 Alright, let's get started. Welcome, DDRC members, staff and guests. We ask for your patience during this meeting. Multiple staff members are present to make sure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and citizens are able to communicate with the Commission at the appropriate time. The public may submit letters and statements via email to cocddrc at columbiasc.gov up to and or during the meeting as this account will be monitored throughout the proceedings. Emails and letters that we receive will be read into the record. I will call the roll. Ms. Branham. Here. Mr. Broom. Here. Mr. Greenberg. Ms. Jacob. Here. And Mr. Salivi. Here. We have quorum. In order to avoid ex parte communications, DDRC members are under strict constructions not to discuss cases under consideration with the public or with each other outside of the public form. The meeting typically starts with staff calling the case, giving a summary of the project, and then calling on the applicant to present if they wish. Decisions are typically made in one evening. Decisions may be appealed within 30 days to a court of competent jurisdiction. Oaves will be administered individually as we hear either from applicants or from life speakers. Applicants with requests before the DDRC are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding their request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the DDRC or staff regarding their request. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns and intervals of two minutes. Applicants may have five minutes to respond. Staff has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. Are there any changes to the agenda? There are no changes. The DDRC uses the consent agenda to approve noncontroversial or routine matters by single motion and vote. If a member of the DDRC or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed from the agenda and considered during the meeting. The DDRC then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please review the consent agenda? Certainly. Our first item is 1042 Bryan Street, a request for preliminary certification of the Bailey Bill in the Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation District and 912 Lady Street, a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes and preliminary certification of the Bailey Bill in the Westervay Historic Commercial District. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Is there anyone from the public that would like to hear an item removed from the consent agenda? Communicate by sending an email to cocddrc at columbiasc.gov. We will pause a moment to allow any communication from the public. We're still confirming communication. No emails have come about the consent agenda. So do I have a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda subject to all conditions contained and as well as the June minutes? So moved. Ms. Brannum? Yes. Mr. Brim? Yes. Mr. Greenberg? Ms. Jacob? Yes. Mr. McGuire? Yes. Mr. Salibi? Motion passes. Ready for the regular agenda? First case. The next case is on the regular agenda. This is 1126 410 Gervay and 411 Cinec Street. This is a request for certificate of design approval for new construction. The request is for the new construction of a seven-story, 249-room hotel at the corner of Gervay and William Street in the adjacent associated parking garage at the corner of Williams and Senate. There are overhead transmission lines and an easement along the eastern side of the property line requiring that the building be set back from the property on Williams about 18 feet. The hotel building was before the DDRC at the May meeting and was deferred by the commission in order to learn more about the garage design as it relates to the hotel as well as additional information about the proposed landscaping. The evaluation included in the packet has comments about the hotel as well as about the garage design and I will just go ahead and read the staff recommendation and then the architect is here to present on the project. Staff finds that the proposal substantially meets the innovative design guidelines and recommends approval of the request conditional upon working through the following items with staff, providing as close to a four-inch depth as is reasonably practical for the windows, consideration to additional detailing between the first floor and upper floors and at punch windows, provide more transparency to the outdoor patio space along William Street, working to ensure that the parking garage artist space is actively programmed, provide additional information about interior garage lighting and shielding, working with staff on the encroachment to ensure all City of Columbia and Inavista standards are met for the right-of-way improvements and that all other details be deferred to staff. And I believe Craig Otto is here to just talk through the project. Coming up. Yeah, please state your name. I'm Craig Otto, architect for the project. And do you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings? I do. Thank you. Some of you are familiar with our project and perhaps you've seen the presentation we've already made. But of course, as Lucinda said, we've got a hotel at the corner of Jervaine Williams, seven stories, 249 rooms. The building will be built out of precast concrete with brick and concrete exposed on the exterior. Nice red colored brick, charcoal colored exterior concrete. There's a large patio space between the building and William Street for the patrons to gather and grill out and hang out and cook and have a good time. It's right next to the lobby and breakfast area. The entrance to the hotel is the main entrance is on Jervaine Street with a canopy at that sidewalk right on the sidewalk. There is a car entrance and canopy in the back that would not be visible from the corner. And then the parking garage is down at the corner of Williams and Senate. It's mostly fronting on Senate, but also fronts on Williams. That's the end of the building. The parking garage has some program space on the first floor. The intention is for artist studios because of the artist enclave that is very near to there. It would seem to fit appropriately there. Small space. Most artists don't want to pay a whole lot of money and can't necessarily afford it. They're always starving as the saying goes. So it would be very small spaces that they could probably manage and with some nice glass exposure on the front. Parking garage is four, four and a half to five stories. It sort of appears to be like a four story building. It does have a fifth story rent. Stair tower in the corner at Williams and Jervaine, excuse me, Williams and Senate. And then the entrance is actually on the opposite end from Williams Street. The end facing Williams and the side facing Senate has been dressed with the brick and concrete to match the hotel building. Okay, yes. And so the buildings are designed to to flow with each other to use the same materials to and to have the same sort of elements. So the the tow hooked up towers at the corner with the facade at the top are to mimic the same design that we have on the hotel. So all kind of flow together. We have responded to some of the neighbors suggestions by slightly lower in the building. We lowered it as well as much as we could while still maintaining a seven story building. Previously, it was 95 feet. We reduced it to 92. I know that's a very modest three feet. But it is the best that we could do to still get all the infrastructure and everything else in it. And I think that the building fits well with the with the streetscape. I'd like to just point out a few comments that the staff made in the in their evaluation. The building is cited properly on the site at the corner of Jervay and Williams, because it needs to address the corner, which is what we've done. The building is actually not as close to Williams Street as the requirements state that it should be because of the overhead transmission lines. So rather than the building being between zero and 10 feet, which would put it closer to the to the neighbors homes, we were forced to move it back because the power line so it actually gives some more separation between our building and and the homes across the street of about 135 feet. The entrance at you at Jervay Street includes a pedestrian scaled canopy, which is what is required by the guidelines. We have red brick, which goes with the context of the local buildings. This I'm reading some comments, I'm paraphrasing some comments made by the staff in here. The seven story structure is consistent with the recommendations of the master plan, the guidelines and will add density and an active use to this corner. So staff is stating that it's it's appropriate for the site. With 100 with a 100 foot ride away, they generally recommend a one to one ratio as far as height to to right away. So a 100 foot tall building would not be unusual at all for a site based on those guidelines, but our building is 92 so it's a little shorter than that. So it's not as tall as it certainly could have been. By the and by the way, the zoning allows for an unrestricted height on the building so it could be unlimited in height. The alternating patterns of the concrete and brick break up the mass of the building into smaller scaled elements to make it more pedestrian friendly. The building entrance to the lobby has been provided at the street corner, which requires required by the guidelines. So we've done that. They've asked for ground floor activity zones, which the lobby and outdoor patio area fulfills that requirement. And the staff eventually recommended approval by saying that the proposals substantially meets the innovative design guidelines and recommends approval of the project. So the design currently already meets all of the requirements of the guidelines. It meets all the requirements of the zoning restrictions. It's it's met every requirement that it needs to meet according to the city and the staff and all the folks that are involved in that. So we're just seeking your approval today and certainly hope that that's what happens. I wanted to ask question on the staff recommendations that were provided. Did you have any comment on those or the recommendations? Yes, yes. Generally, all of them we're going to comply with so we can we we're going to have we already have a three inch depth for the windows. We're going to shoot for more we're going to shoot as for as much as four and we're we're already actively trying to figure out how to do that. The second item which was consideration for detailing between the first and second floor, actually just I get I think was yesterday. I emailed Lucinda a recommendation on how we might address that particular comment with some additional brickwork, some roll locks at each at each floor level and a brick soldier course and a roll lock between the first and second floor, which she indicated in her email was the direction that she was sort of suggesting the provide more transparency to the outdoor patio space. I have to admit, I'm not sure exactly if she meant the the the wall surrounding the wall surrounding the patio. So we I feel like the wall already addresses that transparency pretty decently. It is it is a majority brick. So of