Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

always fun i wonder if other folks are virtual like i typically like to be here 15 minutes early and some folks don't don't mind coming in hi there Oh, he must have been running. He's with AJCP. He used to be with the URA. Really good guy. Mm-hmm.

Yeah. Hmm.

Hello, doing a soundcheck with Megan.

Have any commissioners joined us online? We're about three minutes to start here.

Oh, here we go. I see somebody walking.

Good afternoon. Can we do a quick sound check with someone attending in the attendee list? Thank you.

Hi, guys. Hey, boss.

How are you? Good. How are you doing? Hey, hey, hey. Nice to see you. Great. We're about three minutes to start.

Rice candy again?

Oh, look at you. You're just trying to snuggle up.

that was huge that was me oh you know what this great timing i was i was just we got a milky way too i'd love one of each thank you but i should i'm good thank you peter thank you problem is whatever you call me no this is i i well i already told i'm going to use my parking my parking reimbursement to buy candy for us there we go the parking the parking reimbursement doesn't really get close the buy a lot of them

All right, we're at 1258, about two minutes to start.

Keep us all awake. Who needs another one over there?

Like I said, parking reimbursement. I can buy a box.

We should just get rid of the parking reimbursement and make it a snack fund. I think that's the plan.

It's an option that you all have.

A snack fund is always my favorite thing.

I would vote for that. Second.

Yeah. All right. We're about one minute to start.

And we do not need a quorum for briefing. Correct.

Hearing and action, yes.

What is it? Do we need five for quorum?

Yes, we do. All right. Good afternoon and welcome good and beautiful people this is the planning commission meeting for may 19th 2026 i'm going to go ahead and start out the briefing session with making sure uh what commissioners are here so i'm going to do roll call commissioner burton fall present commissioner hunt present thank you commissioner anteriano commissioner kelly commissioner o'neill Commissioner Quintanilla.

Present.

Thank you. Commissioner Reppe. Present. Thank you. Commissioner Vatz.

Present.

Thank you. And Commissioner Walker. All right. Now that roll call is done, happy Tuesday. This is the briefing session for the Planning Commission, and briefing means that cases are heard as preliminary public presentation. Initial questions will come from the Commission. There will be no public testimony, and I'm going to read through the whole agenda item that is before us today for briefing. Briefing item A is Council Bill 2025-1545. This is a report and recommendation on Council Bill re-referred to Planning Commission after Council replaced citywide inclusionary zoning with affordable housing bonus program. This happens to be citywide.

and presenting today will be Ms. Ristow thank you good afternoon commissioners and audience members Carolyn Ristow zoning administrator for the city of Pittsburgh I will be giving the presentation today however as as many of you are probably aware this is a very this package of amendments has a very long history much of which predates me so if we have questions that are before the time that I started four months ago director or deputy director Dash is in the room to provide support on those questions thank you all right so this is our presentation for a series of zoning code amendments to support the development of housing across the city Oh, do I get to... Oh, I get to control the slides. This is cool. Okay. So we are going to go over the background and timeline of this package of proposals. We are going to discuss the component for the accessory dwelling units. We are going to discuss the component for the parking reform. And then we are going to discuss the affordable housing bonus program. There is the proposal from council and there is a proposal from DCP that modifies that proposal from council. And then we will discuss next steps. As I said, this has a very long history. In 2022, the Department of City Planning had commissioned a housing needs assessment that was released in 2022. And that's the impetus for this package of amendments. In 2024, we began community outreach with public meetings, community meetings, neighborhood meetings, industry focus groups, and we also launched the Engage Pittsburgh page at that time, where people could look at the information and provide comment through the comment form on that platform. In fall 2024, we had the Planning Commission briefings for the initial package, which had more parts than what we have today. And then in January 2025, the Planning Commission made a positive recommendation on that package of bills. That then went to City Council and in March 2025 City Council introduced a bill for the minimum lot size reform that was a part of the bigger package. So that removed it from the whole package and that went through the process separately. It was passed in May 2025 which was very exciting reducing some of the common barriers that we see in our residential districts to building multi-unit housing. Then in September 2025 Council held a public hearing on the remainder of the package at that point in time, it included the city wide inclusionary zoning it included the parking reform and the accessory dwelling units. in October 5th on October 15th 2025 council amended the city-wide inclusionary zoning by substitution with a new affordable housing bonus program and then because of that change it was a substantial change so the whole package has to come back to planning commission for review and recommendation As we're all aware, after October 15th, there was a mayoral election, there was an administration change, there was change to staff, there was change to planning commission. Once that all kind of settled, DCP worked with Councilperson Strasburger, who's the sponsor of the affordable housing bonus program portion of the bill, to come up with the alternative that we are proposing to be subsequently amended by substitution. um and so again that the original bill from 2024 2025 had accessory dwelling units parking reform city-wide inclusionary zoning and minimum lot size reform the current package again the minimum lot size has already been passed separately from the rest of it and the city-wide inclusionary zoning is being replaced with with an affordable housing bonus program Also to note the existing mandatory inclusionary zoning overlay that is over a portion of the city is not is not being affected by this proposal. So the first component is the accessory dwelling units. accessory dwelling unit is a small residential unit subordinate to the primary use of the property most traditionally this is seen as an accessory dwelling unit is accessory to a single family dwelling it's often in pittsburgh the most common example would be our carriage houses so the the residential unit above a garage for a residential um or a larger house. There are other ways in which accessory dwelling units can be provided, and our proposal is allowing for that. So the proposed regulations, accessory dwelling units would be permitted by right, accessory to a residential use, a community center use, or religious assembly use. Two accessory dwelling units would be permitted per residential lot, and there is no limit on the number of units that would be allowed for a community center or religious assembly. There is a maximum square feet per unit of a thousand square feet. And if it's a detached ADU, again, going back to that carriage house example, the maximum height and feet would be 30. The package from 2425 included a limit on the stories. As part of our current proposal to amend by substitution, we are proposing to remove that. That is In accordance with the mayor's executive order that we simplify the code, one thing in particular he called out in the executive order is to remove the redundancy of limiting height in feet and stories. And so this change is to bring this package into alignment with that direction. There is also no owner occupied requirement for an accessory dwelling unit. In addition, there are relaxed setback requirements for accessory dwelling units in this proposal. For example, accessory dwelling units would not be subject to the residential compatibility standards. In the case of converting an existing garage into an ADU, that would be by right, as long as you're not providing an addition that extends into the side or rear setbacks. You can go up even if the building is already in the setbacks. but if you go out there would be additional process which is the third line here that if you are either again expanding that garage or building a separate detached accessory dwelling unit that projects into the side or rear setbacks, it would go through an administrator exception process, which is pretty standard in residential districts for our accessory uses. Garages already have this, decks, fences, a lot of accessory structures go through this process. So we're keeping this in alignment with those existing regulations. Again, here are some examples of what are currently existing non-conforming accessory dwelling units across the city. These would be allowable by right if this amendment passes. The next package is our parking reform. As you may be aware, Pittsburgh was primarily built out by 1958, which is when we adopted what's considered the modern zoning code for the city of Pittsburgh. We had zoning prior to that point, but it was a 42-page pamphlet. In 1958 is when we went to the book that we know today and love, of course. As part of that expansion from those 42 pages to the hundreds of pages that we have today, parking was added as part of the requirements for zoning. Those early off-street parking requirements were very much influenced by the trends of the time. People are moving to the suburbs. People are, you know, car ownership has exploded across the country. And so it was believed to be best practice to create suburban-like parking requirements, even in a dense urban place like Pittsburgh. That approach has been ineffective for over 50 years. I am a little tired, so I'm not going to be able to do the math on how long it's actually been since 1958, but it's been a while. And over the decades, we have made some minor reforms to the parking to try and relieve the challenge of it. These include the parking reduction areas that we have across the city. There are bicycle parking substitution opportunities. There's opportunities for administrator approval for doing something slightly different, for zoning board approval for doing something slightly different. But over and over, these separate things are all acknowledging the same basic fact that our structure of parking is not appropriate for the city of Pittsburgh. So, um, Instead of continuing that approach of doing what I call band-aids to the existing structure, this amendment is proposing to restructure how we do parking. And it's in alignment with what we're seeing in other peer cities across the country. Buffalo and Minneapolis are among the ones that have had good success with changing their parking.

