Zoning - WordPress.com of Pittsburgh Riverfront Zoning | Zoning Recommendations 1 Zoning District Approach As described in the Assessment Report (April 2017), the current zoning of

Zoning Recommendations

Prepared by Camiros for the City of

Pittsburgh, PA | September 2017

Intentionally Blank.

ContentsZoning District Approach..................................................... 01

Building Form Standards .................................................... 05

Site Development ................................................................. 11

Incentives & Bonuses ........................................................... 15

Community Involvement ..................................................... 17

Appendix ............................................................................... 19



City of Pittsburgh Riverfront Zoning | Zoning Recommendations 1

Zoning District ApproachAs described in the Assessment Report (April 2017), the current zoning of land within the Riverfront IPOD is

a variety of districts:

ӽ Industrial (GI, UI, NDI) - 57.25%

ӽ Specially Planned (SP-1, SP-2, SP-3, SP-4, SP-5, SP-10) - 16.8%

ӽ Natural (P, H) - 10.79%

ӽ Downtown (DR-A, DR-B, DR-C) -7.27%

ӽ Golden Triangle (GT-A, GT-B, GT-C, GT-D) - 5.17%

ӽ Residential (R1D-H, R2-H, RM-M, R1A-H, R1A-VH) - 0.99%

ӽ Planned Unit Development (RP, CP, AP) -0.91%

ӽ Commercial (LNC, UNC) - 0.80%

This pattern of zoning illustrates that the riverfront has a variety of characters and cannot be simply

zoned a single district with one set of allowed uses and one set of dimensional standards. Previous plans

have all acknowledged that the riverfront area gets its strength from its combination of a variety of uses

and urban forms. The plans suggest, and outreach has confirmed, that future zoning should continue to

accommodate a variety of uses including residential, industrial (both light and heavy), office, R&D/urban

flex, retail and open space both passive and active.

The riverfront district structure will require a series of subdistricts under the umbrella of a main

“Riverfront District” to properly address the range of uses and development forms that do currently, and

should in the future, take place along the rivers.

Proposed ApproachThe proposed approach for the new riverfront zoning is to establish multiple riverfront subdistricts that

relate to the function, scale, and use of different areas along the rivers. Such a subdistrict structure is able

to respond to the different character-giving elements of Pittsburgh’s riverfronts. While each subdistrict

has a particular emphasis in terms of specific height, density, design, and use regulations, all subdistricts

would be linked by certain regulations related to a riverfront orientation.

The following land use subdistrict structure is proposed, based on an initial assessment of current zoning

and existing land uses. These would all be subdistricts of the RIV Riverfront District. In this proposed

approach, the RIV Riverfront District is a base zoning district.

A breakdown and map of current zoning is provided in the Appendix of this Report.

Zoning Recommendations | City of Pittsburgh Riverfront Zoning2

Land Use Category Subdistrict General Description Relation To Current

Zoning

Resi

dent

ial

RIV-RM Mixed

Residential

Subdistrict

This subdistrict allows all residential development types with the exception of single-family detached.

It is important to point out that new single-family detached development is not optimal for the riverfront. By prohibiting new single-family, any existing structures would be made nonconforming. Nonconforming uses or structures would be subject to Chapter 9.21 of the current Code that guides repair and maintenance, restoration and reconstruction, and alterations to uses and structures.

The RIV-RM consolidates the current residential districts in the IPOD into one subdistrict (R1D-H, R2-H, RM-M, R1A-H, R1A-VH).

Mix

ed-U

se

RIV-MU

Mixed-Use

Subdistrict

A subdistrict that is designed specifically to foster a vertical (within a single development) and horizontal (within a block) mixed-use environment that includes both residential and commercial uses.

This subdistrict would draw from the current districts that have been used to foster mixed-use development including the UI, LNC, UNC, and NDI Districts.

RIV-NS

North Shore

Subdistrict

Crafted for the North Shore and its unique uses in mind, this subdistrict addresses the area of the casino, science center, and stadiums, and the unique design issues they present. It also includes high density residential development.

This is a new subdistrict that would take guidance from the applicable Downtown Districts.

Indu

stria

l

RIV-GI General

Industrial

Subdistrict

This subdistrict is targeted at industrial areas located along the riverfront where uses are exclusively industrial.

This subdistrict is based on the GI District.

RIV-IMU Industrial

Mixed-Use

Subdistrict

The Industrial Mixed-Use Subdistrict provides for areas where uses are diversifying from their original strictly industrial nature. It would include provisions that facilitate the reuse of structures built for industrial work that can be or already have been converted to non-industrial uses compatible with the remaining industrial uses, including higher density residential development. It would also include areas like the Uber and Carnegie Mellon facilities, where industry is focused more on R&D and tech-oriented industries than on “heavy” industry.

Like the mixed-use subdistrict, the RIV-IMU draws from the UI and NDI Districts.

