Never mind, you missed the bit of sarcasm in my response, then again if you still cannot stand on the ground without the top tube jamming up in a less than pleasant manner, the bike is too big. I understand this was thought to be appropriate years ( decades ago ) I'm old enough to recall bikes fitted by the 3 stooges, but if anyone seriously looks at the majority of recreational riders who are serious, Not the ones that hop on a bike once in a blue moon, you will see bikes properly fitted to their riders.

Times have changed, look at photo's of the Pro's, circa Anquetil and prior era and look at post Mercx ( never remember how to spell it ) modern era. Today the bikes of the Pro's are set up for efficiency and energy transfer, contrarily to the old days where it really was a crapshoot.
Unfortunately many people today still fit themselves to a bike that is uncomfortable, fixes you in anything but an optimal position and are therefor dangerous to ride.

Even a bike with straight bars ( not an MTB ) is designed with a relaxed yet performances oriented angled and sized frame. With the help of Cad and biomechanics, bike designers have been able to dial in design to fit a wide ranging body type, be it male or female.

Boy - I wish you had responded earlier. Then I would have known the correct way to measure vs the way Trek and every other source I could find on the internet measures. I would have disregarded the sticker on the frame that says 63 cm. I would not have changed the configuration to fit my riding style, and would have taken the advise of someone who doesn't read the question.