A quick question. It says here for all uses, is that all residential uses?

We'll get to that in a second. Yeah. So for this restructuring, the basic proposal is that we are removing parking minimums from all uses and districts. Our code currently has parking maximums. And so we are taking those maximums and refining them. So we, to Commissioner Hunt's question, our current parking table has pretty detailed, this use, this use, this use has, you know, whatever ABC requirements. We are changing that from specific uses to broader categories. So instead of specifying restaurant, retail, community center you know instead of specifying each of those uses individually they are now being grouped into broader categories that have similar impacts on parking um In addition, the parking maximums are being tiered based on whether it's near high transit areas or not, and we'll go into more detail on that a little bit later. There is also a new option that if a developer is proposing to exceed the parking maximum, They can do that by paying a fee into the mobility trust fund. So this is providing an administrative path to doing something that's beyond what the parking maximum would require. In addition, we are also expanding a requirement for transportation demand management for particular kinds of projects over a certain size threshold. We are also, in the spirit of simplifying our code, removing the ADA parking requirements of the zoning code. Now, it's important to know that this is not removing the city's regulations of ADA parking. Currently, this is something that is reviewed by multiple departments. It's redundant. And the Department of Permanence Licenses and Inspections has a much more robust process for for ADA parking and what's appropriate for providing the relief and what's not. And so by taking this out of our code, we are eliminating the redundancy. We are also eliminating something that frequently goes to the zoning board when the zoning board doesn't really have full purview because PLI is regulating it, the state's regulating it, and it adds process and time and not much value. So we are taking that out of our code. We are also expanding limits on new surface parking as an accessory across all of our mixed-use walkable zoning districts. This is something that we currently have in our newest districts. And so this is just, again, expanding something that we've piloted in a handful of our districts to a broader range of the city. So what this parking ordinance does do is it simplifies the zoning code. It provides more room for the market to decide how much parking is needed as opposed to outdated 1950s formulas. It removes barriers to the reuse of existing buildings. And it shifts the focus of transportation from car-centric to all modes of transportation. And all of this together allows for more optimal use of our dense urban environment that we know and love in Pittsburgh. What this parking ordinance does not do is it does not remove any legally existing parking spaces. Any existing legal parking spaces are permitted to continue. It does not place greater restrictions on car parking than we already have. It does not prohibit the building of new parking spaces or structures. It does not create the parking free for all that some people have asked us about. There are still requirements that have to be met and new developments still have the option to provide parking spaces. And, you know, lest we forget, there are other people out there that care about parking besides zoning. Bankers and lenders frequently add parking requirements as part of their financial packages. So, again, parking is not going to go away. We are just making it easier for projects to find a path forward with the parking that's appropriate for the scale of the development. And this again comes back to Commissioner Hunt's question. So this is the proposed parking table. So again, there are no parking minimums anymore. And these are the new categories. So again, if I had put the original table up here, it probably would have taken at least three slides to get through all the specific uses. All of those uses still have parking requirements. They're just simplified into these broader categories. and again the the middle column so the first column is the the land use categories um the middle column is the maximum number of units that they can provide within a transit high frequency transit zone we'll talk a little bit more about that in a second and then the final column is the maximum number of units that they can provide when they're outside of that high frequency transit zone. And again, if there is a development that for whatever reason is seeking to go beyond these maximums, they have that opportunity to pay into that mobility trust fund. Okay, so the definition of the high frequency transit zones on the bottom of this slide, it's within a quarter mile from a bus stop that's served by bus at least every 15 minutes or a half a mile from a fixed transit route, such as one of our busways or the T. And so we have a map here that shows those buffers. So it's the gray areas are the quarter mile and the half mile within the high frequency transit. I'll give you all a second to look at that map. Yeah. Thank you for that. Alright, so a little bit more on that mobility improvement trust fund. This is a trust that was established in the Riverfront and Oakland zoning code updates. It hasn't really been used to date, but this this proposal is Again, making it more clear when it's allowed to be used and expanding where it's used across the city. So again, it's an option if you need to exceed the maximum parking requirement. There is a fee per space. That is something that we will not specify in the zoning text per best practices. It will be a policy that will be adopted because that's much more flexible as the cost of everything goes up, we want to have the flexibility to keep the fee per space in alignment with just the cost of work. The funds will be used or will be available for use in projects that are done by the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure in the neighborhood where the development is occurring. And it can It can be a broad range of mobility improvements within that neighborhood. Not room enough to list all of those on the slide, but one that we're pointing out as a possibility is signal improvements that would benefit the entire neighborhood, including the development. And again, the providing this option provides administrative flexibility for the applicant so that there is a way to move forward without a lengthy process of going through a board variance. The transportation demand management plan. Again, this is a tool that we do have on some level in the city currently, primarily for large scale projects. It's not very doesn't have a lot of definition currently, and that's one of the things that this amendment is doing. This is a national best practice tool for creating more efficiency within transportation networks to meet the demands of travel, not just through cars, but through other modes, such as transit, biking, and walking, which reduces the amount of traffic and makes the overall mobility of the city much more efficient. And so the proposal will create predictability through a formalized points system. So depending on what kind of intervention you are proposing, you will get a certain number of points based on the scale of your development. Well, you would get a certain number of points based on the intervention. Based on the scale of your development, you have to hit a certain threshold of points total. So if you are an apartment building that requires 10 points and you're picking a bunch of two-point options, you would have to have five of those two-point options in order to move forward. Or you could do two five-point options. And again, the point system is another one of those policies that will be adopted outside of the code again for that flexibility. So as we move forward with the program, if we're finding that you know, there's a there's a new mobility option that comes to the city, we can easily add it to the policy. Or if we're finding that, you know, perhaps we waited them incorrectly. We're not quite waiting didn't work quite right, the first time we can we can make tweaks like that, with greater flexibility through through adopting it as a policy as opposed to code. um i think we forgot to put it on the slide but there is so overall this parking um the information i shared with you on the parking is the same as it was in the 24 25 package the one um amendment by substitution that we are proposing is originally the transportation demand management portion included a provision that it would not go in effect until six months after the amendment was adopted. That was when we thought it was going to pass over a year ago. And we just needed a little bit more time to figure out those policies. We've had more time, so we no longer need that provision for the additional six months. All right, now the affordable housing bonus program. So again, this was the component that originally we had proposed from DCP as mandatory inclusionary zoning. As you may be aware, there was a lot of support, but also a lot of concerns for that approach. And so Council person Strasburger proposed an amendment by substitution to replace it with a incentive based affordable housing program. And that was what was referred back to us in October of last year. When we got that proposal, we had some concerns in DCP because we already had an affordable housing bonus option within our existing performance points system. We already have the mandatory inclusionary zoning overlay for part of the city. And so the proposal in Councilperson Strasburger's bill would have added a third program for affordable units. The more programs you add that, you know, this one's allowed in this district, this one's in this district, and a third and a fourth district adds more complexity to the code, makes it harder to administer, makes it harder for applicants to understand what's required of them when they are going through the zoning process. So to address those issues, we worked with Councilperson Strasburger and are proposing that instead of adding a brand new program, that we take the affordable housing bonus that's within our existing performance points system and apply it to all districts that allow multi-unit residential, except for downtown. And so I believe there's five districts that it's currently applicable in. And so this expands I forget how many districts in total, but I think there's over 10 districts now that this would be eligible to be used. um the affordability is levels are the same as the council proposal the council proposal also had a payment in lieu option and an off-site option both of which we are now introducing to the performance points system so again this would be applicable to all of the districts that we are proposing would be eligible for the affordable housing performance points. Point of clarity, at this point in time, the only points within our performance point system that are moving citywide is the affordable housing. There's been interest in some of the other performance points as well. That is something that we plan to look at more closely when we are doing the full code rewrites. And so as part of this, we are also amending the table of how you can earn points from the current program. It's changing the thresholds of affordability. It's changing the percentages a little bit. And again, it's adding the offsite and the payment in lieu. These changes are in alignment with best practices that DCP has learned since the initial adoption of the Affordable Housing Points Program. It's in alignment with the original mandatory inclusionary zoning citywide proposal. It's also in alignment with the Councilperson Strasburger's proposed amendment for affordable housing. So this is keeping sort of the same levels and same thresholds With the change to allowing this to be used, so the final column here on the far right, these are the original five districts that already have the performance point system eligibility. And so the points that we are listing there are in alignment with the current points that they are allowed to earn. The performance point system does have a base performance points structure, which is the middle column. And again, we are refining that a little bit. And that column will be what the new districts that will become eligible will be allowed to use. So for instance, our neighborhood commercial districts, our multi-unit residential district would be earning the points in the base points column. There is one other note that the five existing districts, again, they have a slightly different slightly different chart of levels of affordability and what points they can earn. So 4.E is different than it is in that original chart. It's providing for deeper affordability, but partly because we have existing projects that are using Using the prior iteration, we are enabling or we are keeping the existing threshold of the 80% AMI in the five districts that it's currently available for, but at a lower point threshold than if they were to choose for the deeper affordability.

