►
From YouTube: Pittsburgh City Council Public Hearing - 12/14/21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
All
right,
no,
I
mean,
I
think
you
even
have
to
that's
fine
all
right.
Our
first
order
of
business
will
be
an
introduction
presentation
by
kate,
ruckus,
corey,
lehmann
and
possibly
director
dash
from
the
city's
department
of
city
planning
so
followed.
So
I'll.
Following
that
we'll
have
testimony
by.
We
have
two
registered
speakers.
I
see
all
right,
rory
or
kate,
either
way
either.
One
of
you
want
to
kick
it
off.
C
C
Good,
we
got
the
blue
down
so
yeah,
I'm
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
director
dash
in
the
department
of
city
planning,
I'm
corey
lehmann,
I'm
the
city's
zoning
administrator
and
an
assistant
director
in
the
department
of
city
planning
joined
by
my
colleague,
kate
rakes.
We
have
three
bills
that
the
clerk
read
in
today.
If
it's
okay
with
you,
we'll
present
them
sort
of
all
at
once,
and
unless
you'd
prefer
to
have
individual
items.
A
No,
that's
fine,
why
don't
you
just
go
right
through
the
mall,
because
I
I
don't
have
them,
I
would
say
we
could
do
them
in
order
and
then
split
up
those
speakers.
But
we
only
have
two
speakers.
So
let's
go
through
all
of
all
of
them.
C
Okay,
thank
you
and
we
have
a
powerpoint
presentation.
I
believe
that
we
sent
ahead
is
it?
Is
that
something
we
we
could
also
share,
and
I
think
from
our
screens,
if
that's
easier,.
A
Whatever
you'd
like,
I
think,
feel
that
they
have
capability
of
doing
powerpoint.
They
just
share
your
screen.
C
All
right,
thank
you,
kate!
Thank
you,
council
members
and
thanks
everyone.
This
is
the
first
of
the
three
bills
that
we
have
today.
These
are
before
I
go
into
this
specific
bill.
I'll
just
say
these.
These
three
bills
all
address
some
challenges
that
we've
had
in
the
code
that
we
identified
over.
You
know
over
a
period
of
time,
working
with
the
zoning
code.
C
The
first
bill
is
addressing
is
actually
the
second
time
that
we've
done
amendments
to
the
code.
After
doing
some
research
into
the
case,
history,
compiling
data
from
our
zoning
board
cases
and
utilizing
that
data
to
identify
cases
that
come
to
the
zoning
board
and
are
approved
more
often
than
not.
So
these
are
cases
that
you'll
see
in
the
presentation
have
a
a
relatively
high
approval
rate
by
the
zoning
board.
They
are
not
terribly
controversial
when
they
come
to
the
board.
C
You
know
variances
are
a
type
of
exception,
that
the
board
is
able
to
grant
an
exception
to
the
rules
of
the
code,
we're
only
talking
about
dimensional
variances
that
we've
been
looking
at,
which
have
to
do
with
structures
and
uses
within
setbacks,
typically,
and
in
particular,
in
this
case,
we
we
identified
that
there
are.
There
were
some
tweaks
that
we
could
make
to
our
rules
around
fences,
parking
and
decks.
C
That
would
make
things
more
efficient
for
the
zoning
board
by
taking
some
of
the
case
load
away,
which
would
mean
that
more
significant
cases
wouldn't
have
to
wait
as
long
to
have
you
know
their
public
hearing
also
the
it
means
that
customers
who
have
these
applications
again.
C
You
know
this
could
be
a
resident
of
the
city
who
just
wants
to
install
a
new
fence
if
they
got
caught
up
in
something
that
requires
a
variance
that
could
add
several
months
and
additional
costs
to
their
normal
timeline,
for
review
of
something
simple
like
a
fence
or
a
deck,
and
so
this
can
save
money
and
time
for
our
residents,
who
are
doing
relatively
small
work
within
the
city,
and
so
this
particular
bill
is
just
an
effort
to
respond
to
the
data
that
we
have
and
to
make
our
our
process
more
efficient.
C
The
the
second
one
is
a
response
to
is:
is
more
policy
oriented,
it's
a
something
that
we
worked
with
the
mayor's
office
on
and
with
a
number
of
community
organizations
who
expressed
concerns
about
the
sort
of
that
there
have
been
a
lot
of
drive-throughs
drive-through
uses
banks
and
pharmacies
and
drive-through
restaurants.
Creating
you
know
starting
to
be
proposed
in
our
small
sort
of
intimate
neighborhood
business
districts,
and
we
wanted
to
revisit
those
requirements.
