May 21, 2025 Town of Hilton Head Planning Commission

[1. Call to Order]

[00:00:02]

ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY DEPOSITION.

[3. Adoption of the Agenda]

BEFORE WE CONSIDER ADOPTING THE AGENDA, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST A CHANGE.

UM, A FAIR NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE HERE TO, UH, SPEAK WITH US ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10.

SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE, UH, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS THE PART FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW, UH, THE STAFF REPORT ON, ON NUMBER 10.

OKAY.

SO WITH THAT, WITH THAT CHANGE, IS SOMEBODY WILLING TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA? UH, COMMISSIONER WHALEY.

COMMISSIONER LOBAUGH SECONDS.

UH, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

LOOKS TO BE UNANIMOUS.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

UNFINISHED BILL, OR FIRST, UH, ITEM OF NEW

[6.a. STDV-000376-2025 – Consideration of a Public Hearing for Matt Amelung, owner of 325 Squire Pope Road, proposing to name a new street name off Squire Pope Road. The affected parcel is R511 003 000 0146 0000. - Joheida Fister, Deputy Fire Chief]

AND WE WILL HAVE, UH, JOHA DESTER OR HER, UH, HER ASSISTANT, UH, GIVE THAT REPORT TO US.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC RIGHT NOW, AND PLEASE, UH, LEAD WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

I'M KATHLEEN LITCHFIELD.

I'M THE 9 1 1 COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER HERE AT TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND FIRE RESCUE.

AND I AM HERE TO ASK YOU ALL TO APPROVE A NEW STREET NAME.

THAT STREET NAME IS GOING TO BE REDFISH POINT.

THIS IS ON BEHALF OF MATT AM LUNG OF 3 25 SQUIRE POPE ROAD.

THIS IS TO NAME THE ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WILL BE OFFERING DIRECT ACCESS TO TWO HOMES THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUILT ON THAT PARCEL.

UM, IN THE FUTURE, THERE MAY BE FU FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ON SOME OF THE SURROUNDING PARCELS, SUCH AS 3 21 AND 3 23 SQUARE POPE ROAD.

THE ZONING IN THIS AREA IS WATER ORIENTED MIXED USE, WHICH COULD ALLOW FOR UP TO 16 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

SO WE NEED TO PLAN FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, AND WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE CRITERIA IN THE PACKET.

THIS WAS CHOSEN, UH, THE NAME WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE THE REDFISH IS A SPECIES NATIVE TO SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL WATERS, AND IT ALSO REFLECTED THE APPLICANT'S IN ENJOYMENT OF FISHING, WHICH HE MENTIONED IN HIS NARRATIVE.

THIS, UM, HIGHLIGHTED PART OF THE PARCEL HERE, 3 25.

THIS IS THE AFFECTED PARCEL AND SOME, SOME OF THE OTHER PARCELS THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA BE THIS 3 23, THAT'S ABOUT AN ACRE RIGHT THERE AND 3 21.

THAT'S ABOUT FOUR TEN SEVEN ACRE.

AND THIS ACCESS EASEMENT WILL BE RUNNING RIGHT ALONG THIS LINE HERE, LINE HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS AERIAL PHOTO, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.

THERE'S GONNA BE TWO DWELLING UNITS PLUS A GARAGE RIGHT NOW THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOCATED ON THAT PARCEL.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS PARCEL COULD BE UP TO 16 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL IS ABOUT AN ACRE.

SO, AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE STREAM NAMES HAVE BEEN VETTED AND MET THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE.

DOES, DO ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME RIGHT NOW? ANY QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF? RENAMING PROPOSAL? COMMISSIONER HENS? SO WHEN YOU NAME, IF IT'S APPROVED AND YOU RENAME THIS REDFISH POINT, IS THAT WHEN IT GOES FROM AN ACCESS EASEMENT TO A STREET, UM, SO THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ACCESS EASEMENT.

WE ARE NAMING THE ACCESS EASEMENT, CORRECT.

WE, UM, JOH FISTER, UH, DEPUTY CHIEF, UM, IT IS AN ACCESS EASEMENT.

AND SO LIKE AT SOME POINT IT MAY BECOME SOMETHING ELSE IF, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT MAKES IT BECOME SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S AN ACCESS EASEMENT AND IT, IT, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE FOR IT TO HAVE A SQUIRE POPE ADDRESS.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL SQUIRE POPE ADDRESSES.

IT IS SO FAR OFF OF SQUIRE POPE THAT, LIKE FINDING IT AND KNOWING THAT THERE'S TWO MORE HOUSES BACK THERE DOES NOT, UM, MAKE SENSE FOR A FIRE RESCUE RESPONSE.

UM, SO, AND LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T HAVE ADDRESSES IN THAT AREA TO CONTINUE TO GIVE MORE TO IT.

AND SHOULD THEY WANT TO PUT ANY ADDITIONAL HOMES ON 3 23, UM, THERE ARE NO MORE ADDRESSES EITHER.

SO, SO WE NAME STREETS AS WELL AS ACCESS EASEMENTS, CORRECT.

JUST SO THAT WE CAN FIND THEM.

YES.

OKAY.

OTHER QUESTIONS?

[00:05:01]

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NAMING AS A, UH, MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER LOBO, SECONDED BY, UH, COMMISSIONER DEIS.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND IT UNANIMOUS.

AND WE MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

UH,

[6.b. Public Hearing for Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Hilton Head Island, the Land Management Ordinance, to amend the current regulations for Tree Protection to include sections: 16-5-115, 16-6-104 and Appendix C. - Missy Luick, Director of Planning]

AND WE WILL HAVE, UH, A REPORT FROM MISSY LEWIS, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC, UH, AT THIS POINT.

AND MISSY, THANK WELCOME.

THANK YOU, UH, MISSY LUECK, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

UH, HAPPY TO BE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY.

UH, WE HAVE THREE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TO DISCUSS.

AND THE FIRST ONE, AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, IS, UM, A PROPOSAL THAT IS FOR OUR, UM, TREE REGULATIONS.

UM, AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE, THE AMENDMENT, UH, PROCESS THAT WE'RE UNDER IS, UH, A PRIORITY WITHIN THE TOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN WITHIN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.

AND THE AMENDMENT PROJECT IS BROKEN INTO TWO PARTS, BOTH THE FULL CODE OVERHAUL AND THE PRIORITY AMENDMENTS.

THE PRIORITY AMENDMENTS ARE, UH, PRESSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES THAT ARE, UH, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE BEST SHORT TERM SOLUTION TO THOSE TO ADDRESS PRIOR TO THE FULL CODE OVERHAUL.

UM, AS YOU ARE ALSO AWARE, WE HAD A WORKSHOP WITH TOWN COUNCIL LAST FALL TO DISCUSS ALL OF THESE PRIORITY AMENDMENTS PRIOR TO THEM BEING FINALIZED.

AND, UH, FOR THE TREE PROTECTION PROVISIONS.

WE DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING, UM, THAT WE WOULD INCREASE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIVE OAK AND LOWER OAKS FOR TREE PRESERVATION BY REDUCING THE SIZE AT WHICH THEY'RE PROTECTED.

