i urge the city through wmechanism the bike coalition e mayor's office to try to address many of those issues because i think it's important. >> i like to make one additional comment to help you what is the core of my objections as an active use are that the project sponsor would be able to use it for a jurisdictions for a 5 feet increase on the ground floor. i don't believe that bible in any form or shape should raise the ground floor if you take it into the use definition. i believe that bicycle parking

off the lobby is an interesting task but by saying you've got to have more footage is insult to injure. i think we should take this further and i can't support the idea of it >> commissioner. >> i think i'm okay in the active use but if there's this notion of provide tiger's retail in here, you know, i'm fine with that. that's kind of encouraging retail like bike parking at

levels. we can ask that you craft that i'm fine with that >> commissioner. >> yeah. i have some of the similar concerns. i talked about them earlier. i know that more people are using bikes and that's good and a certain amount of folks are going to be bicycle and it seems like that our studies are we think this need and it maybe at the captions of retail i you know that folks are supportive but i'm not sure if there's no study done how many people have bikes in blue parking garages

oftentimes their empty. so i think that we want to make sure we base our numbers on hard data. >> thanks a couple of things based on the commissioners commit. we could certainly beef up the language point ground floor space was the last resort. it seems to me that in the bullet we could incorporate some design for the first floor. my understanding the staff could correct me if i am wrong. for a smaller building it

couldn't be 40 feet recognizing - sorry >> it's whichever is large. >> large oh. okay that make sense thank you. those are some thoughts based on the concerns >> yeah, i'm fine with whatever if you want to modify the motions. i think we need to look at what is ground use i have a gallery but it's always empty. but i do think separate from this to be a more robust

conversation and what are other alternatives to retail. it can't be just about buying and selling. >> are you accepting an amendment then? >> i'd like to make a motion to have that whole issue of active use reexamined by staff. that will be separate from the parking lot legislation >> are you asking for an overall clarification of active use?. or specifically bicycle 19? >> also consideration be given to look at the possibility o

redefining bicycle parking in terms of it's active use is not triggering percent increase. >> do you feel - are you suggesting it not - we not send this to the board? and the question is whether we could suggest some language but send it to the board. >> well, if this includes not having a 5 foot increase i'll be okay. on that. i don't think that looking at bicycles and not an art gallery >> i think that cars are pretty too. >> we have them in cars on the street. >> audits i'll vote against the

motion. >> what is march of the motion be inclined to add that as a recommendation. >> what people wanted most was seeing it was a last resort and you'd work with the developer is that what - >> i would like to provide intents the retail uses. >> i guess we saying there could be a building of lobby of bibles and there's no other reason to get the bonus? >> the existing code says lobby can be counted toward active use. >> that would trigger the 5 percent? >> i also think we can address

the disrespects through the bullet so we can add diagrams or more specification to be more >> i want toearro few more commissioners. >> i hear the concerns about the 5 percent bunsz. i don't see why we can't add this legislation. we could change it >> so i'd like to add one clarification is in the 20 and 50 foot districts and the bonus is only given for buildings that add the ceiling height for 10 to

15 feet. just providing an active use on the ground floor you have to do the high grounded sooefl or the raised for town houses. it's unlikely someone would do a bike facility. the extra 5 feet height it's not like there's extra footage to the building. so - >> i'd like to quote from the executive summary. i have only what you said. such policy would allow problgz sprornz to count the bible

parking space 5 feet raised for this >> you're saying that bicycle parking would trigger the ability for a 5 foot building increase and while that 5 foot building increase can only be released on the ground floor and particular in retrofitting market street by the way, so-called we're saying you can stick bilk parking in there. or if you have another building that doesn't have 5 feet you can get it by having the bicycle parking in there. it undermines the quality of retail of how we want our streets to be. and using bicycles as an tuff

use doesn't meet those criteria >> you said - i don't have a problem 5 feet. but i would be minimal to additionally some notion where we're + bicycle use >> language that was read is side code do that in the map amendments or was that just an assumption made in the executive summary. >> it adds bicycle parking to the active use.

>> it doesn't trigger the 5 feet. >> we're going proposing lobby and bicycle parking so long as their 40 feet. >> would there be an instance of bicycle parking but no lobby? >> i don't think so the lobby would be a requirement. >> it's tuff use. >> i'm trying to make sure we're not searching for a problem. the intent is people don't want it to trigger the 5 foot bonus. it sounds like if someone has a lobby it would trigger that but

maybe we can be more clear >> there's a motion and a second commissioners. i'm unclear any amendment - >> well, the amendment could the original motion the staff would revise the language to say that the goal is that the last resort is designating the bicycle parking on the ground floor as tuff use. and secondarily if symfor some reason i'm willing to say for some reason the bicycle parking is on the ground floor it wouldn't trigger a 5 feet bonus >> if i may clarify. there's sort of two distinct issues. there's the question of whether

bike parking is an active use which is a different issue. we have requirement for tuff use in all buildings. but if - the question is whether just having bicycle parking in and of itself triggers the 5 feet height bonus and the answer is no. the revision of the code that great-aunts the height bonus is in a section and which as i stated earlier grants the 5 feet meeting certain regulations. boo but just having the bike

