Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I have a piece where you come up with a train all going to be marked on and blocked off working. It's so much easier. Believe me, it is. But coming through customs, I didn't think that building was done yet. That part of it wasn't that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because she she told me it's like uh looks like it's very much still. Hello. Can we do a quick sound check? I mean they had say something again. Paul I I can hear you. So wait. Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Okay. Oh interesting.

That's that's for departures. All right. That's not under arrivals. Okay.

See all these big machines? They have all these. There's like 15 of them. Wow. This This is all security, right? Oh, the whole width of

Alexa, what time is it?

The time is 1:28 p.m. If the court reporter is in the chat, could you raise your hand?

Oh, yeah. Because we're about two minutes to start. Thank you. I kept saying if anybody could hear me because I couldn't see anybody to Sorry about that here. That's okay. Thank you for being here. Commissioners, just let me know that you're here. Those that are online. All right. Hi there. myself,

Commissioner Dick and Ruiz. We're about uh 60 seconds from start time. And I assume that we're on YouTube. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Sorry, I I wasn't listening good enough. And we are at exactly 1:30. So, uh, welcome everyone. This is the hearing and action portion of the planning commission meeting for October 21st, 2025. We are going to start with a roll call uh for commissioners. Commissioner Blackwell, Commissioner Burton Faulk, present. Commissioner Dick here. Thank you, Commissioner Gam. All right. Oh, here. Hi. Uh, thank you, Commissioner Maza.

Here. Thank you, Commissioner O'Neal. Here. Thank you, Commissioner Gentineia. Here. Thank you, Commissioner Ruiz. Here. Thank you. and Commissioner Woo here.

Thank you. All right. Now, we've got commissioners. We are going to go through today's agenda. Uh clearly, we had no items for briefing. This is hearing and action only. Agenda item A, approval of minutes. Agenda item B, correspondence. Agenda item C, plan of lots. Agenda item D, hearing and action part one. Uh hearing and action part two. And then agenda item E, which is the director's report. Moving to agenda item A, which is approval of minutes. Commissioners, we have two sets of minutes, we'll take them separately. Uh, do we have a motion from the floor? If there are no edits for September 23rd, 2025.

So move. All right. Commissioner Kentia moved. A second by Commissioner Dick. I'll do roll call. Commissioner Uh, Blackwell. Hi. Thank you. And welcome. Uh, Commissioner Burton Faulk. I Commissioner Dick. I. Thank you, Commissioner Gam. I. Thank you, Commissioner Maza. I. Thank you, Commissioner O'Neal. Abstain. Thank you, Commissioner Kentia. I. Thank you, Commissioner Ruiz. I. Thank you. And Commissioner Woo. I. All right. Uh moving on to uh the second set of minutes for approval for October 7, 2025. If there are no edits, do I have a motion from the floor to approve?

So moved. Thank you, Commissioner O'Neal. Do I have a second? Uh who was the second? My apologies. Commissioner Blackwell. Thank you, Commissioner Blackwell. Uh now we're going to do roll call. Commissioner Blackwell, I. Thank you, Commissioner Burton Faulk. I Commissioner Dick I. Thank you, Commissioner Gam. I Thank you, Commissioner Maza. I Thank you, Commissioner O'Neal. I Thank you, Commissioner Cantonia. I Thank you, Commissioner Ruiz. I Thank you. And Commissioner Woo. I

Thank you. All right, moving on to correspondence. Today, we are in receipt of correspondence. uh RED DCP-MPPZC-2025-0000230 regarding council bill 2024-0959 zoning text amendment for signs in the Northshore Entertainment District uh from specifically Scenic Pittsburgh and that is from uh David Demco. That concludes the correspondence. We'll move on to agenda item C which is plan of lots. I'm going to read through the three and then um move to item number one. Under plan of lots item number one uh we have DCP-lot-2025-0000253. Uh second item under plan of lots DCP- lot 20225-0000241. Item number three under plan of lots DCP-LOTTO-2025-0000244. Moving to item number one under plan of lots. Miss Kryki will be presenting that is DCP. Are we taking these separately or together? Nope. Mr. Shepki,

I'll be presenting today and um we can do the first one and then items two and three can be grouped. All right, fantastic. And uh that's Mr. Shepki. Let me fix that. Goes to show I wasn't looking up. Item number one, DCP-lot-2025-0000253 at 7061 Lamington Avenue. This is a major subdivision in the Lincoln Lamington Belmar neighborhood. Mr. Shepki,

thank you. Uh, this is the, uh, 761 Lmington Avenue subdivision. It's the proposed subdivision of one parcel into two parcels. The proposed lot one would have frontage on Churchland Street and would be 40,19 ft in area. Lot two would have frontage on Lamington Avenue and it would be 79,646 square ft in area. A school building is located on the subject property and the uh proposed motion is to uh preliminarily approve the 761 Lmington Avenue subdivision with final review scheduled for November 4th, 2025.

All right. Thank you so much. Um there isn't anyone here to speak on this matter. Uh commissioners, the item before us is a preliminary uh motion with a final to come before us November 4, 2025. Do I have a motion from the floor? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Dick. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Kinttonia. And I'll do order. Uh Commissioner Blackwell, I. Thank you, Commissioner Burton Faulk. I Commissioner Dick, I. Thank you, Commissioner Gam. I thank you, Commissioner Maza. I thank you, Commissioner O'Neal. I Thank you, Commissioner Cantonia.

Hi. Thank you, Commissioner Ruiz. Hi. Thank you. And Commissioner Woo. I.

All right. Okay. So, we're going to take items two and three. We're going to batch them together. So, I'll read them both in. Item number two is DCP-lot-2025-0000241 at 4612 Lidle Street. This is a major subdivision in the Hazlewood neighborhood. Item number three is DCP-lot-2025-0244 at 121st Street. This is a major consolidation in the strip district neighborhood. We're passing it over to Mr. Shepki.