WE WOULD UPDATE THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS BY INCREASING THE PLANT BACK SIZE REQUIREMENTS.

WE WOULD UPDATE THE, THE LIST OF NATIVE PLANTS AND REMOVE THE EXCEPTION OF SPECIMEN TREES ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN, UH, REDUCTION OF UNNECESSARY REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES.

SO, LARGELY, UM, BASED ON THAT DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL THE AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU ARE DOING JUST THAT.

UM, THESE REGULATIONS WILL STRENGTHEN OUR TREE PROTECTION DURING DEVELOPMENT AND ENSURE THAT NEW PROJECTS ALIGN WITH OUR COMMUNITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES.

UM, AGAIN, IT DOES STRENGTHEN THOSE TREE PROTECTIONS, UM, FOR BOTH, UH, SPECIMEN AND SIGNIFICANT TREES AND PROMOTES THE USE OF NATIVE VEGETATION.

ADDITIONALLY, THAT, UM, TREE PROTECTIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IS EXTENDED TO, UM, THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.

UM, THERE HAVE BEEN FOR MANY YEARS, TREE PROTECTION STANDARDS WITHIN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY, UM, BUT NOT OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITIES.

THE KEY UPDATES, UM, AGAIN, ARE OUTLINED HERE IN, IN DETAIL, AND THEN ALSO LATER IN THE STAFF REPORT IN A DETAILED TABLE.

UM, THE, THE LIVE OAK AND LAUREL OAK TREES.

UM, SO THAT THRESHOLD FOR PRESERVATION OF THOSE TREES IS REDUCED.

IT'S REDUCED FOR FIVE INCHES FOR LIVE OAK AND LAUREL OAK SPECIMEN TREES.

UM, IN ADDITION, UM, SIGNIFICANT LIVE OAK AND LAUREL OAK TREES ARE ALSO, UH, REDUCED.

UH, SO FOR SINGLE TRUNK LIVE OAKS AND LAUREL OAKS, IT'S REDUCED BY FOUR INCHES AND IT'S REDUCED BY SEVEN INCHES FOR MULTI TRUNK, UH, LIVE OAKS SIGNIFICANT TREES.

UM, ADDITIONALLY, UH, THE MITIGATION PROVISIONS REQUIRE LARGER REPLACEMENT TREES, SO THAT PLANT BACK ARE LARGER, UM, PLANTINGS.

UM, AND THERE'S FOUR CATEGORIES OF PLANT BACK.

AND THE MINIMUM INSTALLATION FOR THESE CATEGORIES, IT'S TWO INCHES FOR CATEGORIES ONE AND TWO, UM, AND THEN ONE INCH FOR CATEGORIES THREE AND FOUR.

UM, THAT'S A SLIGHT VARIATION FROM WHAT WE HEARD FROM COUNCIL.

UM, SO IT'S ONE INCH INSTEAD OF TWO INCHES FOR THOSE CONE BEARING EVERGREENS PALMS IN ORNAMENTALS.

UM, WE EXPANDED THE NATIVE PLANT LIST, UM, AND THAT LIST OF APPROVED NATIVE PLANTS IS UPDATED TO REFLECT CURRENT ECOLOGICAL PRIORITIES IN BIO BIODIVERSITY.

AND AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT SPECIMEN TREE PROTECTIONS ARE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE ALL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, WHICH SHOULD REDUCE UNNECESSARY REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT TREES.

UM, THE TABLE IS REDUNDANT OF WHAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT, BUT YOU CAN SEE IN THE TABLE THAT, UM, REDUCTION IN SIZE AT WHICH BOTH

[00:10:01]

SO IT PRIORITIZE THOSE OAK TREES, UM, AND REDUCES THE SIZE AT WHICH THEY'RE PROTECTED, BOTH FOR THE SPECIMEN CATEGORY AND THE SIGNIFICANT CATEGORY.

AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THAT, UM, THE SIZE CHANGES HERE FOR THE PLANT BACK FOR THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE FOUR CATEGORIES.

UM, AND THEN, UM, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT SINGLE FAMILY EXEMPTION COMPONENT IS PROPOSED TO BE STRUCK WITHIN THE CODE.

UM, WITH ALL AMENDMENTS, WE LOOK AT, UH, NONCONFORMITIES AS WELL AS THE TEXT AMENDMENT REVIEW STANDARDS.

IN THIS CASE, UM, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NOT PROVIDE, WOULD NOT CREATE ANY NEW NONCONFORMITIES.

UM, AGAIN, TEXT AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET, UH, CERTAIN STANDARDS AS, AS PROVIDED BY IN THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE.

UM, ITEMS A THROUGH F ARE THOSE CRITERIA, AND IN THE STAFF REPORT IT IDENTIFIES HOW THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT MEETS THE REQUIRED CRITERIA.

THE, THE TEXT AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED SUPPORTS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS CONCERNING NATURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION AND TREE PROTECTION.

IT'S REQUIRED DUE TO CONTINUING CONCERNS WITH TREE CUTTING AND THE LOSS OF SPECIMEN AND SIGNIFICANT TREES.

IT ADDRESSES A DEMONSTRATED IN VOCALIZED COMMUNITY NEED TO STRENGTHEN TREE PROTECTION, PROMOTE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH, AND MAINTAIN THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN THE TOWN'S EFFORTS TO PRESERVE TREE COVER AND HABITAT.

IT RESULTS IN A MORE ATTRACTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ENSURING LOGICAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, AND IT MINIMIZES THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BY PROTECTING TREES AND STRENGTHENING MITIGATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF TREES.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

UM, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS A RECOMMENDING BODY TO COUNCIL.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OF, UH, MISSY BEFORE I OPEN A PUBLIC COMMENT? COMMISSIONER LOBO, DON'T FORGET TO ACTIVATE YOUR MIC.

HI, MISSY.

I, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT KIND OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

SO I'M GONNA GIVE KIND OF TWO EXAMPLES.

UH, AND I JUST, IT'LL BE OBVIOUS, I THINK WHAT I'M ASKING.

SO FIRST EXAMPLE IS A HOMEOWNER IN A COMMUNITY THAT HAS A POA AND AN A RB, AND THEY HAVE ONE OF THESE OAK TREES AND THEY DECIDE IT'S HEALTHY, BUT THEY WANNA REMOVE IT 'CAUSE IT'S, THEY THINK IT'S TOO BIG OR TOO MESSY OR WHATEVER.

THE SECOND IS THE EXACT SAME.

ONLY THE TREE HAS BEEN DEEMED TO BE NOT GOOD BY A ARBORIST OR A TREE COMPANY.

AND IT, AND THEY THINK IT NEEDS TO COME DOWN IN BOTH CASES.

BASED ON THIS, UM, HOW DOES THE HOMEOWNER AND OR THE A RB DETERMINE WHETHER THE TREE CAN BE CUT DOWN, UM, RIGHT NOW, AND I CAN, UM, IT REQUIRES AN ARBORIST REPORT, UM, AND IF, IF TREY OR, OR MICHELLE OR SHAY COULD POINT TO THE SECTION WHERE IT SAYS THAT I WILL PULL IT UP ON THE SCREEN, UM, IN ORDER FOR THAT TREE TO BE REMOVED.

