city planning commission - the City of Pittsburgh

city planning commission - the City of Pittsburgh

May 3, 2016 1 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting of May 3, 2016 Beginning at 2:22 p.m. PRESENT OF THE COMMISSION: Chairwoman Christine ...

95KB Sizes 0 Downloads 15 Views

Recommend Documents

Historic Review Commission of Pittsburgh - the City of Pittsburgh
Mar 1, 2017 - Oakland Civic Center Historic District. Crawford Hall ... downtown, is wheelchair accessible. This meeting

planning commission - City of Medford
Aug 27, 2015 - ORDER granting approval of a request for tentative plat approval for Nobility Village Subdivision. WHEREA

planning commission - City of Kearney
Jun 19, 2014 - Commercial District and described as Lot 3, Archway Village, an addition to the ..... of the microwave to

Planning Commission - City of Lafayette
May 18, 2017 - Steve Harrop and Sarah Trimmer – 720 E. Baseline Rd - Strongly Opposed. Working professionals who don't

city planning commission - City of Middletown
Jun 8, 2011 - Mr. Brickey entertained a motion by Mr. Marconi to approve the minutes as .... Mr. Rich Bevis, 1701 Run Wa

PHILADELPHIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - City of Philadelphia
Mar 1, 2016 - Duane Bumb, Representing Harold T. Epps. Christopher Rupe, Representing Michael DiBerardinis. Peilin Chen

Cleveland City Planning Commission
Sep 17, 2004 - Deion Levy and Bruce Jackson. 2. W&W Developers. Willy Trowsdell and Melina ... Jack Bialosky, Jr. 1 Bill

Highland City Planning Commission
Mar 24, 2015 - DISCUSSION OF BASEMENT APARTMENT REGULATIONS AND THE. DEFINITION OF A FAMILY. Mr. Crane explained that th

City Planning Commission - Los Angeles Department of City Planning
Nov 9, 2017 - James K. Williams, Commission Executive Assistant II [email protected] (213) 978-1295. POLICY FOR DESIGNATED

Riverfront Interim Planning Overlay District (IPOD) - the City of Pittsburgh
Proposed Riverfront IPOD: What? Present: ▫ Lasts 18-24 months after approval. Image courtesy Chris Squire / 90.5 WESA 

May 3, 2016

1 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting of May 3, 2016 Beginning at 2:22 p.m.

PRESENT OF THE COMMISSION: Chairwoman Christine Mondor, Gitnik, Askey, Blackwell, Deitrick, Dick, Pezzino PRESENT OF THE STAFF:

Gastil, Layman, Hanna, Rakus, Kramer, Ray

AGENDA ITEMS COVERED IN THESE MINUTES Item 1. Historic Nomination, 486 S. Graham St., Albright United Methodist Church and Parsonage 2. Revised PLDP/FLDP #16-064, Brackenridge/Oakhill new construction buildings. 3. Conditional Use Application 751, C-802, 709 N. Aiken, Neighborhood Academy Expansion 4. Steep Slope Overlay #16-003, Hackstown St., Villas at Winter Park 5. Conditional Use Application 750, C-801, 7665 Lock Way West, Choderwood Event Venue 6. Town Center Consolidation Plan, 100 Forbes Avenue, 1st Ward 7. Brightridge St. Consolidation Plan No 1, 851 Brightridge St., 25th Ward 8. AVR – 35th Street Consolidation Plan, 36th St. and AVR ROW, 6th Ward

Page No.

Ms. Mondor chaired today’s meeting and called the meeting to order. On motion by Ms. Askey and seconded by Ms. Blackwell Ms. Deitrick was appointed temporary Vice Chairperson. Roll call, all ayes. Motion carried.

A.

ACTION ON THE MINUTES On a motion duly moved by Ms. Deitrick and seconded by Ms. Pezzino the minutes from the April 29, 2016 meeting were approved. Ms. Askey abstained.

B.

