Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Uh, commissioners, remember to activate your mic if you want to be heard. Uh, we are here to adopt the agenda for today's staff. Are there any changes to the agenda? There are none. So, may I have a motion to approve the agenda? Commissioner Hence moves. Vice Vice Chair Campbell seconds. All in favor of approving the agenda, raise your right hand. It is unanimous. Good. You've all had a chance to see uh the minutes from our March 19th meeting. Are there any corrections or additions? If not, is somebody willing to move approval? Commissioner Hens moves approval. Uh, Commissioner Dubois seconds. Any discussion? All in favor of approval of the minutes, please raise your right hand. That's also unanimous. There is no unfinished business. So, we will move to new business. The first item of which is a public hearing for consideration of an ordinance to amend title 16 of the municipal code of the town of Hillad Island, the land management ordinance to amend the traffic impact analysis plan requirements and traffic analysis standards to include the sections that you see listed there on your agenda. So I will now open up the public hearing on that topic and invite uh Missy Luick to come forward with the presentation. Good afternoon. Um Missy Luick, director of planning for the record. It is nice to be before the planning commission again and especially during heritage week. Okay. So before us today uh as the chair identified, we have uh an ordinance to consider an amendment a text amendment to the code for an amendment to our traffic impact analysis plan

requirements. um and that is to make amendments for a variety of reasons. As you are well aware, this is part of our larger land management ordinance amendment project of which is a priority uh that has been identified in our town council strategic action plan. And we have divided that project up into two parts, the priority amendment component and the full code overhaul. And of course, this amendment is part of the priority amendment set. Um, we did have a uh workshop with town council last fall where we talked briefly about this potential amendment and we heard from council in September that there was um a desire to change the name from traffic impact analysis to transportation impact analysis to account for multimmodal approach to reduce the threshold for when a traffic impact analysis plan is required um to include multimodal infrastructure structure, so such as bike paths, sidewalks, and transit in that analysis. Um, to include more imp uh mitigation options, to clarify the subject matter matter approval uh by the town engineer instead of the LMO official, and to add unsalized intersections, level of service, um, including mitigation requirements, and the removal of discounting impacts due to background traffic such as, uh, trips that are generated by previously existing development. Um, so that's what we heard from council. Um, and then we're just going to go through a summary of the amendment as well as some analysis and then a table that we've identified with all of these amendments that show how we're addressing these topic areas of concern that council put before us with the actual amendment that's before you. So, um, of course, transportation planning is essential when we are reviewing development plans and while we are contemplating growth on our island. Um,

ensuring that we have a safe and efficient transportation system on our island is part of what traffic impact analysis plans do for us. Um, and as communities develop, uh, new projects do introduce new traffic. Um, that does have some impacts. It impacts roads, intersections, um our multimmoal infrastructure such as our pathways and sidewalks and bike lanes and transit connections. And so without that proper assessment of of that infrastructure, that transportation network, um you can have uh congestion or safety hazards or strains on our system as a result. So um what we do and what we have in our code today are requirements for an analysis plan. Um right now it's called a traffic impact analysis plan and again as I mentioned uh the proposed amendment is changing the name to transportation. Um but that detailed study looks at projected volumes, travel patterns and potential impacts on our roadway. Um and it helps us determine whether the whe whether there are improvements um such as expansions or signals or pedestrian uh enhancements that are required to maintain effect efficient and safe travel. So, these studies are designed to assess how projects affect traffic and um but we've identified that there are concerns about whether our current processes um protect and address the needs of our residents and our community. So, part of the priority amendments is to update its current requirements for these studies and for a more comprehensive approach that better reflects the transportation needs for everyone. That includes multimmodal users, pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, etc. Um and then to summarize the um proposed amendments, um they will strengthen the requirements by expanding the scope of study beyond traffic to include multimodal infrastructure. Again, that's

just a way of saying uh other users, all users of our transportation network, not just vehicles, but sidewalks, bike lanes, transit, etc. um as well as uh reducing the threshold for when a traffic analysis plan is required or transportation analysis is required um from 100 peak hour trips to 50 peak hour trips. um expanding the type of mitigation options that can be used to address transport transportation impacts as well as um again shifting that authority level to the town engineer from the LMO official, adding additional standards for unsalized intersections and eliminating exemptions that are associated with trips that are generated by previously existing development. So, it is the intent that these updates will make our process more responsive to the community's needs and promote a more balanced and multimodal forward-thinking approach to transportation planning. And now I'll just go through some analysis that we conducted uh as a result of the changes that are proposed. Um again, the plan the plan is to um right now we require a traffic impact analysis plan. Um and we have had um a TU approved or required on a couple of uh developments. One was um 147 uh residential unit subdivision on Jonesville Road and then there also is a requirement for a transportation impact plan um for 132 residential units that are proposed on office way. So those meet the current thresholds that are in the code. Um the analysis identifies that again we're um talking about changing the name to reflect a more comprehensive approach um from traffic traffic to transportation updating the LMO official to the town engineer um

lowering that threshold from 100 to 50 peak hour trips and um there are two recent projects as an example that were not required to produce a traffic impact analysis plan um they were exempted due to the trips that were factored in for previously existing development and that was a development uh time share development on Folly Field as well as a waterfront restaurant on Squire Pope um that was near the water rowing and sailing center. Um, so those were not required to conduct a traffic impact analysis plan based on our current code, but under the proposed new code and that threshold that's identified, um, they would have to provide a traffic impact analysis. Again, with the proposed changes, it would require an evaluation of that multimmoal infrastructure, bike path, sideways, and transit. Um and um it also uh requires that um additional uh traffic circles and roundabouts um are considered as well. And then I'll go through the table real briefly that summarizes the amendment that's before you today. Again, we talked about one of the issues or topics that was raised was to clarify the subject matter approval expert um from the LMO official to the town engineer. that has been done in the proposed amendment. Again, changing the name from traffic impact analysis plan to transportation is carried out throughout the the amendment set. And then reduce the threshold or that trigger point for when an analysis plan is required and that takes it from 100 peak hour trips to 50. So lowering that threshold is what is proposed in the amendment set. um adding unsignalized intersections level of service standard and including additional mitigation options. Um so we had the Sepine Circle with a threshold