AND SO IS, IS IT AS LONG AS THERE IS A, AN ARBORIST, A TREE COMPANY REPORT THAT SAYS THAT IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY TO REMOVE IT BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH OF THE TREE? THAT'S CORRECT.

AND IT'S OKAY FOR THE, THE RESIDENT OR THE A RB TO PROCEED AND APPROVE THAT? THAT'S CORRECT.

IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE, UM, THE AVENUE, UH, IF, IF THEY DON'T HAVE THAT, IS TO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

OKAY.

I, THAT ANSWERS IT.

I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO DIG FURTHER, I THINK.

OKAY.

I UNDERSTAND.

UH, COMMISSIONER WILLY.

HI, MISSY.

THANK YOU.

SO DO THESE NEW STANDARDS SYNC UP WITH THE PUDS RIGHT NOW? OR IS THERE ANY DISCONNECT AT ALL? NO, IT, IT BRINGS, UM, SO THE, THE, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS HAVE, UH, BECAUSE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY EXEMPTION, UM, HAVE BEEN REGULATED MORE STRICTLY THAN THE AREAS THAT ARE OUTSIDE.

UM, AND SO ALL OF THEM HAVE, UH, UH, PRESERVATION STANDARDS IN PLACE, AND THEY DO REQUIRE ARBORIST REPORTS RIGHT NOW FOR REMOVAL OF, UH, SPECIMEN TREES AND SIGNIFICANT TREES.

YES.

UM, AND ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

IF A HOMEOWNER OR A LANDOWNER DECIDES A TREE IS HAZARDOUS AND REMOVES IT WITHOUT THAT ARBORIST REPORT, WHAT IS THE TOWN'S, UM, RESPONSE TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? AND THANK YOU.

SO WE INVESTIGATE FIRST AND THEN, UM, IF IT IS A VIOLATION THERE, THE CURRENT CODE HAS PROVISIONS FOR, UM, HOW THAT IS HANDLED, BOTH IN, IF THERE IS A CITATION ISSUED, BUT THERE IS MITIGATION REQUIRED.

OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO MISSY.

[00:15:01]

HANNAH, DID WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC TODAY? NOT THIS TOPIC NOW.

OKAY.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE, UH, AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WITH US ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE DIES FOR, UH, DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

UH, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE, COMMISSIONERS? DO WE, UH, THE COMMISSIONER HENS MOVE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL SECONDS? ANY DISCUSSION? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS DECISION THERE.

SO WE WILL BE, UH, MOVING, WE WILL BE MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL.

[6.c. Public Hearing for Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Hilton Head Island, the Land Management Ordinance, to amend the current regulations for Sign Standards to include sections: 16-5-114 and 16-10-105. - Missy Luick, Director of Planning]

AND SO WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC AND ASK MISSY TO CONTINUE.

WELL, THANK YOU.

UM, SO THE NEXT TEXT AMENDMENT THAT IS BEFORE YOU IS AN AMENDMENT TO OUR SIGNED STANDARDS, UM, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

AGAIN, THIS IS ALL PART OF THE PRIORITY AMENDMENTS, UH, PROCESS THAT IS PART OF THE TOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN.

UM, THE, THE TOWN COUNCIL WORKSHOPS DIRECTION ON SIGNS WAS THAT OUR CURRENT SIGN STANDARDS AND SIGN REGULATIONS ARE NOT CONTENT NEUTRAL AS REQUIRED, UH, BY A REED VERSUS TOWN OF GILBERT SUPREME COURT DECISION, AND TO AMEND OUR SIGN CODE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THAT SUPREME COURT DECISION.

UM, SO TO SUMMARIZE WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IT, IT, THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES UPDATES TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THAT, UH, FEDERAL CASE LAW BY ADOPTING A CONTENT NEUTRAL, UH, SIGN CODE.

AND OF COURSE, THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THAT 2015 DECISION.

AND, UM, THERE ARE QUITE A, A BIT OF, UH, CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED HERE.

UM, AND I THINK, UM, THERE WILL BE, THERE WILL BE A LOT MORE CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE AND THE FULL CODE OVERHAUL.

UM, AND WE AIMED, UH, THE EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO JUST BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PARTICULAR SUPREME COURT CASE.

UM, THE REGULATIONS BASED ON CONTENT OF SIGNS HAS TO BE AVOIDED, UM, AS CONTENT RULES ARE SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY REQUIRING, UM, A COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST AND, UH, NARROWLY TAILORED MEASURES.

UM, AND SO WHAT, UM, THESE UPDATES ALIGN WITH THOSE LEGAL STANDARDS AND CREATE FAIR MORE DEFENSIBLE SIGN REGULATIONS THAT PRESERVE TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE CURRENT TOWN REGULATIONS REGARDING SIZE, HEIGHT, LOCATION DESIGN, AND PERMITTING OF SIGNS.

UM, THE AMENDMENTS ALSO HAVE SOME MINOR CLARIFICATIONS IN HOUSEKEEPING CHANGES TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS TO MAKE SIGN REGULATIONS EASIER TO NAVIGATE.

UM, AND AGAIN, LIKE I MENTIONED, THERE WILL BE FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO SIGN REGULATIONS IN THE FULL CODE.

SO I DESCRIBED AGAIN THAT THIS AMENDMENT STREAMLINES AND CLARIFIES OUR, UH, SIGN REGULATIONS.

UH, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE ORGANIZED IN, UM, BOTH THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING AND THEN HOW THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, UH, FITS IN WITH THAT, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT BASED ON THE LENGTH OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE SIGN CODE, THE TABLE THAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT ARE ONLY THE MOST NOTEWORTHY SECTIONS OF, UH, THE, THE PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.

UH, BUT YOU CAN LOOK TO THE ACTUAL TEXT AMENDMENT FOR ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO THE SIGN TEXT.

UM, THERE'S A SECTION THAT DEALS WITH SUBSTITUTION OF NON-COMMERCIAL MESSAGES.

UM, IT'S PROPOSED THAT THE PRIOR LANGUAGE IS STRUCK AND REPLACED WITH NEW LANGUAGE.

THE PURPOSE OF A SUBSTITUTION CLAUSE IS TO ENSURE THAT IF SIGN CODE ALLOWS SIGN CONTAINING COMMERCIAL COPY, IT SHALL ALSO ALLOW NON-COMMERCIAL SIGN TO THE SAME EXTENT, AND IT SHOULD APPLY TO EVERY POSSIBLE DIMENSION OF THE SIGN, INCLUDING LOCATION, DURATION, POSTING SIZE, OR AREA MATERIALS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, UM, OR REQUIREMENT FOR A PERMIT, ET CETERA.

SO THE NEW LANGUAGE I WILL NOT READ, UH, VERBATIM, BUT, UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT THERE ARE SOME CHANGES TO FLAGS, UM, EXCUSE ME, FLAGS AND INTERIOR SITE SIGNS AND TEMPORARY YARD SIGNS ARE THE MAJORITY OR BULK OF THE CHANGES.

