Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Welcome to the October 2nd, 2025 regular meeting of the Sunset Beach Planning Board. Seeing we have a quorum, we'll call to order and have the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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. Amen.

So, first item before well, first well, first of all, let me before we get to the conflict of interest, welcome our uh new member to the planning board, Mr. Mike Bowman. Thank you. Uh he was sworn in this morning uh before the meeting. So Mike, just to break you in a little bit, uh can you just give us a brief tell us uh some of your high points of view and and your interest in joining the planning board before we move on to the regular agenda? Okay. Um well, my background, I'm from Mount Ary. Most people know that as

Mayberry. Um and uh uh worked for a company for 42 years there uh Rimfro Corporation. We made socks uh and uh I retired uh eight years ago as the executive VP of operations worldwide. So, I traveled internationally a lot, built a lot of plants, a lot of distribution centers all over the world, and uh came here full-time about five years ago, and we live at Twisted Oak Lane up the street here. Uh I married, a lady that was born and raised in Holden Beach, so she feels like she's home. She lived in Mount Area with me for 47 years, so I owe her that to be here. Um, as far as, uh, interest, uh, play golf a lot, uh, but I've always been interested in, uh, being active in the community that I live in. Back in Mount Ary, I was, uh, did public service for 37 years. I was on eight different boards, different times. Uh, I just believe that if you're going to live in a community, you ought to be active in it. And so I used to be on the sunset sunset before I met Lisa and uh before the city took it over. Uh I'm currently on the turtle patrol have been for three years. I'm on the board of the Old Bridge Historical Society for several years now. Uh I'm on the Veterans Committee uh with Ron and Charlie and Mike Hargrave and that group. Um so and now I'm on the planning board. So, I just believe that if you're going to live in a community, you ought to figure out a way to be active and give back. And so, that's why I'm here.

Good. Excellent. Thanks. Welcome aboard. Thank you. You look sound like a person we can give a lot of homework to without a problem. And he's been armed with all his books and documents, everything, ready to go. Okay. The first item on the agenda is conflict of interest statements. Does any member have a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with regard to any item on the agenda? And if so, please state so at this time. We'll start this way. Stuart, I do not. Uh I do not. No, I do not. I do not. I do not.

Thank you. Um item three to amend or approve the agenda. I guess um make sure not sure uh not sure this is appropriate but I have some items I want I just add probably in under section 8 uh there's a small table formatting error we need to talk about formatting error in one of the tables that I found and then what are we doing with the October 16th meeting if we're deciding today uh and scheduling sort of forward because I already know I'm not here on 11:20 either. So, so I guess maybe just a meeting schedule talk. So just uh I'll move to a amend the agenda include some items under administrative comment 8 which is a formatting error I found in one of the tables and then maybe scheduling uh of the next series of planning board meetings. Anyone want to second that or anything additional? I

second it. All in favor? I. Okay. The first item of business is approving our minutes of the a August 21st, 2025 meeting, which I believe was our last meeting, right? Yes. So, anybody have any issues with that? Stuart, I think you said you might.

Yeah. I've got a few things I wanted to mention. Um, in the I guess on page two in the comments from K. Ray, the sanctuary is not capitalized. That last sentence just it makes it feel more like the subdivision instead of a like a sanctuary area. Um, where you at? Um, Ray K item five on page two. Ah, I see it. Okay. The last sentence. Yeah.

And then on the comments for the should we change that to sanctuary community? How are they officially known? Like the sanctuary? I don't know what their official name is. Well, everywhere else it's just called the sanctuary. Yeah, I see the point. Is it because the word sanctuary has a generic meaning and this is this is so maybe we should go the sanctuary or sanctu what I'm happy with or sanctuary community they're designated as the neighborhood it's kind of small but it designates the neighborhood right so whatever is appropriate for that neighborhood if it's the sanctuary or the sanctuary community or something

should we point out that it's currently part of the ETJ I don't think So we normally don't on identifying where the people live, right? Yeah. Especially not in their comments. All right. Um and then down on page four, um the last sentence on the top paragraph, u manta ray, it's manoray in the in the minutes. I guess we should just fix that to manta ray. It's page four, line five. The first word, it's just misspelled. It's manor ray. It should be manta ray.

Manta. Amberly. Oh, well. Catch it. Sorry. Be picky. But obviously, it must be a real word. Our spell checker would have checked it.

Well, it showed up in um earlier as manta ray. So, that was one reason we caught it. Um, and then I guess a bigger issue on the where you summarized planning board questions and concerns into bullet points. It I don't feel like this represents the questions that we asked. This is a lot of how the de developer answered, but I feel like we need to have our questions that we asked like we asked about adding some plants to the buffer and we asked about extending a sidewalk and since we're the approving authority, I'd like it on the record that we ask actually asked for these things. Um, so I don't see our our asks in here. Y'all see what I'm getting at,

right? Yeah. Yeah. The question.

It's really more the So maybe we need to This is going to be hard to do, I guess. because we got we got PL it's the section is headed planning board's question and concerns but it's really kind of the developers answer when maybe we need a couple bullet points of planning board's questions and concerns then developers responses break it into two sections would that work thoughts people so we could say planning boards questions and cons some of the same bullet bullet points landscaping. You know, I think I did one one asked for extending the buffer bushes all the way to the sidewalk. If I remember the item was I asked for it to go from the one sidewalk to the other sidewalk because there's a gap in the shrubbery.

Mr. Chairman, why don't you table these and let Kimberly go back and pick up the questions? Yeah, I think that's No, but let's just agree on maybe do we agree on the format that the bullet points might be fine, but you need a first set of bullet points that here's the questions. Well, you can do question and answer or right here were the planning board's questions and then here were the developers responses. You can either do them you can do them together, you know, landscaping, you know, question and answer or you can do all the questions and then all the I'm not sure what would be easier or better.

Some of them were not so much questions as stating our concerns. For instance, Ron was kind enough to credit my origination of the term sidewalks to nowhere, which we we did express in the communication to the developer. Now, their response is, you know, appropriately designated here, but I I agree with Ron. I think we need to have kind of I'd almost say, you know, Q&A, Q&A, Q&A, Q&A, Q&A. Yeah. So, that would be the two ways to do it is the question and the response and then I I think I prefer the Q&A. Let's do it that way.

Okay. And then we'll re And don't forget to get my credit for sidewalk. Even though I wasn't here. Anything else, D? Then we can relook at that this next meeting then or um No, I didn't have anything else. Yeah, I agree with my concerns on that one. Anybody else had anything else? Mike, you weren't here before, so we don't expect anything. Anybody else have anything? I think we're good.

Okay. So, we'll table this approval or review of this to the next meeting with a couple of typographical errors to fix. And then the major item is reformatting the planning boards concerns and developing responses concerning the uh major site plan for the uh what we commonly know as the hotel here. Correct. All agreed. All agreed. Do we need a motion? Anything on that or so? Mo uh motion to table with these corrections to the next meeting. Any second? Second. All in favor?

I I on the next on the agenda, any public comments concerning items on the agenda? Okay, hearing no public comments, we'll move on. to the new business section. Uh so Ron uh Sadderfield is concerning amending section 341 signs in the mud district. All yours, Ron.

All right. Thank you. So we have an application uh before you today. was submitted by Miss Kelly Stewart on behalf of the Carolina Dreams Golf LLC who owns the uh Village at Sunset Beach Shopping Center and un and the undeveloped parcels in the village at Sunset Beach. Um believe she also is representing the board of the village at Sunset Beach Property Hunters Association as well. Um so collaboratively they have decid they they're requesting an amendment to the sign ordinance to basically create sign standards for the mixeduse district that are in in lie of the current sign regulations which are just for non-residential signage. Um, in conversations that I've had with Kelly, it's just, and my opinion is it's not real clear some of the things that she and they would like to do with their signage, current signage, replacing, modernizing, potentially including wayfinding signs and the how the current sign code addresses those. So in our in our conversations, we felt like it was best for them just to petition to have the code amended to set aside sign regulations that are strictly applied to the mud district and nowhere else in town. Um that allows provides them some flexibility and in essence what they want to do is to be able to replace signage that they currently have and modernize it basically where they are and in similar size and height and so forth. They also want to potentially include what I'm going to call wayfinding signage. Um

I'm sorry, what? Wayfinding. Got it. Okay.

Um sign that says residential area this way, commercial area this way, planetarium this way kind of things. Now, I say that that um when when we're viewing sign ordinances, um we need to keep a few things in mind, and Kelly and I have had this conversation. From a zoning perspective, land use perspective, we're looking, okay, where can signs be placed? How big can signs be? How tall can signs be? Um you know, those kind of things. But we can't say and look at it as we want a sign to read a certain way. So we have to be as contentneutral as possible based on Supreme Court case law. So keep that in mind. So even the terminology of wayfinding sign could could fly in that a little bit. But I'm comfortable with with the intent of what our with using that terminology here. So we if we have to look at a sign to say okay we have to have to be able to read the sign and know what kind of sign it is then that's not really content neutral sign.

Right. Right. But as long as the sign this raises one concern for me which was in part of it which is in the slats the replaceable slats the term logo was used as being part of the signage and and historically these signs in other communities do not include logos. And my concern is in those that do there are they look more like billboards than signs. So that would be my concern. I don't know if that crosses the barrier.

That crosses the barrier. We cannot if again let's keep in mind our review when we create a code for signage and the core case I'm referring to is Reed versus Gilbert. This is around 204 location size. How big a sign can be? How tall can it be? Where can it be? How many signs do we want? Types of signs. So when I say type, monument, pole. No, no, I understand. Are they internally lit or externally lit, digital or not digital? But if we cannot say that a sign cannot include logos or we wanted the word and one of the things Kelly and I talked about was

um I think if you look in her application for one of the signs had to have like inserts I think it was and in my conversation with Kelly said Kelly I just don't feel comfortable adding that because we don't want to re we want we don't want to put that in the town's code. If you want that as part of your bylaws, that's fine. But how it's signed is going to be constructed. But that's that's kind of stepping over a little bit more than what. So that's why you didn't see that included in the proposed draft language that that I've written.

So what you're saying is it would be under the eegis of the developer or the owner to suggest or enforce that on signage of this type, logos could not be included. Right. But the town cannot reg my my suggestion recommendation to you is that a town cannot say a sign can or should not include the logo. Sure.

Um so Kelly had uh submitted an application. uh you'll see her letter application beginning on page uh 12 of your staff report

and her language um begins on page 14. The top where it says master sign plan and then there's a b c d etc. And then in red text you see her that's her inventory that she's done and that should be that should have been included in your packet as well. Um 13 or 14 signs that she has identified and where they fit into each one of these types of signs. So then I took her amendment request, um, put a couple things together, met with Kelly, and then she and I have had two or three phone conversations and and emails back and forth to what we've landed on in your case summary. So trying to complicate trying to complicate this, but I want to kind of talk about how we got to the iteration where we are,

right? Yeah, if that makes sense. Okay. So So So I've looked I don't even want to talk specifics, Mr. chairman. Um, I guess I think everybody understands how we got especially Mike. So, Kelly is being the representative of management team there, right? Uh, submitted a request for a text amendment staff has taken their input, their request, their application, created, amended text, and now we're at this point to review it to either approve it, deny it, or table it, whatever, right? Or next step. and the applicant's aware of that all those possibilities. So Mike, I'll leave your to last.

So to get the feel what how we do this. Did you do you want me to go through each type of sign? No, Mr. Chairman, I don't think so. Okay. Um, we might, but what my Well, I'd like to first maybe go through everybody just some general questions.

Well, do we want to? Well, Mike and I had somewhat of a preliminary conversation about this issue of the monument signs that front on 904 and 179. We included in UDO's that affected the sanctuary signage a somewhat shorter limit on height that I do not see in I believe it's number nine section B. And my concern is we're creating a motif along 1790904. Now I realize that includes planned community signs and mud district signs, but it seems to me it is important that in terms and this also affects the gateway issues that we're going to address later. I I think it would be somewhat unourred. I mean we can't go back and ask Sea Trail to reduce the size of its sign because they're grandfathered in. But we have asked uh new planned communities to reduce the height and scale of their signs. And what I what I want to avoid is okay a res a a planned community sign is based on one set of uh height restrictions and size. But a commercial signs along 17904, the same as the sanctuary sign, has a different set of standard because I think that's going to create a somewhat unourred um

sense of signage as you approach the commercial entities that are trying to Right. But Richard, I believe sanctuary is under residential. Yeah, I was going to clarify which is slightly different standard,

right? Right. But I agree with you to a certain extent, which is kind of where I was going, is uh consistency with all other commercial areas around them. I realize that the mud is separate, but I was trying to make sure that we don't uh create a standard in the mud that's wildly or different from let's just say the place across the street was it Pelican Square or someplace, right?

Sure. Uh, and I notice I think I notice some things where we're seeming to be different for uh a reasons because some of it exists maybe. So I'm kind of both we may have to go back and fix the other non we might have to do something to the other non-resident. I don't think it's fair completely fair to the other commercial developments in the area or future commercial developments in the gateway area that the mud had some standards and the other areas don't have the same uh let's just call it flexibility maybe or of what they can do. Yeah.

