old business-none.apps.pittsburghpa.gov/redtail/images/1101_june-2017-minutes.pdf · 2. mr. max...

Minutes of the Meeting of June 7, 2017 Beginning at 12:30 PM

200 Ross Street First Floor Hearing Room

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 In Attendance: Members Staff Others

Ray Gastil Sarah Quinn Carole Malakoff Mark Wood

Erik Harless Sharon Spooner Geoff Panian John Rudiak

Ernie Hogan Evelyn Jones Barbara Talerico

Matthew Falcone John DeSantis Emily Gaspich

John Engle Jeff Martin

Sam Smelko John Heft

Megan King Patrick Hassett

Craig Melichar Bob Baumbach

Old Business-None.

New Business Approval of Minutes: In regards to the May meeting minutes, Mr. Falcone motions to approve and Mr. Harless seconds. Mr. Hogan asks for a vote; all are in favor and motion carries. Approval of Certificates of Appropriateness: In regards to the May Certificates of Appropriateness, Mr. Falcone motions to approve and Mr. Harless seconds. Mr. Hogan asks for a vote; all are in favor and motion carries. Other Business:

1. Ms. Quinn talks about a grant that was received for survey in the West End. She talks about

preservation efforts in the West End and at the Western Penitentiary.

Adjourn:

Mr. Falcone motions to adjourn.

Mr. Hogan, hearing no objections, adjourns the meeting.

Meeting is adjourned.

Minutes of the agenda items follow.

Division of Zoning and Development Review

City of Pittsburgh, Department of City Planning

200 Ross Street, Third Floor

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

Pittsburgh HRC – June 7, 2017

W. Ohio Street & Norfolk Southern RR

Allegheny Commons Historic District

Owner: City of Pittsburgh 414 Grant Street Room 215B Pittsburgh, Pa 15219

Ward: 22nd Lot and Block: 8-B-150

Applicant: City of Pittsburgh 414 Grant Street Room 215B Pittsburgh, Pa 15219

Inspector: Council District: 6th Application Received: 5/19/17

National Register Status: Listed: X Eligible:

Proposed Changes: Bridge replacement and site work.

Discussion:

1. Mr. Patrick Hassett with the new Department of Mobility and Infrastructure steps to the podium. He gives some background on the project; stating that the bridge in question is in the worst shape, but also has had the most extensive process of any bridge project. He states that he feels the process has been successful in designing the proposed bridge.

2. Mr. Max Heckman with Michael Baker, the design consultant for the project, steps to the podium. He goes through the proposal including photos showing existing conditions and a rendering of the proposed bridge. He talks about the process that the project has gone through thus far. He shows sections of the existing and proposed bridge. He shows a plan of the roadway scheme showing how the proposal will affect Allegheny Commons Park.

3. Mr. Jesse Belfast, architectural historian with Michael Baker, steps to the podium. He talks about the sandstone abutments of the bridge, which are important elements that they felt should be preserved and will be re-used. He talks about the sandstone pylons, which will be restored and re-used. He talks about the ornamental railings that they are proposing, as well as the proposed crash barriers, concrete elements, and fencing.

4. Mr. Hogan asks if any research was done about what was there previous to the current bridge.

5. Mr. Belfast states that they did research but were only able to find one historic photograph from the 1870s that did not show the 1850s bridge clearly.

6. Mr. Falcone asks about the fencing that they are proposing to salvage and how much fencing will be involved.

7. Mr. Belfast is not sure but he believes that it will be a small section,

8. Mr. Hassett states that the city will retain the fencing for use in other projects.

9. Mr. Falcone asks about the sloped landscaping.

10. Mr. Belfast explains that they designed it that way for aesthetic reasons and to have a similar look as to what was existing on the pedestrian bridge.

11. Mr. Hogan asks for public testimony.

12. Ms. Carole Malakoff of the Allegheny West LRC steps to the podium. She states that their neighborhood is the closest to the project area. She states that they are pleased with the project but are disappointed with the height of the bridge. They will continue to advocate for depressing the tracks rather than raising the bridge, as they know that the other bridges in this corridor will be worked on in the future. They have a few recommendations including sealant for graffiti removal and fencing that is either the old rehabbed fencing or a replica of what was there. She also states that they are also concerned about accessibility and drainage and flooding.

13. Mr. John DeSantis steps to the podium. He has a procedural question, which is if with the City being the applicant, the employees of the City on the Commission will be participating in the discussion and the vote.