CORRESPONDENCE (See Attachment A for staff reports.) Ms. Mondor stated that the Commission was in receipt of Albright Church Nomination Amy Gotz and others – relatives of the architect

Planning Commission Minutes

correspondence:

3 7 10 13 14 21 22 23

May 3, 2016 Joy Burt Conti Melissa McSwigan Margaret Ringel Baker Bill Kurtek Francis J. Schmitt Justin Greenawalt Thomas F. Doyle Alexandra Oliver Sarah Kontos Jeffrey Curry Joy Sable Louise & James Altes Erin Deasy Scott Taylor Mike Staresinic Rev. J. Howard Cherry Ashley Close Dan Holland Ryan Morden Paula Rehn John Burns Jay Seastrunk Choderwood Edward Luksich Jenn Tompkins Toney Ceoffe John Creasy Susie Barbour Jana Thompson Nancy Chubb Joanne Bartone Lauren B. Allen Jamie M. Moore Lauren Connelly Anne George Rich Engel Richard R. Wilson, Attorney at Law Meyer Unkovic, Scott, Attorneys at Law Unsigned Correspondence John Stephen Rachel Borovik Janice DeCarlo Crystal Fairchok Kristin L. Hauman Joan Martell John Ubinger Pete McQuillan C.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS (See Attachment B for staff reports.)

Planning Commission Minutes

2

May 3, 2016 1.

HEARING AND ACTION: Historic Nomination, 486 S. Graham, Albright Methodist Church and Parsonage, Dated May 3, 2016.

Ms. Spooner made a presentation in accord with the attached staff report. Ms. Spooner recommended approval of the proposal. She also read the criteria for designation into the record. The Chairwoman called for comments from the Public. Lindsay Petross of 6015 Walnut Street in Shadyside (nominator of the property) and founder of Friends of Albright stated that she have received 867 signatures on a petition nominate this property and asked that the petition be entered into the record. Albright will turn 110 this summer and the church serves as an asset to the community. There are so many things that this building can do for the community. There is significant community support and financial support of several foundations. Justin Greenawalt of Preservation Pittsburgh spoke in support of the nomination. Preservation Pittsburgh believes that the city needs old buildings and cannot grow without them. Preservation Pittsburgh is in full support of this nomination. David Barton representing the property owner the United Methodist Church stated that the United Methodist Church does not support the nomination. The United Methodist Church believes the Planning Commission lacks jurisdiction to do this. He argued that according the Pittsburgh Code that the nomination should only be made by the owners of the structure and that the owner did not make this nomination. He stated that the church is been a church for over 100 years. He argued that religious activity does currently occur in the building. He explained that the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church deemed the structure abandoned as a place of divine worship and thus the Conference took over the property and listed for sale and the proceeds will be held in trust. He stated that the property is also under agreement for sale and the United Methodist Church will reinvest the sale proceeds into the neighborhood for new programs and possibly low income housing. He argued there are state and federal constitutional issues and the government should not step in on this process. Jessica Dual of Centre Avenue has been in Pittsburgh for 10 years and never been in the building but supports the nomination. Mike Panzita of the Young Preservationists Associate spoke in support of the nomination. Sarah Bradford of 307 S. Pacific Avenue spoke in support of this nomination. Mr. Conrad of 1137 Braddock Avenue spoke in support of the nomination. Matthew Craig of the Young Preservationists Association spoke in support of the nomination. Attorney Brian Bevan of Grail Law Firm that represents some of the members of the Albright congregation spoke in response to Mr. Barton the UMC Attorney. Bevan argued that City Council has the task to interpret what it means. He stated that the Historic Review Commission made a recommendation and the Planning Commission is to issue a recommendation of whether the structure should be nominated or not. He also gave

