IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. PENNLEY PARK SOUTH, INC CIVIL DIVISION Appellant,’ No. Goii7'— 4920 vs. CITY OF PITTSBURGH PLANNING \COMPLAINT IN MANDAMUS COMMISSION ; 'PILED ON BEHALF OF: “Appellee. }PENNLEY PARK SOUTH, INC: COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR THIS |PARTY: |JONATHAN M. KAMIN, ESQUIRE ‘jonathank@ekgattomneys.com IPA LD. NO. 81958 "RYAN M, WOTUS, ESQUIRE sryanw@gkgattorneys.com, PA LD. NO. 307599 DAVID M. DELGRECO ddelgreco@ekgattoms PA LD. NO. 322954 "GOLDBERG, KAMIN & GARVIN, LEP | 1806 FRICK BUILDING 437 GRANT STREET iPITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 281-1119 (412) 281-1121 — Fax and Lia FIL RFERGOL 2017 10:42:20 17-001820IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNLEY PARK SOUTH, INC. CIVIL DIVISION Appellant, NO. GD-17 vs. ' CITY OF PITTSBURGH PLANNING COMMISSION, Appelles. I COMPLAINT IN MANDAMUS AND NOW‘COMES the Appellant, PENNLEY PARK SOUTH, INC., by and through its attorneys, JONATHAN M. KAMIN, ESQUIRE, RYAN M. WOTUS, ESQUIRE, DAVID M. DELGRECO, ESQUIRE, and the law firm of GOLDBERG, KAMIN & GARVIN, LLP, and in accordance with the City of Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter and Local Agency Law, files the following Compliant in Mandamus and in support thereof avers as follows: i THE PARTI 1. Penniey Park South, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “PPS”), is a Pennsylvania corporation. PPS is the fee simple owner of that certain 7.09 +/- acre property located at $600 Penn Avenue, 8" Ward, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15206 (hereinafter sometimes reférted to as “Penn Plaza”), Penn Plaza is also known in the Allegheny County Office of Deed Registry as Block and Lot No. 83-N-125. 2. The City of Pittsburgh (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “City”) is a Second Class City with a business address of 512 City County Building, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15219. The City is a Co-Applicant with PPS, and is the fee simple owner of that certain 2.2 +/- acrel property located at Penn Avenue, 8" Ward, City of Pittsburgh, AlleghenyCounty, Pennsylvatiia 15206 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Enright Park”). Enright Park is also known in the Allegheny County Office of Deed Registry and Block and Lot No. 84-A-176. 3. The City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission (hereinafter sometimes feferred to as “Planning Commission’) is the duly appointed and constituted Planning Commission forthe City, with its main offices located at 200 Ross Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15219. } 4. On October 5, 2015, PPS and the City submitted a joint application to the Zoning Administrator requesting that a hearing be scheduled before the Planning Commission seeking a rezoning of both Penn Plaz |, which was previously zoned as RP, and Enright Park, which was previously zoned ag R3-M, to AP under the City Zoning Code (“Rezoning Request”). 5. In compliance with the City Zoning Code, PPS and the City submitied a Preliminary Land Development Plan (the “PLDP”) to the Zoning Administrator (the Rezoning Request and PLDP|sometimes collectively referred to as the “Application”). A trué and correct copy of the Application is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and is incorporated by reference herein, 6. ‘The Zoning Administrator accepted the Application as complete and the required fee was paid on Octdber 5, 2015. 7. Afier'several meetings, the Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council of the Rezoning Request and approved the PLDP on October 27, 2015 \(hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Approved PLDP”). A true and correct copy of the minutes of this, approval is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and is incorporated by reference herein 8. The Approved PLDP and Rezoning Request were then transmitted to Pittsburgh City Council. After holding the required public hearings and meetings, Pittsburgh City Council approved the rezonifig of Penn Plaza and Enright Park to AP on April 19, 2016 based upon the Approved PLDP (ihe “Legislation”). 9. As pait of the Legislation, Pittsburgh City Council attached various conditions to the development which would govern the development of these properties. ‘The Legislation also required that PPS file an amendment to the Approved PLDP. 1 10, The Mayor of Pittsburgh signed thé Legislation into law on April 22, 2016 (hereinafier sometimes referred to as the “Ordinance”). A true and correct copy of the Ordinance as enacted is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and is incorporated by reference herein. ;11. In cmplying with the conditions of the Ordinance, PPS began to develop an amendment to the Approved PLDP. 12. Fron August 1, 2015 through August 1, 2016, PPS had more than twenty-five (25) meetings with varius community groups, interested parties, and City administrative staff to take input and to gather! information regarding the proposed amendments to the Approved PLDP. 13. On August 2, 2016, PPS submitted its Amendment to the Preliminary Land Development Plan \(hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Amendment to the PLDP”) which complied with all of the Ordinance’s requirements as well as the other requiremenis in the City Zoning Code. | 14. ‘On November 29, 2016, the Planning Commission received the Amendment to the PLDP and a briefing regarding the Amendment to the PLDP. A true and correct copy of the Planning Commission’s November 29, 2016 agenda is attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and is incorporated by reference herein. 15. On December 13, 2016, the Planning Commission voted to table the: Amendment to the PLDP until its January 10, 2017 meeting. 