So I was trying to when I went through to say okay what does everyone across the street with them can do? So we may have to do some if we think it's fine for the mud which may be true then maybe we also have to look on the other side and even if we probably can't do it today but say we may have to do similar things like the first thing in my mind is the primary monument side you know the foursided in the amount of area it's not in that that type of sign is not in the other commercial district other non-residential there's no doesn't speak of multi-sided monuments doesn't

and most sign codes don't most communities would not allow the type of sign out front but I think in this case their their intent is to be the ability to keep it keep it up and upgrade it I understand that but most but now other folks may say well that's a really nice multi-sided sign why can't I have it why can't I have it Yeah, they're not zone mud for one, but I understand. Yeah, they're not zone mud. And once you're in the mud district, I'm I'm fine. Yeah.

Okay. It's the consistency along the 79 and 904 corridor that concerns me. And believe me, I I'm I'm the biggest promoter of the mud district probably on the board. I mean, I would much prefer to see a vibrant village mud style community than string development up 179. Excuse me, Kelly. But so I I don't want to place an arbitrary restriction in this, but it does seem to me that I think it actually would be better for the mud district to appear as if they are consistent with the commercial entities that surround them. uh when you drive through Market Commons or Mayfair, you don't see a huge discrepancy between the signs for those mixeduse developments and the areas that surround them. Now, you know, they have the benefit of being built organically from day one and not, you know, we're trying to do this as kind of a paste on which creates some significant challenges. I recognize, but I think that ought to be the goal. I'm not sure how we execute that in language here, but that's what I'm curious to find out.

One thing if I could comment on this the on your comment about the sanctuary. Um, and the chair pointed hit the hit the nail on the head on one point is sanctuary zone residential and the sanctu and the residential subdivision signs are limited to 64 square feet which is consistent, right? But only 8 foot in height which is commercial areas can have 16 feet, right? The other thing I want to hit on that to add to that though is they're already allowed to have 16 feet in height, 64 square feet for their signage. Correct.

And if this board chooses to or the council even chooses to do something different than that, then we're potentially looking at a downzoning that's flies against the down zoning definition that the state has yet to change. Well, I don't think that's where that's where not where my mind I know that's not what your intent is, but my if we allow something in the mud to be whether it's 14 or 16, I have no problem making that

allow them to have a 16 ft sign. But if we allow them to have multi-sided signs and we pick an area whether it's the area they've given us or in my mind a slightly different area then my thought is that should be also extended to 341H B that we may have to add the same thing there. I don't think we should in that case we're upzoning not down right and and just just understand a lot of a lot of communities I was involved with Mayfair in Wilmington. Mr. Dyson, you mentioned it.

Mayfair had its own sign regulations for a long time. Now there were references to the central business district as an example but Mayfair when the city decided to create the mixed juice may not say the city city of Wilmington decided to create create that mixeduse district they knew that the mixed juice district carries different characteristics if you will than than your typical development and they wanted to make sure that it was prosperous and thriving. And so they allowed different types of signage in the mixed juice code than they did in other other parts of the community.

And and and and it's an interesting comparison. Mayfair is a much larger area. So they've got a lot more room in which they can experiment. But when you drive into Mayfair and you drive through the residential area to get to it, that signage is fairly modest and moder. Okay. There's not a huge sign in front of that when you make that turn that says, "Okay, here's Mayfair. Come on in." All right. Um, we're somewhat limited because our mud district is is a much smaller and much closer to the major thorough affairs. About five times smaller.

Yeah. So, you know, I think it creates and again once you're in the mud district, I mean, if Hilton wants to put a big sign up, more power to him. Um, but how we how we manage that from its inception rather than after the fact. I mean I don't have a particular investment in one approach or another but I think we need to define the approach clearly and whether it's okay we approve these signs at 16 ft and then change up zone so others can do the same or if we say

or just or just incorporate it in the in 341 the non-residential sign standard as it is and it'll make a difference where it is. I mean, we were writing like a whole section here for the mud district. A lot of it though is a number of signs because Well, that's maybe all we have to put. Yeah. But I don't want every business on 179 or 904 to get two monument signs at every entrance.

Yeah. I mean, but I feel like the mud district warrants that, but I don't feel like a, you know, a tanning salon or standalone tanning salon should have two monument signs at their entrance. I mean, I'm just you're you're what I was going to say is consistent what you're saying being be aware of any unintended consequences. If we just open it up to allow everything that that the mud district owners are requesting to ply to the mud and you end up putting that for everyone, be aware of the unintended consequences.

Yeah, that that approach makes I mean I understand where Ron's going with it. That makes me a little nervous because now you could have, you know, Joey's Pizza put up two monument signs on 9004. And and another thing I would say is if you this community is constantly reviewing its codes and asking and processing amendments. I think I've processed 15 amendments in my 15 months here now. I mean I'm I'm I'm guessing I don't know the exact number but it's been it feels like every month we've had a text in front of you guys. I think it's close. So there was no was no different before under the old. Well, so

I have looked at the case numbers of cases in the 2025 versus 23 24 and we've had more cases in 25 thus far than we had in 24 or 23 based on just on the folders listed in the in the Well, don't forget we we finished the UD rewrite in 2023. So a lot of the unintended consequences of that document have only come to light. Agree. as we've walked down the path and you've been great in pointing those out and so I'm not uncomfortable with the number being more now than it was in 2020. Me either. What I was going to say is in fact I'm encouraged by that.

What I was going to say though is we're soon we'll be kicking off a land use plan update whenever we get through the RP process and that gets started. So you're going to rewrite your co you're going to rewrite your plan and then following that my guess is there's also now then going to be an analysis of what do we need to do with our codes to make our codes consistent with that but like

so it's like I give them on the monument side but we write a whole new section on wall signs we have a quite lengthy section on wall signs already which we reviewed once are we writing a new one when we can just update the existing one it seems like the only thing we're concerned about is that they the wall sign can be played up to the roof line or parapit my or my mind just a little bit below the top of the and just do it that way. Now is this to address the walk in sweet signage? Yeah. Well, because it we have somewhere where it says it can only the current the current code and non-resident allows if you have multi-story building the sign the wall sign can be no taller no higher than the second floor.

Right. Right. on that's townwide A2. Yeah. And we're are we trying to change that? This proposal would allow the sign if if approved would allow the sign for a multi-story building to be basically to at the at the at the on the parabet. Okay. Per this amendment. Now, my concern is in terms of how that impacts in the mud district is if there's a signage four stories up on the back of Hampton in suites, is that going to conflict with the residential ambiencece of the town homes on market? I think it's conversation we can have through I'm sorry.

I think that's the conversation we can have when we analyze that particular section. Okay. How many where where's the how many signs? Do we want one on all four facades? Yeah. Do we want them being up there? I just don't want it to be lighted. That's the that's the issue for me. But go ahead. We'll jump up that bridge when we get to it. Mr. Chairman, I think with pulling the mud district out into its own section makes it a lot easier for staff when we are looking at the mud district and not having to

flip back and yeah, flip back and forth of the nonresidential code as compared to the mud code. It just makes it a lot easier on staff if it's separated and we know right where to go for one section. So you're saying I would agree. But I agree but I think we'll be back here writing text amendment on 341 when somebody no when else something wants the same. But that's that's and you can do that but right now what you have before you is an application from the mud district. um management

to separate their district into its own code. Next month, if you want to take up the rest of non-residential, we could definitely do that. But right now, you need to be looking at this as the applicant as I did that, but I think we should just keep an eye on the other part of the code. Keep an eye on the other part of the code. Yeah. that that we know what we're doing is that

is trying to be trying not to be too inconsistent with it like the square footages and the heights and the where we can easily be consistent with the 341 non-residential is and not affect the intent is try to stay there like the wall sign the lighting like one of my points is lighting we of extensive in our other code how what the lighting should be how it should not shine and like in this part we just wrote one sentence on lightning that it can be internal or external and somebody else has got to decide later if it's good and I just don't I think that is too incon B six you know internal external illumination permitted subject to approved lighting plan yet if you look at R 341 one in a number of places. We're much more specific on

this is in the district in in the rest of the world. So, as long as I think we keep an eye on consistency. Well, and the mud district is going to be different because the mud district is huge. It's lots of acreage. There's no other commercial areas. MB1 is one lot down the

thorough affair. 904 is one lot down the whole thoroughare. So, the mud district is a huge plot of land that will have a lot of different things going on internally that isn't going to be the same on any other piece that's inside town limits or in the ETJ. And even BB1 on the island is a block off of Main um Sunset Boulevard either side. So, you're still only dealing with one lot. So Lisa, help me understand. Are you suggesting that by pulling all of the regs out of the other section and putting them in the mud dress, this is simplifying the process

for the town staff? For the town staff. Yes, sir. It does. When they How does it simplify? When Kelly comes in and says, "We want to change a sign or one of our business owners or we're able to look at the mud." You don't have to flip back to another section. we're able to pull the mud and say here's the signage requirements for the mud. So if we have if we feel there are sections that when we pull it forward need to be altered because of the nature of the mud district that's really on us. I

mean it's a bigger project and you can look at it more in consistent with how consistent with what is the town's vision. I mean when when the town when when this code was created the town somebody on town it was through the comp plan or through whoever sitting on council decided they didn't want multi-story buildings in town basically to have a sign above the second floor right that was a vision from the town right at whenever that code was written everything's been there a long time um mud is a different entity I mean even you know some of the policies I've pulled talks about how the mud is an economic development hub

and there are other inconsistencies we can talk about later. I mean, I understand Ron's concerns, but I am more persuaded. I want to make this as easy as possible. Um, it's really important. You know, let's face it, the mainland is a mess. A mess. You know, we have a unconstructed steel frame that's been there for years. That's one of the first things that people see when they drive into our community. We have a sign that says village center and when you look down that sign it's a grass field. And so if this makes it easier to encourage the appropriate scaled commercial development in the mud district, I'm more persuaded that that's the path we ought to take.

Ron, which one? Okay. Okay. All right. Well, I thought you might have some Which one? Okay. So, I will point out there's a lot that there's a lot of monument signs that are allowed um by this proposal. One is the foresighted we've talked about. Then we're talking about the entrance signs, right? The there's a monument sign. That's the traffic circle there near Food Lion and that's covered in this in the Bank of America.

Yeah. Bank. Then you have those next one was the individual properties such as the Bank of America or the hotel or other businesses that they come in that would have the ability.

These are these are tasteful logos that promote you know hey Bank of America that's a great brand. We we welcome them into their community want we want to have their logo prominently displayed appropriately. Uh same way with the hotel um same way with food line. So, you know, it's important to get, you know, what I want to make sure we avoid is we have a bunch of monument signs to nowhere. You know, um, so, you know, that's what I want to make sure we we avoid, right? Okay. So, you want to just go section by section by

Sure. I can try to summarize by sign type, I guess. Yeah, I can try to sum summarize it. So, first one we've hit on a little bit is the primary monument sign. What p I'm sorry, what page are we? Uh, look at page seven down at the bottom. Talked about this briefly already, but the primary monument sign. Um, that's the foursided sign there. Um, number 14. Number four. Yes. So proposal there with one of those not to exceed 14 feet in height with a maximum area of 140 ft square feet. They put square in there. Sorry. Uh yeah, you missed 35 on each.

You missed the square in a lot of places. So you're going to have to review that. Either spell out square feet or I don't know if you can superscript the two on there or not. I'll just put square. I'll spell it out. Uh 35 rough. And that comes out equivalent of 35 each side. So that her monument sign these areas match the existing sign basically. Yes. U her inventory. It's a little bit bigger. How much? A little bit bigger. Yeah. Let's see. It's about five square feet per side. Bigger. We tried to round up as much as we could. Okay. So the sign that we're referring to, so it's it's a

it's the sign that we see pictured in the upper right hand corner, right? So it's the current sign based on the applicants measurements is about 10 and a 10.4T in height and 90 in by 48 in which is So they're asking for an additional two three and a half ft. Yeah. Is that what I'm reading? Yeah, something like that. So, it was just kind of rounding it up. And the existing sign heights sanctuary is eight. I don't even know what seat trails is. I'm not sure it's high,

but u currently non-residential zone districts can have up to 16 feet in height for monuments on. All right. And the so and then number two says basically subscript two. So that has to have some landscaping around the base which is right out of our code. Yes. All right. Then letter B are is the what I'm going to call the primary um excuse me the entrance signage. So two monument signs per public street frontage. So on every So when they when you turn into

Yes.

When you turn into Now I'm thinking of Sunset Boulevard. There's there's a turn into Food Lion. There's a turn into Fbers. There's a turn into the the um um I forget the name of the community, but the multi and then there that's it. So, there's three turnins along 179. Am I wrong? So, I should know. I drive it every day. We use the maps. Use the map behind you on the board over there. I'm gonna come over and point. Sorry. I see. Okay. So,

yes. We have this one, right? What Kelly just pointed out. Ability to put one here. So the the turn the turn in it's behind the Isn't that a turn in just below? Yes. One here, one here. I skipped that one. Sorry. One here. Four. Yeah. Five. Six. Seven. Eight. This one's future. But if the code is amended, it would allow that one. Right. So you're as far as on the map here, these are the existing signage and based on the inventory. Oh, I see what you're saying.