Proposed Riverfront

Subdistrict Structure


There are two types of areas of current zoning that would remain as they are now, due to the unique

nature of each. These are:

A. Just over 5% of the Riverfront IPOD is zoned the Golden Triangle (GT) District. These would remain

as the GT Districts. If any additions are proposed to the GT Districts, it will be only to ensure that

the current districts do not create any inconsistencies with the riverfront rezoning. Any changes will

not restrict the range of uses currently allowed and will not “downzone” (reduce allowed height or

development intensity) any GT District land.

B. Specially Planned Districts and Planned Unit Development account for almost 18% of the Riverfront

IPOD land area. These are negotiated agreements that will remain in place unless the property owner

seeks to remove these approvals and revert to the underlying zoning — such a change would require

a rezoning process. Mapping recommendations would be provided for an appropriate base district for

these areas, but the agreements in place would continue to control development. Opportunities for

change would be examined on an individual basis with property owners.

The new subdistricts proposed above would require a set of use permissions to be assigned to each. The

subdistricts would be added to the use table in Section 911.02. Based on an initial review, the current

uses within the matrix allow for the kinds of uses that would be found in the different subdistricts. During

drafting, a closer examination of use allowances will be conducted for the subdistricts, which would

include any new uses that may not be included in the use table now, and additional specific standards for

uses when located along the riverfront if needed.



Building Form StandardsDevelopment along the riverfront in Pittsburgh presents a number of unique design considerations that

need to be thoughtfully addressed. Additionally, any new regulations must ensure that dimensional

standards for the districts (bulk, setback, and height) are sensitive to issues of visual and physical access

to the river, as well as relationships to the surrounding neighborhoods. Previous plans make a variety of

recommendations – occasionally conflicting – for the following key regulations:

ӽ Building Height

ӽ Building Length

ӽ Riverfront Setback

ӽ View Corridors

ӽ Design Standards

ӽ Adaptive Reuse

The current Riverfront IPOD implemented the following major design elements:

ӽ A setback of 50 to 95 feet from the riverfront for both public access and/or maintaining the health of the

river.

ӽ Limits on overall building length: a maximum of 500 feet unless a break or pass-through is provided.

ӽ Requirements for articulation elements such as setbacks, windows, or doors a minimum of every 70

feet.

The proposed standards build upon these requirements.

Proposed Approach

Building HeightBased upon discussions with stakeholders, opinions on building height fall into two schools of thought.

The first seeks to keep building height low so that views can be maintained and a “wall” is not created

along the rivers. The second recognizes that development demand is high and required setbacks from

the river constrain development intensity, therefore a greater height should be allowed. We suggest that

a mix of heights at various points of the riverfront, related to use, location and existing neighborhood

character, may be a successful way forward.

The current districts allow the following heights:

R1D-H, R2-H, R1A-H, R1A-VH 40’

LNC, NDI 45’

RM-M 55’

UNC, UI 60’*

GI 75’

* 85’ is allowed by special exception


It is proposed that building height should be regulated not by the subdistrict dimensional standards, but

by a separate riverfront building height map. Such an approach could take into consideration geographic

and locational factors, such as grade change, transitions from residential adjacencies, and preservation

of key viewsheds. Maximum building heights would be mapped for the entire area covered by the RIV

Riverfront District. The illustration at the bottom of the page shows how such a building height map

would function.

As a technical detail, the use of FAR in the RIV Riverfront District would be eliminated. Lot coverage

and setbacks, which can include build-to zones, and design standards such as maximum building

footprint and upper story step-backs are more effective at controlling the volume of structures and that

relationship to height. Also, height within the RIV District would be controlled by maximum number of

feet; the use of maximum stories would be eliminated.

Additionally, it is proposed that a base height be established within the RIV District. All areas of the district

would be allowed a 45 foot height. A height bonus would be allowed for select areas (via the building

height map), for certain riverfront oriented actions, such as the provision of additional stormwater

management/green infrastructure above that required by the district, providing public access to the river,

providing public amenities along the river, or riverbank improvement, among others.

With the allowance of taller building heights, additional design and dimensional standards should be

incorporated. When a building wishes to exceed the 45 foot base height, it should become subject to

additional dimensional and design standards, such required upper story step-backs, an open space or

trail provision, maximum building footprint, and/or impervious surface maximums.

The building height map (below right) would regulate height independently of the boundaries of the

established subdistricts (below left) to better acknowledge geographic and locational factors. The

example maps below are illustrative only.

Subdistrict Map (Example - Illustrative Only) Height Map (Example - Illustrative Only)


Building LengthThe current Riverfront IPOD limits the overall building length parallel to the river to a maximum of 500

feet, unless a break or pass-through is provided. Buildings of such length or greater can serve to create

a wall along the riverfront, both physically and visually. A maximum building length is the most direct

way to prevent such situations and it is recommended to continue this control. Previous plans have

recommended some shorter building lengths parallel to the river in specific areas, but as 500 feet is

the standard of the current IPOD and seems generally supported, it is recommended not to reduce the

maximum building length any further. Sports stadiums would remain exempt from this control.