of 150 seconds per vehicle during peak hour and then are proposing adding um other traffic circles or roundabouts to not exceed 55 seconds per vehicle during peak hour is what's proposed. And additionally including that multimodal infrastructure and in the amendment set you'll see um that there are requirements um that are added um to assess the impact of non-motorized travel um based on a variety of standards um that are identified um and it includes potential um identification and study of improvements to pedestrian crossings, additional pedestrian or bicycle crossings, improvements to pedestrian signal signals, pedestrian signal intervals, signs and pavement markings, construction of additional sidewalks or non-motorized pathways, changes to the design and access to ease of non-motorized travel and reduce conflicts with vehicles from the public rightway um and other similar improvements to other transportation facilities. Additionally, uh one of the issues raised was to um remove the discount of impacts to background traffic or um trips that are generated by previously existing development. And you can see here that there was former language that's proposed to be struck um where there was an exemption from development that replaced a vacant or occupied structure and striking. um the language here uh that is related to um how the proof of of that former use is is identified. So that removes those exemptions from the code requirements. Um including more impact mitigation options um is one of the topic areas and in the amendment set um there are quite a few more u mitigation options that are identified in the code.

Um there's signal timing or phasing revisions. Could be addition of sig signs, signals, markings, other measures. Um looking at improvements to signalized or unsalized intersections that could include traffic circles or roundabouts in including um improvements to traffic operations, pedestrian and bicycle operations, road widening, um traffic signals, replacing a signal um or an uncontrolled intersection with a roundabout, changes to the design of median crossovers, removal of changes to the number and location of design access points. So, access management, um, additional signage or other transportation related safety improvements that could be identified by the town engineer. So, quite a few more options that are listed for mitigation that are included within this amendment set. Um, we do have a chapter within the code that handles nonconformities. Uh, this amendment would not create um any nonconformities. And then also as standard um all text amendments have to uh be evaluated against some standard review criteria. That criteria is listed here in items A through F. Um and in our assessment we've identified how this particular amendment meets the required review criteria here in items 1 through six. We believe it supports the comprehensive plan uh which includes following strategy and tactic maintain evaluate and update as needed traffic analysis standards to guide development in accordance with the existing and future needs of the town that it's required due to increased traffic and congestion. It addresses a demonstrated community need to mitigate traffic impact and includes consideration of essential multimmodal transportation options. It ensures overall transportation impacts and mitigation efforts are consistent with the intent of the LMO and results in safer and less congested streets and intersections,

ensuring orderly development and transportation networks and minimize is the overall impact of townwide development and resulting traffic. Um it is uh staff's recommendation that the planning commission consider this amendment and recommends approval. Are there any questions? Any questions of Missy on her presentation? Commissioner HS. So, thanks Missy. Um, for the the um um requirements to to make improvements, are those borne by the developer? all those that that list of things that we could possibly do if if the uh traffic impact analysis plan indicated that there was a need for for enhancements, those costs would be borne strictly by the developer. Is that how that works? Yeah. So if it was a required improvement um such as we've had some examples where um for one of the examples was 147 unit uh subdivision off of Jonesville. That particular development was required to do a traffic impact analysis plan. One of the outcomes of that for mitigation was that they were required to install a right turn lane off of Jonesville Road which the developer uh did install. Other questions by commissioners or commissioner whe there seems to be a procriptive list but then that last one sort of gives the town engineer. So the town engineer can come up with another mitigation strategy outside of this list is how that is that how I should read this. Yeah, it offers some flexibility potentially if there's

a solution, a mitigation option that's not specifically listed, but would benefit the community based on that particular development that's proposed. Um, we do have representatives from um, engineering here today and could speak to, you know, potential ideas of what that kind of what that might mean. Yes. And if you would like, I could call up Yeah. I was just curious because it's a pretty pretty long list. I you know I have no idea it's a right list or not. I'm not speaking to that. But then I saw the last last item. I mean what else could there be? Thank you. Hi uh Darren Shoemaker uh engineering the uh uh I believe that the last item on the list is uh it basically says other yes improvements is identified. So that's kind of a catchall. But but I'm saying like you've got quite a long list. What's an example of something that would be outside the list that you hadn't included is, you know, ge geometric improvements, pavement marking revisions. I mean, well, there's uh some limitations to the degree of capital improvements, uh road construction that can be implemented, limitations on uh lanes. Uh the list used to be or or and and still is very restrictive. It basically says uh acceptable mitigation will include signal timing revisions, signal fing phasing revisions, uh adding a turn lane as long as you don't exceed the number of lanes. Um it was very limiting and the intent of the new list is to uh uh offer developers a lot more flexibility not only uh toward traffic and roadway related improvements but also multimodal improvements. Okay. Thank you. Other

