 I'd like to call the City of Columbia Planning Commission for August 11th, 2022 into session. Welcome to Planning Commission members, staff, and guests. We ask for your patience during this meeting. Multiple staff members are here today. Those include Lucinda Statler, Planning Administrator, Hope Hasty, Zoning Administrator, Jonathan Chambers, Land Development Administrator, and Andrew Livinggood, Annexation Coordinator. The public may stream the meetings through City TV accessed at www.youtube.com slash user slash Columbia SC government. If you're watching the meeting via City TV, you will see live images or still images of Planning Commission members and the administrator. However, images of the applicant and the public will not be visible. The public has had the opportunity to submit letters and statements via email to COCPC at columbiasc.gov until noon the day before the meeting. Emails and letters received by this deadline have been forwarded to the Commission. If you are here today and would like to speak about a case, please provide your name clearly into the microphone, and please be sure to sign in either at the back of the room or at the podium for documentation purposes. If you're here today to speak about a case, you must speak up when the chairperson calls for public comment. I'll call the roll. Mr. Cawsey, Mr. Cook, Ms. Davis, Ms. Hartz, Mr. Frost. Here. We have a quorum. Okay, I'll give a brief overview, a brief review of the meeting format. Applicants with a request before the Planning Commission are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, the case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the 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 Planning Commission or staff regarding the requests. During the public comment period, members of the general public are given an opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. After the public comment period, applicants have five minutes to respond. Once the Planning Commission begins to liberation, no additional comments will be permitted by the applicant or the public. The administrator does have a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. The Planning Commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by-case basis. Are there any changes to the agenda? There is one change to the agenda since publication. Case number three, which was a zoning map amendment, ZMA-2022-0012 at 2470 Millwood Avenue, and several properties on Cherry Street has been deferred to next month. Thank you. The Planning Commission uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. Examples of such items include approval of site plans, annexations, and street names. If a member of the Planning Commission or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, you must speak up after the consent agenda is read. Then that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the regular meeting. The Planning Commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. The only two items on the consent agenda this afternoon are the approval of the June 9th and the July 14th, 2022 minutes. Okay, is there anyone from Planning Commission or the public that would like to remove this item from the consent agenda? Hearing none, I'll accept a motion. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we accept the consent agenda. Got a motion to approve consent agenda. Can I get a second? Got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion is approved. The Planning Commission will now move forward with those items on the regular agenda. We'll use the following outline for regular agenda items. The administrator will introduce the case. The applicant will have 10 minutes to make a presentation. Planning Commission may ask questions. The public comment period will be open to those present. The public comment period will then be closed. The applicant will have five minutes to respond to the public comments. The Planning Commission may ask additional questions of the applicant. Deliberate an action by Planning Commission will then take place. Once the Planning Commission begins deliberation, no additional comments will be permitted by the applicant or the public. That's going to bring us to item number two, which is S plan 2022-0013, which is 400 block of Gervais Street, the 1100 block of Huygis Street, the 400 block of Senate Street, and the 1100 block of Williams Street, various TMS numbers. And this is a request for site plan approval for the construction of a 145,000 square foot hotel and parking garage, homeward suites and true name in Gervais LC. This project was before the Planning Commission on July the 14th, 2022, and was deferred since then. The project has received approval from the Design Development Review Commission at the July 21st, 2022 meeting with the condition that staff work with the applicant to clarify South Carolina Department of Transportation requirements and access to the garage. On July 27th, staff met with the developer and representatives from the South Carolina Department of Transportation. During the meeting, it was determined that the proposed site plan provides the safest and most advisable access points to the site when taking into consideration all the existing conditions. And should the Planning Commission be inclined to grant the approval of the site plan, staff would request that the Commission grant approval subject to staff comments. I believe the applicant as president can explain their case. Okay, any questions before we have the applicant come before us for any presentation? Any questions for staff? I think, you know, one question that I did have was in regards to, you know, one of the comments I received late last month as it relates to the overlay of the Inavista. Were y'all able to look at that and give any explanation of how that impacts the current zoning? We did, and of course the request was reviewed by the Design Development Review Commission and the DDRC approved the plan. Okay. All right. Is the applicant present? Would you like to come before I make any presentation? My name is Craig Otto. I'm the architect for the project. I appreciate you seeing us again today. I don't need to