Planning Commission Minutes

3

May 3, 2016 instances of buildings that were religious structures that were nominated by non-owners and so designated as historic like the present situation before the Commission. Bevan argued that no services have taken place in the building since 2013. He also explained that the Conference filed a lawsuit which was dismissed last week. He stated that the UMC is under contract with a buyer for this building. John Conti of Bunkerhill Street said he is an active Methodist, a layman, a former chairman of the board of trustees, and he spoke in support of the designation of the church as a historic landmark. He also spoke in reference of divine worship which is defined by public activity. He stated that divine worship has not occurred. He stated that the doors are boarded up and the handicap accessible ramp is broke down. He stated that PWSA has shut off the water. He explained that non-public religious activity does not meet the designation of divine worship under his faith. James Mohn of Sewickley spoke in support of the nomination due to the exceptional architecture. Jennifer Haven of S. Pacific Avenue spoke in support of the nomination. Taafoi Kanara of 315 S. Evaline Street spoke in support of the nomination. Joy Conti of Bunkerhill Street spoke in support of the nomination and being raised in the United Methodist Church and she is horrified by the words and actions by the United Methodist Church. The doors are boarded and the utilities are off and the grass is knee high. She is very upset about this. Tom Mangan of S. Graham Street spoke in support of the nomination. Abass Kanara of 315 S. Evaline Street spoke in support of the nomination. There being no more comments from the Public, the Chairwoman called for questions and comments from the Commissioners. Ms. Blackwell asked David Barton, the attorney for the church come to the podium and respond to the allegations that no services were happening at the building. Ms. Mondor read the commission’s role in the process and it is not in their jurisdiction to make judgement on that. Mr. Barton stated that the conference did file a lawsuit. They are required to go through the rest of the administrative process before they can go back to court. With respect to the religious worship, Mr. Barton explained that two pastors stated that they have worshipped in the building, and that the worship was not advertised. He argued that fundamentally the government should not say what is and what is not divine worship. Ms. Deitrick said thank you to all the people who have come out. Ms. Pezzino asked what historic designation will mean for this site. Sarah Quinn the City Preservation Planner stated Historic Review will be conducted to this property and anything will need to be approved by staff or by the Historic Review Commission.

Planning Commission Minutes

4

May 3, 2016

5

Mr. Layman stated that it will only impact the exterior. Mr. Gitnik stated that the property owner can leave it as it is and let the building crumble. Ms. Quinn stated yes the building can crumble that is when the Historic Review Commission steps in once there is condemnation abatement. They do not deal with the internal building or date to day issues unless it involves a code violation. Ms. Blackwell wanted to ask the applicant if she had any ideas for the building or spoke to anyone about investing into this building. Ms. Patross stated that it will be the same as the union project. Ms. Mondor stated that because she is not the owner she cannot speak on speculative use. Ms. Blackwell stated that we need more information on what she has already stated. Nothing new but it has been brought up twice by her and a Commissioner. Ms. Petross stated that the Friends of Albright they have received tremendous support from foundations and funders and they are independent of the church. Mr. Gitnik stated that his vote is based on the application the Historic Review Commission made a determination that there was not religious activity taking place that is what his vote will be based upon. Ms. Blackwell stated that she is voting according to the code but her passion is to make sure everyone’s voice is heard. There being no more questions or comments from the Commissioners, the Chairwoman called for the motion. MOTION: Recommend an affirmative determination of potential historic eligibility.

MOVED BY Ms. Deitrick; SECONDED BY Ms. Blackwell. IN FAVOR:

OPPOSED:

Mondor, Gitnik, Askey, Blackwell, Deitrick, Dick, Pezzino

None

Planning Commission Minutes

CARRIED

May 3, 2016 2.

Hearing & Action: Revised PLDP/FLDP #16-064, Brackenridge Street and Oakhill, new construction of buildings Ms. Kramer made a presentation in accord with the attached staff report. Ms. Kramer recommended approval of the proposal. Myles Burn introduced the plans for the project along with Mark Major of BNY Architects. Mr. Burn stated that a number of folks have come with him and he thanked them all for coming. Mr. Major gave presentation and background of the plans that have occurred. This is the Brackenridge phase which will be 137 units hopefully subsequent phases will occur in the future. He reviewed the community outreach that has occurred. Showed proposed elevations and described materials and landscaping that will be used. Each unit will have their own HVAC units he reviewed the plant list and reviewed the Storm Water Management Plan. Wadsworth Hall will have a Fitness Center once the renovation is complete. The Chairwoman called for comments from the Public. Larry Blair of Eckstein Place spoke in support of the plan. He is the leasing agent and is looking forward to working with a mixed income community. Eloise McDonald a Board Member of Oakhill spoke in support of the plan and welcomes the mixed incomed community. Leroy Morgan a Neighborhood Housing Authority Board Member spoke in support of the plan. There being no more comments from the Public, the Chairwoman called for questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Blackwell thanked them all for being such a great community for the people. Ms. Deitrick asked for them to address the expansion of Wadsworth Hall. Mr. Burn stated that the Wadsworth Hall has represented many things for the past 70 years. To attract people to the community there will be a state of the art exercise facility. Mr. Gitnik stated the Oakhill Residents Council is a great group. Thank you for coming out on behalf of your community. Ms. Pezzino stated that these are the types of examples we need to see and thank you for all of your efforts. Ms. Mondor asked about connectivity to the street and the location of the HVAC units may be a barrier and may be a barrier and should have more than one point of engagement.

