reporter yes p as in peter r-i-m-a-v-e-r-a and with me is my colleague uh melanie
lacy who is going to be working the uh computer exhibits for me sure do you swear for him to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Paul, could you state your name,
please, sir, and spell for a court reporter? Yes, good afternoon. My name is Paul Boni,
P-A-U-L-B-O-N-I, 325 Chestnut, Suite 1109-19106. Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. And I'm here on behalf of Joan and Brooke Lau,
L-A-U. Right. For the record, Mr. Primavera, could you identify your client and their relationship
to the property? Yes. My client is David Lockhart. He's a member of the bar and he is the owner as
well as the applicant in this request for a variance. All right. Our vice chair has a few
questions. Hi, Mr. Primavera. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? Yes, we do. 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? Yes, to all of the
above. Okay, great. You may proceed and share your screen, which is already up. Good. Hi, this is
Tanya, I'm sorry to interrupt, but Chair Bergman, if I could make a special request to those that
are before us today. The court reporter had a problem with the previous case. If we could not
talk over each other, that would be wonderful. Speak one at a time so she can get a full record.
I thank you all very kindly. Thank you, and I will do my honest best, especially with respect
for my colleague, Mr. Bonnie. So again, may it please the board, Carl Primavera with Melanie
Lacey. We represent the owner of the property, David Lockhart, who's also the applicant. This
is a request for variance relief. And what we're trying to do, as you'll hear, is to create a small
detached structure, which will functionally serve as an addition to a very small, iconic home
The problem is because it's the Venturi House, the Historic Commission will not allow us to do an addition for reasons which we'll get into.
to do an addition for reasons which we'll get into. So the only way that Historic Commission
would approve expanding this 1,800 square foot home on a 37,000 square foot lot would be by way
of this little structure. In the old days, they would call them in-law suites, or they would call
dependencies, I guess, back in the really old days. So with that, you'll see the exhibits.
They include the letters of support from several neighbors. We do have one neighbor who is a
protestant represented by Mr. Bonney, but we have our regular exhibits plus some that are B,
which will be very interesting. We're not going to go through them all because they'll be in the
record, but there's a substantial amount of information regarding this Venturi House,
and that really is the nub of the issue. The hardship presented by our inability
to put on any type of addition means that we need a separate structure, and that's why the
Community Association, the Chestnut Hill Conservancy, the Historic Commission, and others
are supporting this. I'm going to present two witnesses. The first, after my introduction,
will be Donna Lyle, who's an architect who worked on this project along with Juliet Fajardo. But I'm
not going to present Juliet unless there's a question that she needs to answer. And I'm going
to present my client, one, to authenticate a letter which is in the exhibit package that he
prepared for people who were interested in why he needs this addition. So I'm hoping to keep this
very focused and get to the heart of the issue quickly. Now, an ADU, it's an accessory dwelling
unit, which is in the code. And as you'll hear, it was developed in the new code at the request
of historic preservation people and people who are interested in creating housing opportunities
for aging in place and adults. We do not meet the ADU requirement in the code, but as you will hear,
if anyone had thought about this, it would have been in a code, and we are conceptually
right on point with why the ADU is appropriate and why it's the least minimum variance for use
and dimensions and creates no adverse impact to the neighbors. It's a de minimis relief that
we're seeking. Now, this property was the first commission by Robert Venturi, Philadelphia's
most famous architect, and it was for his mother. He was trying to find a way to develop his
reputation so he created this vision in 1960 and today after my client bought it quite frankly
it was designated and it's considered the most important house in the city even more than the
betsy ross house and you can wonder why but that's why our exhibit package is so venomous
People come from all over the world.
Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief objection to bring to your attention?
Mr. Primavera has an architect and his client, who I think we'll learn is quite a student of this house.
And I don't think it's appropriate for the lawyer to give the evidence in this case.
I would not stipulate that that would be appropriate.
I think he should put his witnesses on to put the evidence into the record so that we can cross-examine effectively.
I don't mind the brief opening statement.
So I would say that on a regular basis, we let attorneys put the information on the record, and we're going to continue that, and he will put the people on.
You'll have a chance to cross-examine them.
Go on, Mr. from there.
Sure. So it was put on the historic register after my client purchased it. And that's important, as you'll hear from his testimony. And our argument will be that this is a piece of art. It's a piece of architecture.
It was the first postmodern building, and it's unique because, as we all know, it is very common to go to the Historic Commission with historic properties in Society Hill, Rittenhouse Square, and have the right to do an addition as long as it's not intrusive.
