Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hi there, Commissioner Quintanilla. Hello. Thank you for making it.

Absolutely.

Thank everybody for making it.

Sorry, I couldn't be there in person.

Hey, just as long as you're here, we're grateful. Thank you, thank you. especially when i'm feeling like rule i could i could use it i started dropping weight and then like you get a little bit stressed out and then here i go all over again it's like i can't i can't avoid the yo-yo

So I got it. Well, I got a chance to see the base. It was all closed, but they built these out of reach for any of us kind of thing. But I got to keep one thing from my house. I see there's a difference between what I did to Atlanta. Once they say aside, of course, the world's playground.

You'll walk over to the podium. And then that way the camera can also see you in here. All right, we still have two minutes to start. And during that two minutes, I'm just going to go ahead and do a check for commission. Thank you so much. And I'll take that roll call prior to jumping online. Commissioner Burton-Falk, present. Commissioner Hunt. Commissioner Interiano.

Present.

Thank you. Commissioner Kelly. Present. Thank you. Commissioner O'Neill.

Present.

Thank you. Commissioner Quintanilla. Present. Present. Thank you, Commissioner Reppy, Commissioner Vatz, and Commissioner Walker. I'm seeing you just coming on and you may not have your sound. We're at 1259. And I know that she is present. All right. We're about one minute out. all right we are at one o'clock so we are going to begin welcome and good afternoon good and beautiful people this is the briefing session for the july 28 2026 session briefings mean that cases are heard for preliminary presentation there will be no public testimony at this time but there will be questions and comments from commission On the agenda today, we have one item up for briefing, and that briefing item is as follows. Briefing item A, which is Council Bill 2026-0009. This is the zoning code amendment to add new primary and accessory uses for short-term rentals with associated use standards. This is citywide, and presenting this afternoon is Ms. Ristow.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I am here today to present the briefing presentation for the short term rental council bill. I believe that after I give my presentation, one of the council sponsors is also going to share some slides and information for additional background. So we are here. I get control of the clicker. You do? I forget that part. We are here today to discuss a short-term rental amendment to the zoning code. This is Council Bill 2026-0009. The Council sponsors for this amendment are Deb Gross, Anthony Coghill, and Bobby Wilson. This particular bill was introduced at City Council on January 12th, 2026. There was a There was a previous iteration that was introduced last year and instigated a lot of collaboration and conversation between Council, the Department of City Planning and permits, licenses and inspections on how we can most effectively adopt short term rental regulations. And so the bill in January is a reflection of those conversations. With the new bill, we continued those conversations and DCP made some recommendations on cleaning up some of the language and phrasing to make sure that it would be an enforceable bill. That version was amended by substitute on February 11th at City Council. It was then recommended to Planning Commission for report and recommendation, the conversations continued. And as a result of those conversations, the bill was recalled to city council where it was amended again by substitute and referred again to planning commission on June 24th. And so that's the one that we are currently looking at. This bill provides two new definitions. One is for a short term rental as a primary use and that is defined as a dwelling unit in which sleeping accommodations are provided for one or more guests for a fee on a nightly or weekly basis. It also includes an accessory use version of short-term rental, which means a room within a dwelling unit or an accessory dwelling unit, presumption that we're going to be passing our accessory dwelling unit legislation. And then the rest of this is very similar to the primary use. It's in which sleeping accommodations are provided to one or more guests for a fee on a nightly or weekly basis. There are some additional use standards for both of these. For the primary use, there is a concentration limitation on them. So in buildings with 20 units or fewer, you are only allowed to have up to two short-term rental units. If it's a building with over 20 units, you have a maximum of five short-term rental units. The short-term rental units may not be used to host public assembly, recreational entertainment, or hospitality activities. And there is a companion licensing bill that requires an annual license administered through the Department of Permanent Licenses and Inspections. As a primary use, these are regulated by zoning district. The permitted districts are most of the districts in the city that allow multi unit residential. So we have the full list on this board. I'm not going to read them all out. And then we have a map that shows the locations of all those districts. Short term rental as an accessory use as accessory uses are not limited by zoning district. So this would be allowed in all zoning districts provided there's a valid dwelling on the site. Short-term rental as an accessory use must be managed by the owner of record that is also a resident of the property. Again, these may not be used to host public assembly, recreational entertainment, or hospitality activities. And also, the license is required for these as well. For concentration limitations, the short-term rental as an accessory use, only one unit is permitted per zoning lot. We're aware that a lot of people will be interested in how these regulations are going to impact existing short term rental operations and existing short term rental that are operating out of a current dwelling unit with a valid certificate of occupancy as a dwelling unit are permitted to continue under this regulation. the primary impacts are going to be that all existing short-term rentals are subject to that licensing requirement for the permits licenses and inspections and for the primary use in the districts where a short-term rental as a primary use is not permitted. So that's primarily R1A, R1D, R2, and R3. Per the code, they would have up to 12 months to apply for a new certificate of occupancy to establish their legal non-conforming use. I will say that that's not a hard and fast 12 months. We are still approving legal nonconforming uses for two unit dwellings that were established prior to 1958. So the code says one year, but we do have flexibility to approve legal nonconforming beyond that one year. And it's important to note that the burden of proof to provide evidence that the short-term rental use was a pre-existing use prior to this, the adoption of this if it passes, is on the applicant. And so just want to point out that while again we can continue to approve these administratively the longer you wait to submit that application the harder it's likely to be to prove that pre-existing condition so we do encourage people as much as they can to come in and make that application within the first 12 months um So while this bill has already been amended multiple times, the Department of City Planning is recommending a further amendment by substitution. I think I pointed out in the beginning, but I will reiterate in case I forgot, the original bill in January included the primary use of short-term rental as allowed in those residential districts the r1s the r2 and the r3 as a special exception and that included additional use specific criteria the final amendment by substitution that council acted on removed that special exception and so now the short-term rental as a primary use is a use not permitted in the r1s the r2 and the r3 when that amendment was made the use specific criteria for those districts was kept which is not something we can legally administer And so the DCP version, to continue with Council's decision to keep those as uses not permitted, we are simply removing the use criteria that we would not be able to enforce if it was in the code. As I've mentioned, there is a companion licensing bill. That is the purview of permits, licenses, and inspections. So as planning commissioners, you don't actually have authority over that particular bill. But because it is a companion piece and it is an important part of the enforcement and usability of the zoning amendment, we are providing a little summary of what's in there. um uh City Council will be um uh taking the holding the public hearing and vote on that particular bill um and the Department of permits licenses and inspections again is the entity responsible for the rules and regulations around the licensing The current proposed operating standards in that bill limit the stay to 28 days for a single guest or group of guests. Guests must be 18 years old or accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. the operator must maintain a daily register of the guests. And for primary uses, the individual responsible must be located within 25 miles of the short-term rental unit. And then for the accessory use version, again, it reiterates that that must be managed by the owner who is also a resident. we have some existing uses in our code that have some parallels or overlaps with the short-term rental definition and these would be our hotel motel and our bed and breakfast uses each of these have their own definitions have their own zoning districts in which they're permitted and not permitted and their own use specific criteria And one of the things that I wanted to point out is that there is the possibility that, you know, sort of like standing on the street, the perception might be that a use is a short-term rental, but it is possible that it would actually be more closely aligned with one of these other uses and so may have the appropriate certificate of occupancy for hotel, motel or bed and breakfast. And there are licensing requirements for those specific uses as well. So next steps. As you commissioners are, I'm sure, very much aware, we are going on recess following this meeting for the month of August. And so our next Planning Commission hearing is on September 8th. And we have this short-term rental zoning amendment scheduled for hearing on that day. um prior to that hearing uh public comment can be emailed to us at planning commission pittsburghpa.gov as with all of our other hearings public testimony is taken the day of if anybody wishes to either come in person or join online to provide public testimony um after that uh presumably on that day um the us commission will make a recommendation to council following which council will hold their own public hearing and proceed with the process of voting on both the zoning amendment and the licensing bill And that is the end of our presentation. Again, I believe a council member would like to present as well. So I will leave it up to you to figure out, do you want to ask questions of me first and then have the council presentation or the council presentation? Let's let the council go ahead, please.

And thank you if you would be so kind as to present and then commission can open for questions after.

Thank you, commissioners. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. You have a very important job. I have full confidence in you. I showed that in the way of our votes to who was just recently in front of us. And I'm confident that you're going to make the right decisions moving forward, whether it's this legislation or many others that will be in front of you. So anytime you can get Councilwoman Gross, myself, and Wilson on the same bill, there's got to be something to it, okay? You know, there's got to be something good to it. So I will say Councilwoman Gross took the lead on this, as she does in so many other housing needs. We all remember the shooting and the catastrophe down on the north side. I also had two instances, one in Brookline and the other one in Overbrook, Airbnb where we had shootings. A person was killed, not on the scene, but later died at the hospital. And I decided to join this legislation along with Councilman Gross and Wilson for many reasons. But I will say in a time and day and age when we're talking about the housing shortage and we have 17,000 units we need and that argument, it really does take housing off the market. I have one LLC who's somewhere in Israel, I believe, who has purchased more than 50 homes in just one of my neighborhoods. Now, granted, it's not all Airbnb. Quite frankly, a lot of them are not occupied. I don't know exactly why they purchase so many properties, but some are being used as Airbnbs. I believe that we need some regulation over it. Again, I want to make clear, I am not against Airbnbs. There are many folks who are in that business that come down and speak to city council about this legislation in specific and i am not to put them i am not in the business to put them out of business uh you know i i think it's really good thing i see them in beach view all the time we have public transit there people staying in airbnbs and i i speak to them as they're on the street And I think it's great, but I think it needs regulated. I think we just can't have an uncounted amount of number, especially in the quiet areas and residential areas. So this doesn't confine them from continuing their operation. I don't want to say the word grandfathered in, but they will not have to close down their operators because there are some really good Airbnb operators that are in the Pittsburgh area. They speak in front of us all the time. And again, I tell them, we're not in the business to put you out of business. We're just wanting to regulate this a little more, and I'll let Councilman Gross speak to the specifics on that. So just for anybody who owns and operates an Airbnb, know that you'll be able to continue to do that wherever your Airbnbs are. Now, future ownership or when that house transfers title, that will be restricted to the certain areas that we're speaking of. So, again, thank you, Commissioners, for your time today. I appreciate you taking this up, and I appreciate your briefing. Councilwoman Gross. Thank you.

Yeah. Councilman Coghill. Hi, everyone. Councilman Gross, District 7. So I'm glad that Councilman reminded us about some of the reasons that motivated us to start this policy work. which is that there were both nuisance behaviors resulting in deaths now in multiple neighborhoods in the city and even when the death isn't resulting that these can be very large dangerous unmanaged unpermitted gatherings and the ones that we see are on residential streets where there's homeowners right next door, right? Or even renters, but still, they're not commercial areas, is where we've seen most of these very large, again, there's a path for having a very large event, and these operators are not taking that path. um in zoning so um and then secondly especially um in the neighborhoods that i represent we are just seeing more and more and more housing being owned by short-term rental operators and being removed as housing i can personally tell you um you know i've been knocking doors in the neighborhoods i represent for a long time so streets where you've got townhouses that are maybe you know 15 20 feet wide and they're all connected on a block in lawrenceville in 2023 when i went to go knock on those doors most recently there were just those little padlocks right the key the key locks on every single door so those residents are telling us like we don't have neighbors anymore Right there used to be neighbors across the street and now those units just sit empty. Right? And so it really is. I like to say cannibalizing our housing stock. So I really do see it as an overlap. We know that there's far too much kind of out of town LLC, anonymous ownership of housing and this is yet another subset of that. where we have, I think, what we can just call the absentee landlord short-term rentals, right? And so I'm going to keep saying that because it's really confusing to talk about primary and accessory use. And so we just covered some of the basics in the legislation. I'll add that we've been at this a long time. I think I started talking to the planning department and the zoning administrator at least 10 years ago. And that's way before there were 3,000 citywide, way before it was really problematic, mostly because there wasn't a definition in the code and there wasn't a path. And so that's part of what we're doing today. But in the meanwhile, the industry has moved radically. The impact on the city has changed radically. But I just want to say we're using the words that we have in our code, which is why we're calling it primary and accessory use. but other cities and i think there's some efforts at in harrisburg to make better definitions so that people can understand that these are really very different things so in philadelphia it's limited lodging or visitor accommodations and the limited lodging would be if you live there so that's our accessory use That's a completely different definition. They're not both just called short-term rental. And then the other one, visitor accommodation is when you're, that's what we call primary use. So you're an absentee landlord, you could live in Florida, own a hundred of these things. In Philadelphia, that would be called visitor accommodation. And they're treated differently in their zoning code, which is what we're trying to do today. And I'm really about to go on. Some of them kind of come up with like cute names. So there's transient vacation units. in Honolulu versus bed and breakfast homes where, again, that would be an accessory use, the homeowner is owning and operating it. In South Lake Tahoe, there is either a vacation home rental or a hosted rental. So, again, you see that they're reflecting the same kinds of things. Similarly in New Orleans, not as cute terminology. Some of them really come up. Santa Monica has home share versus vacation rental. Baltimore has hosted units, just very explicitly hosted units versus unhosted units, and on and on. So there's lots and lots of cities that are way ahead of us in understanding that these are categorically different things. And then once you understand that there really should be two different definitions, then you can say this kind is allowed in these places, but this other kind is allowed in those places. And that's, we're trying to do that, but we're doing it with our own Pittsburgh zoning code language, which is a little harder to follow. So I just wanna reemphasize that for the accessory use, which would be like a home unit or a hosted unit or homestay in these other cities, you can do that in every single square inch of the city. under our proposal. No change. You live there, you can do short term rental. And I think that's rightful. I think that's what people want. I think it's important for people. Just a tiny sidebar that has really been motivating me for these 10 years that I've been thinking about this. In a previous lifetime in the 1990s, I spent 10 years of my life trying to write a doctoral dissertation on boarding and rooming houses. Right I got 100 pages into it and the 1882 1910 in the kinds of places and states that we're looking at now in these very similar cities, because it's part of. of how people kept their homes, right? You know, especially widows, right? The income leaves, and so you have people taking in renters and visitors. It's how lots of Pittsburgh accommodated rapid industrialization. I represent Polish Hill where you see those weird staircases on the outside of those. Those buildings were built not as homes, as rooming houses, right? To accommodate workers working at factories. So I believe in this part. anywhere you live in the city of pittsburgh you can earn some revenue by short-term rental and this zoning doesn't change that for you um but then the absentee landlords right who really have moved this i think industry from being the kind of like hey yeah come and rent this bedroom for the weekend to basically doing scattered site hotels in multiple cities i think that activity belongs in our commercial areas And I think we've got that largely reflected on the map that you saw. If you can build a hotel and operate a hotel, in the commercial area, which is also good, right? You can do that in our LNCs. We're happy to have a hotel in a previous vocational school on 40th Street, near 40th and Butler. I think it's great that we have like more hotels in Southside than we used to 20 years ago. Some of us are older and remember 20 years ago that we have more hotel space in Oakland, in Shadyside, in East Liberty. There didn't used to be hotels. That because we are a city of very charming neighborhoods, and we want people to get out and experience them. But if you want to be an out of state, especially, but absentee landlord operating basically a scattered site hotel, that's what commercial districts are for. And I think that's how we've gotten this reflected in this legislation. um so that's our motivation that's what we're trying to reflect here um and again we're trying to do it in the confines of our code so we appreciate our zoning administrator and our planning department helping us figure out how we don't we're not trying to imply nor are we trying to create a situation where people's current operations would be challenged by the change in zoning we know that that is not what pennsylvania allows us to do I have lots of constituents who asked me to do specifically that. They want those, especially in Lawrenceville, they want those Airbnbs out of Lawrenceville. Sorry to say, even if it's an absentee landlord, if they've been operating, this legislation can't threaten that current operation. I will also emphasize that any of those even absentee landlords, no matter where they are currently operating, they could rent you for 30 days. And this doesn't impact that. They could rent to you for 60 days. Hell, why don't they just want to have someone live there for a 12 month lease? totally allowable. This legislation doesn't touch that. So yeah, let's have some more residents in some of these places that are owned by absentee landlords. And it'd be a win win situation. So again, I am supportive of the changes that the planning department is recommending. Again, we just want to make sure that that's clear and consistent. But that's a 10. I think this is a really good balance. And if there is changes in Harrisburg that gives us cuter terms that are easier to understand. We're supportive of that, too. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, since that concludes the presentation, I would like to remind folks that there is no public testimony at this time. It's time for commissioners to go ahead and make comments and ask questions. I'll say initially, thank you Councilwoman Gross and Councilman Coghill for collaboratively working together on policy that creates some positive environments within our community. So we appreciate that. Commission both in-person and online. Questions, comments? I see hand raised from Commissioner Vatz. The floor is open.

Awesome. Thank you. And apologies in advance for my voice. I have a cold right now and I feel like I can't speak, but I'll do my best here. Yeah, no, I just want to say I'm super sympathetic to wanting to regulate these. I definitely understand the problem that they create, especially things like parties and loud gatherings. And then I think it's also great to hear from Councilman Coghill and Councilman Gross about the importance of the housing shortage and how short-term rentals have the potential to take you know badly needed units off of the long-term rental market so that's like definitely super important so I want to just thank them for you know for you know bringing up that issue you know the thing I would say though and like I think where I'm think like where my head is out on this is I also think that short-term rentals are an important part of the housing stock like we do need them you know I think Actually, like I think back to when I had just bought my house, I was actually renting out extra rooms in my house to students and traveling nurses and interns and people who are coming into town, you know, maybe moving here and needing a place to stay for a short period of time where they look for something permanent. So I think it's good that it will still permit things like that, you know, people who are living in their homes and renting out extra rooms. But also, you know, I think that there are other reasons that people might prefer short term rental. such as if they're traveling with a family. So it is, I think, important that these still exist in the city, although I think it's critical probably that they're not super concentrated in just a few neighborhoods, and also that they're not taking over too much of the housing stock. So I think we need to find a way to strike the right balance there. I did have one question, and I guess this is for probably the zoning administrator. There was one thing that I saw in the limitations that for the operating of a short-term rental it was limited to 28 days and i was trying to understand that because you know of course legally they can rent to anybody they want for periods of 30 days like that's already legal um so why is there the 28-day limitation why would we not be fine with them renting to potential guests for as long a period as they want

So yes, I can speak to that a little bit. That portion lives in the licensing bill. So it's outside of the zoning purview. And I so again, I can only speak to this a very teeny tiny bit because I was also not here. um at the time that the conversations were happening that sort of established those licensing requirements that happened under the previous zoning administrator um so I'm not sure entirely how 28 days was the number that was was picked okay yeah it just seemed it seems quite strange the council member might actually be able to answer this better than me awesome yeah perfect thank you

sure so again if you want to rent to someone for 30 days basically this zoning ordinance does not apply to you but i guess i guess you can rent to someone for 30 days today and you can rent to 30 days someone's tomorrow you can rent to someone for 30 days every single place in the city

Right.