Thank you. Um this is the 4612 Lidle Street subdivision. It is the proposed subdivision of one parcel into three parcels. Parcel J3 second revised would have frontage on Lidle Street, Hazlewood Avenue in Blair Street and would be 177,170 ft in area. Parcel J3B would have frontage on Eliza Street and would be 17,894 ft in area. Parcel J3C would have frontage on Blair Street and Eliza Street and would be 21,671 ft in area. The subject property is currently vacant. Uh the applicant proposes to construct a multi-unit residential building on the subject property. This is a major subdivision that was first reviewed by the planning commission on October 7th, 2025. And the recommended motion is to approve the Lidal Street subdivision. Uh the last item on plan of lots is the 121st Street consolidation plan. This is the proposed consolidation of three parcels into one parcel. The proposed parcel A would have frontage on 21st Street and would be 159,730 ft in area. A one-story warehouse building is located on the subject property and the recommended motion is to approve the 121st Street consolidation plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Shepki. Uh we're going to open the floor. There's no one in the room, but I don't know if there's anyone online that would like to speak on either matter. Um if not, we'll take these together. Commissioners, do I have a motion to approve uh items two and three? So moved. Thank you. Commissioner Woo, do I have a second? Second. Commissioner Kinttonia is a second. Uh I'll do roll call. Commissioner Blackwell. I. Thank you. Commissioner Burton Faulk. I Commissioner Dick. I. Thank you. Commissioner Gam I. Thank you. Commissioner Maza. I. Thank you. Commissioner O'Neal. Abstain. Thank you, Commissioner Cinttonia.

I I thank you. Uh, Commissioner Ruiz, I. Thank you. And Commissioner Woo. I

Thank you. All right. So, um, the motion passes. Thank you so much, Mr. Shepki. We're moving on to agenda item D, hearing and action. And this is hearing and action part one. Uh number one is DCP-ZDR-2023-00605 at 177 Baker Square Boulevard. This is a Bakery Square television screen in the East Liberty neighborhood and Mr. Franker will be presenting. Good afternoon, commissioners. I will read in the uh the case and then turn it over to the applicant team for the presentation. Final land development plan application DCP ZDR 202300605 was filed by Goldberg Cayman and Garvin on behalf of Bakery Square Holdings property owner for use of an outdoor television screen in the courtyard space of 154 Bakery Square. The television is considered an accessory structure and not a sign by the zoning code. As such, it is being reviewed as an accessory structure. The applicant described that they were not aware that the proposed television screen would require permitting, so permits were not originally applied for back in 2022. The project was then cited by permits, licenses, and inspections for not having had zoning approval, and the applicant was found guilty at the Magistrate District Court. The case has since been continued at the summary appeals court. The zoning administrator determined that the project should be reviewed as a final land development plan given the approximate impact on the public realm. The television screen is approximately

160 square ft and the accessory structure height is 12'4 in. A development activities meeting was held with the Larame Consensus Group on September 4. A copy of the DAM report is attached to your uh hearing report. The application was reviewed at staff design review and staff did not have significant feedback on the project and no urban design targets were issued. With that, the recommended motion is that the planning commission of the city of Pittsburgh approves the final land development plan DCP ZDR 202300605 with the conditions that the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure shall review and approve all DOMI permits and construction management plan prior to issuing the record of zoning approval and the final record in the final construction plans including site plans and elevation shall be reviewed and approved by the zoning zoning administrator prior to issuing the record of zoning approval. Thank you. And I'll turn it over to the applicant team now.

So, good afternoon, commissioners. I'm John Cayman and I'm council for Walnut Capital and Bakery Square. Um, as Joe told you in the background, we did not believe and continue to not believe that a permit is necessary for basically our outdoor television. Um, as many of you know, uh, who have been to Bakery Square, the television has been there since 2022. Um, but as a compromise, uh, with city planning, we decided to come through the process to go ahead and and get this done as an FLP. So, can we go to the next slide, please? This is just an overall aerial overview of Bakery Square. The area that we're talking about is where the existing screen is located on uh sort of our green uh area right in front of City Kitchen. Next slide, please. This is a little bit more of a zoom in. Uh you can see the green area that we have the turf and and the screen is located um sort of adjacent to the right turn right where the arrow is. Thank you, Joe. Next screen, please. Next slide, please. Um this is an overhead view of the existing screen and condition and again you can see where it's located. Next slide please. Um basically how this is used is as an outdoor television screen. We do not use it for any sign or advertising purposes. We do use it to host movie nights, game day events and seasonal celebrations at uh the Bakery Square outdoor area. And that does include, you know, the broadcasting of of games, uh, Steeler games, Pirate games, Penguin games, you know, other items of significance. Next slide, please. Um, next slide, please. These are just some shots of everything in motion. Uh, and um, this is Wicked that was playing

on the screen. Next slide, please. Um, next slide, please. Um, this is a picture of the front of the screen. As you can see, it is directed directly at our courtyard and not directed towards the roads in any way. Um, and is barely visible uh other than, you know, the the fact that you can see that there's uh some color coming from it. It's not visible from the right of ways. Next slide, please. Uh this is the back side of the screen. As you can see, it's just blacked out. Um and again, that's so as to not create any distraction for the drivers driving by. and also the uh drivers who are coming in in our a site access drive. Next slide please. Um these are uh dimension engineered dimensions of what was actually constructed. Next slide please. Is that our last one Joe? Great. So at this point uh what we're asking for is approval of the screen. I guess the continued existence of the of the television screen facing the courtyard. Again, um everybody knows how it's going to look because it's there and it's an existing amenity. Um and we're happy uh to go ahead and take any questions that planning may have at this point.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cayman, for the presentation. Um at this time, we would open the floor for public testimony. There isn't anybody in the room. Not sure if there's anyone online. No one online. All right, great. Uh, so commissioners, are there any questions or comments? I would just like to make a motion to approve to get this thing over with. Fantastic. So, we're gonna

I have one question. I'm sorry. Um, in terms of the video screen, I I don't have any questions about that, but is there a sign on the back of the video screen? So there is a a just a b I believe there's just a bakery square logo on it which you can see sort of faintly in this picture. Yeah. I mean it from this screen it's a little hard to see. I just kind of see the black. So that was that was the followup. And that has a sign permit. Uh I believe that it's waiting on this to be completed.