Can I ask a question about that? Or you could finish also and I could ask at the end. Okay.

And another change is all the districts allow when you're using the points, you can use them for additional height. The RIV was the first district I believe that we did this for and at that time we set that one point equaled an additional 10 feet in height. But by the time we adopted this in the second district, we had taken the approach that one point equals 15 feet. And so all the districts that currently use the points can get 15 feet for one point except the RIV. So as part of this amendment, we are proposing to bring the RIV up to the same level as the rest. The RIV also does have a second option. there's a very particular regulation within the RIV for a riparian buffer. So a buffer along the riverfront essentially. And you can choose to use the points towards a reduction in that buffer or towards the height. We are not changing the option of the point for reducing the buffer. So the existing, I believe it's a 10 foot reduction to the buffer between the building and the river will stay the same. So we have a couple examples of the impact of what this amendment would allow. You may be familiar that the Bloomfield SureSafe site, I believe it's now a community market, but the site at the end of the Bloomfield Bridge, there was a project that proposed 248 units. It's in the inclusionary housing overlay, and so it was required to provide affordable units. But in order for that project to pencil out, they needed additional height. They went to the board for a variance and that was denied. Under this proposed affordable housing bonus program, they would be eligible for the points, which would give them additional height. And so something like this could potentially be permitted by right. We have another example at the former Shakespeare, Giant Eagle, now Market District location in the borders of East Liberty and Shadyside. There a 231 unit project opted to provide 35 affordable units because they are not in the mandatory overlay. That project needed a special exception and some variances from the zoning board. They got approved for that, but it added months to the project timeline. Again, under this program, what they were proposing, they would have been eligible for the bonus height, which would have eliminated the need for that time consuming and uncertain process of going to the board. All right. So now that I have talked your ear off about the contents of this proposed package, the next steps. So today, obviously, we are doing the briefing. So we will come back on June 2nd, give the presentation again. That's the point at which public testimony will be taken. Our hope is that the Commission will be able to take action at that meeting. Once the Commission takes action, the legislation will go back to City Council. It will have another public hearing at City Council and there will be 21 days notice in advance of that hearing and public testimony is also taken at that time. After the public hearing, City Council will then deliberate and take action. And because this is a text amendment, the Planning Commission is making a recommendation and City Council is approving or denying the amendment. So with that, thank you for listening to my extensive presentation here. And I'm happy to take any questions. As a reminder, I can answer questions from the last four months. And Deputy Director Dash can answer beyond that time.

Greatly appreciate that. First, I'd like to note that there is no public testimony at this time. It is left to commissioners to ask questions, make comments. I'd like to compliment Ms. Ristow for a very thorough uh presentation here uh being very clear about uh what some of this does and does not do uh but commissioners at this time i i'd like to open the floor for uh questions either from this freestyle or or from uh andrew dash i i have a few so first of all um

then sorry this is commissioner vats for the reporter or there's no reporter because we're not right okay um well first thank you zoning administrator administrator rostow deputy director dash the rest of uh city planning i know this has been a long hard road um so we appreciate all the hard work on it uh you know i think especially the work simplifying the code um it's very necessary and definitely appreciate all the work on that. All right, I have a few questions about each of the areas. So you were talking about, just help me understand with ADUs, you said, so if you have like an existing detached garage footprint that's already in the setbacks, and you were to propose to expand that in the same distance from the setbacks, you're saying that would require an administrative exception? I guess imagine a building within the setback that you're expanding out, same distance from the other property, that's where an exception would be required.

Yeah. So to put that maybe in other words, most of our garages are within a setback. That's pretty well known, especially if you work at the zoning counter. So we often see in Pittsburgh that a lot of our garages are right on the property line, essentially. Or maybe they're a foot away from the property line. So what I think you're asking, Commissioner Vatz, is if, and in that case, the garage is probably also at the rear property line. So the only way to go would be to go further into essentially the backyard. And so you're asking if we maintained that zero or one foot setback from the side, would that need an administrator exception? I'm not 100% that I know the answer to that.

The answer is yes. So it would require an administrator's exception. What would be allowed by right would be for people to essentially build, I mean, you see a lot of one-story frame garages, for example, across the city. Someone would be able to add a second story on that using the existing footprint of the garage and be able to do that by right. They could, as the zoning administrator stated, also go back, you know, further into a backyard, you know, where they wouldn't be exceeding either a rear setback because they'd already have a rear setback, you know, or, you know, kind of that set with the existing garage, you know, or, you know, but they would have to stay out of like a side setback, for example. Okay.

And the only exception to that would be the 30, 30, the heights.