Every single place today. And if you vote on this permanently, which I hope you will do even after this. So 30, it just only applies if you want to rent to someone for 28 days or less.

But I guess what I'm trying to understand is if, so let's say an operator gets a license to operate a short-term rental, according to what was just shared with us, it said the maximum rental period is 28 days, but you're saying that's not true. What you're saying is the maximum rental period is 28 days or they can do, you know, a month to month lease or something, which which I agree with you on, by the way.

Like, I understand that that's the rule, but you'd be subject to the Landlord Tenant Act of the state, right?

I think just to put a finer point on it, I think I think this is where this comes from. And please correct me if I'm wrong. It's not prohibiting those longer rental periods. It's saying that if you are 28 days or less, you need to be registered and obtain this license. If you have a month-to-month lease, you would be falling under possibly a separate use, but wouldn't be subject to that. You would be subject to Landlord-Tenant Act, potentially hotel regulations.

Right, yeah. I'm not a lawyer, but exactly.

So this is only if it just doesn't apply to you. Right.

Other parts of state law and local law do apply to you, but not to this. And I believe the 28 days is something, honestly, for 10 years, I think that's been the threshold that's well established in courts across the country as what would differentiate you from a long-term rental versus a short-term rental.

Understood. Is that clarifying for you?

Yeah. No, I think that's helpful. Thank you, Councilwoman Gross. Appreciate it. And yeah, I think the only other thing I'll say and then I'll hand it over to other members is, you know, I think one other thing that I think we need to be thinking about, and this is probably just a general comment for the commission as a whole, is There are not a lot of places in the city where you can legally build hotels now. And so if we are saying that we're going to make it more difficult to have short-term rentals, we should probably also think about where can hotels be built legally and how can we make it simpler to build hotels so that there are those short-term accommodation options. So that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Did you want to comment on that?

I think it's mostly the map that was shown up. It may not be every single spot. There might be like RM. I'm thinking like 9th Ward Bloomfield across the street from Children's Hospital. Can you build a hotel there? I'd have to double check, but mainly look at that map. I mean, mainly like LNC, yeah, you can build a hotel. UNC, yeah, you can build a hotel. We have them there. All of the RIV, yeah, pretty much. I don't think, I don't know if there might be a RIV residential in the south side where you couldn't build a hotel, but I think probably you can. It doesn't get you into the heart of every 1 of the 90. Like, residential areas, but it's pretty well distributed among districts. Um. But I think that's a different conversation.

It is. Yeah, not not to belabor the point, but, um. yeah i mean yes you can build hotels in some of those districts but it is also quite difficult in some of those districts like in lnc because of height restrictions and residential compatibility standards and things like that that the zoning administrator is admittedly working on uh to make it easier to build in a lot of these areas so um but you know that was just more a general note to uh to this commission as a whole uh not necessarily uh about this specific piece of legislation, but it is related because if we're going to make it harder to have short-term rentals, one of the reasons there's demand for short-term rentals is because there often are not enough hotel rooms in our city. So thank you. I'll pass it off to Chair Burton-Folk.

Thank you, Commissioner Vatz. And it looks as if Councilman Wilson has arrived in the room. So for commissioners that are online, we're going to give Councilman Wilson an opportunity, you'd have to go up to the podium so they can hear you on the mic. We want him to be able to speak as well. So commissioners here in the room, we'll pause for a moment and

Thank you, Chair. To the Commission, I'm a Councilman for District 1, Bobby Wilson. I've been in office for seven years now, I think, since 2020. You understand why I'm referencing the year. So I think, you know, first and foremost, my big intro to Airbnb operators, short-term rentals was in 2022. Whenever there was a mass shooting in my district, in the area, just next to Chestnut Street, in between the Chestnut Street and the highway, some refer to it as Spring Garden, East Dutchtown. So, you know, this community was around this mass shooting was affected immensely. And it's been on the topic of this community's, you know, topic of the of the meetings, monthly, ever since it happened, we've had several meetings where All the top brass were there, all the city department chairs and the community was asking for answers as to how this type of violence can happen. Because it just didn't happen once, it happened twice. And so at the front of my mind, in front of my mind for my residents, everyone around there, especially people that are at these parties or even the resident who was shot just across in their home, just across the street in their home watching TV, that we have to do something about this. But the whole time, several other neighborhoods that I represent, people that live there, are talking about just how terribly run these tour terminals are and how it's ruining neighborhoods. And so by doing walkthroughs and trying to understand more of how we can prevent this type of chaos from happening, I really think it left us no choice but to get on the road of regulating short term rentals through the zoning code. So here we are, you all are pressed with the bill that was put in front of you. And I respect your process. And I want to be a partner in trying to not only make our neighborhood safer, but also, you know, really get back to figuring out how we build communities in a way that's going to benefit everyone and for having short-term rentals uh the large majority of the complaints i get doesn't feel like they're a partner so i've heard complaints about well where are people going to stay i mean we're you know doing we're actively trying to support different projects throughout the city to get them funded so if there's another hotel that has to be built for people to visit the city I mean, that's what it takes. I mean, unless these short-term rental individuals are going to, the owners of, you know, those faceless organizations like Airbnb, Vrbo, unless they come to the table and really put forward a great plan, which I don't see at all. I mean, we have no choice but to really say where it can and can't be, just like we do at vape shops. So I appreciate your time and I can, I'm not sure how this, it's my second time here.

Yes.

Kind of ran here. I had a couple of things I do before I come here. So thanks for letting me speak, but I'm a little out of shape these days. So I'm catching my breath as I talk.

That's okay. And I do apologize for putting you on the spot, but once you came in, I wanted to make sure that you had an opportunity to absolutely share. You missed, you know, I said that I definitely appreciate the collaborative work. uh to ensure that our communities are safer environments and um so you know i'll kick it over because at this time there is no public testimony but the commission will ask questions uh commissioners are there any additional comments or yes commissioner anteriano

yeah this is not necessarily for for for the councilman but when you explained the the grandfather clause if somebody were to buy the property that has been used as a short-term rental in the past does that grandfathering continue or does that end when there's a transfer of title i believe the

The city bank staff is going to respond. But from my understanding on that take, we didn't put language in there for grandfathering. So, you know, we're looking at this just as the issue. I know that the staff has consulted with law about that.

Yes. So the way that certificates of occupancy work, and we are pretty limited in what we're able to do to regulate that, is once a valid certificate of occupancy has been issued for a property, regardless of owner, that use is allowed to continue. So if a new owner were to purchase that site and want to continue that short-term rental use, from the zoning point of view, they are allowed to continue. They would still be subject to that annual business license from the permits licenses and inspections. And so if they don't comply with that, that would be where we would be able to... enforce limitations on what they're allowed to do.

Okay, so my other question is, do we have any data or any idea on what is the percentage of short-term rentals that are not owned by residents versus those that are owned by LLCs? Is that information we can get from some of the operators from Airbnb? It would be interesting to know what is the impact given that from what I understand, short-term rentals are a key component of the housing as well for tourism and for some of the large events that we've hosted here in the city. I know that, for example, with the draft recently, there was quite a few folks that used some of these short-term rentals. So I'm trying to understand what is the impact of this as compared from those that are residents versus those that are LLCs or out of town.

So I know there's third party data around there. And I know that there's Councilman Gross has explored that. I have residents that have explored that too. I think the data is similar. I did have one comment just before I leave the podium at the end.

You sure?

Yeah.

All right. Yeah. So it's about a year out of date. But last year we bought data. Now it's a bit... redact not really redacted but like um it's only like near it's not the actual pinpoint the exact you can't tell the exact addresses so i forget what they get it's like geographically a little fuzzy but you can see where the hot spots are where they're concentrated it also doesn't explicitly say whether since you don't have the address you can't check to see if there's like a homestead exemption or something like that right so but there's like about the 3,000 dots on the screen. And the table did have a column to ask whether that said whether or not, like how many specific locations does that like operator number have in the city? And so we took that to be like a proxy, right? So it doesn't say, you know, they might have 99 other Airbnbs outside the city limits. Right or in other states, but if they had just one in the city of Pittsburgh it's about half. And I think I've heard some of the public testimony from the actual industry people saying about the same thing. So, I don't know, between 1,000 and 1,500 of them are probably, to the best of our guess, the owner-occupied one. I think it's also a good indicator that a lot of them hadn't actually been rented like in the last year. in that of that same type right so imagine it's the nfl draft i'm gonna make a bunch of money this weekend i'm gonna go out of town for the weekend or stay at my friend's house and rent out like my whole house in shadyside or lawrenceville or wherever the heck you know and that would be that that would have fallen under that column Or maybe I did it for the last big event in Pittsburgh and I haven't done it for a couple of years. You know, you would have been falling into that column. And, but again, when we're talking about this kind of like, what about the next big event in Pittsburgh? So let's say there are 1500 people who are like owner occupied that did the Airbnb, you know, everybody citywide who owns their, home which i think i forget exactly what our homestead exemption exemptions are whether it's a condo in the strip or in the south side or mount washington or a home you know all of them can airbnb by right everywhere in the city because those are the homestays or accessory use that kind of thing so when we have these like excessive events i think there's lots of room in the market of people who aren't absentee landlords doing it all the time yeah so i'm not concerned about that no

can close your questions okay any additional questions and it looks oh i'm sorry all right um no uh commissioner hunt it looks like you have your hand up

Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gross, Councilman Coghill, and Councilman Wilson for the testimony today. I guess I just have a quick follow-up question on Commissioner Interiano's question, and that's regarding the $3,000 existing Airbnb or short-term rental units within city limits. Are those units regularly used or is that what is used kind of during the major events, the sporting events, the NFL draft, etc. ? Or is that 3,000 unit number kind of what has been brought onto the market at some point over the last year or two?

I'd have to buy the new data. It's about 350 bucks so you guys could buy it too.

If I recall.

So, yeah, no, that was like a one-time purchase. We bought it about a year, probably a little more than a year ago. So it wouldn't have reflected one of those big events. So what was in the data set was just kind of like here's every, you know, Airbnb unit. no telling except for there was a kind of column that said whether it had been rented out in the last year or so, but it didn't have like historical rental data, right? So it was like this one-time list. So it didn't have columns saying for like every week of the year was it rented going back years. So I don't know if that data is gettable. Certainly I feel like we could make the request to like Airbnb, but it also don't want anyone to interpret that as saying that those were 3,000 units that were rented. I don't know that that's true. I mean, hypothetically, zero of those 3,000 units might have been rented during this year's NFL draft since it was year-old data. Right? There could be a totally new set of 3,000, and those ones don't rent anymore. You can't infer that from the data I purchased a year ago. Yeah, unfortunately.

I'm guessing because regulation isn't quite as tight, it would be challenging. Anyway, I'm sorry.

I just want to add to the... I think it was the original question about how many are out-of-state owners. I just got a text from a person in the ... This is 2026 here. I'm checking my phone to see if I'm getting more updates on information. I just got a text from the community leader who's been leading the, the, the efforts in the community group to really get the knowledge out there in terms of like, even when this meeting is or anything. So they're very active in the community alliance of East touchdown and spring garden. So around this issue and the tech said that it was 50% of the. short-term rental units in that neighborhood in in that neighborhood is or i'm sorry our out-of-state owners fifty percent when you save that neighborhood that's uh your district that's east touchdown that's where the that's where the mass shooting happened and also the shooting happened like the innocent bystander across the street yeah and they'd be happy to provide that data uh you know maybe we could set something up we can yeah and you walk in there a letter verify lovely so it's part of the record all right I'll follow up with them thank you appreciate that uh Commissioner Hunt that concludes your question

Yeah, I mean, I think I understand that gathering this data maybe is challenging, especially since these units are not registered as of today. But it could be helpful for when this comes back to vote, whether we can get the information from council or from DCP to understand how many units

um are generally on on the market within the city at a time but that that's all all for me today okay councilman wilson i do know i can't remember the um the company but uh being uh involved with the land bank I'm aware of the URA having a contract with a company that not only works on getting the data around vacant abandoned property, but also I met with them and they did pitch that they do have the ability to tap into this short-term rental information as well. I can get you the name of the company as well that there's already an open contract with the URA.

thank you appreciate that um any additional i know that vice chair o'neill would like to speak and we'll let vice chair o'neill close it out okay thank you thank you thank you for bringing this legislation uh i know that it is exceptionally difficult to work through short-term rentals or things with cuter names um in kind of a zoning context so and this is a question for everybody involved has the law department advised on the enforceability of these provisions Just because I want, if we're putting provisions in, I don't want them not to count.

Yeah, for like the last two years. Yeah, absolutely.

All right. So that was the first question.

I will say, if I can add to this, if I can add to this, I want the answer, you know, I've literally the uh monday after the mass shooting in 2002 i started putting down legislation uh but it didn't it didn't involve zoning and so the recommendation throughout those years was figure out how to do it through zoning because that is the that would be the way to regulate it and so here we are okay

And that's kind of the question here. I think especially with the shootings and the concerns that are raised from absentee landlords or people who are owners of properties out of state, I understand where the licensure legislation comes in. It gets all that information. They're required to register. You get it updated every year. And certainly would love to have more data, but just from an anecdotal experience, I live next to an Airbnb. I don't know the owner. And this is kind of my purview. So having that information is amazing for the community and for the neighbors and being able to contact them, know who's responsible. I get a little bit stuck on whether zoning is the most appropriate way to regulate just because it is difficult. um and because the law is always changing so uh so for example Dormont had the slightest of life case um there's been more cases since then that have you know rendered certain provisions unenforceable I'm not as familiar with them as I'd like to be um but there are kind of are questions about whether some of these you know could be changed um In terms of kind of legal nonconformities, the word that was used was grandfather, but under the code, legal nonconformities, and I spoke to the zoning administrator, these would be treated like any other legal nonconformity, just more for the public record. There is a burden. But you do have a Pennsylvania constitutional right to continue your legal nonconformity if there are substantial breaks. So if I stop for two years, it does make it difficult to restart. But like has been said multiple times, this legislation doesn't take away that right. I'm wondering in terms of just kind of stated purposes of the bill, we talked a little bit about boarding houses and rooming houses, and those used to be more clearly reflected in our code. The current version limits the accessory use to one per zoning lot. So in the example about rooming houses, you would only be permitted to presumably rent out one room. How would that work? Two rooms, a unit?

I think a rooming house is a completely categorically different thing.

Understood. So if I'm renting out... No, this doesn't speak to it.

the example was working within the confines of the code we used to kind of have these boarding houses and you're not trying to prevent that when i was working my doctoral dissertation in the 1990s i didn't know anything about zoning law and i'm really not i mean it's in the spirit of being supportive i don't believe that this speaks to rooming houses and it wasn't intended to speak to rooming houses. And I think rooming houses would fall under SRO, single room occupancy, or group quarters. But again, not the zoning attorney here. And I'm very interested in that. So I would love to continue that conversation. Because again, I actually am supportive of those separately and differently as well. Think Needs Hotel, think, you know, the place where Adele's used to be at the end of the bloomfield bridge those were actually also built as rooming houses um there's a place down on penn avenue in the strip that the history center just bought those were rooming houses and they usually had the word hotel in them right and when on their signs in the front um so typically they fall they like their the liquor licenses that needs hotel is still operating on was the original liquor license for hotels from 100 years ago i do think those are categorically different and this bill does not speak to those, but I would love to speak to them at another time. I also would like to speak to your other question about the licensing bill. We passed a licensing bill. We passed a licensing bill to regulate short-term rentals, and it was Councilman Wilson's bill. It did not have a zoning companion piece, and it's ineffective, right? We haven't been able to apply it because it was part of the short-term, it was part of rental registry?

we never we never passed a license bill what we did is we um turned that bill into including short-term rentals into those so we and we voted on that in one year uh that was two years ago like two and a half years that was that was what we did is we We added STRs. Basically, we added the definition of rental to being anywhere. I think previously it was like it has to be at least rented for 30 days, but this was at least 24 hours into the rental registry new bill. The license bill was They went through a bunch of iterations, but ultimately it was never actually finally voted on.

But we have a companion bill now proposed, correct?

Yeah, the license bill here is very similar to that one, yeah. i did have a i keep on making him saying that i just had one more comment um a multiple comment yeah yeah but i think now's the time i just want to just say it because i think it relates to um you're talking about rooms to be rented out and so i did in this bill um my understanding is that you know the accessory use does get to the option for um you know in your house like so you're you own the home uh that you could run out a portion of it

Um, you know, I think that was the question was if I'm running out, you know,

which, which I want to say is like, I think that's very important, uh, because to, to keep, because that's, you know, my family's from the lower north side and even when they moved up into, you know, the hills of the north side, they still had to figure out a way to try and afford that home. And one of the ways was, uh, to, to run a room out. So, uh, so just like my grandparents, you know, found a way it also, you know, to, to pay the mortgage, it also, uh,

led to affordable housing option for someone so i think that's a a key piece to this as well which is kind of why i'm trying to understand it so right now the the language says it's limited to one unit if i have a five bedroom house can i rent that to i occupy one bedroom for example In my example, can I rent that to four people or a room for each bedroom to a different person? Or can I rent only one of those bedrooms to a group of people?

Yeah. My understanding is that it would be whatever is defined as the accessory.