Okay. No further questions. Thank you. and my apologies, Commissioner O'Neal. Um, were there any other comments from any uh commissioners? All right, so we do have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Maza. Uh, do we have a second? Second. All right. Thank you. I'm going to do roll call. Commissioner Blackwell. I. Thank you. Commissioner Burton Faulk. I Commissioner Dick. I. Thank you. Commissioner Gam, I thank you. Commissioner Maza, I thank you, Commissioner O'Neal. I Thank you, Commissioner Kentia. I Thank you, Commissioner Ruiz. I Thank you. And Commissioner Woo.

I All right. Thank you. The motion passes. Have a great rest of your day. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right. Okay. Moving on to hearing and action part two. We would Start that at 2 PM. Oh, we're not quite there. Okay. Uh, well, we're going to have intermission here until 2 PM. I'm just rolling right along. Uh, we'll see everybody at two. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

All right, we're going to get ready to get started here in just a moment. Uh, just making sure the court reporter is still with us. Yep, I'm here.

Oh, thank you so much. All right, commissioners, just turn on your uh or signal that you're with us just to make sure. We're going to kick it back into gear for the second portion of today. Uh so, welcome back everybody. Intermission is over. We are uh on October 21st, 2025 under uh hearing and action part two. Uh I will read in the items that will be before us. Uh that is agenda item two is council bill 2025-1925 zoning code text amendment regarding application approval deadlines citywide. And then item number three, council bill 2025-1926, zoning code text amendment regarding application completeness determination deadlines and that would be citywide as well. I'm going to then turn that over uh to Mr. layman and when he is ready and there are uh no uh glitches then we'll be right with you. One moment please and thank you. There are some technical issues. Give us just a moment. Thank you. Thank you.

still working on that technical. So, no, no rush. I just want to let people know where we are. All right, Mr. Layman is coming. Good afternoon, commissioners. Apologies for the delay. Council Bill 20251925 was sent to planning commission for a report and recommendation on June 18th, 2025 and the legislation creates a new section called uh in section 92201 number E or letter E approval deadlines. Um, this uh legislation requires that the body or planning agency must review applications excluding city council, render its decision, and communicate it to the applicant no later than 90 days following a specific starting point depending on the next meeting date or the 30th day after an application is deemed complete. The legislation also requires a written decision to be provided to the applicant personally or mailed to him at last known address within 15 days of the decision. If an application is not approved, the decision shall specify what is incorrect or missing and cite the relevant code provisions. If the deciding body does not make a decision

and communicate it to the applicant, the application is approved regardless of whether it complies with the zoning code. Much of the text of this bill is taken from section 508 within article 5 of the Pennsylvania municipalities planning code. This part of the MPC applies only to subdivision plat. Articles 6 and 9 are the portions of the MPC that apply to zoning. While article 9 does establish timelines for zoning board and conditional use application decisions, it does not establish this kind of approval deadline for all applications. Pittsburgh is exempted from the MPC as a municipality of the second class uh and already has established timelines for ZBA and conditional use decisions. And this legislation would potentially conflict with those timelines. The legislation requires a 90-day mandatory decision timeline based on the following data. One that the date and one is the date that an application is deemed to be complete. The second is the date of the meeting that follows the deem completion. Third is the date that the application is filed and finally 30 days from the date that the application has been filed. Presently, the city only regularly uses and tracks the date from that that the application is filed. The date that an application is deemed complete is an important and necessary date only in rare instances in determining whether an application is impacted by pending ordinance. requiring this additional data to be tracked and implemented for every application will likely require a one-stop permitting system to be modified. Um, and the ability to make those modifications hasn't been studied. Uh, and the associated cost is unknown. The bill states that it applies to all applications for approval other than those governed by state or federal law and public hearings conducted under section 92205e

of the zoning code, whether preliminary or final, which amounts to approximately 3,000 applications annually. The bill doesn't differentiate between types of applications which can range in scale from a fence or shed to a large multi-story commercial development and institutional master plans and does not clearly define the process for applications that aren't decided at a regular meeting of the body or the planning agency because they are simple by right applications. The bill is unclear regarding the relationship between this mandatory timing and other notice and hearing periods established in the city code relating to significant developments, including public notice and hearing requirements and development activities meeting requirements in areas where there is a registered community organization. City Planning is recommending a negative recommendation uh recommending that planning commission makes a negative recommendation on this council bill. I do have a quick presentation that if you were here for the briefing, you'll recall. I'm going to try to go through that quickly. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm not gonna I'm just going to go now. Just quickly, I wanted to put together uh an explanation of our review process uh as it relates to these two bills. Um when an application is submitted, we have what's called a completeness check that's done by PLI and that is um in its own way uh a way of making sure an application is minimally complete. The timeline for that is typically one day. Every once in a while, if it's later in

the afternoon, it might uh be two days, but the typical timeline is is just a day for the city to review that and make a response to the application. And then for a basic zoning review, uh we have an expected completion. So we already have timelines for uh sort of deadlines for our reviews which are called um SLAs's which are service level agreements. It's essentially the service that we provide to our applicants. So we agree to review it and in no more than 15 days. The average completion time for a basic zoning review is 6 days. Then the next step uh often is that applications are put into revisions and this is where um in the ongoing meetings that we've had with uh we continue to have with PLI and DOI um and city leadership to try to continue to find ways to optimize and streamline the process. One of the one of the goals we would like to have is to have more applications that are complete right away because every time we have to send an application back to an applicant, you can see on average that spends over 30 days uh waiting for a response. Um that might be time that an applicant is preparing plans or um but a lot of times it's just there's there's just a delay. it takes time for them to get their stuff together in order to get it back to us. Um, and so that's where uh the we if we were able to eliminate the revisions, we'd have a process that would take 6 days instead of 30 or 40, you know, on average. So, um, this is a part, this is a little window into the work that's ongoing to try to continue to make applications and our application process more efficient. Um and certainly that efficient helps us as well. That