So this amendment could potentially or would potentially allow them to put two monument signs here, three monument signs here, assuming that's theirs. And then as this develops down here, their ability to play something down here and each of in addition to what's already out each each of those signs would be allowed to be 14 whatever feet. No, each one of those when we're looking at B this one maximum 64 square feet and 16 16 feet in height, which is what the current code would allow for a monument sign.

Got it. And currently the monument signs that are there are what's numbered? Yes, sir. And she has an inventory in your applicant as part of her application. Which one of those signs are If you want to flip them, it's fine.

Right. All right. So, this is signage and her inventory. 14, that's the foursided sign. And then one and two, it's your food line sign and the village sign. So each one of these would now be permitted to have a 14 foot four-sided sign. No, no, no. This only this sign here, one, I think. All right. Got it. All right. One of those. You get one. And then at each entrance, they could have up to two monument signs. Okay. up with 16 feet in height and 64 square feet in area. But but not a not a four not the four sided. Not the four-sided. All right. Okay. I think I understand now.

So 3 A, B, and C is what what our code would currently call a directional sign on the Bank of America's. Do we have a definition of a directional sign? Directional sign or wayfairing sign. uh wayfinding sign. I think I tried to include the somewhat of intent of what a temper what a tenant directory and waypointing signage are intended to guide vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Okay,

keep in mind though that based on what I said earlier about content neutral, how do you know if something's a how do you know what type of sign it is? You got to read it. So, if it's got an arrow and it says entrance exit, technically that's a a directional sign, but you got to read it to know what kind of sign it is. [Music] We can't necessarily limit the wording on that sign, right?

Um, so B on this proposal on page eight would be these signs here as an example. uh these parcel those are types. So when we said earlier, so the map's here sign is along 179 and 904. That's where the entrance monument signs could be. Not the primary, not the four-sided sign, but the other types of monument signs.

So um B2 is 64 square ft. B3 is 16 feet of height, right? B4. Yes. Two additional miles. That's these signs there. That's like the sign that she has currently in the um sign five at the circle. Yes, sir. Yeah. So in conversation with uh Miss Stewart, the thought was they definitely would like to replace this one with something but also have potential division might have another one somewhere else on site

also 16 foot high up to there's no height in four is that there's no height on four I would have included as part three. But yes, we can include height. And how do we how what is the height of this sign? Sign five.

90 in tall is what it is now. Is that correct? 9 ft. 9 ft tall. 90 in. So that's what 8 ft. Yeah. 9 ft. We're talking about an additional 16 ft maximum. Doesn't mean they have to 16 ft. It's allow that would be allowed to. Okay. They probably would. Well, hopefully you probably wouldn't want one that high because that's supposed to be visible probably from an automobile. Right. So, I don't think you you can look that high from that close in to read.

I don't know. Do we need to leave it at 16 feet or should we pick a 12t number or something? How do you get to 64 square feet? That's Well, 8 by 8 seems like 16 there is quite being 16 by. Yeah. So, and that currently said it's currently 9 ft high. Hey, weird looking. It's 90 in is what? 7 and a half feet. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the hope is that as we add more businesses to the mud districts, you're going to have to make that sign. Yeah. So, maybe something like 12 foot maximum on those two additional ones because then you're looking if you're in a car, you're kind of you're to get the upper ones, you probably wouldn't see them anyway,

right? If they believe the applicant is shaking her head, be okay with that. Okay. Nodding. Not shaking. I mean, nodding. Nodding. I know. Nodding. Excuse me. In some areas, the signage would really only include those businesses that are proximate to the sign. So, as you drive further in, you would see a sign that included businesses that are in the next section. And that kind of gets you out of the issue of I at this sign, I got to get every business that's in the mud district on this sign, which is actually more confusing.

I want to know if I'm driving, I want to know, okay, in the next block, what businesses are included. Okay, now hopefully we're going to fill the next two blocks with more businesses, doctor's offices, restaurants, whatever at that location. Can we go back to the intersection sign? That the little which ones? Yeah, the first one. Oh, the map. The map. Oh, the map. I'm sorry.

Yeah, this. So as you drive back, so at that next intersection, the one after the roundabout, you would have another sign that says, "Okay, um, now there's a hotel, a restaurant, a doc, who whoever these businesses are, they would have the ability to place it." Yes. They had to be. So in essence, we could increase the number of signs allowed, but reduce the overall square footage of each individual sign with the idea that we don't have to tell everybody. Yes. What every business is in the mud district.

Are you saying Are you saying, Richard, increase because they get the two at the entrances. You saying the two additional is insufficient? I think two additional is even though I haven't asked for more two but yeah um because their major intersections are only two, right? Yeah. So I mean I over by the circle and the other major I could see a sign at five. I could see a sign at um that next um Yeah. Where I mean this picture is pre sanctuary. No, they're up there above it. Up there. Okay. Where's Manor Ray Road? It's not It's not All right. But um

yeah, it's over about a five point. Yeah. Okay, I got it. I mean, in a perfect world, there'd be a sign there and there'd be a sign um at that next intersection where the hotel's going to be. Well, I'm just I'm just spitballing this right now, but I think those are wayfinding signs, not monument signs.

Well, they're kind of both. I mean, they're kind of saying in this next block, these are the following businesses that you're going to see. I mean, that's the way they do it in Mayfair. So, you don't I mean, when you run into Mayfair, you don't see the sign for every business that's in that. You see the signs for the businesses that are in that first block. Then you go to the next block, you see the sign said in that block. If you look at our wafer indeed, they they can do a sign up to 32 square feet. Right. Okay. So that's allowed in DI, right? D1, rather. Okay. Correct. So I think we're okay.

All right. Sounds sounds right. All right. Or if they smaller, we're allowing them 6 feet there and 32 square ft. And this other bigger ones we're allowing two that are well actually twice as big now. 12 foot high and 64 square feet. Right. Yeah. I think that does the job. I think that covers it. Okay. Kelly, are you you can just I don't want to make your life more difficult, but so 12 ft in height, 64 foot area.

So my objection is on fix on this lighting thing. I mean we went from a lot of language on lighting to to me this seems awful vague. I don't know you guys that do some science wi. We don't talk about the lumens level. We're now doing internal and external uh which I believe our previous one just said external lighting. So I'm assuming this is some sort of backlit sign could be. So we don't we don't specify lumen levels, how brightness, and this seems weak I guess in my mind. Now,

unless I unless you know something in the code that I don't I don't see any when I'm looking at this the non-residential commercial the non-residential signage for monument signs. I don't see any lighting standards in the current code. I I didn't see them either. Now, you do have for the residential residential does but not in the non-resident. So, this is mixed juice, right? Correct. And she got residential and businesses mixed together here.

But it's making clear that internal. So to me that some of the same ideas need to be put. I'm saying that paragraph is that line six is insufficient. I don't even know what it means. Subject to approved lighting plan. Who approves it? Who does it? We do have I'm sure their intent is to not to do a Las Vegas strip sign, but I don't think we have anything here. I mean, if you look at the residential one in Prohibited signs includes digital signs. Yeah. So they could not do a dig. If you look under our res GD3,

it has permitted monument signs may illuminated by external or silhouette lighting only. External lighting fixer shall not cast light or glare in any direction other than the elements on of the sign. Such lighting shall be placed such that provide even illumination, etc., etc. I just think some of that needs to be incorporated over here because you are mixed juice. So well again tell me what does that mean when you say internal external illumination permitted subject to approved lighting plan. What does that mean? I would look at a lighting plan for the lighting standards in the code to make sure that it's not emitting lighting outside of those parameters to whatever the foot candles are for general on the streets onto adjacent properties etc.

So they could put any light back lit on something currently current they can currently under the non in the non-residential for monument signs how how that's how I read the code. But I don't see lighting standards. Yeah. For non-residential. There's nothing that says internal external. Cat light only cast on to Yeah. We only do on the canopy signs. We do for canopies. Yeah. Um Well, that doesn't mean it's right. I'm just concerned about over I mean out of control bright signs here back,

right? Even though I don't I'm sure the intent would not be to do that but because you are going to have some things facing residential areas because it's a mix. So you are can have some residential areas facing visible the signs. How how bright should we allow? And we don't like I said we don't put lumens in here. We don't I know I just to me it was a little So is your concern about in the residential portion? Well, so some of them could be facing so where the town homes are.

So like 11 I don't know if that that going to be a lit sign or not. The hotel is going to have a backlit sign I assume or some sort of lit sign, right? So

excuse me. 11. Oh, sorry. Yeah, that's their that's that little their pedestal or monument, right? Right. Yeah. And there is one purple, right? So everyow,

right? I mean, I agree there got to be some lights. I'm not saying there got we could borrow any kind of lights, but uh that sign's probably not lit at all. Don't look like Right. It doesn't look like it. I don't see anything on the ground. We can go back to some of the other ones. Probably have lights on top, right? That one has a light at the bottom, right? Shining up on it. Yeah. And there's there by the little green roof that has looks like two little light fixtures on. Yeah. But again, though, if they replace it, they could put the way I read this, they could put any kind of light on they want.

And I don't know if they could do like neon strips. They could not do digital signage, but yes. But they can do, let's just call them flood lights. I don't think that's the right way. They can cast the light, cast light casting or they can do some evacuate sign now, right? With a panel in front and I think we're a little weak here on saying what the light levels or something. I mean, they can just I I don't disagree with you. Just understand if they put out plan that happens to have a lot of light, I don't think we can do anything. If we if we do an analysis like boy that's really right that's 400 candle power or 400 thousand lumens more than we really like. I don't think we can say you can't do it based on that paragraph.

Well, you could not approve the lighting. Correct. That's where Yeah. But yeah, I mean we would prefer to do this by ordinance than by you know a meeting. And I don't know what the any kind of appropriate languages or numbers would be. Obviously they should be able to light their signs. I'm not saying they can't light their signs from either a backlit style or a casting light style, but I just thinks we need something to say some sort of I don't know if somebody anybody have any experience where like those little amount of lum amount of lumens per square foot or something is considered normal. I have no idea. I've

never built a sign in my life and a wall sign outside of my I mean understand the issue because the other issue where I mean is it you know is like 10,000 is a thousand lumens per square foot. So that's a magical purpose. We have illumination levels outlined in the lighting standards. So architectural lighting, canopy lighting, multifamily parking lot lighting. Um so there's minimums and maximums allowed in there.

So is it so can we not just pull that forward and stick it in the mud district definitions? So we could refer to the table. Um but like and then the maximum illumination levels foot candles measured at the street as an example was limited to five property line of non-residential use as a budding residential or residential district.5. So yeah. Yeah. But there's no property line in here. There's no not between residential and there is it's one. But those those parcels are parcels out there. There's parcels individual parcels out there. Yeah. So it would be the point. So yeah. So we So do we maybe just So you're saying we could just say in that

that's uh section refer to that table. We could refer to table 3.38 is table 3.14. So can we put that into clause of the district and simply say lighting standards will adhere to right whatever those tables subject to lighting maximum illumination levels table outline table 3.14 yeah whatever so we get the right table

because this to some extent we have a unique problem in the mud district wherever we have commercial and residential butdding up against each other and unique zoning classifications. We have some fairly stringent considerations. We discovered and to my mind to our horror that when we put a hotel right next to the town homes, we had no buffering rags that we can enforce. Right now, to their credit, the developer proposed putting 18 ft for hedges. But I think we're going to run to this problem more often where we're creating intersections of commercial and residential. sort of in the name. It's in the M. It's in the M. It's mixed.

Yeah. So, yeah, we don't have the hard delineation between a non-residential and residential because they're mixed together. It's sort of the point, I guess. Part of the It's part of the point, but you know, development, right? So, I guess I would say if the table seems to stop that the pos it sort of limits a a possible irritant to a residential uh person, then I'm good with that. All my concern is is that there's sort of an upper limit that it would not become an eye ear intent to a res a resident because I know you're saying it's okay.

No, no, no, no, no, no. I was say I mean forcing these type of things in Wilmington, North Carolina, right? folks who move downtown Wilmington after they new building was built, they would move into a mixeduse building and then complain about the restaurant below them or the lighting that's emitted from, you know, but they're in the middle of they are in a mixed juice. We have a somewhat different challenge here in that we are imposing a mud district after residential assets and that's I mean the people from high market who came in here with their hair on fire because the hotel I get it you know I mean the hotel wasn't here and then they bought their town home.

That's why I like the code to be sort of specific enough to where you'd say if they somebody says boy that sign is bright. It's shining right into my bedroom. you can look at and go no it's 0.5 candle power at your they meet the code you chose to live in an area where that kind of not like well it was part of an improve the vagrity is kind of gone yeah you know at your property line it's whatever number I said I think you said.5 candle power which is x lumens I forget the conversion at the in my mind right now but there's a conversion the you can stand there with your phone with the light meter and you can actually measure right there and say it conforms.

It's five at the street. It's 0.5 if your property's adjacent to right. So, so that's as long as it it's tied that way, I'm good. So, you can go out there with a light meter and say it conforms. Or if it doesn't conform, well, sorry we missed it. It doesn't conform. I need to fix it. Right. Yeah. And and this is an area where I have much more expertise as an audio engineer. We constantly had to do decibel ratings to adjoining properties. So, I think if you build that into the code, hey, if it's 70dB at the property line, you chose to live here. It's 70dB. Get over it. Um, I think you can do the same. This sounds to me like the same. Okay. So, for that sub paragraph five, we're just going to add a reference.

