Planning Commission Hearing March 6, 2018 1 Agenda Information and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Planning Commission Hearing March 6, 2018

1

Information and Clarification regarding Comments presented at hearing and in written correspondence.

Agenda

2

Map Adjustment Suggestion for Deliberation

Change from RIV‐IMU to RIV‐MU the area located in Morningside on the south shore of the Allegheny River, bounded by:

• Butler Street to the south,
• the Allegheny River to the north,
• and the Highland Park Bridge to the east.

3

Map Adjustment Suggestion for Deliberation

4

What We Heard: Stadiums

• Testimony in favor of Stadiums to be exempted from building length limit of 500 feet, as

per the Interim Planning Overlay District (IPOD).

• Testimony in favor of Stadiums to be exempted from the riparian setback (not a

condition of the IPOD).

5

Response: Stadiums

Suggestions for deliberations include:

• Building length is limited to a maximum of 500 feet except where the structure is a

stadium use.

6

What We Heard: Riparian Buffer

7

• Testimony and correspondence for increased flexibility for riparian buffer that would

respond to existing conditions of the built environment.

Response: Riparian Buffer

8

Suggestions for deliberations include: Contextual setback in the Riparian Buffer: Buildings may encroach into the Riparian Buffer, within 50 feet and 95 feet of the Project Pool Elevation (PPE), when the following conditions are met:

• Abutting a parcel with a building that is already encroaching into the Riparian Buffer,

within 50 feet and 95 feet of the PPE;

• Building footprint occupies no more than 30% of the area between 50 feet and 95 feet
• f the PPE;
• Building footprint extends into the Riparian Buffer no further than the building on the

abutting parcel;

• To qualify, sites must have earned at least two (2) points from Section 905.07.D.7,

Riparian Public Access Easements, Trails & Amenities.

What We Heard: Chateau

Testimony in favor of:

• Increased height in a portion of Chateau, and
• Tower‐on‐base standards.

9

Response: Chateau

Suggestions for deliberations include:

• A height map change to provide for an area where the maximum height is 250 feet

includes parcels located between the West End Bridge and West North Avenue.

• Achievable through use of bonus points.

10

Response: Tower on Base

Suggestions for deliberations include: Tower‐on‐base standards

• Building footprints of up to 65,000 square feet permitted for tower buildings over 85

feet high when including one or more towers.

• Cumulative tower footprint of no more than 50% of the base building footprint.
• Tower must also maintain the upper‐story stepbacks, as required for all buildings over

65 feet in height.

11

What We Heard: Bonus Points

A desire for additional bonus points.

12

Response: Bonus Points

Suggestions for deliberations include: Addition of Transit‐Oriented Development Bonuses to Section 915.07

• 1 Point – Site is within ½ mile of networked walkshed of rapid service routes.
• 3 Points – On‐site transit station for rapid service routes, designed as an integral part of

the development project and to meet Port Authority standards for transit stations.

13

What We Heard: Sidewalk Width/Setback in the North Shore

• Request to have greater sidewalk width in areas that see periodic high volumes of

pedestrian traffic.

14

What We Heard: Sidewalk Width/Setback in the North Shore

Suggestions for deliberations include: Addition of an Administrator Exception in RIV‐NS to allow an alternative location for the build‐to zone to provide additional open space along the public street, within the following criteria:

• The additional open space shall be within 200 feet of a stadium;
• The building(s) shall maintain a minimum of 80% of the building frontage or façade

located with the alternative build‐to zone;

• The street level along the open space shall include restaurant, retail, or other publicly

accessible uses not to extend onto the public right of way; and

• The open space shall be designed to include outdoor seating and other furniture to

promote pedestrian activity.

15

What We Heard: Strip District Notification

• Questions regarding notification of Strip District about proposed RIV boundary

expansion.

16

IPOD Boundary / First Draft for RIV Zoning

Smallman Street

Current Strip District Projects

Proposed Boundary for RIV Zoning

Response: Strip District Notification

Timeline

• Changes to boundary (Strip District, Lawrenceville) made early December, a week in

advance of December 12th – 14th public meetings.

• 12/21, DCP reached out to Strip District Neighbors to plan Jan 24th community meeting
• Early January, DCP included notification of Jan 24th community meeting to all Strip District

property owners within proposed RIV boundary

• 1/10, met with Strip District Community Development Committee
• 1/10, DCP sent email blast to Strip District contact list
• 1/10, meeting notification posted on NextDoor, Strip District
• 1/11, Strip District Neighbors sent email blast & made Facebook post
• 1/24, meeting in Strip District regarding RIV Zoning and boundary expansion.

20

What We Heard: Variances

• Question of whether variances would still be able to be sought for properties within the

RIV District.

21

Response: Variances

• The right to apply for variances in the City of Pittsburgh is provided by the City’s Code.

22

What We Heard: Height in the Strip District

• Specific owners of property in the Strip District wanted greater height maximums.
• Other owners of property in the Strip District wanted reduced height maximums.

23

Response: Height in the Strip District

• No changes to heights within the Strip District proposed.

24

What We Heard: Visual Access Corridors

• Concerns on how visual access corridors will affect developable area.

25

Response: Visual Access Corridors

• No changes proposed.

26

What We Heard: Inclusionary Zoning

• A desire for the RIV District to incorporate inclusionary zoning.

27

Response: Inclusionary Zoning

• The City’s Inclusionary Zoning legislation is under development. Inclusionary Zoning will

be part of a city‐wide policy.

28

What We Heard: Lock Way

Opposing opinions regarding the zoning of Lock Way.

• Current Zoning: Park
• Proposed Zoning: RIV‐MU

29

What We Heard : Lock Way

30

What We Heard : Lock Way

31

32

33

34

35

36

37