course you can't see through brick, but there's these five or six foot panels. And there's two. I think there's eight or 10 of these panels that are made of metal and they're they're laser cut so that they're there's lots of holes and patterns in it so you can see through it essentially it provides about a 50% transparency. Those are the screens right there on the screen. So there is some transparency there. Lucinda and I have not discussed if she's looking for additional transparency, but certainly we're open to that we're trying to provide some privacy for the guests who are out there cooking, cleaning or eating, perhaps playing cornhole or something. They're just sitting around the fire pit talking. So we're trying to provide some feeling of privacy for those folks, but also trying to open it up so the public can at least see what's happening behind there. We're open to suggestions from the staff. We're trying to get artists space in the parking garage. That's our that we're already working towards that. The interior garage lighting I've sent Lucinda email. Our intention is to provide lighting by placing lights rather than on the ceiling of each floor level of the parking garage that would be on the wall. And that way they're shining inwardly and not to where if you're across the street, you're not going to be looking at a light shining on the ceiling. You'll you'll see lights light shining inside the building, but you won't really see it in your face. So we certainly intend to to provide as much shielding for that parking as we can. And of course, we have to work on with staff on the encroachment, make sure it meets the standards of the right away. That's a given the design we had. We have already designed a landscape plan and all of the sort of stuff that goes with the building outside of the property. It went to planning commission last week, it's been deferred. But we I sent to Lucinda landscaping plan. There's there's a lot of trees along the Williams Street right of way between us and in the adjacent townhomes. Lots of the trees will be as large as they possibly can without interfering with the overhead transmission lines. As Dominion has already been working with us to make sure that we don't put trees in there that are going to eventually mess with their lines. So we've already got that covered. And any other details that need to be referred to the staff will certainly handle. Lucinda can hopefully tell you that my my relationship with them is good. And we've always I've always tried to do everything they've asked us to do on this project and any other projects in the past. So we're certainly going to keep that going in the same direction. Any other questions of DVRC commissioners? Yeah, what was the rendering rendering of Hugh G and Senate? I think we did not do a rendering of Hugh G and Senate because the only thing you'll see there is the end of the parking garage. That actually that east elevation on the bottom is what you would see from UG Street until that site is developed in another building is placed in that location at the corner of Hugh G and Senate Street. The parking garage was only required to be finished in a more attractive way on the street frontage. So the two elevations that are not on the street are not required to meet the same requirements as the street frontage. And since that site is set well off of UG and there's going to be another building in the middle in the in the way of at some point then it's it's not street frontage. I have a question on the parking garage. Once again, the floor plan, the first floor, the first floor of the parking garage. My understanding that parking garage is not only for the hotel, it's for the future tenant on the property adjacent to this, correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. Are there any provisions in the parking garage for the future development? Well, they would have to enter either the top, the top right driveway or the bottom right driveway. There's not a direct entrance from that right side of the building, but there will certainly be plenty of sidewalk and driveway access when that time comes. That part project has not been preplanned at all at this point. There are no plant. There are no immediate plans for that site. So I have a follow up question to that, Bob, if that's all right. So Mr. Otto, I noticed that your submission talks about 430 spaces and yet only 215 are reserved for the hotel and the future multifamily housing project. So what are the other 215 parking spaces intended for? I would actually have to consult the owner on that. I'm not aware of that. I'm only aware of it being available to those two developments. With 249 rooms in the hotel, you generally want a one-to-one ratio, so we would need 249 spaces for the parking garage. The future building would be, who knows what it might be? It's talked about being potentially student housing apartments, perhaps another hotel, whatever it's appropriately zoned for. Again, there are no immediate plans, but so those additional parking spaces between 249 and 400 and something are at this point devoted to that future development. I'm not aware of anything other than the future development that that's parking garages for. Okay, I'm just reading off of your, actually, it was the submission that was in May where it said only 215 are for homewood and true hotels. Well, yeah, there's a few ground floor. There are some parking spaces behind the hotel. I think there might be 20 or 25, so that might be the difference between 249 and the 215 or something. But as far as I know, the remaining spaces are for the future development. Gotcha. Oh, I'll have one more question. So, would it be possible to limit the access to the garage to Senate Street? Because it's ingress and egress right off of Senate. There is ingress and egress directly off of Senate now. I don't think there's been any consideration yet for not having access from the William Street driveway. We have access from the William Street driveway at this point to get into the back of the hotel, to the drive-through, drive under canopy. Totally understand that. So we've just connected that driveway with the parking garage to make it more convenient for the guests to be able to get in and out. But it could be. Only accessed off of Senate. It potentially could be. Now there's still there's still a driveway on Williams that's accessing the back of the hotel. Right. I don't I can't remember if there's any regulations that require a two separate entrances out of parking garages. So I guess it potentially could be. Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Staff, any follow-ups from you? Good. Okay. We encourage those that would like to communicate via email to begin sending in letters and emails. You can email at cocddrc at columbiasc.gov. Are we compiling emails? We are. So we just wanted to note the emails that were sent to y'all digitally prior to the meeting. These were sent by Paul Gaffney, Amy Johnson, Gordon Langston, Carolyn Lee-Dekker, Charlie Lee-Dekker, Gerald Thart, Martin Walrath, and Daryl Williams. So y'all would have received those digitally. You have hard copies before you of correspondence that was received since we sent you the digital copies from Bruce and Debbie Sprouls and Julius McKay. And then we have received since the meeting or just before the meeting we have received a couple of more correspondence. And I'll just start reading those while we're waiting to see what else might be. So the first one is from Paul Harrell, Dear Design Development Review Commission. I am writing this email to address a very specific but important issue related to the developer's application, automotive access to the project. The guidelines require that access to the proposed project should be on B streets, quote unquote B streets, Jervais and Hugh G, not on A streets, Senate and William streets. Yet the developer seeks access on Senate and William streets. The developer's request is premised upon the implication that auto access must be shifted to Senate and William streets because the SCDOT will not permit access off of Jervais or Hugh G streets. That is not accurate. It is true that the SCDOT will not permit a full access, parentheses left and right turns and parentheses off of Jervais and Hugh G into the proposed project. However, SCDOT will permit limited access from both Jervais and Hugh G streets to the project site. The permitted access would require a right hand turn off of and onto Jervais and Hugh G, just like the neighboring McDonald's on the corner. I have confirmed this today with the Chief Engineer at SCDOT, Joseph Frendendahl, and the developer has never requested limited access from Jervais or Hugh G. Therefore, the developer's request for access from Williams and Senate streets is not necessary and appears to be more a matter of convenience or preference for the developer. The DDRC should not approve this deviation from the guidelines to accommodate the developer's convenience or preference when he has not even requested a limited access off of Jervais and Hugh G streets. I respectfully request that you deny developer's application for this reason and all of the other reasons submitted. Then we also have a letter from the Vista Property Owners Group. This is the Congruy Vista Commercial Property Owners Association, your City of Columbia Design and Development Review Commission. On behalf of the Congruy Vista Commercial Property Owners Association, I would like to express our full support for the proposed hotel development at 411 Senate Street. As commercial property owners in the Vista, we have made substantial investments to be here and believe strongly that this hotel development will bring a much needed economic boost to not only the Vista but to the entire community. Residents from all over greater Columbia love to come and enjoy the food and entertainment options in the Vista and we think this hotel will provide opportunity for our current businesses to ensure they survive long term. We urge you to move expeditiously to approve the necessary applications and plans to move forward with the hotel development and stand ready to help in any way we can. Thank you for all the work you do on behalf of the businesses and residents of greater Columbia. Sincerely, Hal Stevenson, president. That's all we've received so far. Amy, just a clarification. Who was that last letter you just wrote from again? That was from the Vista Property Owners Association. It's the, sorry, let me specify Congre Vista Commercial Property Owners Association written by Hal Stevenson, president. Okay. We will now hear comments from anyone who is here in person. Good afternoon. Please state your name. I'm Laura Tucker. I'm the CEO of the Girl Scouts of South Carolina, Mount St. Midlands. I'm also a retired colonel and it's an honor to lead an organization whose mission is building girls of courage, confidence and character who make the world a better place. Great. And do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? Absolutely. All right. Thank you. Go ahead. And staff will be timing. Thank you so much. We've got members of the team here to speak on two concerns, major concerns that we have. One, being the safety of our girls and