Yeah. So, to the appropriate table. So, what I turn was internally external eliminations permitted subject to and then a strict I'm striking approved lighting plan. He's saying subject to the maximum illumination levels outlined in table 3.14. Table what? 3.14. 3.14. I think that nails it. Thanks, Ron. Ron, are you comfortable with that? Beachy. I live for these moments. All right. So, then landscaping is just copied from the other

copied from other codes. Yes. Um, and you notice that was that was something Kelly and I talked about aftering the process. I don't think I don't think she intended to leave it out, but she wasn't thinking about including it. So, um, she was comfortable with keeping that in there. Um, C is the monument signage per individual parcel. So, think the, um, Bank of America, the Bank of America. This sign here, is this equivalent to their existing sign essentially, right? Should be. Yeah. So 8 foot high only 48 square feet.

So currently I mean they really could have 64 square feet per the current code the non-residential. So they're limit based on her inventory 48 square feet. She was comfortable with going to 48 square feet for the smaller because you know they're going to be smaller lots internally most most of the time. Um and then the landscaping requirement

is there any I mean given this content issue I mean one of the things that makes a market square and a wayfair work is it's kind of a thematic consistency to signage. So no matter where you are, you know you're in I guess the only way is that we can encourage that by the developer. I'm sure if they remodeled their sign, but we can't pick a certain style, right? You're going to pick a style sign. Yeah. Yeah. I would not I would be as regulating like a common signage plan and All right. That's just I' I've administered a code like that way before the reverse

just like Seat Trail did when they redid their signs. They got they picked a a style and did them all the same. Right. Is this part of her application? Yes. Okay. Yes. That was her inventory based on the map. And I think that kind of lifts the ambiencece of the neighborhood. I mean, it certainly makes Sea Trail look a lot better because those signs were falling apart. But so in C, which one? C. What? We were just talking about monument signs for street frontage. So that street frontage, is that a private street? Is that a public street? These would be internal, right?

Right. We It's That's the reason why it doesn't say public or private. It's just a street. So by definition, it could be public or private. Inside the district only. Inside the district. Do we need to specify that? Well, but some of the I mean, are they outside? Well, they're they're at the perimeter perimeter of the You have perimeter perimeter, right? Yeah. They're inside the district, though. But they're inside the district. Yes. But all these signs would be inside the district. Okay. But you may have something that's along 904 179 that could have a monument sign. Is there but

when we say when we say inside the district is there because now that makes me a little nervous because technically any signage along 179 and 904 could be inside the district. It is when I say inside the district is zoned. It be on property that is zoned and you're not going to have a sign the right of way. Okay. That and when I said like in the 179 or 904 right of way that's not zoned excuse. Okay. their signage will be on their property that are zoned mixed use. Okay,

that's what I mean by that. Perimeter internal, maybe internal is a better way. Maybe um but but you have potential signage already that I mean and these are relative and these are relatively low and they're only eight foot high, right? Yeah. So, yeah. So, like the Bank of America you'll see is sign four and it's a long seaside there. Right. Right. So that'll be a monument sign the sign on the right hand side there. Right.

I guess my question is if if there's a monument sign at public street or an street entrance off of a major highway. They have two monuments there and then they have a business right next to it. Then they get another monument. The business could have a monument. Yes. So we could have three in short six. Okay. Yeah, there is a possibility. Yes. Okay. Um what about uh on that question?

I was going to add to yours about can you do something about separation of monuments? separation of this like can't be closer than or must be separated. Yes, you could. That is an option. I don't know if there's any I don't know how they would comply. I mean, I don't know what their separation is now is what I mean by when I say comply. I'm not sure if they're 100 feet, 50 feet, 200 feet. Guess I'm not that worried because these are so small, but in comparison to a regular thinking if that's an issue that might be a way to I mean just looking at the map spread them out so to speak.

I'm just looking at the map there. The Bank of America sign which is sign four far right hand side is right now separated from signs one and sign 14. Doesn't mean they couldn't have one on the food line entrance just south of line of sign. Right. But sign but the Bank of America is it own piece of property is my understanding. So back to this these monument signs for individual parcel. Yes sir.

On the sheet that she submitted that's got the whole tabulation of everything. Mhm. She's got the Bank of America monument sign number four listed as 16 ft height and 64 ft. That's the current UDO allows that. Her her size existing is 5.4 feet in height and 83 wide by 41 48 square feet. Okay. All right. Just wouldn't sure where these UDO numbers were. Right. No, I got you. So, yeah, that's I just wanted to make sure I'm thinking of the right thing.

Yeah. Yeah. Her UD the UDO number shown in this column was what she and I were interpreting would be allowed for those types of signs. That would be current UDA not current UDA. Yes. Yes. And then her existing or the existing signs out there, their size and where some of these numbers are coming from the size, the height, the numbers, etc. Okay. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that earlier.

I got I got confused with her submittal and proposed And I that's Yeah. And there there is some difference because look at her proposal. There's things in there I felt like we just couldn't carry over. Yeah. There was a 25 foot height that didn't get carried over and which was going to have a hard time. 25 foot height. There also things like um some of the Yeah. tenant signs, changeable panels, multi-tenant grouping, those things that I felt like just wasn't things that we could we should be enforcing. They wanted in their bylaws all day long. So what we're talking about is

why we're mentioning that is will they have a master sign they don't have to do anything but they not this would not require them to submit a master sign plan to us back here. So we would be looking at it individual. So as an example they want to come in and change out all their monument signs entrance signs then we would likely see a plan of for all of them because I could they're not going to do individual. But if the Bank of America wants to change their sign, the Bank of America would work with the town on their signage and we would pull this code, see how they comply with that, right? So I imagine that the developer or the owner would want to do some semblance of of master. While we're hiring someone, we're going have to do all of our all of our signage.

All of the monument signs were owned by the village itself property owners association. So they're going to work probably have them all done at one time or they have I mean technically they're an HOA. Do they have their own regulations that govern how they work? So colors and fonts and all that stuff is in there. bylaws

there. There's both the bylaws for the POA and uh in addition to that um that has carried over for as long as I'm aware. Um there is uh used to be an appendix in the UDO that was the streetscape design guidelines and that is what we use uh with the architectural review committee for the POA to um make sure that colors textures uh are in coordination with the overall vision of the village. So we to understand that part of the initiative of this UDIO change is your hopes or the POA's hopes to redo the signage and freshen them up so to speak.

The impetus for this was because when we realized that one of our signs probably was nearing the end of its life and needed needed some work that we couldn't do anything with it because it was not allowed at all under this rendition of the UDO. So when the UDO was updated, um probably twothirds of our signs became non-compliant. So this is so that we can basically keep what we got. Uh because a lot of the monument signs are made out of materials that would be so impossibly expensive to replace them. whereas uh refacing them or you know remarking them or just updating them uh would be much more convenient but we can't do that currently.

Is that am I probably with some of them? Yes. Yeah. With some of them. Yes. We've not had specific on on all of them but there's some of them probably. So this is primarily going to refresh what exists rather than replace. That a fair statement? I I would for when it comes to the to the to the large monument signs along 904 and 179, those are made out of concrete and stucco and brick, right? So, yes, that would be my assumption. Um, granted, you know, the wooden somebody has to pay for them, so there there's that, right?

Uh, but um but the wooden signs that are internal, Doc Street has one, the one at the roundabout. um those may be reconsidered for uh what the structure is. Um and uh and this one actually doesn't even accommodate all of the tenants in the shopping center currently. So by adding an additional sign, you would be able to accommodate existing tenants and new tenants. Is that what I'm understanding? Um not every tenant is entitled to a sign, I don't think, on the on the road, but but we try and promote as much as we can. Okay. Uh this particular sign which is at the roundabout

that is a essentially a tenant identification sign or it's a monument sign. It's the additional monument sign and we um looked at possibly having additional ones for the intent of as you go further in to to be able to do that specific but this one's specific to the shopping center just like Doc Street has one specific to Doc Street. Right. Okay. I mean, I'm not in love with this theme, but they are thematically consistent, and I think that's what's important. I'm pretty sure that's there as long as the shopping center's been there. Yes. Yeah.

We uh the the current owner inherited a lot of what uh what's there now from when it was Seat Trail, when it was owned by Seat Trail. So, a lot of this predates. And when was that transaction conducted? 25 years this year. So that's 2000. Yeah. Okay. Who knew? Right. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Kelly. So D, we're talking about the wayfinding directory signage. Um, two opportunities here. one would one opportunity or like the freestanding or monument style signage looking at D1

is it way fairing or wave finding I'm calling them wave finding I don't know that I I use wave finding down here and okay we're fairing on the um I guess we should change I don't know which ones we don't know which one's we know which one's appropriate in the sign language we can look it up rather Uh I'm more familiar with the way finding. Then we should change it up at the top then too then. Yes. Yeah. Make that finding. And that was just a my neglect. I didn't catch that. Um

so these are things like I said earlier that would in their vision would be like planetarium this way or hotel this way or whatever. But you know once they're there they can put pretty much what they want to on it. Just understand that. Um, so they could have freestanding monument style tenant directory signs up to 32 square feet per face, six feet in height. And the well the wall-mounted pedestrian scale signs are something that they thought they might would have like on the side of a building that might do the same thing. Um, and then the poleway finding signs. We pulled this one from uh city of Wilmington Mayfair or mixeduse signage that would allow them to have some type of a pole or post. Poll signs in general are not permitted in the town. Just keep that in mind. Um pole signs are based on the definition is has to the the base has to be at least twothirds the width of the sign. That's that's what we call a monument sign. So anything less than that is a pole sign. But in this instance, they could have like a pole sign that would have um not more than was it six feet 12 feet in height and um 20 square feet that if they choose to do that and no more than two per block base or permitted. They could have one on each side, you know, but like you know this block and this block, but no more than two. And then if they do a wayfinding signage, if it's in a pedestrian area, we need seven foot, you know, pedestrians can walk under it basically seven foot and clearance. Then they're not visible from roadways outside the development. Some of those standards were pulled from Wilmington

and working Kelly was was um aware of the Mayfair wayfinding signs and they potentially would like to do something similar to that. No, I think that'd be great. So, that's where those standards came from. A lot of working with with her on those. Any comments, questions? Looks good to me. Looks good. All right. And then wall signs. Um, I think I think this is pretty much what she applied for part of her application. Great. Place on anywhere on the facade up to the roof line. one per facade facing a public street or internal boulevard regardless that's the public that's the street

so that that doesn't eliminate the possibility when you couldn't have it on the back of the hotel you can't have it on but you could have it on the side facing the residential area right well if if it's if the rule is public street privateeer is a private road so the hotel should not be allowed to have a sign on the Right. It says public straight or internal boulevard. Internal internal privateeer is not a boulevard either. No. So you couldn't have one on the back of the hotel. Yeah. Which I'm happy with. I don't What about the What would I side? Sanctuary side. So you're talking about the sanctuary side? No. Left side. Condominium side. That's the privateier side.

Correct. Privateier side. That's the back of the hotel. They couldn't have one there according to this. Then on the sanctuary side, there would be a piece of property between the hotel property and sanctuary. So it's not a street or boulevard, internal boulevard. Yeah. Right. So they can have they can have signage up to the roof on manta ray. Manor and high market and high market. So two sides. Just thinking devil's advocate. If something's I mean they don't actually have the frontage on Manoray. Well, that's the front of the hotel. They're going to have signage there. The I mean they're going to have a monument sign. Can you go back to the map?

Yeah, go back to the map. They're going to have a monument sign on the entrance. That where that 5.2 acres is, right? Right. Yes. Yeah. So, they're going to have a monument sign. No, we're talking about the wall sign right now, but Yeah, I know. They're going to have a monument sign coming into that entrance. The wall sign on the side is going to be somewhat redundant and people are going to know it's a Hampton in suites, but we can't really enforce that in code. It's a public third. It's a

You got that issue with any sign, you know, any business in town's got a sign on the wall facing the street along with a monument sign out front. Now would that sign do we restrict that sign in terms of it being back lit or lit in any way? Signs, wall signs. Well, there's no there's no there's no no requirement. So they can light it if they want. Correct. And but we but we would still be under the Did we just split the difference in our size thing here on purpose?

We have two size standards, right? based on their distance from the main roads and our other districts. Right? We have the one square foot per two linear feet and then we have the larger one and a half if they're back 250 ft. But it looks like here we just put put it in the middle that on purpose the 1.2 square foot. Um, do you know what your rationale was on that? I didn't really I didn't really I didn't make any changes on this piece. No, because we went through this for the what was it? Dollar General store, whatever it's called. Yeah. Yeah.

Uh, her wall signs were originally only one square foot per two linear feet of building frontage and and shall not exceed a 100 square feet, which we don't have here at all. And then because they were so far back, we expanded our allowance to be 1 and 1/2 square ft for every 1 ft and 200 square foot maximum. But that that distance is based on the roadway. Distance from the roadway distance 250T wall sign including glass areas for building with a front setback greater than 250 ft. It's the setback.