16. On January 10, 2017, the Planning Commission voted, unanimously, to deny the Amendment to the PLDP. 17. Asof February 2, 2017, 184 days after the Amendment to the PLDP was submitted and accepted by the Zoning Administration on behalf of the Planning Commission, no written decision regardingithe Amendment to the PLDP has been issued by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION 18. A mandamus action is the proper remedy used to compel performance of a ministerial act or a thandatory duty. Borough of Plum v, Tresco, 606 A.2d 951, 953 (Pa, Cmwlth. 1992), : 19, In order to succeed in a mandamus action, the Plaintiff must demonstrate a clear legal right, the Defendant has a corresponding duty, and the Plaintiff is without any other appropriate or adequate remedy. Timothy F. Pasch, Inc, v. Springettsbury Twp. Bd. of Sup'rs, 825 A.2d 719, 723 (Pa. Emwith, 2003), 20. The Commonwealth Court has recognized in actions seeking deemed approval, that mandamus is an available, if not the preferred remedy. Appeal of Buchsbaum, 116 Pa. Cmwlth.540 A.2d 1389, 1390 (Pa, Cmwith.1988); See, e.g., Danwell v. Zoning Hearing Board of Plymouth Township, 529 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Cmwith, 1987); Van Wingerden v. Kallatch, 508 A.2d 1295 (Pa. Cmwith. 1986); Bensalem Township v. Weber, 427 A.2d 781 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981); Foltz, Jr. v. Monroeville, 290 A:2d 269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1972). 21. In Buschsbaum, a municipal council's failure to render a decision to applicant within fifteen days ds required by Section 508(1) of the MPC resulted in a deemed approval of the applicant’s preliminary subdivision plan.! 22. The Court further explained that despite the fact that the applicant was present at the council meeting at which the plan was disapproved and was aware of the reasons for the disapproval, the cotincil’s failure to notify appellant timely of its final decision in writing results in a deemed approval of appellant’s plan. Id. at 1391 SECTION 1 EEMED APPROVAL 23. The Subdivision Regulations and Standards of the City of Pittsburgh Planning A) Commission was adopted by the City of Pittsburgh in 2007, and sets forth rules and regulations governing the actions of the Planning Commission. 24. Section 11.1(A)(7) of the Subdivision Regulations and Standards of the City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission provides that: Whenever the commission shall have adopted the master plan of the city or of any division thereof, no street, square, park or other public way, ground or open space or public building or structure or public utility, for which a franchise may hereafter be granted by the proper municipal authorities, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed or authorized in the city, unless the location and | general extent conform thereto: Provided, in case the said proposed street, square, park or other public way, ground or open space, or public building or structure or public utility, as aforesaid, does not conform to said master plan, and the ._ city planning commission, upon application to it, shall refuse to alter said master plan so as to permit said street, square, park or other public way, ground or open space or public * Although the Municipalities Planning Code does not apply to the City of Pittsburgh, it has provided the courts with guidance regarding appeals and cases that are substantially the same as those decided underjthe MPC. First Ave. Partners v. City of Pittsburgh Planning Comm'n =--- A.3d —-, No, 2476 C.D. 2015, 2016 WL 7176946 (Pa, Cmwith. Dee. 9, 2016),building or structure or public utility, as aforesaid, the said city planning commission shall refer the same to the council, together with its reasons for disapproval, and the council shall have power to over-rule said disapproved by a majority of the vote of its entire membership. The failure of the commission to act within sixty days from and after the date of official submission to the commission shall be deemed approval. (Emphasis Added) 25. PPS Submitted their Amendment to the PLDP on August 2, 2016. PPS had already paid the application|fee for the PLDP. 26. On November 29, 2016, PPS briefed the Planning Commission on the submitted Amendment to PLDP. 27. As of February 2, 2017, 184 days after the Amendment was submitted to the Planning Commission on August 2, 2016, and 65 days after the Planning Commission was briefed on the same, the Planning Commission has still not issued its decision on the Amendment to the PLDP 28. Decisions from the Pittsburgh Planning Commission are not final until a written decision has been issued, See First Ave. Partners v. City of Pittsburgh Planning Comm'n, ~ A.3d ----, No. 2476 C.D. 2015, 2016 WL 7176946 (Pa. Cmwith. Dec. 9, 2016). 29. The Planning Commission has violated Section 11.1(A)(7) of the Subdivision Regulations and Standards of the City of Pittsburgh Planning by failing to timely issue a final written decision on the Amendment to the PLDP. 30. Therefore, the Amendment to the PLDP is deemed approved in accordance with Section 7 of the Pittsburgh Planning Commissions Subdivision Regulations and Standards. 