Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Some are not. That being said, we'll allow one representative from the community to speak. Please address your name or state your name and sign in at the podium before you speak. We will have a five minute timer all in all. And we will begin with roll call. Phil. Here. Betty Ann.

Here.

Mark. Here. Danielle.

Here.

Sharon.

Here.

Joe. Here. Zell. Here. Paul. Here. Everyone is here. Moving on to the approval of the minutes for July, I'm sorry, June 16th, 2026.

Make a motion to approve the minutes as written.

I have a correction.

Sure.

I'm not listed as being present last time when I was here. Yes. Motion by Paul. Second. Second by Joe.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Moving on. Prefin 2607 Tennis Track. This is Taisha.

This is a request by MB Tennis LLC to subdivide approximately 8.54 acres zoned Grand Dunes PUD. Could you speak up please? Into 31 lots ranging from 11,955 square feet to 6,238 square feet with four new drives. Highlighted in blue is the parcel into consideration. Here we have the aerial view. Here we have the location in the Grand Dunes PUD. Here we have the plot showing the 31 lots, with the largest lot being 11,955 square feet, with the smallest lot being 6,238 square feet. Here we have the landscape plan. And here we have the trace survey. Our zoning officers reviewed the trace survey, and there is no concern. And then here's a request by MB Tennis LLC to name four new drives near Marina Parkway, serving 31 single family homes, Monte Castillo, Valderrama, Capofino, and Villa Itana. Here we have the plot showing the street names. Staff will ensure all appropriate subjects are applied. If you have any questions or concerns, you may advance. Oh, also there is three letters on everyone's side where, letters from the residents of their concerns.

Go ahead. In their request, is there anything in their request that's not in conformance with their current fund standards? No, sir. So everything they've submitted

The PUD, I'm sorry, go ahead. The PUD completely allows a different use of a parcel from what it previously was being used for? Yes, sir.

So legally it's... You're replacing a permitted use with a permitted use.

So to be clear, we're not being asked to consider an amendment to the PUD, whether it be a minor or a major amendment. This is not an amendment to the PUD. What we're being asked to do is to approve a subdivision of this parcel for a different use that's authorized by the PUD. Correct.

Again, permitted use for permitted use.

So let me go back. I was looking something up a little bit earlier. If there's an existing recreational facility, like the tennis course they have now, Do they stand? Can you get rid of them? If you have something there presently, are they allowed to be?

The PUD currently states that each track provides 10% open space and that the overall PUD provides you 20% open space. They go through several alternatives to what that open space can be constituted as. It can be an active or a passive park. It can be a golf course. It can be a tennis court. And so there's nothing that mandates that a tennis court is required. The only mandate is in regard to open space.

And this proposed plan keeps that 10% open space?

Yes, sir. They will still be well above 20% open space just for this track where 10% is the requirement.

Anything from the applicant?

Cameron Parker with Development Resource Group. I'll just add, I guess since workshop, nothing in the plan has changed. We've supplemented this with the ARC letter, the ARC approved plan, the tree survey, the illustrative landscape plan, and then to reiterate the points about open space, the marina tract as a whole has already platted common and open spaces that exceed 15% of the land area where 10% is required. And so there's a large portion of the track that is still to be developed that is under development. And that will continue to add to those open spaces in excess of 10% required. Like staff just mentioned, these open spaces are not prescriptive uses or areas. And so in the past, in this PUD, open spaces have been added and taken away. For example, the Canepatch Par 3 used to be there. It's now part of Seville. Some of the holes that were part of the Canepatch Par 3 are now homes in Seville. The waterfront trail, it's been added in recent years. That's something that the Grand Dunes never had before. The YMCA was added since the inception of the PUD. So these open spaces, they've moved around in the past. This is not novel or unique. And so we're requesting that you treat this subdivision for its merits. Thank you.

Kim, as you know, state code requires planning commissions to inquire as to or to consider any kind of restrictions that apply to the property. Are there any private restrictions in the CCRs for this property that would prohibit or require this property to be used for a TIS loan?

To my knowledge, there's not. To the extent that I'm not an attorney, but to the extent that I am representing an applicant, to my knowledge, no.

You know, has this been brought up in front of the Grand Newsmaster Association?

This has been brought before the ARC, which they provided their letter and plan approval to the extent that it needs to go beyond that. I don't know that that is the case.

