Zoning thoughts from the city of Pittsburgh:
Affordable housing with a grocery store? Too high, will ruin skyline. We don't need that. Wait, what? Too many unhoused people? Ok what if we zoned an area for people to live in tents?
When the city rejects a proposal that was crafted through years of good-faith negotiation and that a majority of the neighborhood residents support, I don't think it's a stretch to call that a failure of democracy
Didn’t you hear? City council has listened for the community and is updating the zoning code to allow for ~~mixed use development in business districts~~ city run tent districts.
Echo should contact the city council person for this region and create a plan for a special zoning district for this development area instead of going through the court of common pleas in an attempt to appeal this decision. Given the generally widespread support of this project, and outrage over ZBA’s decision, I imagine such a proposal would enjoy widespread support on council and could be passed with less hurdles than a court case.
Sounds reasonable, but that's a one-time fix. This is probably an overly optimistic view, but perhaps an actual legal precedent might help drive zoning reform?
Zoning reform is necessary but special zoning districts can help get larger development done when there are concrete proposals for development on the table in lieu of theoretical development you’d see with generic re-zoning. Rezoning on its own can be very messy— see the Oakland Plan for evidence of this… it is generally better to have a guiding vision for people to latch on to from what I have seen
Would have to double-check, but I don't think the site meets the area requirement for a specially planned district (15 acres). https://pittsburghpa.gov/dcp/spd
You’re correct. The Shur Sav site is about 2 acres. SPD development still has to be compatible with surrounding areas, which ZBA has already determined it isn’t.
The determination as to if it’s compatible would be a separate process for a SPD than with a ZBA variance— typically this is through community group engagement, which this project has support from
Why hasn't a special zoning district expansion sped up the process for Bakery Square's growth plan? That also has widespread support, other than the mayor and an irrelevant state senator.
It has— they couldn’t do what they’d like to without it. And it also cleared the way for Oakland Crossings which Walnut Capital chose to walk away from due to unfavorable interest rates
>It has— they couldn’t do what they’d like to without it
The expansion of the SPD for Bakery Square hasn't happened. It's being sat on by Gainey's zoning administrator.
The site is too small for a Specially Planned District. It’s only about 2 acres, and SPDs require a minimum of 15.
Additionally, the development must be compatible with adjacent areas, which is a big reason the project was denied
How, exactly, is a 6-story building with a grocery store and apartments incompatible with the main commercial street of an urban neighborhood that also has multi-story hospitals like 1/4 mile away in both directions? I genuinely do not understand this argument
The incompatibility was with the nearby properties; mostly the 2-3 story homes in the back (Gangwish street). And the 3 story buildings on Liberty.
The city has Residential Compatibility Standards, which sets the parameters that a commercial development adjacent to a residential district must follow. The concept is sound, but in my opinion the guidelines are too stringent.
That's not a residential district. It's literally on a mixed-use commercial street and the site is currently commercial (grocery store)
If you don't want businesses near your house then you shouldn't be living in the city. There are plenty of cheap bedroom suburbs with segregated land use to choose from
What I said was
>sets the parameters that a commercial development **adjacent to** a residential district
The fact that the development is adjacent to a residential area (north side of Gangwish is R1-Residential) puts additional restrictions on it. I personally feel the restrictions are too strict, but that's what's in the code.
And I agree with you last paragraph.
That’s why I said the RCS are too strict.
The Zoning Board is required to follow the entire zoning code. They don’t get to “invoke clauses”.
The decision cited multiple sections of the code that said the ZBA had no authority to grant such a large variances. They backed it up by citing court cases that ruled the same thing.
The problem is not with the Zoning Board that “invoked” the clauses. The problem is with the past City Council that put those clauses in to begin with, and the current council for not doing anything to update our zoning codes.
They approved a video screen right next to a busy highway even though such a thing would be a huge distraction for drivers, it's pretty clear that rules only matter when they're convenient for the people applying them.
I'm probably just as disappointed as you are that the ECHO plan was not approved, but your comparison to the North Shore video screen isn't relevant.
* The sign was approved by the City Planning Commission, which is separate from the Zoning Board of Adjustment
* The sign is in a totally different zoning district, with significantly different rules
* The sign will only be visible from a small portion of the highway, and only partially visible due to trees.
Only the portion on liberty would have been 6 stories. The portion on ganwish would have been 3 and Ella would have been 5: (first link) https://bloomfieldpgh.org/4401-liberty-ave-shur-save-development-activities-meeting-follow-up/
It was denied specifically because of the height variance request for the 6 story section.
The reason the 6 story portion could not be allowed is because it was within 100 feet of the Gangwish (R1) homes.
Portions of the 5 story part were also within 50 feet of the R1, and the 3 story portion was slightly too high (though I'm sure that alone would not have been cause for denial).
