posted by Joe Polk at 12:53 AM /
Two Mt. Lebanon Planning Board members rejected a proposal from Kossman Development Co. to add a text amendment to the municipal zoning code permitting a health club in the mixed-use (MX) overlay district.
There are two such zoning districts in the municipality: the Kossman property on Castle Shannon Boulevard, and 1145 Bower Hill Road. The next step open to Kossman would be to go to municipal commissioners directly and ask them to approve an amendment to that zoning district to allow construction of an LA Fitness.
Link: www.thealmanac.net/ALM/Story/04-01-LA-Fitness-B
There are two such zoning districts in the municipality: the Kossman property on Castle Shannon Boulevard, and 1145 Bower Hill Road. The next step open to Kossman would be to go to municipal commissioners directly and ask them to approve an amendment to that zoning district to allow construction of an LA Fitness.
Link: www.thealmanac.net/ALM/Story/04-01-LA-Fitness-B
Labels: kossman, LA Fitness
9 Comments:
Heard on the street in MTL: Before the Planning Board decision, there was a Commission majority in favor of this project.
I can't believe we can take a possible developer's appeal to the Commission seriously if the developer and tenant REFUSE to disclose the membership projections for the facility.
How in the world does one evaluate the potential impact on the neighborhood without determining the potential impact to the neighborhood?
Of course we do not know what is going on behind the curtain.
Heard on the street in Oz: pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Isn't it safe to say that if Kossman could build an office building at this location and lease it at or near capacity they would have done it long ago? It's time to consider other alternatives, and this certainly seemed like a viable one. Do the dissenting members of the planning board prefer a hole in the ground?
What is it about a fitness club that is potentially objectionable to its neighbors?
There is quite a history lesson about this site and its ownership. The parcel was acquired by the grandfather of the two Kossman brothers, who now run the family enterprise, in/about 1954, for eventual development by a succeeding generation.
When I was Chair of the Traffic Board in 1971/2, we rejected a traffic study that the father of the two now running the business, Paul Kossman, had presented in support of a development he had in mind.
Fast forwarding, I believe the Kossmans have proposed four or five development schemes since 1980, and none of them went forward in spite of the fact that Lebo had approved them with supportable conditions. As I recall, the proposed projects always involved zoning variance & traffic issues and the recollection that they seemed to be 10 lbs. of development stuffed into a 5 lb. capacity development bag.
The fact that they were allowed to clear the beautiful forest area apparently without successful preleasing, and the questionable excuse of inavailability of suitable required fill that the MUNI bought allowing considerable time extensions to progress requirements, is shameful.
Health Club (ie.LA Fitness) ? A big box with upwards of 10,000 members, open 5:00 AM - 12:00 midnight M - F, 8:00 - 5:00 S & S in that confined and traffic challenged area/intersection ? ?
It didn't meet the Planning Board smell test or the zoning ordnance and, very likely, independent traffic study & PennDot approval.
The Commission wants tax revenue from development on that site, perhaps any development will do, and the Commission will waive any/all remaining obstacles, regardless of the impact on the neighborhood and area, including Castle Shannon.
Does the developer have rights ? Absolutely, and he is exercising every one of them ! And the MUNI has been more than patient with him. Consider their track record on this parcel....and the fact that at every public meeting I have attended (Commission, Planning Board)since the early 1990's where development of this parcel was on the agenda, the developer always had Gen. Counsel present and directing their side of the presentations & discussion. They have been accorded every consideration...and always want more.
Kossman destruction of the woods on his property was his right. He was also aware of the restrictions on this site. So for him to now say he needs a change in the zoning law to clean up the mess is like the kid who murdered his parents asking for leniency from the judge because he is an orphan. Mt. Lebo has enabled him to keep the site in its current condition because he can't find any fill. He is approved to build homes or a general office. I'm already bailing out AIG....why should I bail out Kossman? He knows the rules but refuses to live by them.
I live in the neighborhood several blocks from the Kossman parcel. I attended both the February and March meetings of the Planning Board. The article by Bob Williams of The Almanac does a good job presenting the facts. I am opposed to changing the zoning of this parcel for several reasons. There is already a project underway there to build an office building. According to reports this work has been suspended due to the inability of the developer to obtain sufficient quantities of fill material. Allowing a “Health Club” to be built here instead of the offices will add even more traffic on Castle Shannon Blvd. and will cause a substantial change to the character of the area.