Well, here in the doesn't apply, which Well, it is a parcel, right? Yeah. Well, here in the mud district, I mean, that that setback I mean, in a perfect world, that parcel is going to be split in half and at some point there's going to be additional commercial development along that roadway. So, does the definition based on the roadway no longer really serve its purpose when we we put new commercial development between the roadway and that sign? It's the set back. So their partial line, they're only set back and I'll number the numbers. They're probably set back from their lot line. That's that. So the setback is from the lot line, not the road. They always are. Okay.

But so they're not. So okay, I don't know if they're I'm trying to remember the drawing, but you got the parking lot in front of the So they're set back 100 feet or something from their lot line is where the building is facade is. I don't know the exact figure anymore. I don't have the drawings. So, so we're saying because in that case we're we're we're going up from one square foot per two to 1.2 and and I don't I don't see an issue in terms of the signage in front of the hotel facing the parking lot. I'm more concerned with the signage facing the back in the residential area and how do we create ordinances that I mean we do have the lumen pollution guidance from what we just incorporated. So if it's above a certain lumen at the property line they can't do it.

So the light the so the same lighting standard should should apply to the to these Walmart signs any right. She just copied that line. It's got a cramp. Sorry. No. Okay. Was it because of the lighting standard? Uh, so we can just copy that number six from over there to the same to control the uh lighting to their property line. No.

So wall and I guess the other my other one comment on the wall sign just we're saying up to the roof line and that to me means exactly equal to the roof line or parapit top and that doesn't quite seem appropriate to me. It should be a little bit below the roof line. You should see some of the facade. I just don't know how to write that other than say I I don't think anybody would put and I certainly don't and we and I don't know and I don't want anything ever above the roof line or the parapit line.

Yeah. So, in my mind, the the the whatever, let's just say the the box on the wall, whether it's a box or just offset letters or whatever, there should be visible facade to the parapit top line or I just don't know how to write that in here. I'm assuming they would probably do that anyway. Yeah, because they're not going. So, 12 inches below the roof line or top of the parapit wall. Is that what I'm Is that the bottom of the bottom of the parapit wall? No, the top line. Yeah, it's the top of the roof line. So, if you have if you have this is the the parapit wall, your box when it goes just a little bit bel or the sign,

whatever you want to call it, the sign because sometimes they're just offset letters. They don't have a box that they're in, but is is one. You want to see a little bit of a gap from that top of the parapit wall or the or if it's a flat or if they don't have a parapit wall if it's a right like a foot down. I don't know if that's right. 12 in sound reasonable. I don't know why. No. Wait. No. We're talking about signage being allowed on the parapit wall. This as written. This would allow the sign on the parapit wall. Yes. Cuz you can't tell the difference from the outside. You're not supposed to. You bubble. You just see the wall the top. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Whether the roof is right there or the roof is as long as that's below that

only facing public thorough affairs and not residential communities. Well, we don't see. I think I'm okay because they they're going to want it on the front. They're not going to want it on the back because there's nobody back there but their neighbors. Okay. Waste of money. It'd be a waste of money. Yeah. But I mean, if if we're trying to get this as a matter of ordinance, then Well, it says internal boulevard, it can face an internal boulevard. So, it's a private street, but privateeer is not a boulevard. Correct. Boulevard is a main connection between but let's say we have that language

let's say we have the same set the same issue in something that's adjacent to um could we ever have that maybe not maybe not yeah I mean there is some not really well and also let's we don't know what's going in other big parcels there could be another multi-story for you. I mean, under existing code, forget the hotel, you could still put a a 50 foot threetory office building in there that someone chooses to do that, a medical building or something, right? Too. So, but in the future, could we have for they might already have plans, but that's not

could we have in parcel 6.62 62, a four-story doctor's building adjacent to five multifamily apartments where this ordinance in terms of pre preventing light leakage into the residential area that's now adjacent to the fourstory doctor's office. Does this by ordinance prevent that from happening? Yep. Okay. Then in this case the wall sign is limited to in your example manoray and high market right the same as the hotel.

But in the future were we to create a boulevard along that 6 and split that 6.26 acres in half. One of which is residential one of which is commercial. Does the ordinance now cover that? Because now that would be a boulevard might even be a public street. They if they created a private street that split that property north south, okay, or you know, ran it ran east west, right? Then technically they could probably put something like that but they would have to create a street and and it would have to connect to other points and at that point now it's you've created more separation between the use the road creating a bigger

and I'm I'm I'm a little more comfortable if if if you choose to live in the residential area with the signage already there well that's you're it's not up to us doing that the residential houses can be put up first and then the office building later. I mean it can go that way. I don't know what's planned there at all. So it may but it is a mixeduse zoning and I guess I don't know why we why are we using the term boulevard? Is there a definition for that? That's we don't have a def we could we could say a term but private road then that potentially opens up privateeer. Yeah, that opens up privateeer and then boulevard implies but we don't if we don't it imply but we don't have a definition. Well, the boulevard implies it's a it's a connecting road between two existing roads,

right? Which that probably wouldn't be. So, do we need clean that up a little? Internal connecting street. Connector road or something like that. Street. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, I'm sorry to say that's not my definition of a boulevard in my mind. Yeah. my mind a boulevard is like a parkway with multi mult with a median. Yeah. I mean so it could be where you come from what is generally termed a boulevard or a parkway or so maybe we should say internal connector road.

So when we do this and in line with that so public street or private internal connector street or road connector road. How's that? Yep. Okay. Connector street. Okay. Well, I thought my definition of boulevard was good. Okay. Uh, it sometime is geographic. Geographic. What do they call geographic? Just a

Yeah. No, it's not. California, right? Yeah. Okay. Oh, Sun. That's Sunset Boulevard. The one in California. Yeah, the privateier does loop around the other. Well, I'm not sure I want to let Google define private loops around. That's a story for another day. I'm a little worried about the connector because it does connect.

Yeah. Can I see your map there, Ron? You said I I I'm not picturing the road precisely how it goes. private tier connects all the way around. It loops all the way. Just as information, all of the internal roads are private. Yeah, all of them. So, um even though they are public access roads and privateeer does technically connect. Um, but uh I mean I I would say not about

we we clearly understand the intent and and don't want to nobody wants to make anybody mad, right? We're not but also you can't guarantee that these guys are going to own the majority of this forever or that I'm going to be here or that any of you will be here. So I understand the the discussion. Um, and I'm fine with whatever definition, whatever word you want to put on it because we understand the intent. What if I mean there's a lot of commas private internal non-residential streets. Yeah, I think that's what we really concerned with the residential part. Right. Right.

So that that may get it. Um, not to argue no residential use of the road. Not to argue your point, but High Market does become a street that travels in front of Dock Street through residential, but not in that area. But not not at that point, right? Is it? Well, it's because there's residential and privateier, right? Yes. So, it already has an existing residential use or access.

Yeah. I will tell you this that just a portion of privateeer appears to be a parcel or like a like what I would say like a designated piece running north south which is the one beside the hotel zoned by Doc Street at Seaside Villas HOA and then the piece funding between the town homes and the other homes is not listed as part of the total. Never mind.

Privateier has their own POA. um those little houses, they they have their own POA and that POA is who is responsible for bringing that what was a back alleyway up to standards to be a road for the postal service and every emergency vehicles and everything else. All of the other roads are owned by the POA um including the road that runs in front of Dock Street. Privateeer to my knowledge sure is the only internal road that is not owned by the POA but by the village at Sunset Beach Pa.

We definitely can't write that in the code though. We can't write that in code. No. What if we just left Boulevard type street? And if you look up the definition of boulevard just like she did, it's a wide street with, you know, trees and point to Sunset Boulevard. And can't we just can't we just use roadway on that internal roadway on that rather than boulevard? Or just take that whole whole sentence out there. Just say facing public street and don't even have the or there. Well, we don't want it to say just public street cuz they're not public streets. Yeah,

they're not public streets. If they're going to have a public street, we don't want them to have a sign on the back of the hotel, right, facing that street. We're trying to prevent that. Can we just say that not visible from a residential area? No, that would be like too much. Yeah, too much. Yeah. Stump on this one. Four stories up. They're all Yeah. Uhhuh. Do we have

could say serving only residential uses? High market doesn't serve only residential uses where private tier only serves residential. Yes. So one sign may be pursed permitted per facade facing a public street or an internal private internal street. private internal street that own that that serves residential uses only only residential access that does not serve only residential

yeah that does yeah the opposite they're allowed on a road that does not that does not now it's going so private only serves resident there's no future use of it no developed it's all developed okay that that may be the way Get it? So, they can only permit it on a public road or I've written may permitted see facing a public street or private internal street that does not serve only residential uses. I think that works. That might work. That would regardless of tenant access point.

That's it. Sure. Any other questions on this? Okay. So, that we're going to adjust to make sure it's a foot below the top of Yeah. the top. One foot below the top of the top. And we're going to change the facade facing the public and Uh it can't be a only residential road and you meant to bring over the light

and then I guess the last you bring the light standard in and again we're just settling on the the 1.2 square foot per foot and just let it go at the single standard. Yeah, that's big enough for what they think they need.

That wall's going to be a pretty good size wall, linear foot one side facing right. And but also we and normally we give them a maximum limit like it's 100 or 200 f feet. Do you need to add some limit it to the 200 f feet or something? Because on both the other ones and the the existing UDO it's it's one foot or two one square foot or two say not to exceed 100 square feet. That's that's one and then the other one is one not to exceed 200 square feet. Yeah. Because it's one and a half square feet per foot

per foot. So that means it would be we did this math the last time 100 foot 100 foot building based on 50

we were we were concerned on the real long facade fronts that they get that's why you put the 200 foot limit. Should we put the 200 foot limit there too? 200 square. It can't see 200 square feet. In other words, if you got a great Well, we had the discussion. I'm trying to remember because he had a long frontage. So, the one and a half foot gave them a higher we wanted to give him a higher sign but not go the whole length. So, we said, "Well, you get the higher side but not more than 200 square feet total." You get where? why that happened. So like on this building, I forget how wide this facade of this building is, the Hampton probably fairly wide, right? So much private plans.

So in other words, if it's got say 200 foot of frontage, they get 1.2 times that 240. So if it's 400, then they get 1.2 two times. Not likely to happen, but but that's why we put the 200 up to a maximum of 200 square feet in that you get the taller, but you still can't have an area more than 200 just because you got a big frontage. See what I mean?

What I was looking to see if they had a measurement remember their their facade is broken in two, right? Because they got the entrance way canopy thing in the front. And there's like two facades left and right. But I guess the question is is if we just apply the 200 square foot maximum that does it. That should be plenty I would think.

Or is that too much? I don't know. But that was that was the point of adding those maximums is for buildings with long frontages. they get a taller sign that they could see from the road, but it there's still some limit to how far you could go because you're still in this case if we're at 1.2 200 ft divided by 1.2 your sign length is. Well, I guess I'm concerned that too much. They wanted 1.2 and they already done the math on how big the building was and how big their sign was and they needed the 1.2. No. Uh,

I don't want to cut them off if if their sign is set up to be 220 square ft. I don't I can pull up the regulations um for that particular brand, but they'll take what is allowed. And uh a lot of the numbers that I came up with like in this instance uh were either from existing measurements and but in this case it was a compilation of UDOS's from lots of different areas that had a planned unit development within it. Okay. So, so based I mean at one point two square feet per linear foot it is

that lot and no more than 200 ft total that allows them 166 feet of sign. That's a lot. I mean that's I can't believe they're Well, you'd be surprised. You don't have that picture up. I have a picture but they don't have the Well, how long is that? They don't have the length. But if you're looking at the front, how long is that facade? I don't think it's They don't have a They don't have the length. They don't have these They don't have these measurements in the parking lot. Was looking at this one thing spaces. Well, why don't we put it that way? And somebody could come back to you in an interim and say that doesn't do

because they originally had a picture of it. If you remember, we took they took it off because we didn't know what we were doing, right? So, I just believe that that's that that wasn't anywhere near 166 ft long, but 345. What is their total building length? Yeah. 200. If you're looking at the if a parking typical parking space is 9 ft wide and there's they're showing 16 spaces I'm figuring they can probably put another well maybe not maybe it's 20 but actually what I'm saying Ron you can go back to the original version of that drawing I have that

and you can figure out what the intent was their intent is that but the issue is I don't have measurements of their sign nor do I have measurements of the length of the wall right yeah but you parking spots in front of it. Is this right? And that's what I was and the one that they showed a sign on, you could figure it out. Well, there's no parking space. There's no space in here is my point. So, they got six. There's seven here and six and nine there. So, that's 16. And you probably got another seven or eight there. So,

it's probably six spaces, but we also don't know the height that sign. I guess I'm just concerned. 200 square feet is a lot for a one-story building, a two-story building. When you get to a four-story building, those signs have to be really large to project. So, but I'm thinking we add it now.

I don't think I I guess we're getting to the point where we're going to pass this or we're going to get a final version next meeting because I don't think anything's happening over there at the moment. And I think you I agree with your assessment. We probably should have a maximum, right? I'm just don't what's the right number? But if we re if we make all these corrections and and bring it to us at the next meeting, if there's an objection to a specific mathematical number, it can be changed before the final vote. Don't you think?