31. Section 11.1,(A)(11) of the Subdivision Regulations and Standards of the City of Pittsburgh Planning| Commission, entitled “Procedure: Legal Effect of Approval of Plat”, states “The Planning Commission shall approve or disapprove a plat of a subdivision of land within thirty days after the submission thereof of it; otherwise such plat shall be deemed to have been approved and a certificate to that effect shall be issued by the commission on demand”. (Emphasis Added).32. As noted above, the Planning Commission has yet to issue a written decision regarding the Amendment to the PLDP, 184 days after PPS submitted it, and 65 days after PPS briefed the Planning Commission on the Amendment to the PLDP. 33. Pursuant to Section 11.1(A)(I1) of the Subdivision Regulations and Standards of the City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission, PPS is entitled to a deemed approval of their ‘Amendment to the PLDP, as the Planning Cor ission has not taken final action by issuing a final written decision, 34. — Therefore, the Amendment to the PLDP is deemed approved in accordance with Section 11 of the Pittsburgh Planning Commissions Subdivision Regulations and Standards. MPC DEEMED APPROVAL 35. Although the’ Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”) does not expressly apply to the operations of the/City of Pittsburgh, there is well established precedent that the MPC provides the courts with guidance regarding appeals, issues and cases that are substantially the same as those decided under the MPC. First Avenue Partners at 4. 36. Section 508(1), Approval of Plats, states “The decision of the governing body or the planning agency shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the applicant personally or mailed to him at his last known address not later than 15 days following the decision.” 53 Pa, Stat. ‘Ann. § 10508 (West), 37. Section 508(3) establishes the sole remedy when a government body or agency fails to timely issue a final written decision stating “failure of the governing body or agency to render a decision and communicate it to the appli int within the time and manner required herein shall be deemed an approval of the application in terms as presented”. 53 Pa, Stat, Ann, § 10508 (West). 38. The City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission's failure to take action on the submitted Amendment to the PLDP for 184 days, and counting, constitutes a deemed approval under the applicable standards establishing the timeframe for issuance of a written decision. 39. If this Court were to ignore Planning Commission’s dilatory conduct, the Planning Commission would be able to idly sit by and never issue a written decision on the submitted Amendment to the PLDP, thereby further inflicting greater injustice on PPS, as PPS has still not been provided with the required official not ation and explanation as to why its submission has. not been approved40. Using guidance from the MPC, and pursuant to both Sections 11.1(A)(7) and i 11.1(A)(11) of the Subdivision Regulations and Standards of the City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission, PPS ié entitled to a deemed approval of their submitted Amendment to PLDP. WHE! EFORI , PPS respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order L requiring the City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission to approve PPS’ Amendment to the PLDP i as presented, or in the altcinaive enter an Order stating that PPS’ Amendment to the PLDP is deemed approved pirsuant to Sections 11.1(A)(7) and 11.1(A)(1) of the Subdivision Regulations and Standards of the Planning Commission. submitted, i GOL] .G, KAMIN & GARVIN, JONATHAN M. KAMIN, PA LD. #81958 RYAN M. WOTUS, ESQUIRE PA LD. #307599 DAVID M. DELGRECO, FSQUIRE PA LD. #322954 1806 Frick Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6101 (412) 281-1119 ‘Attorneys for Appellant PENNLEY PARK SOUTH, INC.CITY OF PITTSBURGH DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING ZONING + DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 200 ROSS STREET + THIRD FLOOR PITTSBURGH+PENNSYLVANIA+ 15219 ZONE CHANGE PETITION ‘Address: i 1 one \ Pennley Park South, Inc Address: ‘5600 Penn Avenue, Piltsburgh, PA 15206 Phone: | _ Applicant / Agent: Jonathan M, Kamin / Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, LLP Address: 1806 Frick Building, Piusburgh, PA 15219 _ Phone: | 412-281-1119 Property ownerd or representatives of itty descitied who join tis petition Ownei’s Name = Property __ City of Pittsburgh |84-A-176; Amber Street ___ Pennley Park South, Inc. 83-N-125; $600 Penn Avenue al i Block & Lot: | Ward: $4. fof site ‘or, number of acres: a Existing Zoning) 25) Proposed Zoning: | RSM (B4-A-176) Present use of site Retail, Office, Multi-Family Residential Uses, ancl Open Spaces Mixes: Use Developans (please see PLDP submitted with this Petition) + 2006PENNSYLVANIA Notary Pub shen County Gay of Piso gh All Sy Commis COMMONWEALTH OF | | | Page 2 The proposed Zone Change is appropriate and desirable and that this use will not be detrimental o tne immediate neighborhood because Please see /Addendu: seeialdeneton The proposed application will comply with the conditions specified in the Code by: —Rlgaseseg Addendum 9 t | Despite ary’ stZiemenis of proposed use made above, enacimen of tis ordnance wil permit involved property to be used for any of the uses listed in the classification table of the Zoning Ordinance. i ‘STATEMENT OF TRUTH CONIMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY Deponent, being duly swom, says that they are the: of the propery for whic this apaeation is made, nd that all he siaements and date Gane with shi ‘Auth agent or ne owner record of he propery which his appa is made and 3s sch has xeEs ou ond ‘eh ewer to tems nd eonaiions of any Occupancy fermi sued pursuant to tis apzieaton, and ha the statements fd da urs wa Wis apateation are tse and are ‘worn to and) subscribed betore me this GES ere sauud_$ ~Feeteaes M/S ‘opie (xetea) check # [emo Lang Use # Zone Change # address {__| Date Filed | = Zoning District = Proposed Zoning ee Ptanning Commission recommendation Dapproves | CD denies i city Council aétion Crores | Cdenied Zo Cyan Price =The proposed Zone Change is appropriate and desirable and that this use will not be-detrimental 10 the immediate neighborhood because ; ‘The proposed rezoning