C
Look
at
where
a
purely
vehicle-oriented
use
like
a
drive-through
could
be
permitted
in
the
city
and
make
some
make
some
changes
around
dry
fears
and
then
the
final
one
is
in
response
to
changes
that
we
made
with
the
new
permitting
system
that
was
implemented
a
little
bit
before
the
pandemic,
but
the
pandemic
sort
of
set
us
back
in
the
process
of
having
some
of
the
languages
within
the
code
catch
up
to
some
of
the
new
terminology
and
process
within
the
new
permitting
system.
C
So
this
is
largely
cleaning
up
some
language
in
the
code,
not
a
very
policy
oriented
piece
of
legislation,
but
I'll
cover
the
details
of
that
when
we
go
through
the
presentation.
So
kate,
if
you
don't
mind
okay,
so
this
amendment
will
revise
the
standards
for
the
fences,
decks,
residential
parking,
pads
and
garages
with
fewer
than
four
spaces.
C
The
goal
of
the
study
was
to
identify
variances
and
special
exception
requests
that
are
often
approved
universally
by
the
board,
and
the
amendments
like,
as
I
said,
would
reduce
the
case
load
coming
to
the
zoning
board
next
slide.
C
So
looking
at
fences
first
in
the
time
period
that
we
looked
at,
there
are
over
100
requests
for
fences
and
84
of
those
fence.
C
Requests
were
approved,
but
all
of
the
ones
that
were
denied
were
for
a
a
typology
of
privacy
fence
or
usually
a
solid
six
foot,
high
fence
in
the
front
yard,
or
an
exterior
yard
in
residential
districts,
and
so
we
decided
to
address
the
84
percent,
not
the
17
that
are
that
were
denied
or
the
sorry,
the
84
cases,
and
not
the
17
that
were
denied
next
slide.
C
So,
looking
at
the
code,
the
prior
language
in
the
code
was
within
a
section
called
features
allowed
within
the
setbacks.
This
is
the
way
that
fences
are
managed
today.
It
is
frankly
confusing
there's
a
standard
for
six
and
a
half
feet
in
height
for
privacy,
fences
which
is
confusing
to
folks,
because
the
standard
for
requiring
a
building
permit
is
up
to
six
feet.
So,
there's
a
inconsistency
with
the
zoning
requirements
and
the
building
code
requirements
and
uses
some.
C
C
But
as
part
of
this
sort
of
code
cleanup,
we
decided
to
move
the
fence
requirements
into
chapter
912,
which
is
the
accessory
structure
and
use
chapter
of
the
zoning
code
and
appropriately
these
fit
in
in
the
accessory
use
chapter
because
they
are
accessory,
uses
next
slide.
C
So
our
new
proposed
fence
standards
are
going
to
have
a
similar
structure,
and
but
it's
going
to
be
more
consistent
with
how
our
code
is
currently
written.
C
So
in
chapter
912
we
would
say,
fences,
walls,
etc,
are
permitted
in
all
districts
and
shall
be
subject
to
the
materials
and
methods
and
opacity
standards
that
are
in
section
918.03
point
b,
0.1,
which
is
the
section
of
the
code
regarding
a
screening,
and
so
that
actually
has
a
much
much
more
clear
and
much
more
helpful
written
description
of
what
expectations
are
around
materials
and
for
for
screening
for
fences
and
walls
and
landscaping,
and
so
the
standards
that
we
are
adopting
similar
to
what
we
have
today
in
front
and
side
yards
when
a
fence
extends
closer
to
a
street
than
the
primary
structure.
C
Only
open
and
ornamental
fences
are
permitted
and
they're
limited
to
four
feet
in
height
and
then
in
all
other
instances,
fences
walls
and
similar
features
are
permitted
within
required.
Setbacks
of
a
height
within
required
setbacks
to
a
height
of
six
feet,
and
they
can
be
opaque.
The
six
foot
height.
It
is
a
reduction
from
our
current
standard
from
six
and
a
half
feet.
However,
we
are
then
adding
number
three
which
allows
for
minor
adjustments
as
an
administrator's
exception.
C
From
what
is
permitted
in
the
standards
above
and
that
the
exception
doesn't
have
a
detrimental
impact
on
adjacent
and
impacted
properties
or
streets,
so
we
will
be
taking
a
look
in
those
cases
where
someone
is
requesting,
perhaps
instead
of
a
four
foot,
high
fence,
requesting
a
five
foot
high
fence
or
instead
of
a
six
foot
high
fence
they're,
asking
for
an
exception
to
have
a
seven
foot
on
fence.
We're
going
to
be
looking
at
the
context.
We
may
ask
them
to
provide
letters
from
the
impacted
neighbor.
C
We
may
be
looking
at
and
consulting
with
our
colleagues
at
to
make
sure
that
there
isn't
a
traffic
impact
from
a
taller
fence
at
an
intersection
or
something
like
that,
and
then
the
final
standards
just
really
quickly
in
the
general
industrial
zoning
district
fences
up
to
six
feet
are
permitted
in
all
yards
front
or
side
up
to
six
feet
tall
and
then
in
the
river
district
riverfront
zoning
district.