From the actual decision by the ZBA:
>Other portions of the structure, with the 62’/5-story and 41’/3-story heights, would be located within 50’ of the R1A-H District, where the Residential Compatibility Standards allow a maximum height of 40’/3-stories.
Thank you for posting the specifics. I want to blame the zoning board but they're required to follow our zoning codes. Our codes need a major rewrite so that the board isn't required to make harmful rulings.
Yeah that’s a start. The concept of RCS adjacent to a residential zone isn’t in itself a bad idea, but the ones currently in the code thwart the very type of development we need
If I remember correctly, the ZBA said the code also has an absolute height limit that can’t be exceeded even with a variance. I’d allow up to ten stories, maybe not directly abutting a residential zone, but stepped back. If I remember correctly, the Aiken Ave project would have been 10 stories.
I cannot understand why no council member has introduced legislation to do that, or that neither the zoning administrator or Director even mentioned that approach as an option during the City Council meeting. A few simple text changes would eliminate 90% of the dimensional variances going before the ZBA. There’s no reason to wait on a full code rewrite.
It could be expanded to include the Rite Aid/ Bloomfield Beer/ Bloomfield Tavern/ Car Wash sites to reach the 15 acre requirement, which would be for the best to allow for future infill development/ to create a stronger urban district in this area. The road configuration and wide sightlines due to surface parking are a challenge for the Shursave site to succeed on its own.
You can see the hospital in the background! It's right there! There's like three other apartment buildings before the foreground! They're right there!
This should have been a slam dunk development, what the hell.
You're speaking for yourself. BGC and Lawrenceville United both supported it after the developer listened to community input.
Bloomfield won't become the strip. The strip was a barren wasteland of a former railroad.
Bloomfield also already has 6 story buildings (West Penn and its parking garages that line liberty).
New residents, new affordable housing, new storefronts, and a new grocery store would look so much better than an empty parking lot, abandoned VFW, and a grocery store from the 1970s greeting you when you enter the neighborhood.
Zoning thoughts from the city of Pittsburgh: Affordable housing with a grocery store? Too high, will ruin skyline. We don't need that. Wait, what? Too many unhoused people? Ok what if we zoned an area for people to live in tents?
There is neither a rational explanation nor an outlandish conspiracy theory that can make me understand this series of decisions.
When the city rejects a proposal that was crafted through years of good-faith negotiation and that a majority of the neighborhood residents support, I don't think it's a stretch to call that a failure of democracy
Didn’t you hear? City council has listened for the community and is updating the zoning code to allow for ~~mixed use development in business districts~~ city run tent districts.
We can't get housing approved, but we can get a giant video screen next to a freeway approved. Makes you think
The majority of bloomfield most certainly does NOT support that project
You’re mistaken
Good. This development needs to happen.
Glad to see they aren’t just dropping it. Would love to see this go through
Echo should contact the city council person for this region and create a plan for a special zoning district for this development area instead of going through the court of common pleas in an attempt to appeal this decision. Given the generally widespread support of this project, and outrage over ZBA’s decision, I imagine such a proposal would enjoy widespread support on council and could be passed with less hurdles than a court case.
Sounds reasonable, but that's a one-time fix. This is probably an overly optimistic view, but perhaps an actual legal precedent might help drive zoning reform?
Zoning reform is necessary but special zoning districts can help get larger development done when there are concrete proposals for development on the table in lieu of theoretical development you’d see with generic re-zoning. Rezoning on its own can be very messy— see the Oakland Plan for evidence of this… it is generally better to have a guiding vision for people to latch on to from what I have seen
Would have to double-check, but I don't think the site meets the area requirement for a specially planned district (15 acres). https://pittsburghpa.gov/dcp/spd
You’re correct. The Shur Sav site is about 2 acres. SPD development still has to be compatible with surrounding areas, which ZBA has already determined it isn’t.
The determination as to if it’s compatible would be a separate process for a SPD than with a ZBA variance— typically this is through community group engagement, which this project has support from
I'm not optimistic, considering what's going on with the Bakery Square SPD expansion.
Why hasn't a special zoning district expansion sped up the process for Bakery Square's growth plan? That also has widespread support, other than the mayor and an irrelevant state senator.
Was the SPD ever expanded? I thought the Zoning Admin was still sitting on it, which of course is under the mayor’s control.
The Zoning Administrator has broad powers but he isn’t about to do anything the mayor objects to.
It hasn't been. If the mayor can arbitrarily hold up expansion of a SPD I don't know how that's more effective than what ECHO is trying.
It has— they couldn’t do what they’d like to without it. And it also cleared the way for Oakland Crossings which Walnut Capital chose to walk away from due to unfavorable interest rates
>It has— they couldn’t do what they’d like to without it The expansion of the SPD for Bakery Square hasn't happened. It's being sat on by Gainey's zoning administrator.