Well, yes, they could go up to a maximum of 30 feet. If you think about those single story frame garages, the height on those is somewhere in the range of 10 to 12 feet. So it would be allowing someone to go up an additional 18 to 20 feet.

uh for the administrator exception what what are the standards with which you use to approve or deny one of those because that's not something that goes to zoning or planning right that's just something that's approved and you can get back to what you need to

Yeah, so traditionally, the administrator exception, the basic requirements are pretty minimal. It's a process whereby there's a posted notice for 21 days on the property that just provides additional public awareness. the public awareness provides the opportunity for a neighbor if they know something that the zoning doesn't know, that they can inform us and we can take another look at the project to see if it really does comply. It is essentially a by right process so that there would be minimal to additional standards that would have to be met.

Okay, that makes sense. Yeah, I imagine that we might see requests like that because, like you were saying, most of these accessory buildings that already exist tend to be within the setbacks. So from the parking reforms piece, just a question about the TDM. Do you have a table already of what the points would be allotted for?

There is a very preliminary draft. We are meeting, I forget when we're meeting, but we're meeting soon with the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure to talk through what steps do we need to get to a semi-permanent draft.

Can you give me an example of what you might be assigning points for? Sure.

Paul's like the person on our team that has been most closely involved.

Paul has been much more involved in it to date. I have learned some about it. The ones that I remember are if you provide bus passes for your residents, if you provide additional bicycle parking, or if you provide bike share memberships. Those are the ones I remember off the top of my head as the kinds of things that we're talking about. If you'd like more examples, Paul can...

I think that answers my question. I think I understand. Okay. And then on the affordable housing bonus program, a couple of questions. And sorry, commissioners. This is great. This is what you're supposed to do. Am I correct in assuming that the reason that it's not being permitted in the Golden Triangle is because the performance points wouldn't be able to be used essentially because there's not the same limits?

um yeah the the golden triangle has a very unique approach to height um and so i that's that's my assumption of why we're not um looking at performance points in downtown two things uh yeah maybe just to add to that so in addition to the incline plane uh that exists uh in the golden triangle as far as height which is how that works between the sub-districts um so we try not to use things to kind of penetrate that um they're also very generous height standards in the GT district. And there's an existing abatement program that already does for residential conversions also trigger affordability requirements. And so that's why actually presently we're seeing a lot of projects that are that are conversions to affordable housing that are occurring relative to a financial tool that is separate from zoning. So trying to tackle that in both is unnecessary in the Golden Triangle District specifically.

Okay. Yeah, that's what I figured. Okay. And then the districts that you covered, I think I know the answer to this, but those are all the districts where you could hypothetically build a 20 unit building, right? Yes. So there's not any where you could build a 20 unit building that is not the program. Okay. The only other thing I was going to say is I feel like all those changes make sense to me. I think I understand why you're changing from 20 to 35 years just to be consistent, but that's a major change that will probably greatly impact the amount of projects that actually opt into the program. My assumption with Councilperson Strasburger's bill was that it was to entice developers to build affordable housing, extending that affordability period from 20 to 35 years greatly increases the cost burden of it and probably reduces the amount of housing, of affordable housing that actually gets built. To me, that seems like, I guess I'd like to understand the rationale there. And to me, it seems like maybe the wrong direction to be going in order to get more affordable housing built. I know that was like a comment and a question, but I guess I'm curious to understand the rationale and how you guys are thinking about it.

I'm seeing here that the affordability mandate was 20 years.

In the updated version that DCP is proposing, it's 35, I believe, is what I saw on the table.

Yeah, so the answer to your first part of your question is correct in that the intent of having that at 35 years is to be consistent with how we apply for affordable units more generally in the code. Back when we did actually calculate the net present value of rent and revenue as it changes over the lifespan of that affordability term, And so a lot of that, you know, kind of comes at the upfront time, you know, at the time, the, you know, that kind of foregone revenue and kind of the difference between market rent and affordable rent, which numbers have changed a little bit over time, market rate has gone up quite a bit, you know, and so has, you know, our levels of affordability. It's also not including things like the moving to work, you know, kind of program and things like that from the housing authority is that there is Between 20 years and 35 years over the entire life of the unit, there is maybe a difference of around of around $40,000 in kind of foregone rent. that is that change in the affordability term. That's the difference in cost that we're talking about from a 20-year affordability term to a 35-year affordability term. $40,000 per building or per unit? Per affordable unit. Got it.

That's an upfront cost?

No, that is the cost over the entirety of... So for a 20-year affordability term, for example, the difference between market rent and the affordable rent is roughly, we calculated out to about $120,000. That is the difference over that term. In a 35 year term, the difference between the market rent and the kind of rented affordable unit is about $162,000 is what was calculated. And the reason that most of that happens upfront is that usually as a project, become you know as a project gets older um you know what you see is that it travels from the higher part of market rent to you know to you know to median as new projects come on and so there's a there's a lower difference the longer that affordability term lasts and so that's why you know that's why the the difference is like i said roughly that forty thousand dollars uh in what what the changes and again that's notting that is Not including including and we can obviously i'm not trying to get into the debate of you know people using things like like vouchers or things like that and things like the moving to work program. But the moving to work program offers obviously much greater you know kind of funding back to you know back to the. the building owner or the building manager, which would shrink that $40,000. That's not including that, but there are other ways that they could even shrink that $40,000.

My main concern is that as a voluntary program where we're trying to entice the building of more affordable units, extending the term will almost definitely result in less units getting built. And so, you know, like my understanding, at least of the intent, as drafted of the affordable housing bonus program was let's entice developers to build a lot of affordable units. And the more onerous you make the regulation, the less are going to get built, which harms everybody, right? So, I mean, that's kind of, I feel like it's an important balance to be struck. And I think I understand trying to make it consistent across, but also I think we as a commission need to recognize there is a clear trade-off here. The longer that affordability period is, the fewer affordable units will actually get built. The other thing I was going to ask, and this is something you guys can get back to us on, is there a list somewhere or is there some sort of... documentation of projects that have been built with the Performance Points program and what Performance Points they use. or they have used, excuse me?

Yes. We do have a summary of that. I meant to look at it again this morning so I could answer this question. I believe there were about six projects, give or take, that have used the Affordable Housing Bonus Point Program. One of the things that we discovered when putting that table together is that A lot of these developments are happening in districts where we have a cap on how much bonus height you can get. And so the project that had the deepest affordability and essentially earned the most points was limited on being able to use all of those points.

Will that remain the case going forward?

For this package at this moment in time, we are not changing the caps in the districts that have it.

Which districts are those?

So that would be our urban center mixed use, our urban center employment, and residential mixed use. I think the RIV also has, and Uptown. So basically all of the districts that currently have performance points have a cap, right?

I guess I'll just point out also that's probably a limiting factor to getting home builders to opt into this program is if they're not able to exceed a certain height limit, it might not pencil out to build the affordable units.

Yeah. we will be doing is once again, presuming that this amendment passes, we will be taking a look back in a year or two to see what has been able to be built. Again, the timing of this is actually kind of nice because by that point we will be doing our full code rewrite. And so there will be opportunity for us to see what is the impact um that this has um city-wide are there additional barriers like this um this limit on height and and what makes sense to um to amend that um and i think part of the reason why we're not considering it at this point in time is because it's part of the the bigger performance points system um and so we would be changing it not just for the affordable housing but across the board and that we just want to dot our eyes and cross our t's to make sure that

that what we're doing makes sense yeah and i'll just ask one more quick question that i promise all that other people talk um the in in the original uh bill there was um also relief from residential compatibility standards that's still in there yes okay so nothing else has changed other than what you kind of what you went through here nothing other nothing else substantive at least like

Outside of what was in the tables?