Planning Commission Minutes

6

May 3, 2016

7

There being no more questions or comments from the Commission, the Chairwoman called for the motion. MOTION 1: That the Planning Commission of the City of Pittsburgh approves an Amendment to the Preliminary Land Development Plan. MOVED BY Ms. Blackwell; SECONDED BY Ms. Pezzino

IN FAVOR:

Mondor, Gitnik, Askey, Blackwell, Deitrick, Dick, Pezzino

OPPOSED:

None

CARRIED

MOTION 2: That the Planning Commission of the City of Pittsburgh approves the Final Land Development Plan for the construction of Oak Hill Brackenridge Phase, with a total of 4 structures with 137 new dwelling units; based on the application and drawings filed by Beacon/Corcoran Jennison Company on behalf of the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant work with the staff on the final building designs and location of HVAC and mechanical units to be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to application for a building permit: 2. Review and approval of the Letter of Addendum to the 2007 Traffic and Parking Study by the Zoning Administrator prior to application for a building permit; 3. Review and approval of the storm water management plan by the Zoning Administrator prior to application for a building permit; 4. That final landscape plans be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy; and 5. That final drawing, including elevations and materials, be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to application for a building permit.

MOVED BY Ms. Deitrick; SECONDED BY Ms. Blackwell

IN FAVOR:

Mondor, Gitnik, Askey, Blackwell, Deitrick, Dick, Pezzino

OPPOSED:

None

Planning Commission Minutes

CARRIED

May 3, 2016 3.

Hearing & Action: CUA 751, C-802, 709 N. Aiken Avenue, Neighborhood Academy expansion

Ms. Rakus made a presentation in accord with the attached staff report. Ms. Rakus recommended approval of the proposal. The Department of City Planning Posted and mailed notices. One letter was received in opposition. Sarah Moore with Moor Architects and Thomas Wickenbeck with Eckles Architects representing the Neighborhood Academy presented plans to expand the existing Secondary School (Limited) use by approximately 6,000 square feet and change to a Secondary school (General) use from Secondary School (Limited) use. Transportation analysis was submitted for review by City Planning and Public Works staff. Storm Water Management report has been submitted and is currently being reviewed by City Planning Staff. The Chairwoman called for comments from the Public. Joane Monroe of N. Aiken Avenue stated that the campus is very well maintained and the students are respectful. Her concerns are with the traffic and parking. People park in front of her home and there should be school zone speeding restriction. She also stated that the neighborhood academy keep the community engaged. Joyce Meggerson Moore Vice President of the Stanton Heights Community Organization spoke stating that the Neighborhood Academy needs to communicate with the community better. Some of the homes are very close to the development. They promised to keep the school small and they have not kept their promise. It does not fit into the community scheme and we would like to see that happen. The materials are not what they were told and we are afraid they are going to get larger and larger and take away their residential setting. Jean Bryant 5117 Rosecrest Drive President of the Stanton Heights Community Organization spoke in opposition of this plan the community of Stanton Heights does not want to lose any more ground to this development and they want to keep it that way. There being no more comments from the Public, the Chairwoman called for questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Deitrick wanted to see other images of the neighborhood and the development including a traffic study. Ms. Rakus stated that the traffic study is under review. Ms. Mondor stated that community values are important. There needs to be better communication between the school and neighborhood. The following needs to be looked at parking and event parking and the speed limit. Mr. Wickenbeck stated that the current enrollment is 75. The addition will add 35 more students.