commissioner questions or comments? Okay. I have one more. Okay. So Missy, when you look at the examples of where these traffic analysis uh work has to be done. Um it it you talked about looking backwards and not taking into account in the past did not take into account existing traffic, but when you have big projects that we know that are coming up on the north end uh and they may have had their own project analysis done or traffic impact analysis done. I'm thinking particularly of a North Point and the Novant properties, you know, because we're going to have what, maybe five, six, 700 cars coming up through uh that whole area at the north end. So, does the engineers not only look at the development that's being um assessed for its own purposes and what's already there, but what is clearly been approved for the future down the road or near it. So you follow what I'm saying? So does that is that clear in the code that the engineer should be looking at the current applicant, the existing conditions and the known future conditions that are not in place yet? Um Darren, I know that you are the reviewer of a lot of our traffic imp uh impact analysis plans. um can you walk through just kind of you receive a plan um the assessment of how you evaluate that plan and I think that will get to the root of Miss Whley's question. Um and then I think she really wants to know by eliminating that that discount of of prior traffic is there an impact there or something that we should be considering? Right. And also if I have applicant A who's in the

process of being permitted but you had applicant C and D that were permitted two you know months or six months ago and they already have huge footprints. Um are they taken into account even though they have not broken ground? Uh yes they are. uh if it's already permitted uh it is a given that that is considered uh as being existing rather than uh proposed and permitted development as uh within the traffic impact study. Uh and there's also language in the amendments that gives the uh the town engineer the authority to direct the preparer of the traffic impact analysis plan to consider any proposed development that is not permitted uh as well. Thank you. And another piece of um your question um pertains to some workforce housing developments. And um I wanted to point out that the threshold for affordable housing is not proposed to be changed. That threshold that requires a traffic or transportation impact analysis plan is 200 peak hour trips. And there is no change that's proposed with this amendment uh to that particular threshold. So if those two particular projects that you're identifying are both affordable housing projects, then the threshold would remain at 200 peak hour trips. Other commission questioners questions? If not, we will open this up now to the public. Are there anybody Is there anybody here from the public who would like to speak to you? Yes, sir. Please come forward. if you could give us your name for the record and and understand that you'll have three minutes. Sure. Thanks. I won't take three minutes. I'm Jean Zepo. I live in Hilton Head Plantation. I was here last month when we talked about the North Point development. I' I'd like to understand

why a workforce housing development has an exemption. Um it has zero impact on the actual traffic whether it's a workforce development or not. So why are they getting an exemption? Is it to keep costs down? If that's the case, then we're paying the price of more traffic without any kind of additional modifications to the infrastructure because of this exemption. I would just like to understand that. Second part of my question is when is this going to be implemented? If you approve it today for instance, does it cover um anything submitted day forward or does it go back anything in the pipeline? Just if someone could address that, that'd be great. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Babel, good afternoon. For the record, I'm Frank Babel. I'm the bike guy. Um, I think you covered a lot of the what, why, and how in this thing. A lot of the how. One thing I miss is people. South Carolina is a complete streets community. Uh it has a policy about complete streets for the whole state and so does Buford County and so does Hilton Head Island. For the record, complete streets is a transportation policy and design approach that requires streets to be planned, designed and operated and maintained to enable safe, convenient, and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation. It's a philosophy. It's not the details because you'll never get all the details because it changes and technology will changes. It's a philosophy of how you approach these designs and it's apparently the policy of the South Carolina SE dot of Buford County and it's on our books. So complete streets

is something that I mean this is a step forward and congratulations. We're really positive about the word transportation versus traffic. But complete streets seems to be an undercurrent that doesn't seem to be pervasive in throughout this document. Complete streets is a very important thing. It's a philosophy that people have to have when they approach these design things as opposed to a book over here. They have to figure out how to get people across the streets safely. Whether they're handicapped, on bikes, in cars, trolley, it doesn't matter. That's a complete streets philosophy. And that's supposedly what we're following. That's what the state says we should be following. That's what the county says we should be following. Are we following it? Is it in the book? Is it in this new LMO? I didn't see it. I don't know. Maybe it's the wrong place for it. But I don't want to keep on standing up here and talk about complete streets. I've been talking about them for 10 years. Think about it, please. Thank you. You, sir. Anybody else would like to talk with us today on this topic? Uh, seeing no one else, we will close the public hearing and come back to the commission for discussion. Did you have anything to add before we take this up, Missy? Um, I would just like to, if I may, address the questions that were asked. Um, one of the questions was, um, why, uh, is there a different threshold for affordable housing? Um, I was not part of the original drafting of this language that had the two different thresholds. um existing languages um 100 peak hour trips for development and then 200 if it's affordable. Um however what we did discuss was um should we amend the threshold for the the 200 peak hour trips for affordable and during the priority set and the discussion was we're going to comprehensively look at our workforce housing policies in the full code overhaul and we felt that this

criteria that it that uh is attached to that for this requirement would be part of that comprehensive assessment. Um so it will be looked at again um further as will this this particular piece of code and all of the code in the full code overhaul assessment. So we will look at that again. And the other question was about when will this be effective and um if the planning commission moves this forward today then it would move next to um a council of committee and then two readings of council. I would expect this um to be reviewed and approved and effective in the latter part of the summer months. So, as you saw in the written report, commissioners, we have three options today to recommend uh this to town council with to recommend approval to recommend approval with conditions or to recommend denial. So, uh, Commissioner Loba, I will make a motion that we, uh, recommend approval to council for the text amendment and move it forward. You have a second from V from Commissioner HS. Okay. Discussion. Yes, Commissioner. Why? I think this is directed to Missy again. Um Missy, when they when they look at the full comprehensive plan, you probably told us a hundred times and it's gone in one ear or out the other. Um when is that going to happen? What's the timeline for that for full code? Yeah. Um well uh there are the first five chapters are being drafted now. um the deliverable schedule that we received um unless there are some delays, but that we should at least have a draft of the full code delivered by the end of August. So, it is currently being written now um and will be under review uh with module deliverables throughout the summer months. Okay. And so, what we talked about will be sort of thrown out in August sometime for people to look

