as you know?
I am not I am not aware okay but you you're you're not aware you're not aware of any invitations is
that fair I'm not that's what I said yeah I'm not aware okay thank you I'm gonna breeze through the
materials that you showed the historical commission to ask you and I'll ask you the question and then
I'll breeze through it but maybe you don't even need to see it but excuse me excuse me counselor
um was the building uh approved by the historical commission yes so what are we going through it
well the i'm not going to go through the substance here but what i'm going through
is the process and um because we're being told by the applicant and his lawyer and his witnesses
is that the historical commission made certain demands
or made certain statements that are inviolate
or that are written in stone.
And we don't think that's the case.
And so that's what we're trying to explain here.
That...
You can't...
Did they make changes?
changes did they make the changes i don't understand your question he's asking did the
historical commission tell them to make changes and did they make changes yes the they throughout
the process i'm sorry the zoom is cutting out a little bit for me you're saying what's
relevance is that the question i think he's basically saying where are you going with this
that the historical commission did whatever they did you know that where are we going with that
is what he's saying i i guess maybe i'll just ask the question and forget the slides so we can just
expedite it i mean just ask the question i mean that's fine okay i'll ask the question would you
agree with me ms lyle that in all the materials you showed the um historical commission that
that you and i don't mean to personalize it personally but you did not show any sight lines
from my client's property to the proposed project um we had photographs from up and down um millman
street um i don't know whether it was at the first meeting second or third also photographs from
navajo street i understand but that's it that's not answering we're not in her property taking
photos at that at that point no but we did have photos from in front of her house looking back in
okay uh the materials are what they are and they're in the record so um
it's also been represented to us in this hearing and to the board in this hearing that it was
the historical commission that demanded separate building um instead of a
instead of an addition to the house um what they specifically said was that it was um
highly preferable and much more unacceptable that they would likely object to an addition to the
House? Well, I think the word preferable was used or far preferable was used. I don't think
I've seen that they would object to something else. But would you agree with me that the
to something else and but would you agree with me that the um that it was your client's decision