of the Subject Properties will permit greater flexibility in the design and redevelopment of the site by permitting # mixed-use development to supplement and further support the commercial and residential uses located in the vicinity of the Subject Properties. The developer has also made significant commitments to the City, the residents of Penn Plaza ‘Apartments, and] the community to enhance and improve the immediate neighborhood. On September 28, 2015, the Owner, the City, the Penn Plaza Tenant Counsel, and the URA of the City of Pittsburgh entered into a Memorandum of Understanding wherein each party consented to the rezoning and redevelopment of the Subject Properties as proposed herein. ‘The proposed application will comply with conditions specified in the Code by: 1. The proposed rezoning and redevelopment of the Subject Properties complies with the plans and) policies of the City of Pittsburgh. ‘The City of Pittsburgh further joins in this Petition Equesting ‘a zone change of the Subject Properties. 2. The rezoning of the Subject Properties will create public amenities for the neighborhood including! providing residential, office, commercial, and open space uses to serve the community. 3. The request fulfills and follows the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code. In accordance with the Zoning Code, the rezoning of the Subject Properties to AP will permit a mixture of residential and compatible commercial uses in conformity with nature and context of the Penn Avenue, South Negley, and South Euclid corridor. 4. The AP ‘zoning district is compatible with the zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood. The Subject Properties currently abut an existing AP zoning district on the East and Abut properties that arc zoned within the LNC, R3, and R2 zoning districts, Fach of the districts provide and currently operate commercial uses and multi-unit residential properties, which are compatible with the proposed rezoning of the Subject Properties, 5. The rezoning of the Subject Property to permit additional uses is an appropriate and sounc! planning decision, based upon the existing topography, location, access to public roadways, and dimensions to permit both residential uses and compatible commercial uses. 6, The proposed rezoning will not create any detrimental affects upon nearby properties Pursuant fo the PLDP. as attached to this Petition, the proposed redevelopment and reuse ol'the Subject Properties will incorporate residential, commercial, parking, and open space uses similar to the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. 7. The Subject Property is currently development solely as a residential use, however, in conjunction with the City of Pittsburgh aind other interest stakeholders, there has been support td redevelop the Subject Property to provide for a mixed-use development that will better and more appropriately serve the neighborhood and CityThe propdsed rezoning of the Subject Property will create minimum, if any, impact upon community facilities and services. The proposed redevelopment will incorporate amenities that currently do not existing in the neighborhood and services to more appropriately serve the community. | |jon ROM to APAN3WdO13A3G MEN a HLNOS Yad AZINGd | NVId 38M ONVT ABYNINITZUd “LThe rezoning and redevelopment of the Subject Properties will create a new high quality, mixed-use development that will reconnect the street grid, provide pedestrian Iriendly amenities, ‘and consist of residential housing, commercial uses, and open space to complement the existing context and continued redevelopment of the neighborhood The proposed application will comply with conditions specified in the Code by. 1 The rezoning of the Subject Properties creates an efficient, functional and attractive urban area incorporating both commercial and residential uses with amenities that will serve not only those residing on the Subject Properties, but the surrounding neighborhood, The rezorting will maintain adequate open space in accordance with the provisions of the City of Pittsburgh Zoning Code. The Subject Properties, as rezoned, will create significant positive social, economic and environmental impacts on the City by provided additional commercial uses and housing in an area that is currently undergoing significant reformation ‘The proposed rezoning will permit the development of essential amenities for the neighboring properties and increase property values. ‘The proposed rezoning will fucilitate the continued redevelopment of the Penn Avenue, South Negley, and South Euclid corridor and support the existing uses surrounding the Subject Properties. Adequate| utilities are available for the Subject Properties, including ample access, and other facilities. ‘The design of the proposed redevelopment has several abulting public roadways that may be utilized 10 access the Subject Properties, such that any taffic to the site will be mi ‘The proposed rezoning and redevelopment of the Subject Properties complies with the plans and policies of the City of Pittsburgh. The City of Pittsburgh further joins in this, Petition requesting a zone change of the Subject Properties. ‘The Subject Properties currently abut an existing AP district and the proposed map change is complementary to such existing uses and zones.90251 Wd WOINGSHG “p Ta “SAW HepLIONS "N OOT] 9ET-W-s . 9OTST Va WeuNgsnig HBL) WES S Pie iors rd HE ww IT “oURsT Va D0RET Va “Sig: D-EOT ASSAY WHF SECS] OL-V-F8]—_SORST Vad “WRinGG “ony SeBONTS Uh) GOST Va ‘WEnasng AV MOINS OF 90zSI Va WBasHig “any Aaj@aN“S OST) 29 al DEEL Va WERNGTIIG “ORY SOLON S 90281 Vd “YaINgsUt 90%: “aay Apes Va “Uaingstid “ay APeUS LE ORT-N-ES] GEST Va “Waingsnid “aay KjBaN'S pes 90CEI Vd “WBInasHid “Ay AIBN 'S HI TCT We “Ydangsurd ‘Py Ainge scvi BEIN-ES! 90ST Vd Wimganig “eay K2jBON 'S 47 OGT-NCEB! _ SOZST Wad WRIRGSId “DAY AABN S ~~ 261-N=E8!