at. Yeah. So, I mean that's when we're getting those deliverables. Um we are we are working on um uh creating a potential task force um an LMO task force um as well. But as you're aware, the planning commission is going to uh be one of the bodies that we report out to. Um we're looking at the makeup of that particular task force with um representatives from various uh boards. Um and so there will be uh a lot of connections with uh multiple appointed boards of of the town throughout that review period. Um and then of course our Galaguchi task force is a significant body that we intended to um report out to on the full code as it is developed. Thank you. Other questions or comments? We have a motion on the floor to recommend approval to town council and it's been seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. It is 70. Thank you. Thank you. We'll next move on to a public hearing request uh to uh having regarding the street naming that you can see on your agenda there. And I will also start by opening the public hearing on that topic and then invite Joha to give us her report. All right. So Joha Fister, deputy fire chief. I am going to let Kathleen, our 911 communications manager, present the today, but I will be available for questions as well. Yes. Hello. Very good to be with you all today. Um I am here to present the staff report um to recommend adopting the name Red Fox Manor for a new access easement. Um this is on behalf of Susanna Lree on 7 Outlaw Road who would like to name this access easement um as part of uh developing

dwelling units on this uh parcel. Uh Red Fox Manor will provide direct access to three homes on the parcel, but we have to plan for this access sement to provide access for at least three more homes. And that's because the zoning in the area allows um up to 16 dwelling units per acre and each of these parcels is a little less than a quarter acre. So that's three parcels or uh three dwelling units per parcel. Red Fox Manor was chosen as the new street name. The Red Fox is a species native to South Carolina known for its adaptability and cleverness. um and it was one of the names uh chosen by the applicant. So uh we are supporting the applicant's choice here. You can see here that this is the subject property highlighted it. The uh new access easement will be off of Outlaw Road. And you can see the number nine Outlaw Road directly behind the subject property. That is where in the future there could be an additional three dwelling units possibly. And here's a little clearer picture. And here's the plan um with the proposed homes on it. And it also shows the access easement on the right side. Sure. So the proposed new road um Yeah. Maybe you can Yeah. So it comes from here and goes back here. So it the developed part will be at the front of number seven now. But we know that number nine can be developed as well and would then be served off of that also.

There we go. Um you all received the staff report with the uh description of the criteria. The criteria has been met and um we recommend that you adopt the name of Red Fox Manor. Does anyone have any questions? Any questions of Kathleen? Commissioner HS I would just like to commend you for not naming it outlaw court but coming up with a new I thought of you when it when it came through. That's why I had to say that. Anything else? Okay. What's your pleasure? Commissioner Loba moves to approve the Red Fox Mander name, seconded by Vice Chair Campbell. Any discussion? Uh, all in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. It is 7 to zero. Thank you. It is now time to hear our annual traffic monitoring and evaluation report that will be given to us by Darren Shoemaker. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh members of the commission. It is an honor to appear before you again. I uh actually uh presented this report to the planning commission for 22 consecutive years from 2000 to 2022 uh until last year uh when Mr. Jim Awaniki prepared the report and did the presentation. Uh Mr. Awanaki is not with the town any longer. Uh so I've been brought back for an encore this year. Uh it's very good to be here uh uh and to uh be able to uh give this presentation to you. Uh I have uh 18 slides uh after this uh title slide and I'm going to try to spend no more uh than a minute on

each side in the interest of uh brevity try to limit the presentation to uh uh 15 minutes or so. Um, what does the LMO say needs to be in the annual traffic monitoring and evaluation report? It requires that a summary of weekday, morning and afternoon turning movement counts for each signal and uh Cine Circle uh during certain years uh every five years to be exact. Uh be included in the report. Uh that's in appendix A. I would like to point out that the LMO defines peak hour uh as being the peak volume hour uh between 7 and 9:00 a.m. on a weekday, a typical weekday for the morning peak hour and between 4 and 6:00 p.m. uh in the afternoon uh on a typical weekday for the afternoon uh peak hour. Uh therefore all of the turning movement counts that are in appendix A of the report uh are collected in 15minute increments and the peak hour is isolated uh from within uh those two morning hours and the two afternoon peak hours. Uh the LMO requires that turning movement counts for Cine Circle be included uh in years that are evenly divisible by five. uh for many years now we've been doing it uh every two years instead of every five uh as well as any additional years that are evenly divisible by five to meet the requirements of the LMO. Uh it requires a summary of birectional 24-hour demands of strategic locations uh on major arterials throughout the town historical trends for the previous 5-year period. Um I would like to highlight that

requirement and point out that since this report is for uh conditions in July of 2024, 5 years previous was summer of 2019, the summer prior to the pandemic. Uh so in many instances this report offers comparisons uh between existing traffic counted in July of 2024 and uh prepandemic conditions. Uh the LMO requires that all of our signalized intersections and uh Sepine Circle during certain years be analyzed uh according to a specified methodology. the results reported uh in the annual traffic report uh and comparisons be made with the operational goals outlined in the LMO uh of which there are two uh one of the goals is based on average delay per vehicle and the other goal is based on a percentage of the theoretical intersection capacity that's being utilized by existing traffic. Uh and lastly, the LMO requires that uh any intersections found out of compliance that the report contain uh recommendations to bring them back into compliance. Um in appendix A, you have a variety of turning movement counts, morning and afternoon peak hour turning movement counts for all of our signals and Sepine Circle. Uh I'll point out that in addition to the LMO definitions of the morning peak hour and the afternoon peak hour, we have historically also isolated a midday peak hour uh at Cine Circle in recognition of the fact that uh uh generally speaking, there's not a whole lot going down there uh going on down there during the traditional morning rush hour. Uh and conversely uh uh people are very