go into much of the detail about what the project is. You already know that. It's a seven-story hotel project, dual brand, homeward suites and true hotel. And there's approximately close to 400 parking spaces in a parking garage at the corner of Williams and Senate. As Mr. Chambers reminded you, it was brought before the Planning Commission a couple of months ago, deferred. And as I understand it, one of the reasons it was deferred was you wanted to see what DDRC had to say about it. Prior to that, the DDRC had deferred it to find out more about the information about the parking garage. So since that time, we did develop all the design and plans for the parking garage, presented that to the DDRC. And they found that the project substantially met the requirements of the Innovista design guidelines. We got an unanimous approval from DDRC with conditions. Conditions were listed in the moat. The biggest one was discussing the project with SCDOT to see if there were any other alternatives. And while there might be potential alternatives, none of them are feasible, and none of them are logical for this project, and none of them are any safer than what we've already designed. I'd like to point out too that much has been made about the fact that this project probably doesn't meet 100% of the requirements or, rather, guidelines in the overlay guideline stipulations for this Innovista district. But please keep in mind that those are guidelines. They're not in ordinance. They're not demands. They're not requirements. To read from the actual guidelines, the intent of the design guidelines is not to restrict creative architecture, but rather to guide development to ensure it contributes positively to the Innovista district and to Columbia's larger city center. To this end, the guidelines are not exhaustive or formuleic, but are intended to help new developments meet the principles of pedestrian-friendly quality urban development. Now, we believe we've met all those requirements, and DDRC believes we have as well, because they voted unanimously to approve the project as presented with some minor conditions. So I did want to point out the fact that these guidelines are helpful in establishing where we started and where we went, but they aren't the same thing as the ordinance. We meet all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance and any other ordinances that are more or less law for the project. I'd like to, if I may, also read a couple of letters, which I'll be glad to leave with you, because it's sort of for the evidence here. From the Smart State Center of Economic Excellence and Tourism, they support the project by stating that hospitality and tourism play an essential role in the economy of South Carolina. It's the main economic contributor to the economy in our state. When it comes to the city of Columbia and the Vista area, this hotel development has been official for a number of reasons. The project, this type project, has been needed for some time in Columbia, which has been lagging behind Greenville and Charleston and hotel space, making it often difficult for larger groups to hold conventions and special events and concerts. In addition, the accommodations tax will be collected that can be utilized further for development, making the Vista in the city of Columbia more desirable. Lastly, a property like this will provide much needed employment opportunities attracting talent from across the state. I'd also like to read a brief letter from a business one block away from our development to pre-catering and Senate's end event venue. Craig, please share with the City of Columbia Planning Commission in today's hearings our support for their approval of the development of the Homewood Suites and True Hotel. After 15 years of operating at Senate's end, we believe this development and our catering business will enjoy a mutually positive relationship in which business and wedding travelers can find accommodations and event venues in close proximity. So we have support of local businesses and economic development folks. I'd like to also point out a note that's been made a few times about access to streets. Gervais and UG would normally be the preferred streets that development like this accesses. But we met with DOT and their traffic engineer has told us that while there might be other options none of them are good because they actually make the intersection of UG and Gervais more the traffic heavier and the potential situation less safe than it is now. And we have an email from Mr. Friedenall who stated that given the configuration of Gervais and the proximity to the signal any additional access will cause an increase in turn and weave conflicts likely increasing delay. He's specifically referring to the delay of traffic at Gervais and at UG at that particular intersection which we all know is a major, major intersection. He says the project as a whole is likely to cause an increase in traffic to Senate and Williams regardless of the location of the access. Westbound traffic on Gervais and northbound traffic on UG will have to make U-turns or utilize Williams and Senate to access site to gain access to Gervais and UG. Relocating the driveways to Gervais or UG doesn't decrease the traffic that will inevitably happen on Williams and Senate. The bottom line on what he stated at the end was he said based on our review of the site plan we currently recommend that access to Senate and or Williams be pursued in preference of any access to Gervais or UG. Any access. Right turn, left turn, access, shared driveways, anything. They recommend that there be no increase in traffic at all under UG or Gervais with this development. So the locations of the driveways we have currently are the preferred locations by DOT who controls UG and Gervais. So those are some very important points. Also Williams and Senate Street you've heard mentioned A streets and B streets. You should access A streets not B streets. Senate is in fact a B Street. Williams is not listed as a street at all in the in the overlaid guidelines. So there are no restrictions to access to Williams Street at all. So and I have I have no idea how any additional