So if there was ever any representations As to this being, remaining, always existing as a tenant facility, that really comes down to a legal question, not a planning commission question.

Absolutely. I think that beyond the purview of this board and the substance of this meeting, that surely could be contested. But for the purpose of this meeting, we're requesting a subdivision.

OK. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. As I said earlier, one representative from the neighborhood, Charles Collins, I believe, asked to speak. Please sign in and state your name for the commission.

Excuse me.

We have a lot of defendees. to the remainder of the hallway and we cannot hear the meeting.

She can't hear you out there in the hallway.

Can someone provide some seating so we can join the meeting?

Should we maybe vote to hold this off to another meeting until we get more people, more space? That's up to the board.

It's not a public hearing. We can only speak so loud. How many is in the hallway? Can we just move?

It's on YouTube. It's live streaming.

It's live streamed as well. If you want to get on your phone, you can live stream it.

However you're ready, sir. Okay, thank you. Commission chair, commission members, thank you for all of you to speak to you today on this matter. I'm Charles Collins, the president of the Castile Del Mar Property Owners Association. Castile Del Mar and Center Park are the two oldest neighborhoods in Grand Dunes. My wife and I moved into our home in 2005, and we witnessed the growth in Myrtle Beach as well as in Grand Dunes. In doing my research today, I read a paragraph about the master plan for Grand Dunes, which began in 1995, and the part that the City of Myrtle Beach Planning Department played in the development of that plan. It noted that the design concept combined various non-residential uses in which people can live, work, shop, and play. Furthermore, the paragraph indicated that the master plan is intended to respond to the current needs of the owners and Grand Dunes and will continue to evolve as the developer identifies potential and or additional sites for residential, commercial, and office as well as civic and recreation usage. The applications you're considering today is not an additional site for development. It is an existing site That was part of the additional plan that the Development and Planning Commission worked on. It was presented when the code was approved and is an amenity, a recreational use that continues to be available to Myrtle Beach as well as residents of the city of Myrtle Beach. Many of the tinnitus people, I believe, are here today. It was marketed as an amenity and has continued to be marketed and noted as an amenity. As you mentioned about the Grand Dunes Master Association, they still represent it on their website as an amenity of Grand Dunes. No concept or communication about marketing or being developed in the future in any other manner. The application that you've got before you is a deviation from the original approved PUD in my opinion. It removes a recreational facility without replacing site. It is a significant change to the members that purchased the grand dunes and the hundreds of people that utilize the tennis facility. It's never been noted on any map that I've seen as future development. It was always originally noted as tennis center. Again, it was not vacant land way to be developed, it was already developed. To my knowledge, the intended original developer was at the property with I have one of the original, one of the first ones that I got in 2005, and it's shown at the tennis center. I have another document that was presented to you in 2021 on the update by Grand Dunes Development, on the update on the PUD. It's listed there again as tennis center. No mention of future development as is on the other tracts of land. My point is that the application is proposing to exchange the existing property present in the original PUD from recreational residential. It's changing the character, and more importantly, it's changing the original concept that was put before the city council and approved. I think that's a key point that should be made. And in my opinion, there should be an amendment to the PUD and reviewed by the city council before this goes any further. I think this application is premature. On the legal analysis, I looked at some of that in my research and you can always have different interpretations of what that means. I know the city in 2013 came up with a land use ratio with ERUs and the ERU area of density is increasing this property, which is 11, approximately 11 ERUs to 31. That's an increase in density, depending upon how you read the statute and the ordinance that would require an amendment to the PUD also. There are other areas in the zoning ordinance where this, in my opinion, would require a change to the PUD and an amendment. Lastly, The zoning ordinance order four also talks about these things here as being changes. I have not seen anything related to a ordinance or a PUD amendment that would authorize this tract to be moved to residential from where it is today. So in my opinion, I think the application, again, is premature. In summary, application proposes to change the overall concept of the PUD approved by city council. It proposes to eliminate a tennis facility without replacing the . Over the last 10 years, we have added many residential facilities and homes to the Grand Dunes area without the addition of any additional recreational facilities. Eliminating the tennis facility is not in keeping with the original plan. And as I said earlier, there is no PUD amendment approving such change. It changes the character of the land use, the density, and those are two things that in my opinion require change to the PUD. We respectfully request that the application not be acted on as it is a change in the concept of the approved PUD and it requires a PUD amendment to be before the removal of the tennis facility. And that's where my position is.