concerned about conditions uh at lunch hour on on a typical weekday uh down at Capine Circle. Uh you'll note that uh on these diagrams uh for William Hilton Parkway off island is always to the right and toward Capine Circle on island uh is always to the left. Uh that's because William Hilton Parkway corkcrews around the island doesn't conform to uh conventions as far as uh uh your cardinal directions and uh for purposes of consistency. Uh we always have off island shown to the right. Uh that puts north at the bottom for a number of the North Island uh intersections. But uh I did want to highlight that consistency. The comparable figures collected uh last year in 2023 are shown in parentheses. Uh the percentage change rounded to the nearest whole percent is shown for each individual movement. Say for low volume movements. Uh we had five this year and 10 this year. We don't want to show you a 100% uh increase on that particular movement. uh and the uh percentage change for the intersection at a hole uh is shown in the center of the diagram uh rounded to the nearest tenth of 1%. Also adjacent to uh uh adjacent to each approach uh you have bike and ped counts uh shown on uh all of the diagrams. that diagram have capacity of the intersection on that. No, those are uh just uh patently counts, just count information only. Uh

table one on page eight of your report. Uh I mentioned that we collect 24-hour volumes at strategic locations on our major arterials. Those are birectional volumes. Uh we have uh 10 strategic locations on major arterials uh of which five of them are on William Hilton Parkway. Two are on the Cross Island Parkway. One is on Palmetto Bay Road and uh uh one is on uh Pope Avenue. Uh that only adds up to nine. I there's actually six on We have Hilton Parkway. Uh apologize for that. um when you uh and and and I need to highlight that we count these birectional demands for three consecutive typical weekdays from a Tuesday to a Thursday. So we have these are averages based on three consecutive days 72 hours of data and uh when you look at the numbers that we counted in July of 2024 uh you'll note that uh this number right here uh that is the uh higher than any of the other numbers you see for previous years on there. Uh that's because that's the highest number that we have ever counted as a part of this annual effort. Uh previously the uh uh the peak was collected in 2021, the summer following the onset of the pandemic. Um based on the numbers in this table, the numbers are 1.1% higher than they were counted in 2023. And if you go back five years, uh they're about 6% higher than 5 years ago, which equates to an average rate of increase of 1.1% uh over the last 5 years.

I would bring to your attention look at the uh uh the general positive rates of increase on the south end of the island and in the entry corridor and the negative rates uh rates of decrease on William Hilton Parkway on the north end. uh that is uh generally felt to be a result of uh the shift in traffic associated with the removal of the toll plaza uh on the cross island parkway and a map uh showing where these counts were taken is included in appendix B of your report. Um, prior to the sessation of toll collections on the Cross Island Parkway, uh, we traditionally found that uh, about uh, traffic moving on and off the island, about more than 2/3 of it, 68 1.5% selected William Hilton Parkway. Uh, whereas less than a third, 31 12% selected the Cross Island Parkway uh, as their preferred route. uh here in July of 2024, three years after the end of toll collections on the Cross Island Parkway, uh that uh the uh there is still a strong preference for William Hilton Parkway over the Cross Island Parkway. Uh but it's much more balanced with about 61 12% selecting William Hilton Parkway and 38 12% uh selecting the Cross Island Parkway. This shift uh in the split between the two facilities of 7% however equates to a 26% increase in demand on the Cross Island Parkway. And uh this split has been fairly uh stable for the past few years.

seems to have uh set in and stabilized at 68.5% uh uh excuse me 61 a.5% versus 38 1.5% on the Cross Island Parkway. Table three uh on pages 10 and 11 of your report summarizes the peak morning and afternoon uh demand at all of our signals uh as well as CPINE circle um compared with 2023 uh we registered a half of 1% increase in morning peak hour demand uh at all of our signals in aggregate and a uh 1.1 1% increase uh with all of our uh signals and sepine circle in aggrit during the afternoon peak hour. Uh I would again bring your attention to the fact that uh unlike the numbers the daily 24-hour numbers I just showed you for table one uh look at all the increases on the north end uh for both the morning and the afternoon peak hour and all the decreases uh on the south end during the morning and afternoon peak hour. The takeaway being that uh um peak hour demands are generally lower on the south end where they're higher on the north end compared with last year. Uh but um when you look at 24-hour demands, the reverse is true. Uh the numbers are lower on the north end and higher on the south end. And I would suggest to you that that is a function of the uh frequency with which our guests and visitors use the Cross Island Parkway and visit the South End. They often avoid your typical rush hours, whereas your commuters uh they're commuting back and forth to the island

on a daily basis. Uh they're often traveling in that peak hour and uh uh not as prone to use the Cross Island Parkway uh as they are William Hilton Parkway. Uh table four on page 12 is a summary of bike and ped crossing demands. Uh I would bring to your attention that we were uh about 9% lower than what we counted the year before. But I want to bring to your attention uh this number right here on the third row from the bottom. That's South Forest Beach Drive pedestrian signal. A lot of people cross there. uh that has a lot of weight in these numbers and about 2/3 of the decline uh that you see in the numbers this year versus last year uh is right here. Uh that count there at that South Forest Beach Drive pedestrian signal down at the beach is uh very dependent on weather and what kind of beach day it is. Uh if you ignore uh that significant climb crossing South Forest Beach Drive at Calgney Circle, we are only down about 4 and a half% from last year. And I wanted to further highlight that we are still much higher than we were 5 years ago in 2019. uh significantly higher, 46% higher with uh bike and ped crossings at our intersections than only uh 5 years previous. Okay. We analyze all of our signalized intersections uh according to the methodology that's outlined in the LMO. We have software that helps us does that uh do that and it yields a result in average seconds of delay per vehicle