For over 28 days, yes. Under 28 days in terms of the deflation.

Yeah, I just don't know how, like, the definition of accessory could be, you know, a room or it could be, my understanding is it could be a room or it could be a, like, what's the granny flat? No.

ADU.

ADU.

Right, right. Yeah, so.

It could be, like, the top floor.

But so what is the limit of one is limiting what?

And again, because it's 28 days, again, if you want to have four roommates for 30 days, you can't that's doesn't this doesn't apply to you. So your your question is like, if I have a five bedroom house, and I live there, this bill would stop me from renting each room out separately for like two days at a time. Yes. why why do that because when we also have the separate building wall positively recommended to city council for accessory dwelling units right which actually allows you to have several accessory dwelling units we heard from the neighborhoods that have a lot of the absentee landlords and group houses that this would be exacerbated, it would be like a multiplier effect, right? So then that you would have, it would, let's imagine again, you're an absentee landlord, speculator, you're wanting to operate these kind of scattered site hotels. And now suddenly you can do like five on a site because there's like four accessory dwelling units. And it specifically the concern was that you just increased the like dollar value of profiteering off of that parcel. So because I think it's grounded in which I think it should be from City Council, what we're actually seeing on the ground. I think it was good to say for the residential areas, let's limit that. Yeah, and it Yeah, I hear what you're saying.

Okay.

And again, if I'm rooming out where people are renting for 30 days, you're good. You can rent all five rooms out for 30 days.

I think I'm just trying if somebody is in a specific situation to be able to interpret what they can and can't do. And it's a little bit difficult in terms of the number of rooms separate from the hotel use based on this. And I think that that is kind of the expectation when somebody's reading the code is that they know whether they can or can't do that. And I still didn't get an answer to my five bedroom question.

I think I said that is correct. You would not be able to rent out each bedroom as a separate Airbnb. If you wanted to rent them for 30 days, you'd be fine.

So I could have a maximum of one that I could under this.

Or if you wanted to rent it for like two days. So if you wanted to run each of the five bedrooms out for like two days each, that would not be allowed. That is not the intent of the code. And the reasoning was because of the objections we heard about the probable ADU law and the multiplier effect that that would have.

And then, let's see, just in terms of... In terms of the primary use, so specifically those kind of larger uses that we're contemplating, there's that limit to in buildings with 20 units or fewer to short-term rental units and in buildings with over 20 units, a limit of five, regardless of the size. How were those limits determined?

I have to go back a ways in my mind. We wrote these so long ago now. And I do know that it was in between kind of the previous zoning administrator. We looked at, of course, examples from about 20 cities, I think. I think it was the intent that you really would be on a different path, which would be to apply for a zoning permit for a hotel. I stayed at a hotel in Philadelphia not that long ago. And I think it actually was a short term rental hotel. And it was weird. Right? So I like walk in and there's nobody there. And you kind of like, you know, it was like, well, you know, whoever's traveling with I kind of had it on an app. And so I think here, we don't really that's not the intent, right? Are they skirting hotel tax? I don't know all those intricacies. So that if there's like, we have a definition of a hotel in our code, and we have standards for that. use in those zones and so we felt like it would you know we you you want it to be clear that this isn't that like we don't want there to be like a short-term mental loophole to the hotel application i think was the intent yeah i'm just a little operators literally are buying into entire buildings

Right. That's kind of the question is if we have a 300-unit building, they're subject to the same limitation.

Right. Yeah, I think they should be. I think they should, if they want to operate a hotel, they should go through the application for a hotel.

And then this is a little bit more in terms of the kind of legal aspect. some buildings and we see this a lot in other cities that are condominiums have kind of private restrictions that are pretty similar to this so for example uh a 10 unit or a 20 unit may say a maximum of five can be short-term rentals and it's kind of a race to who gets to be that short-term rental when it's privately enforced when it's in the zoning code it puts the city in a difficult position of creating that kind of race

If it's an absentee landlord, I think if it's you live there, and like a condo building, not Washington, you can do that anywhere. I think that limitation. Oh, my God. Somebody help me here.

Yeah, it's like I can't see my face.

So buildings with right if that only applies in primary use or no, let's go.

Yes, it only applies to the personal. Yeah.

Thank you for saving me administrator. That only applies to the primary. Use. So that is absentee landlord use. Again, I'm going to just go what's easier for my brain to understand. So you live in Florida. We don't want you buying all 30 condos in the building and short-term renting them out separately. But if 30 people who live in those condo units all want an Airbnb on the same day at the NFL draft, I believe that this zoning ordinance allows that.

was the intent okay okay that's and i'll this is my last comment that's really where i was getting to kind of the enforceability of this um and the question of law department because under pennsylvania law just like we can't kind of separately regulate certain owner occupied or late like full-term long-term leases differently than an owner occupant it it's kind of now we're kind of basing this a little bit on who owns it not what the use is So it calls into question how enforceable some of these provisions are. And so I guess that was kind of the opinion I was looking for from law. Because if the use is defined based on the owner, not the use, it may be overturned. And that's what we don't want.

well we'll have to look hope harrisburg passes their definitions sooner rather than later because this is what they're proposing is that there really is a categorical difference between the owner occupant and is that term days and it is defines the use uh you're beyond me because i don't know that harrisburg passes zoning laws but i think that they are creating these um categories so i'd have to circle back with you that on that i think it's still in committee um and again when at the beginning my comments where i operate is that i think there are other cities i know they're not pennsylvania cities but well except for philadelphia but um which has defined these separately um and there may be some other examples in pennsylvania but certainly the rest of the country is way ahead of us in saying that home stays are different than guest stays yeah um and so we're using i think very parallel categories that we do have well established in zoning co which are primary and accessory uses okay

Thank you.

Uh, just quick comment and there's a question for the zoning administrator and do we have a, um. An opinion from the law department that we can reference. Uh, just like, trying to get to chair vice chair O'Neill's question. about the enforceability and an opinion from the law department?

Yeah. So as we've talked about throughout the briefing today, there have been multiple conversations with multiple departments. I don't know if we have one single start to finish document from law on this. We have gotten opinions on certain pieces. So I made a note of that to look back in our records and get confirmation on what we have received from law for you all before hearing in action.

Fantastic. Very good. Commissioner Antariano looks like has a question.

One follow-up question. We've talked quite a bit about the absentee landlord. Am I understanding this also correctly, though, that if a resident of the city of Pittsburgh decides to create an LLC, to go purchase another unit for the purpose of a short term rental. This would apply to them as well, even though they are still a resident of this community, they would not, they would still fall under the accessory use.

Yeah, especially in the residential areas. Exactly. Right. So where that primary use is limited. Exactly. So yeah, even if you're a nice guy, and you live next door, don't buy 100 houses and rent them out like hotels. Okay.

very good okay that looks like that concludes Commissioner comment thank you so much Councilwoman Gross and Councilman Coghill and Councilman Wilson thank you Ms. Rizdahl as well we appreciate all of you collaboratively working together it looks like that concludes our briefing at this time. Commission, would it be fair for a 10-minute recess prior to starting? Good. Well, then we'll do 10 minutes. Wait, did you have something else? Oh, no. Oh, okay. Okay. 10-minute recess then. Thank you.

See you soon.

reporter. Please and thank you.

I think I'm good. I'm in town. Thank you. I'll be there.

Good job. Thank you. Commissioners, we're about two minutes still from start time. As you're sort of coming in, just let me see your pretty face, though I know you're with me. Thank you. Pearly whites, Commissioner Walker. Pearly whites. I see you, Commissioner Quintanilla. Commissioner Hunt. Thank you, thank you. We're about one minute from start.

Almost, almost.

I know Commissioner Vatz is there. We are almost ready. We will start at 2.20. And it looks like we are there. So good afternoon, good and beautiful people. Welcome to the Planning Commission for July 28, 2026. This is the hearing and action portion of the Planning Commission meeting. And I'm going to do a roll call real quick here of commissioners. Commissioner Burton Falk, present. Commissioner Hunt. Present. Thank you, Commissioner Interiano. Present. Thank you, Commissioner Kelly. Present. Thank you, Commissioner O'Neill.

Present.

Thank you, Commissioner Cantania. Present. Thank you, Commissioner Reppy. Here. Thank you, Commissioner Batts.

Present.

Thank you, and Commissioner Walker. Present. thank you all right commissioners and uh folks that are here thank you so much for making it out today i am going to go ahead and read through the july 28 2026 agenda and it is as follows agenda item a is approval of minutes agenda item b is correspondence agenda item c is plan of lots agenda item d is hearing in action agenda item e is the director's report moving back to agenda item a which is approval of minutes commissioners we are in receipt of minutes from july 14 2026 given there are no edits do i have a motion from the floor to approve don't move thank you uh a move from commissioner kelly a second from commissioner walker thank you i'm going to do a roll call on this commissioner burton falk i commissioner hunt

Aye. Aye. Sorry about that. Yes, aye. Sorry.

Thank you. Commissioner Interiano? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Kelly? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner O'Neill? 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, moving on to agenda item B, which is correspondence. For July 28, 2026, we are in receipt of correspondence regarding Council Bill 2025-2224. This is DCP-MPZC-2025-00243, Golden Horizons PUD. We are in receipt of correspondence from Robert Tedesco and Charles Rochere. Regarding item BDA-2026-03918 for 4337 Fifth Avenue, a pit dormitory, we are in receipt of correspondence from Leonard Bass and Rick Smith. Regarding item DCP-MPZC-2026-00169, Downtown EO Phase 1 Map Amendment, we are in receipt of correspondence from Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership. That concludes. agenda item b now we are moving on to agenda item c which is plan of lots uh plan of lots we have three items before us i will read through them uh agenda item one under plan of lots dcp dash lot dash 2026 dash zero zero one six two this is 3112 smallman street item number two under plan of lots dcp dash lot dash 2026 dash zero zero one six seven at baxter park consolidation item number three under plan of lots DCP-LOT-2026-00182 at 4501 Hatfield Street. Moving back to item number one at DCP-LOT-2026-00162, 3112 Smallman Street. This is a major consolidation in the Strip District neighborhood, and Mr. Shepke will be presenting.

Thank you. This is the 3112 Smallman Street consolidation. It's the proposed consolidation of four parcels into two parcels. The proposed lot one would have frontage on Smallman Street and 32nd Street and would be 15,270 square feet in area. Proposed lot two would have frontage on Smallman Street. It would be 39,679 square feet in area. Several warehouse buildings are located on the subject property, which are to be demolished. And this is a major subdivision that was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 14th, 2026.

Thank you. At this time, we open the floor for public testimony. Is there anyone here regarding this? No? How about online? Mr. Rout, no? All right. Commission, do I have a motion from the floor to approve? So moved. Thank you. That was a move by Repi and a second by, my apologies, Commissioner Quintanilla. Okay, very good. Thank you. I'll do roll call. Commissioner Burton-Folk, aye. Commissioner Hunt?

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Interiano. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Kelly. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner O'Neill. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Quintanilla. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Reppy. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Vance. Aye. thank you and commissioner walker aye thank you motion passes moving on to item number two uh dcp dash lot dash 2026 dash zero zero one six seven baxter park consolidation this is a major consolidation in the homewood north neighborhood presenting is mr schepke

This is the Baxter Park consolidation. It's the proposed consolidation of 26 parcels into one parcel. The proposed parcel would have frontage on Frankstown Avenue and North Braddock Avenue and would be 55,561 square feet in area. A park is located on the subject property and this is a major consolidation that was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2026.

Thank you, Mr. Schepke. Do we have anybody here? The floor is open for public testimony regarding this. Anyone here in the room? No. Mr. Brown? Anyone online? No. Hearing none. Commissioners, do I have a motion from the floor to approve? Thank you, Commissioner Kelly. Do I have a second? Second. Commissioner Interiano? Second. Commissioner Burton-Falk? Aye. Commissioner Hunt? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Interiano? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Kelly? Thank you. Commissioner O'Neill? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Quintanilla? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Reppy? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Vatz?

Aye.

Thank you. And Commissioner Walker? Aye. Thank you. all right moving on to the third item under uh plan of lots is as follows dcp dash lot dash 2026-00182 at 4501 hatfield street this is a major subdivision in the central lawrenceville neighborhood mr shepke will present

This is the proposed subdivision of one parcel into four parcels. The proposed lot 101 would have frontage on 44th Street and Hatfield Street and would be 81,943 square feet in area. The proposed lot 102 would have frontage on Hatfield Street and would be 33,849 square feet in area. The proposed lot 103 would have frontage on Hatfield Street and would be 130,579 square feet in area. the proposed lot 104 would have frontage on hatfield street and would be 114 430 square feet in area a three-story industrial building and a 49 stall parking lot are located on the subject property and staff's recommended motion is for preliminary approval of the 4501 hatfield street subdivision with final review scheduled for september 8th 2026.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Shepke. Is there anyone here regarding this item and would like to speak? The floor is open to the public. No. None online? Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, do I have a motion from the floor to preliminarily approve and coming back for final approval on september 8th a motion so move motion from uh commissioner kelly do i have a second second thank you a second from commissioner cantania all right uh roll call commissioner burton falk aye commissioner hunt aye Thank you, Commissioner Interiano. Aye. Thank you, Commissioner Kelly. Aye. Thank you, Commissioner O'Neill.

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 that concludes agenda item c under plan of lots we are moving forward to agenda item d hearing and action i will read through each item under hearing and action uh hearing and action item one council bill 2025-2224 DCP-MPZC-2025-00243 and BDA-2026-02700. This is 2695 Winchester Road. Item number two. BDA-2026-03918 and DCP-MPZC-2026-00190 at 4337 Fifth Avenue. Item number three is BDA-2026-04520 at 3102 Smallman Street And item number four is zoning code updates. This is phase one zoning code text and map amendment, DCP-MPCC-2026-00169. And it's in response to the executive order 2026-01 regarding permitting process reform citywide. Moving back up to item number one, I will be recusing from this. I'm going to turn it over to Vice Chair O'Neill and I'll see you back on the second item.

Thank you. The first item up in this section is Council Bill 2025-2224. That's DCP-NPCC-2025-00243 and also BDA-2026-02700. This is property located at 2695 Winchester Road. and involves a preliminary and final land development plan for a new planned unit development in the Banksville neighborhood. Up first is Mr. Fraker.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'll read in the report for the case and then turn it over to the applicant team for the presentation. Council Bill 2025-2224 was filed by City Council on behalf of the property owners Marion Manor Corporation to rezone the former Vincentian Marion Manor assisted living facility in the Banksfield neighborhood. A preliminary land development plan, which includes the site layout and development standards, was submitted to accompany the legislation as is required for the zoning code. an application for the final land development plan was then applied for by the applicant team on behalf of the property owners marion manor corporation for the final land development plan for the site the applicants have requested that the applications of the pldp and the fldp that's the preliminary land development plan and the final land development plan be reviewed concurrently The legislation has changed since being introduced at City Council in September of 2025. The original legislation proposed the creation of a new specially planned district. That legislation was then amended in February 2026 to be for a new PUD district. The newer version of the legislation includes text that will live within the preliminary land development plan and not the zoning code itself. Therefore, the legislation will be amended by substitution to include just the text needed for the zone map change a copy of the legislation to be amended by substitute is attached to your report. The site is 26 acres and is currently split zone between residential multi-unit moderate density and residential single unit low density, as well as the Parks District. The zone change would change the entire site to the residential planned unit development district. The site has frontages on Winchester Road, Rose Garden Road, and Carnahan Road. But access to the site would be only off of Winchester Road. The preliminary land development plan establishes uses and standards for development within the proposed RP district. The preliminary land development plan also includes provisions for open space, which is a requirement for new PUD districts. The application for the final land development plan includes the demolition of the existing structures on site and construction of 124 single unit attached townhomes. Site improvements will include grading, installation of a new road, new sidewalks, a community center, pickable courts, and a pool. The zoning code requires that trees over 12 inches in diameter that are removed be replaced on an inch-for-inch basis. The applicant will be removing 3,500 total inches of trees and replacing 1939 of those inches back on site that leaves approximately 1560 remaining for replacement. To account for the remaining inches, the applicant will agree to an alternative landscape compliance agreement. The agreement will allow the applicant to receive a mitigation credit towards the replacement requirement based on the proportion of the lot area dedicated to the conservation easement. for this site the easement would need to cover 44.6 percent of the site to fully meet the mitigation requirement any remaining portion of the required replacement inches not covered by the conservation easement must be replaced through the city's standard fee and move process A geotechnical report was submitted for the site and is currently under review by city planning staff and permits, licenses and inspections. The stormwater management plan for the site has been reviewed and issued conceptual approval. The final land development plan was reviewed by the contextual design advisory panel. Design staff have requested that the applicant note whether there have been any design changes since the meeting. The applicant team has not submitted any revisions for review. Suggestions from the CDAT panel include using cementitious siding, taller windows, taller window proportions, and use of shutters. A copy of the contextual design advisory panel summary is attached to your report. There were no requests to the zoning board of adjustment for this project. department of mobility and infrastructure will review a memo summarizing the mobility plan for the development in lieu of a full transportation impact study there are three motions for these applications i'll go ahead and read in those motions motion one is that the planning commission of the city of pittsburgh makes a positive recommendation to city council on the zone change petition based on the application filed by city council with the condition that the legislation be amended by substitute with the attached text in your report. The second motion is that the planning commission of the city of Pittsburgh makes a positive recommendation to city council on the preliminary land development plan based on the application filed by Goldberg, Kamen and Garvin LLP on behalf of the property owners, Marion Manor Corporation. The third motion is that the Planning Commission of the City of Pittsburgh approves the final land development plan, BDA 2026-02-700, based on the application filed by Goldberg, Kamen and Garvin, LLP, on behalf of the property owners, Marion Manor Corporation, with the following conditions. That applicant shall provide an alternative landscape compliance agreement as outlined to the applicant and as noted within this report. To establish a conservation easement on site, the conservation easement must be provided to the zoning administrator prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. 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. And that all DOMI permits, including transportation memorandum, be approved by DOMI prior to issuing the first record of zoning approval. With that, I'll turn it over to the applicant team. Thank you.