_—_DOCET Wa “WSiNGS wid “Bay SeIBON"s = PES Wed NBINQSHNd “SAW. INUEDY-S.62: ZEEE Vea UBINASIIA "066 FF aaNS P SSSPPY TET ‘90ZST Vd “UBINGsHig “ny A9}ON“S BZI on “pr tuowsieue HW) 94 wena 3 23h WSORE Va EERE HD RS § $1 Va WaINgsiig Wy aseLUeD BI Sc) 90zST Va ‘WINGSINd “aay PION “§ SIZ] een| 07st vd“ | 90281 Va ‘Waingsnid “paid wed 006s! TEVA] ‘S0zs1 Va Wenasutg 90zs1 Vd Wamnasuid ‘Paia wneE OOss|._—_LEE-V-F8! 902ST va “ENISHI “MHD WIOg OF GIZST Wa “WeINgsHIE “~G Td IS $804 00 ‘SORT Va WungeNTG Say Ping SEC CaCW-PS! GOTT Vd SIGsuity “Saw prion “S HET AYSAOSOW ST vd Waingsnig "6 14 3S S809 00 EBE-V-F8 0 BINS “IS WOSHDEL SZ “61d 1S $804 007) “eidsi Va ‘WoingsHid *6 Td IS SOU OZ! “Tits va Wemasma Tees $68 Od REPS OORT Vd SSTV98 90ST Va “UBiNASING “IS 4 veeWHs]_ 90CeT va tst-w-8] 90ZST Wd “WBngsutd “Is 02ST Vd WEINGSHIE Pale WIPE OSL i CECE NOT Od PET Fad Wmasnig Wg 1 LIesT va ‘WeingsHi 9028 TERA] gone Va WT HV PIGS OL STIPE IIOS 10M] LuNgsHid “BAW PHNG § 612 In| T8e-W-ps] __90ZST Wd “YENasTIEg “any PIIDHY ‘Ss PHZ QOCET Va “UBingsng “oxy TV Wang DAV PIII SIZ LBS —_-GOLST Vd WMAsng say pysng Ss s1z "aD weed 0 ISBAYMUDG 159K VV 9.388] VY usoyg -o0sn4 ox 1D uauisSeuepy pooswyor9gyGIST Va WENGE “OT Td WS S50Y 002] cael S02ST Vea WEIGHT Say MDG i GEST Va WsinasHig “OT Td BS FOU 00% Tota eal ‘902ST Vd “WeIngsiag IS PoowyTy, 6lesl Wd WaNgsnid “Ol Ta WS S50Y OO] —PLE-d-E8] S0eST Wa Waingsing “aAy Guag’ Blast va WeIMGsHIg ‘OT Ta 1S SSH OZ) EAE ‘SEET Va WaINGSTI BAY i GIST Va WEEE “OT TI IS SOU OT, LLE AE Se Wa Wenn BAY HTS: [vd “‘WBingsnig ‘Toz 91S “AW PERIYAGY 'S 10z) PBE-d-E8! SOeST Vd WBmgsing “Say wiog “‘aieg “NST 90ST Va WBingsUig “10Z MIS MAY PERS [OZ _8E-d-E8 90zsT Va “HsINGSMY aI] UUON, 911ZO VIN woIsog 95 Ad[aHG $6" D-ELT-aPs) id “AAV thiag O08 Ta RES RRA TS HITE (20 VW heel) 129BEE_ G6 ‘OUT SapIing AntunuMOD aL 0/9) Tye WSangsnig “OF Td IS S5Y 007 T-O-00FE-HR 9OZST Vea WSiNGSTIG "AAW prom “S SSS GOST Wa UBINgsHIg~oAW"pIIONg~s— Va Wingsnig “Semy B30 Pala Ez, OLT-- Bl 9ORET Ved “USaQsinId “Ay 413) Va “Wingsing WS WARE OPE5)~TEE-E7B] GORE Wa “WHINGSHG aay DISHES 681 iS191 AN JeiSayDOY “Anvid FPANOH OZ! TSTNEST WOCST Va “Woingsig “OAV Wed TEES SSEOE VD “HUEAY “Lzp25 XOG Od) PZI-N-ES! 97ST Vd “Weanasing “ony HEE | SEEDE WO HUEY “Cebzs KOE Od? COT-N-ER eran SGC Td WaNGEE OF Td 1S WON OE BIE Gest Wad WINGS OT TA 1S SHY O02!“ 6HE- LES] BOzET Vad WeinasNG SAV BungOctober 27, 2015 7 3. Hearing & Action: Land Use Control File C-795, Zone Change Petition #783, 5600-5704 Penn Avenue, RP and R3-M to AP Mr. Layman made a presentation in accord with the attached staff report. Mr. Layman recommended approval of the proposal. Mr. Kamin on behalf of the applicant Pennley Park South presented information related to the request and there request to develop a solution that accomplishes three goals: Provide certainty and security for the current residents of Penn Plaza, provide a path to go forward with a development that is beneficial to my-client and to the City, and to address otherwise affordable housing needs that are prevalent and have been exacetbated in East Liberty. Mr. Jif Voelzke of MVA Architects described the types of projects that they do, who they are and what they do. They described the mixed use concept created in Washington DC about 25 years ago. Mr. Acklin of the Mayor's Office gave a statement in support of this Zoning Change. ‘The Chairwoman called for comments from the Public, Salyamn Kluz, 227 South St. Clair Street asked the Commission to take the following actions; vote no on the application to rezone Enright Parklet and if necessary remove the park from rezoning, vote no on the PLOP including street extensions, and direct the City to work with the community to develop a process for a master plan Peter )Kaplan, 125 South Lang Avenue spoke in opposition to the plan because 318 affordable apartments will be lost. Angelique Bamberg, 233 Amber Street spoke in opposition of the due to lack of allowing a true master planning process to occur. The Enright Parket is a valuable asset to the area and is one of the safer parks left in the area Stephén Quick, 216 Amber Street spoke opposition to the plan. Amanda Wreeszczynski, 229 S. St. Clair Street spoke in opposition to the plan due to the plans to convert small streets into commercial district thruway. Sherri Mosovsky, 238 S. Euclid spoke in opposition to the plan due to plans for the Enright Parklet { | EXHIT : is Planning Commission Minutes iFy : October 27, 2015 8 Marni¢ Quick, 216 Amber Street spoke in opposition to the plan due to the plans for the Enright Parklet. Karen| Sloneker, 216 Amber Street spoke in opposition to the plan for 3 reasons, the city is not willing to consider doing this with any other city park, the community relationship with the developer is terrible, and the Mayor characterized the park as just a swingset. Parks are important to child development. Stephanie Raufer, 220 S. St. Clair Street is opposed to this plan due to the affordable housing issue. Tim Raufer, 220 S. St. Clair Street is opposed to the plan due to the plan for Entight Parklet i Arthur} Allen 227 S. St. Clair Street is opposed to the plan because the developer failed to reach out to the community members Jason| Roth, 223 Amber Street is opposed to the plan due to the number of tree's that will be killed in the aréa and the lack of a planning process for this area, ; : Jennifer Haven 205 S. Pacific Avenue is opposed to rezoning of any public jand without a comprehensive planning process. John ‘Axtell speaking on behalf of the Friendship Community Group in tion to this zoning change or the project development plan until there has been an inclusive planning process completed. Lenord