Clarity is needed as to how to design the required break or pass-through. Design standards for a pass-

through would be added that ensure a connection is maintained to the riverfront. Dual standards will

likely be needed: for pass-throughs that allow public access to the other side of a structure, as well as

for those that maintain only a visual connection and do not provide public access. For example, a visual

pass-through could be created by designing additional building transparency that ensures views to the

river from the sidewalk, or by providing an outdoor space that allows views to the river, but which may

be used by employees and/or residents only. When the pass through is public, standards would speak to

how its design should ensure adequate room for pedestrians and bicyclists, and encourage the creation

of opportunities for engagement with passers-by, such as public art installations.

Riverfront SetbackIt is proposed that a 95 foot setback be required along the riverfront. If a building would like to locate

closer to the riverfront, it is recommended that a public easement along the river be required. What

can be placed into the setbacks – permitted encroachments, water dependent structures, etc. should

be carefully considered to ensure both flexibility for new development, and continued prioritization of

the health of Pittsburgh’s three rivers. Related to this setback, to address concerns about stormwater

management, specific impervious surface limitations for setbacks adjacent to the river should also be

considered.

Existing industrial users and future industrial users, as well as the sports stadiums, where public access

poses a hazard to public safety will continue to be exempt from setbacks, as they are now. Industrial

uses will also need specific exceptions for privacy/safety fencing and screening needed to address public

safety.

Connection CorridorsNew development along the riverfront should maintain visual and, where possible, physical connections

to the rivers. To the extent practicable, connections should be made via streets that extend from within

the surrounding neighborhood to the waterfront, to enhance the existing grid and allow visitors and

residents of surrounding neighborhoods easy access to the river. These corridors should be the same

width as the street, and continue to the waterfront as a straight-line extension. Building projections

should limit encroachment into any corridor, such as a maximum 10% of the width of the corridor. View

corridors may be more applicable than physical connections in some areas of the riverfront, depending

on parallel trail access.


Design StandardsDesign standards need to be broken down for the three main categories of development: residential,

commercial/mixed-use, and industrial. Each of these would include design standards for:

ӽ Ground floor and upper floor transparency

ӽ Public entry design and articulation

ӽ Ground floor activation

ӽ Façade articulation and blank wall limitations

ӽ Prohibited building materials

ӽ Design of on-lot open space, and its relationship to the riverfront

ӽ Location and screening of loading spaces

It should be noted that these requirements are tailored to each of the three development types.

Commercial/mixed-use and multi-family residential typically have the most specific standards, while

industrial tends to be the most lenient due to the nature of the activities that occur within the structures

and on the lot. Also, standards will be clear about distinctions between new construction and reuse/

exterior alterations to avoid variances and nonconforming conditions.

Particularly applicable to commercial/mixed-use and multi-family residential are requirements that

acknowledge that riverfront development has “two front doors” – one facing the street and one facing

the river. As such, design standards for the Riverfront District need to address both facades. (There is also

a need to address any structures with facades on multiple streets as well.) The nature of mixed-use or

commercial construction provides more flexibility in how the ground floor is designed, allowing for more

visual and physical permeability, while strictly residential or industrial buildings generally have more

concerns regarding security and controlling impacts.

In addition, while the facades of buildings facing a street and facing the river should be addressed, the

design of any open space/yard area located in front of these facades should also be carefully regulated.

Neither façade should be relegated to strictly “back of house” operations (refuse storage, loading,

etc.). Both areas should be of quality design, and should be welcoming and engaging to the public. It is

understood that these “back of house” elements need to go somewhere, but a balance must be struck;

if refuse storage cannot occur to the side of structures, then it should require a higher level of screening.

This higher level of screening typically includes elements such as a required enclosure built of permanent

building materials that match the architecture of the structure, and additional plantings. If the riverside

of a façade includes a private use space for residents and businesses, such area should not be walled off,

but rather use a combination of open fencing and landscape to delineate the boundaries. If the space is

not in active use, landscape, fencing, and screening should be allowed that delineates the area but blends

into the public space along the river. (This does not apply to industrial users that require stricter fencing

and screening standards for public safety.)


Finally, the design of structures along the riverfront must comply with the existing floodplain

requirements. Flexibility in how these standards are applied will be considered when a structure is

located in the floodplain.

Adaptive ReuseAnother key aspect of design is to respect the river’s industrial heritage through adaptive reuse of

existing buildings. In order to facilitate the retention and conversion of existing industrial structures

that can continue to contribute to the unique character of Pittsburgh’s riverfronts, all regulations will

be evaluated to ensure that provisions are in place that allow for such reuse without a series of special

approvals or variances, whether from site elements like parking requirements or exemptions to design

standards. The goal is to move these structures out of nonconforming status to encourage their reuse.

Generally, adaptive reuse provisions are centered on three areas of regulation: 1) parking exemptions

so that existing buildings are not burdened with accommodating parking in an area that does not room

for parking; 2) potentially allowing for additional uses than the subdistrict would allow because such

buildings are better suited to a wider range of uses and to allow for multiple uses; and 3) exemptions from

required design standards that the structure would not be able to comply with.