Planning Commission Minutes

8

May 3, 2016

9

Ms. Dick stated that the academy needs to meet with the community and work better with them. Ms. Deitrick wanted to know why they did not meet with the community. Jodi Moore President of the Neighborhood Academy stated that they did send letter and walked the community and did not receive any negative responses along Rosecrest and Aiken. She believes it a beautiful site. They did try to reach out. They were in touch with the Stanton Heights Community Association and a meeting at the school is scheduled for June. Mr. Gitnik thanked the community organization for coming. He suggested that the applicant do better with communicating with the community. Ms. Blackwell asked if they can add that the applicant meet with the Community Groups. Mr. Layman stated that they cannot condition the approval on that. Ms. Detrick stated that the school needs to develop a stronger relationship with the community. There being no more questions or comments from the Commission, the Chairwoman called for the motion. MOTION: That Conditional Use Application No. 751, to expand a Secondary School (Limited) to a Secondary School (General) at 709 North Aiken Avenue, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Final transportation analysis be reviewed, with attention to speed limit and parking concerns, and approved prior to City Council Public Hearing. 2. Final construction plans including final site plan and elevations shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to an application for a building permit. 3. Applicant shall meet with the community prior to the City Council Public Hearing. MOVED BY Ms. Pezzino;

SECONDED BY Ms. Blackwell

IN FAVOR:

Mondor, Gitnik, Askey, Blackwell, Deitrick, Dick, Pezzino

OPPOSED:

None

Planning Commission Minutes

CARRIED

May 3, 2016 4.

Hearing & Action: Steep Slope Overlay District #16-003, Hackstown Street, Villas at Winter Park Josh Adamik of Synergy Capital representing the applicant formally requested a continuance to review and respond accordingly relating to the geotechnical report.

Planning Commission Minutes

10

May 3, 2016 Ms. Pezzino and Mr. Gitnik recused from item number 5 Choderwood and left the meeting. 5.

Hearing & Action: CUA #750, C-801, 7665 Lock Way West, Choderwood Event Venue, Public Assembly Limited Mr. Layman made a presentation in accord with the attached staff report. Mr. Layman recommended approval of the proposal. Andrea Garity the Attorney representing Mr. Choder and Mrs. Noble-Choder the 7665 Lock Way West owners presented plans for Conditional Use of the said property Choderwood is located within an industrialized area along the Allegheny River at the bottom of Washington Boulevard between the former City of Pittsburgh Asphalt plant and a residential property owned by Luksik/Yugar. While Choderwood is located within a Park zone, it is adjacent to an Industrial zone. Choderwood is located within the proposed Allegheny River Green Boulevard area, and falls within the recently adopted Allegheny River IPOD. Choderwood’s proprietors are on site during events to ensure that property rules are followed. The majority of large events (75-125 people) at Choderwood occur during the weekend. The Choders monitor traffic, loading/servicing to ensure that activities at Choderwood do not obstruct Lock Way or the City parking lot. In addition Choderwood provides two parking attendants during events. In accordance with City regulations, all amplified music must be turned off at 11:00 p.m. on weekends, and 9:00 p.m. during the week. Events must end by midnight on weekends and 10:00 p.m. during the week. The Choders have improved signage to ensure that visitors/guests do not inadvertently end up at the residential neighbor’s house. A gate between the properties has been chained shut to ensure that Choderwood guests/visitors do not trespass onto the neighbor’s property. The Choder’s routinely police the surrounding areas following events to ensure that any trash or debris is immediately picked up. The Allegheny Valley Railroad has expressed concern about Choderwood hosting events. However the AVRR does not operate on the weekends, but rather operates Sundays through Thursdays after 9:00 p.m. based upon 15 years of observation, on average the AVRR runs by Choderwood three times a week. The Choders have offered to indemnify AVRR to alleviate its concerns. Any noise generated by activities at Choderwood will be well below the City noise requirements. As noted previously, amplified music ends at 11:00 p.m. on weekends and 9:00 p.m. during the week. Trash generated at the site during events is picked up by a private trash hauler within 48 hours of an event.