We
actually
went
through
and
and
created
some
special
standards
regarding
fences
and
walls
that
relate
and
are
unique
to
the
riv
district.
C
So
we
just
made
sure
to
preserve
those
standards
and
then,
of
course,
number
six
barbed
wire
and
edge
wire,
as
have
been
before,
are
not
permitted
in
any
district.
Okay
next
slide,
so
we
have
some
simple
graphics
here
to
to
sort
of
show
the
difference
between
what
may
have
been
permitted
under
the
current
code
and
what
is
now
permitted
in
the
new
code.
C
I
think
the
easiest
thing
to
sort
of
show
you
and
take
away
is-
and
these
are
not
to
scale
they're
just
illustration,
the
what
you're
seeing
on
the
left
hand
side
is,
if
there's
a
setback,
let's
say
it's
a
corner
lot,
there's
a
there's:
a
setback
of
15
feet,
15
feet
from
that
street
side
yard
you're
not
allowed
to
start
your
fence
until
15
feet
all
the
way
back
and
that
may
be
in
a
really
awkward
place
sort
of
beyond
where
the
existing
home
is,
and
so
you're
allowed
to
have
a
four
foot
fence
up
to
sort
of
anywhere
on
your
property.
C
But,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
right
hand,
side,
we've
now
said:
okay,
your
privacy
fence
can
go
all
the
way
up
to
you
know
as
close,
it
can
go
as
close
to
the
street,
as
your
house
goes,
the
same
thing
with
in
the
front
set
back.
C
C
We
have
additional
and
different
standards
when
we
get
into
larger
parking
lots
since
2017
the
board
had
115
requests
to
allow
residential
parking,
pads
and
garages
of
this
scale
that
didn't
comply
with
the
current
setback,
standards
for
accessory
structures,
80
of
those
requests
for
the
parking
pads
have
been
approved
by
the
board
of
those
that
were
denied
most
of
them,
10
of
14
were
parking
pads
that
were
located
in
the
front
yard.
I
want
to
be
really
clear,
because
this
is
sort
of
a
long-standing
standard
in
the
city.
C
We
are
not
permitting
we're,
not
changing
anything
to
allow
parking
in
front
yards
under
this
new
amendment,
and
so
the
other
requests
95
of
the
ones
for
garages
had
been
approved
as
well,
and
so
again
we
sort
of
didn't
touch
the
ones
where
they
were
sort
of
universally
denied,
which
is
the
front
yard
parking,
but
we
work
to
make
efficiencies
in
the
code
for
the
other
cases.
So
if
we
could
go
to
the
next
slide,.
C
So
the
current
standards
for
parking
for
garages
or
parking
pads,
which
is
just
a
place
to
park
a
parking
space,
they
are
the
same
standards
that
are
that
all
accessory
uses
and
structures
are
are
required
to
use,
which
is
that
accessory
structures
are
to
comply
with
the
front
setback.
C
C
Most
often,
what
we
have
here
in
where
the
variants
variance
variances
occurred
are
cases
where
the
garage
is
located
in
the
rear
or
the
parking
pan
is
located
in
the
rear,
but
was
within
a
side
setback
also
in
that
rear
yard.
So
the
illustrations
on
the
next
slide
should
be
helpful.
C
Except
that's
not
on
the
next
slide
on
the
next
slide
from
this
one,
and
then
our
new
standards
allow
that
parking
for
parking
pads
for
four
spaces
or
garages
that
don't
comply
with
the
setback.
Standards
for
accessory
uses
and
structures
can
be
approved,
subject
to
the
standards
below
they
can
be
in
the
side
and
rear
yard
setbacks.
C
So
it's
still
not
in
the
front
yard,
and
they
can
also
be
on
street
side
yards,
but
they
can't
be
closer
to
the
street
than
the
primary
structure
and
that's
the
same
concept
that
we
were
looking
at
with
the
privacy
fences
and
then
in
front
yards
parking.
Pads
and
garages
shall
be
set
back
five
feet
from
the
primary
structure
so
behind
the
front
of
the
house
and
then
additional
standards.
C
Sometimes
when
folks
in
stone
park,
pads
and
garages,
there
are
challenges
with
stormwater
runoff
and
so
we're
making
making
sure
that
there's
a
standard
addressing
the
stormwater
runoff
that
we
would
include
in
our
plan
review
and
then
the
additional
standard
working
with
our
colleagues
at
the
department
of
mobility
and
infrastructure.
C
There
is
a
concern.