Site DevelopmentSite development standards generally deal with regulations that apply outside of the standards for the

principal building. These standards are as follows:

ӽ Parking minimums and maximums, and parking design

ӽ Landscape and green infrastructure

ӽ Signs

ӽ Riverfront access

Proposed Approach

Site Plan ReviewBecause of the unique nature of the riverfront including parcel size and access limitations, site plan

review should still be required within the RIV Riverfront District, including provision of a traffic study. In

order to simplify what is subject to site plan review, rather than the two separate sets of thresholds, the

following actions would require site plan review:

ӽ All new construction

ӽ Enlargements over 25% of building footprint or gross floor area

ӽ New parking lots

ӽ Expansions of existing parking lots that would meet or exceed 15 total spaces

As discussed earlier, the site plan review should also require shadow studies for structures that exceed

a certain building height threshold. One recommendation is to require these for buildings that exceed

the base height. A shadow study would depict mid-morning and mid-afternoon shadows cast on the

following dates: March 20, June 21, September 22, and December 21. Staff can use these studies to

determine how much shade falls upon the riverfront and other key uses, such as public parks and

adjacent residential.

ParkingIt is important that parking not come to dominate the riverfront. While parking cannot be eliminated from

the area, it must be managed. The current number of spaces required by the ordinance are reasonable

parking ratios. Further, commercial uses, excluding office and industrial, currently have parking

maximums.

Two approaches are under consideration for parking in the Riverfront District at this time. These are:

A. The City should consider eliminating a parking minimum and simply using a parking maximum. This

allows the market to determine the number of spaces and does not penalize the reuse of existing

structures that do not have parking area available.


B. An alternate approach is to continue to require a parking minimum but allow for the developer/

property owner to “buy out” of required parking spaces. A fee-in-lieu provision is currently being

evaluated by the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure. As fees are collected when someone

“buys out” of required parking, the funds are used to provide parking and/or other mobility

improvements to the area.

If parking minimums are maintained, in order to preserve and encourage adaptive reuse of existing

structures, the district should make exemptions for existing structures allowing non-residential structures

to be considered to meet parking requirements with the number of spaces they have on-site, including

when there are no on-site spaces.

The Riverfront District should continue to allow parking integrated into the lowest floor of a structure

located along the river, a public street, or a public pedestrian way to maintain active lowest floor uses.

Supplemental standards should be added that only require approximately 60% of that frontage to be

active non-residential uses so as not to be onerous, and standards such as a minimum ceiling height, and

storefront depth and width to ensure usable space. It is important to expand the allowed uses beyond

retail, because of changing market demands. Those ground floor spaces can house offices, community

facilities like libraries and visitor centers, and restaurants.

Standalone parking structures should continue to meet certain design standards for facades that abut

the river, a public street, or a public pedestrian way. These should be simplifications of building design

standards tailored to the nature of a parking structure. The current GT, DR, EMI and SP Districts also

require parking facilities of 150 spaces or more to be in structured parking. This would be beneficial to

apply to the Riverfront District to discourage large parking lots. The proposal is to apply this standard but

reduce the threshold to 75 spaces because of the limited area within the Riverfront District,

Finally, any new surface parking lot of more than 15 spaces should be prohibited between a building and

the river universally. Additional screening, or improvements designed to reduce the visual impact should

be required.

Landscape and Green InfrastructureLandscape plays a vital role in the City’s appearance, as well as a critical ecological role. Development

along the riverfront needs to mitigate its impact on the health of the rivers; managing stormwater

properly can prevent pollution, stop deterioration of the riverbank, mitigate flooding impacts, and

recharge groundwater. Basic performance standards for stormwater management should be part of the

landscape requirements. Certain sites may be encouraged to discharge rainwater directly to the river,

provided it is filtered utilizing green infrastructure elements.

The Riverfront IPOD standards currently contain a reference to the RF-O (Riverfront Overlay District)

setback requirements, which simply specifies “required setbacks shall be landscaped and maintained in

good condition.” These requirements must be strengthened to ensure that landscape in the Riverfront

District is designed and maintained so as to contribute to a pleasing appearance and pedestrian

environment along the riverfront, and to provide a valuable ecological function, vital to the healthy

condition of the City’s three rivers.


Previous planning efforts indicated a goal of 40% canopy coverage in the riverfront district to assist with

stormwater management, improve air quality and decrease urban heat island effect. The Riverfront

District should restrict removal of native trees and native vegetation within a reasonable distance from

the river. (Removal of invasive species should be universally allowed.) This could be tied to the way

setback requirements are currently established through the Riverfront IPOD; for instance, in the interest

of maintaining bank stability and a continuous healthy canopy along the riverfront, removal of existing

trees and vegetation should be prohibited in an area measured 30 feet landward from the normal full

pool elevation (FPE) of the river. In the remaining setback landscape should be required in all areas not

occupied by structures or paving. In all landscape areas, green infrastructure techniques to detain and

clean stormwater, and to minimize erosion of the riverbank should be allowed and encouraged. For

instance, in areas with suitable conditions, landscape islands should be permitted to include curb cuts, or

to be sunken below grade to accommodate retention and infiltration of stormwater.