Sir, is it your contention that this proposed subdivision conflicts with a recorded covenant that's contrary to, conflicts with, or prohibits the permitted activity?

The permitted activities, there are about seven in the Grand Deans Park. Residential, recreational, etc. My contention is that This was a recreational facility, as I noted here, identified as a tennis center on the original plans, marketed as such. The intent has always been that it was a tennis facility, a recreational one, and it can't be changed without going before the city council.

So are you saying then that there has been something recorded of record in the land records of every county that says that this property should only be used as a tennis facility?

I'm not going to say that. I'm going to say that everything that I have seen marketed by grand dudes, etc., says it's a tennis facility. It was sold as a tennis facility, and it was sold to 1,000 owners of the tennis facility.

So if there's a restricted covenant that prohibits this use for changing from a tennis facility,

And we have to consider that. Yes, sir. But there's not a strictly covenant record that we've been paying attention to when it's beyond our purview.

That's correct.

You would need to look at that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Typically we require the applicant to sign some statement that there's no restrictive covenant that is enforced or that affects the property that would prohibit what they're proposing to do.

They have stated to the best of their knowledge that there are none. And nobody else has said that there are, right?

Okay. Can staff comment any on his comments with regard to EREs?

Yes, sir. Grand Dukes PUD has a total requirement, a total allowance of over 60,000 EREs. The marina track in which this property is located in has a total of 22,000 allowed EREs. Currently sit at about two, just over 2,000. If this project goes through and another project that they have pending goes through, then you'll be sitting at just over 2,100 ERUs. So that's still over 20,000 ERUs that are available within just the marina track alone and over 60 available throughout the whole Grand Dunes PUD. Right now we're less than 6,000 ERUs of that 60,000 in the Grand Dunes as it exists right now.

This question is to the applicant. What are the buffers planned to have properties?

If you don't mind, I'll bring up the illustrious. So you can see off Grand Inns Boulevard and Marina Parkway, that would be an open space landscape buffer. And then on the rear of the, I guess that's Seddon Mots along Marina Parkway, that would be an open landscape and fenced buffer. When you say fence, you mean like a wall? No, not like a wall, like a fence, like a wrought iron or aluminum, black aluminum.

So you're going to be seeing swing sets in the backyard? I mean, possibly. So I've got to say, I mean, buffers, I mean, this is the main gate going into the Grandview neighborhood. I don't think the buffers are sufficient. I mean, you've got, right now with Tibbs, you've got a natural, pretty strong forested vegetative buffer on that side. And now you're putting lots right up against the major thoroughfare entrance going into the Grand Dunes right there by the gate. And you're not even putting up a wall like everywhere else pretty much in Grand Dunes has a buffer wall along Marina Parkway.

And you're not doing that either. I'm not aware of any properties on Marina Parkway that have one.

Well, I mean, they at least set back to some extent, yeah. But, you know, again, this is by the front gate. You know, I don't know. I don't think, if you look at what was there before, the buffers that were already in place in the previous use, you know, I'm not saying that you've got to maintain all those buffers, but you should have more buffers than what you're presenting here.

given historical use of property. I understand your concern. I guess my only point is that the open space buffer on Grand Union Boulevard and Marina Parkway in that corner is almost half an acre. And then, as most of the ARC requires, these lots have significant landscaping. But if it's the choice of this board to require more buffering, that would certainly be something we would interchange.

Well, why does that buffer where it says the deck of the fence and landscape?

How wide is that? Uh, that one in the very bottom of the page.

Yes, the bottom there on the rim.

Any trees showing just a little bit of green. That one is, that's a 10 foot landscape roughly with a, as I mentioned, a fence.

Are you going to have to put like a fence around the retention pond right there up next to the cul-de-sac and buy all those existing Villa Marbella units?

It's not required, but if the developer had concern of some type of safety, they certainly could.

So what kind of separation are you going to have between that building corner and the pond, would you say?