Sometimes,
when
you
have
tight
parking
areas,
that
cars
would
begin
to
creep
out
into
the
right
of
way
blocking
the
sidewalk
or
even
getting
into
the
street
cartway,
and
so
we
have
standards
to
make
sure
that
the
minimum
absolute
minimum
standard
or
minimum
size
for
a
parkinson
in
the
city
would
be
that
same
standard
that
we
have
in
larger
park
parking
lots
for
compact
sized
parking
stalls
and
that
they
are
not
encroach
on
their
right
away
or
neighboring
properties.
C
C
C
But
the
zoning
board
wanted
to
be
clear
that
a
detached
garage
or
a
parking
pad
would
still
be
set
back
from
the
front
of
the
house
a
little
bit
so
that
it
provides
that
that
sort
of
break
from
the
front
of
the
home
and
maintains
the
the
context
of
the
front
and
the
rhythm
of
the
front
yards
facing
the
street
next
slide.
C
Okay
and
then,
finally,
looking
at
decks
and
porches
again
over
108
or
over
100
requests,
108
exactly
since
2017
for
decks
and
porches
that
didn't
meet
the
code's.
Existing
standards
for
accessory
structures
and
exemptions
for
porches
and
of
those
94
were
granted
by
the
zoning
board
and
so
going
to
the
next
slide.
C
I'm
not
going
to
get
too
far
into
the
weeds
on
what
the
code
had
required
there.
There
is
sort
of
a
standard
front,
porch
and
rear
porch
exception
for
sort
of
a
buy
right,
typical
city
front,
porch
or
rear
porch,
which
is
not
more
than
9
feet
deep
and
then
there
are
also
the
standards,
as
I
mentioned
before,
for
accessory
structures.
C
But,
as
you
saw,
we
still
had
over
a
hundred
cases
just
over
a
few
years,
come
in
through
through
the
zoning
board,
so
the
exemptions
that
we
already
had
weren't
doing
enough.
So
next
slide.
C
So
the
news-
oh
I'm
sorry,
these
are
the
this-
is
the
new
standard,
so
using
an
administrator's
exception
that
is
already
on
the
on
in
the
code
in
section
925.06
point
g
0.2:
this
is
a
a
group
where
we
have
a
lot
of
exceptions,
have
that
same
standard
about
not
being
closer
to
the
street
or
a
neighboring
property
than
the
building
line
of
the
existing
primary
structure,
and
this
is
for
actually
in
the
last
round
of
research
that
we
did
on
the
zoning
board.
C
We
made
this
change
for
hvac
units
and
we're
making
the
same
change
for
dex
that,
as
an
administrator's
exception,
you
are
able
to
locate
the
locate
the
purchase
index
within
the
setback.
So
next
slide.
C
So
this
one
we've
got
three
colors,
it's
a
little
bit
more
confusing,
but,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
left
hand,
side
there's
a
lot
of
red
where
decks
and
porches
were
not
permitted
again.
This
is
not
to
scale.
This
is
a
bit
of
an
exaggerated
plan,
but
now
you
can
see
this
the
area
that's
permitted
by
right
for
decks
and
porches
doesn't
change,
but
the
area
where
an
administrator's
exception
might
allow
a
deck
and
a
porch
is,
is
opened
up
to
really
all
of
the
property.
C
Now
that
comes
into
play
as
we
found
with
decks
and
porches
that
there
really
are
a
lot
of
sort
of
unique
examples,
unique
scenarios
where
folks
are
looking
for
decks
and
porches
that
that
just
can't
comply
with
either
the
administrator's
exceptions
that
we
had
or
the
setback
standards
that
we
had
and
the
zoning
board
was
finding
that
these
applications
weren't
in
any
way
detrimental.
There
wasn't.
You
know
it
really
wasn't
a
concern
from
adjacent
neighbors.
C
However,
using
the
administrators
exception
program
that
we
have
for
this
type
of
structure,
we
would
require
a
letter
from
that.
We
would
require
the
applicant
to
to
reach
out
to
the
neighbor,
that's
impacted,
so
if
they
were
expanding
the
deck
into
the
left
hand
side
or
into
the
you
know,
I
would
say
into
the
rear
a
little
bit
further.
C
We
would
have
in
this
scenario.
We
would
have
them
contact
that
neighbor
show
them
their
plans,
get
a
letter
from
the
neighbor
acknowledging
that
they've
seen
the
plans
and
that
they
don't
have
any
significant
concerns,
and
in
that
case,
assuming
that
it
meets
the
other
standards,
we
would
move
forward
with
that
administrator's
exception.
Typically,
when
we
don't
receive
a
letter
or
if
the
neighbors
reach
out
to
us
with
concerns,
then
we'll
look
at
the
case
a
lot
more
closely.
We
may
choose
just
to
send
it
to
the
zoning
board.
C
We
may
I
may
determine
that,
there's
a
more
of
a
detrimental
impact,
a
lot
of
times,
usually
with
decks
and
porches.