that is highlighted at the bottom of your screen. Uh right above that you'll see that there are averages for each approach, average delay per vehicle for each street approach and above that each movement also has average delay per vehicle. So the software uh outputs all of that. Uh, one thing it does not output is the percentage of capacity with the intersection, our other LMO goal. That is something that must be calculated by hand. And I would draw your attention to these two rows right along here that say adjusted flow rate and adjusted saturation flow rate. Uh, those are ratios. capacity ratios for each individual movement. And uh we directions on how to calculate your uh theoretical intersection capacity are are uh outlined in the LMO and this is a sample hand calculation. Uh these are those ratios for certain high demand movements. uh the methodology tells you that you have to add certain numbers together and take the highest number. Uh and then lastly, you multiply it by a factor that is a function of your signal cycle length and the number of phases that you have in each row going across. Uh this example uh uh intersection was using 63.3% of its capacity. Um the results for the morning

peak hour are outlined in table six on page 16. Um there were no intersections found out of compliance with either of the LMO goals uh during the morning peak hour in July of 2024. Uh the highest capacity ratio uh unsurprisingly in the morning was right here at 71% at the Square Pope Road signal. Um the second highest uh close second was Gumree Road at 70%. And um the third highest uh right here at Hooping Crane Way at 61%. Uh as far as delay figures, the highest was uh Gumree Road at 46.8 seconds of delay per vehicle. Uh the second and third highest intersections were William Hilton Parkway with Matthews Drive North and uh Pope Avenue with Cordillo Parkway uh which came in at 28 and 27 seconds uh respectively. But everything in compliance during the morning peak hour. Uh figure table 7 on page 17 summarizes the results for the weekday afternoon uh peak period. Again, we found everything in compliance. Uh say for our typical outlier, William Hilton Parkway at Sparoke Road, which exhibited uh a delay figure that actually met the goal uh but has a capacity figure of 99% of the intersections uh theoretical capacity uh rendering it non-compliant with the goals. And uh I will elaborate on that intersection more uh momentarily. Uh simply wanted to point out that uh the second highest

uh demand to capacity ratio in the afternoon peak hour surprisingly occurred down here at Palmetto Bay Road and Arrow and Point Comfort Road. uh due to the number of people trying to travel off island on Palmetto Bay Road and the number of folks trying to turn right off of Arrow Road to join them. Um the highest delay figures during the uh afternoon peak hour. Uh the highest one was at Gumree Road at 53.4 seconds. Uh that's very close to the threshold uh of non-compliance, but uh it was nonetheless compliant. The second and third highest were at Squire Pope Road uh and at William Hilton Parkway at Arrow Road on the south end. Uh Cine Circle, we counted it in July of 24 uh for the first time since uh uh visitor season in 2022. Uh it was counted last two years previously and consistent with the lower demands that we saw um for many of our south end uh uh intersections during the peak hour. Uh we also registered declines at um Sepine Circle. The morning, midday, and afternoon peak hour were all generally down from four to 5 a.5% over the previous count in the summer of 2022. Uh this is what an analysis of CPIN circle looks like. And uh you'll note that while it does give you a value for the entire circle, uh it also gives you a value for each individual approach. And the LMO goal for roundabouts considers each individual approach. Uh it says no approaches higher than 150 seconds per delay per average vehicle. Uh unlike our signalized intersection goal, which is

applicable to the entire intersection. Uh table five on page 14 uh summarizes the delay figures for each approach during each of the three peak hours at Cine Circle. uh all in compliance. I would highlight however that uh um two things. The highest for each of the three peak hours, the highest delay figure was recorded for Greenwood Drive compared with the other approaches and that all of the figures are generally down. Delay figures are down from 2022 uh commensurate with the decline in demand that was recorded. Okay. William Hilton Parkway, Sparoke Road, and Chamberlain Drive uh was out of compliance. And um for a number of years uh uh I I'm I'm going to conduct my remarks on this intersection as uh uh as if there is no uh improvement project on the horizon. Basically, just uh from a standpoint of what needs to be done here. um the largest amount of traffic that you can move through a lane that is unimpeded. Think a lane on the interstate uh with not much traffic. Uh the you can get through about 1,800 vehicles per lane. That's about one vehicle every two seconds because there's 3600 seconds in an hour. Uh so if there was no signal here and traffic just flowed through here, we could probably get about 1,800 cars per hour per lane uh off island in the afternoon. Once you put in a traffic light and start turn changing the signals and people start slowing down and starting from a stop, that breeds inefficiency that brings that number

down to close to 1,200 vehicles per hour per lane. And if you really take some extraordinary measures like we have implemented here to greatly favor the major street over the side streets, you may be able to get that number up to about 1,400. That's a kind of a realistic theoretical max. Uh if you uh if you really short the side streets and the turn arrows and don't give them enough time, just keep try to keep traffic moving as much as you can. Um, we had 1320 per hour per lane uh during our afternoon count. That's very close to that theoretical 1400 maximum. Um, and and and well in excess of the 1,200 maximum that you would normally assign uh to a signalized intersection. Uh so we're doing pretty good here. But um for many years the problem at this intersection and the reason that it is over capacity relative to the Elmo goal is the availability of only two departure lanes uh in the off island direction. Um, and while the off island traffic basically uses just about all the capacity uh that this signal can provide in addition to the um in addition to the nearly 2,800 vehicles that we have trying to get off island uh through this intersection. And uh let me see here. I need to go back. There we are. Um, we also have a tremendously high volume turning right off the Squar Poke Road in the afternoon. Uh, that's about 400 vehicles per hour trying to make that right turn and they just have to they