Yeah. They're not in a hurry. I don't think anything is my sense two. I think I got it. Um, eight years as an audience. I should know how to turn a microphone. Help. Um, my sense of mixeduse district is that wall signage tends to be somewhat more subdued because they tend to be in a concentrated area. It's not like I'm trying to get my sign message through. I mean, because in the case of the Family Dollar signage, which we keep, you know, that that's all the way back. So, you want somebody who's driving on the road to be able to look and say, "Oh, okay. That's a f, you know, whatever a family dollar dollar.

But I think in this case, it's the same intent. They want to be able to be seen from the two main roads so you know where to turn. I know we're going to have a little monument sign, but believe me, as a traveler, when you're on that highway at the exit, you're looking up in the air to look to see where that top of that building is. Somebody turns in Sunset Boulevard, right? They want them to be able to see where So, all I'm saying is, are we in agreement to set some sort of maximum? We want it to be a reasonable and workable workable maximum. I'm proposing we stick with 200 feet now, but in the interim between a final version, do the math. So, yeah,

someone could say, well, we need 220 or 180 is good or whatever and go with that as the final number then. Now, god forbid somebody comes and wants to exceed what we I mean, do they go to the board of adjustment? I mean, what do we do? We could tax amendment again. I mean, they could go to the board of adjustment, but proving a hardship or a sign would be difficult. We could not prevent them from going to the board of adjustment. That would be that's not really they would come to us and say we need a text amendment to amend this. So, I think we want to put the limit and we're going to add the illumination standards which I think limits the eyesore part of it. Right.

But we want it certainly to be seen. I think we want it to be seen from the two major roads. So, we don't disagree with the owner, right? But we just want to put some sort of reasonable top end ceiling on the sign. And we were thinking if they were coming under the current code or in another part of town, they would be limited to the 100 if they were within less than 250 ft or they would have up to 200 if they were within 250 ft. Yes. So I think for this purpose I think we can go with 200, right? is what

unless somebody objects say we really need say say somebody who owns a building or proposes to build the building in there says I really need 220 then you can put and we can discuss it at the final vote and say if that's fine and if it's 220 I think probably would pass what I'm hearing is 200 now we set it at 200 if there's some objections by the applicant uh so you can let us know right because I don't think we know what they anybody wants at we might know at the moment But we don't I don't think we know. So

based on the language that was proposed um they they're aware of it and the applicant is aware of it uh for for the hotel and they don't have any issue with it. We did not discuss maximums but I'm sure that there's not an issue with that. So So we'll let's be to be consistent with other parts of the code. Let's put 200 200 and then and I think in terms of scale

I think overuse causes the batteries to go dead, you know. Well, I mean if if the hotel is fine with it in terms of scale, that's probably going to be the max in terms of what anybody's going to build and signage that would be appropriate to that. So, I think Ron's suggestion is a good one. Let's set it to 200 and if somebody really feels strongly that it needs to be born, let them come and make their case.

I do know that Food Lion recently redid their signage. Uh, so the sign that's on the front of Food Lion is fairly new within the last 5 years, maybe. Um, so I'm assuming that they applied uh or talked with the town at some point for that. So you could find out what those dimensions are. Um, that would be a good because you're probably not going to go larger than that, right? Battery issue. So we'll go with 200. Okay. That's my question. So, I don't know where everybody else is, but I guess I I'd like to I guess see a final version before passing out because I think we've had some number of

somewhat complicated changes here. Wording that even I think Ron two in his head are working out. So, I don't know if there's a urgency to it that we can't address it at the next meeting. Is there urgency? And then they the applicant also can see the final language then too depending on when the next meeting is there's there's no immediate no later than November urgency. The only the only uh true issue that we're facing at the moment is just that we have some signs that might um not make it through another winter. So uh we'll probably be looking at certainly be this year no matter what. So we'll meet sometime and as late well we're going to get that later.

So I think the plan is that the board agree we'll Ron too will create the final language based on a number sort of complicated wording changes here uh the applicant can look at it and then uh and we'll have just a final look at the next meeting and it should be just go to vote there. Stuart, do you think that's okay? Yep, sounds good with that. Yeah, I think that's fine. We need to do I think conceptually we all kind of know what we want to be. It's just before we sign off. Yeah. Clearing up the the words, the language, the numbers. If there's a dispute on a number here or there, they can we can work that out in the meantime. And and that would be Go ahead. I'm sorry.

I was going to say that what you're saying is consistent with what how we would treat any applicant initiated amendment that's continued. I would incorporate the language that I believe based on the direction you guys have provided, but also make sure that the applicant is is aware and and on board as well on that. Yeah. I mean, this is probably one of the most important things that we're going to do because I think getting the mud district right is

I mean, we're pretty much done with in terms of the things that we can do residentially and what's really left for us is how do we guide appropriate commercial development in the areas that are left to us. So, and to give Ron too another cramp maybe looking at our 341 regular nonmud standard should like the aluminum thing some of that being included in that at the same time. Nope. Or not. Just put that put that in your mind a little. In other words, when we get the final language on that, is all our language on non-residential in the other section need any let's just call it sprucing up

perhaps. What else? I'd say how does it fit into that zoning definition, right? And we could do that at the same time while we or soon thereafter. Let me put it that way. Okay.

Okay. While we have this signage up and we have Kelly here, um I'm not sure what the outcome was in terms of the sidewalks that were going to be brought along I market as part of the hotel build, but not being here, I was unable to express my concern that those hotel guests are going to be faced with a half a block trudge through the tundra, if you will, absent someone building a sidewalk there. The response was the developer did not own that property. Uh your clients do. Uh would they commit to completing that sidewalk because it is in the best interests of the um businesses also in that mud district. The hotel does not have a restaurant. And so those good people who stay there are going to want to walk safely to the surrounding commercial enterprises where they might get a lunch or a dinner or a pizza. Um can we get a commitment or um that we can finish that sidewalk all the way to the existing commercial enterprises on the property that Carolina owns. You can't. We So that's not something you'd commit to. Okay.

Okay. I'm eager to hear it. Half of that 5.28 acres uh or a portion actually because it's going to be divided into three separate parcels, right,

is being sold to the hotel. The part to the east or to the right of the hotel um is a separate parcel that will remain under the ownership of Carolina Dreams Golf. Uh however, that does not mean that Carolina Dreams Golf will not sell that to an entity that wants to build either retail or some type of business there. And we've had some discussions with different entities. If we do, we can't guarantee that that entity or that business is not going to need access off of High Market Street, which means we have then ripped up a sidewalk that we just put down. That's the only reason I agree the intent of the village, the entire intent of the village and everything that we've worked on with zoning and everything we've worked on with the planning staff. um to date uh and well predating me um has been to uh have a walkable district. So the intent is there.

Just uh that Carolina Dreams Golf may own it for now, but there's no guarantee for how long they will own. Well, it's going to be a year and a half before that hotel is complete and then in the interim there may be other players associated. I just wanted to get that on the record. I understand the issue, but um frankly, somebody that walks onto that street because there's no sidewalk and gets hit by a car is we're going to have some liability issues and creating a sidewalk, but that can always sidewalk doesn't completely eliminate that either. But well, I agree with you. They certainly brought it up at the last meeting as you know,

and I appreciate It would be nice to that all connected through, but I there's no way for us to enforce it. We can encourage it, continue to encourage it. And well, I just wanted this to be on the record and I understand. I don't know. Is there is there lighting there? Overhead lighting for the road there. So, there's sufficient lighting if someone is walking is walking from the end of the hotel sidewalk to somewhere else there. All of the internal lights, all of the street lights are owned by Brunswick Electric and were actually just replaced. Yeah. Uh to be more modern with LED lights, so they're greater coverage and brighter.

There is lighting. If somebody want has to go out to the what we consider the street to walk, there will be sufficient lighting there. Yes. And um and they do all the time, right? So Okay. Yes. All right. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Kelly. Thanks, Ellie. Okay, so the next item is is Ron one initiated a discussion on the Gateway Overlay district. I sent you guys some of my notes and I guess in my mind this was a continuation of what we did for parking. What we're doing today on kind of enhancing the viability of the mud district was to say why does our gateway overlay district not have a lot of businesses. So, I went through and I just found a couple areas and actually not a lot that I thought could help it a little bit and then asked for every everybody else's thoughts or of course the thought the number one thought to be do nothing. It's all good as it is. Let's move on. So I just like to hear from everybody else and uh any particular order Stuart and we'll go that way maybe. Just can we just get one clarification and this is for my purpose and for the purpose of anybody watching. The overlay district consists of

it's geographically designed 179 and 904 300 ft from the center of the road. That does not include the mud district. The mud district and it does not apply to single family. It's on page It's in this document. Yeah, it's in on it's on page 48 of the staff report. Yeah. Page 48. It's up in the two section. It describes it's a g it's a geographical location which we're sitting in at the moment. Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. So go across. Anybody else's steward?

Um yeah. So you had um a concern about the more restrictive standard shall apply um you know and it's not consistent with the other one. Right. So I think I'm okay with you know letting the standards of the overlay zoning apply you know picking one one one or the other.

Yeah. because that's a that's an inconsistency between what? Let me see if I got my numbers. 3.1 C on page 57 of the UDO says if the standards governing a zoning district expressly conflict with those governing overlay zoning are the more restrictive should apply. And then over on 3.3B1D, it says in case of conflict with the regulations of the underlying zoning district within the UDO and these requirements, the requirement of this overlay district shall govern. So I guess I agree with Stuart. We need to 3.1 C should reflect the same.

This is in the UDO. Yeah. So do we want it to Yes, sir. Right. Did I say that right? You said it right. My guess is Ron that you want the more restrictive language to apply. No, you want the other overlay district. Overlay district. Whatever it is, the overlay district should apply. Okay. Should apply. Yeah, I think that's that's I've got I'll listed the today's discussion only and you guys will provide direction and as I do do a deep dive in based on the direction you guys provide. Just got to keep in mind if the overlay ends up being more restrictive, but they already says that another down zone. It's not a down zone. Just is it a because it already says the more restrictive?

Yeah. And I don't know that I don't know if I have exactly what you sent. So that's that's a I emailed you first. Is this what you me like a couple weeks ago? Okay. Yeah. So I can give you another copy if you want. that that gets us out of the bear trap of down zone by that language.

Cuz right now in one section we say the more well we say the more restrictive should apply in the general zoning and then somewhere else in the in in the overlay district we say the overlay should apply. So if if the overlay is more restrictive, we're making no change. If the overlay is less restrictive, we're upzoning. We're allowing the overlay. So we are I consider this an up zone, not a down zone, right? Yeah, I agree. Right, Ron? Too probably. [Laughter]

Okay, but this is this is right. I'm I'm I'm following. Okay. Okay. On page 16. Wait, wait, wait. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Jumping ahead here. All right. And then I know you got new batteries, but All right. Then you had a question about the why do we have a separate tree schedule? And I can't I can't really answer that question. Why there two separate tree schedules? It's almost like the gateway district. Well, I think is more restrictive. It is that but I don't really understand. I think because it matched I think that got put into our old tree standard

in the old UDO. That's when and we just copied it on the new and we didn't change it. uh is my honest opinion, my recollection with it. So the tree schedule that's here on this page of the U overlay, I believe was like what existed in the old UDO copy and pasted when created the overlay district, they just put they put it in here because it was an appendix maybe originally because it's like three quarters of them, right? So, and my guy there is just get rid of the whole thing and say use the tree standard that we have on but I'm saying it's table 35 36 and 37. Yeah.

So, which would be consistent trees all over. Yeah. Um I'm I'm good with that. note. You had a comment in here about I can we I want to go back to the tree thing. For some reason, I remember red oaks and pin oaks being included in this and they're not on this table. Well, that's what I'm saying. That's what we're saying. This table is not up to date to our Okay, got it. Okay. I I propose just using our is get rid of these two tables and just say use our other tables. Okay. Which are again less restrictive. Correct. Okay. I think if you don't even address the tree plantings at all.

Well, like I say, you could just permitted trees just cable whatever you just take. Yeah. But I think what Stuart was saying though the if you don't have it in the code then the standards apply. The other standards apply. So whatever is appropriate. You don't even have to mention it. Whatever is appropriate way of doing it. My again I sort of going where Lisa was going before. If you're doing something in overlay district, let the town staff just look at the overlay just to see. And if it just refers them to the other table, they just know to go there. Sort of the same thinking as the mud, right? Because it's kind of like a mini mud almost

sort of. But I mean, if as a designer, I would have gone to the overlay district and said, "Okay, what are they asking me to do that's an addition to what I've already got to do?" Right. So, I would have popped down through all these bullet items and if I didn't see any landscape, I'd say, "Okay, well, there's no change to the landscape because these are supposed to be additional requirements. I could be had either way." So, the only thing I could, you know, there's not a whole lot in here that got a lot of teeth. I mean, the only thing that that I could find in here that's specifically not I couldn't find in the code anywhere else is the bicycle parking.