two, being the actual design. The Kathy Novager Girl Scout Leadership Center. I've hoped that you've been there. It's at 1107 Williams Street. It's directly across from the large parking garage and hotel. That is the part of the proposed plan. And the plan actually brings traffic right to our front door. The amount of traffic that's projected on Williams and Senate streets will hinder the walkability of the VISTA. We have hundreds of girls, young pedestrians, that walk to the state house, that walk to the state museum, the adventure children's museum, the waterfront, restaurants. These are young pedestrians in. We're very concerned with their safety, with the parking garage being right there on the corner. During planning and construction of the Girl Scout Leadership Center in 2018 and 19, we were asked to address the corner, the intersection of Williams and Senate, where the proposed massive parking garage is planned. It's identified as a major gateway into the pedestrian district. And our main entrance had to be on that corner as part of the pedestrian district. We're also troubled and concerned by the inevitable consequences of buildings that while they comply, they may comply with standards. We don't believe that they meet the scope of the Inovista master plan. And so what I would ask this body, you, leaders of Columbia, that you have the courage and confidence in the characters that our girls do and that, you know, you are the guardians of a future plan, a master plan that will take years to develop. And we just believe that the scope of this building doesn't meet the Inovista master plan vision. Thank you so very much. Hi, please state your name. My name is Evelyn Eddy. Do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? Okay, so I just went to a camp at the Novinger Center this summer. We walked to Tristus Theater, the State Museum and the bus stop. It was a great experience getting to know my capital city. It would be bad if it was unsafe for future Girl Scouts to have this experience. Hi, please state your name. My name is Lynn Arv. And do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? Yes, ma'am. I am the chief operating officer for Girl Scouts of South Carolina Mountains to Midlands and I appreciate the young lady speaking as well. And it's tough to follow someone who did such a great job there. Just want to share our thoughts on this process. It is our belief that the proposed plans do not appear to follow the guidelines of the Vista District, that following under the Inavista design and district guidelines, along with the Inavista master plan. All of that was approved by Columbia City Council and then incorporated into the unified development ordinance for the city. And that is our biggest concern and a thing that we would like to address. We purchased the former South Carolina Department of Agriculture building, which is across the street, 11 or 7 William Street. And in that process, we worked with the local architects and interior design firm to be sure that we developed that building in something that met the restrictions and the guidelines of the area, both externally and internally in the building. And we worked really hard on that process to meet those building guidelines. For the proposed hotel, the drawing submitted by the applicant show the parking garage in a stairwell at the corner of Williams and Senate. It does not seem to comply with the requirements and it's not very inspiring for a gateway building or engaging to pedestrians. It in that role, that was something that we had to really work on our plan for. We spent considerable money to open that gateway to open that pedestrian path. We created a corner there that is a new and grand public entrance for our area that includes a two story lobby. And it has a rock wall, a store and we have a public art display as well. You'll find that outside the building and all of that was in an effort to draw in and have that continue that pedestrian friendly area and also to complement the gateway that is there in that area. In 2021, the Kathy Novinger Girl Scout Leadership Center was recognized by Historic Columbia and the Preservation Leadership Award was given to us. The center is recognized as a notable example of preservation, rehabilitation and restoration to the Vista. The center has maintained and added to Columbia and Richland County for the historical, architectural and cultural heritage. So I just ask that you consider all the parts of this as you look through the plans for the building. Good afternoon. My name is Travis Falls. I'm a board member of the Girl Scouts Mountain St. Midlands. Right. And do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? I do. You may want to adjust the microphone just a little bit. So the Girl Scouts chose the location for our leadership center because we embrace the major tenets of the inner Vista master plan, which is work, live, play and learn. And as has been previously mentioned, it's a destination center. We have the ability to house about 200 girls at a time that utilize the center and about 50 percent of people in South Carolina never leave the county that they're born in. So we have an opportunity here to have girls from all around the state come and stay at our facility. And we just have major concerns about the safety. It would appear that the design calls for all the traffic coming in on Senate Street and accessing the parking garage, you know, directly in front of the Kathy Nogger leadership center. And it's just a major concern for us that the safety of the girls is going to be compromised by the current design, specifically with William Street. And that's directly in front of the leadership center. And again, the whole idea of being in the area was the walkability to be able to walk to the state house, to be able to walk to USC, to be able to go to a baseball game, recreate on the river, et cetera, very pedestrian friendly, high, high youth. So the safety of the current gas can members, both parking and walking in the center for indoor activities as a great concern. And the center is a destination spot, not just on the week days, but also in the weekends. The other issue we wanted to point out was that the proposal does not address green space or appear to comply with the VISTAs designation of the South Carolina Arts Commission as South Carolina Cultural District and recognition of the VISTAs deep roots and artistic entrepreneurship space for creative expression and commitment to preserving its cultural, architectural and historical heritage. And the VISTAs only one of non such designations in state. Finally, I would ask, does the current applicants intended use and design meet the vision of the current master plan, which was to, you know, and inspire people to move to Columbia and do research and anyway, in closing, the Girl Scouts of the Mountains of Midlands trust the Planning Commission will ensure features of members of the VISTA comply with the Unified Development Ordinance as our current VISTA members have. And if I have one more thought, I would like to leave with you all is that the master plan's intent was originally to showcase the University of South Carolina as a research center of excellence and attract talent to Columbia and businesses and industry and drive innovation and growth. And I would just challenge everyone to think, does the intended use of the applicant meet that standard? Are we driving in that direction? Thank you. Feel free to move that towards you a little bit. If you need, there you go. All right. My name's Charlie Liedecker. Do you swear to tell the truth in this position? I swear to tell the truth. I live on William Street directly across from the hotel. After you voted for a deferral last month, I met with Mr. Patel along with one of my neighbors, a professional architect. And we had a number of specific ideas to make the project more suitable for our neighborhood. Including a modified site plan that would move the hotel to Hugie Street. Many of our suggestions were based on the innovative design guidelines. Can you put the parking deck in the interior of the block? Can you provide more pedestrian friendly activity at street level? One of my big questions was, can you move the vehicle entrances to Gervais and Hugie Streets? The answer was no. EOT would not allow it. Well, we just heard an email from Paul Harrell that disputes that. When the traffic consultant spoke at the planning commission last week, he didn't mention it, which was what made us suspicious. So instead of violating so many guidelines in the investor plan, we would ask the developer to go to DOT and get approval to put entrances on Hugie and Gervais Streets. Everybody in our neighborhood wants new development. But our message to Mr. Patel was, can you show us a design that respects the Vista district? Can you bring us a site plan that conforms with the innovative site planning guidelines? Please. The package you have now only has minor changes from what we looked at in May. There's still big problems with the building scale and compatibility with the Vista district, and more important for the DDRC, the hotel design is more suitable for a location on an interstate highway. And the parking deck would look more at home next to a suburban commuter rail station. The location of this site is on the most important entry corridor to South Carolina's capital city, and this really calls out for a signature distinctive architectural design. Thank you. Please state your name. Wade Kaufman. I want to raise it up a little bit. There you go. And do you sort of tell the truth? Wade Kaufman. Wade Kaufman. Thank you. And do you sort of tell the truth in this proceeding? Absolutely. Okay. I want to make clear that I'm here on behalf of City Club. I'm a resident, but I also was a developer on the City Club project. So I'm pro-development. I'm pro-urban, high-density development. But the guidelines need to be met, and I'm requesting this application be denied because it does not meet the Vista or inner Vista guidelines, and I'm asking there to hold up the integrity of these guidelines. These guidelines being not just guidelines, but actual city ordinance. 