on this stretch of 22nd Street between Cecil B. Moore and Montgomery.
So, yeah, I just wanted to add, you know, that there was a community meeting.
Most of the concerns were because of the ongoing property boundary dispute, but there were a couple of concerns about traffic and parking.
Just for some clarity, Mr. Holliman, when there are large events at the Martin Luther King Rec Center, because this is a rec center that's frequently used by the city of Philadelphia, the 76ers, and other organizations, there is a lot of cars that utilize the Orange Street parking for those such events at the MLK Rec Center.
So parking can be an issue on that side of the street.
I guess it would be the east side of 22nd Street when they're having large events, when there are football games there, when there are baseball games there, et cetera, at the rec center.
Mr. Chair, I'm looking for a clarification on Mr. Young's testimony because it appears that he's actually a fact witness testifying to his personal knowledge and not as one of the attorneys.
for the developer so i just wanted to get a clarification um is he a fact witness who is
also paid by the developer to represent him in this in this proceeding or is he an attorney for
the developer who is now testifying to facts that can't be admitted um according to the provisions
of the zoning code so i i can clarify i am an attorney who represented the developer before the
RCO. But I was clarifying Mr. Holloman asked questions regarding to parking at that site that
Rachel could not answer. So I'm answering questions that Mr. Holloman asked. Well, yes, I understand
that, Mr. Chairman, but the zoning code says that lawyers are not allowed to provide testimony
in a zoning proceeding. They have to be, any testimony that a lawyer gives has to be adopted
and approved by an actual fact witness, including the owner.
The owner doesn't have this.
Mr. Masters, this is Sharon Sletta.
I think you were misinterpreting that zoning code provision.
It is that an attorney representing a party cannot testify as to what the party would say.
It is not that no attorney can testify as a fact witness.
he's testifying i believe here on his own behalf not as
it is not testimony if he does not have first-hand knowledge of the information that does not seem
to be the case here yes that's why i asked for the clarification mr chair because yes he clearly
does have first-hand knowledge of what he's talking about and i and i respect and and and
am very fond of Mr. Young. But in this case, he's also paid by the developer. He represents the
developer in this proceeding. So I just want to clarify, is he actually a fact witness who's paid
is he actually a fact witness who's paid by the developer or is he a member of the community who's
by the developer or is he a member?
testifying in support of the project oh i am at this point miss pritzker is representing the
developer is that correct yeah and mr young represented the developer at the rco meeting
that's what i was testifying to i represented the our developer at the rco hearing and and that's it
i i i'm going to object to mr young's testimony to the extent that it's a fact that he's trying
to provide provide facts because he's clearly a biased witness because he's on the payroll of the
developer okay i'm gonna overrule overrule i don't know how to answer that so um at this point
as mentioned by jeff i wasn't at the rco meeting so the purpose of having him on was to have direct
testimony related to the RCO meeting, just in the event that the board had any questions
or there was any conversation about the RCO meeting as I was not in attendance at it. So
that was why Jeff is here. And I appreciate him taking the time to provide that information.
If we could, Chairman, get on the owner, Logan Kramer, and also Joe Canonez, who is a property
owner on the block, for their testimony, that would be greatly appreciated.
let's move forward with that request uh gentlemen please when you get on spell your spell your full
name and i swear you in and while we're waiting for them rachel do we have an rco letter my notes
say awaiting uh rco letters yeah we do we just i um i unfortunately didn't get it until i think
late yesterday um but i don't know all right mr chair we have many letters from the rcos and from
council president clark that's going to be in our rebuttal exhibit binder i was going to ask about
that as well okay so chair we do have available at this time mr logan kramer if you would um
mr kramer unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in sure hi this is logan kramer
l-o-g-a-n-k-r-a-m-e-r you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth absolutely thank you miss pritzk um so logan um you've heard what what we've said today
um i just first want to make sure that you heard everything that was said
you've heard my testimony you deem it to be true and accurate and that you would adopt it as your
own? That's correct. And feel free if there's anything additional you want to add, please do so.