UM, THERE'S, UH, FULL STRIKE TO, UH, HOW THE PRIOR LANGUAGE REGULATED FLAGS.

UM, AND THEN, UH, THERE ARE TWO MAIN BUCKETS OF HOW FLAGS ARE REGULATED IN THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT.

SO, SUBSECTION A REFERS TO FLAGS ON TOWN OWNED, LEASE MANAGED OR OPERATED PROPERTY OR FLAGS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.

UM, AND THAT IS

[00:20:01]

UM, AND THAT, UM, OTHER DISPLAYS OF FLAGS ON PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED EAST LEASED OR MANAGED OR OPERATED BY THE TOWN ARE NOT PERMITTED.

AND THEN ALL OTHER FLAGS, UM, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING.

NO MORE THAN TWO FLAGS ARE ALLOWED.

PER PARCEL FLAGS SHALL NOT BE REPLACED WITHIN A STREET EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY.

UM, FLAGS CANNOT BE PLACED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY UNLESS POSTED BY THE PUBLIC ENTITY.

OWNING THE PARCEL SIZE OF A FLAG SHALL NOT EXCEED 24 SQUARE FEET.

THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS OF HOW THAT SIZE COULD BE WAIVED AS AS STATED.

AND THEN, UM, THESE TERMS ARE TO BE APPLIED TO FLAGS GENERALLY AND SHALL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO SUPERSEDE OR CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE US FLAG OR SOUTH CAROLINA FLAG.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T READ A FLAG, THE FORMER LANGUAGE, UM, HERE REFERRED TO NON-GOVERNMENTAL FLAGS.

WE CAN'T READ A FLAG TO DETERMINE IF IT'S A NON-GOVERNMENTAL FLAG OR ANY OTHER FLAG.

UM, INTERIOR SIGHT SIGNS.

UH, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE INCLUDES SEVERAL SIGN TYPES THAT ARE FOUND INTERNAL TO SITES AND PARKING LOTS LIKE MENU BOARDS, PARKING SIGNS, SHOPPING CART RETURN SIGNS, AND THOSE SIGNS ARE NOW GROUPED TOGETHER AS ALL INTERIOR SITE SIGNS.

THEY'RE PROPOSED TO BE EXEMPT FROM PERMITTING AND SUBJECT TO, UH, SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS.

AND THEY'RE ALSO IS A REFINED DEFINITION IN THE DEFINITION SECTION.

UM, SO IT IDENTIFIES HERE THAT THESE SIGNS ARE INTERIORLY INTERNALLY ORIENTED ON COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY.

THEY DON'T REQUIRE PERMITS.

UM, AND THEN THERE'S CRITERIA THAT ARE IDENTIFIED HERE.

AND THEN HERE'S THE NEW DEFINITION FOR AN INTERIOR SIGN.

IT'S A PERMANENT INTERIOR, INTERNALLY ORIENTED SIGN AND A NON-RESIDENTIAL PARCEL THAT IS NOT READILY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL ON WHICH IT'S LOCATED AND IS INTENDED FOR VIEWING FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL TEMPORARY YARD SIGNS.

UM, THERE ARE SEVERAL CHANGES HERE BECAUSE TEMPORARY YARD SIGNS ARE BOTH FALL INTO THE NON PERMITTED CATEGORY AND THE PERMITTED CATEGORY.

SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FULL TEXT AMENDMENT, YOU WILL SEE IT LOCATED IN TWO SECTIONS.

UM, SO TEMPORARY YARD SIGNS THAT TOTALED NINE SQUARE FEET OR LESS DURING ELECTION SEASONS ARE PROPOSED TO BE EXEMPT FROM PERMITTING BASED ON LEGAL REVIEW AND CASE LAW.

IN NO CASE CAN THE TOWN REGULATE WHAT MESSAGES DISPLAYED ON THESE SIGNS DURING THAT SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME, EVEN IF IT WAS NOT RELATED TO THAT ELECTION OR REFERENDUM.

SO THE, THE REGULATIONS THEN HERE FOR THAT PARTICULAR TIMEFRAME ALLOW UP TO NINE SQUARE FEET OF TEMPORARY YARD SIGNS.

UM, WITHIN THAT, UH, ELECTION WINDOW, 90 DAYS ARE ALLOWED WITHOUT PERMITS, AND THEY STILL HAVE TO COMPLY TO THESE REQUIREMENTS.

SO THERE, THE NUMBER OF SIGNS IS NOT LIMITED ON THE PARCEL, OF COURSE, IT CAN'T EXCEED NINE SQUARE FEET.

UM, AND DURING THAT TIMEFRAME, THE, THE, THE MATERIAL OF THE SIGN IS RELAXED.

THE THE SIGNS CAN BE MADE FROM LIGHTWEIGHT MATERIALS SUCH AS CORRUGATED PLASTIC, CARDBOARD, WOOD, OR SIMILAR MATERIALS, AND CAN BE AFFIXED TO THE GROUND WITH METAL WIRE FRAMES, WOOD STAKES, OR PLASTIC STAKES.

THEY CANNOT BE LOCATED IN AN EASEMENT OR A RIGHT OF WAY, UM, AND CANNOT BE POSTED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY UNLESS IT WAS POSTED BY THE PUBLIC ENTITY THAT OWNS THE PARCEL.

AND THERE ALSO ARE SOME STANDARDS FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS.

UM, AND THESE ARE FOR PERMITTED TEMPORARY SIGNS.

UM, AND SO IT STANDARDIZES ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS THAT ARE CURRENTLY REGULATED BY THEIR CONTENT.

SO TEMPORARY SIGNS IN THE THE EXISTING SIGN CODE INCLUDE THINGS LIKE REAL ESTATE SIGNS, CONSTRUCTION SIGNS, AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.

UM, MANY OF THOSE ARE NOW GROUPED INTO A CATEGORY CALLED TEMPORARY YARD SIGNS.

'CAUSE AGAIN, YOU CAN'T READ THE SIGN TO KNOW HOW TO REGULATE THE SIGN.

SO, UM, THERE ARE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DURABILITY OF THE SIGN ILLUMINATION STANDARD SHAPE NUMBER, SIZE, AND TIMEFRAME.

UM, TEMPORARY SIGNS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM PERMITTING, SO THEY DO REQUIRE SIGN PERMIT.

UM, ONE TEMPORARY YARD SIGN IS PERMITTED PER PARCEL.

THERE ARE SOME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY YARD SIGNS ARE PERMITTED, AND THOSE ARE, ARE LISTED HERE IN THE SUMMARY AREA DURING PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, WHEN THE BUILDING OR PROPERTY IS LISTED FOR SALE, AND THERE'S ADDITIONAL CRITERIA IN THAT TIMEFRAME BEFORE AND AFTER AN ELECTION OR REFERENDUM, AND IT FURTHER SPECIFIES THAT,

[00:25:01]

UM, A PERMIT IS ONLY REQUIRED IF THE TOTAL SIZE OF SIGNS EXCEEDS NINE SQUARE FEET.

AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT IN THAT NON PERMITTED SIGNS, IF IT WAS LESS THAN NINE SQUARE FEET, NO PERMITS REQUIRED.