just have a yield sign. They don't even go through the traffic light. They basically just have to sit at a yield sign and wait for an opportunity to go. That's a tremendous demand on any right turn movement. And to exacerbate conditions even further, uh we have a fairly high volume of 125 vehicles per hour trying to make the left turn onto square poke road. Uh so the uh off island flow that's close to what the signal can handle and then you throw in hundreds of vehicles trying to turn right off of Square Pope Road and turn left onto Square Pope Road. uh that creates significant issues that cannot bring this intersection into compliance without uh significant improvements to the intersection to provide additional lanes. Uh in making recommendations over what would mitigate this intersection, we looked at providing two right turn lanes on Square Pope Road. um that lowered the capacity ratio from 99% to 94% but not below 90 so it did not mitigate the intersection. Um we looked at providing a free flowing right off of Square Poke Road uh that goes into an acceleration lane and merges back in uh further upstream. that does mitigate the intersection by better serving that 400 carve demand turning right off the square Pope Road. Uh but um probably not a realistic improvement because of the impacts that it has to residential properties in Stony on the north side uh of William Hilton Parkway. Uh that would basically be the same impacts as widening to three lanes. Um uh so in the past that has not been seen as a

feasible improvement. We looked at uh uh when you provide a third lane off island uh which in all likelihood can be foreseen in the future uh it does fully mitigate the intersection. Uh but uh you it effectively mitigating the intersection uh entails widening uh along the northern side of the road to the west of the intersection. Uh that impacts um residential properties and will likely those are impacts that uh are not likely to uh be implemented in advance of uh a widening of the roadway from four to six lanes. Uh I will conclude my remarks on this intersection by stating that um widening from four to six lanes, but once we have three lanes heading off Iowa instead of two, it is going to make that left turn onto Square Pope Road even more difficult having to turn across three lanes. And given the fact that we can only turn the arrow on for a very limited amount of time uh in the afternoon, it's been a safety issue for a very long time. We have a lot of collisions there. Uh people turning left. Um, and when you widen from four to six lanes, all things being equal, uh, the typical response to that would be to take away the ability of that left turn to turn while yielding to oncoming traffic and make it like the left turn signals at Gumree Road and Spanish Wells Road where you can only turn during the green arrow. Uh, is that an ideal situ uh, solution? uh obviously not because you're going to have to turn keep the green arrow uh illuminated a long time uh to serve that demand. Uh so I continue to feel that the optimal solution here uh is a grade separation

of that left turn movement where the left turn rises up out of the median and crosses this town land over here and comes up to a stop sign up there on Square Pope Road. Uh that would be a uh a uh basically an overpass that rises out of the median along here and flies over the off island lanes and comes up here and goes to a stop sign. Uh I realize that uh uh like widening to the west of the intersection. And uh obviously that has some impacts that uh are very concerning to some folks but uh continue to feel that uh that that is an integral part in a long-term solution uh to this intersection. Um appendix B in your report is simply the location of those 24-hour numbers uh that were uh presented in table one earlier in the presentation. Appendix C there is SC DOT has a real-time traffic counter on Jenkins Island that counts traffic in both directions all the time. These are the actual numbers for every day in 2024. Um days that are greater than 10% of the annual average are highlighted in yellow. Days that are greater than 15% of the annual average are highlighted in orange. and days that are 20% higher than the annual average are highlighted in red. And we are uh right about right about uh right about in here right now. And uh this appendix C it also contains data on uh demands for the various days of the week, various months of the year and our highest volume days of the year. I wanted to highlight that compared with 2023

uh the average daily demand decreased 1.3%. Uh so if you look at the whole year 2024 versus the whole year 2023, we had 1.3% less traffic. Uh we already know we had the highest volumes ever we we ever counted for our visitor season snapshot that we collected uh last July. So the connotation is more traffic here during visitor season and lower traffic demands uh away from that. Um also appendix D of your report is a Federal Highway Administration report and it indicates that nationally uh traffic demand uh was uh up 1.2% in July 24. uh um nationally nationally traffic was up 1.2% compared with July 23. However, in the South Atlantic region, which are these states right here, uh traffic declined 6/10 of a percent. Compared with a year earlier, uh but in South Carolina, it was up 1%. Uh all of the states were down except South Carolina was up 1%. So, um, your charge in the LMO, uh, is to receive this presentation and to, uh, forward, uh, your remarks or any recommendations to town council, uh, subsequent to your receipt of this presentation. uh no action on the presentation itself uh is indicated but I would suggest that uh uh if you don't want to uh provide any supplementary remarks or recommendations to town council uh you may want to just pro prepare a brief memorandum forward it to town council

and say we don't have any uh results or uh additional comments or remarks or recommendations based on this report. Um it says in the LMO that town council will receive this report simultaneous uh with its presentation to the planning commission. That has been done. So I would suggest that there is not a need uh to forward the report itself on to town council. Uh simply any comments, remarks that you have on it. Uh, at this point, I'll be happy to entertain questions. And I'd like to ask uh, traffic operations manager Terresa McVey uh, to join me up here up front. Uh, if you have any uh, questions on the report itself, I can answer them. But, uh, uh, Miss McVey may uh, uh, she may actually be uh, in a better position to answer questions regarding traffic and transportation uh, issues on the island generally speaking. So, I'll take any questions of Miss McFay and I'll take any questions here. Great. Thank you, Darren. It was a very good report. If anybody who has read all the printed material that went out on this knows that there's another 60 or 70 pages worth of arrows going in every direction. So, we appreciate your dialing this down to 19 slides. Um, we are going to have a time for public comment, but let's find out what questions the commissioners have first. Commissioner Whe Squire Pope question. So, um I'm glad to see that even though it's been years in the making that we're going to focus on Squire Poke. Is that a fair assessment? Is that your recommendation to the town council or is that something you expect us to highlight if we pass it forward? It is uh required that any any intersections that are out of compliance be highlighted as part of this report.