Generally, the building envelope is going to be at least 15 to 20 feet. As you know, there are no setbacks in the bud. In this particular case, you're probably going to have about a 10-foot top of the bank and then a 15-foot building envelope. So you're removed by about 25 feet from the top of the bank. significant concerns is this pond is more or less decorative. There are two other ponds that this would share storm water capacity with in this track. We could make the slips, reduced slips by the ones that are safer. We could do a littoral shelf so that there's refuge at the water level. All kinds of things that we could do if the developer desired for safety.

Any other questions for the applicant? For the moment, I'll see if anybody has any other comments. Okay. Bring it back to the planning commissioners. Make a motion.

My feeling on this is that if, you know, This is a unique property. We're being asked to consider the subdivision of this property. We're not being asked to consider an amendment to the PUD. We're not being asked to consider a change in use of the property. This use is already permitted. The new use is already permitted. All we're being asked to do is to comment and give feedback and approve how the property is being subdivided. And looking at this, This property, I think, is different from some of the other properties that we've approved subdivisions for in Great Needs because it is next to the gate. And I believe for that reason that if we are going to look to approve this subdivision, then there should be greater buffering requirements and there should be greater, not only along Great Needs Boulevard, but along Marina Parkway and up against the Villa Marbella units that are going to be right there on top. I mean, it looks to me like you're going to have condos right next to that lot up there along the waterway. You know, to me, that lot should probably be more open space to have more buffering there for the condos that were built there. And then I also think you should have a thicker buffering area along Marina Parkway and Grand News Boulevard if we're going to improve this.

All those trees between Marina Parkway?

No, I'm sorry.

You're sorry?

Yeah, this is just staff, just planning commissioners, not public.

Cam, what's passive room space?

As far as definitionally or in this plan? Passive green space would be anything that you could call a field. just landscaped up others, farms, pretty much anything. Ponds? Yeah, ponds, pretty much anything that you wouldn't consider a sports field or recreation facility.

So the plan there is it's mostly going to be just grass and some trees around those edges?

Yeah, and this particular plan, yes, most of this is passive open space. It's all passive, is it? What's not passive? I'm sure you could add a trail around the pond.

Yeah, but I mean, Westbury proposes all that. It's just, I mean, what bothers me about this is that this track wasn't so divided to be, I mean, just it's a convoluted site plan for lots. Because you've got a convoluted track that was originally set aside for a tennis facility.

Not exactly. There's three pads that were previously developed for future condo use.

For future condo use, which made more sense because, again, it was set up for that. You know, you're creating single-family lots in an area that was never anticipated for single-family lots at the time the property was originally set up.

Well, and I think that your point really goes to the notion that this is an evolving point. I mean, it was... originally planned for condos, and it just so happened that the tennis club was there before the PUD was established. Actually, the tennis facility was rebuilt after the PUD was established. There was an existing tennis facility, but it was rebuilt. It was in this location. It was in this location. That's my point. It was rebuilt. But it was part of an evolving master plan that's been a variety of different concepts.

I think it's always been the potential city concept since the plug was built. I mean, to be fair. But again, for lack of a restrictive covenant or something like that that prohibits this from being used for something else, I mean, our hands are kind of tied.

Yeah, I understand. Obviously, we present this as a request for a subdivision. I understand the concerns of... you know, the board and the public, but before you today is a co-compliance subdivision that I'm acting as an agent for and advocating. So, you know, essentially the plan before you is what they would like to propose for your consideration.

Mr. Parker, I know you can't make a decision, but hearing some of the things we're saying, What do you feel would be feasible, Mike, that we could improve this a little bit?

I certainly think that additional buffering is completely acceptable to the extent that it doesn't make some of these lots undevelopable. What would be the threshold that you're looking for? As I mentioned, the buffer on Greenwich Boulevard and Marina Parkway, in addition to the right-of-way, we're talking Just the buffer alone is 25 feet wide. The Grand Dunes right of way at that particular location I believe is 120 feet wide. Obviously the great separation necessary for the bridge puts the road significantly above the community. And then the Marina Parkway is one of the older roads with very, very well established street trees. We can add more landscape buffer, but I just look to you guys for what that means and what your request would be.

If this were not part of a PUD and did not have the no setbacks of a PUD, what would be the amount of separation you'd have to have between a multifamily building and a single family lot? The same 10 foot side yard setbacks.

Yeah, and to the extent that there are a wide variety of dunning requirements, if it weren't a PUD, I couldn't say specifically.