efficiency helps us. So it's a shared goal we have with with developers. Um for complex applications we're talking about major projects, the ones that are more often likely to end up at planning commission. There is understandably a longer process. It has more iterations. It has opportunity for public input. Um so most of those applications start with a pre-application meeting and then uh we help the applicant this is an effort the pre-application meeting is an effort to provide the applicant with the tools to have the most complete and efficient application. So to have less uh additional reviews and it's also a way to make sure the applicant understands what the process is going forward. Um, and then so we still have the same application submittal and completeness check by PLI. Then we have an initial zoning review that our team completes to set up the application uh and make sure everybody's on the same page as to what the next steps are. Um, there's uh typically some sort of community process whether that's a development activities meeting or just a regular community meeting. Um and then we get an application that has uh responds to the feedback from that process and then we have a whole bunch of reviews that are happening happening simultaneously. Zoning reviews, doi reviews, uh there's design review, uh that's where an application gets some of that initial feedback um and secondary feedback. Uh that's a more comprehensive stage of review. uh similar to basic applications then typically there's a point where we're sending it back to the applicant for revisions. Um actually on complex applications the it's about the same but it's 31 days instead of 32. Um typical

applicants for these more complex applications are more more um experienced applicants. Um there's uh typically a seed process uh and then potentially another stage of reviews responding to SEAPP and then there's sort of the final stage of zoning and related reviews to make sure that we have everything that we need to bring it to planning commission. Um so uh in that case that would be the storm water management plans that would be the transportation traffic plans all of the the sort of comprehensive type of review so that we can bring an informed recommendation to the planning commission. Uh then you have the planning commission and then after planning commission you have uh a final review. Um and then we have uh at that point the construction drawings that are being reviewed for um and and our review is just to make sure that the construction drawings are consistent with what planning commission approves. Um this has been uh the process for quite a while but we've created a lot of efficiencies over the years particularly with the application system. That is not to say that the process is perfect. Um I and our customers and our staff all agree that there are opportunities for more efficiency and for more predictability. Um we have been going through a number of processes as a city over the years and I've been with the city for 19 years. I have seen I've been under four mayors going on five. Um started with one Okconor. I'm going to be at the next Okconor. Um, and we have been cutting ribbons and doing grand openings and launching process improvements every single mayor administration. It's something that we have to continually work on because it's complicated. These are complicated

systems. Uh, the dynamics and the challenges and constraints that the developers and contractors and other application applicants feel uh range quite a bit. And so we're always trying to learn from peer cities, trying to innovate, trying to create the best possible process for Pittsburgh. I just wanted to show the ZBA cases per year graph uh is just an example of one of the types of ways that we've tried to improve the process for our applicants. So when I came in as zoning administrator in 2014, uh going into 2015, we had a really high level of zoning board cases. Um and that was and that and those were growing. You can see it kind of shooting up uh from 2014 to 2016. Um and in that time period there were so many cases that the board had to add extra meetings um both in the early in the morning and in the afternoon. There was a waiting list that was several months long to even be able to get to start scheduling a zoning board meeting. And we said, well, what can we do? And so we went through and we used a databased approach. So we took data from all of our zoning board cases over the last 10 years or whatever the iteration was and we studied or what are the kinds of cases that have had like a 100% or 99 or 98% approval rate from the zoning board. Can we change those from having to go to the zoning board to something that was an administrator's exception or some other easier, quicker, more efficient process? Um and so we made those changes and you can see the graphs shoot down. Um then in 2020 of course there was a dip in 2020 during CO everything dipped uh as things started coming back. We said hey it's time to look again and let's do a second round and see if there are other areas that we can make improvements. And so in 2021,

we we made another uh round of zoning board approvals and um or zoning board or changes related to our zoning board data and that reduced the impact on the zoning board all the way down to 2025 where we sometimes have uh only a handful of cases on a zoning board agenda. Um there is no delay at all to schedule a hearing and we're going for round number three. So, our staff are currently uh looking again to see if we can make it even more efficient because it saves the city money, saves our applicants money, it saves the city time, saves our staff time, and it saves our applicants time. So, we are all in on process optimization and on making changes to improve the process for everyone. In fact, we have uh in 2026, we'll be launching our customer advisor program uh fully uh which is another innovation that we've been working on uh that helps our applicants that are the applicants that tend to struggle the most. So, we provide basically hands-on customer service for the for that group of applicants. um so that uh our other reviewers who aren't handholding are able to have uh predictable and consistent applications that move really quickly. So my message to the commission, my message to city council is that we are willing partners. Uh we are willing collaborators. Uh we know that we're going into a new administration. We know that they're going to have goals related to this. We're here and and ready to work. Um, and our only request is that we do that together. Um, so that it's informed that and so it works for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Layman. Mr. Carter. Never going to

Thank you. My name is Sean Carter. I am the legislative projects manager for Pittsburgh City Council. Madam Chairwoman, Madame Vice Chair, commissioners, thank you for having me. Um, thank you, Mr. zoning administrator for previewing the bill. Um, this is city council bill 2025-1925. Um, zoning code text amendments for approval deadlines presented by city councilwoman Terresa Kell Smith from council district 2. Um, and so again, these are the changes to application review and approval deadlines. It will require that the reviewing body, whether it's the zoning administrator, the planning commission, the city council, or the ZBA, render their final decision on preliminary, for instance, preliminary land development plans or final approvals, and communicate that decision within 90 days following the date of the board or agency meeting, which immediately follows the date the application is deemed complete by the zoning administrator. So for instance, so we can map that out in like days on a calendar. If the zoning administrator deems an application complete on say Thursday, September the 25th, and that particular form of approval has a 90-day clock, then the next planning commission meeting from September the 25th is Tuesday, October the 7th. That triggers the 90-day clock. So the deadline for the commission to render a decision is January the 5th, 2026. Um, and as I said in the briefing, there's a there's a time gap that would have to be worked out in the legislation to make sure that where the commission doesn't have unmeating because of a holiday or something that, you know, some applicants not getting a freebie because of Christmas or because of New Year's. So, that's a minor tweak that has to be worked out in the legislation and I acknowledge that at the briefing and that remains the case today. Um, what's not affected is the 120day deadline for city council to