1737 directs limits new construction that is significantly out of scale with existing structures. In a Vista 2.01 guideline, buildings are to be compatible with its function and surroundings. In a Vista 3.02, the height and scale of new buildings should complement existing structures. In a Vista 113, auto access from parking sites, new buildings, structures, and service areas should only be on B streets. B streets are Jervay and Hugee. That's why it would work on Hugee. Williams and Senate Street are not B streets. These are guidelines in a Vista 1.3, comparable surroundings. Being on the development team, we were actually required on City Club to change our entrance from the front entrances to the rear entrances because of urban guidelines, and we did that. The DDRC required McDonald's, a cookie cutter franchise, in a sense, to meet guidelines and a historical, with even a two-story facade, to meet the community guidelines. And of course, the Girl Scouts in a two-story building required to meet guidelines and get a special ordinance. So only thing we ask is that the development meet the guidelines. And our three developments, including the State Museum, have established these guidelines and established the integrity of the guidelines in the community. The proposed hotels does not meet those guidelines. And I think we have to think long term about what's happening. We've already approved, you guys are city, whomever, has approved a hotel at the corner of Senate in UG. I guess I'm going to start construction soon. Therefore, this hotel would be compatible on UG. It's not compatible with McDonald's, the City Club, or the Girl Scouts. So I just ask you to please follow these guidelines and just get a simple process and get a nice development going. Thank you. I'm Paul Gaffney. I live at 1112 Kiss Street in the City Club. Right. Do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? Yes, I do. But before I start, I'd like to note some good news and some bad news. The bad news is we really it's very difficult for anybody back here to hear what's going on in several of the presentations. The good news is the timer hasn't been working for most of the people up here. So thank you. So let me start by saying the development of a hotel is needed on this long overgrown vacant lot. But however, the design plan is not compatible with the adjacent award winning and city desires conforming structures in the narrowing of William Street, right where the parking garage is going to go. It's a narrow street in Columbia, I believe that's paved. The design does not substantially conform. It is, in fact, significantly contrary to the controlling inovista overlay guidelines. Some examples, the design violates section one, one, three, the street access restrictions you've heard about already. It's especially egregious in our opinion. And because it is of all the guidelines, it is the most specific and most recently updated piece of the overlay guidelines about these particular A and B streets. It violates 201, which requires that the development is compatible with existing more traditional buildings like City Club and even McDonald's that met city's desires at the time. 302 violates 302, which demands that height and scale should complement existing structures. We hope that the same design standards of compatibility scale and character that were am that were applied to City Club will be required here. We recommend disapproval today pending a reproposal from the developer that actually meets ruling inovista guidelines. Thank you very much. My name is Tracy Barker. I'm a City Club resident and owner and I do swear to tell the truth. I have to at least say it. Do you swear to tell the truth this proceeding? OK, thank you. My neighbors and I favor development, but we want developers to follow the inovista design guidelines. Here are a few guideline deviations. First, the street front facades are monolithic and violation of section three point four, which says the facade should be broken vertically and horizontally. There's some vertical articulation with a painted concrete and brick, but nothing horizontally. The developer needs to consider horizontal features described in the guidelines such as awnings and balconies. Second, the project height and scale violates section three point oh and three point one, which requires buildings to complement existing structures while providing a sense of human scale and proportion. The developer should follow guidelines which states that upper floors of an overly tall building should be recessed back at least eight front from the front plane of the building. These do not. Third, the parking garage violates section one to two, which states that parking structures should be within the core of the block. There's plenty of space in the interior of the property adjacent to the McDonald's to put a compliant parking garage. Some make them comply. Fourth, the development violates the requirement for force first floor activity zones as outland on page five. As shown in the guideline map, someone took time to highlight and read areas of the map of the overlay indicating a first floor activity zones or entrances. The developers ignoring these requirements because the entire block for this project is surrounded in red. Yet there's only one sought street side door entry on Javay. I could go on with many more examples of violations, but my time is limited. Based on these violations, I urge you to reject the project in favor of one that abides by the innovative design guidelines. Thank you. And I swear to tell the truth. I live in City Club. Oh, yeah, ma'am. We put the microphone down for sure. Thank you. Just lost my notes. I'm sorry. Hold on one second. Don't start that clock. Okay. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with some of our business neighbors at Stormwater Studios to discuss this proposed development. They are in full agreement with us. We all look forward to the property being developed, but they too have many concerns and had some facts to share that you possibly may not be aware of. And as guardians for the future of Columbia, we all thought it was important to share. One, the walk by Columbia master plan of 2015 that was agreed upon is supposed to be going down William Street. This will definitely be dangerous for the people on the bikes, if there's a hotel there with cars coming in and out, trucks and all that. There's a little creek there. It's called Kinsler Creek. They apparently have already been approached. They own the property there, but they have already been approached by others to cover that creek up, which will be a problem with the stormwater and also all the water from the parking lot, the black top, is just stormwater that will end up going down into the river that we're now paying millions of dollars and years of work to clean up. When stormwaters purchase, then built that property, they enhanced the creek, cleaning up years of severe debris left by previous owners and the DOT parking lot located around the corner. I was told someone J. Keck, K-E-C-K, worked on cleaning up this creek and that they have a national designation for South Carolina Wildlife Federation. There's a habitat for animal that has been, the property has already been designated for South Carolina Wildlife Federation and the Congaree Riverkeeper has spent countless hours cleaning it up. Inivista plans state that development should be complementary to existing buildings. This is an insult to all those corporate businesses, McDonald's, Publix, etc., and others that have followed the guidelines. I noticed today when I went past the Capitol, it's funny how every building around the Capitol is four stories or less, not seven stories, four stories or less. And I one day was driving down Jervais Street and with my phone camera just looked at the buildings going in. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm just making sure that I'm going to make sure, are we, is it working correctly? Are we? Okay. All right. So just stop. Okay. Thank you. So just for technical understanding, the yellow light comes on a minute before time is up. Is that how it works? It's less than that. Less. Okay. I just was wondering when I see that up there. Hi. I'm Carolyn Lee Decker. Carolyn Lee Decker. Lee Decker. And do you want to tell the truth? Tell the truth. Okay. Thank you. I live on William Street and I also sit on the boards of City Club and the Vista Neighborhood Association. What is glaringly missing from the staff review of the proposal, even though several public commenters raised the issue at the first hearing, is any mention of the hotel's signage. The Anavista guidelines for sign design raise a material point, and I quote, pedestrian-oriented commercial areas, which describe much of Anavista, were designed to accommodate shoppers strolling along sidewalks and motorists driving at slower speeds. Signs to attract the attention of these passerbys should be encouraged, end quote. In Section 5 wall signs, the language indicates that the best location for wall signs continues to be a band or blank area between the first and second floors. Section 5.0.6 states that in pedestrian-oriented areas, signs should relate to the sidewalk instead of motorists. Section 5.0.8 states that on a multi-story building, the signs should be suspended between the bottom of the second-story window sills and the top of the doors or windows of the first story. Neither of the hotel's signs on the submitted hotel drawings meet these guidelines. Instead, a 70-foot-tall interstate-sized sign is shown on the plan, and the true hotel sign would be placed at 80 to 90 feet above the sidewalk. These are serious, non-compliant issues that were never addressed in the developer's application. I urge the Commission to deny the application for approval. Thank you. My name is Jay McKay, and I live on William Street also, and I'm a City Club board member. And do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you. I heard the developer's representative say this substantially complies with the Intervista guidelines and master plan. Well, does it really substantially complies? I guess everything substantially complies in some way, but there are glaring things that you've heard about in detail from other people here where it doesn't comply. First of all, Dervais Street is the gateway in Columbia. You go from West Columbia and drive across the bridge. It is by far the nicest most scenic entry into our city. And this hotel is going to be the focal point of that. It is seven stories tall. It's almost 100 feet tall. And then next to it is a monolithic 400 and some odd car parking garage. It's much larger than needed to accommodate the hotel and its staff. And then the entrances. We've asked the developer about entrances, moving them, moving things. William Street. William Street is a small one block long street and it's not a four lane street. It is narrow. It has curb encroachments that go out. So you have to drive slowly on William Street. It's a short street where they've got this driveway coming out. Only maybe four, five, six, seven cars could get on William Street to get out of there. And of course, a couple with that, you've got the Girl Scouts who use it. And then if you've got someone who wants to make a left hand turn on the Jervay, that's just going to block traffic up. We think that entrances should be moved to the B streets. We believe that the hotel itself should be totally reconfigured and moved to UG Street. Actually, there is another hotel that I think has been planned that's on UG Incident. Last, this is just incompatible for the area. We would ask that you disapprove this and require the developer to come back and approves with a plan that enhances the area that follows the inner vista and vista guidelines. We'd request that it be tonight. I have a question before the next speaker. Can we have the developer? I have a few more questions to you want me to wait till the end or don't have a chance to respond to the public comments. Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca McMillan. Ask me. Do you swear to tell the truth in this? Absolutely. Thank you. Along with my husband, Doug, own a home in City Club. We live there. It's our home. We've been there for 12 years. This is where we chose to live. We are not absentee owners. We are not opposed to a hotel and garage being built on that proposed location. In fact, we welcome a hotel that will be designed specifically to fit that location in the community it's in, not rub a stamp hotel off of an interstate. We are a heterogeneous community with a healthy mix of businesses, museums, homes, arts and, of course, the Kathy Novinger Midlands to the Mountains Girl Scout Center. And by the way, it is not only the Girl Scouts organizational program that's responsible for the safety of those girls. Don't we have a civic responsibility to that 501C3 organization that's doing so much to help young girls. I was over there today as little, tiny girls were climbing up that rock wall, placing the parking garage particularly right in front of where mothers and fathers drive up to let the little girls out. It's mind-blowing. As a grandmother of seven, I cannot believe if parents in the Midlands to the Mountains knew this, they would be in favor of it. Each of us in the Vista have different interests, but we are compatible and why are we? Because we abided by these guidelines. We made changes and that's why the look is so good. I'm asking you as humbly as I know how to please deny this. That garage across the street from those girls is not the way we need to be addressing Columbia. Now we... Ma'am, I'm sorry, I think the time is out. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. I mean it. I'm asking sincerely. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ted Fettner. I live at 311 Senate Street. Do you sort of tell the truth in this proceeding? Yes, I do. Alright, thank you. The proposed project is a dramatic test of the Vista master plan. 90-plus pages endorsed by City Council on October 17th, 2007. And its corresponding Vista Design District Guidelines 21 pages, April 2009, updated 2018. This proposal contains significant violations previously submitted by other concerned citizens of the plan and guidelines on which the proper development of Columbia's 500-acre Vista District relies. With the recent connection, paving, traffic signal installation at Eugene Green streets, extension of sidewalks, and product development west of the Congre River, the Vista District is just beginning to emerge as the 22-member Waterfront Steering Committee and in the internationally recognized urban planner Sasaki Associates envisioned in 2007. Please give due consideration to the city's forward thinking endorsement of the master plan and ensure this project complies fully with its guidelines and recommendations. For Columbia to best attract businesses, residents, and visitors, the Vista District must become an admired gateway to our city. This critical test of the master plan will be observed by all who desire those ends. Thank you. My name is Kathy Radis. Do you swear to tell the truth in this proceed? I do. Just think about crossing over the Gervais Street bridge. The first thing that will block your view is this hotel. It's seven stories. It would just be too big, too large to be there. It's just not appropriate for that location. The other buildings around there are much shorter and all the way up Gervais Street buildings are shorter. So you have to think about that. It does sound like it does not to the guidelines to meet the guidelines of the Inamista project. So please think about that. The view coming across the Gervais Street bridge and seeing this seven story hotel. I encourage you to deny this proposal. Any more comments from the public? Anything else? Everything on writing, correct? So we can move then if the applicant would like to come up and say anything based upon the comments. Is that where we're at in the process? I feel like I can't move unless I see what it is. The applicant would like to come up and respond to any of the comments? Please do. Five minutes if you want to respond and then there may be some follow-up questions there. In spite of an email that was read earlier the only information we have from DOT regarding access to this property from Gervais and UG is that it's been denied. I have emails to that effect from two separate engineers from DOT that says that we cannot access the property on Gervais or on UG. Secondly, while the Inamista guidelines protect certain streets as A streets and B streets it is not listed at all as either an A or B which would suggest to me that it's just not protected in that manner. So there is no reason to deny access along Williams Street since it's not protected by the guidelines. Secondly, the developer in this case owns the entire length of the property along Senate Street from UG to Williams suggesting that no driveway whatsoever can be provided on that street would be a denial of use of property by not being able to get onto the property. It's 400 feet long or so and they have no other way to access it. If you can't access it on UG you can't access it on Senate and the suggestion has been that you can't access it on Williams either and you can't access it on Gervais by DOT then we can't access it at all. So we have Williams and Senate to get there. And the judge I see is no additional danger at all to the girl scouts or the neighbors because the entrance on Senate Street is approximately 250 feet away from the intersection so it's not anywhere near the girl scouts. The one on Williams Street is approximately 150 feet up the street. So again it's not anywhere near the corner where the girl scouts are located. So and then we had a traffic study done that's been submitted to Planning Commission and approved by Planning Commission already accepted by Planning Commission and it shows that it does not substantially increase the traffic down Williams Street and Senate Street and that's a traffic study I'm not familiar with myself I haven't read it but that's what I was told was in the report. Additionally as far as access to the property. When we originally consulted DOT and the city's fire department for access to this property, the fire department first asked us to provide access along Williams Street so that they could fight a fire and rescue folks if there's a fire. Because of the overhead power lines we can't do that. You can't put a ladder up to a building if there's power lines right there it's dangerous of course. So the fire department agreed that they would allow us to have access around the building around the back side of the building to help rescue people and to fight a fire. We can't have a driveway further away than the access point is on Williams Street right now to provide fire department access. We wouldn't be able to build the building the fire department would not allow us. I've had a few experiences with fire department downtown Columbia where we had to remove power lines in order to provide access. In this case you can't do that because they're high transmission lines. But anyway so you can't ask the fire department to try to drive around the UG Street or Senate Street to fight a fire that's on the corner of Gervais and Williams. You have to provide them access around essentially all four sides in this case three sides because the power lines we can't do it on that side. Green space was mentioned there's a substantial right of way width between the hotel and garage and Williams Street that the developer is required to dress up with landscaping to develop and we've already got a landscaping plan and we've got a substantial landscaping and grass and plantings and such in there. It's going to be very green matter of fact. Zoning regulations the city zoning regulations allow this property to be used for a hotel. The property that it's owned the Williams and such you might also already almost five minutes is also allows for parking garage that's zoning restricts how property can be used and in this case it's not restricting it from being used for as a hotel and parking garage. So we already have that permission to do that. Let me look at my notes please. A reference was made earlier to the upper stories having to be recessed or set back from the main frontage of the property of the building. If I'm not mistaken that that's no longer a part of this zoning or innovative guidelines for this particular piece of property. Perhaps Lucinda can answer that. Is that true? The recommendation and the guidelines is that if a building height exceeds the one-to-one ratio of the building on the other side of the street that the upper floors above that dimension be recessed. So it's not part of the zoning regulations but correct. As far as our building does not exceed that one-to-one ratio we don't have to recess any of those upper floors. In our particular case it was mentioned that a parking garage perhaps could be placed in the core of the property. It won't fit. It doesn't fit. It's an L shaped piece of property as everybody knows McDonald's has a chunk of the corner. The parking garage would not function. It can't fit. If you notice the site plan the property is very full other than the little spot on UG of a hotel and a parking garage and the parking lot and driveway we have behind it. Signage was mentioned. Let me check a second. Are we where at the time? Okay. Well stay here though because I might have some questions too. I'm open up to commissioners. Anybody have a question? Go ahead. So regarding the parking which was a lot of people's concern I just want to confirm Senate Street doesn't have any entry or exit, correct? Senate Street does have an entry and exit to the parking garage. So how does that comply with 1.1.3 auto access to and from parking lot structures and service areas should be from B streets only and A which is where Senate Street is listed that would not comply. Correct? Not straight out of those regulations but we have other reasons why we can't comply with that which is DOT access, Fire Department access and just a flat denial of the use of a piece of property if you don't allow a whole city block not to be accessed by for the owners access into their own property. Okay. A legal matter eventually. A follow-up question then with regard this is actually for Steph then did the emails referenced regarding QG Street and Dervais Street by the DOT were those reviewed by your team? We did see some correspondence from the DOT engineers. I wasn't in those conversations we could certainly I don't know if it's amenable to look at Ms. Branham's and maybe just the parking lot access is on Williams and the Fire Department and the garage on Senate maybe that's something that they could look into and discuss further but we did see some emails from two different permit review engineers from DOT to the effect of not wanting access on UG or Dervais because of the current driveway access that exists for the current property owner which is McDonald's requirements I guess from existing access points so. Okay. If I could add to that too with McDonald's it would suggest that perhaps we could share a driveway or share access which in this case is more or less impossible because the properties would be on different levels when we get done developing this to put the hotel in there it's going to be at a different grade level than the McDonald's property so we can't tie those driveways together. Quick question with regard to the entry and exit of