good afternoon commissioners my name is john cayman k-a-m-i-n my address is 1806 frick building pittsburgh pa 15219 and i'm counsel for the applicant uh and happy to be here for hearing in action this afternoon uh as joe said this is a um 124 units of the 124 unit PUD plan. My client plans to build active adult housing here. They will all be single family attached housing and it is for sale housing. This is an aerial view of the existing site. It is a complete demolition and Reconstruction of the Marion Manor site, which has been vacant now for over 2 years and was formerly a personal care home and had a number of other uses associated with that. As you can see, this is located in a predominantly residential district with single family homes surrounding. The site and most of those trees are in fact on our property. Many of them will be staying, many of them will be going for the reasons we'll be discussing later on in the presentation. This is a tax map overview of the site. As you can see, the parcel, as Joe says, has frontage on Rose Garden, Winchester and Carnahan Road. Due to steep topography and existing conditions, we will be going ahead and having all of our access come in off of Winchester Drive. I would note that an active adult community is the one of the lowest traffic generators of any type of land use according to the ITE standards. And as a result, we actually think the net traffic will reduce over what was previously there in when Marion Manor was operating. This is the existing zoning conditions as we talked about. The site has multiple different zonings to it. R1DL, RMM, and Parks is a small portion of the site. This next slide in response to commissioner o'neill's request to show what part of the site was zone parks shows essentially like a 174 feet on the back end of the property is own parks, the rest of it is own our with the exception of a small piece that comes out on rose garden, which is our 1 D L. The existing conditions of the building are terrible. There's no other way to describe it. They have numerous broken windows, inoperable utilities, animals living in it. It is in bad shape and in need of demolition. Our initial study did look at whether or not there was any ability to save the building or any parts of it, and it's in just awful condition. So the answer to that question is no. Here are some more pictures. These pictures are actually better than the actual condition of the building. They don't tell the full story, but I think you guys get the idea. So what we're looking to create is essentially a de-restrictive active adult community. This will be Pittsburgh's first 55 and older active adult community. It's 123 for sale, single family attached homes. We believe that their pricing will be by the time they're out the door in the sixes. Each home will include an elevator in its standard model. And we are at this point proposing modular construction, which allows for very quick production of the units and also is a very green and sustainable way to go ahead and to build a plan of this type. All the unit owners will pay a monthly fee to their HOA. It's a master plan community. The HOA will be responsible for essentially everything, the common elements, exterior landscaping, the streets, the clubhouse, and the amenities associated with the plan. This is a site plan that shows we have basically concentrated our development on the top portion of the site. There are a number of reasons for that, which will go through again. I know you had the briefing, but we'll go through for the hearing and action portion, but the site when it was originally. built for marion manor they moved a lot of dirt along on the site and did not compact it appropriately so we have soils issues that require significant earth movement and undercutting we also have some slope issues on the what is really the that's called eastern portion of the site where you have some steep slopes and some other items which we have avoided so in order to make this work we've concentrated our density on the area that is flattest that has the least disturbance but again there's significant earthwork that has to happen there because of the fact that the grading and compaction as it was real originally done was done really just for the building of marion manor and didn't take into account any sort of additional use of the site This is just a zoom in on the left portion. The next slide is the zoom in on the right portion of the site. But as you can see, we have a single spine road that comes when you come into the plan, there will be the clubhouse there with the pool, the pickleball courts and the other amenities. And we have set them up in sort of a new style operation. Every home will have its own integral two car garage. And there will be ability for guests to park behind in those spaces, but there is going to be walking paths between the units. The units will front each other so that it creates a sense of community and a nice area for people to congregate. This is the back part of the site plan. Same thing, single spine road. You see we have a cul-de-sac sort of turnaround at the back of it. And again, the units are set up in the MUSE format for the most part to be able to look at the fronts and basically share front porches and interactions. this is just a zoom in on the amenity area as we talked about there is a clubhouse that will serve as really the life of the community that clubhouse is really for community members and their guests and will not be open to the public everybody will have fobs or access controls to get in there as they need it and we'll have a layout down below what will be in the clubhouse This is our open space plan. One of the things that is nice about us concentrating the development in the usable portions and also limiting our grading is that we have significant open space. The PUD requires 70%. We're at 77% for recreational open space. That's 10%. We're at 10.2%. We do have a lot of passive space, usable space, and believe that we've done a lot to preserve essentially that buffering to the surrounding neighborhoods um this is the proposed landscape plan um there as you can see are a lot of trees that we're intending to plan to deal with uh you know the grading work that we have to do one of the things that i would note is a lot of the trees uh per our survey were invasives not particularly high quality um what we would generally refer to as junk So we believe that what we're planting in addition to the conservation easement that we'll have will provide a very nice essentially reforestation of this area with a much higher quality species and plant than what's there before on the aggregate. I referenced previously that we have some slope issues. You can see with the way the red shows up is that there are a lot of areas that are in excess of 20%. With respect to Commissioner O'Neill's question as to what's on the easterly side, the red area on the easterly boundary is essentially the same area that is Zone Park at this point. The grading plan, again, as you can see, we tried to concentrate that grading up top in the area because of our requirements of undercutting in those items and are leaving the steeper sloped areas basically undisturbed. Some site characteristics as we walk through quickly, it's 26.44 acres, significant slopes, significant vegetation and multiple zoning districts. Our proposed RP district unifies these districts. We allow for single unit detached residential, two unit residential, three unit residential, community clubhouse and recreational and multi-unit residential. All is permitted uses in the district though, as I said, we're coming in with single family attached. In terms of accessory, we have private garages, home occupations, recreation and entertainment. We did put some standards around the clubhouse so that because there actually aren't standards in the zoning code that exists right now. So we wanted to have some standards as to how it could be used to make clear that it's really a gathering space for residents. as opposed to something that can be rented out to the public or operate as something other than really a communal gathering facility. In terms of housing typologies, this is typical language that we talked about. The maximum height is 40 feet, three stories. There's no minimum lot size to allow for us to go ahead and do these single family attached homes and not worry about interior setbacks rear yards front yards those types of things so we think that this works the parking requirements are sufficient and with our two car integral garage spaces there's plenty of parking associated with the community give it a second this is just a proposed rendering of the there'll be two types of units one 36 feet deep one 42 feet deep They are being I should say the rendering the elevations are being finalized with the plant. The plant is in Clearfield County. We're working on those. We will get those elevations to the zoning administrator. We have no problem with Joe's condition with that. These are the floor plans. As you can see, all the units are 26 wide. Our 36-foot deep unit is the first floor. The second and third floors do canter lever a little bit over the first floor unit or first floor footprint, I should say. And as you can see from the floor plans, as I said, every unit will have an elevator in it. Every unit will have a two-car garage. And then there's a combination of different bedrooms and layouts. These are just typical floor plans. There is an ability to customize those floor plans with options and different add-ons based on what the individual customer wants to have. Here's the 42-foot unit. Again, the width is essentially the same, but the depth is longer, provides for a little bit of bigger master bedrooms and dining and living areas. And the same thing here, again, that there's this two-foot candle lever on the second and third levels over the first floor basement. In terms of community amenities, we're planning on approximately 3800 square foot clubhouse that will have a golf simulator, communal kitchen, pool table, swimming pool, pickleball ports, conference room and community trails. This is just a conceptual layout of the clubhouse to give you sort of an idea as to how things will be set up. There will be room for staff office. We do anticipate an on-site manager who will be present to handle things for a large period of the week. So the idea, similar to many of the active adult communities, is to create a gathering place for people to be able to meet and enjoy the amenities and each other. As Joe said, we are here for both the PLDP and FLDP. at the same time to be heard concurrently. So the first part of compliance with the PLDP refers to 922.11 that provides the various criteria that the Planning Commission is to look at. I will run through it very quickly. A is that the district creates an efficient, functional, and attractive urban area which incorporates a high level of amenities. We certainly think we meet that. B, that the proposed district will protect and preserve the natural environment. We have worked very hard to preserve what can be preserved, but again, with the soils conditions and other items on site, we think we've struck a very good balance here. C is that it's favorable environmental, social and economic impact on the city. If you look at the current situation of a dilapidated uh building versus what we're proposing we believe that we check all of those boxes in addition we believe providing the 55 plus active adult community is something that is helpful for the city since it does not exist and can provide a place for people to be able to stay in the city as they age out of their homes D is that the maintenance location and operation of the proposed district will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare. We satisfy that for the other reasons we've talked about. E is not injurious to the use and enjoyment of the other property in the immediate vicinity or diminish or impair property values within the adjacent zoning districts. again we think we're a sizable upgrade over what is there also we think that with our anticipated sales price that we're actually going to help increase the values within the surrounding districts as well i did real not really know that this community existed it's a great spot in pittsburgh it's tremendous access to transportation well-kept neighborhood uh i think it's it's really going to do great for the neighborhood F is that the district will not impede the normal and orderly development of the uses in adjacent districts. Again, they're basically built out. This is a reconstruction of an eyesore. G, adequate utilities, access, road drainage, and other necessary facilities have been provided. As you heard from Joe, we meet that criteria. h is that ingress and egress minimizes congestion again we're reducing traffic based on the ite standards is what existed there before there was a daycare there at some point that's like the highest generator of traffic trips um and again we are i think the lowest in the ite standards when it comes to single family um I as it complies with the plans and policy documents adopted from the city from time to time. We are happy to be bringing this first class development south of the river and we think that there is more opportunity for that. So we think we comply with those with that item as well. yes there's more with regards to the compliance on the fldp it's more of the same i won't go through all those i will note it's 922 11c2 but just to highlight a couple of the items in there in terms of uh adequate parking we meet the city's requirement for that in terms of traffic generations we talked about before we generate the minimus traffic in terms of addressing pedestrian traffic patterns in sidewalk capacity we'll have sidewalks on both sides and in terms of access to transit By providing this development in this area, there is great access to transit once you get onto the main arteries, and we think that's something that is helpful and, again, appropriate. In terms of G, again, we encourage the use of transit, but most of these folks are going to be people who drive off hours. H, in terms of architectural relationships to surrounding buildings, we certainly believe that providing single family uses here is consistent with the single family that exists around it. In terms of microclimate effects, our modular construction that we're doing is amongst the most green practices that exist in terms of waste of product, in terms of efficiency, in terms of time of building. So we think we satisfy that requirement. In compliance with the zoning code, certainly in policies, we discussed that one already, and K is irrelevant. In terms of the review criteria for the zoning district, just to run through this quickly, and I did submit a memo to Joe. It's it's many of the same items. We meet them all under 9205 F. I do want to highlight that. in terms of six we believe that the zoning map amendment will have no detrimental effect on the nearby property again in fact i think it will enhance it seven the property has been vacant for over two years it has been in decline for far longer than that so certainly we think that this is the best use i would note that we've had numerous community meetings throughout the past year or so we had a number of different proposals for this use before we got to this use and this has very strong support amongst the community support amongst the Councilwoman and we believe that it makes again a huge impact south of the river here in the Banksville neighborhood and in terms of nine uh as you heard from staff staff is recommending approval so i know i went through that quickly i know you have a heavy agenda and you're already running late but happy to answer any questions that the commission may have or to assist in any way i can that with anything staff may have at this point

Great, thank you. That concludes your presentation. We will now take public testimony. If you are testifying, please come to the podium and you will have three minutes. Please state your name, any organization you represent, and we will start with people in the room. Go for it.

My name is Andrew Spike. I am a resident of the city of Pittsburgh. If you were able to actually pull up the slideshow again, can you go to the open space plan slide earlier in the presentation? Yep, thank you. So under this plan, the in terms of all the other land development i'm perfectly fine with it however the path that is being designated as part of this development there are other unofficial paths in the community in the zoned area that are being used and i feel that the new path being just for the community restricts it for the rest of the neighbors to be able to access specifically between uh it's the on carnahan road there is a path on the top left corner of the zone and also between the road and drive there's also an official path that uh residents use to get between the two areas i'd like the if possible for the actual path to be publicly accessible and everything else still be under the PUD.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Tom Kiesel. I live at 2675. Could you put that down?

Sorry.

I live at 2675 Winchester Drive and one of the things I'd like to clarify first is when you were speaking, sir, you said Winchester Drive would be the main access point. Is that what you meant or did you mean Winchester Road?

I'm in Winchester.

Okay, thank you. I live on Winchester Drive, so I agree with the plan. I'm not against the plan. I think everything's great, and I do think it's good for the community, with the exception of if you're my house. My house is... Let me see. My house is located right... Don't click just now. uh am i going the right way don't just move the mouse and don't click that will change you mean the wheel oh do you have it just the close-up with the uh that that works so i am right located right there um if you look at the other plan where where it has the recreational area you can see that from the pickleball court to my house is roughly i'm using their diagram that pickleball court field is the the purple that's probably about 88 feet because pickleball courts are 44. so i am about 90 feet away from that pickleball court direct line of sight from my property um i do have a an image that i brought that shows just how close this comes to my property if i could please I zoomed in and I do agree. I do think that this is a valuable thing. I do think it's improving what is there, but I do think it's a significant impact to me personally. And one of the things is the noise. I don't believe there was any noise study done. So I don't think anybody can say with certainty. that I will not be affected by the noise. Pickleball courts are extremely loud. I pulled some research that suggests 250 to 500 feet is maybe sometimes acceptable. I'm within a hundred feet of the pickleball court and also the swimming pool and everything, which was deemed to be the life of the whole community, right? So the life of the whole community is now 80 feet from me in clear line of sight with no i believe a six foot fence separating me from there so there's a lot of uh noise pollution that can come there's light pollution that come and i have concerns about drainage and construction construction is going to be the amount of ground being moved is enormous so it's just going to be a rough couple years i just want to get some things in writing maybe i feel like the plan doesn't exactly spell out things that i'd like to see it spell out like how far from my property it needs to be when can they use the pickleball courts when can they not those types of things construction 6 a.m is early i would like to see that not be 6 a.m right there's just some concerns that i have and i can provide them if needed or um try to speak through them here now whatever you guys would like that's three minutes so if you have them in writing you will take i do have it yes excellent

Do you have copies? I was going to say, here's an extra one of this.

Is this one version?

Yeah. Yes, please. So we can all thank you. No worries. Thank you. Thank you very much.

And are there any commenters in the room?

Are there any more commenters online?

Thank you. Marbel, you can unmute yourself and you have three minutes to provide testimony. Thank you.

Hi, this is Lori Mara Bello from Councilwoman Selena Tro's office. I'm speaking on behalf of her. She would like to go on record to say that she supports the zoning change and supports the development. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Kamen, before we go to Commissioner comments, do you want to respond to the public comments?

So we will certainly work, we're not anticipating, Parties at all hours of the night and operations that would be detrimental to the neighbors. We want to be good neighbors. That area highlighted sort of in red adjacent to the clubhouse in the trail that's going down around sort of the stormwater pond. That does have to be cleared by Columbia Gas for a new line that they're putting in. So there's not a lot I can do in terms of you know preservation of planting right there there's it's it's a new line that has been on the books for a while for columbia yes it's not to service us it's to service the uh community um but we certainly will agree to work in any way to be compatible in terms of construction time the city has an ordinance that regulates that we're going to comply with all those items And in terms of impact on construction, because of the modular nature of these homes, there's actually going to be far less vehicles and construction than you would normally have in a project this size. We think we'll be able to, where 120 plus units would probably take, call it five, six years to happen. We think because of the modular nature, we'll be able to do it in three years. there's nothing we can do about the soils issue there's a lot of grading that has to be done we've got you know good contractors who are bidding the job right now who are used to working in the city used to understanding what's associated with it so um you know we will do our best to be a good neighbor and happy to take his information and work with him thank you at this time we take commissioner comments

Oh, yeah, go ahead. Thanks. And thanks. This is commissioner. I really want to applaud that development. I think it's good. It's great to see new construction happening in the city of Pittsburgh, especially in the South Hills. And I agree with the site planning. I apologize that I missed the briefing 2 weeks ago because I would have asked this then then regards to the comments from. It sounds like there was no kind of response back to staff about that and ask if you could.

we're working on elevations at this point bob changing them around so that's why we're fine with the staff okay administration uh there's a couple different things that as we've changed the layouts that they come back to us from the plant as to things that they need to do so that's why we're fine with that condition that will incorporate them with staff when we get the elevations finalized

excellent thanks then my only other comment is just to make sure i don't this is a recurring comment that we have at cdap make sure you put your trees not in pits but in rows because trees trees and tree pits don't do well so yes we hate pits we're anti-pit anti-pit yeah that sounds bad but all right thanks this pit tree pit hail the pit except for tree pits thanks uh commissioner vats

All right. Thank you for the presentation, Mr. Kamen. I think just echoing what Commissioner Reppy said, just want to applaud that this development is happening, you know, particularly in the South Hills. I think we see a lot of development in the east of Pittsburgh and very little south of the river. So I think good on you guys for doing that. It looks like a great plan. The only thing I would say is just like, you know, I think particularly with the question about like noise from the pickleball courts i think like i would encourage you to work closely with the neighbor to uh you know put in plan a place to to make sure that that's not uh disruptive those those courts can be loud and if they're close to uh you know where people are living it definitely could you know i can definitely understand that concern but you know overall really uh really great development thank you for the presentation thank you and we will work with him to make it work thank you commissioner cantania

Hi, good afternoon everyone. I just had one question. There was a gentleman, the second gentleman, I think that when he was talking about that the community uses some of the sites as a way to get around the trails. Is that something that's possible to do?

So, I don't know. the answer is we'll look at it but i i don't know that it necessarily works we're putting a storm water pond down there um we have controls that we'll have to put around the pond for protection uh fencing those other types of items we will have a trail within the plan that does go down below that is going to be accessible from up above. But in terms of providing easements or something like that for trails that exist, I would say our answer to that is probably no. We've got to protect the property rights. We've got to ensure the property rights. We've got to do those items. we'll look at it and once grading is done and work's done to see um you know how an interplay can happen but our homeowners association is responsible for the maintenance of those items um they'll be responsible for gathering insurance and and when you start to open up you know public trails through that it's a whole different scenario um in terms of both access and responsibility that we probably do not want to go down okay thank you

Do we have any additional Commissioner comments? Thank you. Okay. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you. Just following up on some of the comments, understanding how the recreation uses can impact the neighbor, we do encourage you to have those continued conversations And just for clarity, this is not the end of the road. This is a recommendation to counsel on the first two pieces of this. So there will be more public hearings. So please meet with Mr. Cayman and continue these discussions because I'm certain there are ways to mitigate some of that noise and have some of that light, you know, facing down shielded, which I assume that the residents of your development would also appreciate.