UM, BUT IF IT EXCEEDS NINE SQUARE FEET, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.

UM, AND THAT CRITERIA IS LISTED HERE.

UM, SO AGAIN, THIS ONE EXCEPTION HERE FOR THAT, THAT WINDOW IN AND AROUND THE ELECTION SEASON.

UM, IF A SIGN, A TEMPORARY SIGN EXCEEDS NINE SQUARE FEET, THE TOTAL SIZE OF SIGNS SHALL NOT EXCEED NINE SQUARE FEET.

AND LET'S SEE, SUBSECTION TWO.

THE TOTAL SIZE OF ALL SIGNS, UH, DURING THIS TIMEFRAME SHALL NOT EXCEED 32 SQUARE FEET.

SO PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THAT WINDOW IS NEEDED FOR, UH, TEMPORARY SIGNS OVER NINE SQUARE FEET AND CANNOT EXCEED 32 SQUARE FEET.

AND THEN THE NUMBER OF TEMPORARY SIGNS ON A PARCEL IS NOT LIMITED.

UM, AND THEN IT HAS THAT SAME, UH, RELIEF FROM THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS.

UM, AND THEN, AND, AND, AND THE SAME, UH, REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY YARD SIGNS IN THE UNPERMITTED, UH, ALSO APPEAR HERE.

UM, IT SHOULD BE NOTED AGAIN THAT, UM, ALTHOUGH THOSE ADDITIONAL SIGN PROVISIONS MAY RELATE TO THE SIGNS WILL BE USED FOR, BUT THE TOWN STILL CANNOT REGULATE WHAT IS ON THE ADDITIONAL SIGNS DURING THESE CIRCUMSTANCES OR TIMEFRAMES.

THE AMENDMENT ALSO HAS, UM, CHANGES TO DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINT SIGNS, AND THOSE ARE SIMILAR TO INTERIOR SITE SIGNS.

THESE ARE ORIENTED TOWARD TRAFFIC CONTROL AT DRIVEWAYS OR INTERSECTIONS AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINT SIGNS DO REQUIRE A PERMIT.

THERE'S A MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT OF FOUR SQUARE FEET, A MAXIMUM OF TWO DRIVEWAY ACCESS SIGNS PER ACCESS POINT, AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINT SIGN IS THREE FEET.

INTERIOR SITE SIGNS, AGAIN, THEY MENTIONED THAT THEY'RE SIMILAR TO THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINT SIGNS, UM, THOSE HAVE, THEY REQUIRE PERMITS AS WELL.

THEY HAVE THE SAME MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT AND THE SAME HEIGHT REQUIREMENT AS WELL.

SO, UM, THE APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDMENT WILL NOT CREATE NONCONFORMITIES.

THERE ARE SEVERAL SIGN TYPES THAT ARE GROUPED INTO INTERIOR SITE CLASSIFICATIONS, BUT THE SAME DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS WILL APPLY.

UM, ADDITIONALLY, TEMPORARY YARD SIGNS CANNOT BENEFIT FROM NONCONFORMING RIGHTS.

UM, AS AGAIN, WITH ALL TEXT AMENDMENTS, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REVIEW STANDARDS THAT ARE CONSIDERED WHEN, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL ARE REVIEWING, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE.

THEY'RE LISTED HERE.

STAFF IS FOUND THAT THIS PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT MEETS THOSE REVIEW CRITERIA AS IT SUPPORTS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

BY MINIMIZING THE IMPACT OF SIGNS AND ENSURING HIGH QUALITY SIGNAGE, IT'S REQUIRED DUE TO A US SUPREME COURT DECISION, IT ADDRESSES A COMMUNITY NEED TO HOLD SIGNAGE TO HIGH STANDARDS FOR AESTHETICS AND REDUCE THE VISUAL CLUTTER CAUSED BY UNREGULATED SIGNAGE.

AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING DISTRICTS IN THIS ORDINANCE.

BY ENSURING HIGH QUALITY AND VISUALLY UNOBTRUSIVE SIGNAGE, IT WILL RESULT IN A MORE ATTRACTIVE STREET CORRIDORS AND PROPERTIES AND WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

UM, AGAIN, BEFORE YOU, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS A RECOMMENDING BODY TO COUNCIL.

UM, AND YOU HAVE, UH, THREE OPTIONS WHEN CONSIDERING THIS PARTICULAR TEXT AMENDMENT ITEM.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS OF MISSY ON THIS PRESENTATION? THIS PROPOSAL? COMMISSIONER WHALEY, MISSY, WHEN, UM, A COMMERCIAL, LARGELY A COMMERCIAL LOT MIGHT HAVE A MONUMENT SIGN, YOU KNOW, WITH MULTIPLE, UM, INDIVIDUAL COMMERCIAL SIGNS, HOW DO THEY FALL WITHIN THESE REGS? DOES THE MONUMENT HAVE TO HAVE EACH INDIVIDUAL SIGN A CERTAIN SIZE OR DOES A MONUMENT, UH, GET PERMITTED AS A SINGLE ALLOWANCE? HOW DOES THAT WORK? UM, I'M GOING TO HAVE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SIGN.

UM, IF, IF TRE COULD, COULD COME AND ASSIST WITH ANSWERING SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

BUT IN, IN LARGE PART, YES, UM, MONUMENT SIGNS HAVE LIMITATIONS TO THEIR AREA, THE AESTHETIC QUALITIES OF THEM, THE MATERIALS, UM, AND, UH, BUT I WILL DEFER TO, SO THOSE ARE COVERED UNDER A DIFFERENT TEXT AMENDMENT, OR COULD YOU RE-ASK YOUR QUESTION? I'M SORRY.

SORRY, I WAS ABSOLUTELY TREY .

WHAT I WAS ASKING WAS, UH, WHEN YOU HAVE, UH, LARGELY IN A COMMERCIAL SETTING, WHEN YOU HAVE A MONUMENT SIGN, RIGHT, WITH LIKE MULTIPLE SIGNS ON IT, HOW ARE THEY AFFECTED BY THIS? ARE THEY COVERED BY A DIFFERENT TEXT AMENDMENT OR WRECK? SO WITH

[00:30:01]

BASICALLY WHAT THE, WHAT WHAT THIS IS DOING IS WE'RE GETTING BACK IN LINE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING, UH, CONTENT NEUTRAL ON THAT.

SO AS FAR AS SIZE, LOCATION, THINGS LIKE THAT, THE STANDARD THAT WE'RE USED TO, WE'RE STILL ABLE TO ADMINISTER THAT.

IT'S JUST CONTENT BECAUSE OF SOME CASE LAW, WE CAN'T DICTATE WHAT GOES ON SOMEONE'S SIGN MOVING.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

WHEN I THINK, UM, WHAT SHE MIGHT BE REFERRING TO OR SIGN SYSTEMS, AND THERE'S NO CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO SIGN SYSTEM TEXT, AND THAT IS AN INTEGRATIVE SIGN SYSTEM THAT'S REQUIRED FOR ALL PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, OFFICE COMPLEXES, AND SHOPPING CENTERS.