So along that last lot there next to the Villa Marbella building, that's a drainage easement of some sort? Is there a natural 10-foot separation there between the lot and the Villa Marbella HBR? In the waterway? That's a landscape level. Specifically for landscaping. Okay, so you've got 10 feet already between that lot and the Villa Marbella HPR property.

Correct. Everything around the perimeter with exception to the pond in the front right corner and the 1, 2, 3, the 6 lots on the waterway have at least a 10 foot level.

And if you were to make that buffer bigger along Marina Parkway, you're going to shrink the size of the lot. I'm assuming you'd be able to get that done.

Is that a benefit? Well, if you required a landscape buffer, for example, that was 20 feet wide, it wouldn't encourage you into the building envelope, but it would mean that you would have a landscape buffer right up to the back of someone's home. Right. But if that would be the request of...

So, here's a concern I have with this whole thing. I mean, this is important right here, the 25 feet. But here, you're going to have all, I mean, you're going to have people's backyards and then these four or five story buildings right here. Everybody looking down on the balconies into these backyards. I mean, that's just, you know, it's, I don't know. But it was obviously not planned out properly to begin with. And, you know, you're kind of replaying it after the fact. Because it would not have You wouldn't have originally developed it that way otherwise.

It's been filled to market demand, but I think that to the extent that you want to buffer perhaps on the rear of those lots, right now we're just We're just kind of spitballing ideas that should be hashed out with the developer and the landscape architect to serve these concerns that are going to come from buyers and not necessarily this board. And so I think that this will be accomplished in the end, but the matter before us is a subdivision without a fully developed landscape plan and things like that that come, obviously, afterwards.

Well, I mean, I think buffers are something that we're before we're willing to give preliminary approval for that we won't address on this particular plan here. I think, you know, I'm thinking about like, what's the what's the community, the Brandings community over there? On Ocean Boulevard and Brandings Boulevard, not the new one, but the one that was there first on his bill. Sipriana, maybe?

That's on the 17th bypass. It was like the first one that was built.

Yeah, yeah.

I think you're thinking of either Castillo de Mar or... Yeah, Castillo de Mar.

So what they did was they put the retention pond and then they built the wall behind that. So the wall followed everybody's backyard. So there was a gate to go out there to the retention pond and to the open space. But what it did is it protected... people walking by or joining neighbors from having to look in everybody's backyard.

You're talking about Ocean Boulevard and Grand Ames Boulevard where it comes together?

Yeah, actually it's Ocean Boulevard and 82nd.

Yeah, that's right.

So something like that. I mean, I could get behind something like that that creates that courtyard all the way around the community with landscaping in front of the courtyard wall. That, I think, at least softens the blow on those Villa Marbella residents that are going to end up having... It's almost a self-contained community. Yeah, yeah.

Because right now, as you're saying, the condos, you can walk right... Yeah, I mean, you're just walking into somebody's backyard.

I mean, it's just, it's not a, it's, you've got a, I mean, there's a, you've got two different units. You've got multifamily here, you've got single family here. And, you know, the plan, if you're going to have multifamily right up to single family, with this kind of convoluted design, you need to have that enclave kind of buffer, I think.

But any homeowner on one of those lots, if they wanted to put a wall up across their backyard, they had the right to do so.

Which would look even worse, because then you'd have all different types of walls up there. I'm trying to create a more aesthetic appeal to the people who have already bought into Grand Dunes. They're backing up to this new community, that if it had been the development we were talking about, it would have been covered. So I mean, that's what I- I would like to see is that you create some type of wall of landscaping around the perimeter. Do we want to then refer to the ARC with some guidance from this board for some stricter... No, I think, I mean, what I would propose is that our approval would be conditioned on putting that wall up. Now, if the ARC doesn't want to approve the wall, then we can just You can use the property for something else or come up with a different solution plan.

I don't know if the developer would entertain that kind of action or if that even is responsible. But nonetheless, the...

I mean, or you can come back and talk to the ARC first and just say, listen, the Planning Commission is looking to see some kind of wall along there like a lot of these other grand communities. And with buffering in front of that, with landscape buffering in front of the wall, and if they approve it, then come back to us with that. That would probably make more sense.

Except the wall, you're talking about lot 23, 24, 25, 26, having it right in between that lot and the pond, correct?