Williams spoke representing the Baum Centre Initiative asking that the request for the rezoning of the parcels be denied and the City owned property know as Eriright Park remains a City asset. In addition, they would like to see a Master Plan relating to the area. Marita) Bradley, Chief of Staff for Councilman Rev. Ricky Burgess read a letter ‘on behalf of the councilman in support of this rezoning change petition for Penn Plaza in East Liberty. His support is premised on two conditions that the application only be considered by the City conditionally upon having the developer engage in significant community engagement process incorporating the community's input into the development before returning the Planning Commission with a plan for development. The commitments made and mutual cooperation agreement between the City and the Penn Plaza Tenant Council: He supports the rezoning of the site including the Enright Parklet, with the understanding that it will produce additiénal green space and enhanced amenities for the residents of the neighorhood Planning Commission MinutesOctober 27, 2015 9 Ryan England, 112 North Evaline Street is opposed to the plan due to the lack of commitment of the developer. Melene Myers of ELDI spoke in support of the plan. Richart Swatz of the Bloomfield Garfield Corporation spoke in opposition of the [plan due to the rezoning of the Enright Parklet without a Community Planning Process. Jim Frazier, 315 Ambler Street spoke in opposition of the rezoning of the parklet and changing of the street pattern | Mel Pakcer, 623 Kirkland Street spoke opposing the plan, There Ioeing no more comments from the Public, the Chairwoman called for quéstions and comments from the Commission members Mr. Bfown asked jf they could share with the community the proposed relocation amount and whether or not there’s an opportunity for first return for residents from this community Mr. Acklin stated that there is and the amounts are relative to the buildings initially both buildings were to be demolished at one time, now they are doing one at a time. Mr. Kamin stated that the relocation package comes in a couple of different components. Mr, Ackiin stated that in terms of the City's commitment in engaging the relocation consultant, the URA has already engaged neighborhood allies with support of foundations to staff an office onsite. The two votes before the commission today is yes or no to the zoning change. A yes with conditions that are appropriate allows for the issues that you heard about today to be handled and robust community engagement. A no vote today throws| this entire deal into limbo. Mr. Kamin stated to follow up on Mr. Brown's remark the MOU provides that the developer agrees that current PPS tenants will be provided with preferénce on occupancy for any housing units provided onsite, subject to the developer's nondiscriminatory reasonable and customer screening requiréments. Ms, Blackwell wanted to know how can you give this commission a vision of what the compromise or partnership or the shared vision of keeping the Planning Commission Minutes| October 27, 2015 10 park, éxpanding it, or making it better can you give so the whole project can move forward? i Mr. Kamin stated that part of the discussion again it's important to keep the focus. This is a rezoning discussion. Ms. Mondor, Can you clarify the zone change, a decommissioning procegs and disposition process, and what is tripped in terms of making the zohe change. Mr. Kamin '= The zone change has nothing to do with the decommissioning process or the disposition process in order for the decommissioning process to happen, it has to go through council. Council makes the decision. There is also a URA process. Those! processes have nothing to do with what is in front of you today which is simply a request for a zoning change. Mr, Ackin — This is not a zoned park. This is not a legal park. | know there’s been in terms of having it go to Orphans Court. The city is not selling) the park, we are making it part of the development again to serve as the!) open space for the overall development presented. The first step is the zone change which will allow things to move forward. Ms. Mondor ~ if indeed this park is useful for the developer because it counts, for their public open space, then it enhances their right to develop their property. Maybe a community benefits agreement provide a win win for both Ms, Mondor. right now, the language that is being used publicly and also in the foounents is not clear as to what this thing is or could be. Ms. Detrick — | appreciate all everyone's comments — back to what I stated earlier the Mayor said it's not good enough, isn't a reason for things. It's not ggod to close @ public park for private development interests. Will Enright Parklet stay right there? Mr. Acklin — there may be a discussion or perhaps there are improvements that can be made. Ms. Deitrick — there is plenty of opportunity here for compromise. Ms. Mondor ~ Commissioners we are not voting on a design of the park. We are not voting on disposition process nor decommissioning process. We are voting on a zone change. Planning Commission MinutesOctober 27, 2015 "1 Ms. Dick ~ can we clarify that open spaces would not include streets? Mr. Layman stated if we have to clarify thal, it would be added as an additional condition to this approval Ms. Burton-Faulk — if we don't explore the possibilty today, i's a hard fast nobody gets anything. The tenants who have agreed and are comfortable do not get to move forward. Mr, Brown - wants clarity on the community input and how much it weighs in on any decision making. Also who is managing the affordable housing fund? What isthe proposed mixed income focus of this development? i Mr. Acklin ~ the condition would come back to the commission on whether community engagement was robust when it came back for the next level of appjovel The aflordeble housing fd stared a he URA Ms. Mondor — We are in a tough spot here. There is a crisis that was created with displacement. There are conditions like the barbed wire that don't exactly hold a handout and the developer does not have a great track fecord across the street with what the community wants or is reaching oul. There is a difficulty on trusting. 