That
can
tend
to
be
because
of
grade
changes,
and
you
know
impact
on
the
close
proximity
to
in
some
of
our
tighter
lot
areas,
areas
with
like
row,
homes
things
can
get
a
little
bit
tight.
So,
if
you're
building
out
a
deck
on
the
entire
backyard,
sometimes
that
could
cause
some
problems
all
right
next
slide.
C
Okay
and
then,
as
a
part
of
this
particular
build
because
we
were
working
in
this
section
925,
we
added
a
couple
things
that
are
features
that
are
allowed
within
setbacks
that
had
been
more
or
less
permitted
under
sort
of
a
more
broad
category,
but
we
just
wanted
to
be
explicit.
So
there
wasn't
any
question:
one
is
solar
energy
and
small
wind
energy
systems
on
rooftops.
C
C
But
in
this
case
we
just
wanted
to
be
explicit
that
this
was
permitted
and
then
the
the
other
one
is
the
code.
Hadn't
stated
explicitly
that,
let's
say
perhaps
your
birdbath
or
your
garden
gnome
is
within
a
setback,
while
we've
never
required
anyone
to
submit
a
plan
or
get
a
permit
for
their
garden
gnome.
C
We
just
wanted
to
be
sure
that
it
was
clear
in
the
code
that
that's
not
something
that
we're
interested
in
regulating
all
right
next
slide
and
finally,
one
more
code
cleanup,
it's
been
a
while
now
we
actually
came
through
in
a
different
part
of
the
of
chapter
914
and
introduced
a
number
of
standards
and
standards
and
exceptions
related
to
bicycle
parking,
but
there
had
been
a
special
exception
regarding
bicycle
parking
that
wasn't
deleted.
C
At
that
time,
it
really
became
redundant
hasn't
really
been
used,
since
because
there
is
a
more
lenient,
there
is
a
standard
and
then
there's
a
more
lenient
exception
for
related
to
bicycle
parking.
So
this
is
just
cleaning
up
something
that
we
probably
should
have
done
at
that
time,
and
I
think
that's
the
end
of
this
bill's
presentation
is
that
right,
it
is
okay,
so
the
next
bill
council
bill
2096
of
2021.
C
C
So
currently,
in
the
zoning
code,
there
are
four
use
types
for
restaurants:
there
is
restaurant,
fast,
food,
limited
restaurant,
fast,
food
general
and
then
there's
restaurant
limited
and
restaurant
general.
C
That
has
caused
some
problems
over
the
years,
because
restaurant
fast
food
definition
can
overlap
with
a
lot
of
things
that
we
typically
think
of
as
restaurants
and
the
re.
The
restaurant
definition
that
was
in
the
code
basically
had
us
regulating
or
defining
a
restaurant
by
the
type
of
plate
ware
that
was
used
and
that's
not
really
efficient
and
relevant
to
how
restaurants
operate
today.
C
These
are
restaurants
with
the
drive-through
typically
they're
chain,
restaurants,
and
they
are
defining
them
based
on
having
a
drive-through
window
and
and
then
the
really
everything
else
and
in
our
code
that's
serving
food
and
drink
food
or
drink
is,
is
considered
a
restaurant
and
we
have
the
the
same.
Two
categories
of
restaurant
restaurant
limited
is
less
than
2
400
square
feet.
C
It
doesn't
have
live
music
or
entertainment,
and
restaurant
general
is
greater
and
or
with
live
music
next
one,
okay,
so
restaurant
fast
food
with
a
separate
curb
cut,
is
currently
permitted
in
the
urban
neighborhood
commercial,
the
urban
industrial,
the
general
industrial,
the
highway
commercial
and
the
riverfront
industrial
mixed
use
district
and
under
the
new
zoning,
under
the
news,
new
zoning
that
we're
proposing
it
would
just
be
limited
to
the
highway
commercial
district,
where
it's
permitted
by
wright
and
the
general
industrial
district,
where
it
would
be
a
special
exception.
C
So
before
it
was
a
special
exception
under
certain
districts,
the
way
that
it
was
constructed
in
the
code
was
a
little
bit
vague
and
had
caused
both
reviewers
and
applicants.
Some
some
challenges
caused
some
trouble
in
terms
of
how
the
code
was
constructed.
C
This
this
amendment
very
much
cleans
that
up
and
simplifies,
and
it
does
reduce
the
areas
within
the
city,
really
permits
these
fast
food
restaurants
in
areas
where
the
the
generally
the
fabric
is
vehicle-oriented.
This
isn't
an
area
where
people
are
walking
from
their
homes
to
a
restaurant
or
a
business,
and
these
are
areas
where,
because
everything
is
vehicle
oriented
we're,
not
concerned
as
much
with
impacts
and
conflicts
with
a
heavy
pedestrian
and
multimodal
environment
so
and
then
changes
to
restaurant
limited
in
general.