14. Mr. Gastil and Mr. Harless indicate that they will be participating.

15. Mr. Hogan states that there is a question of direct benefit, and neither of them are in roles that would have a direct benefit from the decision.

16. Mr. DeSantis encourages the City to seek a ruling from the Ethics Commission on the issue for the future. He states that he was the nominator for historic status of Allegheny Commons and he feels that the proposed bridge is not appropriate. He states that a new bridge should be a replacement for what is there now, including retaining the current size, height, and materials. He states that the vote today is the last element in the design process before construction begins.

17. Ms. Cathy Kudray steps to the podium; she is a neighbor and also feels that the design does not fit the historic district.

18. Mr. Hogan asks for further testimony; there is none.

19. Mr. Hogan asks for more information from Mr. Hassett about the project and the constraints.

20. Mr. Hassett talks about the history of the project including the PUC ruling for the railroad regarding the height of the bridge and different options that they explored to satisfy it.

21. Mr. Heckman speaks further on the issue.

22. Mr. Hogan asks if in-kind replacement was considered as an option.

23. Mr. Hassett and Mr. Heckman say yes. Mr. Heckman talks about the different options they explored and challenges they encountered.

24. Mr. Falcone asks about the period of significance, as this section of the park was significantly redone over time.

25. Mr. Belfast states that it was redone extensively and there is little integrity to the topography. The National Register designation for Allegheny Commons does list

the bridges as contributing elements, however, it is his understanding that the local designation only includes what is in the parcel, which the bridge is not.

26. Mr. Hogan refers to the district map, which indicates that the W. Ohio bridge is in the district, while the Ridge bridge is not. He states that what is before them is a design that has gone through an extensive community process and section 106 process. He states that there have been challenges to the city because of the rights of the railroad. He states that he is sensitive to the community’s concerns, especially about work on other bridges down the line. He talks about the pedestrian bridge in the park and asks if the city is pursuing resources for restoration of that bridge.

27. Mr. Hassett talks about where the city is in that process.

28. Mr. Hogan asks for a motion.

Motion:

1. Mr. Gastil motions to approve.

2. Mr. Falcone seconds.

3. Mr. Hogan asks for discussion. He commends the applicant for engaging with the community in the extensive process and states that these are difficult decisions

4. Mr. Hogan asks for a vote; all are in favor and motion carries.


427 Avery Street Deutschtown Historic District

Owner: Emily Jo Gaspich 427 Avery Street Pittsburgh, Pa 15212

Ward: 23rd Lot and Block: 8-D-180

Applicant: Emily Jo Gaspich 427 Avery Street Pittsburgh, Pa 15212



Proposed Changes: After-the-fact installation of storm door.

Discussion:

1. Ms. Emily Gaspich steps to the podium; she is the owner of the property. She presents photos of her door and states that the work was completed before she was informed that the door may not be appropriate.


3. Ms. Georgeanne Hartwell steps to the podium; she is the past president of the Deutschtown Square homeowner’s association. She states that the association has a declaration of covenance that requires a full-view door with no ornamentation. They are requesting that the ornamentation be removed.

4. Ms. Beverly Smith steps to the podium; she is another homeowner in Deutschtown Square. She states that when she purchased a storm door, she was advised to purchase the full-view door. She states that new owners should be aware that the neighborhood does have restrictions as to what you can do to the outside of your home, and that the inside of your home is where you are able to express your personality.

5. Mr. Nick Kyriazi steps to the podium. He talks about the history of the development and the covenance. He states that although they are in the historic district, they are not historic buildings, and asks if they are still considered contributing in the district.

6. Ms. Quinn and Mr. Hogan talk about new construction in historic districts.

7. Mr. Hogan states that there is always a challenge about how far to go with respect to the historic guidelines. He states that Commission has approved full-lite storm doors on newer construction, but would not approve them on a 100 year old historic building.

8. Mr. Gastil clarifies that their decision would not be affected by the homeowners’ covenance.

9. Mr. Hogan asks for further testimony; there is none.

10. Mr. Gastil asks if the ornamentation can be removed.

11. Mr. Hogan states yes, and that in the past only full-lite doors have been approved.

12. Mr. Falcone states that one of the most significant features of the neighborhood is the paneled doors, and the ornamentation does obscure the paneling.