Definitely. So I just wanted to clarify what our thought was in between the original plan here
and then what we adopted our plan to for the variance version. So there was four buildings
that were new construction buildings that I'm building on this block, one of which 1714 North
22nd street um there's a adverse possession dispute in between me and one of the owners on
krosky street um there's been a lot of emotion and things brought from the table from that project
we purposefully withdrew that as we're amending our plans around the rear yard area that's about
10 of that parcel size and a lot of the emotions and whatnot from that were brought into the rco
meeting as well as just throughout this whole case and what we're here to really discuss is
parking not a separate litigation matter which we purposefully withdrew from this case um the
second thing i just wanted to mention is that um none of the opposing neighbors or anyone who showed
up to the rco meeting actually lives on north 22nd street they all live on krosky street and we have
full support from everyone um on uh 22nd street to uh go forward with our plans um that being said
um the only partial party that we could not get in contact with was 1704 which is an out-of-state
landlord that owns that existing structure um the only other existing structure on that block
is the church which we're currently um converting to 18 apartment units um in total we are building
56 units on this block um but across this entire block there's going to be 138 units between
myself and other developers what i'm looking to proactively prevent is a massive parking issue
i would encourage my other developer friends to add parking but unfortunately you know they don't
want to go through variances which i i can understand um but um we're trying to actually
make this better for both the future and existing residents as 22nd street is a street you can park
on both sides of the capacity for that street for parking is 52 parking spaces um with just my 56
um with just my 56 units alone if there was no parking um you know there all those parking
units alone if there was
spaces would be filled up with the additional development of um the additional uh it's about
80 to 90 other units there's going to be a massive parking issue and the cars from 22nd street uh
residents are going to be spilling onto krosky street which is already a very um uh very busy
block in terms of like it's very hard to find a parking spot on lacroski cecil b moore is also a
very busy block as well as the north side block of montgomery it's hard to find parking on so what
i'm trying to do is um provide relief and actually be a good developer here where a lot of developers
take the rm1 zoning code and say oh i don't have to provide parking no problem let's put the parking
problems you know on the community and i'm actually you know in good faith trying to add parking
here um i did not go into this project initially with the intention to put parking into it i went
into this uh and i said hey i want to create green space and i want to create an area to
store trash we're moving our trash storage into the rear yard so we do still have designated trash
storage we originally were going to be putting the trash as well as make like a green space for
uh you know people my residence dogs or whatnot else underneath the um covered area in the front
of the three buildings. Once I saw, which was about six months after I bought up the parcels
from the Emanuel Baptist Church, a bunch of other developers bought other parcels. And with that
addition of the 80 to 90 plus units, that's what influenced my decision to change my plans to go
from covered patios to parking. And that's what I'm here to ask the board of their support for.
thanks logan let me let me ask a question uh when when at the appropriate time i have some
questions for the witness also um you mentioned i think 52 parking spaces on the 100 block the
1700 block of there's yeah that's correct there's space for 52 street parking spaces
so hypothetically if you and the other developers were to get approval for the off street
parking i'm assuming it'd be three for each maybe that's the wrong assumption would there be a net
gain for parking on that block correct how many spots would we actually pick up even though you're
removing on street by adding the you're picking up one parking space for every three is that about
is that correct uh that's correct but what's the math on that roughly probably gain
about, I'm doing quick math here, but you'd probably gain net gain about 10 to 15 parking
spaces.
All right.
Thank you.
Mr. Masters.
Mr. Kramer, you don't own these properties personally.
You own it in a limited partnership.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
And you have a partner in that limited partnership?
that is correct they're limited partners I'm the managing member and general partner I'm the only
active decision making partner in an SEC filing that I looked at recently there's another
individual who's named as a as a principal to relevance what's the relevance of this I'm trying
to find out whether Mr. Kramer actually has the controlling interest in yes he does so I'm going
Mr. Kramer do you have a controlling interest in this project yes I am the managing member and I'm
autonomous decision-maker in this partnership. And what percentage do you own of the partnership?