Yeah.

Right.

I'm just. Okay. Thank you all. I, again, really appreciate all the hard work on this. I know it's been a long, long road, but I think these are super important reforms and appreciate you all spending the time on it.

Thank you, Commissioner Vatz, for such thorough questions. Appreciate that. Commissioners, Commissioner Hunt.

I want to first apologize to Commissioner Vatz for interrupting you during your questions there. But yeah, my question's kind of more, we're going to dive into the specifics of several of the points. I guess starting with the parking requirements, I'm curious to the background on the parking ratios and how those were put together.

That happened before my time, so somebody else will need to...

Right. So those ratios largely reflect the existing parking maximum ratios that we have in the code. And so that is primarily the change there. Now we are going from a, you know, as Caroline mentioned, you know, if we spelled out that table of the parking maximums currently, you know, there are so many uses that it would be multiple slides. But so we're going to more of a use category framework for those. But largely those ratios are what is existing

listen to that okay um i guess my next two questions relate and this is uh now now on to the affordable housing bonus program um subsections d um and f in terms of the bonus height um far as well as um the payment in lieu of uh 25 five dollars per square foot um Again, kind of curious to the background on how those numbers were put together. And then as it relates to subject section F, is that $25 per square foot? Is that a gross square foot number or a net square foot number on residential apartments?

Sure, I can speak to that. So your question, sorry, the second question was on the payment in lieu. Maybe I'll answer that one first and then you can ask the other one again. The payment in lieu standard that is here, initially when the council person requested information from city planning in the prior version of the bill, we had worked with the URA to calculate the amount of the cost of an affordable unit given a number of different deals that the URA had been a participant in. We provided that information at the time to say to build a unit under essentially consistent with what the URA has funded on an average per unit. It's actually about $35 per square foot. um that was in the council person's amendment uh when it was returned to the department um was lowered uh to the standard that is currently here uh so um that standard of 25 uh was you know was in response to that where that was lowered we kept that that did not change we kept what the council person had had put into it um and that is uh off of gross of gross floor area And so it isn't net, it is gross. And that is consistent with how a number of other cities have approached payment in lieu calculation. So like I said, that's kind of the history of that number as it's gotten to where it presently is. Oh, man, I know you had another question, and I'm sorry if you can repeat that, Commissioner.

Yeah, moving up to Section D, kind of similar question on the 30 feet of additional height in the two FAR, how that was proposed.

You said on D?

I'm sorry, I'm looking at the agenda here. This is the height and the FAR bonus.

Do you have a few more?

So so sorry, so I think the 30 feet and two if they are is in the Council. The Council version of the affordable housing program in in DCP version for one point you get 15 additional feet of height, which is consistent with how we are providing what we are providing across the performance point system in the existing districts.

Okay. I have a final question and then I want to circle back on the extension of the affordability requirements from 20 to 35 years. And apologies. Mayor Mrakas, Again i'm looking off the agenda here, but is the requirement for city council to review, you know the success of this program in two years kind of still putting a part of this bill, you know I would you know voice my support for that. and you know but but also you you know think that we could sharpen what that request would look look like in terms of um you know specifying specifics in terms of number number numbers of both market rate and affordable units that are built um you know other issues that relate to this package you know in 2028 you know assuming that it moves forward

Yeah, so I believe we did not keep that specific language in our version of the bill. But part of that is, I think, because of the change in administration. It is my intention as zoning administrator, anytime we are trying out something new like this, that we do come back in two years and look at it, see was it successful? Did it accomplish the goals that we had? And if it didn't, what changes do we need to make to enable it to accomplish the goals that we set out with?

Good process. Yes.

Just in addition to that, since this bill was previously in October of last year, there have been subsequent pieces of legislation as well as Department of City planning projects to create a housing dashboard that will allow us to automatically track the activity that goes on and it is our intention to track this. We will have you know, real time data that will be publicly accessible and available so that that monitoring requirement, you know, I think monitoring requirements for that and the zoning code doesn't, you know, was something that I think we initially had questions around because it's just, you know, like assessing the program as a part of the zoning code requirement is maybe not the right place to put that. but we will have something that will be live later this year that will be tracking you know things like housing starts things like you know a number of affordable units uh you know so that not only will we be able to do that but someone researching you know this issue or you know at one of the universities will have access to all of that information it'll be publicly available um so they'll be able to see the impact um you know that these changes are able to provide

Thank you for that background. And I think you can't overstate how important the issue of housing is today. And I see for our city and for the department over the next 20 plus years, I'd like to circle back as a, you know, wrap up here regarding the expansion of the affordability requirement from 20 to 35 years. You know, I certainly see that as a significant material change from the bill that was proposed this fall. And, you know, I agree with Commissioner Vatz that it's going to make it, you know, much more unlikely for for-profit developers to opt into this program. I guess from my understanding, I know that there's been some change over the past two years, but that kind of the maximum LERDA available in the city, I know that there was talks of extension to 20 years. Is that moving forward? it because it's as i've seen in in other cities and other markets it's you know commonplace for um you know lerdos in our case would need to be a tri-party lerda um you know to to work to offset and you know i'd see you know a great opportunity for the city if we could you know match a tri-party you know 20-year lerdo with a 20-year um uh affordability uh requirement you know again expanding to 35 years um you know puts the onus of that 15 years on um you know a for-profit system that's not set up you know effectively to lose money so um you know again i'll wrap that i just don't see um i i see that as a material change and again um it it uh it making this bonus program you know more challenging

I mean, I think the question in there, and I'm happy to respond to anything else if you want me to, but I think the question in there was around if there's been any progress relative to kind of expansion of the LERDA, which was definitely a discussion that was paired with mandatory inclusionary zoning expansion. Um, the answer is more recently there has not been, you know, I, at least, I mean, if there are discussions, no 1 from the Department of city planning has been involved in them. But I think at the same time, that is something that, you know, again. Very early in a new administration, I think there are a lot of opportunities to be able to take that on. I think there would be a desire at least from. A housing policy perspective from the work that department city planning does to be able to take that on. And we previously had had a number of conversations with folks at the county less. So at the school district, I think, because I'd say that there's agreement that with. things like tax abatement programs like LERTA, that there's the opportunity for people to automatically access those if they're doing things that are kind of pieces of the public good, which I would say that provision of affordable housing is one of those. And so I think that that's a conversation has there has been i haven't seen as much movement but again i have there might be conversations i'm not involved in um and you know that we would be more than willing to take those on again just pieces obviously related to production of affordable housing but you know kind of obviously related to but not a part of what we would include in the zoning

yeah thank you thank you commissioner hunt that concludes i think you can go first okay okay i have just uh one two statements and a question to end with first on the idea of i'm not a fan of I'm a fan of the regular checkbacks on kind of the process of how various legislation goes through. I think that's a really good idea and the idea of kind of formalizing that. Sorry, this is Commissioner Reppy. Formalizing that through the zoning administrative actions makes a lot of sense. That being said, I'm also would very much I would always recommend against trying to legislate any kind of timed activities into the zoning code. That's always problematic because if you don't hit it, does that mean that all the legislation that is exempt because it doesn't that you didn't meet one part of it so just as a note on that um for future components of it i also want to applaud the parking um getting rid of the parking minimums i think that that's a really great move for the city and i'm happy to hear that in regards to affordable action uh housing i'm i'm going to follow up on with all the notes that are my fellow commissioners have made i do have one question because it was kind of talked over a little bit we talked a little bit about it and about the inclusionary zoning overlay And where that goes from here. It seems to me that in some areas where you have the parts of the city that already have the overlay, now is it a double? Which one takes precedent? If you were in a UNC district, say in Lawrenceville, that has the overlay on it, but now also the UNC district has this affordable housing component, which one takes precedent? Is the overlay still mandatory then at that point? And is there potential to sunset that as part of the zoning code update? That's like seven questions.