AND FOR REFERENCE, IT IS ON PAGE 67 OF ONE 16 OF THIS PACKET, OR PAGE 24 OF 32.

UM, AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THAT TEXT WITHIN THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

SHE ALSO, WELL, A SIGN SYSTEM WOULD, WOULD BE THEIR FACADE SIGN, INCIDENTAL SIGNS, UM, MONUMENT SIGN, AS YOU CALLED IT, THERE'S ACTUALLY FREESTANDING SIGNS IS THE SECTION OF THE CODE, WHICH IS ON PAGE 57 OF ONE 16 OR 14 OF 32.

THOSE ARE THOSE SIGNS THAT THEY FALL IN.

SO THE SIGNS YOU'RE REFERRING TO ARE TYPICALLY THERE'S A BA LARGER ANCHOR TENANT THAT'S GOT THEIR, OR THE NAME OF THE, THE DEVELOPMENT CIRCLE CENTER FOR, FOR EXAMPLE.

AND THERE'S TENANT PANELS ON THERE.

EACH TENANT PANEL IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY, SO THEY'RE, UM, PERMITTED INDIVIDUALLY.

SO AS FAR AS EFFECT TO THEM, AGAIN, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET WHATEVER THE MONUMENT SIGN WAS.

THE SAME MATERIAL WOULD HAVE TO BE USED FOR EACH TENANT PANEL, SAME COLORS, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THE, THE CONTENT THAT WOULD BE REGULATED ON THOSE.

AND AGAIN, THERE WERE NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO FREESTANDING SIGNS.

UM, THIS, THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT AFFECT THOSE, HOW WE REGULATE THOSE SIGNS.

COMMISSIONER LOBAUGH, OKAY.

I HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION AND I, AND I WANT TO LET THE AUDIENCE KNOW THAT I OWN A SIGN COMPANY, SO I WANT TO BE FULLY TRANSPARENT THAT THAT'S WHY THIS QUESTION IS VERY SPECIFIC FOR THE CONTENT NEUTRAL.

I'M ASSUMING THAT INCLUDES TEXT, I'M ASSUMING THAT INCLUDES ANY RELATED GRAPHICS.

I'M ASSUMING THAT INCLUDES ANY DESCRIPTIVE WORDS AND WHAT I'D LIKE, AND IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT, JUST SAY SO.

BUT I'D LIKE TO ALSO KNOW IF IT INCLUDES COLORS.

AND SPECIFICALLY THE REASON I ASKED THAT QUESTION IS BECAUSE ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE AS A SIGN COMPANY IS THAT COMPANIES HAVE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON BRANDING AND BRANDING THEIR LOGO AND COMPANIES HAVE SPECIFIC COLORS FOR THEIR LOGOS.

AND IN THE PAST THAT THEY HAVEN'T ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO USE THOSE SPECIFIC COLORS IN THEIR LOGO, WHICH HAS CAUSED GREAT PAIN ON SOME OF THESE FOLKS.

SO MY QUESTION IS, DOES CONTENT NEUTRAL INCLUDE TEXT GRAPHICS, DESCRIPTIVE WORDS AND COLORS? AND I KNOW THAT'S A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER COLORS.

NO, IT DOES NOT.

SO WE'LL STILL BE ABLE TO REGULATE THE COLORS.

UM, WE TRY TO BE MORE LENIENT AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE BRANDS OUT THERE THAT TRY TO REPRESENT.

HOWEVER, IF YOU DO READ PORTIONS OF OUR TEXT IN THE CODE AND IN THE DESIGN GUIDE, IT DOES STATE THAT YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO CHANGE YOUR COLOR TO MEET ISLAND CHARACTER AND WE'LL STILL MAINTAIN THAT, THAT ISLAND CHARACTER.

UM, IN THE BACK ON PAGES 30, OOPS, WE GOT, UH, DEFINITIONS, SORRY.

SO IN OUR ON 28 OF 32 OR 71 OF ONE 16, THERE ARE STILL SECTIONS THAT DO RELATE TO, LET'S SEE, SOME OF THE PROHIBITIONS IN THE CODE.

I THINK WE TOOK OUT EVERYTHING.

I WANNA SAY WE LEFT.

LEMME SEE.

SO NO, WE TOOK OUT EVERYTHING THAT WOULD'VE MADE.

SO, SO PREVIOUSLY IN THIS SECTION, WHERE IS IT AT? OH, NO, WE LEFT THAT IN THERE.

SO NUMBER 13, SIGNS THAT EXHIBIT STATEMENTS, WORDS, OR PICTURES OF AN, AN OBSCENE OR PORNOGRAPHIC NATURE.

SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD DEFINITELY REGULATE THAT, BUT OTHERWISE, TEXT, LOGO, ALL OF THAT, WHATEVER MESSAGES SOMEBODY'S TRYING TO CONVEY, WE WOULD, WE COULD NOT REGULATE THAT CONTENT AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST.

AND I'M ONLY GONNA ADD IT JUST AS A COMMENT THAT I WOULD

[00:35:01]

BUT I, I, I WOULD TREAD LIGHTLY ON THE COLORS, THE BRANDED COLORS OF COMPANY LOGOS BECAUSE THAT IS CONTENT.

SO THAT'S JUST MY RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER HENS.

SO THE REASON FOR THIS PRIORITY AMENDMENT REQUEST TODAY IS, IS JUST SO THAT, UH, WE CHANGE OUR, OUR ORDINANCE TO REFLECT THE NEW LAW.

IS THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY WE'RE HERE? THAT'S CORRECT.

TO BE COMPLIANT WITH CONTENT NEUTRALITY IN OUR SIGN REGULATIONS.

UM, I WILL REITERATE AGAIN, AS WE DOVE INTO OUR EXISTING SIGN CODE, IT COULD USE A LOT OF ATTENTION.

SO, UM, BUT THIS, THIS IS JUST TO, THAT'S CORRECT, BECOME COMPLIANT.

SO THAT IS, THAT IS WHAT THIS IS.

UM, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE SIGN CODE NEEDS EXTRA ATTENTION.

OTHER QUESTIONS OF MISSY? OKAY, THEN HANNAH, DID WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGN UP ON THE TOWN PORTAL TO SPEAK WITH US ON THIS TOPIC? NOT ON THIS TOPIC.

OKAY.

UH, LET ME SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WITH US ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC.

UH, SEEING NOBODY, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, MOVE BACK TO US HERE TO, WE HAVE, UH, THREE CHOICES.

RE RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL, RECOMMEND DENIAL OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.

COMMISSIONER HANS, I RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS PRESENTED TO TOWN COUNCIL.

OKAY, IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER LOBO SECONDS.

ANY DISCUSSION? UH, ALL IN FAVOR THEN RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

OKAY, WE HAVE ANOTHER UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU.

[6.d. Public Hearing for Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Hilton Head Island, the Land Management Ordinance, to amend the Setback Standards and Rules of Measurement related to Residential and Nonresidential Structures to include the following sections: 16-3-106, 16-5-102 and 16-10-102. - Missy Luick, Director of Planning]

UH, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC AND INVITE MISSY TO GO FOR ROUND THREE HERE.

ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

UM, LET'S GO THREE FOR THREE.

UM, RIGHT NOW THIS AMENDMENT IS, UH, ITS AMENDMENT FOR REGULATIONS ON HOW WE MEASURE HEIGHT, UH, SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT, AGAIN, ALL PART OF OUR GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AS A PRIORITY OF TOWN COUNCIL WITHIN THEIR STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN.

AND IN THAT SEPTEMBER WORKSHOP, UH, WITH COUNCIL, WE DISCUSSED, UM, AMENDMENTS RELATED TO HEIGHT AND SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS.

UM, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THEM AS POTENTIALLY BACK AT, AT THAT TIME AS TWO SEPARATE AMENDMENTS.

THEY ARE COMBINED AS ONE AMENDMENT TODAY.

UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL MASS AND SCALE.

UM, AND THESE, THESE PARTICULAR TOPICS AT THAT SEPTEMBER WORKSHOP THAT CHANGES NEEDED TO APPLY TO EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS WHERE POSSIBLE AND CURRENT BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE TOO HIGH.

THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE LIGHT AIR AND SEPARATION BETWEEN UNITS NEED TO INCREASE SETBACKS AND ESTABLISH MINIMUM LOT SIZES THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE FULL CODE UPDATE.

NON-RESIDENTIAL WAS SIMILAR, THAT BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE TOO HIGH, NEEDS TO BE MORE AIR LIGHT AND SEPARATION BETWEEN UNITS, INCREASED SETBACKS, ESTABLISHED MINIMUM LOT SIZES, AND, UH, THERE SHOULD BE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEIGHT AND PROXIMITY OF THE STREET AND BOUNDARIES, UM, LOWER, CLOSER TO THE STREET AND BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

UM, MASS AND SCALE HAS BEEN A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AND CONCERN FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL ON THE ISLAND FOR SOME TIME.

UM, WE SEE NEW BUILDINGS OR NEW STRUCTURES THAT ARE OFTEN LARGER AND OUT OF CHARACTER, OUT OF SCALE WITH THOSE SURROUNDING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

AND THIS AMENDMENT, UH, IS PROPOSED TO MODIFY HOW HEIGHT IS MEASURED AND REDUCE ALLOWABLE SETBACK.

ENCROACHMENTS, UH, CURRENT REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT BUILDING HEIGHTS BE MEASURED RELATIVE TO FLOOD ZONE ELEVATIONS, WHICH INCREASES THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, UH, FROM GROUND LEVEL.

SO IF YOU'RE MEASURING FROM ZERO AND IT'S NOT ON THE GROUND, THEN EFFECTIVELY YES, THAT MASS OR THAT HEIGHT OF THAT STRUCTURE APPEARS TO BE GREATER THAN THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE DISTRICT.

UM, THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED, UM, WILL PROVIDE A MORE ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE BUILDING SCALE RELATIVE TO THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE BY ADJUSTING HOW WE MEASURE HEIGHT.

UM, AND THE CURRENT REGULATIONS ALSO ALLOW ENCROACHMENTS INTO OUR ALLOWABLE SETBACK AREAS.

AND THIS AMENDMENT WILL PROVIDE MORE SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS.

UM, AND BOTH OF THESE CHANGES WILL REDUCE THE OVERALL MASS AND SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT IN BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES.

SO THERE ARE CHANGES BOTH TO SETBACK ANGLE, HEIGHT AND ENCROACHMENTS THAT ARE DETAILED IN THE MEMO.

AND THEN ALSO FURTHER SUMMARIZED IN, UH, THE AMENDMENT TABLE THAT'S

[00:40:01]

UM, I'LL GO THROUGH THESE IN DETAIL BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S UNDERSTOOD WHAT THESE CHANGES ARE AS IT RELATES TO SETBACK ANGLE, HOW HEIGHT IS MEASURED, AND, UM, THE CHANGES TO THE ENCROACHMENT TABLE.

UM, SO ONE OF THE PRIMARY CHANGES IS TO CHANGE THE ELEVATION ABOVE, ABOVE THE GROUND AT WHICH, HOW WE MEASURE THAT SETBACK ANGLE.

SO, UH, BASICALLY AT A CERTAIN HEIGHT, UM, AT 20 FEET.

NOW, UM, THERE'S AN ANGLE THAT, UH, AND, AND THE ANGLE CHANGES BASED ON, UH, BASED ON YOUR ZONING OR YOUR, UH, WHAT USE IS, WAS, IS ADJACENT.

UM, BUT IT'S A PERCENT, UH, AN ANGLE IS A PERCENTAGE.

AND SO, UM, IT REQUIRES BASICALLY THAT A BUILDING BE STEPPED BACK, UM, AT A CERTAIN HEIGHT.

UM, AND THERE IS A GRAPHIC HERE THAT ILLUSTRATES, UM, WHAT OUR CURRENT CODE ALLOWS, UM, AND, AND WHAT, UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ALLOWS.

UM, SO CURRENTLY OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE, UM, WE REQUIRE A SETBACK ANGLE TO BEGIN AT, UH, 20 FEET OVER AN ELEVATION OF 13, UH, ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL OR PRE-DEVELOPMENT GRADE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER.

UM, AND THAT'S FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.

AND FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, INSTEAD OF 13, WE MEASURE FROM 11 FEET, UH, ABOVE MEAN C LEVEL OR PRE-DEVELOPMENT GRADE.

AND SO THE LOWER, AT THE POINT AT WHICH THAT ANGLE BEGINS, WHICH IS THE RED LINE HERE, THE MORE RESTRICTED IT IS IF MEASURED FROM THE HIGHER POINT, WHICH IS THE BLUE LINE.

SO, UM, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A STRUCTURE THAT HAS PRE-DEVELOPMENT GRADE THAT'S LESS THAN 13 FEET.

SO THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL EXAMPLE.

UM, AGAIN, IT'S NOT TO SCALE, UM, BUT UH, HERE IN THE BLUE LINE WHERE WE WOULD MEASURE FROM 13 FEET TO GET TO WHERE THAT, THAT 20 FOOT, UM, MARKER IS, AND THEN THE SETBACK ANGLE, UM, TAKES PLACE HERE.

IF WE WERE TO MEASURE FROM PRE-DEVELOPMENT GRADE, WHICH IS WHAT IS PROPOSED, UM, WE WOULD START MEASURING FROM GRADE AND THEN WE WOULD GET TO THAT 20 FOOT, AND THEN THAT SAME SETBACK ANGLE WOULD APPLY.

SO YOU CAN SEE, UM, HOW THAT MIGHT CHANGE WHAT THAT BUILT STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE, UM, THE PORTION HERE, UM, WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE BUILT WITH THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.

SO AGAIN, THAT BLUE LINE SHOWS THE EXISTING LMO ALLOWANCE.

UM, AND THE RED LINE SHOWS THE MORE RESTRICTED HORIZONTAL BUILDING ENVELOPE THAT DOES LIMIT THE MASS AND SCALE OF NEW BUILDINGS.