1 expect to see that you have looked at this without fragmenting the park, without! full privatization, and we don't get back Tysons Corer which is Poe espe) el clases aj) 0 ocx t lat leven Nivea more comfortable with a kind of offset of 2.8 acre community benefits agreement. | would also like some confirmation that the processes in place with the zoning change are not opening up a floodgate where we do not getito have a say on these important community issues. Ms, Blackwell ~ Can | move if there are no further questions to include the contingencies to move forward with the zone change to include the contingencies? For me as a commissioner the priority was relocation of the displaced residents. | appreciate your assistance lo take care of that first: | believe a park|will be included, every plan that comes before the commission has agreen space. There being no more questions or comments from the Commission, the Chairwoman called for the motion. MOTI That the Planning Commission of the City of Pittsburgh recommends approval to City Council of Zone Change Petition No. 783 to rezone |9. 37 acres of property known as 5600-5704 Penn Avenue and | | Planning Commission Minutes 7{ October 27, 2015 12 Enright Parklet, from Residential Planned Unit Development District, and R3-MJ Residential Three-Unit, Moderate Density District, to AP, Mixed- Use Planned, Unit Development; and that the Commission approves the associated PLDP as filed by property owners Pennley Park South, Inc. and the City of Pittsburgh subject to the following condition: i a. Summary of all public process with the surrounding impacted communities, and explanation of how community input has influenced the development proposal, i . Design guidelines and standards for the entire site; and c Along with meeting the open space requirements of the AP Zoning District, the final PLOP shall demonstrate that no less than twenty percent of the total AP site area is provided as community-serving public open space! 4. Design guidelines and standards for the entire site 2. Alllsubmissions designating street and site configuration shall at this time be considered for illustrative purposes only; | 3. Public open space within this AP Zoning District shall be designed to sefve the community as well as the residents and clientele of the future development; and 4, Thé total area of public open space and public amenities shall be no less than the area of Enright Park. ff the City retains ownership of the atk property, the open space shall be presented to the Planning Commission with a maintenance and site improvement plan for inggration of the park into the development. MovED BY Mr. Blackwell; SECONDED BY Ms. Burton-Faulk Roll Calt: Mr. Pezzino No Mr. Brown, No Ms, Blackwell Yes Ms, Burton-Faulk Yes Ms. Deitrick No Ms, Dick Yes Ms, Mondor Yes Motion Carried 4 Yes; 3 No Ms. Mondor —We better see some good stuff come back. Thank you. i “ i} Planning Commission Minutesi City of Pittsburgh ee Sam Steet Puisburgh, PA 15219 Text File Bill No: 2016-0033, Version: 2 11512011 i Introduce i Committee: Standing Committee Status: Passed Finally Ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code, Title Nine, Zoning, Article I, Section 902.03 Zoning Map, by changing a certain property known as 5600 Penn Ave, block number 83-N, lot 125 in the Allegheny County Block and Lot System from RP, Residential Planned Unit Development, to AP, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, and changing a certain property known as Enright Parklet, block number 84-A, lot 176 in the Allegheny County Block and Lot System from R3-M, Residential Three-unit, Moderate Density, to AP, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. Specific Conditions for approval of this zone change are attached to the Ordinance as Exhibit Al The Council of the City'of Pittsburgh hereby enacts as follows: | Section 1. Amending the Pittsburgh Code, Title Nine, Zoning, Article 1, Section.902.03 Zoning Map, by changing a certain property known as 5600 Penn Ave, block number 83-N, lot 125 in the Allegheny County Block and Lot System from RP, Residential Planned Unit Development, to AP, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, and changing a certain property known as Enright Parklet, block number 84-A, lot 176 in the Allegheny County Blockiand Lot System from R3-M, Residential Three-unit, Moderate Density, to AP, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. Specific Conditions for approval of this zone change are attached to the Ordinance as Exhibit Al i EXHIBIT A | Conditions I 1. (a) Amended PLDP comes before, not concurrent with FLDP; (b) PLDP goes through community process and standard City Planning process as outlined in Planning’s handouts. Standard City Planning process includes design review and CDAP, and submission and review of the follo prior to Planning Commission hearing: t © Master plan * Site plan © Contextual and precedent images 1 + AP Zoning analysis + List of rat iy of Pitsburg i Painted on 1912972016Introduced: 1/15/2016] Bill No: 2016-0033, Version: 2 Committee: Standing Committee Status: Passed Finally ‘* Building massing studies or diagrams i ‘© Shade and shadow studies } * Building location and massing controls + Landscaping and screening design/guidelines and standards © Tree protection