Planning Commission Minutes

11

May 3, 2016 Jody Noble-Choder spoke about the uniqueness of the property and gave history of the property. The homes were built in 1908 through 1957 the properties were subdivided out and sold to private individuals. They purchased the home in 2001and were the 4th owners of the house they have been feature in numerous garden clubs, they have chickens and an organic vegetable garden. In 2013 they starting an Airbnb and hosting small events in the garden. 10-12 events will be held during a season and all events must be over by midnight. Contracts specify all the rules of the property and are signed prior to hosting any event. We were reported and the City Permits and Licensing did not shut us down but they did require we apply for a permit. They were denied because a bed and breakfast cannot be held in a Park Zone. The owners stopped using the property as a Bed and Breakfast. Andrea Garity spoke about the Conditional Use application is being sought and they feel the meet the requirements for the said application. The issues with the AVRR are not in the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction. Steve Choder spoke stating that their property is not a “Party House” they host a number of events per year and the music is played in accordance of the code. Guests have a good time. They have hosted tech groups, animal rights groups, peace groups, meditation groups, garden clubs, pop up yoga, and religious services. They give back to the community from proceeds from their Chicken Coop. Everyone is told where to park. There is no real traffic issue. The noise is kept at the farthest point from their neighbor and they follow the code. The Chairwoman called for comments from the Public. Richard Wilson General Counsel for the Allegheny Valley Railroad Company the railroad concerns are about the railroad right of way. They require permission for people to cross that right of way. At the present time, the Choders are using it for residential use. They do not want a public assembly use on an active rail line. They are concerned about the liability if someone is hurt crossing the line. They have asked the Choders to sign a private crossing agreement and they have not received the signed agreement to date. He cautioned them as representatives of the City of Pittsburgh that approving this application be considered and requests that the City pay for the appropriate signage to ensure safety of the pedestrians. Bob Baumbach of 904 Middle Street spoke in support of the Choderwood project. Ed Luksich 7646 Lock Way West spoke stating that he has lived there for 19 years and is does not support this Conditional Use Application. The property has been a party house for 2 years it is a neighborhood and their home. They hear every noise and drunken yahoo. The house boat advertised for use a few months ago sunk to the bottom of the Allegheny River thankfully no one was on the boat. It is irresponsible management of an illegal business that has been operating for the past 2 years. As a result family and friends refuse to visit them. This has been a disaster to them personally and there should be no resident in the city that should have to deal with this on a daily basis.

Planning Commission Minutes

12

May 3, 2016 James Simon 305 Gist Street in uptown spoke in support of the Choderwood property stating that the property is beautiful and a serene magical place. Monica Watt of the Highland Park Community Council met with the owners of Choderwood and the Homeowners in the area and the Highland Park Community Council cannot support it at this time. Their concerns are the incapability with neighbors and the safety at the intersection of Washington and Allegheny River Boulevard. She made a call to the Zone 5 police and received a 2 year report of the traffic accidents at this intersection which supported there decision. Jeff Wilmer the Attorney representing the Luksich family. He stated in the list of correspondence read by the Chairwoman his letter was not mentioned. He has 4 points to make. The Zoning Board found to have a negative detrimental impact on his client. The appeal was affirmed stating there are serious safety impacts. He disagrees that someone’s backyard can be a limited public assembly. The applicants are renting out there backyard to inconvenience his client. They Choders do not have control or access of the site. They have no lease information from the Army Core of Engineers. They also want to apply for a budding property status. Joanne McClain of Pius Street spoke in support of the Choderwood venue. She said each event she attended the Choderwood overstaffed and has never had any problems getting in and out of the property. She said the Choder diligently police every event she attended. Shelly Danko-Day of 922 Mellon Street spoke in support of the Choderwood plan stating that she feels that the dangerous intersection has nothing to do with the events held at the site and there is a public park that goes over those railroad tracks. They have nearly an acre of land and is a great addition to Highland Park. (Ms. Danko-Day works in the Department of City Planning as an Open Space Specialist and testified as a City of Pittsburgh resident) Yolanda Yugar of 7646 Lock Way West spoke in opposition to the project and that the park mentioned by Mrs. Danko-Day closes at 3:45 each day and there is signage to support that and it is a private road. There being no more comments from the Public, the Chairwoman called for questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Blackwell asked the Chairwoman to remind them of what they are supposed to focus on. Ms. Mondor asked the Zoning Administrator to read those for the commission. Mr. Layman read the language in the code for the commission (see staff report). Ms. Blackwell as for examples Mr. Layman said he cannot give examples he can only read what is in the code.