It should be noted that this prohibition of removal should include standards that allow for an exemption

without requiring a variance; certain types of water dependent uses may need to remove vegetation for

development. Additionally, removal of invasive species should be allowed without penalty.

Native, naturalized, and non-invasive species should be prioritized for use in the Riverfront District,

and the City may want to create or reference a plant palette of approved species for the Riverfront.

Such a plant palette could be based on appropriateness of species by river edge zone, including low-

maintenance and flood-tolerant species, and those more suited to a “top of bank” condition. Bank

stabilization should also be prioritized, whether through a requirement or through allowing flexibility

in landscaping requirements on the remainder of a site when bank stabilization techniques, including

plantings, are employed.

Importantly, in addition to reducing impervious surface and runoff, required landscape should

adequately screen elements such as mechanical equipment, loading areas, and parking areas located in

the Riverfront District, so as to minimize their visual impact and ensure pleasant views from the river and

from the street. Additionally, landscape buffers tailored to the urban nature of riverfront development

should be required where appropriate to ensure compatible transitions between riverfront sub-districts,

such as industrial and residential areas located along the river.

SignsAt this time, due to ongoing updates to the sign regulations, no changes are proposed to the sign

permissions. Sign regulations for the subdistricts will be aligned with existing provisions for districts

found in the Riverfront IPOD.

Riverfront AccessAccess to the rivers in Pittsburgh is complicated by the fact that ownership of land along the river is

fractured between public and private ownership, and in some cases includes legacy infrastructure such

as active railways, or remaining rights-of-way for inactive lines. Where public land is owned, the City can

work to create public access areas and parks. Private developments, on the other hand, may deny such

access. Additionally, the variety of land uses located along the rivers creates further difficulties. Certain


uses may create public safety issues if access is granted to private property; this is especially concerning

for heavy industrial uses. In the case of private development, the City can consider tools such as bonuses

in height or density to incentivize providing access. Bonuses may be granted to developments that

choose to provide different levels of public access and public riverfront amenities, for example. Please see

Section IV for some of the types of bonuses that are being considered.


Incentives And BonusesWhen implementing incentives for development along the riverfront – focus should be placed on river-

oriented improvements and public amenities. As stated earlier in the Assessment Report, a preliminary

menu includes the following:

ӽ Providing public access to the riverfront.

ӽ Constructing a publicly accessible trail and/or additional connections to existing trails.

ӽ The inclusion of stormwater management techniques above those required by the Ordinance, or

incorporating stormwater management goals for projects that do not meet square footage triggers

for compliance. If impervious surface requirements are included as part of the riverfront setbacks,

additional coverage could be granted.

ӽ Providing riverfront amenities, such as seating areas and water fountains.

ӽ Including public art in new development.

ӽ Undertaking riverbank restoration and stabilization.

ӽ Incorporating riverfront improvements described within adopted neighborhood plans (when located

within such neighborhoods).

ӽ Additional pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure above the minimum required. This may include

sidewalks located along the public right-of-way as well.

These types of incentives can be structured into the RIV District through a series of bonuses. Increased

height, as discussed earlier, and increased lot/impervious surface coverage are the regulations that

can be best structured for bonuses, and the scale of bonuses should be commensurate with the scale

of additional actions taken. These incentives can also be used if new Specially Planned Districts and

Planned Unit Developments are proposed in the RIV District.

* The current Ordinance contains a “Sustainable Development Bonus” (Section 915.04) that is permitted in

all non-residential zoning districts. This bonus for height or FAR is contingent on LEED Silver Certification for

the structure. We recommend eliminating this particular bonus in the Riverfront District. Please note we have

recommended elimination of FAR.



Community InvolvementWhen groups outside of the City come into the development review process along the rivers, the

ordinance should clearly describe when they enter the process so that the applicant is aware. The City is

proposing the creation of Registered Community Organizations (RCO) to improve cooperation between

the City and organizations representing a geographic area or field of interest, to increase the number of

residents engaged in enhancing the City’s livability and the character of its neighborhoods. The proposed

legislation will outline provisions for requirements of organizations to participate, the registration

process, and benefits of becoming a Registered Community Organization.



Appendix:

Current Zoning Within Riverfront IPOD

- Figures & Maps


ZON

ING

DIST

RICT

S IN

CLUD

EDIN

RIV

ERFR

ON

T IP

OD

R1D

-H

Sing

le-U

nit D

etac

hed

Resid

entia

l Hig

h D

ensit

y

0.35

%R2

-H

Two-

Uni

t Res

iden

tial H

igh

Den

sity

0.04

%RM

-M

Mul

ti-U

nit R

esid

entia

l Mod

erat

e D

ensit

y

0.