That is seven questions, and it does involve a lot of the conversations before I came on, so I'm going to let Deputy Dash.

So essentially, it is a mandatory incentive in places where the ICO exists. And this was a revision from what was initially brought to us by the council person, where essentially the affordable housing bonus program exempted the ICO from where it was applicable. Um, you know, so the intention, and this would be very similar to, you know, so you mentioned Lawrenceville if you think about Butler street and 1 of our mixed use districts in 1 of our commercial districts. Now, it would be treated the same as Lawrenceville along the riverfront in the RIV, where, you know, in in that they're in that area. There is right now that manage that mandatory inclusionary zoning. However. in the RIV because they also have access to the performance points, they get essentially a bonus in their height and they're automatically compliant with receiving those performance points. What would happen is that now, in this case, that would happen in these districts as well. The SureSave example that was provided earlier is one example of that where there is mandatory inclusionary zoning in Bloomfield. What that is in that site, which I cannot remember if it's an LNC or UNC site. LNC, I think. um but whichever one of them it is right now they only have the mandate they do not get any incentive to do so right however you know when we have other places in oakland all of the districts in oakland get the incentive while also having the mandate so this is making that equal for all of the areas within the ico that they all get you know that even though they have that requirement they're also then able to access those performance points and get additional height Thanks.

All right. Commissioner Walker. Thank you. Uh, so thank you, uh, deputy dash and zoning administrator risk style. I have a couple of questions here. Um, and one of them may have already been answered by way of commissioner Hunt's question. So if it was, if it's redundant, you can feel free to skip it. Uh, the first question I have is does the mobility trust fund that was contemplated in the original legislation, is that something that's carried over into your recommendations?

Yes, yeah, that is part of the parking package that we are continuing.

Okay, so does that fund exist or is it created by way of adoption of the legislation? That I'll leave to the deputy.

Um, the answer is that has to be created through a separate fund by city council. Uh, you know, we have done something similar. There are other places in the zoning code where we allow for this. We have the open space trust fund, um, you know, which, you know, as a similar, you know, we have the equitable development trust fund, which comes off of one of the performance points as well. So that's probably. closest corollary which works in the urban center districts um so we you know yes we have to go to city council to get the fund created uh but the zoning is what you know kind of creates the opportunity for that fund okay great and i am working from our packet

So I'm going to reference line item 8C, the for sale housing must be priced for those owning no more than 80%. I can't tell by the crosswalk if that stipulation still applies. And if it does, that for sale, which allows for 2% increase per year, how is that regulated or monitored? Are we relying upon listing agents to sort of in perpetuity or over the next 35 years adhere to that stipulation? And how is that? calculate it?

So that's a part of the monitoring work that we do on the back end. So we do have, we do have a planner that works on housing policy in the department. Part of their job, not the only part of their job, but is to manage, you know, the affordable units that are created through the zoning code. So whether that's through the performance points, whether that's through the ICO, the mandatory inclusionary zoning overlay. And so, you know, I would say that at this point in time, although one of the projects that has already been approved has an ownership component to it that they have not started on yet, we have no ownership units in the portfolio right now that we do management on. But the intention is that, and as a part of their job, they are working with you know, with the numbers to make sure that we have that sales price set, you know, for, you know, because obviously the income levels change annually. And so we are, you know, kind of every year updating, you know, what the for sale cost is. at initial sale could be, but then would be doing the monitoring down the road as to resale of that, as long as it's in the affordability term. After the affordability term expires, then it's not within the purview and the home could be sold for any amount.

All right, got it. Thank you. My next question would be regarding measure eight F, which is the payment in lieu of affordability. So my question there is, is that is that intended to be paid into the HOF? Or is that something that is reposited into the city's budget in some line item related to housing?

This would be similar to the discussion on the Mobility Trust Fund in that there would be a separate fund that would be created to collect these funds. Um, the usage of these funds would be really determined as a, you know, as a part of what went to city council to create the fund. So, you know, I mean, yes, it could go to the yes, it could go to other programs. Uh, you know, those are, you know, I mean, those, you know, we have obviously through zoning, the rational nexus that we have to that we have to solve for is that, you know, what we are asking for in this case. Is that getting us something equivalent? So I think as we think about the usages funds, similar to we do in the other places where people can do payment in lieu, we have to balance that as a part of our job. And so we'd be doing that when this is brought to City Council. When this was being discussed at the end of last year, there were discussions around how that fund would be used. That fund, that legislation, because it was not zoning, expired at the end of the council term, so we would have to bring that forward again. At the same time, there was a lot of discussion around ways that the fund and a payment-in-lieu option could be used for maybe... fewer units than we might see through inclusionary zoning, but maybe at deeper affordability, just as one example, that they're being allowed to be some flexibility there, but that at the same time, the intent of any funding that we would be collecting would be to create new restricted affordable housing for a period of time.

Last comment, which was a question until you raised the issue. So thank you for doing that, Commissioner Hunt. On the LERDA, I'm assuming that the LERDA program is still alive and well, and that it is still available citywide. I'm not sure if that runs through zoning or city planning. But my question here, since we are moving away from Sort of a stick policy to more of a carrot based policy with the affordable housing bonus program have we given any thought to how the Lerta dovetails with the legislation that is being proposed here because my thinking is that if we are trying to now incentivize the creation and development of affordable housing versus more of a buy right you shall sort of stipulation would it not make sense to at the same time to think about how the LERDA program could strengthen those incentives and bring the private developer community into the fold to think sort of coherently with us about how we solve our affordability crisis.

I mean, the short answer is yes. I think the long answer to your first question is yes, LERTA is still in place. Yes, it is still essentially, you know, I'm using the wrong term, but essentially automatic acceptance from City LERTA. At the same time, they still have to go to a vote at the county and the school district. Those are active discussions. You know, I think that, you know, when it was mandatory um there was obviously a lot more pressure uh to try to create the carrot with the stick um but i think you know to commissioner hunt's question you know around that as well i think that you know i mean obviously any levers that we can pull to try to encourage more production of affordable housing and more production of restricted affordable housing is a good thing and so i think generally from a housing policy perspective uh that would be something that we would support but The alert is not something that is involved, but through zoning or city planning, you know, other than a housing policy perspective, all of that is kind of managed through our Department of Finance.

You have a mighty lever, so I'm expecting that we'll use it. Thank you.

All right, commissioners, is that okay?

Commissioner continue? Hi, just very, very quick question that I have in terms of I saw that you also have, by the way, thank you so much for your presentation. I saw that you have some unit types that you have been kind of like targeting in a way, right? Did you have it was like with some units? No. I think those were yes. Well, yeah. But have we looked at something like lift work units as an example of ways to kind of help out, especially like a lot of our retail buildings, and be able to bring like another type of unit type?