We're going to be doing that anyhow. Absolutely.

um and then let's see like pollution construction so so please continue those conversations this is not the end uh and then I think the my only comment without hearing anything additional we do have free motions for recommendations so I will take those one at a time Do I have a motion on the first recommendation that Planning Commission makes a positive recommendation on the zone change petition as written in the staff report and as read into the record by Mr. Fraker?

So move.

So move, Commissioner. Second.

I'll second, Walker.

Second, Commissioner Reppy. He beat you to it. I'm sorry. I will do a roll call.

You get the next one.

Commissioner Interiano.

Aye.

Commissioner O'Neill. Aye. Commissioner Kelly. Aye. Commissioner Reppy. Aye. Commissioner Vatz. Aye. I'm sorry. This is popcorn. I'm just taking you in the way I see them. Commissioner Cantania.

Aye.

Commissioner Walker.

Aye.

And Commissioner Hunt.

Aye.

Okay. That motion carries. Do I have a motion, the second motion, in our report that Planning Commission and Pittsburgh make a positive recommendation to City Council for the Preliminary Land Development Plan?

Moved.

Moved. Commissioner Interiano, do I have a second?

Second. I'm sorry, I was looking down. Yes, Commissioner Hunt, second.

Commissioner Hunt, thank you. Sorry. All right, I will do a roll call. Commissioner Interiano? Aye. Commissioner Kelly?

Aye, I'm sorry.

can't look everywhere at once uh i'm sure rafi hi mr walker hi mr hunt hi mr cantania hi commissioner vats aye and commissioner o'neill aye and finally do i have a motion uh the third motion that the planning commission of pittsburgh approved the final land development plan subject to the conditions included in the report and as read into the record by mr breaker

So moved. Second.

So moved. Commissioner Rappi, second. Commissioner Kelly. All right, let's try this. Roll call. Commissioner Walker.

Aye.

Commissioner Hunt.

Aye.

Commissioner Cantania. Aye. Commissioner VATS. Aye. Commissioner Ruppey.

Aye.

Commissioner Kelly. Aye. Commissioner Interiano. Aye. I need to look somewhere. And Commissioner O'Neill. Aye. So approved. I'm trying to keep you all. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. There will be notices for the hearings before council. Please be aware that those will be posted online. And we anticipate those will be scheduled in the near future. And I will be handing off to Madam Chair.

Nice work. All right.

Thank you, Vice Chair O'Neill. Moving on to agenda item number two under Hearing in action agenda item D, I will read in item number two, BDA-2026-03918 and DCP-MPZC-2026-00190. for free 4337 fifth avenue nine-story residence hall with ground floor restaurant and minor amendments to university of pittsburgh's institutional master plan this is in north oakland and mr johnson is presenting thank you so much good afternoon commissioners christian johnson senior planner for department of city planning

An application for a project development plan was submitted on behalf of University of Pittsburgh for the construction of a new nine-story residence hall with ground floor restaurant. The project is located on the site 2B of the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Master Plan. Zoning and other reviews for this application include review of compliance with the University of Pittsburgh IMP, including parking requirements, energy goals, and architectural compatibility. A copy of the IMP has been provided to the commissioners and an excerpt has been included in this report. The application adheres to the site development standards outlined on pages 166 and 167 of the IMP, except in a few cases where minor revisions are proposed. These minor revisions to the IMP for Site 2B are included in the applicant's presentation. This includes revisions to setbacks and sidewalks. The applicant submitted a master plan zone change application with these changes under DCP MPCC 2026-00190. These revisions should be considered by the planning commission when reviewing the project development plan criteria and will be subject to approval via administrator exception per 922.12 of the code. The project was presented to the Zoning Board of Adjustment on June 11th, 2026 and requested special exceptions in the EMI zoning district for dormitory use and restaurant general use. The ZBA decision is pending. A determination of neighborhood plan compliance was conducted by the neighborhood planner. The memo is attached to this report. Additionally, the applicant submitted an overview of compliance with the Oakland plan also attached to this report. development activities meeting with the registered community organization for the neighborhood was held on may 11th 2026 and that report is attached to this report the project was presented to the contextual design advisory panel on may 26 2026. the cdef summary is attached to this report Under Section 911.04A.23, the Planning Commission shall review the application as a project development plan according to the criteria listed in the criteria of 922.10 attached to this report. The applicant provided a memo indicating how the proposed development meets the criteria. The staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission of the City of Pittsburgh approves applications BDA 2026-03918 and DCP-MPZC-2026-00190 with the following conditions. All domain permits will be reviewed and approved prior to issuing the final record of zoning approval. And the final construction plans, including the site plans and elevations, will be reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator prior to issuing the final record of zoning approval. I'll now turn it over to the applicant.

Thanks very much and good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm pleased to Expound on what Senior Planner Johnson said about the University of Pittsburgh submission for student housing project. As mentioned, it is on Fifth Avenue between Belfield and Ruskin, wrapping around the historic former Parsonage, Richardsonian Romanesque 1884 building, the music building and its annex with the nine-story, 123,400 gross square foot traditional residence hall in an L-shape. It's in the Oakland Civic Center Historic District. The former parsonage actually is more reference to the Shenley Farms Historic District. And we're pleased with this. Jim Richardson is here from BMDO and he's going to talk about the architecture and then I'll go back referencing the institutional master plan.

Yeah, excellent. So, excuse me. Our rendered schematic design is right in the middle of this image. We've been striving for it to have a natural self-evident fit, both within Pitt's campus and the city of Oakland around. Recognizing that this is a gateway site, both as an entrance experience to Pitt, as well as as an urban infill project, has a role to frame the cathedral on, which may be the most memorable landscape on campus. Also, we have a retail dining component that'll be open to both city residents and students alike. It really draws from and tries to activate Fifth Avenue and along Fifth Avenue connects to two other dining facilities at Pitt, the Cathedral Cafe in the base of the Cathedral and the Eatery in the base of Litchfield Towers. So I think this massing shows our intent for how it fits into the context, both with height and a flat roof, how the top floor steps back. We have a green roof plan for the area along Fifth Avenue and a mechanical equipment screen on the area away from Fifth facing Ruskin Hall. These are existing photos of the site showing the music building, the music building annex, the existing parking lot and Ruskin Hall. The surrounding urban context is really an eclectic mix of styles and ages. A lot of buildings around like Belfield Hall and Webster Hall, the Board of Public Education, all have a base, middle, and top composition. The predominant material is a tan or a buff brick, lots of times with elements of limestone around. uh regarding open space in addition to fronting the cathedral on i think our intent is to continue the urban streetscape along fifth avenue by clap hall and along alumni hall that we hope you'll see so the long elevation at the bottom is along fifth avenue facing north it is intended to show our relationship to clap hall on the left and webster hall on the right in terms of rhythm and proportion also the two-story window groupings of clap hall For materiality, we're planning on using prominently a tan or a buff brick, areas of limestone. For the sake of composition, we're inspired by Ruskin Building's verticality, its base, middle, and top composition, and also the Webster Building, the way that the top steps back to try to reach the sky in a graceful way. We'll talk a bit about articulation in a few minutes, but I think the two-story window groupings of Clapp Hall and the areas of brick and two-story groupings for the Pitt Student Union have been things we've been kind of inspired by and have been trying to relate to. One more contextual elevation, this time along Belfield Avenue facing west, showing our height and massing in relation to Ruskin, showing our base, middle, and top composition, how it aligns with Ruskin, picks up on the window line of the music building, and how the orientation and rhythm of the windows we think relates in a strong way in that context and the overall height. So the existing condition is an L-shaped parking lot with fronts on Ruskin and Fifth and Bellfield. The yellow box is a temporary facility building that will be removed. And the red box is a required demolition as an enabling work of 110 square foot addition to the addition to the music building. Also in the red box, there's a generator that will be removed and an existing ADA ramp that will be reconfigured as part of the project. So this is our site plan. As Gina mentioned, we're wrapping around and preserving the music building and the annex. A primary approach as we see it is from the southwest, particularly for students. So we have a dining entrance on the southwest side. The main residential entrance for students who will live there is kind of on the northwest side along Ruskin Avenue. Inside there's a dining facility, mostly facing 5th and Ruskin, so we have a generous dining terrace that spills out onto 5th and Ruskin that'll be a few feet above, but still connected to the activity of 5th. On the north side, we're preparing for a shared service access drive or alley that will be shared between our project and Ruskin Hall. That's a one-way street or a one-way access, so deliveries will all come in from the Ruskin side and will have a required right-hand turn onto Belfield Ave. All of the trash will be taken care of Ruskin and not on Belfield Ave. If that was the site plan, this is really more of a zoning plan. So there are red lines that are a bit hard to see. Our approach has been to align with the face of Ruskin on Ruskin Avenue, to align with the face of Ruskin Hall, excuse me, on Belfield Avenue, and also to align with the music building on Fifth Avenue. This is showing a little bit of a setback on the ground floor. We're giving a little bit back to the public realm on the ground floor, but on the Fifth Avenue side, the upper levels do align with music. We're extending the sidewalks on Ruskin and Belfield and have made the sidewalk as wide as we can on Fifth Avenue up until we hit an existing city gas grate that we have to maintain. It's a few feet above level of sidewalk. The ground floor consists largely of a private, not a private, a retail dining restaurant. There's also a bike storage facility on Belfield, and we've worked pretty hard to make sure we're providing universal access to all the entrances and all the points, which are what the red lines correspond to. The landscape and planting plan consists of canopy trees and understory trees, shrubs and ground covers, all in keeping, we believe, with the urban design guidelines. Four elevations showing the length and height and width in relation to the existing context and our intent to use a prominent tan or buff brick, areas of contextual stone on the ground, large areas of glass on the ground floor for dining, and then we've been calling them lantern-like upper levels that are largely glass that showcase community gathering spaces on the upper levels. A building section left with Ruskin Hall and to the right on fifth showing the first two floors in green are the dining facility. Above that are stacked six floors in purple of the student housing levels. And then a primary gathering space for residents on the top floor stepped back from fifth and from both sides that we think will be a key feature for students who live there. So nine floors and a basement all within and under the 105 foot height guidelines. So a few renderings left and then give it back over to Gina. The design we think activates Fifth Avenue as a kind of stacked neighborhood with learning and dining and social centers of the student experience at Pitt. The ground floor features a active and transparent dining facility that invites the community in and also spills out to a terrace. Above that are stacked double height student lounges that offer great views of campus. And then especially in the evenings, we think also showcase the community taking place within. The top floor stepped back is an active community gathering space for the students. This is a view from Fifth and Ruskin, really showing how the scale breaks down. So composed of a base, middle, and top. And the middle floors in particular, we've broken them down into two-story bands that we think makes it feel a bit less tall or smaller overall. Those two-story levels are composed of a tan or a buff brick and a stacked bond. All the windows do stack. There's a dark panel on the sides of the windows that simply flips every two stories. So I think our intention was to try and balance a sense of order with a little bit of motion overall. The top floor steps in and has a canopy cover that we think helps it meet the sky. In the evening on the ground floor, you can see the dining program that draws from campus pathways and I think the hope is it's a magnetic destination that also gives something back to the activity of the street on Fifth Avenue. Zoom in of that corner showing how the dining area corresponds to the terrace around it that set a few steps up from the Fifth Avenue and encased with a low stone site wall that wraps the site and relates with materiality to the music building. We've been calling this the Gateway View, both in how it announces arrival to Pitt's campus and also how it frames and activates Fifth Avenue. The architecture forms a warm and neutral backdrop to the music building. We try to pick up on its ashlar pattern, its materiality, the rhythm of its windows, and its dark accents, particularly at the roofline. In the evening, as the dining lights up, we think also those lantern-like ends will help to activate and give something back to the city. A zoomed-in area facing the cathedral, showing the detail of the stacked bond brick panels. We've incorporated a slight cant to them that we think over the course of the day will help a play of light and shadow, maybe adding one more level of dynamism to it overall. This last view, though rendered differently, just tries to show the area between Ruskin Hall and our project along Bellfield, so you can kind of see all the way through the service drive, but we've used a garden wall and a gate to help conceal that from view. materiality, prominent use of brick in the stacked bond, large areas of glass, natural contextual stone for the base, and the top floors have an ultra high performance concrete rain screen system, details are metal composite panel of similar color. This last image for me shows the residential entrance and I think shows in more detail the intent for using that contextual stone where it hits the sidewalk.

Thanks, Jim. In my excitement, I neglected to introduce myself. My name is Regina Marie Bleck, Gina, and I'm the Vice Chancellor of Planning, Design, and Construction at the University of Pittsburgh.

Sorry about that.

So as mentioned previously, this site was included for development in prior institutional master plans, at least the last two. As located, we are working with the administrator on some clarifications to maintain the urban street wall, it is important that the buildings align. And that was stated in the text of the Institutional Master Plan. It also gave exact dimensions. And then when we did surveys, the exact dimensions were not that exact. And so we are modifying them to meet the actual survey dimensions. So the intent is that we will keep best practices in urban planning design and design and you know, for the campus and the neighborhood. So we're aligning with the buildings. But we're clarifying that the dimension from the lot lines is not as stated and is now as modified. In addition, we added language to include canopies that would match the city zoning. So they're less than five feet from from the setbacks. And lastly, the other modification is And it comes up in two slides. But the other modification is that the sidewalk dimensions would then put the existing gas vault in the make it a tripping hazard in the sidewalk. And there is an historic stone wall on North Belfield. So we have pushed the sidewalks to their maximum extent and meet the gas vault line on 5th and the historic existing stone wall on North Belfield. Jim already talked about the architectural compatibility. We did receive Historic Review Commission approval, so we were pretty confident that we are being sympathetic to the 1920s base middle top and rhythm and materiality of the Oakland Civic Center, preserving the most special quality of the 1880s Romanesque former parsonage on the corner. And these are the adjustments that I just talked about. also included in the Institutional Master Plan and is Sorry, a preference. And for sustainability, the university embraces that. We just celebrated our 20th LEED-certified building. If all goes well, the 20th is the Alan McGee Scaife Hall West edition and renovation. So if all goes well with the other ones pending, this will be the 27th LEED-certified building in our portfolio. We have an energy use intensity of 51 kilobitus per square foot per year, which is very good from an energy use for residence hall, particularly in Pittsburgh. In terms of impervious surface, It's, you know, there's no significant difference between the there's a minor improvement between the existing surface parking lot and our building with the green roof and the other amenities that we are including. To get incredibly specific, there are eight trees that will be removed and replaced to will be protected. The we have a current diameter at breast height of 45, and we're going to 52 and a half inches. So we will, you know, better, we will improve the site. We will also include understory and shrubs and ground cover so that consistent with what Commissioner Ruppey said earlier, we don't just have trees and pits, you know, we have, you know, we have planting areas and are supporting a more diverse system. The building ties into the university steam and chilled water. And the university is in the midst of some successful public art selection processes in three recent buildings, Bioforge and Hizwood Green, Fifth and Halkett, and the Hillside Landscaping Project. So we will use those examples and our charter and an engaged stakeholder community group for this project as well. In terms of mobility, the existing surface parking lot has 86 stalls. All of the permit holders have been already been successfully relocated, consistent with the IMP goals of no net new parking, we're eliminating those parking spaces. also consistent with university policy first year residents and we have committed to the neighbors and to the city and everyone that building occupants student building residents of this project will not be able to bring a vehicle to campus unless they are granted special dispensation And in the past year, I'm told one student received that special dispensation. So one out of 5,700 first-year students is pretty difficult to achieve. The university does support alternate transportation modes, also consistent with Institutional Master Plan, Oakland Plan, City and Best Practices. That includes PRT passes free to students, faculty, and staff, POGO bike share, 30-minute free rides, or you can... put it in slot and get another bike and keep going with over 400,000 individual trips just last year, which is an exponential, just amazing expansion in pogo bike ridership. We now have reciprocity on our shuttles with CMU. Thank you, Commissioner Ruppey. And this project also includes a campus wide amenity on North Belfield that has bike storage and locker and shower rooms suitable for commuting and adjacent to the new two lane cycle track that's being installed on Fifth Avenue right now. This map shows and documents all of the parking lots across campus. The RA lot has been removed, but you get a sense of the others with a little red star And then regarding alternate modes of transportation, there are three PRT bus stops in very close walking proximity of the project, two inbound stops, one both a block away, one on the opposite corner of 5th and Bellfield and one at 5th and Tennyson. for inbound travel, and then for outbound travel. There's one diagonally across 5th and Belfield on South Belfield for outbound travel. The university shuttle routes. The Institutional Master Plan also included a traffic analysis with intersection grading. So the green bubbles to the left of the circle is AM and to the right PM with the level of service. So an acceptable grade of A through D is green. This is the existing as documented in the Institutional Master Plan in 21. The next slide shows the no-build scenario, also green at the intersection. And then the build scenario, also green, an acceptable level of service at the intersection. In terms of the specific building loading and operations, there will be one curb cut on Ruskin, which is a reduction of three existing, four existing, so three are being removed, and one curb cut on North Bellfield. All of this is subject to DOME approval. As Jim described and as we've negotiated with nearby HOAs on North Bellfield, loading dock entry will be solely from Ruskin. For the trash compactor, the trash truck will back into the area and then Take the trash and then exit Ruskin for the deliveries. They will come in Ruskin. They will exit North Belfield with right turn only towards Fifth Avenue. In terms of the volumes of trucks anticipated, given our history and you know, and practice at our other restaurants, we're anticipating Monday, Wednesday and Friday two to three delivery trucks in the morning, we have agreed to hours with the neighbors as well. And that's documented and then Tuesday and Thursday up to one delivery truck, and then weekly recycling daily waste. Given we're eliminating some curb cuts on Ruskin, there could be the opportunity for a couple of additional public parking stalls on Ruskin. This list outlines our engagement with both the city, it was mentioned the development activities meeting that we had with the RCOs. In addition to that, we met with the Belfield Area Community Association, BACA, twice, and We're very hopeful that you approve our submission. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So at this time, we open the floor for public testimony. Is there, sir? Yes. So we do have someone here in the room. Love it when somebody comes in.

