to propose at the outset that your client's decision at the outset to propose a separate
building. That's not accurate. So this is the slide that says the second B says because of the
acceptance of ADUs and the importance of the features and feasibility of the Van Aventuri
house, the owner has decided to build a separate structure. So this is your first PowerPoint to
the Architects Committee, and you're presenting that the owner has decided to build a separate
structure. So part of the requirement for anything on this property was that it's not
visible from a public way. There's no location on the Van Aventury house that you could add on to
that is invisible from a public way.
So that is an innate part of the criteria.
And further, this follows a meeting
that we had a couple of months into the project
where we did discuss all kinds of different ways
to address the need for additional square footage for David
that we invited a host of experts in the field, Professor Emeritus from Penn, who's written support letter,
the Khan Archives curator, who's both, who's written support letters and described why.
And, you know, including lots of reading architectural historian educators who led us to,
led us to the location that it ended up being. So we brought this as a statement to the Historic
Commission. There is no way to add on to the Vandermatury House that is not visible from a
public way. I'm not saying your client didn't have reasons. I'm saying it was representing to this
board that it was the Historical Commission that made these demands. And all I'm establishing is
that it was, in fact, your client who made the application in the way he wished, which is what
it says. I think that's making some large assumptions from what you're saying about,
and there are several inaccuracies that are questionable in that. So I have to disagree.
Okay. Well, I'm just reading what you're, I'm just reading what the slide says.
These are brief orientations. Why don't we move on?
I'd like to move on. As Mr. McCrubish said, he was a member of the Architects Committee,
it might be at the preferred location or far preferred location, but there's no evidence
to suggest that it's the only approvable type of project, either addition or location for this
building. I mean, the Architect Committee didn't say anything on that. They were dealing with what
you proposed. I disagree. It was an inherent, sort of an innate assumption, and the way he
voiced it is one thing, but I disagree with the intent of the conversation
at the historic commission okay would you agree with me that on the minutes of the architectural
meeting when the staff presented the case well i'm going to object if it's in writing it speaks
for itself and then the board will be able to read all this in due time so she disagreed you'll read
what's ever in the record and that's sufficient i'll i'll read it from the i'll read it into the
record where the staff member said quote the property is bounded by Navajo Street at the rear
comma though the rear of the house is not visible from that street owing to heavy vegetation
close quote and that's in the record so I have three questions for you did the historical
commission or the architects committee ever say you can't make an alteration or an addition
to the building? Yes. I mean, they didn't say it the way you're saying it. It was more of a
discussion about what's possible and what may be approved. But I can tell you that vegetation,
But I can tell you that vegetation, I mean, I can show you photographs from the summer where you can clearly see the back of Urbana Venturian House, every single side of it, from either of the public streets, Navajo or Millman.
I mean, I can show you photographs from the summer.
So it's inherent in the Secretary of Interior Standards, and part of which the PHC uses, that they wanted it to be not visible to a public way.
They want it to be inconspicuous, to be obscure, to be hidden from every public view.
Did the Historical Commission or the Architects Committee ever say you can't put a new structure that would be visible from Navajo?
I think I just answered that.
Okay, how about slightly visible?
You still answered that.
My last question on this paragraph is, did the Historical Commission or the Architects Committee ever say that you can't have the ADU, this separate building, visible from the interior of the Venturi House?