08%

R1A-

H

Sing

le-U

nit A

ttach

ed R

esid

entia

l Hig

h D

ensit

y

0.00

%R1

A-VH

Si

ngle

-Uni

t Atta

ched

Res

iden

tial V

ery

Hig

h D

ensit

y

0.52

%

GI

Gen

eral

Indu

stria

l

35

.82%

UI

Urb

an In

dust

rial

21.2

2%N

DI

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d In

dust

rial

0.

21%

DR-

A D

ownt

own

Rive

rfron

t Dist

rict A

2.

30%

DR-

B D

ownt

own

Rive

rfron

t Dist

rict B

2.

85%

DR-

C D

ownt

own

Rive

rfron

t Dist

rict C

2.

12%

GT-

A G

olde

n Tr

iang

le D

istric

t A

0.

00%

GT-

B G

olde

n Tr

iang

le D

istric

t B

0.

06%

GT-

C G

olde

n Tr

iang

le D

istric

t C

3.

98%

GT-

D

Gol

den

Tria

ngle

Dist

rict D

1.13

%

P Pa

rks

And

Ope

n Sp

ace

9.

68%

H

Hill

side

1.

11%

SP-1

Pi

ttsbu

rgh

Tech

nolo

gy C

ente

r

1.96

%SP

-2

Was

hing

ton’

s La

ndin

g

3.20

%SP

-3

Publ

ic S

afet

y Co

mpl

ex

1.

05%

SP-4

St

atio

n Sq

uare

2.

42%

SP-5

So

uths

ide

Wor

ks

3.79

%SP

-10

Alm

ono

4.38

%

RP

Resid

entia

l Pla

nned

Uni

t Dev

elop

men

t

0.

25%

CP

Com

mer

cial

Pla

nned

Uni

t Dev

elop

men

t

0.

47%

AP

Resid

entia

l/Com

mer

cial

Pla

nned

Uni

t Dev

elop

men

t

0.19

%

LNC

Loca

l Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d Co

mm

erci

al

0.30

%U

NC

Urb

an N

eigh

borh

ood

Com

mer

cial

0.

50%

Resi

dent

ial Z

onin

g De

tail

1%

Indu

stri

al Z

onin

g De

tail

5

7%

Dow

ntow

n Zo

ning

Det

ail

7%

Gol

den

Tria

ngle

Zon

ing

Deta

il

5%

Nat

ural

Zon

ing

Deta

il

11%

Spec

ially

Pla

nned

Zon

ing

Deta

il

17%

Plan

ned

Uni

t Dev

elop

men

t Zon

ing

Deta

il

1

%Co

mm

erci

al Z

onin

g De

tail

1%

ZON

ING

DIST

RICT

S IN

CLUD

EDIN

RIV

ERFR

ON

T IP

OD

R1D

-H

Sing

le-U

nit D

etac

hed

Resid

entia

l Hig

h D

ensit

y

0.35

%R2

-H

Two-

Uni

t Res

iden

tial H

igh

Den

sity

0.04

%RM

-M

Mul

ti-U

nit R

esid

entia

l Mod

erat

e D

ensit

y

0.

08%

R1A-

H

Sing

le-U

nit A

ttach

ed R

esid

entia

l Hig

h D

ensit

y

0.00

%R1

A-VH

Si

ngle

-Uni

t Atta

ched

Res

iden

tial V

ery

Hig

h D

ensit

y

0.52

%

GI

Gen

eral

Indu

stria

l

35

.82%

UI

Urb

an In

dust

rial

21.2

2%N

DI

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d In

dust

rial

0.

21%

DR-

A D

ownt

own

Rive

rfron

t Dist

rict A

2.

30%

DR-

B D

ownt

own

Rive

rfron

t Dist

rict B

2.

85%

DR-

C D

ownt

own

Rive

rfron

t Dist

rict C

2.

12%

GT-

A G

olde

n Tr

iang

le D

istric

t A

0.

00%

GT-

B G

olde

n Tr

iang

le D

istric

t B

0.

06%

GT-

C G

olde

n Tr

iang

le D

istric

t C

3.

98%

GT-

D

Gol

den

Tria

ngle

Dist

rict D

1.13

%

P Pa

rks

And

Ope

n Sp

ace

9.

68%

H

Hill

side

1.

11%

SP-1

Pi

ttsbu

rgh

Tech

nolo

gy C

ente

r

1.96

%SP

-2

Was

hing

ton’

s La

ndin

g

3.20

%SP

-3

Publ

ic S

afet

y Co

mpl

ex

1.

05%

SP-4

St

atio

n Sq

uare

2.

42%

SP-5

So

uths

ide

Wor

ks

3.79

%SP

-10

Alm

ono

4.38

%

RP

Resid

entia

l Pla

nned

Uni

t Dev

elop

men

t

0.

25%

CP

Com

mer

cial

Pla

nned

Uni

t Dev

elop

men

t

0.