the garage on Dervais and UG so we're here in conflicting testimony you all reached out to DOT they said can't do it. Paul Mr. Harrell's email suggested that the entry or exit and entry to the garage as design now wouldn't necessarily comply but maybe partial entry and exit do you know what was submitted to DOT is it the same entry and exit design that it exists on these plans on Senate Street or was it some partial entry point to the garage. I can only tell you that the process has been about two years long with with submissions to DOT and meetings with the fire department and meetings with Dominion power about the overhead power lines and you know it's sort of it's been a motion throughout the whole project of yes you can do this you can't do that okay can we do this no you can't do that but we can do this and I don't recall I wasn't involved by the way in the very initial planning stages of many years ago of access on to the property and discussions with DOT but I have I can tell you that I have emails recently actually once two years old and once a few months old I think the UG Street access was two years old the denial of that and the Jervais was just a few months old or I have that reversed thank you Mr. McGuire were you done okay any other follow-up questions well it certainly doesn't prohibit a pedestrian access or safety it doesn't contribute anything to anything being less safe than it is now the access or excuse me the sidewalk on UG Street apologize Jervais Street remains intact so the traffic and pedestrian access that's along that sidewalk now remains exactly the same except now there's going to be an entrance into our hotel from UG Street the sidewalks around William Street for the most part remain as they are and or will be improved and or replaced if there's damage or if they're not attractive so the pedestrian access along William Street really doesn't change at all will improve pedestrian access to the to the base of the parking garage to the artist studios along Senate Street by improving the sidewalk along Senate Street and then sidewalk accesses into each one of the individual artists spaces it's probably very much like any other downtown development that buildings are placed on the sidewalk and folks still access everything the way that they always have we don't block anything or it's sort of it does promote pedestrian there's pedestrian friendliness in that there's large storefront windows good views in and out of the hotel to the street from both directions with Williams and Jervais as good as I can answer your question or no you still have one appears from the site plan that sidewalks will surround the property on the Jervais Williams and Senate Street Street is that correct yes sir that is correct so yeah I'd just like to add a question to what Bruce was saying let's make sure you speak in your microphone too has there been any conversations between the developer and the girl scouts in terms of potentially access to the property or some of their concerns in terms of the safety issues I believe their current path would correct me if I'm mistaken but take them through essentially a safer part currently so I don't know if any sort of access to the property or collaboration could be done to alleviate that is that something that's been considered no I think that today tonight is the first time that we've really heard anything from our side from the girl scouts organization certainly we respect what they do we're not you know of course this is our opinion as the architect and developer but as just a regular person I can't see how a parking garage that has driveways to 150 feet and 250 feet away from the corner contributes in any way to any additional danger and I'm not implying they let girl scouts run out in the street but if anybody runs out into the street that's not anything that has to do with the garage I don't understand how this would contribute in any way to any additional danger for the girl scouts it's an empty piece of property now as everybody knows but I mean if anything there's you know you could have folks hanging out there now that are shady people that could create some dangerous situations and this will certainly be a safer environment than it is now so I'm not quite familiar with why they would think that there have not been direct discussions to answer that original question but go ahead why don't you go ahead maybe just to get some clarity from staff if one well two things one in general comments or things you want to share just given the nature of all the comments that we have received whether it's been in person or being emails or written that was one item and two just any thoughts that you might change your recommendation based upon the DOT discussion just curious from staff's recommendations in here if that alters anything I mean I think if it were feasible to do the garage entrance only off of senate that worked for the garage and you know I mean I have no idea the DOT discussions again that's I'd hate to speculate about you know we're getting different information about what the DOT may have said you know staff acknowledges that the guidelines recommend access from certain blocks the master plan is of course a master plan that every block has a different context has different existing conditions existing property owners and access points so all those things have to be taken into consideration when reviewing a particular proposal you know having seen that correspondence from DOT it seemed reasonable that the access would need to be in a different location you know if it could be minimized and that would make everybody feel more comfortable there is a another question that had come up regarding the Walk Byte Columbia master plan there is a recommendation in that plan to have a cycle track on William Street eventually the master plan shows William Street is a parkway that goes you know along the future waterfront park it would actually the recommendation is for a 2A cycle track on the east or excuse me the west side of William Street we did work with the Girl Scouts when we were working with the City to ensure that no permanent improvements were going to be put in that would preclude that being installed at a later date that project is not currently funded but we always want to make sure we don't you know put street lights and trees in a location it will have to be taken out if a bike facility goes in so what side of the property is that Lucinda can you explain that better well it was going to be on the west side of William Street so along the city club and the Girl Scout side it was actually funded and designed it's really hard to know how it's going to turn out because we have so many challenges with existing conditions and parking and so on and so forth so we had recommended that when we're working through the encroachment process we also make sure that if a cycle track let's say it ended up being a one way cycle track on each side that that could still be accommodated I think with the setback of the building because of the power lines there's plenty of room for that to happen but lighting and trees are not in the way of where that facility may or may not be so having said all that sure less driveways on a location where there might be a bike facility is preferable it's not to say it can't happen I mean it happens all over downtown I mean we have driveway access that intersects bicycle facilities in a lot of locations I mean there's workarounds to make things more safe and any general comments just in nature of any of the comments we've received today? I mean I guess one of the things we had looked at a little bit more closely there's a lot of questions about the size and the scale and the height of the building the Intervist to Master Plan was adopted in 2007 I believe the old zoning which was MX-2 zoning ordinance that was written specifically to address the Intervist to Master Plan and its recommendations and so it acknowledged that a lot of the Intervist to Area had one and two story warehouse type buildings sort of low profile buildings and that that doesn't contribute to the density that is desired for this area and for the growth of the city so that was something the Master Plan certainly acknowledges and they recommended the one-to-one ratio to try to just create that street edge and having taller buildings along wide right-of-ways creates a sense of place and makes the street feel more like a place and not just an expanse of a pavement that never ends so the one-to-one ratio is something that's in there that staff thinks is appropriate or what we did include a slide in response to some requests from the commissioners after the evaluation went out this was the building height diagram for the Intervist to Master Plan which does represent Jervais Street in this corridor it's at the very top as the higher zone so they actually call for a minimum of four stories this was you know again it's part of the Master Plan but that was sort of acknowledged as the corridor should provide a gateway some height along the corridor if the buildings were taller than a hundred feet we probably would recommend upper floor setbacks but since it is just under a hundred feet that was seemingly to us compatible with the guidelines and then also just to clarify there's a lot of confusion about different districts actually when City Club was was developed that was before the Intervist to Master Plan and so it was reviewed under the City Center Design Guidelines which no longer applied to this property Intervista was coming after that is that true for McDonald's as well actually interestingly McDonald's was before we had any design overlays my understanding it was more than 20 years ago was it was part of a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals this is what I understand is that the Board had worked out mitigation measures for them getting either a variance or a special exception and one of those was to try to make the building more compatible with the Vista, make it two stories make it brick so that was actually before we even had Urban Design Guidelines so I mostly have some comments I guess because I genuinely certainly promote density and great development in the areas where we have some great property that needs to be developed for economic growth you know there's a lot of mention about the intent of the Intervista plan and Sasaki's plan to the riverfront and the way to really bring people to the riverfront is to have more density to have them to actually come so it's a difficult balance it's clear that you have a challenging site you've mentioned that over and over again that challenging site but what I want to do is challenge you to be more creative about how you deal with the challenges that also allow for more density because it is clear thank you Lucinda for showing kind of the way that urban areas are developed where the higher density typically is along the larger corridors like Jervais street and though it is out of keeping a bit with what's existing it is the right urban planning properties and techniques typically and certainly encouraged by the Intervista master plan so there is a balance of all of those things I think it's more about how do we come to a compromise that