Yeah. So, we have a gateway corridor overlay district for bicycle parking, right? Which is where I brought up the item. Is there any way to incentivize a multi-use path there to accommodate the bicycle? And I couldn't other than the suggestion I made which is allow the push thing back. How do we do it? And I really couldn't come up with a good way. Yeah, I couldn't either because we're not really because there's existing sidewalks there. There's not any additional requirements to give them relief from other than the the bicycle park. Lisa may be able to help here. Aren't we doing something on trying to get a bicycle

uh pathway or whatever boat through there or does it go in front of this district? Shoreline west just shoreline bridge to the park. Right. So this would be the park to park park to the park sunsets park to Calabash's park. Right. But basically the overlay just like starts at the circle or the park and goes this way towards the mud.

So my thought was is there any way to get a multi-use path there, but there's existing sidewalk already and we may be stuck the best we can the five foot sidewalk. There's no way to get anything more than there's the bike lane on the road. So, I'll speak to that in that we were supposed to be doing a land use plan update and part of that was I wanted to do an update to the bicycle and transportation plan and I think we could put a 10-ft path on there for Sunset Boulevard and then it's required on the properties or on the rightway on prop in the rightway

in the rightway. anybody anytime somebody developed a property on there, they'd have to do the 10 foot, but we we could require it in that that study, but we're not doing a land use plan update. So, I was kind of thinking that maybe this gateway thing needed a rewrite when we did the land use plan update because I read through this and I just don't there's just no teeth to it. I really other than the bicycle parking I don't really understand why the lighting fixtures in the parking lot might be a little shorter. Yeah, I I don't really It's pallets. It was created before I got here. So maybe Lisa could help on the Yeah. No,

it was created so long ago. I don't really remember the just of why. But I think this would be a great time with the land use plan update to look at this gateway. I I agree with the concept. I just don't think we have any teeth in this to to make it look any different than the rest of the town. Well, I think when urban design standards were created, which applies to any commercial or three like MB1, the MB2 kind of whether they're on the corridor or not, right? Yeah. A lot of those standards are similar.

Yeah. Well, I I like I like what what Stuart's saying here because for me the land use plan is kind of a strategic overview and the gateway district to me feels a little more strategic than tactical. Uh it's more our wish for what it would look like rather than by ordinance you have to do this. uh which is important because well yeah but yeah the things I'm sort of looking at suggesting is not certainly not more restrictive it's kind of being allowing and the last item of course being the color palette right

opening so basically opening up the tree schedule to our schedule open up the color palette open up which rules apply which is the overlay which is like the three easy things to do right which I think we can do Now, yeah, that opens up that area. Oh, this area for more development. Make it more pal Oh, make the pallet more palatable to development here, right? I don't think we can do anything about the multi- I agree that has to be kicked down the road. I think I think so. Uh, we do require the sidewalk. I don't think we can really do anything else. I agree that Stuart that we probably

I just in my vision would still would like to see then connect the park to the mud. Yeah. Is my long-term vision. Me too. But right now I think the best we can do here is leave it. They're required to put the sidewalk in front and that's maybe the best we can do here. But for now,

you know, make the standards the overlay. Make the trees the same as all the trees whether we put the schedule there or just remove the whole deal. and expand the color palette because I'm not the painter in my household. But uh the color palette in here to me, even me seemed quite boring. I mean, and I I kicked around one. I just went online and found what's a kon a low country color palette is to expand it to some more bright vibrant colors, but I can be had on that, too. So really what I was trying to do is brighten up the overlay district to encourage more development, right?

And doing a few simple things here. We can say no, we'll kick it down the road later. I can I'm not going to die on this cross on this one, but I think we can in a meeting or two down the road at the maybe the end of the year or something. A couple of text changes here. Yeah. Yeah, sort of on to me it follows up on the parking, you know, few enhancements to encourage a little more economic development.

So, can I ask Ron and Lisa, has anybody not built a building in the Gateway Corridor District because of the color or the trees? I've had two conversations with people on potentially building we say along in the in the gateway I've shared the urban design standards. I share the gateway standards. One of them has not come through I think just because what I'm they're not sure exactly what they want to do period. Um I will say that person the the parking seemed to have been restricted with their first idea. The other one I believe um needed to get landlord approval ultimately for what they wanted to do and I don't know that that ever came to that so far has not come to fruition. So um I've not so I've not heard specific trees nor colors. Um, but I will say

getting anybody hurt, Brian. But I will say though, when I was meeting with the one with one of them and trying to explain the gateway rules and the urban design standard rules because they're both apply to that property, right? To me, I wouldn't necessarily there were conflicts, but I was having trouble figuring out how they work together because in a lot of ways they were similar, but I don't think they were similar in every way. Right. Um, which which I understand like you know we pass we purposely passed on that a UDO update sort of and what I have it done because we could get get rid of overlay district completely but there are I'm not sure the council likes that idea of this. Well, I think that's a good idea.

Yeah, but I think they're historically kind of tied to the overlay district. So when we did the UDO, we purposely said we're going to leave the overlay district. I'm proposing a little spruce up and like you said on the urban design standard but I found it's not even in the table of contents. It's there but it's not it's it's for whatever reason it's not a link there. I think we can change online there. We can make it we can it's not in the table of contents that I got. Okay. There is no 3.21. If you look at the table of contents you actual table of contents printed or online printed. No, you're right. It's not. See, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and I was looking

because you know why? Because you told me about the urban and I couldn't find it. You had to go search it. Yeah. Search it. Yeah. So, obviously one of the fixes we're going to have to do is add it to the table of contents. Yeah. There is a three section article 3.21. And then again, and I just said deconlict it with the overlay district. Uh I will say because that's how we got to when we did UDO is that we eventually wanted the urban design to take over but we weren't yet ready to say could it we got rid of the overlay district. We thought that would throw a wrench in the works and what I haven't had a chance to do was side by side right

to figure out where are they consistent or where and if they are inconsistent where are they inconsistent. So my only heartburn with I don't have a problem with changing the trees. The colors give me a little heartburn in that I'm not a color person and a lot of the talk in the urban design standards was complimentary colors and if we open it up to more colors that then could be paired together that might give too much contrast. They talk a lot about contrast. Yeah. So, I just went to what's typical commercial low country Carolina color palette,

right? And again, I'm not a color expert either. Yeah. But it just And I'm not even sure that existing building over there, of course, the subtitles in the printout. Yeah. Meets that list exactly. Yeah. There's no yellows on that list. Okay. So, I'm not sure the existing structures beat the color pallet and obviously this is black and white, but the one I looked at included some of those yellows and seafoam marines and all that stuff. But,

and I will remind you that the 904 corridor study is going on right now. Um, we'll actually have the first public input meeting on October 14th at the community center from 4 to 6 and more information will be coming out about that um with soon as Kimberly could get to her desk and we can go live with that page. Um, that may you all will take a look at that study and approve it, recommend approval to the council. Um, we may be able to use a lot of that to uh put some teeth into the overlay district. Now, when is this public meeting?

October 14th for the 904 corridor study. Thanks. Okay. And that study is going from um Seaside Road Sunset Boulevard intersection to 17. And that's and who's doing that study? and CD dot or who it is uh GATS in the town the grandstand area transportation study group that we're involved with for our no okay um and the town partnered to do that and where is that going to be held uh the community center October 14th yep what time 4 to 6

so one last comment is when I say comments like has no teeth. I don't really want the overlay district to have a lot of teeth because we're trying to promote businesses, but maybe there's enhancements specificity maybe. Right. So maybe there's enhancements or maybe there's other things we can do in here that help them, you know. Yeah. Right.

Right. you you covered pretty much everything I was talking about. But I agree with uh we don't want to be specific in that whole thing, you know, and how do you promote the the growth in that area, you know, right? So by doing too much you know you don't want it to someone come to develop the land and they say they can't do it because you know A B and C you know so

right I wonder if the Gateway corridor overlay district typically has more restrictions I'm kind of wondering if it has less restrictions you know to encourage people but I don't really know in the town of Sunset Beach what's the difference between the gate way corridor district and the non-residential development that's in urban design standards or I mean I mean 179 and 904 basically cover all the commercial there's a no there's other ones trail there's some here scattered here you got B like the urban design standards apply to BB1 as an example

and the conditional zoning approvals that we gave to the two parcels on 179 are they in the gateway yes okay Yeah, they we had that it's in the it's in the that because they're facing that gateway, they also have to comply. But the parcel across the street from the riptide offices are not I just went through that. I don't remember the parcels. I think just the ones facing Sunset Boulevard are okay because technically that parcel edges out on Sunset Boulevard, but the primary commercial development is internal. So, it's a bit of a I won't hold I won't swear to this, but I believe that's not

that's what I thought. There could be a small percentage chance that it is and trying to review those notes and standard is difficult. But so I mean the other choice which is where we were at the UDL right rate is eliminate the overlay district and then work on the unfindable section 2.1 whatever 3.21 that's the urban and make that apply just to everything in town. We had that discussion with uh when and uh when we did it, but we just thought that would be uh too much a little speed bump that we didn't need to throw in a UDO adoption road,

right? But we could maybe after we look at the 904 uh uh study study study is go the way to do it is to just make the urban design standards what we want and merge the two and there is no overlay district your MB1 or MB2 that it's along there and you just follow that and that covers everybody in town. So that's the other approach. Yeah, I could be the issue of So little of our commercial development is I mean there's the mud district which is clearly separate in terms of the rest of it. There isn't that much that isn't on 179 and 90. So

agreed to make these huge distinctions. There is some MB1 or two on beach. Right. Yeah. Right. On beach over on the other corner of the town. Right. And then there's some internal commercial development within Sea Trail part of the conditional zoning which would be exact. isn't on the gateway and then what's on the on the island. Um there's just not much. Yeah, I'm just not sure we need both urban design standards and

but I mean I I am somewhat conflicted here is because it is important that as people enter our town there is a standard that improves that experience. Yeah. give you a consistent look. consistent look and you know we have the issue of you know you know and I realize I'm whistling in the wind here but in the northeast we have an issue of you know uh construction bombs where

so which would alleviate the situation that we have with the um lacuina issue but I digress anyway I you know how do we make sure that doesn't happen again doesn't happen again which seems to me to argue for more restrictions rather than less but then on the other hand we don't want to inhibit so it's it's a bit of a dilemma and I and I and I think why the land use plan perspective is because that's supposed to be strategic guidance do we want to be more restrictive or less restrictive

what's your what's your guys sense where where you want to go with this so we can give staff some guidance even though it may not be taken up until the end of the year or the first of the year. I I I I think in terms of this I think it's fine. It doesn't prohibit us taking another look at this when we do the land use plan. Um so I don't it doesn't trip any box. Do we have a stronger feeling now to either I guess road branch A is do some improvements to the overlay enhancements

the overlay district now or in the short term relatively short term or say no with the idea is scrapping the overlay district and just putting a general urban design standard in that covers the whole town. I certainly don't get in a fight in the council that someone's going to say we don't want to get where so almost want to hear from the because those are to me the fork in a row. Well, the other fork in a row is do absolutely nothing. Yeah, that's one fork. The second fork, let's call it option A is some reasonable enhancements to the current overlay district without removing the overlay district. Well, the the other

or road C is delete the overlay district and make any appropriate enhancements to 3.21D. I think I got the section urban design stand and make that apply to the whole town in general. The other layer of this that informs is starting next year we're going to have a very different council. So, I think I'm more persuaded to let's do something now to embed some standards in the gateway district per your guidance and have that in done and then Yeah, we won't you won't have it in and done. We won't have it done before.

No, we won't have it in and done. Okay. It would earliest would ever go to to the council is January probably. Yeah. So, that won't but anyway, I guess that's the the the guy Well, We'll go down. But I will say to Richard down here to Richard's point, the council has adopted um minimum standards for commercial now. So we can uh the building that you all referenced won't happen again. Okay. Okay. Well,

and what do you think the council would would be if if we took option C and got rid of the overlay district and went to an urban unified urban commercial design standard? You're okay with that? I mean, okay, that'd be a new guy. Yeah. In terms of what you're talking about,

anything. Uh I I don't feel I know enough to say yeah let's do away with overlay or replace it or wait for the land use plan. Uh uh so which you know of those forks in the road you want to take I don't feel qualified to really say a whole lot. I will say sitting here I've been thinking uh I'm very impressed with the details that you guys go into. I mean, this board, I mean, you you scrutinize every little thing, which is good, and it seems like you always are looking for what's best for Sunset Beach, whether it's the business district or it's the residential. So, very impressed. Uh, learning a lot. Um, you know, uh, I'm so new. I just have learned, you know, where the mud district is and where this is.

Did you give them a big zoning zoning map? You have a zoning map. Have a zoning map. Yeah. Did they give you one of these? Um, so anyway, um, I don't have that. No. Okay. Can we make sure he gets one? It's the last one I got. I don't know how I know what. Probably not new. Probably change. Although, maybe we all need updated zoning maps. That probably be good. But it's indepensible to figure out where things are at by the color code here. We're still waiting for GIS to get everything right, you know, with the conditional zonings and and Logan homes and all that. And as soon as they provide you all with

All right, great. And I don't have the 2017 land use plan. U that's on the website. Kimberly, can you Yeah, but anyway, have enjoyed listening to this and uh glutton for punishment. Yeah, but I still got a lot to learn. Yeah. So, I I don't know for I guess for staff now I think my So, Ron too made a comment. I heard overheard

said maybe we ought to do a side by side of the gateway corridor and the urban design standards and just kind of know what what differences are before we launch into you know one of these forks in the road and and if I can add that to whatever we do enhancements not enhancements particular if we any changes we make got to make sure that they do not conflict with that definition of down zoning So I've heard enhancements. Enhancements can be viewed a couple of ways. I've heard the term stricter.