47%

AP

Resid

entia

l/Com

mer

cial

Pla

nned

Uni

t Dev

elop

men

t

0.19

%

LNC

Loca

l Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d Co

mm

erci

al

0.30

%U

NC

Urb

an N

eigh

borh

ood

Com

mer

cial

0.

50%

Resi

dent

ial Z

onin

g De

tail

1%

Indu

stri

al Z

onin

g De

tail

5

7%

Dow

ntow

n Zo

ning

Det

ail

7%

Gol

den

Tria

ngle

Zon

ing

Deta

il

5%

Nat

ural

Zon

ing

Deta

il

11%

Spec

ially

Pla

nned

Zon

ing

Deta

il

17%

Plan

ned

Uni

t Dev

elop

men

t Zon

ing

Deta

il

1

%Co

mm

erci

al Z

onin

g De

tail

1%

PDR

-B

DR

-A

UN

C

H

UI

UI

UI

UI

UIUI

H

H

P

GI

GI

GI

GI

GIGI

GI

GI

GI

P

R1D

-H

P

P

WE

STE

RN

CA

SIN

O

CALI

FORNIA

NO

RTH

SUPERIOR

MA

IN

CH

AR

TIE

RS

SHADELAND

MARSHALL

NO

RT

HSH

OR

E

CHATEAU

ALLEGHENY

CARSON

STEU

BEN

BRIGHTO

N

RE

EDSD

ALE

I-2

79

STA

NH

OP

E

WEST END

OHIO RIVER

WES

TO

HIO

BEAVER

°0

0.2

50

.50

.125

Mile

s

Zo

ning

Dis

tric

ts

DR

-A D

ownt

own

Riv

erfro

nt D

istri

ct A

DR

-B D

ownt

own

Riv

erfro

nt D

istri

ct B

GI G

ener

al In

dust

rial

R1D

-H S

ingl

e-un

it D

etac

hed

Res

iden

tial H

igh

Den

sity

UI U

rban

Indu

stria

l

UN

C U

rban

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d C

omm

erci

al

H H

illsi

deP

Par

ks A

nd O

pen

Spa

ce

// Z

ON

ING

- OHI

O R

IVER

ND

IR

M-M

LNC

LNC

UN

CR

1A-V

HN

DIR1A

-VH

ND

I

R1A

-VH

SP-5

UI

UI

RP

LNC

CP

PP

P

SP-1

GI

GI

GI

SP-3

UI

UI

UI

UI

UI

UI

CP

GT-

C

HH

H

UN

C

SP-4

SP-4

P

GT-

D

GT-

B

DR

-B

DR

-A

GT-

C

GT-

C

UN

C

DR

-C

DR

-C

H

AP

PU

I

UI

UI

GI

SP-2

UI

UI

P

PENN

ARL

INGTO

N

5TH

CA

SIN

O

CEN

TRE

LIBERTY

CA

RSO

N

7THB

LVD

OF

TH

EA

LLIE

S

REPUBLIC

STANWIX

BIG

ELO

W

FOR

BE

S

RIVER

11TH

RE

ED

SDA

LEG

EN

ER

AL

RO

BIN

SON

CROSSTOWN

9TH

ALLEGHENY

SMITHFIELD ST

SMITHFIELD

WOOD

GRANT

6TH

GRA

ND

VIEW

NO

RTH

SHO

RE

10TH

ST

EAST

OH

IO

PJ

MC

ARD

LE

WEST END

GRA

NT

ST

LIBERTYBR9TH ST

7TH ST

VETERANS

I-37

6

I-27

9

10TH

18TH

MERRIMAC

BIRMINGHAM

ARMSTRONG

°0

0.2

50

.50

.125

Mile

s

Zo

ning

Dis

tric

ts

DR

-A D

ownt

own

Riv

erfro

nt D

istri

ct A

DR

-B D

ownt

own

Riv

erfro

nt D

istri

ct B

DR

-C D

ownt

own

Riv

erfro

nt D

istri

ct C

GI G

ener

al In

dust

rial

LNC

Loc

al N

eigh

borh

ood

Com

mer

cial

RM

-M M

ulti-

unit

Res

iden

tial M

oder

ate

Den

sity

ND

I Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d In

dust

rial

R1A

-VH

Sin

gle-

unit

Atta

ched

Res

iden

tial V

ery

Hig

h D

ensi

ty

UI U

rban

Indu

stria

l

UN

C U

rban

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d C

omm

erci

al

CP

Com

mer

cial

Pla

nned

Uni

t Dev

elop

men

t

GT-

B G

olde

n Tr

iang

le D

istri

ct B

GT-

C G

olde

n Tr

iang

le D

istri

ct C

GT-

D G

olde

n Tr

iang

le D

istri

ct D

H H

illsi

deP

Par

ks A

nd O

pen

Spa

ce

SP

-1 P

ittsb

urgh

Tec

hnol

ogy

Cen

ter

SP

-3 P

ublic

Saf

ety

Com

plex

RP

Res

iden