Motion:

1. Mr. Falone motions to deny the application and have the applicant remove the decorative metal.

2. Mr. Hogan seconds.

3. Mr. Hogan asks for a vote; Mr. Hogan, Mr. Falcone, and Mr. Gastil are in favor and Mr. Harless opposes. Motion carries.


504 Lockhart Street Deutschtown Historic District

Owner: Samantha Smelko 504 Lockhart Street Pittsurgh, Pa 15212

Ward: 23rd Lot and Block: 8-D-169

Applicant: Essig Renovation and Design 216 43rd Street Pittsburgh, Pa 15201



Proposed Changes: Façade renovations including door replacement.

Discussion:

1. Mr. John Essig from Essig Renovation steps to the podium; he is the project manager. He shows photos of the existing conditions and explains the project, including replacement of the steel door with a white oak paneled door, installation of corbels which match the corbels from the top dormer, and addition of paneled trim around the door.

2. Mr. Hogan states that there would probably have been double doors.

3. Ms. Samantha Smelko steps to the podium; she is the owner of the property. She states that she has done some exploratory demolition and found that the door frame, which she believes is original, would have been for a single door.


5. Mr. Nick Kyriazi steps to the podium. He states that what was there should be restored and retained.

6. Mr. Hogan asks for additional testimony; there is none.

Motion:

1. Mr. Harless motions to approve.


3. Mr. Hogan asks for discussion. He suggests that the applicant could work with the manufacturer to modify the lower panel with a surface application to break it up into more panels.

4. Mr. Gastil suggests that they try to do that and bring it to staff for the final decision.



1117 Bingham Street East Carson Street Historic District

Owner: Pittsburgh Community Broadcasting 67 Bedford Square Pittsburgh, Pa 15203

Ward: 17th Lot and Block: 3-H-22

Applicant: Pittsburgh Community Broadcasting 67 Bedford Square Pittsburgh, Pa 15203

Inspector: Council District: 3rd Application Received: 5/19/17


Proposed Changes: Extension of C of A permitting use as a parking lot.

Discussion:

1. Mr. Terry O’Riley steps to the podium; he is the new president and CEO of Pittsburgh Community Broadcasting. He gives some background of the organization and explains that they are seeking an extension of the Certificate of Appropriateness to use the lot as staff parking. He talks about the changes that have happened in the organization in the last 18 months, since their last report to the Commission. He states that only now are they in the position to begin to consider how to best develop the lot and raise the money required. He states that they are a growing organization and have rented space to house their growing staff so they are invested in developing the lot. He provides a timeline for development and requests a minimum extension of 3 years and preferably 5.

2. Mr. Hogan gives some background on the parcel including the demolition of the structures, proposals for development that fell through, use of the site as a parking lot, violations that were issued, and the extension of the Certificate of Appropriateness with requirement of regular updates to the Commission.

3. Mr. O’Riley states that they only acquired the property in 2014 from the original developer, and just wants to clarify that the original plans that fell through were not of their doing.

4. Mr. Hogan asks for public testimony; there is none.

5. Mr. Hogan states that he is comfortable with the extension of the C of A. He states that the last time an extension was issued it was for 3 years. He asks for a motion.

Motion:

1. Mr. Falcone motions to extend the C of A for use as a parking lot for 3 years.

2. [Inaudible] seconds.



1500 E. Carson Street East Carson Street Historic District

Owner: Marcus Trunzo 1500 E. Carson Street Pittsburgh, Pa 15203

Ward: 17th Lot and Block: 3-H-72

Applicant: Graphics 22 Signs 5212 Lytle Street Pittsburgh, Pa 15207



Proposed Changes: Signage.

Discussion:

1. Mr. Geoff Panian steps to the podium; he is with Graphics 22 signs and is representing the owner of the Flats restaurant. He explains his proposal for an LED-illuminated projecting sign.

2. Mr. Hogan states that the district does not allow back-lit, box-lit, or internally illuminated box sign, which this would be categorized as. He states that they could have solid letters with clear sides that could glow, or they could do neon. He states that they could motion to approve if he is willing to make changes.

3. Mr. Panian states that he would prefer not to do neon, but he could make changes to the LED lit sign. He asks if each individual letter would have to be halo-lit or if he could have a panel with the logo that could be halo-lit all around, as the letters are too small to halo-light individually.

4. Mr. Hogan states that they could also spot light the sign. He states that he would be willing to consider allowing illumination of “The Flats” piece of the sign without the bridge.

