winslo, could you respond to that, please? >> very good point and i think that is one way of accomplishing it. i think, also, as the project sponsor was eluding to, there might be a way of lowering the roof height in the landing area since the landing is at a lower eelevation than the third floor and if that could be accomplished to at least provide a little bit more relief, then simply the third story wall going up full height, plus the 30-inch parapit parapit to prote sky lights of the property line, i think that would go a long way towards meeting that guideline. >> i think we do need to accommodate something that should not be requiring to relocate stairs which is more costly and also quite a detrimental effect to the way the building is laid out. >> understood. the other thing that might help justify this is that what we're talking about is north of the light well in question, and so, it's not really subject to light well we're trying to respond to is not subject to as much direct sunlight as if it were another orientatio