hold a public hearing on zoning, map, and text amendments under the zoning code because 120 days is longer than 90 days. Most other approvals in the zoning code do not span beyond 90 days. So, when you look in the zoning code, it's like pretty much 90 days is the largest one you're going to find, except this one, which is 120 days for council to hold the public hearing after the planning commission submits a recommendation to it. So that's unaffected and generally as a process noted is not the intention of the sponsor of this legislation to constrict the pre-existing approval deadlines in the zoning code. In fact, the legislation says, and I wish I had put it on the slide, that um decisions are to be rendered within the code's pre-existing time limits, but in no case longer than 90 days. So for instance, the zoning board generally has 45 days to render a decision after the close of the record. So this would not constrict the zoning board's 45 days. I could understand an argument that says it unnecessarily prolongs the 45 days, but it certainly doesn't constrict it. Um, and this is a provision that is used in some MPC municipalities for different types of approvals. And so it's not exactly a one forone correlation with Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, but you understand the principle. It's about speeding up some of the review process and giving some certainty to applicants that for these classes of approvals, this is your hard stop. Um, let's see. However, Pittsburgh is a restrictive development environment due to its topography, the rivers, its densely built urban environment, the active participation of us, the residents in land use processes, um regulatory requirements. I mean, those storm water requirements are necessary. I mean, we're under an EPA consent

decree to pull the storm water out of our waterways. So, that's not something we can overlook. We've got to find a way to keep the water off the imperous surfaces. Everybody's got to participate in that. Does that cause um some burdens? Yes. But I think living together in a dense urban environment, those are the types of things we just have to do. Um but we're not alone. We have external constraints right now. Interest rates are through the roof. Labor costs are through the roof. Materials costs are through the roof. We have tremendous market uncertainty both domestically and with um the import export environment. So there are a number of different factors that lead to development being either stymied or in fact stopped by um things outside of our control. We can't control any of these factors uh at least not as a government. Um and so the thing we can control is the process by which we review and approve applications when someone comes to us and say I want to build X, I want to do Y. Um, and again, like I said, one of the potential amendments we identified prior to the briefing was to provide for situations where the expiration of the 90 days occurs less than 7 days before a meeting. Um, to make sure that there isn't this freebie gap where if a applicant times it right, they're almost guaranteed to get an approval regardless of the conformity of their application to the zoning code. Um, and I ju I do want to just, if the chair will indulge me, point uh respond to a couple of things brought up by the uh zoning administrator. Um, I think largely this doesn't apply to ZBA cases because that's when someone's asking for relief from strict conformity with the zoning code and this doesn't interfere with the zoning board's work. And the other um I would say in terms of exempting classes of large or classes of large complex project applications whose

approval processes already take longer than 90 days, I think a better approach would be to condition a positive approval on exempting that class of projects from the strictctures of this ordinance, not rejecting or recommending negatively this ordinance altogether. Um because aside from that 20% of projects which necessarily if you got to go through DOI and PLI and CADP and um maybe the art commission and maybe um multiple rounds maybe it's a one of those split approvals where part of it has to get approved by the ZBA and then another part of it has to get approved by the planning commission and then you know you look at your SP districts where some of it then has to come to city council. Um there there is an argument to exempt those large projects from this ordinance, but the other 80% I don't see why this presents that unhonorous a burden. Um and yeah, that's what I have unless the commissioners or the public has any questions. Okay, I think um if that completes your presentation, thank you and I appreciate the additional u point of uh trying to have some clarity at the end there. Um is I know there's no one in the room here. Is there anybody online as it No. Okay. Uh because we have to offer offer that first. Um, you know, commissioners, now is our time to sort of ask some questions. Um, and and I have one myself. If it's okay, commissioners, uh, you know, for me to sort of, uh, ask this one, and I know this might be slightly silly. Uh, so the example that you gave at the end, I greatly appreciated, right? Because if we've got something that comes before the zoning board, the zoning board has to, you know, it has to get on the schedule. Then once it's on the schedule, you get 45 days after in which to render a decision.

Has there been communication between council and and staff in terms of uh you know efficiency? like Corey, you had shown the graph and and kind of looked at, you know, what came before uh zoning and how uh changes were able to make an impact and and we were sort of able to to make some better efficiencies. Has there been conversation between um council and staff to really look at places where efficiencies could be? because I recognize that that what is being um proposed right now there are those time glitches that might fall between holidays and recess and um I I I'm just questioning how much work has been done to kind of together to sort of look at that has there been any or um I guess that's for both of you Corey and Mr. Carter Mr. Layman and Mr. Carter, both please and thank you.

I would say we haven't gotten around to that. We've got a full plate with a bunch of other issues council has sent your way and we just honestly haven't been able to schedule the time to get it done. At least I'm talking about from my side. Okay. Um

there hasn't been a disincclination to meet. We just haven't been able to get it together. And and I only asked that and I and I that's why I said this may be kind of a silly question, but I I only asked that because I I think that um it appears clear to me that both sides might really want the same thing and I am just trying to figure out uh with a little bit of conversation how that couldn't um work and and everybody kind of get what they're what they're trying to achieve the the endgame and the end goal is to create efficiency and less time. Um, and I and I'm feeling like I'm I'm hearing that on both ends that that's that's a goal for both. Um, and so I don't know I don't necessarily know what to do with that, but I just wanted to ask that so that that can help to inform some of my thought throughout this. Commissioners, are there additional um, you know, comments? I don't I don't want my question to be the only um and online as well. Commissioners, Vice Chair O'Neal. Oh, I'm sorry, Oceaner. Woo.