Rick Smith, North Oakland. I live in the neighborhood of the site. I'm very excited to welcome it to the neighborhood. One of the things that doesn't show up on the slide, just wanted to underscore. So I also submitted written testimony. is what it's like to sit there. I mean, you see this beautiful sitting on Ruskin and Fifth. The HVAC on the top of Clap Hall is unbelievable. So Clap Hall and Mellon Institute have really loud HVAC. So that's on Ruskin. And then on Fifth, you're sitting next to Fifth with you know, near the buses and trucks and whatever. So it's very idyllic on the slides, but it's not pleasant sitting there. The other thing that's interesting in the slides but doesn't show up as a possible issue is that glass front is southwest facing and with some on each side. And so what is it like to be in a glass box? So I went to Hillman and Hillman covered their windows. Why? They also have shades. So you go sitting in a glass box may not be pleasant. So what are the considerations there? Some buildings have put in architectural light shells which shield the light coming in and then bounce light deeper into the room as a way to both make it more pleasant and more lit naturally. but just as an issue I'm wondering about those glass boxes I also wrote about air quality in the letter so that's my main thing and thank you thank you so much for your testimony and for making it in uh do we have anybody else in the room or uh Mr Brown anyone online no

Okay, thank you. All right commissioners. It looks like commissioner VATS has his hand raise commissioner VATS.

Hi there. Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate what I said at the briefing a couple of weeks ago. I think it's.

It looks like you might have frozen.

Sorry, can you guys hear me okay?

We can hear you now. You were frozen.

Oh, shoot. Okay. Yeah, no, I'm just going to reiterate what I said a couple of weeks ago at the briefing. You know, I just want to commend the... I wanted to commend the project. The increase in students at Pitt is really great to see for the city, but also it's created a shortage of housing. And so I think it's great to see Pitt building more housing. And I think that I would love to see even more be built, both by the university and by others around Oakland and areas nearby. So thanks very much.

Thank you so much for that, Commissioner Vatz. Are there any other comments, commissioners? If hearing and seeing none, do I have a motion for, oh, wait, I do want to say something as well. Real quick, I'm sorry about that. I was about to leave without saying what I wanted to say. I do appreciate and respect the design. I did say that during briefing. I think I said something similar to bringing the inside out and the outside in. I feel it's really respectful of both the interior and exterior users and observers. And I do feel like it's a good example of old and new, how they can both function in the same space and equally speak to people and functionally be fun. I don't know, maybe I like my business in the streets, so it looks good to me. So I appreciate that. those are my only comments if there are none uh commissioners i'd like to know if we have a motion from the floor to approve uh but with the conditions as stated in our reports uh is there a motion from the floor all right so i have a uh move from interiano second i'll take from repi and then i'm going to do roll call please and thank you um leshawn burton folk i uh commissioner hunt Aye. Thank you, Commissioner Interiano. Aye. Thank you, Commissioner Kelly. Aye. Thank you, Commissioner O'Neill is recused on this one. Commissioner Cantania. Aye. Thank you, Commissioner Reppy. Aye. Thank you, Commissioner Vatz.

Aye.

Thank you, and Commissioner Walker. Aye. Thank you. Okay, so motion passes. So have a great rest of your day. Thank you so much for making it in. We are going to move on to the next agenda item. We can let Vice Chair O'Neill know that she can come back in at some point. And item number three, we're good. Thank you. Is BDA-2026-04520 at 3102 Smallman Street. This is 23... four-story townhomes in the Strip District neighborhood and Mr. Johnson will be presenting that this afternoon.

Good afternoon. Christian Johnson, senior planner for Department of City Planning. An application for a project development plan BDA 2026-04520 was submitted by Rochdale Adrenal Collaborative on behalf of the property owner Smallman Street Holdings LLC for the construction of 23 new four-story townhomes. The proposal includes a one-way interior drive, private lawn and planting areas, incorporated garages, planting beds, and is considered multi-unit residential. The project will demolish the existing buildings on parcels under a separate permit for the Genco sales building to be preserved on parcel 25-C-203. subdivision plan the subdivision plan which is a consolidation of four parcels into two parcels was presented to planning commission on july 14th and today july 28th 2026. the project was presented to context design advisory panel on july 7 2026. a summary is attached to this report Projects in a RIV zoning district are subject to zoning standards in 905.04 of the zoning code, which include a built-to zone, 10-foot sidewalk width, and the design standards of 905.04 , all reviewed by staff and found to be compliant. The applicant submitted a written request for exception from the multi-unit residential loading requirements outlined in the code, and the zoning administrator granted the request. The plan provides one parking spot per townhouse, the maximum allowed for multi-unit residential use in the riverfront zoning district. is no registered community organization for the neighborhood however the applicant met with strip district neighbors community development committee on november 7 2025 and december 16 2025 a letter of support is included in this report Under Section 905.04 , the Planning Commission shall review this application as a project development plan according to the criteria listed in the criteria of 922.10 , attached to this report. The applicant provided a memo indicating how the proposed development meets the criteria. The staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission of the City of Pittsburgh approves application BDA-2026-04520 submitted by Rothschild-Joino Collaborative on behalf of the property owner Smallman Street Holdings LLC with the following conditions. all domi permits will be reviewed and approved prior to issuing the final record of zoning approval and the final construction plans including site plans and elevations will will be reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator prior to issuing the final record of zoning approval i'll now turn it over to the applicant

Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Campbell. I'm a principal with Rothschild Donor Collaborative for the architects for the project. I also joined online with Jen Matthews from our office. On behalf of the owners, Smallman Street Holdings, it's George Mungel and Greg Gorman on behalf of PVEDI, who did the civil engineering. First thing is just thank you for your time. And in the interest of that, I know this has been a very long afternoon so far. I'm going to go through this relatively quickly. I'm happy to backtrack at any point if I'm going too fast. So again, you know, we are located sort of at the end of the strip district about two blocks from the formal end at the intersection here Polish Hill and Laura Lawrenceville. As Mr. Johnson mentioned, we did meet with the Strip District Neighbors Community Design Committee. They did provide a letter of support as part of our conversation. then the site itself is right at the foot of the 31st street bridge as i mentioned last time this is a very industrial neighborhood right now but it's also changing very rapidly so there's been a number of projects built recently including mulberry lofts and brewers block that have provided new apartments there's also a few others that are on the books that'll be appearing before you within a month or so in this neighborhood as well so there's a lot going on almost all of it is apartment living We're proposing something a little different to provide some variety to that. So this is proposed to be market rate townhomes. The site itself is currently all somewhere abandoned and vacant warehouses it there's an entire block between 31st street and 32nd street, however, we are not at this point proposing anything at the last building. So, as you see, on the site plan here that last sort of warehouse building on the right along 30 seconds is not part of this project, but we would be demolishing everything to the left in the red area to create these towns homes. And then the buildings on site on the left here, you have those, the warehouse on the left would remain, the warehouse on the right would come down as part of this project and the left on the Jemco sales buildings. And then the image in the right is along the alley with our project or our site off to the right. One of the things to really note is that this is truly an alley. There's dumpsters back there. It's serving buildings at front pen right now. There's a lot of utilities as well. It was something that came into play a lot as we talked about our site design. Then across the street on Smallman, we do have a number of warehouses. So there is the building that currently houses Studebaker Metals is in the upper left hand corner, the red building. There's also a number of warehouse buildings, all very large scale, very industrial scale to these particular buildings. And then as noted last time, some of the details we were looking at is there are some corbeling details that happened on the Studebaker building that we tried to bring into the brickwork on our building. Everything does tend to be either brick or metal in the neighborhood, so we were kind of working with that theme. That includes some of the new buildings, Mulberry Lofts a block away did a lot of that as well, brick and metal. And then on the right, lower right here, just some of the color themes. As I mentioned at the briefing, we've been looking a lot at the brick colors, so you'll see that those have changed here. But a lot in the neutral palettes, trying to keep the blacks and the whites and grays. Also looking at, you know, the Jemco building has been black and white for a while, so trying to keep that on as well. So this is the project that we're proposing again very similar to what we shared last time couple changes that we have done a part of this was, as I shared last time we actually submitted the same day, we have the CDAP meeting so we didn't have any an opportunity to update things. We have looked at a lot of the details, specifically where the buildings kind of come together, which was something that came up in the CDAP presentation. The elevations along Mulberry were another discussion point that we changed a lot and then just some of the little smaller details regarding lighting and stuff like that were also incorporated. We are looking at landscaping I know I heard the earlier comments on the tree pits right now we. We are we're still proposing three foot by 10 foot tree pit I think one of the nuances we have here is that we do have on street parking and not as part of our project, but there is public on street parking directly in front of us, and so we are looking at that relationship of the of the sidewalk to the streets as well. And the site plan again consists of two rows of buildings, the first row that we just saw from smallman street would be 12 build actually 11 buildings that directly face smallman street so townhomes that are along that way. And then you know we were really trying to focus on with this particular development was because mulberry way is an alley we felt like. There is a strong sense of community that happens when you have 23 new homes move together. Everybody's kind of moving in at the same time. What we found in working through a lot of these types of developments is that there's a neighborhood that forms. So we're really trying to create a centralized street that's not just a driveway to get into the back of homes, but really creates sort of an experience that could be a shared experience between the new neighbors. so this interior drive has two curb cuts the buildings along smallman street and we really wanted to protect any curb cuts along smallman recognizing that's a much more public street and leave that pedestrian street streetscape like it is so all our uh all our units on Smallman are entered from the back. But this is the idea I keep liking in my mind, the idea I grew up in a court and in the court we played hockey. And when a car came, we moved the hockey and that's what came in. And that's, I think, the feel that we're kind of going here where there can be community on this interior drive that while it is a driveway, it's also serving some other purposes. And then along the buildings on the along Mulberry Way, those would front onto that community space and then they would be accessed directly from the back on Mulberry Way. And so again, here you can kind of see that general concept. We were looking at a site that recognizes it's currently in an industrial environment, but at the same time is trying to create a residential feel. So we really tried to bring these porches into the interior while at the same time still giving a pedestrian feel to the Smallman Street facade. So here again on smallman so we're looking if this is on a site plan we're on the very top of the page looking down, so this is the the. elevations that we're proposing along these ways sort of a mix of the brick the metal trying to create a little modern spark with both the entrances and the the fourth floor roof decks. And then once you walk into that common space, the rear of those homes, which do have the driveway access, we really wanted to create a porch along that second floor so that there could be some social interaction. And then even on the first floor where the door is, rather than make it feel like a rear door, actually creates some defensible space there where people could sit and hang out. And then, if you were to just pan to the right from that view, we do have the fronts of the Mulberry Way buildings, two-story decks as well, again, for a social connection. One of the CDEP comments a lot was on landscaping and understanding what exactly goes in there. This is for rendering purposes. We will figure out these individual planters as we go here and the exact landscaping types that end up in that spot. So again, elevations, this is actually the rear of the Smallman Street homes, so those first ones we saw. And then turning around, this would be the front of the Mulberry homes. And then backing up against the alley would be the rear of the Mulberry homes. And then material palettes again tried to keep with the metal siding so we have a couple ranges of color there we've got some accent siding wood or would like material that would be up in some of these more tangible spaces in the entry and up on the fourth floor. And then a brick the bricks making up primarily along the smallman street facade but they'd be sprinkled within the other facades as well. And then the last two slides, or three slides, landscaping plan, in case there are questions, you know, since something's come up. One of the things we have been trying to do is we've broken the buildings apart to create some common green space within this development. So you'll see there's a light cut through in the middle of the site. We've intentionally located utilities, you know, and talking to CDEP on some of the, trying to make those spaces as occupiable as possible. And then finally, just the composite elevations. Should you have any questions on that? So that was very quick. But with that, I'm supposed to say thank you with this slide. So there we go.

Thank you. Well, thank you. We appreciate that. At this time, we do open the floor for public testimony. Is anyone here in the room that would like to? Yes? Okay, please come on up.

It's me again, Xander Spike from City of Pittsburgh. One thing, have you looked into the bike lanes that are on Smallman Street, integrating them into the design of the townhomes? Because I know you mentioned the on-street parking, but since there is bike lanes in that area and also connecting to Penn, how that goes into your design process?

You can feel...

Well, let's see if there are any other... Thank you for your testimony. Do we have anybody else online or anybody? We do?

yeah uh rob you can unmute yourself and you have three minutes to ask or provide your testimony thank you good afternoon my name is robin davida and i own the building at the corner of 32nd and penn and also mulberry and 32nd street so my comment is only uh has to do with the construction management plan both during the demolition process and during the construction process. Mulberry is the only access to part of our property as well as access to a number of the commercial properties along Penn Avenue, particularly the PPG paint store. And I just want to make sure that as part of the construction management plan that access is maintained at least one lane down Mulberry through the duration of the construction.

Thank you for that question, Mr. Indovina. Is that it? Okay, good, because I didn't want to have too many people stacking up and then having to remember the questions. And if you would speak to both questions, please, and thank you.

I'd be happy to. Thank you for the question on the bike lanes. This is in the RIV district. And in the RIV district, there is a very healthy right-of-way that's planned in the front. So there's actually a 10-foot buffer that we do in that particular space. That is consistent with everything that's down around us. I will also say that... smallman street right now has a grant to actually change that entire right-of-way and how the bike lanes are going through um our offices are two blocks away we have people that bike and so we're very sensitive to the fact that right now there's one way in and this the way out is a shared condition that's not great um that that's on ongoing so it's hard to react directly to it but i can say that we would be consistent from a curb line to the rest of the new development that's happened further down in the strip And then secondly, I'll actually see if Greg from PV use the civil would like to respond to the construction management plan specifically.

Sure. I'd be happy to just confirm me. You can all hear me.

We can hear you. Thank you so much, Mr. Gorman.

Thank you. yes uh we have prepared a construction management plan there uh and presently it is anticipated you know any certainly any closures uh of roads or public right-of-ways will be in accordance with Domi standards and with an approved uh applied for reviewed and approved Domi road closure permit that being said there's not an intention for um extended uh full lane or a full right-of-way closures there may be small inter uh periods of intermittent closures of portions of mulberry uh those would be coordinated with adjacent property owners uh unders the the concern um given the access to those adjacent commercial buildings is understood it's something that we've looked at closely um you know we know that that is a piece of coordination particularly as it relates to uh construction And so if that answers your question in a nutshell, there will be intermittent closures that'd be appropriate, traffic control measures provided, and all would be in accordance with DOME standards with related permits.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Endovina?

Yeah, that's fine. Again, make sure that they keep the neighbors apprised of any closures in the ongoing construction operations.

And he's shaking his head agreeing. Very good. Thank you. Okay. No more. No additional. Okay. Very good. Okay. So, Commission, at this time, do we have a motion? Do you have any comments? no uh do we have a motion from the floor to approve with conditions as stated in the report so move thank you that's commissioner continue move do i have a second second and that's kelly uh commissioner kelly that did a second right was that you yeah i'm sorry um okay so we'll do roll call commissioner burton falk aye commissioner hunt aye Thank you. Commissioner Interiano had to leave. Let's see. Commissioner Kelly?

Here.

Thank you. Commissioner O'Neill? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Quintanilla?

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Reppe? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Vatz?

Aye.

Thank you. And Commissioner Walker, I think, had to leave as well. That's true. Okay, great. Thank you. So it passes. Thank you very much and have a great rest of your day. You're welcome. Okay, moving on to the last item under hearing and action, which is item number four. This is zoning code updates, phase one zoning code text and map amendments, DCP-MPZC-2026-00169 in response to the executive order 2020. regarding permitting process reform, and this is citywide. Presenting is Ms. Ristow.

Good afternoon, commissioners. As many people have noted, this is a very long commission meeting today. I appreciate you all sticking it out so you can hear my very exciting information. In case there's anybody listening who doesn't know, and for the court reporter, my name is Carolyn Ristau. Last name is spelled R-I-S-T-A-U. I am the zoning administrator for the city of Pittsburgh. And I'm here today for the second time to present the executive order phase one zoning amendments. And once again, I'm very excited to have my own clicker. All right. So as those of you who were present last time, you may remember there is a lot in this amendment package. So it's going to take us some time to go through everything. We are going to talk a little bit about the background of the executive order, the timeline on this particular amendment package, the details of the proposed amendments and the next steps. So this package is based on the Executive Order 202601 to reform the permitting process, including components of the zoning regulations and policies. It specifically calls out how Pittsburgh's current zoning code is outdated and makes it harder to build housing and bring economic opportunities to all of Pittsburgh. Zoning doesn't have to be that barrier. It could actually support the goals of providing, encouraging affordability, growth, and responsible equitable development across all neighborhoods and all parts of the city of Pittsburgh. And so the executive order is announcing that we are going to start to change that with this first phase package as the first step. The executive order, again, as I mentioned, has a lot of things that it's addressing. And so the zoning amendments are only a part of the larger picture. And so, as you'll notice, the numbering here starts pretty high because there are 25 other action items that the departments are working on before you even get to the zoning code amendments. We've been quite busy for the last several months. And we're going to go in a different order than the numerically based on sort of like the intensity of the amendments. So the timeline, again, the executive order was in January. By spring, we got our definitive list, the items on the previous slide, of what we needed to work on. So since the spring, we've been identifying the parts of the code that could be updated per those directives, working together to put together the legislation, the package. We've proofread it. many times gone back, added things, changed things, proofread it again.

We're pretty confident we got it all in order.

