Interpretation it doesnt require the City Attorney to make this call. We have to make in call every time thank you commissioner johns. Excuse me. City attorney wishes to responded. City attorney. I agree with the interpretation thats put forth but if the commission would like to hear the legislation actually just to clarify the comments before i want to say this ordinance that is before us will effect the resources prior to page by the border theres no requirement in the charter you have to consider the legislation today. The board is not going to consider this its credit card by the Planning Commission tomorrow but the historic sequa analysis differs as part of the package because under sequa you consider the whole package so its credit card under the sequa analysis thank you commissioner johns. Okay. After listening to what you said and mr. Ram said it seems like this is now putting on the lawyers hat that Historic Resources are unquestionably excluded under the lengths it didnt offe
City attorney wishes to responded. City attorney. I agree with the interpretation thats put forth but if the commission would like to hear the legislation actually just to clarify the comments before i want to say this ordinance that is before us will effect the resources prior to page by the border theres no requirement in the charter you have to consider the legislation today. The board is not going to consider this its credit card by the Planning Commission tomorrow but the historic sequa analysis differs as part of the package because under sequa you consider the whole package so its credit card under the sequa analysis thank you commissioner johns. Okay. After listening to what you said and mr. Ram said it seems like this is now putting on the lawyers hat that Historic Resources are unquestionably excluded under the lengths it didnt offend me at all it didnt take away from our jurisdiction or anything that we are doing. If it were worded differently it would be a different matter
Thing. Unnecessary man marking is a big building behind glass. Its the same materials use ins a different fashion. Thats not it. I feel it fits the scale. I mean their shortening a what is there by a if you feet. The legislation and the sequa though, you know, should we can commenting on that . Yeah. And so, you know, then this leads into we have a 4 bay proposal their propping 6 maybe some other questions on the corner. And so id like id like to hear in the commissioners sort of where we want to go on the legislation we need to solve that is that a continual issue where we comment at the next meeting on the legislation first and go to the promise. Weve done that before and id be curious if theres acceptable to the combhigs director ram the legislation i guess the way to think about the legislation in our mind is simply its one piece of 50 pieces of planning legislation that comes before the commission and every time the legislation comes to the department we have to decide whether tha
Role significantly enough to change the scale. We could i guess debate whether it brings it down to the pedestrian level or not thats up for debate. I expressed a concern theres no corn on this building it would be in the middle of the block and the design is the same. The height of the building and the staff analysis says it matches the adjacent building bus its only the bar building it matches. I continue to have concern about the height. The other two buildings at least one of them the nicky building open the one corn and the other digitally their 7 to the stories so this corner drops down especially theres no demarco in this design. The base as commissioner pearlman mentioned is still weak. Its a more creative solution than the one we saw previously. Commissioner. I had a question about the dates i dont know how this was dealt with but on the west side the sidewalks go down so youve got a a little bit of a well, how was that dealt with before. Previously in front of the of the stor
That comes before the commission and every time the legislation comes to the department we have to decide whether that legislation itself will affect the resources. In this particular case the call was simply it doesnt flaet affect the mechanism in the code thats proposed it cant affect the resources thats why we choose it. There are many pieces of legislation that come to the Planning Commission and before the board and so there are many pieces of legislation that come in some fashion be argued sort of indirectly affect the resources. Because this specifically says by definition you cant use the mechanism if it affects the resources so in our interpretation it doesnt require the City Attorney to make this call. We have to make in call every time thank you commissioner johns. Excuse me. City attorney wishes to responded. City attorney. I agree with the interpretation thats put forth but if the commission would like to hear the legislation actually just to clarify the comments before i