have tha whoe 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 of 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 to hear from a 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 effectively trigger the 5 feet. >> we're going proposing lobby and bicycle parking so long as 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 op.

wh 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 unabl 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'sethin comssion 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 goingtheack 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 you can go up to 5 feet. i apologize for the confusion 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 you're telling me not accurate as the code how do you

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 shared lobby. >> 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 the project 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 the ground floor 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 suggestt 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 behind - and i think we're back

to where we started from the 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 th muc 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 and go to page 70. it's an added sentence to be extremely clear where they couldn't be mitigated to a level of significance. >> all right. thank you.

commissioners there is a motion and a second. i think the motion is to adopt recommendations for the approval of the general plan and the text amendment to the planning coincide. as amended to remove bicycle parking from the definition of active uses. (calling names). so moved commissions that motion passes unanimously. i know there's members of the public that are waiting to hear open the break.

>> and silence the mobile. commissioners you left off open items 13 a and b's for case number 1220 and that's at the market street area >> good afternoon and commissioners. >> rick this is a request for a project that would xabd the retail space. it would remodel the facade of the building. the zoningor would

consider a new land screen on the building that would encroach into the right-of-way. it's in the upper market street neighborhood transit districts. they're going to open on the 6:00 a.m. in the morning instead of 4. it will not include the acholic beverages. only 18 percent of the lineal frooj was converted to the retailer stores. a wall greens located northeast

of the project site. the department has received two called in opposition that the neighborhood is satisfactorily already served by two retailers. since the definite motion was mailed to the commissioners last week the sponsor has continued to work with the issues of neighborhood southerners. as a result of those issues the sponsor has proposed a change to the project. those changes are rktdz in a draft motion that you have received today. and they withdraw the expand hours of operation.

t the additional motion you have received. it would not replace as tenant to the neighborhood will not cause unutilized buildings and meets the planning code. i'll be happy to answer any questions >> good afternoon. i'm holly. i brought my entire teem from andrew offices representing the project. we're proud