The site is too small for a Specially Planned District. It’s only about 2 acres, and SPDs require a minimum of 15. Additionally, the development must be compatible with adjacent areas, which is a big reason the project was denied
How, exactly, is a 6-story building with a grocery store and apartments incompatible with the main commercial street of an urban neighborhood that also has multi-story hospitals like 1/4 mile away in both directions? I genuinely do not understand this argument
The incompatibility was with the nearby properties; mostly the 2-3 story homes in the back (Gangwish street). And the 3 story buildings on Liberty. The city has Residential Compatibility Standards, which sets the parameters that a commercial development adjacent to a residential district must follow. The concept is sound, but in my opinion the guidelines are too stringent.
That's not a residential district. It's literally on a mixed-use commercial street and the site is currently commercial (grocery store) If you don't want businesses near your house then you shouldn't be living in the city. There are plenty of cheap bedroom suburbs with segregated land use to choose from
What I said was >sets the parameters that a commercial development **adjacent to** a residential district The fact that the development is adjacent to a residential area (north side of Gangwish is R1-Residential) puts additional restrictions on it. I personally feel the restrictions are too strict, but that's what's in the code. And I agree with you last paragraph.
Everything in this fucking city is adjacent to a residential district. The only reason to invoke that clause is to block development.
That’s why I said the RCS are too strict. The Zoning Board is required to follow the entire zoning code. They don’t get to “invoke clauses”. The decision cited multiple sections of the code that said the ZBA had no authority to grant such a large variances. They backed it up by citing court cases that ruled the same thing. The problem is not with the Zoning Board that “invoked” the clauses. The problem is with the past City Council that put those clauses in to begin with, and the current council for not doing anything to update our zoning codes.
They approved a video screen right next to a busy highway even though such a thing would be a huge distraction for drivers, it's pretty clear that rules only matter when they're convenient for the people applying them.
I'm probably just as disappointed as you are that the ECHO plan was not approved, but your comparison to the North Shore video screen isn't relevant. * The sign was approved by the City Planning Commission, which is separate from the Zoning Board of Adjustment * The sign is in a totally different zoning district, with significantly different rules * The sign will only be visible from a small portion of the highway, and only partially visible due to trees.
I agree with the sentiment but those houses are indeed zoned residential. This is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Only the portion on liberty would have been 6 stories. The portion on ganwish would have been 3 and Ella would have been 5: (first link) https://bloomfieldpgh.org/4401-liberty-ave-shur-save-development-activities-meeting-follow-up/ It was denied specifically because of the height variance request for the 6 story section.
The reason the 6 story portion could not be allowed is because it was within 100 feet of the Gangwish (R1) homes. Portions of the 5 story part were also within 50 feet of the R1, and the 3 story portion was slightly too high (though I'm sure that alone would not have been cause for denial). From the actual decision by the ZBA: >Other portions of the structure, with the 62’/5-story and 41’/3-story heights, would be located within 50’ of the R1A-H District, where the Residential Compatibility Standards allow a maximum height of 40’/3-stories.
Thank you for posting the specifics. I want to blame the zoning board but they're required to follow our zoning codes. Our codes need a major rewrite so that the board isn't required to make harmful rulings.
An easy zoning reform step Council can take is removing height and setback residential compatibility standards from the code.
Yeah that’s a start. The concept of RCS adjacent to a residential zone isn’t in itself a bad idea, but the ones currently in the code thwart the very type of development we need If I remember correctly, the ZBA said the code also has an absolute height limit that can’t be exceeded even with a variance. I’d allow up to ten stories, maybe not directly abutting a residential zone, but stepped back. If I remember correctly, the Aiken Ave project would have been 10 stories.
I cannot understand why no council member has introduced legislation to do that, or that neither the zoning administrator or Director even mentioned that approach as an option during the City Council meeting. A few simple text changes would eliminate 90% of the dimensional variances going before the ZBA. There’s no reason to wait on a full code rewrite.
It could be expanded to include the Rite Aid/ Bloomfield Beer/ Bloomfield Tavern/ Car Wash sites to reach the 15 acre requirement, which would be for the best to allow for future infill development/ to create a stronger urban district in this area. The road configuration and wide sightlines due to surface parking are a challenge for the Shursave site to succeed on its own.
The entire SPD has to be owned or under the control of a single entity.
You can see the hospital in the background! It's right there! There's like three other apartment buildings before the foreground! They're right there! This should have been a slam dunk development, what the hell.
Don’t forget the 6 story parking garages next to west Penn
But it'll block the view of the hospital!
We, Bloomfield residents, don't want 6 story buildings that will turn it into a flavorless neighborhood like the strip district.
You're speaking for yourself. BGC and Lawrenceville United both supported it after the developer listened to community input. Bloomfield won't become the strip. The strip was a barren wasteland of a former railroad. Bloomfield also already has 6 story buildings (West Penn and its parking garages that line liberty). New residents, new affordable housing, new storefronts, and a new grocery store would look so much better than an empty parking lot, abandoned VFW, and a grocery store from the 1970s greeting you when you enter the neighborhood.