Yes, I'm talking about bringing a perimeter wall around here like this, Around like that. Down here.

Here. Don't you think they're closing people off even more? Because you can't build a wall. The people in the condos are going to still be able to see.

It's going to look like a compound if you put, I mean, I understand what you're saying. I think the way it's set up now, I would hate to be in those high-rises then looking down on all those homes. And I don't think a wall is going to prohibit that. No.

Can I just add one, this all is contained in the private development behind the gate that already exists. So everything in here is part of that sub association. So it's all private gated community. both the condos and the single-family.

I think some of the difference, though, comes in the fact that this was not something that was originally thought out and planned, this entire site. We certainly understand that. It's become a site that you have one use on part of it, which is the condos, and then another use on it. And so that creates a little bit of a challenge to try and give some separation or definition between the two.

I mean at least it keeps the swing sets from from view you know as you know in the parking areas and on the ground level um you know uh for for those condo owners uh yes you're right it doesn't stop from somebody from seeing into those backyards for the second or third level but even the second level with with the with the setback there for a lot of it that would even be mostly um I think ameliorated um but that's it I mean that's And that's consistent with a lot of the other Grand Dunes neighborhoods that have already been developed. You know, the courtyard concept.

Right. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just looking at a plan to try and bring forward a solution that, you know, we can vote on. Essentially, you know, we've got multiple bodies that review this. We've got... For subdivision, we've got the ARC, which is going to review all of the architecture, all of the landscape architecture. And, you know, I think that emphasis on that separation from this board would be received by ARC and developer and put and implemented properly. But I can't say that, you know, we don't have the whole design team standing before you today to design it on the fly, but I do think that you could offer, you know, some kind of statement to that fact and the developer would honor it. Well, the developer controls the ARC, do they not? The developer has delegated it to the association management, so I believe that... And the developer controls the association management?

Certainly they can.

So I think the developer can pass whatever it wants to with the ARC. I don't think, I mean, you're kind of, to say that the developer and the developer are going to work this out the way, you know, it's not really kind of fair to this body.

Well, it's not necessarily, it's a, the required buffers are met. So, you know, as far as the purpose of this body, I'm just trying to work with you to come up with an agreeable solution.

Are you talking about the RC, that's the putt RC, or are you talking about the city?

No, we're talking about the private ARC for the grand dunes. So we don't have any involvement in that. We're being asked to review this subdivision plan based on the things that we're tasked to look at. And one of those things is the buffers, particularly along major thoroughfares. And I think Marina Drive and Grady's Boulevard are both major thoroughfares. and uh you know i i think also with this given the being near the gate like this and the historical buffer that was already there that i think buffers if we're going to prove a plan similar to this plan it needs to have better buffers if some if they were to i i'm personally not a huge fan of those walls i think

But if they were to do like a ligustrum or something like that, what size of it? I'm not talking about little three-gallon ligustrums.

Well, they did that. They said they were going to do that along Grand News Boulevard up next to the Dream Fighters townhomes they built there. And that didn't get done. I mean, they planted some bushes there, but they didn't even irrigate them. At least all along Highway 17.

You know, the Resort Club, the new subdivision, they put walls around that subdivision. Yeah. And it's back up to the main highway.

They're around the entire perimeter. That's what I'm asking for here.

How many units was in that subdivision? I don't remember exactly. Forty-seven. 47? 47. That's not much difference.

I mean, and the acreage is quite a bit less. The other thing, I don't know if we have the purview, but going back to what we heard from the public, this was, before this pub was set up, these amenities were put in there for the folks at Grand Dunes. I guess my concern, my first question was, is is to meet our comprehensive plan for land use for supporting Grand Dugans. There's no other amenities in Grand Dugans, tennis club or anything. So we're going to take all of it away to put Ferdinand Holmes. Now I don't know if that's our purview or not, but that's a concern I have. I mean, this is a private tennis center.

I'm sorry? This is a private tennis center. Yeah. Private tennis center. Yeah, but it is owned by an individual. Okay? There is nothing that says you cannot have two more tennis centers in the Grand Dunes PUD. That's what somebody wants to do. You know, like I said earlier, the only thing that they have in regard to this is the open space requirement. And this is at a tennis center as well as a golf course, an equestrian center, are all examples of things that can be counted toward open space. The only thing that we have to look at is the open space requirement. That's what we have to enforce. This meets the open space requirement.