5. Mr. Panian states that the bridge would be on the panel but would not be illuminated itself. He states that he could reduce the size and center it.

6. Mr. Hogan states that the proposal then would be to raise a side-lit panel with applied graphics.

7. The Commission discusses the application.

8. Mr. Hogan asks for public testimony; there is none. He asks for a motion to approve the sign as modified by the applicant.

Motion:

1. Mr. Falcone motions to approve the elevated halo-lit rectangular sign, with final drawings to be submitted to and reviewed by staff.

2. Mr. Harless seconds.



1739 E. Carson Street East Carson Street Historic District

Owner: Main Street Holdings 5812 Darlington Road Pittsburgh, Pa 15217

Ward: 17th Lot and Block: 12-E-318

Applicant: Pittsburgh Sign and Lighting LLC 1061 Third Street 2nd Floor North Versailles, Pa 15137



Proposed Changes: Signage.

Discussion:

1. Mr. Mark Wood steps to the podium; he is with the installation company for Cricket signage.

2. Mr. Hogan states that it is an elevated internally lit sign box. He states that he is going to be more picky with this one, as the building is a significant piece of architecture on the South Side. He feels that the most appropriate signage for this building would be an applied letter sign that is externally lit.

3. Mr. Wood states that there is an existing signboard from a previous sign.

4. Mr. Hogan states that the sign would originally have been in the half-circle area and would have been top-lit.

5. Mr. Wood asks if he would be able to do halo-lit LED letters.

6. The Commission discusses the application.

7. Mr. Wood states that he could reduce the size of the letters.


Motion:

1. Mr. Gastil motions to approve with the condition that the sign fit within the cornice and be halo-lit. The changes can be brought to staff for approval.




1215 Juniata Street Manchester Historic District

Owner: Megan King 1215 Juniata Street Pittsburgh, Pa 15233

Ward: 21st Lot and Block: 22-L-13

Applicant: Megan King 1215 Juniata Street Pittsburgh, Pa 15233



Proposed Changes: Installation of fencing.

Discussion:

1. Ms. Megan King steps to the podium; she is the owner of the property. She has two projects for her house, the first of which is a wooden privacy fence for the rear of her property and second is repair of front and rear masonry. She states that they will try and match the historic brick as closely as possible.

2. Mr. Hogan states that there may be some historic brick available in the neighborhood soon as the Commission recently approved a demolition. He advises her to get in touch with the community group. He asks for public testimony; there is none.

Motion:

1. Mr. Falcone motions to approve the renovations as submitted, with the condition that the applicant use historic bricks to match if she is able to.

2. Mr. Gastil seconds.



1316 Lake Street Manchester Historic District

Owner: URA 200 Ross Street, 10th Floor Pittsburgh, Pa 15219

Ward: 21st Lot and Block: 22-K-34

Applicant: Bob Baumbach 900 Middle Street Pittsburgh, Pa 15212



Proposed Changes: Construction of rear addition.

Discussion:

1. Mr. Bob Baumbach steps to the podium; he is the architect for the project. He gives some background on the project. He explains the proposal, which is to separate two small row houses and construct additions on the backs. They are proposing to restore the front facades, which are mostly intact. They plan to install new windows and doors as well as a railing. He states that the additions will be minimally visible from the public right-of-way. He goes over the materials for the additions.

2. Mr. Hogan asks about the front restoration and if they will keep everything intact.

3. Mr. Baumbach says yes; the masonry is in good condition and they will also be keeping the woodwork. He states that he would prefer to keep the existing doors but if they can’t be kept, they would be replaced in-kind.

4. Mr. Hogan asks about the railings.

5. Mr. Baumbach states that he does not have the railing information, but he has included railing information for one of his other projects today. He states that he has just shown the top rail and not the pickets.


7. Ms. Evelyn Jones steps to the podium. She would like to speak on all three of the projects. She talks about the history of proposals for these houses. She states that the backs of the houses are in bad shape and the houses need to be inspected to make sure they can be restored.

8. Mr. Hogan states that they will need to see the railings, and suggests that that detail be brought to staff for approval.

Motion:

1. Mr. Gastil motions to approve the application for the front elevation repairs as submitted, with the condition that the railing design be brought to staff prior to the C of A being issued.




1424-1430 Rush Street Manchester Historic District


Ward: 21st Lot and Block: 22-K-132,132-A, 133, 133-A





Discussion:

1. Mr. Bob Baumbach steps to the podium. He presents the project, which involves façade restoration and construction of two-story additions.