All right. Yeah, I think I I spoke last time uh on um you know, what I what I basically do every day at my job um as a planner is is working in the NBC. Um, you know, most of our clients uh are small townships, small burrows. Um, they may have one planning commission meeting a month. Uh, sometimes they don't even meet every month. Um, they'll have one board of supervisors or one burough commission meeting a month. Um, so and and they also have, you know, far fewer large development proposals proposed um at at those meetings. Um so um the the legislation the 20251925 um section 922.01 um the you know with those approval deadlines kind of you know um replicating the the language from the municipalities planning code um section 508 as as Mr. layman uh discussed um you know it it it it's it means that the the timeline is going to be even quicker in in Pittsburgh than it would be in these communities because you know we have we have council meetings uh twice a month we have uh or or even know is it weekly I don't even know um and then plan commission we have you know twice twice a month uh so um you know if it if it's 90 days following the date of the regular meeting of the body or the planning agency next following the date the application is deemed complete. That means the timeline's probably going to be quicker here in the city than it would be in you know these smaller committees have to follow the the MPC. So um also as Mr. Layman mentioned the MPC doesn't have um clocks for completeness uh of applications. Those

are things that uh that the individual municipalities will put in their own uh subdivision or land development uh um uh ordinances or zoning ordinances. So um you know h having a clock here um where we say it has to be you know within 30 days a receipt of an application to deemed to complete um I I have a hard time you know being um you know not not being a little wary of that given that you know how how many large applications we have here that go before a commission you know whether it's a um let's say the lower hill PLDP, you know, um we wouldn't want that to to uh to potentially be approved without uh you know, committee input, without um you know, all the all the requirements uh you know, the the the development activities meeting, CDAP, um you know, uh DOI, etc. Um, and I I I used to, you know, I I used to work at DCP. Um, and I I used to schedule all the dams. And you know, it was hard enough finding a um you know, a a window of time uh with with uh you know, with numbers of days before planning commission um hearings or or number of days before city council to to find a time to get those meetings scheduled because, you know, sometimes you have five registered community organizations or um you know, any number of registered community organizations in an area and you have to coordinate with all of those those folks to to find a time that's agreeable to everyone. And then there's the you know there's al also the time limit between uh you know when a dam takes place and when a hearing takes

place that that's also specified in in the code. So, um you know, I I think um you know, kind kind of having this blanket uh um these blanket uh approval requirements um for all different types of developments that come through um the the department uh I think is uh you know might not lead to the results that we want. So um I you know uh when when Mr. Layman went through the presentation uh you know discussing the the number of days that it typically takes for a completeness check for basic zoning review um you know complex applications resub resubmitt um you know times um you know we we we get a ton of uh applications in the city more more than most of the the small buroughs and townships so I don't think that uh I don't think that's in the interest of the department to want to prolong something longer than it has to be. Um because that just means there's a backlog of applications to be reviewing. Um so yeah, I I mean I I I think uh there needs to be a lot more work done to this legislation for me to be um you know, satisfied with with the um the language in it at at this moment. Commissioner O'Neal.

Sure. Thank you. Uh, so thank you for, you know, coming back with this legislation. Um, I think I echo a lot of Commissioner Woo's comments. Um, having worked in a lot of MPC jurisdictions, um, you know, it is tight some of that scheduling. It's something we back into all of the time and have to look at how many days in advance. Um it it gets very complicated sometimes and I think that's my overarching concern here. Um you know is somebody who isn't a zoning expert and isn't doing this every day should be able to look at the code and know you know what their expectations are and when we have conflicting provisions. So, for example, saying that you have up to 90 days here, but uh you know, the zoning board, even though it starts from a different period, is 45 days from the date of the hearing to render a decision.

Um there's potential for confusion. So, as somebody who's an expert, you can point to, you know, the section of the zoning code that says the more restrictive provision complies. But if I'm a lay person, um I'm going to look and I maybe I only see the 90 days and then I don't know um you know which one applies. I shouldn't have to look multiple places to know what the deadlines are and schedule. So I think if there's going to be you know a clock on some of these applications, which it seems like the intention here is for you know mostly PDPs and subdivisions, it should be in those sections specifically. Um, you know, here the drafting makes it a little bit confusing. And then as far as kind of schedule, I think the ZBA is a really good example because it's not quite as simple as just 45 days because, you know, and I'll speak on behalf of myself when I come in. Um, if I have an application, a lot of them that have to go to the ZBA have to go to an RCO. So, I need to submit that application to city planning at least 10 days before an RCO meeting because they need to review and comment if it's going to be meaningful. And then the RCO has to hold their meeting at least 30 days in advance of a CBA hearing.

Correct?

And some of them only hold them once a month. So, if I don't hit it on the right date, I'm waiting up to 45 days just to get my RCO meeting. And then I have to go to the zoning board and then they have 45 days. So we're already over 90 days. So what gets curtailed there is either the ZBA's decision or the RCR's review. And both of those are, you know, very impactful. These are quasi judicial decisions that require, you know, community input and ZBI expertise. Uh so while it's not the effect or the intended effect to limit that process, it is entirely possible. Um, so I I think just the way it is written currently makes it too confusing to enforce um and maybe is counterintuitive. I think that there um could be reddrafting. Specifically, my recommendation would be to um you know amend the specific provisions of the code that you would like to limit that aren't in conflict with other provisions. So not with the ZBA provisions. if it's going to be PDP approval, PLDP approval, FLP, those kind of things, it should be in those specific sections so it's clear to everybody reading the code what the expectations are. Um because we don't want to kind of cut uh short, you know, those RCO processes um and you know, we want to have meaningful input from everybody involved. Yeah, I think that's definitely um if I can uh echo them them both and kind of bring it full circle to where I started. I think that's kind of why I asked the question initially in terms of a a sitdown maybe you know together so that um

you know almost like the timeline I I I value exactly what it is that you're looking for and and and I personally directly appreciate it uh so much so and I I get where you want to go. I I think that there can be I I think that there could be an opportunity to meet the the goal and and the objectives here. I just think there needs to be a little more um communication and sort of getting there, you know, collectively because I I I think that they're saying that that what you're proposing and what um we're trying to achieve internally um and that we as the public are also trying to achieve externally are the exact same thing. I just think there needs to be a little more communication and I'm hesitant to say um chalk it up. I I'd like to see a little bit of a you know some some time and some some effort put in conversation. Now conversation never means consensus. It just means conversation and let's settle on a few things that make sense because if you if you move something forward and there's a lot of conflict whether it's ZBA um whether it's holiday you know August recess there's no reason to move something if um with holes and things that you have to amend anyway. I think that we could get a lot more mileage and a lot more benefit and a great outcome if there's some communication and that's sort of worked through collectively. I know that's never fun

in terms of just meaning delay because you you come for something and you want it. Uh but I but I think it's it's wise. Well, I would say if the commission is willing to indulge a delay, I'm more than willing to um actually set up the meetings with city planning and see if we can't get to an accord. And I would appreciate you greatly and I could say for myself and I think the commission, the sentiment of the commission is likely that we want to see something super good. So, is there a um motion from um Commissioner Madson?