I've done so in recent years. It's kind of been my habit to say, uh, well, big big SC dot Buford County project is coming that's going to address all this. And, uh, I don't think I need to say a whole lot about it. Uh, given that, uh, some elements of that project has been scaled back. as I commented, I I elected to just uh uh kind of ignore uh any upcoming improvements to the intersection and let you know what I thought about it this time. So, in following up to that, then is it would it be the role of the planning commission or within the uh the roles and responsibility of the P planning commission to highlight that and say, you know, we for example, we accept the report. We strongly urge the town council to make uh decisions with respect to Squire Pope quickly. I suggest that any supplementary remarks or comments that you have on what it says about Squire Pope Road in the report should be put in writing and submitted to town council. Okay. Thank you. Other questions or comments from commissioners? Commissioner Cortis, with a 26% increase in traffic after the toll was stopped, would it not make sense to do a C pines traffic study every year? Also, in light of what CSA is trying to do with the congestion at their gate, um quite possibly. I indicated that the numbers seem to have uh at least as far as the split between William Hilton Parkway and the former tollway, that split seems to have stabilized. Uh but uh once again, over the last 5 years, uh we've seen an average 1.1% increase in traffic demand townwide. Uh and that's it's much more than that on the former tollway uh

because of the uh increases that we saw following sessation of toll collection. Uh so um you know it was it it's still in the LMO. It says Cine Circle gets done in years evenly divisible by five. Uh we've been doing it every other year to go above and beyond. Um certainly revising the LMO to require that it be counted and analyzed every year is something that could be considered as part of future LMO revision. Commissioner Lo, um, you talked about the increase in traffic on the cross island and it had plateaued and I'm curious if any analysis has been done on the green signs that are above the split of the language on there. Now, I realize that could be the state's requirement, but hopefully they would listen to some input from us. But when I look at those signs, it seems like the appropriate things were removed for the toll road and all that kind of thing. And I just wonder if there's anything that might be added to the language or the identification of places on the south end to encourage more people to take the cross island. You take that one, Teresa. I mean, that's certainly something that we could look into and um recommend to the state. Um, again, state um owned and maintained roads to Cross Island Parkway. Um, but we can definitely take that into consideration and um submit that to the state. Other questions or comments by commissioners? Let me find out. Is there anybody from the public who would like to talk with us on this topic today? I don't see anybody. So, yes. Oh, yes, Mr. Babel.

Thank you, Darren, for our Mhm. a great report. I'm speaking a little out of turn here, but you know, there's one other road that we don't look at, but we're going to have to look at for the next 30 to 40 to 50 years. Two two lanes coming in, two lanes going off, and that's the that's the bridge. where it has no multimodal capability. It's two lanes each way. 40, 50 years, that kind of growth. Do the numbers. It would seem to be an appendix of what it is you're looking at. I know you're required to do this, but I know you look at it, but it's worth discussion in this kind of a discussion, I would think, too. Just a thought. two lanes. That's all we got. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Okay, I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. As you as Darren has indicated, we can send this along to town council uh with comments or suggestions or other things that we would like other than just approval in general. So, what are we thinking? Commissioner Hens, I move to approve. Uh we have a motion to approve the report or second. Second by Commissioner Lo Lob. Okay. Other is there discussion on the motion. All in favor of approval and please raise your right hand. It is 7 to zero. Thank you. Uh we have one more item here to take up concerning the uh changes in the LMO and I'm going to have Missy come forward to do that for us.

Okay. Um so today um I wanted to discuss um a request to actually postpone consideration of the uh proposed amendment to address mass and scale for both residential and commercial. Um but before you is and included in the packet is consideration of an ordinance amendment to address uh regulations for measurement of height and setback encroachments that's related to both residential and non-residential development. Um the reason why we would like to uh request that the planning commission uh postpone the hearing and consideration of the amendment is that when we were preparing uh our final analysis and review of this amendment set, we realized that the character overlay zoning districts um needed to be included in the amendment set and they were not noticed with the public hearing uh ad that was placed in the island packet. Um, I can go through and give a broad overview of what this amendment covers, but just know that it is our recommendation that we um do postpone this discussion for our next meeting in May. Um, what would you like me to do? Would you like me to cover a summary of the amendment set? Would we are we comfortable waiting till next month to get the full report with the with everything there? It seems like we are. Okay. So, do we need to take action to postpone consideration or Please do. Yes. Okay. Could I have a motion to postpone consideration of this item until next month? Commissioner Lobalt, seconded by Vice Chair Campbell. Any discussion? All those in favor, please raise your right hand. It is seven to zero. Thank you. Um, is there anybody uh in the p from the public who would like to speak with us on something that was not on the agenda today? Just in general. Yes. Yes, ma'am. either either

one. And Hannah, will you be timing for me? Yeah. If you would state your name, please for the record and and understand you'll have three minutes. Up to three minutes. I won't take that. Uh, Linda Harrington, Indigor Run. My question for all of you is what happened to the floor the floor area ratio calculation that apparently was worked on extensively and it never came up before anybody. I would really appreciate it if someone would look into that before you change anything else. I'm not understanding why it's a very valuable tool to use in land management, in growth, in housing becoming McMansions. No one wants that. So I guess my question to you all would be a did you know there was a FAR that's been discussed for quite a while and b what happened to it? So if anybody knows that I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak with you? Yes, ma'am. Hi, Katie Henderson, Hilton Head Plantation. Yesterday, I was eating at Southern Coney and I went out onto Pope and then down South Forest uh Beach Road, which I don't do because I live in the north normally. And there were so many people walking and riding bikes on the road. Why is there not a pathway for bike riders on that road? I think that's really much more important than the bridge pathway. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else wanting to speak with us? Okay, that will end the public comment section. There's no other

commission business. I have no report. Are there any staff reports today? Uh don't see any. So any other business that anyone else has to bring before us? If not, we will stand a jured