tial P

lann

ed U

nit D

evel

opm

ent

AP

Res

iden

tial/C

omm

erci

al P

lann

ed U

nit D

evel

opm

ent

SP

-5 S

outh

side

Wor

ksS

P-4

Sta

tion

Squ

are

SP

-2 W

ashi

ngto

n's

Land

ing

// Z

ON

ING

- THR

EE R

IVER

S

P

UI

GI

R1A

-VH

R1A

-VH

R1A

-VH

SP-2

SP-2

R1A

-VH

R1A

-VH

R1A

-VH

H

H

LNC

LNC

LNC

LNC

LNC

P

UI

UI

UI

UI

UI

UI

UI

GI

GI

GI

GI

GI

GI

GI

GI

UI

UI

BUTL

ER

NEGLEY

PEN

N

LIB

ER

TY

EASTOHIO

BA

UM

RIVER

STA

NTO

N

SPRING GARDEN

40TH

BLOOMFIELD

CE

NT

RE

62ND ST

31ST

ST

40TH

ST

°0

0.2

50

.50

.125

Mile

s

Zo

ning

Dis

tric

ts

GI G

ener

al In

dust

rial

LNC

Loc

al N

eigh

borh

ood

Com

mer

cial

R1A

-VH

Sin

gle-

unit

Atta

ched

Res

iden

tial V

ery

Hig

h D

ensi

ty

UI U

rban

Indu

stria

l

H H

illsi

deP

Par

ks A

nd O

pen

Spa

ce

SP

-2 W

ashi

ngto

n's

Land

ing

// Z

ON

ING

- ALL

EGH

ENY

WES

T

H

RM

-M

P

P

P

LNC

R2-

HG

I

GI

UI

STANTON

FRE

EP

OR

T

LINCOLN

NEGLEY

HIGHLAND

MEL

LON

HIGHLAND PARK

BU

TLE

R

BUN

KERH

ILL

ONE WIL

D

62ND ST

PA R

T 2

8

ALL

EGH

ENY

RIV

ER

VERONA

WA

SHIN

GTO

N

°0

0.2

50

.50

.125

Mile

s

Zo

ning

Dis

tric

ts

GI G

ener

al In

dust

rial

LNC

Loc

al N

eigh

borh

ood

Com

mer

cial

RM

-M M

ulti-

unit

Res

iden

tial M

oder

ate

Den

sity

R2-

H T

wo-

unit

Res

iden

tial H

igh

Den

sity

UI U

rban

Indu

stria

l

H H

illsi

deP

Par

ks A

nd O

pen

Spa

ce

// Z

ON

ING

- ALL

EGH

ENY

EAST

UI

UI

UI

GI

GI

GI

GI

R1A

-VH

PN

DI

UI

R1A

-VH

ND

IR1A

-VH

ND

IR

1A-V

H

R1A

-VH

SP-5

SP-5

UI

UI

RP

LNC

CP

P

P

PSP

-1G

I

GI

GI

UI

H

H

HH

H

SP-1

0

SP-1

0

BEE

LER

5TH

GR

EEN

FIEL

D

BATES

HOT

MET

AL

HAZELWOOD

BE

CK

SR

UN

FORBES

IRVINE

SCH

ENLE

Y

CA

RSO

N

I-37

6

BLV

DO

FT

HE

ALL

IES

BIRMINGHAM

°0

0.2

50

.50

.125

Mile

s

Zo

ning

Dis

tric

ts

GI G

ener

al In

dust

rial

LNC

Loc

al N

eigh

borh

ood

Com

mer

cial

ND

I Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d In

dust

rial

R1A

-VH

Sin

gle-

unit

Atta

ched

Res

iden

tial V

ery

Hig

h D

ensi

ty

UI U

rban

Indu

stria

l

SP

-10

Alm

ono

CP

Com

mer

cial

Pla

nned

Uni

t Dev

elop

men

t

H H

illsi

deP

Par

ks A

nd O

pen

Spa

ce

SP

-1 P

ittsb

urgh

Tec

hnol

ogy

Cen

ter

RP

Res

iden

tial P

lann

ed U

nit D

evel

opm

ent

SP

-5 S

outh

side

Wor

ks

// Z

ON

ING

- MO

N. W

EST

UI

UI

UI

P

UI

UI

GI

GI

GI

GI

SP-5

SP-1

0

SP-1

0

2ND

HAZELWOOD

BROWNS HILL

BEC

KS

RU

N

IRVINE

CARSON

GLENWOOD

BALDWIN

CARSON ST ASHBY

°0

0.2

50

.50

.125

Mile

s

Zo

ning

Dis

tric

ts

GI G

ener

al In

dust

rial

UI U

rban

Indu

stria

l

SP

-10

Alm

ono

P P

arks

And

Ope

n S

pace

SP

-5 S

outh

side

Wor

ks

// Z

ON

ING

- MO

N. E

AST


Camiros | City of Pittsburgh | September 2017

Documents

Zoning - WordPress.com of Pittsburgh Riverfront Zoning | Zoning Recommendations 1 Zoning District Approach As described in the Assessment Report (April 2017), the current zoning of