Traffic: Castle Shannon Blvd. is already very busy. The property is located adjacent to the intersection with Mt. Lebanon Blvd. just down from the exit of the large Port Authority Commuter Lot. The office building project was approved based, in part, on minimizing the amount of new traffic that would be experienced. Things like medical offices that would have a high traffic volume were not allowed. Information presented to the Planning Board showed that other "LA Fitness" facilities elsewhere in the Pittsburgh area (and others nationwide) were located on four lane highways with many in shopping centers – not in residential areas already burdened with heavy traffic.
Community: This land is zoned to be residential and has an "overlay" that allows additional uses that are approved through a defined process. The existing office building project is allowed as the result of extending the permissible uses. The “LA Fitness” building proposed will be a "big box" very much out of character with the bordering residential neighborhoods. Under the title “Land Use” the current Mt. Lebanon Comprehensive Plan states:
Objective: Retain and improve the unique charm and character of Mt. Lebanon.
Action: Continue to prohibit commercial development from encroaching upon established residential neighborhoods and open space.
Specifically addressing “the wooded property adjacent to Arlington Park” the Comprehensive plan says the following:
Action: Critically evaluate proposals for the development”… (of this parcel)…“and ensure that it is consistent with current zoning ordinance requirements.”
In my view this has already been accomplished by allowing the building of one (perhaps eventually two) office buildings. If an alternative beyond that is needed a residential project could be developed – no zoning change would be required.
Can't find fill? Do we know where he's looked? I'm not a contractor, but that sounds like a cop out to me - or at least a problem that could/should have been addressed and resolved before the project started.
I'm also not a gambler, but if I was I'd bet that Kossman could find plenty of fill if it had tenants to put in the proposed office buildings. Sounds like they don't want to invest in or borrow the construction dollars until they have a tenant (and in this day and age, it may be next to impossible to borrow the money - at least on reasonable terms - without pre-leasing).
Further, there's probably not a big demand for prime commercial office space tucked between Lebo and Castle Shannon - much like there's no real demand for luxury condos on the corner of Washington and Bower Hill. We're not in Northern Virginia where stuff like this pops up all over the place.
However, I would also add that there aren't too many available spots in Lebo that I would consider to be less residential than this one. No offense to those who are "close by", but it would appear that this site's closest neighbors are the largest T stop in Allegheny County, a gas station, a Pizza Hut and the Mr. Magic. As for the golf course, the site's most significant neighbor, office parks spring up on or around those all of the time (see, N. Virginia), so I'm not as offended by that.
Courtesy Google Maps: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.370092,-80.029951&z=17&t=h&hl=en
So, while it would appear that perhaps the developer didn't do some or all of its homework, it would also appear that the "neighbors" may have to bend a bit if this eyesore is ever to look any different than it does right now.
How can Mr. Kossman find fill for L.A. Fitness if he can't find fill for two low-rise office buildings?
I'd think the fitness center might need even more compacted fill with all that jumping they do in those aerobics classes.
To David Franklin.... the "neighbors"(I do not reside in the neighborhood or area but obviously support their concerns and opposition)have been "bending" so much and for so long they all suffer from joint problems! Development of this site has been a trying issue with the neighborhood group for over 25 years. The now unfortunately former forest area had been, what few outside the contiguous residential neighborhood have recognized or acknowledged, a critical *buffer* to the very commercial/transit development you correctly describe.Proximity to golf courses are usually desireable and property value enhancing. We have a similar *buffer* in my neighborhood that separates the 4-lane Conner Road highway traffic from the residential neighborhood....the difference being that the original area developer donated the 6-acre or so woods to the MUNI as a Conservation District park for $1.00. The MUNI subsequently acquired property directly across the highway for a combination of passive and active park areas to prevent development that, in essence, protects or *buffers* Highland Terrace folks.
David Huston raises a significant question...how can fill for LA Fitness be acquired, but not for the office development ? The developer, after prodding by the MUNI, came up with a promised schedule of fill sources and installation ... not all required, but most...last year, but I don't believe it came anywhere close to or even a fraction of being met. I'm not aware that a 46,000 sq. ft.,single floor but 2-story + in height, with an underground parking garage for 129 vehicles (just as for the office buildings)health club that includes an indoor swimming pool would require less fill on that site than lowrise office buildings. There is a significant enviornmental issue associated with the site.
The developer began marketing his office project in 2005, well before the economy began to tank in late 2007 and we only became aware of it in mid/late 2008. You're right...it's questionable whether there is a market for office buildings on that site now; and, I would add in good economic times as well. Why should neighborhoods have to suffer for mistakes by developers and lax or absent diligence by government...and the neighbors be asked to "bend" some more ?
Post a Comment
<< Home