2. Mr. Hogan asks if the basement windows will be wood hopper windows.

3. Mr. Baumbach says that is correct and is just not labelled in the drawings. He states that there is already a wood frame addition on the rear that they will be adding on to.

4. Mr. Hogan asks if the railings are open.

5. Mr. Baumbach says that they are I the drawings, but he understands that they have to add pickets by code, so he will submit new drawings to staff.


Motion:

1. Mr. Falcone motions to approve the renovations with the condition that the basement windows be wood hopper windows and that the window spec and railing be submitted to staff.

2. Mr. Harless seconds.



1122-1126 Warlo Street Manchester Historic District


Ward: 21st Lot and Block: 22-L-289





Discussion:

1. Mr. Bob Baumbach steps to the podium. He explains the project, which will include façade restoration and construction of rear dormers on all three houses. He states that the dormers will be visible on the end houses. He states that façade is already painted and the scope of work will include repainting.

2. Mr. Hogan asks for public testimony; there is none

Motion:

1. Mr. Falcone motions to approve the restoration with the condition that final colors be submitted to staff.

2. Mr. Gastil seconds.



Winter Homes 2314-16 Brownsville Road

Historic District Nomination

Owner: Natalia Rudiak & Garnett Diethorn

Ward: 29th Lot and Block: 95-M-310,312

Nominator: Natalia Rudiak, Garnett Diethorn, & the Carrick Overbrook Historical Society

Inspector: Council District: Nomination Received: 3/24/17


Proposed Changes: Nomination for designation as a historic district.

Discussion:

1. Ms. Quinn makes a short presentation on the district. She identifies the criteria for designation outlined in the nomination, which are Criterion 2, identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the cultural, historic, architectural, archaeological, or related aspect of the development of the City of Pittsburgh, State of Pennsylvania, Mid-Atlantic region, or the United States, Criterion 3, exemplification of an architectural type, style or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship, and Criterion 8, exemplification of a significant pattern of neighborhood development or settlement. She also finds that the property retains significant integrity.

2. Mr. Gastil asks for more information on the architectural details of the houses.

3. Mr. John Rudiak steps to the podium; he is the nominator of the district. He gives some additional details about the architecture, site, and history of the houses.

4. The Commission discusses the nomination.

5. Mr. Gastil states that he agrees with the criteria for designation as given in the nomination. He states that the nomination is especially important as they are the only remnants of an earlier era remaining in the area. He feels that the Commission should make a positive recommendation.

6. Mr. Falcone agrees.

7. Mr. Hogan recaps that the nomination was complete and meets criteria 2, 3, and 8 of the code. He asks for a motion for recommendation to City Council for approval of the nomination of Winter Homes as a historic district.

Motion:

1. Mr. Gastil motions to make a positive recommendation to City Council for approval of the nomination.




Accamando Center 2410 Saw Mill Run Blvd.

Historic District Nomination

Owner: City of Pittsburgh

Ward: 32nd Lot and Block: 95-N-390

Nominator: Matthew Falcone

Inspector: Council District: Nomination Received: 4/19/17


Proposed Changes: Nomination for historic designation.

Discussion:

1. Ms. Quinn makes a short presentation on the property. She identifies the criteria for designation outlined in the nomination, which are Criterion 3, exemplification of an architectural type, style or design, Criterion 4, work of an architect, engineer, designer, or builder, Criterion 7, association with important aspects or events in cultural or social history, Criterion 8, exemplification of a significant pattern of neighborhood development or settlement, and Criterion 10, unique location and distinctive physical appearance or presence. She also finds that the property retains significant integrity.

2. The Commission discusses the nomination.

3. Mr. Gastil talks about the alterations that have been made. He states that he agrees with almost all of the criteria as outlined in the nomination, and the Commission can continue to discuss if it meets all of them strongly.

4. Mr. Hogan states that they are to decide if the application is complete and has merit and should move to a public hearing next month.

5. Mr. Gastil states that he feels that the property strongly meets criteria 3, 4, 7 and 10.

6. Mr. Hogan asks for a motion to accept the application and hereby protect the building.

Motion:

1. Mr. Gastil motions that the Commission accept the nomination and move it to a public hearing, hereby protecting the building.



old business-none.apps.pittsburghpa.gov/redtail/images/1101_june-2017-minutes.pdf · 2. mr. max...

Documents