although it's called the maryvale antiques throughout the entire description. i sort of also agree about that was not really made -- that was not clarified at the time that the landmark was written back in 1973. the other thing i wanted to say was the people who are opposing it are very clear about the fact that we can never change a landmarked. there's a sense that we can't touch it because these things are there and it says these particular words. but i don't think that legislation around landmark king was immense that you could never touch it again and never modify it. i think -- when you are going to do that, there are procedures to follow and all those things and the evaluation that the staff has done is part of that process of looking at this particular landmark, can we change it? and that was an enormous and exhaustive as they noted a couple of year process already. a project submitted in 2016 is relatively young in that department. i don't think that is so much. anyway, i am really torn about the continuances because we really need to understand what wo

although it's called the maryvale antiques throughout the entire description.i sort of also agree about that was not really made -- that was not clarified at the time that the landmark was written back in 1973. the other thing i wanted to say was the people who are opposing it are very clear about the fact that we can never change a landmarked. there's a sense that we can't touch it because these things are there and it says these rt

gas and light company building and maryvale antiques.the property as landmarked is landmarked as 58. it has a very lean case report and local designation ordinance. to that effect, there is a garden structure on the site that appears to be noncontributing. however, the designating ordinance is silence. there is a proposal to build eight residential units on the side of that structure. the staff determines the structure was not contributing to the site however caps on commissioner still have concern over the design of this project. a motion continued -- a motion to continue failed and referred back to the architectural review of the commission. there was in a motion to approve the project as proposed with department recommendations. the reason for the motion to approve the commissioners cited that the provident -- that the project sponsor had complied with all the recommendations from the previous architectural review committee hearing of the h.p.c. and felt that the project should move forward as proposed. that motion passed 4-3 and agai