is it going back to the a.r.c.? doing did -- do we need to hash out for the design questions that the a.r.c. may have, those are the things we need to know. at least on face value, we think we have responded to everything that the a.r.c. asked for. but certainly, if you have outstanding questions, we will do our best to answer them if you do decide to continue. >> i'm sorry character that include the period of significance? >> that did include the period of significance. usually in this case, which we have done before, is that often if there is a coach house or an ancillary structure on a contributing property, we will have an applicant filed a separate hre so we can determine if that is actually part what part of the site. in the past we have found that sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. in this case, we felt fairly confident that because not only both the garden and the garden structure had been modified in the 1990s, well beyond the presidency at the site, that also there was not any -- i'm sorry. i los

i made this comment at the a.r.c. the variant project identifies 30,000 square feet of retail but the preservation alternative for the full variant doubles that to 64,000. i don't know where these numbers are coming from or why those are different. if we didn't double the amount of retail that additional 30,000 square feet that's identified as retail could be residential. >> the ballroom is kept in the full preservation. >> they're turning it all in residential is my guess. >> president wolfram: can you follow up on that ms. schuette? clarifying the alternatives? >> vice president hyland: i didn't understand why the single tower couldn't be shifted off the area above the ballroom or the bart. look like it is. >> not far off though. >> good afternoon commissioners. it's correct. we looked into this earlier. it did have to do with the amount of retail space being higher. preservation alternative has to do with converting the ballroom into residential space. as for the other question about the tower over the hick ballroom

i'm not in favor of sending it back to the a.r.c. the architects sitting here, i'm sure, are just squirming. i'm not sure there would be a huge benefit to that. >> i just want to emphasize the importance of looking at the design again. i understand there's not a legal question but i think the. a significant -- of significance should be possibly added to relook at that. >> commissioner black? >> one of the pleasures of serving on a commission like this is the opportunity to hear some pretty smart comments even if they're not always in agreement from my fellow commissioners. having heard the more recent comments, and also -- i didn't attend the a.r.c. meeting, unfortunately, i wasn't able to. i did not know that context. but also being significantly reassured by staff's review of this and comprehensive review of all of these issues, i am thinking that a continuance is not going to do what i initially thought it might, which is create a decision that the planning commission can look at carefully and trust that we looked at it thoroughly.