traffic here would cause any more safety concerns than any other development would cause. In fact a hotel has less traffic than many many developments such as grocery stores or convenience stores, fast food restaurants, name just about anything and it's going to have more traffic and create a more serious traffic situation than a hotel development. So having said all that we think that this development is is not only a benefit to Columbia it's benefit to the whole area. You know that client decline property is going to be developed one day that's going to be it can't help but to be a major development. This is a major piece of property that's very costly piece of property that it can't be expected of a developer to develop a property to half its potential when they've got the kind of money invested in it that they have. They have to they have to make use of this property to the best of its ability. One other note it's been mentioned that it could block the view of the state house and and if you go across the west Columbia side you can see the state house but as soon as you start coming across your Bay Street Bridge you can no longer see the state house at all. So our development is not going to hide that so there's I don't believe that that's a consideration in this in this case. So we are certainly looking forward to your approval today. Let us know if we have any questions for. Thank you. Any questions from planning commission to the applicant? Mr. Chair I do. I just want to follow up on a question concerning the traffic study. If I understood you correctly you stated that there would be no increase on traffic on Jervay and Hugo Street. So what is the proposed entrance and exit for the hotel? I don't know that I stated that there would be no increase in traffic on Jervay and Hugo Street. I apologize. And I'm not I'm not the developer of the traffic study so that somebody else and more knowledgeable have to answer that. But what was the follow-up question? The question is with the hotel where it's located on William Street what would be your proposal in terms of how your guests will enter and exit to the hotel? The main entrance is approximately right in the middle of William Street go down the block and off of Jervay turn right go down the street about halfway and turn left. You'll be going into a parking into a driveway that if you go a little further into the to the left you'd be behind the hotel parking the covered driveway area and check in. Then assume and there's a few parking spaces there but not enough for the hotel. So assuming you're check it in and you need to go park you're then going to get in your car and drive across the property into the directly into the parking garage you don't have to enter back on the William Street or Senate Street again. So you drive into the parking garage and park and that's the main traffic. Now once you're checked in and you go and you leave and you come back you might drive around Williams or Senate and come into the parking garage that way but you can still enter the parking garage from from the backside of the hotel. My last question then is if I understood correct and you can correct me on this as well but I understand that the whole property would not be developed at this time. Is that correct? That is correct. There's a parcel that's left on the on UG Street for future development that's undetermined at this time. So the staff when we if we approve this then we are approving the future development of that property as well. The proposal today does not include the building at the corner of on UG Street. Okay and there is no building there. It's obviously it's an empty lot now and it's going to remain an empty lot through the development of the hotel and the garage. Don't know I don't know what's going to happen in the future. That's years off. Okay. Alright thank you very much. Thank you for that. Any other questions from Planning Commission? To the applicant? Thank you. Thanks sir. Is that mine? Thank you. Okay we will now open for public comment. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. Yes. My name is Dr. Michael Eugino. I live in City Club. My residence is at 1104 Giss Street. I have one question for the Commission. Has anyone here physically driven to the site? Driven down UG, Senate, Williams and Jervais. And if you have you'll know that it's impossible during rush hour to take a left out of Senate Street and a left out of William Street. Has anybody driven down to the site here on the Planning Commission? Physically? Yes. Yes. Ms. Hartz? Ms. Davis? Yes I have. Commissioner Frost? Yes I have. Thank you. Thank you. Hello my name is Charles Ledecker. What I want to start with is the issue of vehicle access to the site. As you've heard DDRC approved the application on the condition that staff work with the applicant and DOT to clarify requirements for access to the garage. Key word is requirements. So staff held the meeting on July 27th with and the staff memo that came out after that meeting did not say a word about requirements. Instead of a clear statement the DOT would not allow entrances on Jervais and Hugee. The memo presents irrelevant and false arguments supporting the current plan to put entrances on Senate and William Street in violation of the innovative design district guidelines. We had been led to believe both by the developer and DDRC staff that DOT would not allow access on Jervais and Hugee streets. But it's now clear that the entrance on Williams and Senate Street is not an actual requirement it's a preference. So I prepared an alternate vehicle access plan I submitted to the commission yesterday and it shows a side-by-side comparison of two ways to get in and out of the site. The staff memo compares claims that the current plan would be safer but that doesn't hold up to analysis. Compared to the alternate plan the current plan would require more overall turns, more left turns and more left turns across major arterials. There's also a plan future bicycle track on this narrow stretch of William Street and that's going to add to the risk of accidents. The staff memo and the district engineer also made a claim that dangerous U-turns