SO ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENTS, UM, AND, AND I'LL GO TO THAT SECTION IN THE CODE AMENDMENT AS WELL, BUT THERE ARE A LIMITED NUMBER OF SETBACK AND HEIGHT ENCROACHMENTS THAT ARE ALLOWABLE WITHIN OUR SETBACK ENCROACHMENT TABLE.

UM, WHILE THE CLOSEST POINT OF THE BUILDING IS SUBJECT TO THE MINIMUM SETBACK LINES, UM, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND OR THE SETBACK ANGLE, CERTAIN ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS CAN EXTEND INTO THE SETBACK, UM, WITHIN, WITH SOME LIMITATIONS.

SO IF A SIDEWALL OF A HOUSE IS BUILT UP TO THE SETBACK LINE, A BAY WINDOW MAY EXTEND UP TO TWO FEET INTO A SETBACK.

IF IT'S NOT MORE THAN NINE FEET WIDE, THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT CODE ALLOWS.

WE ALSO HAVE SEVERAL ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENTS, SUCH AS OPEN BALCONIES, UNCOVERED DECKS, PORCHES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE STRUCK FROM THAT, UH, ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENTS TABLE TO REDUCE ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENTS.

ITEMS LIKE EAVES, BAY WINDOWS AND AWNINGS ARE PROPOSED TO BE RETAINED IN THE TABLE WITH A REDUCED EXTENT.

AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND APP APPEARANCES ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, SO THEY MAY NO LONGER ENCROACH INTO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OR SETBACK ANGLE OR SETBACK.

UM, THERE'S ALSO A FOOTNOTE YOU'LL NOTE IN THE TABLE.

UM, A FURTHER RESTRICTION IS INCLUDED TO PREVENT ALL ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENTS FROM BEING CLOSER THAN FIVE FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE.

SO THAT MEANS THAT NO ENCROACHMENT CAN BE WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE AND FIVE FEET.

UM, SO THERE ARE, THERE IS A LIKELIHOOD OF CREATING NONCONFORMITIES, UH, FOR THOSE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS.

UM, THIS FIGURE HERE SHOWS HOW AN EVE MAY EXTEND INTO A SETBACK AREA STILL BY TWO FEET.

UM, WHILE AN UN ENCLOSED PORCH, UM, CAN NO LONGER EXTEND INTO A MINIMUM SETBACK AREA AND THE CURRENT CODE, UM, AN UN ENCLOSED PORCH CAN EXTEND UP TO FIVE FEET INTO A SETBACK.

AND SO THE, THE CURRENT AMENDMENT, UM, DOES NOT ALLOW THAT.

SO WE'RE, WE ALSO HAVE A CHANGE THAT'S PROPOSED THAT CHANGES, UM, HOW HEIGHT IS MEASURED.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE BUILDING HEIGHTS, IT JUST CHANGES HOW WE MEASURE HEIGHT.

UM, IT'S PROPOSED TO BE MEASURED FROM PRE-DEVELOPMENT GRADE IN ALL CASES RATHER THAN THE HIGHER ELEVATION OF PRE-DEVELOPMENT GRADE OR 13 FEET OR 11 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEEN LEVEL, UM, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THAT'S THIRTEENS RESIDENTIAL, AND 11 IS NON-RESIDENTIAL.

UM, SO THIS MEANS THAT IF THE BUILDING SITE IS LOWER THAN 11 OR 13, DEPENDING ON

[00:45:01]

UM, SO HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE ON THIS PARTICULAR EXAMPLE.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE MEASURING, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL EXAMPLE, UM, FROM THAT 13 ELEVATION AS ZERO AND YOU GET TO YOUR MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, AND FROM PRE-DEVELOPMENT GRADE, THE LINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHORTER THAT YOU WOULD GET TO A BUILDING HEIGHT OF RIGHT HERE.

SO WE ALSO PULLED AN, AN ACTUAL SUBMITTED PLAN TO, TO SHOW, UM, WHAT THIS COULD LOOK LIKE BOTH FROM THE SETBACK ANGLE AND FROM HOW YOU MEASURE BUILDING HEIGHT.

AND, UM, THE BLUE LINE IS THE EXISTING LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.

UM, AGAIN, THIS EXAMPLE 13, UH, ABOVE MEAN SEEN LEVEL, THAT LINE IS RIGHT HERE.

PRE-DEVELOPMENT GRADE IS DOWN HERE.

SO THE BLUE LINE, WE'RE GETTING UP TO THIS POINT RIGHT HERE.

BEFORE WE START WITH THAT SETBACK ANGLE, UM, HERE WE WOULD GET TO ABOUT THIS POINT WHERE YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THE TOP PART OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE, UM, IS WITHIN THAT SETBACK ANGLE PLANE.

UM, AND THIS SHOWS HERE, THIS IS THAT DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT AS WELL.

SO THE STAFF REPORT INCLUDES SOME MAPS THAT SHOW BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT COULD MOST LIKELY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE.

UM, THIS FIGURE SHOWS, UM, LET'S SEE IF I CAN GET IT ALL ON ONE PAGE.

UM, THIS FIGURE SHOWS THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE 13 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL.

AND, UM, SO THERE ARE 18,015 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

UM, THERE ARE 11,394 OF THOSE THAT ARE BELOW 13 MEAN SEA LEVEL.

UM, AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HEIGHT OF ALL OF THOSE STRUCTURES ARE OR THE BUILT, UM, STRUCTURES IN THESE AREAS, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT, THAT THEY COULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE IN, UM, AND HOW HEIGHT IS MEASURED.

WE HAVE A SIMILAR MAP FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE ABOVE 11 FEET MEANS SEA LEVEL IS 895.

AND SO 380 OF THOSE ARE BELOW 11 FEET MEANS SEA LEVEL, AND THEY'RE RED ON THIS PARTICULAR MAP.

AND THEN THERE'S A TABLE THAT OUTLINES, UH, UH, WHAT I HAVE JUST DISCUSSED AGAIN, THE CHANGE TO, UM, HOW HEIGHT IS MEASURED, UM, IN BOTH THE OVERLAYS, CHANGING THAT GRAPHIC FOR HOW SETBACK ANGLE IS MEASURED HERE TO SHOW THAT IT'S MEASURED FROM GRADE.

UM, AND HERE'S HOW THAT SAME THING IN THE SETBACK, UH, TABLE, UM, ADJACENT USE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

AGAIN, IT'S THAT CHANGE WHERE WE'RE JUST GOING TO MEASURE FROM PRE-DEVELOPMENT GRADE AND NOT 11 OR 13.

THOSE SIMILAR TABLES ARE ALSO THERE.

SO THERE'S A NEW TABLE OR GRAPHIC THAT'S CREATED.

AND THEN THIS IS WHERE, UM, THE ALLOWABLE SETBACK ENCROACHMENT TABLE CHANGES, UH, CAN BE OBSERVED.

AND, UM, SO THERE CURRENTLY ARE ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENTS FOR ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE FIRST COLUMN.

AND THEN THE EXTENT OF THOSE ENCROACHMENT ALLOWANCES ARE IDENTIFIED IN, IN THE NEXT COLUMN ON THE RIGHT, UM, YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE STRUCK.