i believe they did say that i mean i know that it was i don't have the exact verbiage of it off
the top of my head but it was something that was not supposed to be conspicuous i mean we've had
uh you know we during the drawing process we're showing elevations of it but um it's sort of
tucked back into a garden area and we'll have other plantings but the historical commission
deals with views from the public right of way right from streets and sidewalks basically right
okay um it doesn't really deal with views from a neighbor's house um and it doesn't really deal
with views from your house or from mr lockhart's house it's a private house his views looking out
well i'm going to object i think in the record in the first hearing we specifically um submitted
documentation that the Historic Commission did not want to see the ADU from inside the Venturi
House. They wanted people inside the Venturi House to experience exactly what that house was meant
to depict. So we just dispute that. Mr. Primavera, I think it was, I think they liked that aspect of
it, but I don't think it was a requirement. Ms. Lyle, let me ask you a question. Are you aware
that views from inside the house are addressed in either the secretary standards or the guidelines
on new additions and related the way yes i am and the way they address it i'll tell you the three
things about that are critical about this house it's the plan which is iconic for many many well
written about and studied reasons which i could go into if you want me to take the time to do it
each and every elevation, every inch of them, which I can also go into if you want, and the
setting of the house as a perfect rectangle on a field of grass. So the setting incorporates
spatial relationships. So as such, the relationship of the components of whatever is on that site
need to be preserved that is why they the the historic mission asked us to make it smaller
which we did and move it further away which we did to the eight foot which is the other zoning
appeal point okay i was asking about the view from inside the inventory i just thought i would
fill you in correctly on the exact on the reason it's not just a view it's about a special
relationship it's i understand if you incorporates um half a dozen other at least half a dozen other
aspects to it other than just saying to you okay i'm gonna sounds like a separate aspect but i'll
let it go so um in fact though ms lyle and i'm finishing up here uh mr chairman um
The Historical Commission has a special process called approval by consent agenda, where at its meetings, where it has a number of items, a number of applications before it, where the Architects Committee, as in this case, recommended approval, and there is no one at the meeting that is objecting to it.
the historical commission will often just read the address and take a vote without any discussion
with anybody, without any discussion with the applicant or amongst themselves. And that in
fact is what happened here both times that it went to the historical commission. It was approved
on the consent agenda is that correct um anyone it's
It's a public meeting. I don't know if they were aware of it. It was probably in the
Chestnut Hill local. I'm not sure. But what I can tell you from being in those historic
commission meetings is that it's a historic commission. They comment on the architectural
cultural features and the construction of a place of historic significance.
It's not as important to them what the view is from a person's yard or how close it is
to another house.
It's important that they understand, they know when there's a zoning issue that's involved,
which is why we went to them in the beginning.
um you know but they they generally comment about architectural components you forget you
with all due respect but you forgot to answer my question is it correct that they approved it uh
the historical commission both times they saw it approved it on the consent agenda
you were there we saw you're on these videos i'm just trying to establish a basic fact
So, Paul, if you're representing that, then we'll accept that.
Well, she can say yes.
Come on.
I mean, it's really.
If she remembers.
I remember the last time being on the consent agenda.
But if you have it in writing and you have data to prove it, I'm not contesting it.
I'm not saying you're inaccurate.
Well, if you can't remember, that's fine.
That's a valid answer.
I'm not criticizing you if that's your answer.
i just didn't are you done with it so yes you're done with her i am if if but i would like to
since since she is not answering that question and i respect her for that i just answered it
if you have the data i accept that and i and so please let me just finish my sentence please so
i would like to submit the data which is this page with the links to the videos and i'd like
to submit this. I have no objection. That's fine. I have no further questions. So here's where we
are. This is moving much slower than we thought it would. Mr. Primavera, we'll let you do redirect
and then we're going to schedule for another result of hearing. Can I ask Mr. Bonney how long
he thinks he needs for uh his case yes um i think i have pretty much the same length of cross of
mr lockard and then i have my witness of ms lau and i we we did a dress rehearsal and it came out
the 17 minutes her direct examination um i would like uh mr well but but but but mr
we're well over another hour it would take right now i'm just trying to figure out what we need
to finish and i understand you're saying so if you want to do redirect that's fine yes all right
i'll do we'll do redirect and after that we'll schedule another hearing all right thank you mr
chair uh so do you recall in the first hearing uh the discussion by me as well as i believe by you
that the existing house has 1,400 square feet on the first floor and a total of 1,875 square feet
for the total house? That's correct. And it's on a lot of 37,000 square feet?
Correct. And the required lot size for this area is 5,000 square feet. Right.
And then you mentioned subtly, but I'll be more direct, in the supplemental exhibits presented by Mr. Bonney at, I believe it's Exhibit T, he talks about the Secretary of the Interior Standards, and it's a whole exhibit package.
And on page six of that exhibit, his exhibit, it says, if an addition has too much negative impact, that it would be handled better by a separate building in a location which would not adversely affect the historic structure, then that's the appropriate treatment.
Do you recall that generally in the Secretary of the Interior Standards?