would be required to access entrances on Jervais and Hugee streets and if you look at these access diagrams that's completely false. We fundamentally disagree with the idea that it's preferable to add high volume new traffic to neighborhood streets rather than using the existing high-volume arterials. I hope the commissioners are going to take a close look and do their due diligence before making a decision today. Thank you. Thank you, thank you sir. Good afternoon, my name is Marquetta Kovickova. I just wanted to state few facts about the hospitality and tourism and the importance of the industry for the state of South Carolina and City of Columbia itself. Some of the numbers were previously mentioned but I just want to say that the hospitality and tourism industry provides over 270,000 jobs in South Carolina. It is one of the most important industries for the state of South Carolina after agriculture. Some additional facts that I want to point out that in 2018 every hundred thousand dollars spent by domestic travel directly supported one job. So it is very important the development of hospitality and tourism again for the state of South Carolina. When it comes to tax revenue every dollar spent by domestic travel produced 14.6 cents in tax receipts for federal, state, and local government. Also an additional hospitality tax will be collected from every visitors that states. These funds can be utilized by the city and by the Vista area to develop further projects that benefits the tourists but also the local residents if it's just bike paths or additional lightings etc. So again I just want to point out how important the hospitality and tourism industry is important for the state of South Carolina. Thank you ma'am. I'm Paul Gaffney. I live at 1112 Gistry in the City Club. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, thank you very much. The proposed site plan in the city analysis hereof disregards several key principles in the city development ordinance about which we've written before. But more importantly it substantially violates several key articles in the Inavista guidelines which as you know are the senior development rules in the Inavista district. You have heard from us and read volumes from us from architects, property developers, and managers, a university president, lawyers, physicians who have made big decisions on big developments, successful CEOs, and financial businessmen, not amateurs of this, about the non-compliance. Violations of articles 113, 112, 124, 201, and 302 are a big deal for us. And let me just say about 113 and go off my script here for a minute. It is an, Williams is an A3. If you read the plan, the master plan, on page 31, and you look at the diagram, Williams Street is renamed the Congaree Congaree River Parkway, and the Congaree River Parkway is called since 2007 an A Street. Suitable for occasional automobile traffic and focused on pedestrian and bicycle traffic. And that road narrows down to two nine foot lanes, which is fine for the normal, the purpose that's intended, and it protects the Girl Scouts, and the ordinance that the city passed to protect the Girl Scouts. But it does not allow commercial traffic or service vehicles day in and day out. Can go on and on about the traffic analysis. Let me just say, let me just conclude by saying, commissioners please, if you choose not to enforce the ruling guidelines, especially those that relate to traffic and to the specific site, then you are de facto repealing the guidelines, something that the council put in place. That predicts chaos and problems with every single future application that will come before you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm Carolyn Lee Decker. I also live at City Club on William Street, and you're hearing here today the many reasons why this proposed hotel plan should be denied. It's not because we don't want a hotel or any other business on that property. It is simply that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Anavista guidelines. Yes, the property is zoned for commercial use. However, the zoning does allow for a hotel, but it does not require it to be a 95-foot tall one. The guidelines, however, do require the hotel to fit into the character and the size of the building surrounding it, which in this case, they are two and three story structures. But the planning staff says, okay, we'll let you skip that requirement. The guidelines require entrances to be on B streets, but the developer prefers them to be on A streets even though the guests will have to make more turns, and the traffic on those streets will be less safe for cars and pedestrians alike. But again, the planning staff say, okay, we'll let you skip that requirement. Also, the guidelines require that the garage be cited in the middle of the block, but the developer wants to put it at the corner of the block where it will face two A streets. So once again, the planning staff says, okay, you can skip that requirement as well. I could go on, but I hope you get my point. Why is violating the requirements for this hotel, although other City Club, Publix, McDonald's, Girl Scouts, and other businesses had to follow those guidelines. They were requirements for us, and we followed them. If the guidelines are not followed, why do we even have them? We would like an answer, and please vote to send this back to the drawing board. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Good afternoon. I'm Rebecca McMillan, and I reside at 315 Senate Street with my husband. We bought a home in City Club. We moved here because we desired an urban experience. We welcomed new development and were assured by the fact that Columbia was in a planning mode for future developmental growth protected by the innovative guidelines and overlay. This protection provided an arts district, pedestrian, bike-friendly, and design-compatible environment. Taxes were higher, but we thought the protection offered by these guidelines provided intrinsic rewards to mitigate the extra expense. If this hotel is approved, the Vista Peninsula will become the wild west of development. Isn't that a misuse of precious former taxpayer dollars? City officials paid to develop the plan a few years, and a few years later, it's ignored and abandoned with no transparency, nor open forum for discussion among the citizens, just manipulated out of existence. We traverse these streets every day, and to dump the hotel patrons out on Williams Street will create the exact thing the development does not want on his property. It just moves his congestion from his premises to Williams, a narrow little street proposed as a back lane for further exacerbating the safety issue. Let's call it like it is. This proposed hotel with its non-interior parking garage generating approximately 1,200 vehicle trips per day does not significantly make the guidelines. In fact, it violates them and manipulates them to get a predetermined desired outcome. I hope not. Several years ago, I remember a call for suggestions for a catchy motto for Columbia. We will now have it if you do not send this back to the developer for a massive redesign to fit all components of the guidelines. Columbia, where we bait and switch, is that going to be our new guideline? If you value what we promise, your time is up. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm Wade Kauffman and I reside at 1125 Williams Street. I was also the developer on the city club. When I developed the city club, I worked with the same city staff here, and I was required to follow the guidelines. So why was I required to follow the guidelines? There's two things they're presenting here, and that's the DOT. I could have, and I was required to change our entrances from the front to the rear. Now, why was I required to do that? Because I could have made more money had I not put the entrances on the rear and had asphalt in the back. But I was required to do that because we have urban design guidelines. But why is this not being done here? Show me one seven-story building, name one, other than the Hilton Hotel, which is a planned development with the convention center. I also want to ask the Ms. Davis asked about future development. Are you aware that there is an underlying plan development there? Are y'all aware of that? Are you aware? No. Why would they build a 441-spot garage for a 250-room hotel? Because there's a master plan to put a large-scale student housing on Hugh G Street. Hence why the hotel has not even been drawn to put there. You guys have already pre-approved a hotel to go on Hugh G. and Senate where the old Christ's nursing was. This would be compatible per the guidelines. So why does everyone else follow the guidelines? But this hotel is not being suggested to follow the guidelines. I'm a bit baffled by that because I've lost money if that's if the rules are changing and if you set a precedent for us developers that we can do anything we want to do what does that say for our city? The integrity that was proposed in 2006, passed in 2018 with the redevelopment of the innovative design line, was the integrity of what our city future in the future of our city and I'm asking you to please do the right thing and follow the integrity of the guidelines and think about what the truth and transparency of these guidelines. Thank you. Thank you. I'm John Taylor, live at 1127 William Street. I'm a retired architect. I served on this commission for six years and I know you've got a hard decision coming up but you've heard people talking about how this project violates guidelines but you also heard the staff say that substantially meets the guidelines. Well, I contend that it substantially violates the guidelines but this could all be resolved pretty simply. It would take a little bit of work and I've done a sketch being an architect. I did a little sketch I think I presented it last time that was with some redesign. This building could be this hotel could be put on Hugh G Street. It would work if there was some design revisions. Also, I asked that I wonder why we've got a parking garage twice as big as it needs. So I'm asking you to send this back to the drawing board relocate the hotel on Hugh G Street and build a parking garage half the size of their proposal which would meet the requirements of the hotel. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name's Jay McKay and I live across the street from this proposed development at City Club. I certainly want this property developed but I want it developed in such a way that it will enhance downtown Columbia and enhance the future growth of Columbia. What you're doing here is so important because it will determine what the prime best-looking corridor into Columbia is which is coming across the Gervais Street. What it will look like for the next 10, 20, 30 years. So it's a very important thing. We believe that this development doesn't comply with the Intervista guidelines. It does not enhance the vista. It will not enhance Columbia. What's planned is a lower budget, lower end extended stay hotel, and you saw the block up there on UG Street and a very large student housing. Columbia's got plenty of student housing. It may need more hotels but the future of Columbia, I live down there. None of my kids live in Columbia. All my siblings, my family's been here for 150 years. They've all moved away and the students that come here, they all move away. We've got a real problem with the development of the city because we don't have that growth engine here of the 22 to the 40 year olds. They're in Greenville, they're in Charlotte, they're in Rodley. When I grew up, Rodley, Charlotte, Greenville, Charleston were all roughly the same size as Columbia. Charlotte was 10,000 people more. Look at it now. People go there, they stay there, they made it a great place to live. The Intervista plan is a good plan. The city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get one of the premier architecture firms in the world to give us a plan and it's a good plan. Other people have been required to adhere to that plan. This does not belong on William Street. William Street is a tiny little street with girl scouts with long lines every morning with moms dropping the girls off and then picking them up in the afternoon and it will not handle the traffic of a hotel and a who-knows-how big student housing. You're talking about... I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you for the application. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman Frost and the commission members. My name is Ted Fenner. Good afternoon. I live at 311 Senate Street with my wife which is the City Club. The proposed project is a dramatic test of the Intervista master plan. 90 pages endorsed by City Council October 17th 2007 and its corresponding Intervista Design District guidelines 21 pages April 2009 updated 2018. The proposal contains significant violations that you previously heard about from other concerned citizens. The planning guidelines of which the proper development of Columbia's 500 acre Intervista District relies. Recent connection, paving, traffic signal installation at UG and Green Streets, extension of sidewalks, part development west of the Congrary River. The Intervista District is just beginning to emerge as the 22 member Waterfront Staring Committee and the internationally recognized urban planner Sasaki Associates envisioned in 2007. Not meeting these guidelines will set a dangerous precedent future hedging of the master plan. Please give due consideration to the City's forward-thinking endorsement of the Intervista master plan and ensure this project implies fully with its guidelines and recommendations. For Columbia to best attract businesses, residents and visitors, the Intervista District must become an admired gateway to the City. This critical test of the master plan will be observed by all who desire those ends. Thank you. Thank you sir. Anyone else in the audience present that would like to speak for or against this project? Hearing none I'll close public comment and offer the applicant to report anything else they may want to report. Sure, yes sir. Thank you again for letting me come up. I'd like to point out that the project is not a low-budget, low-end hotel. The developer doesn't spend tens of millions of dollars on a low-budget, low-end hotel. It's going to be a very, very nice hotel, a hotel that any of you would be glad to stay in. I would like to point out in spite of public comments that were made here, the city staff present here in all of the departments that report to you have all given the project their approval. They've all and DDRC in fact has provided us a letter of approval. We have their approval. Plenty of development services, utilities, traffic, engineering, fire department, forestry, stormwater, parking services, street division and solid waste have all recommended approval to you today. The folks here, while they obviously have good intentions, they're implying that the city staff has been and DDRC as well has been derelict in their duties and that they have not applied the principles of the guidelines to this project which they have because they've stated so that the project substantially meets requirements of the inovistic guidelines and again it's guidelines and certainly we're trying to comply with all the guidelines we can and we have complied with most all of them. I'd like to point out that there are a number of streets listed in the design guidelines that are a streets and b streets. William Street is not a listed a street or the street which everyone can't think of which one it is now but in other words William Street is not a listed street. Senate Street is William Street is not. The future development, we don't have any idea what the future development is. The parking garage has been designed to accommodate both the hotel and whatever potential future development there might be. It's in the parking garage is intended to to service the needs of this property no other property. I'd like to also point out the fact that the guidelines state that a parking garage should be located in the core of a block which is certainly true but if you don't own the whole block how can you put the parking garage in the middle of block. The parking garage is too large to put anywhere other than either right in the middle of the block or at one of the corners or one of the streets. McDonald's owns a quarter of the property we can't do anything about that. The parking garage cannot fit into the corner of the property. It just physically cannot and that's all of my notes. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Mike Ridgeway and I'm the traffic engineer on the project and I just wanted to make the point with regards to the access that I agree with SCDOT that no new access should be allowed on Javay or Hugh G Street. Those are major roadways and in my profession we try to reduce new conflict points to major roadways and that's why DOT prefers and I prefer to have access to Senate Williams Street and there's no scenario where an access point to Javay or Hugh G Street would meet DOT guidelines from a separation standpoint. All right any other response from the applicant? Good. Any follow-up questions from planning commission or staff or for the applicant? Are we ready to make a motion? Here are no comments or further questions. I'll accept the motion. Got a motion to approve as stated with city comments. Can I get a second? I'll second. Got a motion and a second. Mr. Chairman before you make that make that motion and do the vote is that with staff comments? As stated yeah. Just wanted to clarify that. Got a motion to approve with staff comments. Got a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it the motion passes. Just real quick I will mention under other business there the city playing in development services department is starting to publish a monthly report this is going to be on our website so we encourage you to go and look at that and it will be published every month and our annual report which you may remember from last year will be published next month so keep your eyes peeled but it'll just post some statistics and web boards and commissions and staff have been up to and get some development information so please look out for that. That's all we've got tonight. All right no other business I'll accept the motion that we adjourned. Got a motion to adjourn give a second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it the meeting is adjourned.