I'm going to object. What's the purpose of these questions, Mr. Master? I don't mean to be rude,
but. I just want to make sure that it's an opaque
structure. And I just wanted to make sure that there's another gentleman who is listed and who
and who's filed statements at the SEC. And I just want to know whether why he's not here and whether
mr kramer can speak really for the partnership council i guess so he's already said he can speak
for the partnership so i don't think that we need to go into any okay mr kramer um you were saying
that one of your critiques of other developers um in the neighborhood is that they they typically
um when they develop rm1 properties they don't provide for parking is that correct i'm gonna
object to that the comment is that rm1 doesn't require the objection what's the objection
i'm going to finish the way that you're characterizing what he has stated and what
was stated is that rm1 as a function of the zoning code doesn't allow for accessory off-street parking
accessed by a front street it only allows for it if there's a rear alleyway shared driveway or rear
street so in a situation like this where there's no other way to access it but a front street a lot
So in a situation like this, where there's no other way to access it, but a front street,
a lot of developers, rightfully so, or wrongfully so, don't want to go through the variance
of developers.
process.
And so they choose to just put up the units, which is permitted by the code.
I was asking for Mr. Kramer's testimony and not yours.
Well, I'm representing him, so I'm going to answer the question.
On cross-examination, I can ask him about what he stated in direct examination.
And Mr. Kramer, did you not state that many developers, when they develop RM1 properties, don't provide for parking?
It is correct. I will say that most developers do not provide parking for RM1 because RM1 does not have any parking requirements except for a few areas like Temple University and whatnot that there's some neighborhood associations that required it.
But a majority of the city, RM1, does not require parking, which creates a massive hardship for blocks like this that are completely undeveloped, go from being completely undeveloped to massively developed.
There's an onslaught of units, and then there's nowhere for everyone to park.
What I'm trying to do is I've been in 50-plus variances, 50-plus neighborhood meetings.
I have a massive amount of experience with this.
And the thing that I'm always getting concerns from neighbors is you're not giving enough parking.
You're not giving enough parking.
You're not giving enough parking.
So other than the neighbors waking up on the wrong side of the bed, I don't understand the logic.
So, Mr. Kramer, when you applied for the zoning permits for these buildings, did you include parking in your plans initially?
That's been established.
Right.
They did not.
um so you're trying to tell the board today that you're a considerate developer who wants to provide
parking but in fact when you actually applied for these buildings and built them i'm going to
design them without parking characterization of and the thought behind the submissions as we've
already gone over this at length sustained okay i have enough further questions thank you steve
rachel do you have anyone else um just joe quinones who is an actual owner on the 1700
block of north 22nd street i believe he had had his hand raised so if he could raise his hand
that would be great
mr quinones please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
my name is joe quinones j-o-e last name q-u-i-n-o-n-e-s you swear if i'm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you miss pritzker uh joe could you just
share with uh the chairman and members of the board what properties you own on this block and
um i assume uh you're here to provide testimony in support of the variances so i'm happy to hear
your testimony? Sure. I own the vacant lots 1704 through 12, and also 1711 North Krosky Street,
which is in the rear of the aforementioned properties whose addresses are on 22nd Street.
And before you share additional testimony, do you have plans to develop those properties
in the near future as well?
And would those buildings have parking?
Unfortunately not.
And is that a function of the RM1 designation
and the need for a variance, I would assume?
That factored into it.
It would also factored into it
was limited financial resources
as an emerging African-American developer
who doesn't have the same access to capital as, you know, better funded majority developers.
A lot of factors played into the calculus and the present building permit we have.
Understood. Thank you. And so if you could just state, you know, if you're in support
of this matter and why, that would be greatly appreciated.
Sure. I'm in support of, I have a instinctive support to any development that adds parking spaces rather than takes them away for obvious reasons.
Even as a resident in North Philadelphia, I actually also live in North Philadelphia, I don't just do development there, when there are developers coming into my block that I live in, and I tend to be more supportive and favorable of their development, which I vote on as a resident, when I know that their presence is a net plus to parking as opposed to a net.
their presence is a net plus to parking
as opposed to a net negative.
Thank you, Joe, I appreciate that.
Chairman, if the board has any questions for Joe, happy to.
I have some questions too.
Question from the board?
Not at this time, Mr. Chairman,
but I reserve some time when we get through the questioning.
Mr. Ministers.
Sure, Mr. Quinones, we know each other, is that correct?
Yes, we do.
Actually, it was a pleasure to see both you and Tom on the call.
A surprise, but absolutely a pleasure.