parking does not trigger in and of itself the 5 feet bonus >> i need to very politely state my opinion. when you write a executive opinion you're trying to express the issue that we don't have to spend 45 minutes trying to get to the core of the issue and then you have stated that's not what i meant. i have spent a lot of time trying to understand you. i've talked to the director of citywide planning and i briefly

said could you perhaps get back to me of what you really mean by that. and he came back and with no clarification what you meant here is not what you meant. i'm unable to really see it pushed through today and not being clear. i'm sorry i'm extremely frustrated. i don't want to be disrespect full realizing you've done a lot of hard work >> yeah. if it doesn't make any difference just take it out and say it's not going to

trigger a 5 feet bonus. >> in and of itself it doesn't trigger the height bonus and i think we're fine with that. >> but we have a document here saying we're voting or not. >> i apologize we're saying the bicycle parking in and of itself does not trigger the bonus and that's something the commission can direct us to do in this legislation. >> then wouldn't that be defining that in the rest of the coincide as tuff use. >> we're recommending it be recommended but that in and of itself doesn't trigger the 5 feet. >> can i address the goals the

use my have to be located in a less assessable the goal is to have the parking to the public that's easier rather than parking the bicycling into the street or going to the back of the garage would avoid the vehicle parking. and just to apologize for any confusion. the height bonus is only for that which is built higher than the 10 feet. and there's the project has to have either ground floor commercial space or the ceiling

apparently it's a qualifying requirement it has to be an tuff use and pittsburgh - it's a percentage too. you were ultimately, the administrator of this amendment. in the material you were relating the windows and off the public right-of-way off the area given the other relatives you have. and i believe that leave aside your explanation about height the addition of windows is

completely inappropriate. now'rtelling mes the code how d deal with the window portion >> i agree there's a difference in tuff uses that's a different part of the code. it doesn't require o pack glasses. we have the definition in another section and it listed specific issues. by the tuff word is more of a characteristic of a word. that's why we have the transparency into the bible

parking room and that's not making the use of the pedestrians passing by >> and making safety passages into the front of the building but it would require windows for bicycles i have questions about that. i believe there are architectural solution without adding doors and windows. >> i i would be encouraging if it doesn't have a window or door it could be from a sharelobby. >> it could be from the lobby

or the flat portion of the garage ramp into the side of the believe - building. >> i understand. >> commissioner. >> yeah. i guess you've further confused me mr. sanchez. because in the definition you were reading to us does it say commercial use and/or other tuff use or intuitive use triggers the 5 feet increase >> well, in the section it talks about the when you can do the height increase and it says features ground

floor space and there's ceiling heights in excess of the feet. and there's walk up assess use is primarily on the walkway and it says it occupies least 50 percent of the area >> by using the word or tuff use it does trigger it. >> if the bicycle parking space and other commercial tuff uses are 50 percent of the ground floor area. this was an issue on theater.

there have to have 50 percent dlaektd to walk up uses and for the bicycle parking space to count towards it it would have to have a 5 foot increase. and not have higher upper levels have a higher 15 foot or you walk up a few steps like a raised ground floor level and i guess for those who think about looking at bicycles i suggest you take a journey to town hall and it doesn't seem to me it's

going to generate any kind of desirable street bicycle parking >> we're in agreement we don't want the bicycle just to trigger the 5 feet. we want to encourage the ground floor bicycle parking. i'm clear about the window or door. are we encouraging the separate entry. what does that do exactly? >> it would require a window or door if the bicycle parking is counted towards the parking. >> we typically don't want

blank walls on the street. that's if we define it as tuff use. we suggest that since the 5 foot bonus requires the bonus of 57 feet it can't be used to increase the 5 feet height >> i guess getting back dot windows or doors if there's an option to park behind the lobby. if we can beef up the language of the store front then if that's behind the lobby we could have the preference of having it

behind the lobby rather than the front facade lobby or garage or other places >> the discussion is going it maybe simplicity not to have it count as an tuff use rather than having ifs and not straightforward. there will be no change as of today >> make a motion? >> i mean basically, we're taking what you said and cod fizzing that. it will not trigger an tuff use in the last resort >> no. we're going taking it

utilizing out as an tuff use. >> just want to clarify that would allow you to take it to where we started from the ck explanation of the why it's an tuff use. it would avoid a variance situation. i cannot predictability how many vaness there will be if you're a smart developer you're going to want to avoid that. >> i'm not fighting it for for your information you asked why we included that.

the rb a explained how difficult it is for smaller buildings they're not that much of facade ton the right-of-way and to have that much ground floor is very difficult. this was an accomodation we made. we're hearing you don't like it that's the history from it. >> i believe the city attorney would like to make a comment. >> i wanted to circle back to the question about the changes were to the sequa finding. so i'll provided that belief. there were two changes at the court of appeals direction. the finding on the alternatives

were updated to make clear the connection of the reasons their regretted claiming the reasons of offer riding consideration. so starting on page 721 there was some added text to make clear to the readers and also referenced the reasons for further objectives. and the other clarifies that was made to the sequa findings was to clarify which significant impacts couldn't be leveled to the significance. and that goes to 80 a number of impacts that start on 19