Pittsburgh URA considering $55.5 million plan for former Allegheny County 911 center |

Pittsburgh URA considering $55.5 million plan for former Allegheny County 911 center

Bob Bauder
Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Robert Rubinstein (standing) outlines plans for a proposed $23 million redevelopment of the Lexington Technology Park in North Point Breeze. To his right is board Chairman Kevin Acklin and members Cheryl Hall Russell and Sam Williamson.

The Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority board on Thursday agreed to consider a $55.5 million redevelopment plan for the Lexington Technology Park in North Point Breeze despite vocal opposition from residents.

Lexington Partners of Pittsburgh LLC, consisting of Columbus, Ohio-based KBK Enterprises and ICON Development of East Liberty, is proposing 150 apartments and townhouses on the 16-acre property along with the rehabilitation of several existing buildings for commercial and light industrial use. The property owned by the URA was originally the home of Rockwell International and later the former site of the Allegheny County 911 emergency dispatching center.

The residential section would include 125 apartments with 50 of them affordable for low-income residents and 25 townhouses to be offered for sale at market rates. The remaining apartments would be offered for lease at market rates.

URA board members unanimously agreed to negotiate exclusively with Lexington Partners for 60 days before scheduling votes to sell the site. Executive Director Robert Rubinstein said the company agreed to extend existing streets into the complex and was the only bidder offering to develop the entire site.

“They emerged as the team that was most responsive to community feedback,” he said.

Eleven residents of North Point Breeze and surrounding communities disagreed, saying they opposed the project.

They argued that the residential portion planned for 4 acres was too dense for the neighborhood and that it didn’t offer enough affordable housing, among other things.

“There is no reason to cram all of those units into these 4 acres,” said Vivienne Shaffer, a North Point Breeze homeowner who lives about a block from the site. “The density is the greatest threat to the neighborhood that we hold precious and call home.”

Judith K. Ginyard, of North Point Breeze, said city officials, particularly Councilman Ricky Burgess of North Point Breeze, ignored complaints from residents during community meetings. She and other residents asked the URA to consider a proposal from Action Housing of Pittsburgh, which also bid on the property, that included 100 affordable housing units.

“The process was not as transparent as it has been described to you today,” she said. “I would implore you not to vote on this today. Come back to the residents … and listen to what we have to say.”

Burgess said his office twice sent letters to 2,400 homes in North Point Breeze and South Homewood updating residents about the project and asking for feedback. URA officials said they held at least a dozen meetings in the community and received positive feedback from the North Point Breeze Community Development Corp., which supports the project.

Burgess said the proposal would return the 16 acres to tax rolls and could lead to more affordable housing in surrounding blocks.

He described the criticism directed at him as a political attack. Burgess is running for re-election next year.

“This was Rockwell International,” he said. “The density argument is interesting for a site that was dense with workers years before.”

URA board members agreed to specifically address neighborhood concerns over density and affordable housing during its negotiations with Lexington Park.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with the correct amount of the project.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-765-2312, [email protected] or via Twitter @bobbauder.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.