and replacement strate; i Zoning Code| + Perspectives I ‘+ Design standards‘and guidelines in accordance with 915.02.D of the Pittsburgh { 7 Traffic, vansportation and parking study/analysis j * Conceptual stormwater management plan 7 + Conceptual streeROW design t ‘© Accessibility and universal design summary + Environmental innovation and sustainability summary + Summaryiof community process 1 + Statement of compliance with PLDP review criteria in Zoning Code T + Any other! plans or studies as deemed necessary to complete review by City Planning t I 2. Enright Park (a)/shall remain publicly owned; (b) a recreation fi : (c) equivalent size and function of existing park; (d) City will pursue zoning or other means to protect the park for public use. ' 3. A new strcet, designed with park compatibility in mind, may connect from S. Negley along the northern borderlof the park, pending traffic study review and approval. Strcets or access drives iy of Paaburgs Page 2013 Printed on 1172972016i Introduced: 1/15/2016), Bill No: 2016-0033, Version: 2 Committee: Standing Committee Status: Passed Finally 4. (a) Any park area utilized to provide for a street on the northern border of the park shall be provided as useable park area in-kind such that the contiguous functional park area remains at a minimum of 2.2 dcres, and (b) the PLDP process and traffic study will consider bike pedestrian connection to $ Euclid as a priority. 5. Existing neighborhood streets will not be connected to the development pending traffic study r review and approval. t 6. Parking, loadin S. Euclid, . Negley and newly established streets on the development pending traffic study review and lund other site access to the development will be limited to Pen 7. (a) There will be ho commercial uses fronting on the park below the new street on the northern border of the park, (b) all adjacent uses to the park shall be buffered with landscaping and sereening, and (c) there will be sufficient building setback along the eastern border of the park to protect and preserve the existing trees. 8. (a) The reconfigured Enright Park shall be owned by the City of Pittsburgh, and shall count toward the develdpment’s open space requirements as required by code and by Plannii Commission's cohdition. (b) Developer shall assist in programming and in developing enhanced amenities for thelreconfigured Enright Park Cy oF Pnsburgh Page 3013 rings on 1129/2016Note ion of Development Administration and Review City of Pittsburgh, Department of City Planning 200 Ross Street, Third Floor I Pittsburgh, PA 15219 PLANNING COMMISSION - November 29, 2016 Briefing 1:00 p.m. a. PDP #16-170, PPG Paints Arena, High wall signage Rakus b. PDP #16-173, 1915-1917 Forbes Avenue, demolition of existing structures. Kramer . PLOP Pennley Park South New Development Layman AGENDA i 2:00 p.m. A. Approval of Commission Minutes t B. Correspondence | C. Hearing and Action 1, Hearing andlAction: ZCP #790, File 809, 5545 Butler Street, Zone Change Rakus D. Plan of Lots | Miller E. Director's Report - Adjournment Interpreters for the hearing impaired will be provided with four days notification by contacting Richard Meritzer at 412-255-2102. DBI1, JONATHAN M. KAMIN, ESQUIRE, Counsel of record for Plaintiff PENNLEY PARK, SOUTH, INC. in tHe within matter, hereby certify that the averments set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT IN MANDAMUS are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 1 am aiithorized to make this verification on behalf of the Plaintiff by virtue of my : i position as counsel 6f record. | understand) that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. $4904 relating to unsworn fabrication to authorities, which provides that if 1 knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. JONATHAN M. KAMIN Dae:_Z- 3- ZOlF> ZOHHAmD ZOomsoan ow or ‘Pleas The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes Docket No: This form does not supplement or replace the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court. Commencement of Action: ‘Complain TH weit orsummon D1 Peiion DB Transfer fom Another Jurisdiction 1 Declaration of Taking Teed PliPs Name Ten fed Name Pennley Park South ng City of Ptsburgn Planning Commission i Dollar Amount Requested: | within arbitration limit ‘Are money damages requested? CI Yes 6 No ae eee Is this a Class Action Suit? Dyes No Ts this an MDJ Appeal? O Yes No Name of Plaimif?Appellant’s Aitorney: eifyou Jonathan M. Kamin, Esquire ve no attorney (are a Self-Represen (ed [Pro Se] Li igant) Nature of the Case: Place an “X” to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that ‘You consider most important. TORT (do nr include Mass Fort) DD tmentionat ED Malicious Prosecution 1 Motor Vehicle [Nuisance ‘ Ey Premises Lisbitty | EF Product Liability (oes not incinde ‘mass ford) 1 Slander/Libel/ Defamation [CONTRACT (ds not include gens) 1 Buyer Psinitt 1 debt Cotection: Credit Card 1 debi Cotestion: Other 1 Eimployment Dispute Discrimination CIVIL APPEALS ‘Administrative Agencies 1 Board of Assessment D Board of Elections Dept. of Transportation Statutory Appeal: Other Bother ' D1 Employment Dispute: Other D Zoning Board : —— Dotter: other: MASS TORT DD Asbestos 1D Tobacco [Toxic Ton -DES | 5) Toxie Tor - Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS Di Toxie waste Di Other: PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY 1 Demat CO Legal f Medical G1 Other Professional D Ejectment D Eminent Domain/Condemnation i Ground Rent 1D Landlord/Tenant Dispute 1] Mongaye Foreclosure: Residential Ey Morsgage Foreclosure: Commercial Partition Bi owier Tine otter [1 Common Law/Statutory Arbitration 1] Declaratory Judement Bz Mandamus TF Non-Domestic Relations Restraining Order Quo Warranto Replevin Dotter: Updated 172011