So what we can't do is take anything that's going to be that's when the part of the definition is create any type of nonconformity of land on land not in a residential zone district. Well, I kind of feel like Ron's as part of the definition update gets us out of that bear trap. I think I'm I'm more persuaded now that that's the fork in the road we some some of the things I've heard him mention specifically I think probably that is true but as we look as we start making changes and we want to you know let's require we got to be careful we might not require anything more strict because what I'm getting out than what is currently there. No we're cognizant of that

and Mike when you and I have talked Kevin I don't think you and I have talked much about this either. you know, we'll there's things I need to let you know statewide kind of what we can and can't do and those kind of things. Okay. Yeah. Um so based on what we know today because it could change tomorrow, but

so I guess I guess what I'd like to maybe say is yes, we got to compare our urban design status to our existing overlay or our exist our existing overlay with a few of the enhancements. We seem to be on consensus to be kind of okay with the sidewalk thing is out. So see how that would work out. I can certainly take some of the conversation today and and fix some of the not fix but provide what I believe I heard side by side. you know, depending on when we meet in November, that may be a little more difficult based on some of the other things I

But I would recommend that the planning board itself do the side by side. Oh, what fun. Yeah. Well, I already noted on my email a few things that don't are not the same, right? Won't take long. Yeah, Ruth was one that I saw. Yeah. So, I already in my list in my bottom email, there's a few where I say deconlict. That's what I kind of meant, right? where I found areas where there's some differences. So, I think I forgot I just put my file away. I think it was what roofs the color uh the color palette's the same, right? Color facade roof and wherever possible. Yeah, that's I didn't know what that meant. That meant anything I missed. Yeah, but

I think the big thing on roof I think on the on the roof thing was the urban design standard says no flat roofs and over district does not. Right. So that may be the wrong direction. So that may be something we can't do. But if you but if you put in but if we change conflict where it says the urban or the overlay district shall apply, right? Then a flat roof would be permitted in the overlay in my things you got to think through clearly. But

yes, that's why I haven't committed. But I guess the main thing is I think I want to keep momentum going on enhancing non-residential parts of town because it seems like the residential parts don't need any help. They seem to be popping up on their own and uh uh other than people that actually hammer nails into wood. Uh well maybe but I think we need a little more business and services close by. uh well helps the tax base and makes it more enjoyable if you're close by. So, and of course, as we talked about in the land use fan,

getting around town by bike, walking or ebike or whatever, uh if you go so I kind of want to just at least keep the thought process and momentum going on that it's easy to keep we can push it off to April if you want.

Yeah, I I'm I'm pers I'm persuaded by that perspective. I mean, I was surprised when I look back on the land use plan in the survey. 90% of people wanted more restaurants. 40% wanted a hotel. Since 2017 in terms of additional restaurant plat, we've added two. That needs to change. How we do that open to all all options. Some of these changes it might seem small incremental but incre least in my mind is we keep the ball rolling moving forward and then of course if Ron gets a person coming in and asks a specific question then we you know something might address okay let's everybody's good

yeah I think we're good to next item where am I at the right place here number eight administrative comments the couple things that I or the one thing I seen on table 3.3. Ron, this is small. I know you think on page on table 3.3 on page 97. Is this the UDO? Yes, the the note four is in the wrong column. I noticed it actually last meeting. The height where? I'm sorry. Page number again. 97.

97. What are you talking about now? The little four, the red four in the bottom of that table. It's in the setback column. It should be over to the right one column because it applies to the height. I don't know if we need to do anything formally or you just need to fix it. Yeah, mine is formatted different. So I I don't have page numbers. I only have that's just a fix. You can just fix it. Okay. 3 what? Uh we're on table 3.3 a little different

which is in article 310 dimensional require. It's a dimensional requirements table. The last item is the mud and it was the height change that we made from 50 to 60 for hotel. It's in the setback column. It's not in the height column. Got to put it in the wrong column. Yeah. Okay, Ken. I'm pretty sure it was correct on the ordinance. It might have been. So, I just bring it. We did what we needed to do, but I just noticed that was really not correct. Right.

And the next item is again we're um like they talked about would be unless administrative got any more scheduling. Uh what are we doing on the next meeting? I probably won't be here on 11:20 for that meeting. So Stuart can handle it if he's going to be here. I'll be here. Okay. But I don't know what we doing. Our next scheduled meeting would be October 16th, but I don't think we can do that, right? So is there we won't have anything ready to bring back to you that quick.

You're muted. Sorry, I It's there. I unmuted myself. I thought muted myself. I'll be out of town October 16th and Wes who could who would if he was available be able to fill in but he's going to be out of town as well and I'm out of town as well. If we push it back a week does that help us? No. What if we do it like the second week in November? We have a meeting scheduled for 11:20. So, we're just going to we're going to cancel the October 16th and just do the 11:20 meeting, which I will not probably probably not be here for. That's all. So, make sure we have a quorum. We have a new members so it's easier to get to the quorum now.

11:20. Well, right now schedule I know you what if we moved it right now for November, we potentially are tracking Lumina Fairway site plan. That's going to be one of the seat trail conditional zoning district areas. They've been submitted for TRC. They go TRC next week. Which conditional? Uh subject area 13, I think it was or it's a one of the sea trail conditions up there towards the the champions. Champions. Okay. So, I guess I was planning on going to the uh meeting next week. That's next week.

Uh but I won't be here. probably won't be here for the 20th. So, Stuart, do you want to come to the TRC meeting also? Are we allowed to have two of us? It's fine. Um, no rules for TRC. No, we can never be together more than two. So, we can have Yeah. So, that meeting is the It's next Thursday, 10 o'clock, I think. Now, on November 20th, we will know the results of the election in which I am a candidate. If elected, am I allowed to serve on November 20th until I'm sworn in? Correct. Mhm. Okay.

So, Ron, I was just trying to So, potentially that site plan, if everything tracks like they think it will, we may have the park Majestic Majestic Park. I don't think we'll have Majestica. Okay. All right. So then I have I'm waiting on the tree board. So we may or may not. So can you invite invite Stuart to the TRC meeting and send him all that stuff? Um yes, we'll definitely have the MUD followup. Um it's Ron, you can provide me your feedback. You'll have it ahead of time. Um I think you're

there's another there's two other site plans that are out there that I'm working with folks on whether or not at this point I do not know whether they have to come to this board because I don't know how much impervious service they're showing major site plans are based on the pvious surface if they are 10,000 or more their major site plan they come to this board if they're under that staff has administrative approval and I say both of them have potential to reach that but I'm not sure by vesser engineer to tell me how much that was one of the comments that I've provided in my completeness reviews of those. So just for just

well park was one of them already but there's that was park was one of three that I've had that that question on. So, just to be clear, the conditional zoning that we will now receive a platform is the champions, additional champions building, the multif family buildings. Um, that's the champions 100 105 units or something. I forget the exact number. The champions. Now, is that the one that borders that's the convention the north entrance to Sea Trail or is that the one that's back? Yeah, the That's why I don't know it. Okay. I don't I can show you right after I can show you after the

but it does not include the hotel or any of those strictly multif family um 104 105 units I don't so but you will have to compare it to the older code they're under compare it to what they're under the old code not the new current code there's dirt there now I thought they intra CZ they're the old convention center trees and everything else I thought they agreed to abide by the new tree type rules No, they abide by the tree rules we gave them at the time of signing that agreement. Right. And it's in the way I found it all. It's in the document section on our website archives.

You got to go to the document archives and you will find all the seat trail and that's where I found it too. Ron conditional zoning stuff. It's somewhat difficult. So you got to go back to the old UDO. I will make it easier by providing you that information. But when I when you when the plan comes to the planning board, will you will you I will I will do the fishing for you.

So on the trees, just so everybody knows now, when when that conditional zoning was approved through the planning board to the council, we were in the process, if you remember, of redoing the UDO. So what they agreed to was our section of the UDO at the time that we approved that. So I guess in your mind there are a few subsequent changes to that section that they are not responsible for, but it does look like to me they are adhering to. Okay.

Because I kind of reviewed their plans already. uh it looks like they're adhering to the UDU as it exists now, but their base requirement is as the documents were given to them as a condition. If you go to the archive and find that for each little section, this is 13D, maybe something like that. 13D, you can see the ordinance and the conditions that apply. Okay? And it's extremely confusing. It is because we got to go back in time to the old book and I wasn't here when any of that was done and it's been

so like that thing references a section of UDO 306 maybe the youth standards for multifamily. So it's not this book. You got to get that section out of the other book. Well, I'm more concerned about the tree abatement issues because that to me felt like pretty strong commitment they made while we went through the conditional zoning process. And it does have like a cross-hatch area of protected area that's there. Uh my first review I don't think I had a I think they're doing the land the trees and landscaping correctly on I've had some conversations with them. You'll have to get Stuart a copy of that if he's still

because my understanding is they're already clearing out some of that area back there. So I don't know. I'm not aware of that. Well, that's something I got privately communicated to me by somebody who lives back there. You could discuss that. Could be the golf course cuz the fairway is right there. What is that? Number 17 or number 11 fairway. It's on the drawings. Goes up along that edge of that property. So, there could be fairway there. Okay.

There's a a squiggly line where the fairway ends and the property begins. So, okay. So, I guess I'll turn it back to you guys. We're cancelling the October 16th meeting. 11:20 is on with a list of issues to attend. Stuart will come to the TRC meeting because it's 820 meeting is when you So only two of us can go. It's Wednesday next Thursday. Next Wednesday. You can't go, Richard. You can't go. Why not? I'm sorry. You can't can't have more than two more than two of us in a meeting.

Uh okay. Anything else from staff? I guess maybe the one question as Steuart's going to have is where we stand on land use plan. You read my mind. I did. Well, it's a little out on the back of your head there. I can see it sort of holding itself. The RFP is out. Uh it's due back um October 20th. Is that right? I think it's October 20th. Hopefully going to the council in November u for them to choose the um planner. That'll be do. So, at the 11:20 meeting, there may be directions on it. Yes. Yes. 11:20, I should be able to tell you

who or you'll know 113 if the council awards that project. Very good. Anything else administrative? I don't think so. Um, unless you have any questions. I have a question. So, do we have a formal way of changing meeting dates? I mean, I've been on this for almost two years. And usually we talk about it just like we did today about changing or but the September meeting just got cancelled and I never understood why or

we didn't have any items for September. the only item would have been the signs and they did not they were not in a position to move forward then. So, I had talked with Ron in this particular instance. We were potentially pushing it for the 16th, right? But I knew I was going to be out of town, right? And Wes was not going to be available at the time. I wasn't sure at least wasn't where Lisa. So, Ron and I communicated and I said, "What about the following week been what the 23rd and Ron think you said you would be out of town? So, could we not split it?" That's kind of where October 2nd came from. Yeah. Well, normally normally we just want to stick to the regular schedule if we can. But

that normally in those instances if um if it would have just been at staff level, we would have sent you all an email saying there are no agenda items. The September meeting is canceled. But then when we got into that the Ron wasn't going to be available on the 16th and I wasn't going to be available on the 16th, that's when the conversation then happened between those two. At some point in that conversation, one of you two should have communicated with everybody else. I was gonna say, so there was the breakdown. We should have all been involved in that. I thought you were, but No, I Oh, sorry. I didn't hear that.

I thought the point was we were going to uh I can't think the word that was used. We're going to check with all the other members. That date was good. First I heard of it was when Kimberly sent her welcome email to Mike and said our next October I thought the plan was to take the blame on us. Huh? I'll take the blame on it. I thought the plan was to pull the other numbers first. I'm just trying to figure out, you know. Yeah, that's that's how the process should work. Okay.

Yeah. Because for me it's even though I'm available today, I was out of town then couldn't get the agenda until later and you know it's just I spend a lot of time going through this stuff. So when we have a planning board week I try and schedule you know a bulk of time that week because sometimes if we get site plans or whatever it's a lot of work to go through all that. So, but if I got stuff scheduled already and then y'all move the meeting to the day after I've got all this stuff planned, then yeah,

the rule the rule is well should be what the plan was. Whenever there's a a date considered that's not the regular schedule, we should poll all the members to try to get a consensus of a quorum. Hopefully all but if we just get a quorum, we may decide to go with that. So, we've got to get a consensus of the quorum, I guess, and to poll the members preferably a couple weeks in advance usually. Right to Okay. So, hopefully that'll be our only hiccup. Yeah. Yeah. We haven't had a problem right in two years. So,

okay. Anything nothing else in the staff's all good on everything? Want to mention council did approve the parking amendments. Oh, yeah. I printed it off their website or their just your work was approved by I printed that off. Not much discussion either. Okay. Barring anything else? Any public comment? Hearing no public comments. Uh I need a motion to adjurnn. I so move. Second. Second. All in favor? I adjourn.