Please. Thank you. Um so my first thing would be how how long has um um Pittsburgh one been um online one the onetop onetop yeah it's been on since like 20 2019 yeah so we still don't have a cause of how it or what it could it could be changed we don't even understand that it's been going on well what I'm saying it's it's been active for 5 years or So, but we still don't know what we possibly can do to change anything on in that process. Can I apparent can I respond to that? Yeah, that's what I'm asking.

Yeah. Okay. So, in let me find my notes here for this. We talked about it in the briefing, but I I would like to to go back through. So in 2023, so that was after the pandemic and a few years um you know a couple years after the pandemic and four years into using the one-stop system uh the city got help uh worked with the Hines Endowments and the Pittsburgh Foundation and hired the Thomas Consulting Group to cons conduct a substantial detailed survey survey of all of our customers of our one-stop customers. Um, and that survey revealed a number of substantial concerns that customers regularly encountered, many of which aligned with concerns that the one-stop staff had raised during interviews and surveys regarding the permitting system and associated processes. The most commonly raised concerns with DCP reviews, uh, so these are zoning reviews largely, were the lack of staffing and need for those staffers to be retained and experienced, the difficulty using the online portal, and the timeliness of reviews. While the timeliness of the code reviews was a noted concern, customers held the staff's courtesy and respectfulness and knowledge and expertise in high regard. The report did not raise concerns about timeliness of issuing decisions or deeming applications complete. The f following the survey in 2024, the city released a major update to the permitting system which so this is just last year uh which included improvements as recommended by the consultant and leadership team to address concerns heard from the customers. In 2024, the zoning and development review division was able to implement an overhaul of our staffing and our organization in order to address the stuffing the staffing

level concerns. Zoning reviews have um a service level agreement which is our maximum timeline for review set within the permitting system for each type of review or process. On average, reviews are completed 14 days ahead of of our deadline for basic reviews and 29 days ahead of the deadline for advanced zoning reviews. The average review time for zoning applications is 18 business days and the median time is 13 business days. So, I just want to I understand folks have concerns and and I want to say we're engaged in another process kind of closing um making another round of updates to the application to improve it for customers. I mentioned the uh customer advisor program that we've been piloting in 2025 that we're going to launch in 2026. Um and uh I mentioned that we're working again on the zoning board data. the um one of the concerns like I said earlier is there's a perception that it can take months and a lot of times those months are caught up in the having to do multiple iterations of submitting an application being told that there are issues then having to go back coordinate getting your team together prepare updated plans and then submit those back to staff. And that on average is what takes 30 days or more. If we add in these additional timelines and deadlines in this way, it it's not factoring for the staff time. It's ending up being picked up where we're going to have to deny applications to avoid having them deemed approved when they're not ready because we're just waiting for an applicant to submit it.

So, it's going to create pressure and anxiety for applicants. It's going to create pressure and anxiety for staff and it's a solution in search of a problem that we don't have. We we do have those those challenges. We um I know for a fact the incoming administration has a substantial interest in making their own imprint and changes to permitting to the timing to the one-stop system. We're here. We're willing and able and eager to get to work with the new administration on that. Um that's going to that's going to be coming down the road in a few months. Um and we'd be similarly willing to I I would imagine that the new administration would want to work with city council members in that process as well. And I think that like as we're doing with the Northshore folks on the signage, a collaborative approach where we're all in the room together would work a lot better than us cooking something up on our own, never talking to each other about it, and then kind of sending it over.

Um, Commissioner Maz.

Um, and well, no, I appreciate that. you know, from from where I come from, where who I work for, my organization and the people that I deal with on a day-to-day basis, and I was with the national developer yesterday at an event. That's the the big concern. It's like it's not clear on either side that that's what I believe. City council brought it up to try to maybe push or nudge people to move a little quicker to try to get this thing done because this has been languishing for years. And I've known you, Mr. Layman, for how many years? 17, 18 years, probably. And I it's the same thing over and over. So we have to get to find the common ground here. And I I agree with um Mr. Carter about you know keep working on this thing and keep it moving forward. But I have one other question um on the efficiencies graph. Okay. And I work with numbers all the time. But um so it says that it goes down. Okay. And I'm not playing a blame game or anything like I'm just trying to understand where you how you came to that result. Um, so you said that it's gotten better, but has there been less applications to create the number of efficiency?

Sure. No, that's a a fair clarification. I didn't have the number of applications in the graph. I can follow up with that, but my understanding is that our applications have been pretty stable across the last four or five years since CO.

Yeah, because I I understand I think up till July there probably were 87,000 permits give, you know, released and I don't know what the number is right now, but I just want to make sure that we're looking at this in the the right way that we are actually moving in that direction because that won't be fair to the process. Yeah, the the the chart was the number of cases that have had to go to the zoning board. So, our goal is to have it be zero, which means that everybody's complying with the code and the zoning board folks can just come in and have coffee and leave. But we know that there are going to be variances there. Know, we know there are going to be special exceptions, but if we can get those case numbers down, it's cheaper for the applicants, it's cheaper for the city, everybody's happier. Um, go ahead commission.

Yeah, I just wanted to add one thing. Um, so if if you know we were in the situation where um uh Mr. Layman would have to deny applications just you know to make sure that uh clock clocks are uh and times are met. um that's going to present more ZBA appeals um and potentially legislation, you know, up up the chain. So, um that's, you know, that's not uh something that will um create efficiency. So, um, what I think that I'm hearing, and if that's the case, I think that what I'm hearing is that we would motion to give more time and that we would um ask that there be a cooperative and collaborative. That means rolling up sleeves helping you to understand the data and then Mr. Layman, you you having an opportunity to um will share what's currently going on a little bit differently for for an application to really build itself around um its goal. And um and I and I think that would be the goal of both. So, um I I I'm not going to make the motion, but I'm going to move for the suggested motion, which would be some time and some delay to help that happen.