Yes, I'm reading it from brief 14, which was in his supplemental information.
Despite the fact that in most cases it's recommended a new addition be attached, sometimes it's not possible.
There may be, there's simply not a secondary elevation.
Some very important freestanding buildings have significant features on all sides.
So in addition, attached to a highly visible elevation of historic building can radically alter the historic form or obscure features, such as decorative cornice, et cetera.
So in addition, attached to a highly visible elevation of a historic building can radically...
An addition would have too much negative impact and would not meet the standards.
All right.
Such situations are handled by a separate structure.
So that's what you were referring to.
And the last question is, as an expert, a professional, someone who understands this, do you believe that there is any opportunity to put an addition on the Venturi House as a professional?
No, not according to the statements of public visibility and not according to anyone who accepts that it's an iconic structure, which, you know, is, you know, it's all about the, yeah, it's all about the elevation, you know.
Then I have nothing further. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. So here's where we are. My understanding is, Mr. Prever, you have one
more witness? Yes. We'll do that the next time. There's going to be another presumptive hearing
we'll have. Tanya will see where she can fit it in, and we're going to move on. All right,
Mr. Chair, I would appreciate if we would have enough time to complete the case.
Well, yeah, we thought we had enough time today. The hour would get us closed,
but we're not there so what we'll do is i'm going to sit with hillary and we'll figure it out and
what we're going to do next all right thank you all right and hillary may get a hold of hold of
you to say how much time you think you need so we can figure out what that really is all right
thank you good mr chair could i could i chair this is good good tanya you go first um chair we
have that can schedule this for november november the 15th at 9 30 a.m where we should be able to
complete it. Okay. May I ask Mr. Primavera a question to try and save time? Mr. Primavera,
you're probably aware that we submitted a statement from Brooke Lau. Are you aware of that?
Yes. Okay. Would you agree with me that I don't have to bring her on to say,
yes, I authenticate that? I would ask her one question.
well i mean i have an objection with that but i i may want to cross-examine her about some of the
contents of it so in the in the spirit of moving quickly she could just say this is how i feel
about it and then i can ask her some questions about it why don't why don't you two listen to
me why don't you two work that out among yourself hillary's going to get a hold of you and say how
much more time do you think you need and we'll go from there okay thank you thank you all right
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Thank you.
Mr. Premier Bear and Ms. Lyle.
Thank you.
Tanya, this is Hillary.
Can you just repeat that date again for the record?
The new date would be November the 15th at 9.30 a.m., where we expect it to be completed.
If not, we will go into the new year with another date.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Have a nice evening.
okay so we're thank you
we're moving to the 3 30 list
is everybody still with us that is correct here yeah this question mr chair you may you may want
to make sure there's no 2 p.m's but i i think we're pretty is there any pretty covered in the
audience from the 2 p.m. list? If they were, they went home and had dinner. Okay. I see no hands at
this time, Chair. Well, here we go with 3.30. My name is Bill Bergman. I will be chairing this
meeting. With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair. Carol Tenere, present. Ishmael Shahid, our board
secretary. Present, Mr. Chairman. Thomas Holloman, our board member. Present, Mr. Chairman. James
Snell, our board member. Present, Mr. Chairman. Also, here is our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkit,
and our Attorney, Hillary Emerson. Before we start, be advised the proceedings will be recorded
by participating in the knowledge agreement to be recorded. The video will be available by
contacting the Board Administrator, Tanya Sunkit, at tanyasunkit.gov. For the benefit of our
personographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand
and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email
and the address of the property. And finally, the question answer box on the screen is now for
um the question answer box on the screen is now for comments any comments should be directed to
comments.
our executive director tanya sunken we've already went over all of our continuances i'm gonna go
write the case number two mi 2022 002 569 10 to 18 cal hill street sharon blyer who's who i think
I've already had one.
A letter of support from the Center City Organized Responsible Development.
Sharon?
She's coming back in as a panelist now, Sharon.
Karen oh can you hear me yes I yes I can I think I've already sworn you in before
yeah sorry about that we're we're sorry to have you here this long um you you're the owner yes
okay so our vice chair Carl Tenere has a few questions sure I sure too hi how are you
good how are you good have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter um from the first one that we did