C
We
are
making
absolutely
no
changes
to
where
restaurant
restaurants
are
located
in
the
city,
so
only
changing
where
the
drive-thru
restaurants
are,
and
that
was
really
the
intent
of
this
bill
next
one.
C
C
And
it
would
require
the
applicant
to
implement
any
recommendations
that
are
needed
to
reduce
detrimental
impacts
of
the
drive-throughs
and
then
all
other
drive-through
uses.
So
this
is
typically
drive
through
pharmacies
and
drive
through
banks
have
the
the
same
standards
as
the
drive
through
restaurants,
so
limited
to
the
same
two
zoning
districts,
the
urban,
sorry,
the
general
industrial
and
the
highway
commercial
districts.
C
And
then
we
amended
the
parking
requirements
for
restaurant
uses.
C
We
did
a
study
of
comparable
cities
parking
for
a
restaurant
and
found
that
ours
were
significantly
more
required,
significantly
more
parking
than
a
lot
of
our
peer
cities,
and
so
we're
changing
restaurant
fast
food
to
be
a
minimum
of
one
space
per
500
square
feet
and
a
maximum
of
one
per
175
square
feet
and
restaurants
would
be
one
parking
space
per
500
square
feet
after
the
first
2400
square
feet
and
that's
a
common
standard
within
our
code.
Next
slide.
C
The
record
is
okay,
so
that
concludes
the
the
zoning
code.
The
council
bill
regarding
drive-throughs
and
finally,
this
one
will
be
the
shortest
presentation.
This
is
council
bill
2096
of
2021.
This
is
the
record
of
zoning
approval
change
in
the
code
text.
Next
slide
record
of
zoning
approval
is
a
or
rosa
is
a
terminology.
C
Instead
of
sharing
a
building
permit
with
pli,
we
have
what's
called
the
zoning
and
development
review
permit,
which
is
the
the
sort
of
parallel
equivalent
of
a
building
permit
for
your
zoning
and
planning
review
that
at
the
end
of
that
process,
you,
you
know
you
apply
for
a
certain
scope
of
work
and
then,
when
everything
has
been
reviewed
and
if
it
is
approved,
you're
issued,
what's
called
a
record
of
zoning
approval,
which
is
sort
of
the
official
document
from
the
city
that
states
that
your
review
is
approved
and
record
of
zoning
approval.
C
Wasn't
a
terminology
that
was
in
the
zoning
code
when
we
initially
started
using
the
new
permitting
system,
but
it
was
a
document
type
that
we
needed,
and
so
this
build
certainly
just
sort
of
defines
what
that
is
inserts,
that
into
the
code
and
sort
of
cleans
up
where
that's
required
and
where
it
isn't
and
then
a
couple
other
sort
of
missing
pieces.
C
In
the
zoning
code
that
we
addressed
with
this
bill,
we
added
a
definition
or
description
of
a
completed
application
that
often
comes
up
when
we
have
pending
legislation
where
somebody's
interested
in
making
sure
that
they
have
an
application.
C
A
complete
application
in-
and
this
sort
of
starts,
that
timeline
that
we
would
compare
against
when
new
ordinances
are
enacted
or
introduced,
and
so
having
a
definition
of
a
completed.
Application
is
a
really
critical
piece
of
the
code
that
we
didn't
have,
and
then
we
added
another
piece
that
was
missing
in
the
code.
We
have
expiration
dates.
C
You
know,
basically,
you
know
for
zoning
board
decision
or
for
issuance
of
a
permit
those
decisions
or
determinations
expire,
and
you
can
request
an
extension,
but
we
didn't
have
a
similar
expiration
date
for
planning
commission
project
development
plan
approvals,
and
so
this
fills
in
that
blank
and
then
there
were
some
other
technical
corrections
to
the
language
of
the
code,
such
as
changing
the
name
of
bureau,
of
building
inspections
to
department
of
permits,
licenses
and
inspections.
C
D
A
Thank
you,
corey
and
also
thank
you,
kate,
regis.
I
will
now
move
this
to
testimony
from
registered
speakers,
and
I
see
two
so
please
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
public
record.
Each
speaker
will
have
three
minutes
to
address
counsel
all
right.
So
our
first
speaker
is
emily
persica.
A
E
Perfect,
okay,
so
good
afternoon,
everyone,
my
name,
is
emily
persico,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
lawrenceville
corporation
today,
I'm
the
organization's
community
development
manager
we're
located
at
143rd
street,
and
we
are
a
community
driven
on
profit,
with
a
mission
to
serve
as
a
catalyst
and
conduit
for
responsible
and
sustainable
growth
in
lawrenceville.
E
First,
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
we
at
lawrenceville
corporation
sincerely
appreciate
the
leadership
of
city
planning
for
doing
this
research
and
identifying
best
practices.