And in June, we started going around to each of the council members. We have monthly check-ins with them. And so in our monthly check-in, we were just providing them with a briefing on that amendment package. Then this month, as you remember, we did briefing two weeks ago. We did do a public notice the week before that because there is a map amendment as part of this package, which requires a 21 day posted notice. After today, the council process will hopefully be launched based on your actions today. And there will be public notice, there will be a public hearing, and there will be a vote. All of which we hope will wrap up in the fall. All right, so the first item... Oh, did this work? Sorry, we are experimenting to see if not only do I have control of the clicker, but if I can also have control of a mouse so I can point to specific things as they come up.

Uh-oh.

So I sort of have control. There's another mouse or cursor that is not attached to this that's on top of the letters, if anybody's aware of where that one is coming from. Perfect. Thank you. Technology. It's our friend and our enemy. All right, so the first item that we're going to talk about from the executive order is removing obsolete sections and language from the zoning code. I get a thrill out of this, and I understand if not everybody else does. And the goal is to make it easier to understand and use our zoning code. So there's a long list of items that we are doing under that bucket. They are primarily in order of where they show up in the text. So the first one is there's currently text establishing view protection overlay regulations. This was added to our code in the 1990s. But it requires a map to make it actually usable and enforceable. And so the text was introduced, and it was followed shortly after. And perhaps Commissioner Reppy is a little bit closer to this than I was.

I always wondered why we had this in the zoning code.

OK, well.

There was never a map for an overlay. Yes.

I have, in the course of my career, had conversations with planners from the time, so I have a teeny bit of understanding of what happened. They did introduce a map amendment shortly after the text. There was a preliminary area identified for the first view protection overlay. It went through the public process. I assume it went through Planning Commission and made it to City Council. I actually don't know that for sure, but it was on the path. And the end result was that when people started to understand what these regulations actually meant in the context of a map, it was not thought to be as great of a thing as initially conceived. And so there was a significant opposition to that original proposal, and the map did not get adopted. I'm not sure if they ever tried a second one. I suspect not. In the meantime, the text remained. And so this has been in our code for over 30 years without being able to be used. And so in our perspective, this is essentially a failed experiment. It's time to remove it from the code. And then moving on to the next items. A few years ago, Oakland went through the planning process and we adopted a neighborhood plan for Oakland that included calls for new zoning districts for the neighborhood. Those new zoning districts were created and they were implemented through map and text amendments. And the map amendments erased several districts from the map. So they replaced the Oakland public realm districts and they also replaced especially Oakland planned unit development district. so all of those no longer exist on the map but nobody took them out of our code when we got rid of them and the intention was that these districts these older districts that were replaced were not going to be needed in the future the new districts were intended to take their place and moving forward so we're proposing to remove these from our code now Sort of a similar story, it's a little different. Trajectory, there was a proposal for especially plan district called palisades park in the area of the city that is now known as Hayes woods. This is a very entertaining proposal. It included. a racetrack casino sort of development in again in this fairly isolated part of the city the especially planned district was approved the development never went through who knows what the reasons were I don't know what the reasons were I'm sure somebody does and so in the meantime that land got dedicated to this or The city took over ownership of it. It's been dedicated as a park, and it's now in our park zoning district. So again, the map was updated. The specially planned district was removed from the map. The text still lives on in our code. Again, an entertaining read, but probably we should just print it out and save it for our own amusement when we need amusing zoning things. um and in the meantime take it out of the code so it's not causing confusion for how do we regulate um the next couple of items are um uh we believe are partially the result of um confusion with the companies that have hosted our zoning code um for a time um we've had two in the last 10 years And some errors have been introduced that were not necessarily legislated. And so we have the specially planned riverfront landing district. The text for that is in there twice, which... It's just not helpful. So we are proposing to remove the extra one. Okay, good to know. And then over time, I feel like this was all within the last seven years because I don't remember these being missing seven years ago when I did plan review. But over time, a few of our use definitions have disappeared from the code, even though we never legislated the intention to remove them. So we have a handful of uses where we have the parent definitions missing, the use type. So we talked... No, we didn't talk about this earlier. Like, for an example, multi-suite residential has a limited use and a general use, depending on the size. So the limited use is there with the districts where it's allowed and not allowed. The general use is there with the districts where it's allowed and not allowed. But the parent definition telling us what constitutes a multi-suite residential use is missing. And so that makes it very difficult. So we have to find an old copy of the code, flip back to it, and to try and find these definitions in order to use our code. So we are proposing to restore the definitions that, again, we never legislated them out of the code. They just disappeared. Then the next item is removing Chapter 913 in its entirety. This is because Chapter 913 is an oddity. This is not a standard part of any zoning code I've seen in any other place. This is something that Pittsburgh did with good intention, but it's just not usable. The intent of Chapter 913 is to list every single administrator exception, special exception, and conditional use that you can get in the City of Pittsburgh. However, if you are an applicant, you're not going to say, hey, I wonder if I can get administrator exception, flip to 913 and read through the list. you're going to be looking at the use table and saying, I want to be, I'll use that multi-suite residential again, I want to be a multi-suite unit residential and I'm looking at the use table and in a certain district, I don't have those memorized, it's probably a special exception or something for a multi-suite residential. So the use table is where you're going to find that. Or for example, we offer administrative exceptions for certain conditions with setbacks. You're going to learn that when you're looking in the sections about the setbacks. You're not going to go to 913 to figure out, hey, is there another way to do this? Yes, Commissioner.

Yeah, so the rationale for Section 913, there actually was a rationale. When the Urban Zoning Code was enacted in 1996, the original code from 58 or whatever it was, did not have a use table. And so each use was listed and it was listed with what those uses were in there. And there was... say there was a learning curve with using the use table and 913 was seen as a kind of bridge for people to get used to the new zoning code for those that have been used to having to have to look through the text defined by use whether it was an administration exception etc so it was really kind of more of a it was an oddity of the transferring of the zoning code at that time i i appreciate that court reporter who's speaking please that was commissioner repi thank you you're welcome

I appreciate that context. As you know, I am a zoning nerd and zoning history nerd in particular. And that actually makes a lot of sense. Because a lot of municipalities, especially smaller municipalities, still don't have use tables. And so I can see this being a tool to help make that transition from one style of regulating uses to a use table. Again, that was 30-some years ago, approximately, that we went to the use table. So I think people are now used to it, so we can get rid of this chapter. I think you interrupted my train of thought there. I mean, it was great. But my sort of... What is it? The punchline is that everything in this chapter is either redundant or obsolete. Because nobody was using it, we forgot to update it over the years. And then the final thing in this section about the obsolete uses and cleaning up the language is I mentioned that in the last 10 years, we've had two different platforms hosting our code. And this is the full city code that's hosted by these platforms. So a few years ago, I forget exactly how many, the city transferred from the Muni code platform to the E-code platform. When we did that, the contract included that the parent company of ECODE would do a proofread of our entire city ordinance. Personally, I am envious of the person who got to do that. And so a couple months ago, Department of City Planning received the proposed edits to the zoning code. And since we were in the middle of working on this amendment package, we felt that this was consistent with what we were trying to do and incorporated those edits into the amendment. All right, the next item is from the executive order is to begin to reform the zoning code with smaller targeted changes to bring in line with comparable cities. I feel like that's sort of an overarching umbrella of basically everything we're trying to do with this amendment, but there are two specific items that we called out under this umbrella. The first is that map amendment that I spoke to earlier. So some of our zoning districts, downtown being one of them, have an urban open space requirement. And downtown is divided into, I believe it's five sub-districts, most of which have a 10% of the lot area urban open space requirement for lots of a certain size. However, the fifth one, which is sub-district D, so it's... not necessarily five, but four of them have the 10%. One of them has a 60% of the lot area urban open space requirement, regardless of the size of the lot. And again, there was intention behind this. I'm not sure if it was a chick with the chicken and egg scenario. I'm not sure if gateway towers happened 1st, and then we adopted our code to match it. Or if our code said this, and that's why gateway towers is the way it is.

It was the latter. This is commissioner rep. It was actually the latter in which all of the gateway district, the gateway center district had been built. And so, in order to kind of fit the gateway center into the downtown district. the Subdistrict D was created with its kind of excessive open space because of the excessive open space that is part of the Gateway development. But then when housing came along later, like in the former AT&T building and things like that, in the State Office building, there was confusion.

Gave me a break to take a little sip of water there. Thank you. Yeah, and so, I mean, the Gateway Tower is beautiful. I certainly have spent many lunch breaks enjoying that urban open space. However, for the smaller blocks that are on the other side of, on the Monongahela side of that portion of downtown, 60% urban open space does not make sense. And this is one of the ones that We think there's value in revisiting the 60% urban open space requirement in its total. However, that requires more careful thinking and more careful approach. So we put a pin in reconsidering the 60% urban open space in its entirety. But in the meantime, we wanted to be able to unlock some parcels for development that are currently being prohibited because of this requirement. So, actually I'm remembering now, I have images to go with this. This was our graphic that we added since briefing to sort of illustrate how, again, there is immense amount of urban open space on the Gateway Towers side. Again, the lots are large. They're able to incorporate a lot of urban open space and still have very dense buildings. On this other side, the lots again are much smaller. The former Post Gazette building and its parking lot here, the building itself is um probably already at least sixty percent of the lot area so that um the sixty percent urban open space requirement would mean essentially they would have to demolish at least a portion of the existing building um which is just not um the desired direction uh we want to maintain the the character and enhance the character of that part of downtown So the proposal again is to rezone the block here closest to the Monongahela River. As you can see in the image on the right, it is adjacent to Subdistrict C, which again is one of the districts that has the 10% urban open space requirement. And I think we have a chart that identifies the differences between the two sub-districts, the one that it's currently in and the one we're proposing it to change to. Excuse me. Again, the primary difference is the urban open space requirement. Excuse me. The primary difference is that urban open space requirement. There is a second difference that there is a density bonus allowance within the GTC for residential uses. Otherwise, height requirements are the same and pretty much all the other base requirements are the same between these two sub districts. So we feel that this was an appropriate move to further the goals of the vision for downtown. The other item within this category is we are making an update to the street tree requirements of the code. These updates are not changing effectively what we do currently. They're just codifying more clearly what the current policy is. So we are clarifying that the 30 square feet minimum for those tree pits that Commissioner Reppy is not a fan of.

We call them tree troughs instead.

Tree troughs, okay. This 30 square feet tree trough actually is required to be 3 feet by 10 feet as the minimum dimensions with a 3 foot depth. The trees are required to be spaced 30 feet apart in order to enable us to use the sidewalk for more than just trees. um and it also clarifies that the species of the street trees must be selected from the recommended species list maintained by the city forester totally in on that

Sorry, what was that? Completely in on the species, yes.

Very important. It matters as far as making sure the species are appropriate if there's overhead lines. There are certain ones that can fit when there's overhead lines without needing to go through the massive pruning that we see in some of our older neighborhoods with older trees. but if there isn't overhead lands we want a bigger tree you know so there there's a lot of nuance in the recommended tree species list um one of the other things that i wanted to point out um that um is related to the street trees uh currently the landscaping um section that the street trees falls under there is an alternative compliance option which we have been using extensively for an extended period of time the requirement actually states that it requires an administrator exception, which is the 21-day posted notice. In practice, we actually haven't been doing that. And we haven't been doing that for quite some time. And so we feel this is an appropriate moment to align the code with what we're actually doing. And so we will continue that it is an administrative approval, but much like we have some other administrative approvals like waivers of loading requirements that do not have that 21-day posted notice, but we still, you know, we work closely with the applicants to make sure that what they are doing meets the criteria specified in the code. And so again, we're keeping the criteria in the code, we're just removing the poster that we don't actually do. All right, next item. This one is the directive from the executive order was to eliminate redundant dimensional standards, particularly focusing on our floor area ratio requirements and our height and feet and stories. And the goal of this is that we will be able to provide new denser housing opportunities across the city while being a little bit more clear on what the expectations are. so in summary i'm going to take another sip of water before i go into this it's extensive All right, some more zoning history is going to come in here. So our zoning code is a hodgepodge of different times and different philosophies around how to regulate zoning. And I would say that still the majority of it is older philosophies, older thinking, often what's categorized as Euclidean zoning. sort of the original basis of zoning in the United States. And so our older districts, the residential districts, and the majority of our mixed-use districts, our parks and our hillside districts, they all regulate height in feet and stories. Once upon a time, that kind of made sense. Today, it does not. And our more recent districts, the Oakland ones that we talked about earlier, for example, do not have that double regulation of height in feet and stories. And so in these older districts, this has caused problems over the years. The example that I like to use is in a residential district, primarily the height limit is 40 feet and three stories. However, you could technically fit four stories in the 40 feet height limit and we have seen many proposals for that particularly if somebody is interested in an integral garage and they still want three floors of living space above that that turns the building into four stories which is not allowed by the code but they are still within the 40 feet height limit So they're going to the zoning board simply for a variance for an additional floor, which does not make sense. So we are removing height in stories and simply regulating the height in feet. Similarly, we also have regulations that more... more thoroughly regulate the overall density or the overall volume of the building. And there's a number of ways in which you can regulate the volume of a building. And reading our code, I kind of feel like back in the day when these districts were being developed, Pittsburgh was like, let's do them all. And that is not the intent. The intent is that you pick and choose a handful of these that create the overall building volume limitations. And again, we chose all of them, which again causes contradictions and complications. And this is one that I'm remembering. We have added Okay, so taking a pause for a second on the explanation of that, we did include an example of the site development standards. Again, this is typically how it's illustrated for the older districts. We have this table that identifies each of the items. And the edits that we're making, again, are relatively small. We are removing the height and stories from the maximum height at the bottom. And then we are removing, in our mixed-use districts, we're removing floor area ratio. And you can see underneath the floor area ratio that struck out that we have maximum lock coverage, that we have setbacks, and we have the height. And the three of them together get at the similar purpose and intent as a floor area ratio. So we added some photos and some illustrations to help to explain this. So this is an example from East Carson Street. It's one of our very popular local neighborhood commercial zoning districts. And as you can see, it is very densely built out. And essentially, most of those buildings... Let's see. Can I get the mouse to work again? Like this building here on the... Oh, where's my mouse? worked before we got to the exciting part and the mouse isn't cooperating okay there it is um yeah so the the building right above where the the cursor is that could not be built under our current restrictions in the lnc the building to um essentially caddy corner from that could not be built under the current restrictions in the lnc the ones across the street also basically could not be built because of those restrictions. So here we move to the street view of that same area. The building on the left here is the one where my cursor was near in the satellite view. So again, this is an illustration of our local neighborhood commercial districts. Now the base requirement for the local neighborhood commercial district as far as height goes is you are allowed 45 feet and not to exceed three stories. However, we have that floor area ratio requirement in addition. And in the LNC, it is a two to one floor area ratio. Now floor area ratio means that your total floor area is limited to a multiplier of your lot area. So when you have a two to one floor area ratio, if your lot is a thousand square feet, you are limited to 2000 square feet of building. And again, here we have a 90% lot coverage. So to make the math easier, we'll just pretend that the numbers work well. So if you want to max out that 90% coverage, you're basically limited to two stories. You could have a very tiny third story for that leftover 200 square feet, but that's not a very effective third story.

Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Rappi for the reporter. Again, this is one of those kind of great compromises of the mid 1990s when originally at the time, as this is kind of early days of performance zoning, FIR was the scene is the way to kind of dictate size and mass of buildings. And that had been proposed that also confused a lot of people. And so in a great bit of compromise that maybe was kind of split the baby maybe too much. They added back in height. We added back in height and setback requirements as well as FARs as a way because people just didn't get what FAR was, frankly, at the time. And so we ended up with the kind of worst of both worlds in that case. So I'm happy to see at least one version of it struck.