I had a feeling you were going to ask that question. So our code currently doesn't have a specific live work use type. In our commercial districts, Pittsburgh is pretty good about mixed use buildings. I know We've seen in other municipalities where the idea of a mixed-use building is mind-blowing. When talking about zoning, that is not an issue that we have here in Pittsburgh. It's basically a by-right assumption. If multiple uses are allowed in the district, they can all be in the same building. So because we have that, there's less pressure to have that specific live work unit type. However, when we are doing the full code overhaul, I do expect that we will be taking a very thorough look at the specific types of housing and non-housing that we define in our code, making sure that they are in alignment with the world that we live in today. So I'm not saying that we won't ever have live work. We don't have it now as a specific thing, but there are other mechanisms that allow live work kind of situations.

Thank you. You're welcome. Does that conclude your question? That's it. All right. Being mindful and respectful that there may potentially be commissioners online. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Oops. I didn't even see. Sorry.

One more question. No, it's okay. The payment in lieu, is that available in the IZO as well, or is it only available outside of the IZO?

The payment in lieu would only be accessible in the areas outside of the ICO because the ICO does not, I mean, you know, there would be a more stringent standard, you know, in the ICO that the applicability be either to units that are provided onsite, units that are provided offsite, or units that are provided offsite by a nonprofit developer through agreement. Those are essentially the three options that are available to, you know, to someone who's in the ICO. So the payment in lieu option would only, as it's written now, be applicable to areas that, you know, I mean, obviously they could, but there'd be no incentive then, right? You know, to, you know, because, you know, like in that case. So, yeah. Okay. Thank you.

My apologies again. At this time, I don't know if there are commissioners online. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. So it appears that we have concluded the questions and comments from the commission here today on the presentation. I'll go ahead and close out the briefing portion of today. Commissioners, would it be fair and reasonable for a 10-minute break to then start the hearing and action portion of today's agenda? Very good. 10 minutes. Thank you so much.

All right, any restroom?

Run, any snacks? Run, thank you.

Just so we can make sure.

Court reporter's in? Okay, very good. Any additional commissioners in? Because I can't see over here.

No. Okay, very good.

Okay, so welcome back everyone. We are going to go ahead and proceed with today's Planning Commission agenda for hearing and action items for May 19, 2026. uh hearing in action means that we will hear the presentation take public testimony and then the commission will go ahead and take action i'm going to go ahead and do roll call for commissioners at this time commissioner burton falk present uh commissioner hunt present thank you commissioner Kentonia. Present. Thank you. Commissioner Reppy. Present. Thank you. Commissioner Vatz.

Present.

Thank you. And Commissioner Walker. Present. Thank you. Leaving no one out online. Then I'll move forward to today's agenda. I'm going to read through the agenda. Item A is approval of minutes. agenda item b is correspondence agenda item c is plan of lots we have one item under plan of lots for today agenda item d is hearing in action today we have one item under the agenda for hearing in action and agenda item e is the director's report moving back to agenda item a which is approval of minutes commission uh we will commissioners we will take these separately before us uh we have been sent uh march 24 20 26 minutes given there are no edits uh do we have a motion from the floor to approve i moved thank you commissioner batts a second commissioner repi i will do roll call commissioner burton falk i commissioner hunt all right thank you commissioner quentinia fine thank you commissioner repi hi thank you commissioner vats hi thank you and commissioner walker aye thank you all right commissioners we are moving on to our second set of minutes for approval today before us are may 5th 2026 uh given there are no edits do we have a motion from the floor to approve so move diamante walker thank you commissioner walker do we have a second second thank you commissioner cantania I will do roll call. Commissioner Burton-Folk? Aye. Commissioner Hunt?

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Quintanilla? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Reppy? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Vatz? Aye. Thank you. And Commissioner Walker? Aye. Thank you. Okay, so minutes have been approved. Now we are moving on to correspondence for Planning Commission May 19, 2026. before us regarding BDA-2025-12382. This is a conditional use custodial care facility. We are in receipt of correspondence from Deb Wiley and we are in receipt of correspondence from Heidi Huck. Moving on to item 1700 Murray Avenue. We are in receipt of correspondence from the following Jeff Hines and Madeline Rosenblum. We are also in receipt of correspondence from Manchester Community Meeting summary and letter. That completes the Planning Commission correspondence for May 19, 2025. Moving on to agenda item C, which is plan of lots.

Chairwoman, I need to recuse myself from both items C and D.

Item C and D. Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate the note. Commissioner Hunt will be recusing on items C and D for the record. Agenda item C, plan of lots. We have one item and it is as follows. DCP-lot-2026-00096. This is 743 Technology Drive. This is a major subdivision in the Mount Washington neighborhood. Presenting this afternoon is Mr. Shepke.

Thank you. And I'd like to clarify, it's in the Hazelwood neighborhood. Sorry, that's a typo on the agenda.

My apologies. That will be in the Hazelwood neighborhood.

This is the 743 Technology Drive subdivision. This is a subdivision of one parcel into two parcels. The proposed lot one would have frontage on Technology Drive and would be 88,513 square feet in area. The proposed lot two would have frontage on Technology Drive and would be 88,104 square feet in area. A three-story building is located on the proposed lot one and the proposed lot two is currently vacant. the recommended motion from staff is to preliminarily approve uh the 743 technology drive subdivision and schedule final review on june 2nd 2026. all right uh thank you so much is there anyone here that would like to speak on this item

Floors open to the public. Oh, that's the hand for, okay, for grabbing it.

My apologies. I saw it. I was like, wait a second.

What is that? Going back, seeing no hands raised. uh commission uh do we have a motion from the floor to preliminarily approve uh item number one under plan of lots today with a final approval on june 2nd so second all right i have a motion from commissioner cantania i have a second from commissioner repi i'll do roll call commissioner burton falk i uh commissioner hunt has recused on this uh commissioner cantania hi Thank you, Commissioner Reppy. Aye. Thank you, Commissioner Vatz. Aye. Thank you, and Commissioner Walker. Aye. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much. Thanks. Moving on to agenda item D, which is hearing and action. We have one item under D. Item number one is as follows. BDA-2026-02978. This is at 12 Federal Street. This is S&T Bank, high wall sign in the North Shore neighborhood. This is Mr. Roth here today to present this afternoon.