We
were
happy
to
see
it
recommended
by
the
planning
commissioner,
here
today
to
speak
in
support
of
the
proposed
legislation
and
I'm
speaking
specifically
about
the
drive-through
and
parking
bill.
E
So
misguided
urban
policy
has
led
to
the
creation
of
highways
roads
and
empty
parking
lots
that
have
ripped
through
our
neighborhoods
and
business
district
privileging.
Those
with
access
to
vehicles,
incentivizing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
air
pollution
and
tearing
our
urban
fabric
at
scene
seems,
as
our
urban
policy
is
informed
by
new
understandings
and
priorities.
This
and
future
amendments
decreasing
reliance
on
single
occupancy
vehicles
are
necessary
to
ensure
sustainable
and
equitable
development.
E
We
realize
that
this
bill
alone
is
not
enough
to
fully
modernize
pittsburgh's
parking
requirements.
In
the
long
run.
We
urge
the
city
to
complete
a
comprehensive
analysis
and
reduction
of
parking
requirements
across
all
uses,
but
for
now
we
know
that
this
change
will
provide
immediate
relief
for
new
businesses
and
improve
the
urban
form
under
the
current
code.
Small
businesses
already
struggling
with
multiple
pressures
of
labor
shortages,
the
increased
presence
of
online
purchasing
and
a
new
wave
of
copic
19
face
the
undue
burden
of
providing
and
thus
incentivizing
unnecessary
levels
of
private
parking.
E
This
amendment
reduces
that
burden
and
improves
the
urban
form
and
brings
pittsburgh's
restaurants
parking
requirements
closer
to
that
of
comparable
cities.
Further,
this
amendment
is
in
line
with
existing
lawrenceville
restaurant
uses,
many
of
which
have
sought
and
received
special
exemptions
and
variances
for
parking
relief.
This
non-compliance
with
our
outdated
zoning
laws
is
part
of
the
reason
that
butler
street
business
districts
remain
so
walkable
and
vibrant.
E
Our
community
has
repeatedly
stood
for
interventions
that
improve
pedestrian
experience
and
safety
and
provide
a
more
balanced
approach
to
mobility
planning,
and
we
stand
together
to
support
this
intervention
as
well.
We
applaud
the
work
of
city
planning
and
we
urge
council
to
pass
this
amendment.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
F
Hi
there,
my
name
is
sam
spearing,
I'm
speaking
today
as
the
housing
and
mobility
coordinator
for
bloomfield
development
corporation
and
also
as
a
resident
of
bloomfield
at
111
pearl
street
bloomfield
development
corporation
is
fully
in
support
of
the
zoning
code.
Amendments
contained
in
council
bill,
2021,
2095
related
to
drive-through
and
restaurant
uses.
F
F
Just
this
year,
we've
reviewed
projects
that
add
additional
drive
through
uses
in
the
unc
zone
along
palm
and
center
along
roads
like
baum
boulevard.
That
already
see
speeds
well
in
excess
of
the
posted
speed
limit,
adding
drive-throughs,
further
degrades
safety
for
vulnerable
street
users
and
creates
additional
conflict
points.
Limiting
limiting
drive
through
uses
in
unc
districts
will
help
to
create
development
that
serves
the
needs
of
all
road
users.
F
Reducing
the
parking
minimum
for
restaurant
uses
is
also
a
change
that
we
welcome.
We
know
from
parking
data
from
the
western
pennsylvania
regional
data
center
that
our
on-state
parking
in
bloomfield
is
not
fully
utilized,
as
is
the
average
utilization,
was
roughly
72
percent
pre-covet
and
has
dropped
even
more
since
then,
requiring
unnecessary
parking
only
serves
to
prioritize
cars
and
incentivize
driving
over
other
transportation
options.
For
the
reasons
I've
outlined
we're
in
support
of
the
proposed
zoning
changes
in
council
belt
2021-2095.
A
I
don't
see
any
members
online.
I
did
have
well.
First,
we've
exhausted
our
speakers
online.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
that
would
like
to
make
comment?
Okay,
so
corey?
I
don't
want
to
labor
this.
I
just
I
just
want
to
go
straight
to
the
visual
that
you
have
for
each
of
these,
so
where
it
has
the
now
and
proposed.
A
C
Absolutely
I'm
sure
that
kate
is
feverishly
pulling
that
up.
Thank
you,
but.
C
So
fences
the
so
you
can
see
where
it
says
four
foot
allowed
and.
D
C
And
a
half
foot
allowed,
so
the
the
standard
for
fences
in
the
city
is
that
in
a
within
a
setback,
you
can
have
a
fence,
that's
up
to
four
feet:
tall,
that's
open
and
ornamental,
and
that's
how
it's
written.
C
We
propose
to
change
that
instead
of
having
it
related
to
setbacks,
which
not
every
zoning
district
has
setbacks
in
the
same
the
same
kind
of
way,
so
it
created
a
sometimes
confusing
and
sometimes
even
created
a
loophole
where
there
weren't
any
standards
for
fences
or
walls.