allows the neighbors all of the neighbors that are in that area and future development that respects how those two pieces interconnect so some of my thoughts are that first of all I know I wasn't here for the May meeting where we discussed a little bit more about the architectural facade in general and I do agree that I think some more work needs to be done to be sympathetic not only to the Vista which I believe this ties more in with the Vista area than the inner Vista and some of the properties on this side of UG street on the girl scouts side of UG so I would I feel more work needs to be done beyond the staff level to look at the articulation between the lower level and the upper levels as well as the horizontality that was discussed I think this is going to be a significant new property along Jervais street that is the entry into our city and I think it needs really well thought out and well considered ramifications so I would encourage us to take a bit more time my recommendation would be to take a little bit more time to look at that now again we've all mentioned some discussion about DOT and what's allowed we don't want to not allow entrance on to the property as you've mentioned a couple of times but we do want to figure out what's the best way to access it I am a bit concerned about what I'm hearing about the size of William street just the width of it in general I don't know all the specifics of that but I think that we can create a very pedestrian friendly area I'd like to see I know you said it was deferred from planning so I'd like to see what comes back from planning in terms of how that street along William street is further developed isn't that what I heard that you're looking at William street a bit more I have no idea why it was deferred it was just deferred but if it's to enhance some of the things perhaps that we're discussing here as well and if some changes are going to be made for landscaping and sensitivity to the neighbors and to the bike path that's proposed in the future some of those things so I realize that the M1 now has unlimited height restrictions but that doesn't mean we should build a 50 story sky-rise either so I think I'm just rambling here a bit I guess because I'm very torn it's a difficult project that needs to be sensitive to a variety of different things so can I ask a question this is for staff in terms of motions can they be conditional approvals or solid I mean we often have motions that are made with conditions I mean that's certainly what was the staff recommendation you know was with a number of conditions that we work on so I mean the DDRC is of course welcome to change those update yeah I liked her suggestion regarding senate street I think the compromise like you were talking about is going to be important but I also don't want to delay the years of preparation right so I'm a little torn as well well I hadn't that was one of my questions the staff was like if we were to add another condition with the DOT element I was trying to figure out how to articulate that but some of your comments are a little different and I'm not quite sure where your comments fall in this but I think we either would be very specific working or list when you make a motion what conditions we want to be looked at and then it is on to staff if these are not addressed to come back to us and I do think that the I look forward to hearing whoever makes a motion here tonight because I do feel that that needs to be added to it now I come back here because if you got something very specific I don't know if you do and I would also I just would like to just also suggest that since the commission I'm sorry that you weren't here Ms. Brandon but did hear this in May and there were a couple of specific things that were asked to be looked at which was the garage design and the landscaping so I guess if there is a way to articulate specific things that you'd like for them to look at it would be really preferable if we could do that at staff level since this already has been the garage I think is an easy one force because that still access is what we keep discussing and the DOT requirements so I think we can I think that would understand landscaping yeah I remember who was it Taylor who I was commissioner that's not here and I don't know if I've heard any extra concerns about one topic I think we brought it up but just to clarify the project will have to meet the city's landscape ordinance and so there are design guidelines that refer to landscaping but that's typically kicks in if there's a project that doesn't meet the threshold for landscape ordinance review and we sort of have some screening requirements for surface parking certainly we always work with applicants to put trees in the right of way where they are where they're able to do so but they will have to meet the landscape ordinance as part of the site plan review any commissioners have any more questions for the applicant I'm okay I would if you don't mind I'd like to make one comment just in case you're considering this you asked earlier about whether or not we could not access the parking garage from William Street from the backside I hadn't thought about it before but let me mention this and this is not in my own defense this is just sort of factual when somebody comes to check in of the hotel they're going to drive around to the back go through the canopy that parking lot is probably going to be full because there's very few parking spaces there they're going to say you need to go park in the parking garage if we don't have an entrance directly from that driveway into the parking garage from the backside they'll have to go back out on the William Street go down at the corner of Senate go up Senate then go into the parking grounds that way so you're going to actually increase substantially the amount of traffic that goes from the hotel into the parking garage as opposed to being able to go on the backside of the hotel into the backside of the parking garage and I really I'm only mentioning that because that's in my head I'm just thinking that's probably going to increase I had looked at that as well but perhaps there's a way and again just to consider that if there was a way that you would only be able to access it off Senate go drive or pull the parking garage back because I believe and again zoning parking is not our purview but there I know that there have been some decreases in the requirements for parking in urban areas by the city of Columbia so all I would say is re-evaluating the need for as much parking maybe one thing to consider but you could pull the garage back and have an entry that allows you to enter into the garage and enter into the back parking area without accessing it off William Street and maybe just fire accesses off of William Street again I really think it could be studied a bit more fire department access is is probably the number one thing that drives how we get into a property and the fire department the fire marshal I don't remember who we met with we've met with I think you might have been there but we met with the fire marshal and that's who told us what we had to do to provide access to the building to rescue folks and put fire out right so I don't think that there's going to be any way that we could get by without access but we could limit who's accessing it off of William Street well you'd have to put barricades in front of some kind of gate or something that only the fire department can access I've seen and heard of that before that's not an attractive alternative a gate of some kind there staff any thoughts over there I mean the only thing I can say is you know it is it's a guideline it's one of many guidelines so I mean we look at these things collectively and I mean you all have to make the decision but the staff and there were some recommendations on how they could better meet some of the guidelines that were not met and there may be a handful that they can't meet or won't meet and that's typical of probably every project that's come before this commission there's a there's there are principles and then there are many many many guidelines on how to meet those principles and there's always at least a handful that not every project can meet so we'll certainly be happy to work on anything that that you require as part of your motion one thing that I would add it sounds like you put a tremendous amount of effort into doing these studies and to see where you can access and can access and promote the flow of traffic through the property we heard sworn testimony in here today that SCDOT was contacted that this was the only solution to make the property usable the only thing I think that we heard to the contrary was an email that was not sworn tested not weighing in on the veracity of that statement but it was not sworn tested and I just think to continue to delay this ad nauseam any commission any other comments the only thing I was going to say is trying to find some middle ground potentially adding just the condition of a single point of entry from senate street that would be the only thing that I wanted to add so I'd be willing to make that motion okay where where are we in our process thank you I think so thank you where are we at if y'all have any more deliberation or comments we're done with the public comment period but it's for you all to either continue to discuss or make a motion we can move to that if you're ready I'm sorry public comment is over let me let's check on the procedural good question typically the public comment period is open and then closed and that's the applicant has a chance to respond and then we deliberate and make a decision the answer is no the public comment is over sir I'm sorry all right well I know this has been at least the second meeting that we've had on this so understood with that I will open up unless there's any more conversation amongst the commissioners if not I will open it up if somebody wants to make a motion I'd make a motion to approve the plan I'm assuming to the conditions outlined and staff recommendations can you read it I'm going to ask you for this specifically please read exactly what the motion is the property the reference and if you could also state all the staff recommendations as well would you like this copy I would make a motion to approve the plan with the following conditions providing as close to a foreign step as is reasonable practical for the windows additional detailing between first floor and upper floors and a punched windows provide more transparency to the outdoor patio space along William street working to ensure the parking garage artist space is actively programmed provide additional information about interior garage lighting and shielding working with staff on the encroachment to ensure all city of Columbia and innovative standards are met for the right of way improvements all other details to be deferred to staff all right is there any amendment to what has been said I think I had an amendment only because I wanted to add the comment to make sure staff to work with them on clarifying DOT requirements and access to the garage is there second to the amendment staff that we have that thoroughly documented as best possible absolutely all right yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes next case the next case is under the historic portion of the agenda 1423 maple street a request for certificate of design approval for exterior changes in the melrose heights oak lawn architectural conservation district all right everybody we still have a public meeting and process thank you and miss walling will present that all right thank you turn your mic up a little bit more yeah you don't have that you don't have up and down on your mic maybe it's not even on that's the problem that's better I'm sorry it's quite a while all right the request is for exterior changes to the windows doors and porch columns and to paint the brick the front porch columns windows and front door are not original and replacements have been approved at staff level per section 17-2.5 g of the UDO staff does have concerns with the request to paint the brick painting brick is a modern trend that is inconsistent with historic patterns in this neighborhood historic districts specifically avoid trends since they come and go much like the ship lap trend that was popular a couple years ago historic districts instead look to preserve historic materials in their original form where possible to both protect historic material and to maintain the districts enduring architectural character that address painting masonry or section 5 subsection 6 for exterior siting as mentioned in the principles for masonry painting obscures detailing and alters the distinguishing original qualities of a building the color of brick as well as mortar color and bonding patterns can be important parts of the character of a historic building because of this where brick and other masonry finishes were unpainted they should generally remain so preserving the original brick color which is one of the few remaining historic features on this house helps maintain historic and architectural integrity of the home the brick at 1423 maple street is not a consistent or flat red color it's a variegated color variation from brick to brick this variation provides the house with rich surface detail washing out the color variation in the brick by painting would permanently alter an original feature and would inevitably alter the historic character of the house which is not in keeping with the guidelines likewise the overall condition of the brick appears good and should not require any protective measures to keep it intact there are areas of patching in the infilled porch enclosure however the patching is a common issue that is not widespread enough to justify painting staff finds that proposal to paint the brick at 1423 maple street is not in keeping with section 5 subsection 6 of the Melrose Heights Oak Lawn Architectural Conservation District design guidelines and recommends denial of the request to paint I do want to know it was in the packets there have been several cases that have come forward to paint brick especially in this neighborhood most recently for the past couple years there was a denial at 1107 Woodrow street there was on that case there was incompatible mortar failing mortar infilled brick on the side and rear of the house that application to paint was denied at 3310 Murray street there were paint splatters and areas of overpaint around the windows and all over the foundation the size of the house that application was denied in April of 2022 and at 1218 Butler street there were isolated areas of brick damage on the front and the side of that house scope of work also included moving windows which would require that brick be patched in to match and painting was also denied at that property in April 22 2022 one approval for painting brick in the past couple years was 1209 Princeton street that was in May 2021 and the house in this case included more than one addition with brick that did not match the original historic brick I also note that there we did receive an email prior to the meeting oh sorry do me a second from Miss Fowler that was sent to you guys also provided a copy is the applicant present alright yeah please come on up state your name Michelle Davis in this proceeding yes thank you so this is my mom's house and I actually live behind her on Fairview so I've been kind of helping her she hasn't moved in yet but she did want me to come in and just talk a little bit about the painting the brick and respectfully consider approving that one of them that's not mentioned now the landscaping has been removed and so that on the enclosed porch specifically on the side it looks the same from the front that's actually the side view on the front now that those bushes are gone those overgrown bushes have been removed and some new grass has been planted you can see that much clearer on the front where that brick does not match where they enclosed it and then the second main thing was on the porch where those columns they have been approved for us to change those those were not original they we were going to do at the bottom and more of a craftsman's style is smaller and I had sent some designs for that to be approved but that brick at the bottom also will not be matching the rest when we add that like I said I live in the neighborhood I love the old homes and we want to restore it the best we can but with the brick just not matching up in these different areas we really feel like it just looks unkempt and if it does get denied I definitely want some we want some opinions and suggestions on how to kind of keep it with a clean look without looking unkempt and how it is with the brick not matching I also just going on walks within a 2 mile radius of the home there's at least 30 homes painted that are brick I don't know when they were I know you said it's a new trend but I haven't recently in our neighborhood there haven't been any painted homes I think one that wasn't approved but so I don't know it's a new trend if it's how relative that is because we really just want it to look nicer and unkempt and help the neighborhood look nice so Any questions? Can I see the elevation that you're referring to that was a porch that was enclosed is that what I heard you say? Yes So on this side you can see it better there but that's actually where the bushes are towards the right of the picture those bushes are now gone so that view and I have it here an updated picture just kind of you can see So even this infill brick around this on this end here is filled in Yes and then the front looks like this now now that those bushes are gone you can see So it does match the side and the front now match Yeah but you see how crooked like some of this is Yeah I would say the infill was a great job they didn't do a good job and I'm not sure it's so much the brick that doesn't match the brick might match but the mortar does not The front is just so crooked that I mean and I mean it's still going to be crooked but that mortar how it is I have a question for staff I know in the past these types of design approval applications have been denied but have any been denied when this sort of inconsistencies existed? Yeah So 1107 Wooder Street also had a large area of infill brick that had actually in my opinion worse mortar than this because it was a gray port limit cement mortar and it was denied in April 2021 that's the only other example I can think of that was as closest to this and was it on the front or you could see it from the front it was on the side and was that just the mortar or was it a different type of brick? I think it was a different type of brick I see Is this the only elevation that you have a problem with the mortar mismatch? I mean I can't see anything on the front I mean that's where everybody is looking Well that's what I was saying but what the bushes are is where it's awesome is on the left side of the house Go back Go to the one before this I mean you're talking about that corner? Yes That's the front of the house and so you can't really see it because those bushes are there but this is a picture that I took yesterday and it's just the where you can see and it's on the other side as well where those poles are they back up again so when we take the ones in the back of the porch off we're concerned about how that brick will be there as well the residue that leaves after that's removed Yes, 1209 Princeton Street in May 2021 that house had additions on the back of it that definitely did not match the brick of the original house But it was a difference in for the reasoning Right, they were like substantial areas of infill brick or additions Just one point of clarification I wasn't on the committee I guess when the last approval was made but it sounded it sounds like there may be some doubt as to whether or not it was the same situation as this if it was just mortar or if it was brick that did not match Which? I think it was the one that you had just approved the one that had been approved in the past or the one that had not been approved The one that did not get approved Your example earlier that had not been approved I had a question if it was just different color mortar or if it was different color brick and it sounded like it was definitely a different color mortar but maybe not a different brick It was a case similar to this I mean the brick looked similar it may have looked like this like she said it had a different texture looking at it they have a similar color variation and mortar that was similar to this I think it was more the mortar to answer your question was the mortar was the differentiator more than the brick itself So the mortar was a differentiator not the brick in that case? More I'm kind of like similar to what you're seeing here Right here I would say the mortar is the issue I think if the mortar was done better you probably wouldn't notice this Right Any other questions from commissioners? Alright, thank you I guess we'll move to public comments So we encourage those that would like to communicate via e-mail to begin sending in letters and e-mails e-mail at COCDDRC at Columbia SC.gov I'm not seeing any e-mails coming through I gather we're not doing the phone anymore, huh? I noticed that Okay, that was new Anybody here in person who wants to speak? Any follow-up conversations or discussion? Commissioners? I'll open up for someone to make a motion I'll make a motion on the project 1423 Maple Street request for a certification of design approval for exterior changes I want to approve the painting for this project Second State sections of the guidelines sections of the guidelines that it meets The section is TMS The sections of the guidelines The sections of the guidelines Section 5 and 6 I want to I'm sorry I want to approve the painting of section 5 Subsection 6 of the Melrose High and Oakland Architectural Conservation District Okay I'm going to ask there's a lot of order being chair make a motion to approve painting it Yes Can you state the reason why? Because of the mismatch of the the brickwork and the mortar itself Do I have a second? Yes, I'll second on that and based on the precedent that mismatch break has been approved and passed Ms. Branham? Yes Mr. Broom? Yes Ms. Jacob? No Mr. McGuire? Yes And Mr. Salivi? Yes Any other business on the agenda? Alright, then we have a motion second to adjourn Motion to adjourn Second Thank you