Planning Commission Minutes

13

May 3, 2016 Mr. Layman also read the specific criteria that should apply for use in Parks Zoning District. Ms. Deitrick thanked the Choders for reaching out to the Highland Park Community Council. She would like to see some type resolve to the contentious issues with the Luksich’s or further time limitations. Ms. Detrick asked City Law about the crossing of the railroad, they have had several difference interpretations. Ms. ONeil stated that the City disagrees with Railroad easements are not affected. Private easement is something that should not be considered. Ms. Askey had questions about noise limitations 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. the levels are the same. Mr. Layman stated that if the commission wants more detailed operational plan they can request that. Andrea Garity stated that none of the noise goes over the code limitations. They have received no noise violations and will continue to comply with it. Mr. Luksich asked if the noise has been measured. Ms. Mondor has questions about the drop off plan. None of this is a public street and she would like to see the drawing that shows it. Ms. Garity stated that questions whether the railroad and street is a public road they are two different things. Dropping off supplies and Port O Johns or anything that is needed the have a designated drop off there is enough space for a box truck Ms. Noble Choder they are waiting for Conditional Use approval before they can get lease information from City Finance. They will have a Shuttle and the guests will be dropped off at the gate on their property. They will lease property from Shriver on Washington Boulevard. Ms. Deitrick wanted to know about this summer’s parking plan. Ms. Noble Choder stated that right now they have an agreement with Shriver and if they are granted the Conditional Use they will pursue an agreement with City Finance. Ms. Mondor stated that the Condition use happens and there is no resolution with the city for use and drop off. Mr. Layman stated that they have to resolve the parking in order to get a certificate of occupancy. Ms. Mondor said there are two separate issues.

Planning Commission Minutes

14

May 3, 2016 Mr. Layman stated any parcel has its own process. Ms. Mondor invited the Attorney for the Luksich Family to return. Mr. Wilmer stated that previously there was a variance applied for and approved for 18 ft. parking the parking is right next to his client’s home and he will be requesting a transcript from the ZBA. As far as the off-site parking issue if it is over 1000 feet the applicant will need to get a zoning variance or special exception. Mr. Layman said that he cannot respond to an application that has not been submitted. Ms. Garity stated they recognize that they cannot resolve the parking issue right now but they are entitled to condition use approval. If they get parking approval they will come back to the Zoning Administrator it is not something they are looking to get approval today. Mr. Layman stated the Zoning Code does have a list of use categories in chapter 911 you cannot capture all uses in the categories. The Code authorizes the Zoning Administrator to identify which use is closest in terms of impact of the use and similarities of usage. The public assembly limited is the most similar use was decided and each application is reviewed on its own merit. Ms. Askey wanted to know how many attendees are allowed based on public assembly limited. Mr. Layman stated up to 500. The proposed cap is for 125 people. Ms. Mondor asked if they could we condition the use at a level or not. Mr. Layman stated that if the proposal is for 125 they will need to provide parking to meet that use in accordance with the code. Ms. Deitrick asked if there be a rolling condition clarification. Ms. Noble Choder stated they do have rolling events for non-profits in the city. Ms. Mondor stated that they are only considering what is in the application. Ms. Mondor asked could this be in a residential district. Mr. Layman stated that public assembly is not allowed in residential zoning. Ms. Mondor asked if they were ready to take a straight vote or if they had more questions or propose conditions. Ms. Deitrick stated clearly folks are uncomfortable we need a compromise. Ms. Askey stated that a condition limiting the number of occupants would be beneficial.