So
in
theory
somebody
could
have
a
10
or
20
foot
wall.
C
We
sort
of
took
it
out
of
the
realm
of
setbacks
and
and
just
created
a
simple
standard
fences
can
be
as
clo.
You
know
they
can
be
four
foot
and
open
anywhere
on
the
property,
but
once
you
are
okay.
A
I
just
wanna
okay,
so
go
on.
You
know
you
can
get
six
foot
right
off
the
bat
right
next
to
your
house
down
the
side
of
it.
So
it
was
four
foot
allowed.
Oh
okay,
so
I
guess
wilson,
which
is
my
last
name:
wilson's
gotta,
be
you
gotta,
be
a
little
bit
taller
now
to
see
over
the
fence
the
dual
main,
and
then
you
can
go
the
same
thing
with
on
the
front.
So
you
can
come
all
the
way
up
in
the
front
six
foot,
long!
Okay,
that
makes
sense.
A
C
The
red
is
where
parking
for
parking
pads
and
garages
aren't
permitted,
and
this
is
just
one
example,
so
this
is
a
corner
lot
that
has
a
larger
setback
from
the
street
than
it
does
on
the
interior
side.
I.
A
Forgot
to
ask
on
the
on
the
fence
one,
so
you
don't
have
to
get
a
variance
or
any
sort
of
special
permission
to
do.
Six
foot
right
up
on
outside
of
your
house,
then.
C
That's
right,
the
only
the
only
little
difference
there
is
that,
at
the
request
of
the
planning
commission,
we
held
back
an
additional
five
feet
from
the
front
of
the
house
just
to.
C
C
Any
permitted
any
existing
garage
or
parking
pad,
and
really
any
of
the
things
that
we're
talking
about
this
would
only
apply
to
new
development,
anything
that
was
legally
permitted
under
the
prior
code
if
they
got
a
variance
or
if
it
was
permitted
by
right.
We
wouldn't
that's
effectively
grandfathered
in.
C
Right
now,
you
would
need
a
variance
to
do
a
deck
in
the
red
there's
a
little
bit
of
yellow
in
the
current
example,
where
you
know,
if
it's
within
the
footprint
of
the
home
sort
of
not
closer
to
the
street,
the
same
sort
of
standard
we
were
talking
about
what
the
fence
is,
that
you
could
get
an
administrator's
exception.
C
Now,
we've
basically
opened
it
up
to
the
entire
property,
except
that
you
need
to
comply.
You
need
to
request
an
administrator's
exception,
so.
A
C
Yeah,
that's
not
mandated
in
the
code,
there's
not
a
standard
in
the
code
that
says
that
you
have
to
have
a
letter,
but
it's
a
practice
that
we've
had
for
decades
really
and
it's
just
a
good
practice
to
you
know.
First
of
all,
it
gets
neighbors
talking
to
each
other,
which
often
helps
to
avoid
appeals
and
zoning
board
battles,
and
you
know
that
kind
of
thing,
and
but
it
also
helps
us
identify
when
there
are.
If
somebody
is
proposing
something
that
is
a
concern.
C
It
helps
us
identify
those
cases
and
to
really
scrutinize
those
a
lot
more.
That.
C
If
the
neighbors
hate
each
other
and
they
the
neighbor,
comes
back
and
says
well,
I
went
to
get
a
letter
I
baked
them
cookies
and
but
they
hate
me
and
they
didn't
eat
my
cookies
and
they
won't
give
me
a
letter.
You
know
because
I
ran
over
their
cat
or
something
like
that.
You
know
I
in
the
cases
like
that,
I'm
gonna
look
at
the
actual
case
of
well.
What
is
it
that
they're
proposing
is?
Is
there
something
you
know?
C
Is
there
an
issue
with
the
decker,
or
is
this
just
you
know
bad
blood
between
two
neighbors
and
and
I'll.
You
know
really,
I'm
looking
for.
Is
there
something
detrimental
about
this
application?
Would
it
impact
like
significantly
impact
the
property
values?
Would
it
you
know?
Is
it
potentially
encroaching
onto
somebody
else's
property
or
something
like
that,
so
I'm
going
to
be
looking
for
those
kinds
of
really
extreme
cases.
I
I
personally
wouldn't
want
to
get
caught
up
in
in
between.
A
C
And
then
it,
and
if
I
denied
the
administrator's
exception,
then
they
would
need
to
go
to
the
zoning
board.
And
then
you
know
that
in
that
case
there
would
be
a
public
hearing
at
the
board.
A
C
A
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
thank
you
thanks
to
our
speakers-
and
I
think
I
can
just
do
this
on
my
own-
all
right
motion
to
adjourn.