But here, as you'll hear, and as you'll see in the exhibit package, because this is the most important structure in the city of Philadelphia from an architectural perspective, the historic...
In the city of Philadelphia, from an architectural perspective, the Historic Commission said no alteration or addition to the house will be permitted.
So we have no luxury in that regard or flexibility.
Our lot, again, is 37,000 square feet.
It's a flag lot.
And the house is 18,000 or 1,875 square feet.
The district allows 30% coverage. Well, even with our proposed ADU, we're like 6.5%. So we have this huge lot and a tiny house.
And normally we could go and do any number of additions, but because of the zero tolerance by the Historic Commission, the reality is we have nothing to do except come to this board for variance relief.
Why does my client need more space? Well, as you'll hear, this was done really as a academic project by Venturi to express his desire for a new style of doing business.
At the 25 and 50 year celebration of the property, the statement has been made that almost all high rise buildings have reflected his postmodernism.
So from this tiny little house for his mother, it influenced the shape of high rise buildings and architecture all over the world.
So that is why, again, we are being so harshly limited by the by the commission.
So the issue that you'll see is that we have the front of the property on Millman and the back of the property on Navajo.
And the commission and the secretary of the interior standards say, on an important building, you're not allowed to be visible from those street frontages.
So the commission, working with the design team, found the only spot where it's not visible to the public. And listen to this. We were not allowed to be visible from inside the Venturi house.
So when people come from China and all over the world and they come into the house, as my client lets them do, they won't look out and see this little addition structure.
That's how sensitive the commission was.
So here we are with a list of meetings, which is extremely long, subcommittees, the historic review.
review. The Chestnut Hill process started with the Development Review Committee. It then goes to the
Zoning and Land Use Committee. You go to the Conservancy, which is a historic review. You go
back to the Development Review Committee and on to the full Board of Directors. In addition,
in our exhibit package, you'll see a variety of workshops, subcommittees, hours and hours of time
spent to try to figure out exactly how we can make this as palatable to Mr. Bonney's client
as possible. And as you'll hear from him, the only thing that they're willing to talk about
is moving it to Navajo Street. But the commission has told us repeatedly, that's a non-starter.
So we look at this as the same as a garage, and you'll see that in the exhibits, where some people
have other outbuildings. This rendering shows you how small the dependency building is. We're
going to get into that with the architects. So that pretty much is why we believe we have
hardship to the property, why this is the least minimum variance both is to use because it's a
residential use. And really what it is, it's if you could just connect the two, we have enough
open area and space to do it, but the Historic Commission said instead of doing an attached
addition, it has to be on a separate structure, and it has to be in a place where it won't
impact the view. And you'll see in this view of 8336, Mr. Bonney's clients are
85 feet from the rear of their home to where we intend to put this adu building also as you'll
hear the 8336 was a small farmhouse before his clients purchase it they uh the prior owner
uh built additions now they didn't need variances at the time but they built very significant
But they built very significant additions on a much smaller lot.
editions on a much smaller lot.
So here we are with a small house on a huge lot, but we need variance relief.
They were able to buy a house that was a tiny farmhouse from the 1850s, which before they bought it had been expanded.
And in the Redfin information, which you'll see, it says that the additions to this house are expansive.
and I'll just read it because it says here.
Let's get back to the first page.
It says, this five-bedroom farmhouse
with jaw-dropping timber frame edition
has to be seen.
Where is this place?
This is in the exhibit package.
No, I'm just saying.
Oh, this is your client's property.
This was the red thin listing.
i'm saying i don't see what you're reading on the page here it's the little uh marker that
melanie has there it is okay okay five bedroom farmhouse with jaw-dropping timber frame edition
so the the point is the context that in this area there are uh buildings and structures which have
been added since the old days because they're historic well here the bizarre thing is this
building was 1960, but it's been put on the historic register. So we can't do anything
without both historic relief and zoning relief. So that's a long way of me saying I'd now like
to introduce the architect, Ms. Donna Lyle. Could you state your name, sir, and spell for
the court reporter? Hi, my name is Donna Lyle. It's spelled L-I-S-L-E. All right. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed. Carl? Okay.
Yes. Can you just briefly tell us your connection to the project? Obviously, you were involved in
the design and the approval process through the SOAR commission? Sure. Both Juliet actually
had met David and he retained Juliet. Juliet and I worked together for a number of years
at a large center city firm. And Juliet asked me to work with her on this project.