Planning Commission Minutes

15

May 3, 2016

16

Mr. Layman reminded that they are only making a recommendation to council if you make a positive one it will require a simple majority or a negative one will require a super majority. Ms. Mondor stated her concerns are with parking, 18 ft. right of way access, and service egress. She wants some assurance from the city that these things can happen on private property. Mr. Layman stated that city property is not part of this application. Ms. Mondor wanted to know what the traffic study was reviewing just the light or access. There being no more questions or comments from the Commission, the Chairwoman called for the motion. MOTION: Motion that the conditional Use Application No 750 to, to use an existing site at 7665 Lock Way West as a Public Assembly (Limited) event venue, to recommended for approval by City Council with the following conditions: A. Applicant shall apply and receive approval of off-site parking, as per Zoning Code parking count requirements and approval requirements, as necessary, prior to approval of an application for a Certificate of Occupancy. Parking shall be obtained and available for use prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. B. Applicant shall meet any on-site requirements for loading and accessible parking spaces prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. C. Applicant shall meet applicable Zoning Code limits relative to noise. D. Applicant shall submit a drop off, pick up, and loading operations plan to be reviewed and approved by The Department of City Planning and Department of Public Works. E. Occupancy to be limited to events no larger than 125.

MOVED BY Ms. Deitrick;

SECONDED BY Ms. Askey

IN FAVOR:

Mondor, Askey, Blackwell, Deitrick, Dick

OPPOSED:

None

Planning Commission Minutes

CARRIED

May 3, 2016

17

E.

PLAN OF LOTS (See Attachment C.)

6.

Town Center Consolidation Plan (100 Forbes Avenue), 1st Ward Mr. Miller made a presentation in accord with the attached staff report. Director Gastil stated that the subdivision committee had met and recommends approval of the plan. The Chairwoman called for a motion. That the Town Center Consolidation Plan submitted by Town MOTION: Development, Inc., dated April 1, 2016 and received by the Planning Commission May 3, 2016 be approved and the signatures of the proper officers of the Planning Commission be affixed thereto. (No improvements or monuments needed.)

MOVED BY Ms. Blackwell; SECONDED BY Ms. Deitrick.

IN FAVOR:

Mondor, Askey, Blackwell, Deitrick, Dick

OPPOSED:

None

CARRIED

7. Brackenridge Street Consolidation Plan No. 1, 851 Brightridge Street, 25th Ward Mr. Miller made a presentation in accord with the attached staff report. Director Gastil stated that the subdivision committee had met and recommends approval of the plan. The Chairwoman called for a motion. That the Brightridge Street Plan No. 1, submitted by North Side MOTION: Associates, LP, dated April 7, 2016 and received by the Planning Commission May 3, 2016 be approved and the signatures of the proper officers of the Planning Commission be affixed thereto. (No improvements or monuments needed.)

MOVED BY Ms. Blackwell; SECONDED BY Ms. Deitrick.

IN FAVOR:

Mondor, Askey, Blackwell, Deitrick, Dick

OPPOSED:

None

Planning Commission Minutes

CARRIED

May 3, 2016

18

8. AVR-36th Street Consolidation Plan (36th Street and AVR ROW), 6th Ward Mr. Miller made a presentation in accord with the attached staff report. Director Gastil stated that the subdivision committee had met and recommends approval of the plan. The Chairwoman called for a motion. MOTION: That the AVR-36th Street Subdivision and Consolidation Plan, submitted by The Allegheny Valley Railroad, dated February 12, 2016 and received by the Planning Commission May 3, 2016 be approved and the signatures of the proper officers of the Planning Commission be affixed thereto. (No improvements or monuments needed.)

MOVED BY Ms. Blackwell; SECONDED BY Ms. Deitrick.

IN FAVOR:

Mondor, Askey, Blackwell, Deitrick, Dick

OPPOSED:

None

CARRIED

On motion by Ms. Blackwell and seconded by Ms. Deitrick, Ms. Askey was appointed Acting Secretary. Roll Call, all ayes. Motion carried.

D.

ADJOURNMENT:

6:03 p.m.

APPROVED BY:

Jennifer Askey ACTING SECRETARY

Attachments

DISCLAIMER: The official records of the Planning Commission’s meetings are the Minutes of the Meetings approved by the Commission’s Secretary, Paul Gitnik. The Minutes are the ONLY official record. Any other notes, recordings, etc. are not official records of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission cannot verify the accuracy or authenticity of notes, recordings, etc., that are not part of the official minutes.

Planning Commission Minutes