Application BDA-2026-02978 was filed in for installing high wall signs in Riverfront North Shore zoning district in North Shore neighborhood. As per zoning code, the proposed high wall signs requires a design review and approval by City Planning Commission. Proposed high wall signs are as follows. Applicant wishes to install two high wall signs, S&T Bank, which will be mounted at 52 feet above the ground, one at Southern Leaside and another one at Western Leaside. The proposed Sign faces will be 48 square feet each, which will be less than 2% of the exposed facade area of 7,776 square feet at Western facade and 9,800 square feet at Southern facade, respectively. The proposed sign will be in-kind replacement of existing high wall signs in the same positions. design review staff has reviewed the question request with the outcome not required uh development activities meeting is not required as there is no registered community organization in this area staff recommends uh approval of this bda application thank you thank you so much

Thank you.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to present today. My name is Scott Cohigan and I am representing Sekoula Signs on behalf of S&T Bank regarding the proposed high wall signage application for 1 North Shore Center located at 12 Federal Street. Sekoula Signs has been designing, manufacturing, and installing custom signage since 1946 and I appreciate the Commission's time and consideration on this request. S&T Bank was established in 1902 and has locations across Pennsylvania and Ohio. S&T Bank is expanding its presence in the Pittsburgh market through a new full service branch and upgraded office environment at one North Shore Center. For S&T Bank, this project represents a significant investment in the North Shore District. and is intended to create a modern banking and workplace environment featuring upgraded meeting areas, collaborative workspace, customer facing banking services, and technology enabled office amenities. The intent of the signage package is to provide tasteful architectural identification for the tenant while improving visibility and wayfinding for vehicle traffic, pedestrian traffic, and riverfront activity surrounding the North Shore District. I am requesting approval for three total sets. Two sets are proposed at the level five parapet wall at 52 feet above grade. and one set is proposed at level one branch entrance at 16 feet above grade the two upper sign locations are replacing existing signage previously installed at the same general wall area one located on the west elevation and one located on the south elevation all three signs are individually fabricated aluminum channel letters internally illuminated ul listed engineered for 115 mile per hour wind load and designed in accordance with 2021 IBC standards. One important consideration I'd like to emphasize is that the signage has been designed specifically to complement the architectural of one North Shore center rather than overpower it. The scale of the proposed signage is intentionally proportioned to the building massing and facade composition. Similar smaller signage at these elevation would become visually insignificant and appear disproportionate relative to the size of the structure. the signs are composed are comprised of welded aluminum 040 backs and returns finish painted pms 288 blue to match the s t bank brand standards white acrylic faces with blue trim cap detailing aluminum fabricated raceway primed and painted to match the building exterior The installation methods were intentionally selected to maintain a clean, refined appearance while minimizing visual clutter on the building facade. The goal is refining corporate identification. I understand that the North Shore environment is uniquely multi-directional in terms of visibility and circulation. The site is viewed from Federal Street, North Shore pedestrian corridors, river walk areas, nearby bridges, adjacent commercial properties, vehicle approaches from multiple directions, and river traffic along the Allegheny waterfront. Because the building does not lend itself to traditional freestanding signage opportunities, the wall mounted identification becomes specifically important for customer recognition. The proposed signs help identify the branch location without introducing excessive visual impact into the district. The proposed signs are internally illuminated with RGBW LED modules manufactured by Principal Salone. The illumination is diffused through acrylic faces fully enclosed within the channel letter bodies and intended for soft architectural illumination rather than direct sight lighting. The signs are capable of static color illumination utilizing internal illuminated RGBW LED modules and intended for architectural identification purposes. For example, S&T Bank may occasionally utilize a color change in support of community awareness initiatives, such as Breast Cancer Awareness Month, where they may be pink or similar civic or charitable campaigns. I also understand and respects the city illumination standards regarding daytime and nighttime brightness. The proposed signage will be configured and operated so that illumination levels remain within the applicable city standards, including the maximum permitted luminance levels during both daytime and nighttime operation. From a practical standpoint, the signs are designed to appear similar in brightness and standard professionally illuminated corporate channel letters commonly used throughout the commercial office environments. The lighting is intended to be subtle, clean, and architectural in nature, not overpowering or distracting. Because the LEDs are concealed within the letters and softened through the acrylic faces, the signage is not expected to create significant glare or noticeable spill level at ground level. The signs can be placed on timers, photo cells and controlled if necessary and also to be the lighting is intended to remain respectful to the surrounding North Shore. The surrounding North Shore community Is highly commercial in character and already contains a variety of architectural signage types and illuminated tenant identification systems. I believe this proposal fits appropriately within the context, while maintaining a clean and professional appearance, consisting with the building architecture and surrounding. in closing i respectfully believe the proposed signage is architecturally compatible reasonably scaled professionally designed minimally impactful from a lighting standpoint and appropriate for the visibility needs of the property and the tenant i appreciate the commission's time and consideration and would be happy to answer any questions

Thank you very much for your presentation. At this time, before any questions from commission, we open the floor to the public. Is there anyone out there that might want, because we've got a vacant room, except for all of us. Is there anyone out there that would be raising their hand that would like to speak related? It looks like none. Okay, commissioners, are there any potential questions? One quick question. Yes, commissioners.

Just to confirm, because I said it in the report, but I didn't hear it from your report, sir. This is Commissioner Reppy. The signs that you're proposing are replacements for existing signs that exist on the building. And are they, is that correct?

They are replacing existing signs that have been removed on the building.

Okay. And the square feet of the existing or the proposed signs, are they comparable to what was existing previously? Yes, I believe they're smaller. That's all I got. Thanks.

All right, so commission, the recommendation before us is that the Planning Commission of the City of Pittsburgh approves the project development plan DCP-BDA-2026-02978 based on the application filed. by barb trump filed on behalf of the property owner one north side shore lp with the following conditions the final construction plans including site plans and elevations be reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator prior to issuing the final record of zoning approval do i have a motion from the floor motion thank you commissioner vance do i have a second second Thank you, Commissioner Cantania. I'll do roll call. Commissioner Burton-Falk. Aye. Commissioner Hunt has recused on this matter. Commissioner Cantania.

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Reppe. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Vatz. Aye. Thank you. And Commissioner Walker.

Aye.

Thank you. Okay, so it's been approved. Thank you so much for your time and have a great rest of your day. All right, commissioners, moving on. to the final agenda item for today uh waiting for commissioner hunt uh is item e the director's report and i do believe that we will be hearing from deputy director dash all right turning it over

Thank you, Chairperson. Andrew Dash, Deputy Director of City Planning. Very quick director's report. Just to say we had, you know, kind of spoken last time around kind of getting given a little bit of an update on PGH 2050, the comprehensive plan. One thing that, you know, There has been a little bit of a change as we've gone through and tried to address a lot of the comments and feedback that we receive from the April meetings in that we are looking to push back our next round of engagement a little bit as we try to make sure that we're able to incorporate all of that and get to really a solid policy direction to be able to bring to the public. Um, in the meantime, we are, I really wanted to give this more as a preview to the commission that we will be reaching out between now and the next commission meeting to all of the commissioners to try to set up. Um, some individual meetings were not individual, but group meetings amongst the 9 of you, um, to, um, you know, to be able to discuss. you know, kind of the direction that we are going policy-wise in, you know, the six policy areas that we have in being able to discuss some of the, you know, kind of, you know, kind of PGH 2050 vision places which are getting to ultimately what we'd see as a future land use map. So, I just wanted to let the Commission know that that is something you should get reached out to by either myself or the Director between now and the next meeting to be able to meet. This will be the first of, I think, some meetings that we're going to be wanting to have over the summer months with the Commission and Commissioners. we really try to take all of the work that's come through in this first you know kind of what now 16 months of the process uh and you know and really you know starting to develop firm policy uh determine a firm land use direction uh so we really want to be able to get the commissioners input get questions from the commissioners as we evolve that content and

you know are able to then take it forward to the public as you know as a draft plan excellent thank you so much thank you for the continued update and for the very near future reach out of commissioners commissioners are there any questions or comments as it relates to the report all right uh well thank you very much to staff today for having things prepared uh commission thank you for your time and commission do i have a motion from the floor to adjourn today's meeting so moved all right i'll take it as a motion and a second all in favor give me all right closing