Yeah, I mean, we are always willing and eager to collaborate with council members. I think we have fundamental differences on this. I think any deemed approval system is going to end up in a situation where we're going to have to deny applications in basically prematurely in order to avoid having them deemed approved. So, it creates another bureaucracy step that we don't currently have. Um, in other in the MPC, in other municipalities, these provisions apply to subdivisions. If there's an interest in looking at it just for subdivisions for Pittsburgh, I'm I'm open to that. I don't I don't have the same kinds of concerns because it's a similar application type that has a very regular process. And if a a subdivision doesn't have iterative reviews with sending things back very often, it's usually you have a surveyor comes in, they know what they're doing, they submit the subdivision. If it takes us more than 30 days or whatever, fine. But, you know, that I I'm not worried about it because I know that we can do it. Um, and I know that it works. I I want to work with the council person. I want to work with Shawn. I like Shawn. Um but I I want to know uh I want to have some some understanding of what we're working toward. I I'm there are certain things we're not going to be willing to to come back to the commission with.

Okay.

So, well, so so let me just say this. I don't want to talk about um maybe what we I I I think the meeting of the minds here is really going to be about um the main objective which is shortening the amount of time and I and I think that there's education on maybe one side and then there is um desire on the opposite side like the the proposal uh the bill is trying to achieve reduc reducing time if there's an education um component that helps to provide uh data and maybe there is a cons you know maybe a misconception that this is happening versus that and here's how this really goes in. What has been missed here um has been communication. What has been missed here is the opportunity to to figure out what's really going on and what is desired to to happen. So, I don't necessarily want to put guard rails. I want communication to occur and I want us to be able to see if we can um collectively work together to to achieve the same thing. If you come back and and there's some good, great. If you come back and there's no good, well, that stinks. But it is what it is, right?

Yes. Thank you. Um, can I just make sure that I'm hearing you 100%. Please and thank you. You are asking that this be continued, let's say, for some sort of report back to the commission by the end of the year, some some point, some date and time. Yes. And that the goal the commission is what you're asking is collaboration between the council sponsors I guess or the offices staff. Yes. Collaboration with staff to achieve a goal which is improving the timeliness of permitting.

You got it. Madam Madam Chair, can I ask one question? I agree with what he's saying. Is can that come back to briefing? So we get briefed on it before we go to hearing and action or do we have to go straight to hearing? Yeah, I think we'll get like a report. I'd like to get briefed on and see what it actually is. I think they can bring us a report. That way we can understand what has changed and then um and then we can vote on it. Well, I'll let you two do what hadn't happened. collaborate for a minute.

There we go. Whatever sound, right? continue with us to come back.

We're just clarifying here. Make sure that we're understanding the motion from the the motion from the commission will be something along the lines of return by the end of the year with a report on our collaboration and discussions. Correct. Okay. And is that I see the face that Sean is making. I want to make sure that we're late November. I was thinking late November. Okay. Like Thanksgiving. Well, no, you don't meet that. I I'm concerned about time just with the city with my own my own schedule. First commission meeting hearing in December. The third I think it is.

The second. That's what I was thinking. Okay. Is that fair and reasonable? I w I'm gonna try. I'm not sure that we're gonna have a chance to have a lot of Well, so why facilitating the Northshore which we've already in our third meeting and going into it more. So, we're working hard to get a collaborative a collaborative approach to the commission on that. Okay. I'm just worried about about the timing. I know you're c I understand you have a concern about timing for your who you're representing as well. Here's what I think. Um I I I think that uh yes I can do December 2nd. Let's just December 2nd is wonderful.

Yeah, there's collaboration. Collaboration. I'll do my best. I mean I'll collaborate. I just what I'm saying. Hey boys, we're going to collaborate whether we like it or not. That's what the motion is. Okay. So, somebody make a motion and let's let's Commissioner Oh, Commissioner Dick. Hi there. Yeah, I would propose a motion to uh continue this until at to December the first meeting planning commission meeting December to foster collaboration between the motion. Second. Thank you. Uh we're going to do roll call. Commissioner Blackwell. I Thank you, Commissioner Burton Folk. I Commissioner Dick. I

thank you, Commissioner Gam. I thank you, Commissioner Maza. I thank you, Commissioner O'Neal. I, Commissioner Kinttonia, thank you. Hi, Commissioner Kentia. Thank you, Commissioner Ruiz. I thank you. And Commissioner Woo, I thank you. Do you both feel good? Okay. Excellent. That's that's that's a plus. All right. Thank you so much. Uh, so the uh final agenda item is E. That is the director's report. Well, we've still got another bill. Oh, whoops. Are we proposing to do the same thing on

We We didn't hear 1926. Now, we could present it then do the whole thing and I have all of the various things that you heard in the briefing and Sean has uh his presentation. My apologies. I kind of thought we were taking hold up together. Might we please? Yeah.

So you I think you do need to hear testimony on it to see if there's anybody here to testify. I we can certainly if if there are folks here that do want to testify on that particular bill, I would be willing to go forward and give a a quick summary. Uh, but if there aren't, then I think we can probably just move forward. All right, that's fair and reasonable. Do we have anyone because we don't have anyone? No one online.

Thank you. Okay. Well, it looks like we don't have anyone online. Uh, commissioners, do we all agree that we're going to treat the um council bill 2025-1926 uh the same? Okay, fair and reasonable. We'll delay on both. Thank you so much. I have a very important director's report. Yes. Are you ready to move to director's report? We are absolutely. I thought you might be. I would like to introduce uh Moit Route who has been on our staff for a year. Yeah, a little more than

1.25 years. uh who is now uh working with the codes and commissions team with Kate and so that uh will be working more frequently with the commission and Christian Johnson who uh just joined us last week 1.25 weeks uh who is also going to be working with this team and uh we're happy to uh get staffed up and I think I don't know if I mentioned it but uh Mr. Joe Frer who's uh you all know and has been with our team uh was recently promoted to principal planner for the team. Fantastic. Well, congratulations to all of you. Yes, everybody. And welcome to the new person. So, yes. And welcome the two new folks. Yes. Well, welcome.

One's been here for a while. So, yes, this is true. All right. Um any any commissioners have anything to say? No. Uh does that complete your director's report? Indeed. Thank you so much. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? So move. All in favor? I. All right, folks. Have a great rest of your day. Thank you. Very good. All right. All right. All right.