Again, I appreciate the context and the opportunity to drink some more water. Just give me a sign when you're ready. Sure. I mean, again, like that makes perfect sense. But people still struggle with floor area ratio. If you are not a professional architect, this is not a concept that is very familiar. And so let's see. So again, with that in mind, um we have here in the photo the buildings on the left are um four stories which again were limited to 45 feet and three stories so that is not compliant the other side of the street is about three and a half stories um And again, that is not really compliant either. And so by taking away that story limitation and taking away the FAR limitation, which again we need to do because the FAR conflicts with what the height allowance is. This means that the four-story building on the left is compliant, that the one kitty corner from it is also compliant, and that there is room to go up just a little bit on the ones on the right. And then you can see in the background on the left, There's a building that was clearly built after some of these restrictions were in place, and it totally does not fit the context of this street. And so this change would enable some redevelopment there that would more closely match the rest of the street. And so again, these are minor changes that stay within the context of the neighborhood, but allow for a significant addition in floor area that could be used for residences, it could be used for businesses, office space, you know, what have you, because this is one of our mixed use districts. Let's see, did I cover everything with the addition of the photos? okay yes there are two other points on this item um there's uh there's a few places where heightened stories is how we regulate um height only with heightened stores not with the heightened feet and there was one place when we were reviewing those sections um in the grand view public realm that there was um sort of a clear one-to-one for what would be the translation to height and feet that would meet the intent of this district. So we are proposing to make that switch there. There are a handful of other areas that are currently regulating only heightened stories that needed a little bit more thought and analysis before we figured out what to do with those. So we put a pin in those and expect to revisit them in future. Relatedly, because we had all these regulations of floor area ratio, we had the height and stories, when we added the performance point system and the bonus height criteria, the bonus height criteria had to speak to FAR and height and stories. so we are cleaning up those sections where applicable to again we're not we're not changing the regulations here at this point in time for bonus height we are just making making sure that that language stays consistent with the proposed changes that we have elsewhere all right we are ready to move on to the next item in the executive order um so you know while we've already discussed a few complications and quirks of our zoning code around height and density the urban neighborhood commercial which is again in that older mixed use category takes it a step further and so the executive order specifically called that out as one that we needed to simplify the height requirements um And so that the site development table that we looked at earlier where the height and maximum height was listed in the urban neighborhood commercial district, there are two maximum heights listed. And it's based on whether or not you are within 1500 feet of a major transit facility. If you are within that buffer, your maximum height is 60 feet and four stories. Again, we're dropping the stories as part of this package. And outside that, you are 45 feet and three stories. Now, if you remember, I mentioned when talking about the LNC and East Carson Street example, that district's height requirement is 45 feet and three stories. Now, the local neighborhood commercial and the urban neighborhood commercial, you might notice their names are kind of similar. And that's because their districts are. They're very similar districts. The primary difference is the additional density that you get in the urban neighborhood commercial. And so in addition to the fact that it's very confusing to have two maximum height requirements based on which part of the district you're in, it also actually doesn't make any sense to have a UNC zoning district if you don't get that additional height. And so we are proposing to drop the shorter of the maximum heights and have that 60 feet. Again, we're dropping the stories. So having district wide in the urban neighborhood commercial be limited to 60 feet. Another thing that's different about the urban neighborhood commercial is that it has a special exception option for additional height. Our urban industrial district also has a similar special exception. And again, those special exceptions are referring to the heightened stories and they're referring to the FAR. And so we are simplifying that and aligning that language with the changes we're making elsewhere. With one exception, I believe it's on the urban industrial, there is a height cap that is currently only in FAR. And again, it would take a little bit more process and consideration to figure out how to translate that to feet. So we are maintaining the existing height cap in the FAR language for the time being. And again, we've added some graphics to help explain this. Actually, I think I put them in the wrong order. So here is a map of our existing urban neighborhood commercial districts. And those are the maroon, burgundy, reddish spots along the map. And then the bluish circles that blend into each other, those are the major transit buffers. And so you can see, here comes the mouse, hopefully. Over here in our western neighborhoods, there's an urban neighborhood commercial that's nowhere near a transit buffer, and so it doesn't get any of the density allowance currently. And again, if the intention was to not have that greater density, it would make more sense for it to be a local neighborhood commercial district. But then in our east end, the majority of the urban neighborhood commercial district area is within that major transit buffer. um so the illustration that we have comes from um allegheny center on the north side and this is one of the unc districts that only a portion is within the major transit buffer so currently this portion so this bottom corner is the only area that is eligible for that 60 feet maximum height everything else in the shaded area is not eligible for that 60 feet height limit um part of the irony is that the tallest buildings in this district are outside of the denser allowance area there was no train at that time when that district was created that is an excellent point that yes when this district was created When this district was created, we did not have the North Shore T station. And that's where this major transit buffer is being measured from is the North Shore T stations. So, yeah, that's a really good point. I hadn't put that part together. Thank you. And so we've highlighted a parcel or we've highlighted a portion of this area in yellow. It's currently used as parking lots, surface parking lots. And so if somebody were to want to come and redevelop it currently, because it's not in that denser, it's not within the 1500 feet of the major transit facility, they would only be permitted the 45 feet, three stories. And so that's sort of the mock-up of the white areas here. With the change that we're proposing of making it, district-wide 60-foot height maximum, they would be able to go at least one more story, which is illustrated by the green portion. But as you can see with the buildings in the background on the right-hand side, those, again, are in the same zoning district and they are significantly taller. So what we're allowing here is still less than what we're seeing in several of the existing buildings in this neighborhood. All right. Oh, we included some close-ups of the different UNC districts and their relation to the major transit facility buffer. All right. This is our last directive in the list from the executive order. So the final directive from the executive order is to adjust the outdated residential compatibility standards. These are a significant barrier to development in places like our local neighborhood commercial districts. And And here we've added some illustration to try and help explain how residential compatibility works. So if you are in a local neighborhood commercial district, as an example, that's sort of the reddish salmon-ish color in the map, and you are adjacent to a residential district, which is the beige color here, you are subject to residential compatibility. Now residential compatibility in the old iteration of how we have it in our code because again this is another one of those things we've been evolving as we've been evolving our zoning districts. It's been evolving nationally as a concept of how do we manage this. So the older iteration in our code is divided up into three main categories. There is additional setback restrictions, there are additional height restrictions, and then there's nuisance regulations. So things like noise, light, I think odor might also be in there. So I do want to point out at this point in time, we are not touching that third category, those nuisance items. We are maintaining the existing regulations on those. um but we are adjusting the height and setback requirements um and so the um the parcel that's highlighted in the map is um in this photo it's the second one so it's the white house that's set back a little bit for further um adjacent to the yellow house the yellow house is in the residential district And so the yellow house is what it is, but the property next to it, that white one, is subject to residential compatibility if somebody were to propose a renovation or want to build something different there. And what residential compatibility says currently is that essentially that lot, you can't build anything. Because these setbacks are so severe, it would leave, I think it would leave five feet of buildable area, which is technically actually not buildable. And then the next property over would also have an additional setback restriction. And so we'd have to chop off the first 10 feet or so of that building in order to make it compliant. And so we don't think that's a good way to continue to regulate residential compatibility. Residential compatibility is important and we do want to make sure that we are maintaining protections for residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to more intense districts like a local neighborhood commercial, but we want it to be more reasonable. And so we've proposed a few modifications of the residential compatibility to bring it closer in alignment with our peer cities and also to bring it slightly closer in alignment to what we are doing ourselves in our newer districts. I will also note that this is another one of those areas we expect to revisit when we look at the full code and do a more thorough analysis of how do we want to do residential compatibility across the city moving forward. In addition, so again, the first section is about the setbacks. And so in addition to creating conditions like not being able to build up to the street line, the setback conditions are there are 15 different sort of iterations and combinations that may apply to your lot line depending on whether you as the non-residential property are, if your side is adjacent to a side or it's across the street from a side or it's across the street from a way or a rear or a front or it's your front that's across the street or away or adjacent or it's this or it's that or another. Sometimes multiple conditions apply to a single side. It is a nightmare to attempt to read through all those and figure out which one applies in which conditions. And so looking at our peer cities, this is not standard. And so we are going to a much more simple approach. that there will be three conditions. The conditions will be, are you adjacent to the residential property, meaning that you share a property line? We don't care if it's your front side, rear, or their front side, rear. If you're adjacent, there is one standard. If you are across a way, there is a standard. If you are across the street, there is a third standard. And those are the three conditions that we will be considering. Yes, Commissioner Rappi.

Yeah, question. In the past, the contextual setbacks overrule or have been contextual setback standards of 925 or whatever it is. Are you allowed to use those over the residential compatibility standards? Which ones win in those cases?

I don't recall ever using contextual to override residential compatibility, partly because there's generally provisions that if there's a conflict, the stricter regulation applies.

Yeah.

No, I'm just thinking, maybe I'm thinking about adjacent properties, but okay. Because I know that's been something that's been suggested in the past, that it was being sure that we had accounted for that.

Yeah. Again, the way that I remember doing it when I did plan review and the way that if somebody brought that to me as an applicant today, I would probably say that the residential compatibility is the, because it's the stricter requirement, that's the one that we have to go for.

Okay. Thank you.

Yep, you're welcome. So, yeah, so setbacks are confusing for residential compatibility. We are going to make them less confusing. Height is excessively prohibitive. We are going to make it less excessively prohibitive. Sorry, I forgot. We did have a slide that explains what the three conditions are that we are changing the setbacks to. Again, there's 10 feet if your property line is abutting those of one of the residential districts listed, 10 feet if your property is across away from one of those districts, and 5 feet if you are across the street from one of those districts. And height. So the red dotted line is the existing residential compatibility height restrictions. And it is based on a measurement from the property line of the residential property. And so the current limitation is that if you are within 50 feet of that residential property, you are limited to 40 feet in height, which is the same height as that residential district. And so going back to our local neighborhood commercial, East Carson Street example, at least approximately half of those buildings or a third of those buildings would not be able to reach their full 45 feet allowance because of this. After 50 feet you can go up 10 feet and that limitation of a 50 foot height max applies to until you reach 100 feet away from the residential property. So in our LNC district once you're 50 feet away you get your full height maximum. But if you're in the urban neighborhood commercial, for example, and currently if you're in the transit buffer area, you do not get to meet your full height potential until you are 100 feet away from the property. Now, given that Pittsburgh has an awful lot of 100-foot deep lots, occasionally some 120-feet deep lots or something maybe a little bit longer, this is effectively limiting the majority, if not all, of many parcels around the city. And it's not consistent with what we are seeing in our peer cities. It's also not consistent with what we applied in the Oakland districts. And so we are proposing a compromise to ensure that we are still providing mitigation of height impacts on neighboring residential property. We are keeping a height cap, but we are lessening the restrictions of that height cap. So in the proposal, if you are within 25 feet of that residential property, you are limited to that 40 feet in height. But at that point, you get to jump up to 45 feet. So again, in our LNC districts, you know, you're limited for a much smaller portion of your lot, and then you can enjoy your full height potential. Our UNC districts would still be limited from reaching their full potential in the 25 to 50 foot range from a residential property. At that point in time, the UNC district would be able to meet their full maximum height allowance, excluding the special exception if they go that route. And then from 50 feet to 75 feet, we are limiting the height maximum to 65 feet. This would only affect our most dense districts. And then beyond 75 feet from the residential property, you are able to achieve your full height allowance. Again, those are pretty limited where the height would allow to be more than 65 feet. And for comparison, the Oakland districts take a very different approach to residential compatibility, including for the height. And so where they measure from is different than how we measure it in the other districts. But if we were to imagine the scenario of a property abutting a residential property, so there's a shared property line, We can compare these as apples and apples as opposed to apples and oranges in that situation. And so in the Oakland districts, it would be if it's adjacent to a residential property, the height limit is 60 feet for the first 20 feet of the property. So, again, that is massively different than our existing residential compatibility with other districts. And it's also way more permissive than what we're proposing.

For the recent compatibility and height, which this is commissioner, which 1 wins in this case.

So the new Oakland districts are not subject to Chapter 916. So the yellowish greenish thing, the dotted line, is what's applicable in the new UC districts and the RMU districts. all right so that is the conclusion of the description of everything that's in this amendment um so next steps um the uh notice of these amendments have has occurred of course because today is our our hearing in action um and so we are in the middle of the process on these we are hoping that today you all will make a recommendation to city council at that point the city council public hearing will be scheduled sometime in the fall after their recess and then hopefully we'll move smoothly on to a vote and final action But again, this is the first phase. The executive order is divided into three phases. So phase two of the executive order, we are going to undertake a full zoning code overhaul. And yes, very exciting. And I pointed out a few of the areas in this particular amendment where we feel like we are taking an interim step until we do that full code overhaul. We may be revisiting some of these topic areas and making additional changes at that time. And then once we adopt a brand new code that's in plain language and it's clean and it's easy to use, we want to keep that updated so we don't end up in the situation where we are today, where we're removing things that haven't been used for 30 years. And so our intention is in phase three, once we have that new code, that we will implement a regular maintenance process so that we are continually coming back. If we've tried anything new and experimental, you know, let's take a couple years, see how it's working, report back. If it's not working, let's tweak it. Or, you know, new things happen all the time. As we heard earlier today, we talked about short-term rentals. That wasn't an issue 20 years ago. I think I got that right. It wasn't an issue 30 years ago. um and but it's become a thing and so we need to update our code in order to respond to that there are other um you know the vape shop bill that we had recently is another thing we needed to update our code in order to stay current with the needs and um uh impacts of land use on our city and so our intention is in phase three that we establish a regular maintenance process to um address all of those in a effective and timely manner agreed And that, I believe, concludes today's presentation.

All right. Yes.

Okay, there it goes.

Thank you for being so very thorough. Is there anyone here that wants to? You do? Okay. Come on up. You've been waiting so patiently and for quite some time. Thank you. Thank you.

uh as a city and zoning geek just really appreciate all of that so thank you having petrac uh here as a resident of downtown actually in the gtc uh district so uh just glad to be here uh honestly and admittedly all this stuff is just getting this on record um you know I'm gonna share some questions on my mind for the zoning specific to the map adjustment. Let me know if I'm using the incorrect terminology here, bureaucracy terminology here. But if this is a citywide measure, why is it such a very small selection of parcels being considered? That strikes me as notable and unique. uh does the existing zoning actually effectively restrict the construction of new housing or other developments on that land i i personally would disagree with the characterization that you could not build housing or build uh you know build on those parcels that are being rezoned downtown is the second densest neighborhood in the city by population per square mile not counting workday population but has some of the least and least well integrated green spaces throughout the city of Pittsburgh. So I guess in summary, it strikes me as a half measure and neither fully removes the outdated zoning while also making an adjustment that appears to target very specific parcels that also, if I may be blunt, happen to be slated for private redevelopment. And this strikes me against the spirit of zoning where zoning exists and then good developers and good actors develop to that zoning, not vice versa. And if we are doing that full zoning code overhaul, why, again, are these parcels being rezoned?

So Ms. Ristow can respond to that. Is that all of your questions? Yeah, that's everything. Okay. Thank you so much, and thank you for coming in. Did you... Oh, I'm betting the reporter wanted your name.

His name got queued up in the Zoom. Can you repeat your name, please?

Sure.

Yes. So sorry about that. Evan Petrak. Here's a downtown resident.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. You're welcome. Have a great day. Thank you so much. And Ms. Ristow will be responding. Is that... No? Yeah? No one online? Okay. All right. Well, then your turn to respond.

Thank you for that question. I had an answer while I was sitting down, and then as soon as I stood up, So the question as to why do this now when we are doing a full code overhaul in the foreseeable future, partly that was because it takes time to do a full code overhaul. And so it will be several years before that would be in place. while we acknowledge that downtown, that open space is vital downtown and making sure that we have those green spaces and those green pockets, 60% just is not, it's just not tenable. And it's not consistent with our peer cities. And, you know, the Even the existing buildings on those lots, I don't think were able to... Some of them have some of that open space, but I don't think they were able to actually hit that 60% threshold. The reason why we're not getting rid of the full 60% is If we do that without further thought and consideration, it is potential that the existing green space that's there, like particularly at Gateway Center, that could be privatized. And so people would no longer have the opportunity to go out and use it for lunches and whatever. And so that's why we're doing this sort of half measure. But this is definitely one of those items that we expect to revisit in the full code overhaul and find a path forward that strikes that balance between making sure that the great existing open space that there is there gets to be able to be maintained while also relieving the burden on developments and having a more reasonable approach for new projects.

Can I ask a clarifying question? Yes. Not that it's prohibited for a developer to request a rezoning, but this particular map amendment was not at the request of a property owner, is that correct?

The property owner did not make the request, correct.

Sorry. Okay. All right, so that answered your question. Nobody else online, right? Okay, now we're closing the floor for public testimony. It looks like Commissioner Vatz may have a question or comment, correct?

Yeah, I have a super quick question. I know it's been quite a long day. First of all, I just wanted to express my thanks to the zoning administrator, city planning staff. I know this is a big job. It's very important. So I'm very glad to see you taking it on. About the residential compatibility standard, my question was, is the measurement from the property line of the residential property or from the actual residential structure?

It's from the property line.

Got it. Okay. Yeah. I mean, like I still have some concerns about residential compatibility standard as like, it will probably still significantly hinder some redevelopment. Obviously it's better than what we have right now, you know, because we're making it a bit more, a bit more permissive, but I still do have a lot of concerns about that. But ultimately like overall, I think, you know, great job on everything and happy to see some of these changes moving forward.

And it looks like Commissioner, thank you, Commissioner Vatz. It looks like Commissioner Hunt. Did you have your hand up?

Yes, I did. And I'll also keep things very, very brief. I guess we're earning our August recess here with a four-plus hour meeting. And then quickly, I just want to say that I enjoyed the general Pittsburgh history lesson and the Pittsburgh zoning history lesson provided by the zoning administrator and Commissioner Ruppey, so thank you. as we head into the recess. Similar to Commissioner Vance, I want to commend the department specifically on the study of our peer and competitive cities. It's important for all city departments to look at our competitive positioning versus other mid-sized cities. I also want to commend the department on the last piece, I think on your last slide regarding zoning maintenance and would recommend with many complex processes, reviewing the code every five to seven years and seeing where things are changing. Specifically, we've Downtown is a fast-evolving neighborhood and a very important neighborhood for our city. So continuing to promote development in downtown Pittsburgh is important for our tax base and for the city's future. Along those lines, as transit changes and hopefully continues to expand throughout the city, continuing to encourage TOD development. that that's all i hope everybody has a great recess and great work thank you

all right thank you so much and um did you want to say anything okay i want to say a lot i'm going to be honest with you but like we're about to lose quorum so i'm trying to get at least this part in and we might have to do something different for the director's report but here's where we are commissioners do we have a motion from the floor to make a positive recommendation to council here today yeah so second okay move from um o'neill a second from repi i'm gonna do roll call uh commissioner burton falk i commissioner hunt hi thank you commissioner um uh o'neill hi thank you commissioner repi hi thank you and commissioner vats hi thank you so you need to oh i did first commissioner burton sometimes i i know it's getting a little yeah it's been a while since we've done this long yeah um thank you so much for all the hard work no kidding and i am just thrilled at the fact that you were so geeked out about it and at this late in the day too so kudos like very seriously um i know that we're about to uh so thank you everybody for being here um i think i am gonna have to close i know that there there wanted to be a director's report but can we take 30 seconds 30 seconds can you can you okay we can we're not doing anything official so if we're not voting we're not voting we don't need quorum okay you can go ahead and go because we we am i losing any hazelwood by six right yes am i losing anybody else

No, just take the 30. Okay. And you can also check our social media posts because this is on our social media account. Yeah. But we did want to provide you all with an update on the comprehensive plan and the timeline. We have our session scheduled with you next week to brief you all on the comprehensive plan. but citywide we are scheduling or we are anticipating in September to have the citywide workshops on the draft policies and the future land use as part of the plan and then in November slash December we expect the full draft to be available for public comment and review And we expect to begin planning commission briefings. Because the comprehensive plan is so big, we will be doing multiple briefings.

Oh, very good. Thank you.

You're welcome. And then ideally in early 2027, we would then be taking it for hearing and action, which would be the approval and adoption process. And then shortly thereafter, we will begin plan implementation, including that zoning code overhaul.

all right good stuff good job thank you all for letting me do that you are so welcome um uh oh i can't do it motion to adjourn uh okay we can't leave yeah we're gonna leave anyway thank you uh all in favor aye thank you guys so much for staying oh my gosh Thank you.

Yeah, I guess we're further earning our recess with a meeting next week during the recess. So there we go.

Agreed.

We'll see many of you all on Tuesday. Have a good one.