And as daunting as it was, it's also extremely exciting to think about it.
um so we um initially started working on this um i would say late june early july about a year ago
and um came up with a couple of different proposals we um they were all on the
west elevation which is the one with the open porch that you see the second slide on the top
to the right. They were all sort of on that side because it was the only side of the lot
that you could put something that wouldn't be seen. And we met with several very renowned people
on the history of Venturi and on the history of this house, coming to the conclusion of the
siding where it is so we proceeded to work out the design for this very small adu and um started we
we went ahead and decided because of because of the iconic nature of this house and knowing that
we likely that the issues with adding on to it and what have you that even adding anything on
the property there may be zero tolerance for that as well so we decided that we need to go to the
Historic Commission just to see if there was some there was that we could that we could even add
a small. Now, Donna, you heard my presentation with regard to all the information. Are you able
to adopt that as your own testimony as being true and correct? Yes, all of it. All right. Now,
you went to the Historic Commission and in our record of exhibits is the approval process from
the Architectural Review Committee as well as from the full commission. So can you just briefly
tell us what the commission approved and what they didn't allow? Sure. So, Melanie, if we could
look at the plan, the site plan showing the location. I think if you look at slide number 14,
you'll see the plan okay yeah yeah you can go back to that slide showing the plan
I think it's slide number 14.
I apologize.
Are you asking for the revised plan?
Okay, let's sort of zero in on this.
This is what the Historic Commission saw, this is what we presented to them.
After meeting with the Architectural Committee the first time, they asked for tons of photographs
from all sides, from Navajo Street, from Millman Street, up the driveway, everywhere.
They were convinced that it was next to invisible where it was.
And they also asked if we could move it two feet further away, diagonally, the corners,
just as far as we could, which is one of the reasons why this eight-foot setback is requested
on the right property line that you see.
Now, on that eight-foot setback, can you tell us, are you aware of the position of Mr. Balangie, the adjoining neighbor, with regard to the two-foot shortage from the 10-foot setback required?
Yes. They were asked about that immediately, and they agreed to it before we went back to the second round of the Historic Commission.
All right. And I think he's actually attending this session.
Now, please describe the dimensions, the size, the shape, and the height of this accessory dwelling unit and compare it to.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just wanted to jump in because I did receive the revised proviso plans form for this project,
and it indicates that there had been an increase in the setback, I believe, from 8 to 12 or 10 to 12,
because there's two kind of setbacks next to where the EDU is placed.
But, okay, yeah, so 10 to 12,
but I did not see that reflected in either version of the plan that was submitted.
And maybe I was looking at the wrong setback,
but I did not see that increased setback reflected on the plan.
All right, let's clarify that right now.
And if Melody can go back to what she just had. So the revised plan did two things in the cover sheet, you'll see. One is the building of the ADU has been set back a little bit from 8336, which is the Protestant neighbor.
um the other thing is the adu uh shrunk by about a foot so it was pushed further away from
uh mr bonnie's client and it was made a tad smaller um and i think uh donna you can just
you know confirm that and also i think the confusion is the setback we're talking about
is from the rear of 8336. I think the Balangie eight-foot setback, which is two feet less than
code, hasn't changed. Am I correct? That is correct. As a result of the subcommittee meetings
and the process that we went through with the RCO, part of the increase is the 10-foot to the 12-foot,
And that is to provide more extra space for a more generous, beautiful landscape buffer, rather than something, it was felt that if it's 10 feet, that maybe you would end up with something that's more like a green screen, rather than a continuation of landscaping with mixed deciduous and bushes and evergreens.
So the 12 feet.
With that clarification, can we go back to the size, shape, and height of the ADU?
i was gonna say i'm not i'm still seeing a 10-foot setback on this plan i'm not seeing a 12-foot setback
this is hillary it's it's on the proviso plan well it's on the form but it's not actually on
the plan from what i can see it has to be on the plan
because with the proviso form i have to stamp plans
if this is granted
that match what's on the proviso form.
Donna, is it on the plan, or is that something we'll submit at the end of the hearing?
Donna, is it on the plan
or is that something we'll submit at the end of the year?
That is something we can submit. We would have to, absolutely.
All right, then let's do that.
We can update that zoning plan for that.
All right, but just show us where it takes place so that we can at least see it now,
and then we'll update the plan so it's consistent with the proviso form for the zoning port.
right okay um so it takes place right here up against this is the
protestant's um rear property line this is the concerning property line here um and
okay go to go to the next one the next slide
So this is increased now to 12 feet.
This shows suggested mix of plantings and ground covers