That's a little bit of a challenge. I mean, I agree with you. It's been there for a long time. It operates, apparently it's reasonably successful. You hate to see it go away. But also, and if that was represented, that's really not something that we can address. That's something that has to be addressed legally and before the law. So as much as I would prefer to stay as an amenity there, I don't think that falls within the purview of this commission. What Zeb was mentioning, he does as far as the requirements.

I understand that. And I agree with Zeb. I think there ought to be some kind of buffering mall. They might not look great, but we need some kind of buffering area. Another thing, too, is the traffic that comes out of that area onto Marine Parkway, or to that main highway of Grand Bougie's Boulevard.

So my concern is that at what point do we stop looking at open space as just like passive greener space? Like, to your point, they're taking away that, but there's no other amenity. So is there a plan to supplement or do something more? Like, that's just my concern. Like, we have to stop getting away from, oh, just because there's just this little area, we're just going to call that green space. Like, that's not fair to the community.

Was the Master Association, was it even discussed with him? I know they are a city, but not the Master Association, so there's no alternative.

I have a question for staff regarding this. If we ask them to come back with a better landscape plan that was already in position to do that, what's before you here today?

The buffering requirements that we enforce at a staff level are only on the perimeter of the PUD. There are no true internal buffer requirements that we enforce from a staff level. The buffer requirements that we enforce are on the perimeter of the PUD. As far as your say about the buffering between single-family residential and multi-family residential, In our underlying zoning code, we have no buffering requirements between single-family residential and multi-family residential. Now, you will see it sometime in association with a parking lot, depending on its proximity to the roadway. But there is no buffer requirement between single-family residential and multi-family residential in the underlying zoning order.

But these are public roads, at least on Marina Parkway is public. Why is there no buffer requirement? Why are we not enforcing the buffer requirements along the public road?

The same reason we don't enforce a buffer requirement on a single family home on Kings Highway or any other residential street.

But if these are common areas to the single family association, is that that's not enforced at all?

But as part of the subdivision approval that we're being asked to give, buffers are one of the things we're tasked at looking at and making sure that they're properly handled.

And, I mean, it looks to me like that. So is that even not common areas along Marina Parkway, Cam, for those lots? So is that just an easement, buffer easement?

Yeah, it's a 10-foot landscape buffer.

Is it? So it will be maintained by the association? It'll just be a restricted buffer. So that's not, I mean, that's absolutely, I don't think that should happen. Nowhere that I'm aware of.

That's very similar to the one that you were talking about earlier on Siena, where they've got that same restrictive buffer, but it's still their property. But there are regulations where they can't cut it. And I think we've even cited someone with a ticket for going in and cutting in that restrictive buffer along 76th. Yes.

Okay, but- Well, Seattle, I thought, has a wall there, right? And a buffer. Yeah. So you're saying that somebody came out on the other side of the wall and cut? But that's the boundary. Yeah, I mean, and that's supposed to be maintained by the common area. I mean, by the association, right? Isn't that common area?

Mm-mm. It was the same. It was a restrictive buffer. They still owned that. That restrictive buffer belonged to that lot. That lot? It's just got the restrictions on it. It's the same thing that they're proposing here. So, OK. It's 10 foot here. This back of this line goes to this lot. But they are placing restrictions that say that that must be maintained at 10 feet. Now this over here that they left here, again, not a requirement. But this is what they left to where this is not their property. This is that. But this is just a restrictive buffer.

So the area along Siena Park, along 76th Avenue, Individual homeowners aren't cutting the grass out in that area between the wall and- But on the other side of that wall, there's the landscaping.

That is the restrictive buffer. On the other side of the wall? Yes. On their side of the wall? Yes.

Yeah, but I'm talking about what we from the road see. I don't care about- I thought we were talking about restricted buffers. Well, I know that, but the restricted buffer they're proposing here is to protect the view from Marina Parkway, is it not? So I don't know why we would want, I mean, that area needs to be maintained by the property owners association, just like the area along Marina Parkway was. I mean, along Brady's Boulevard was.

From all of my experience, buffers on residential lots are not for the people on this side. Buffers on residential lots are for the people on this side to keep them buffered from the traffic, not to keep the traffic buffered from them.

Okay, well, that's a problem, because I think there should be a buffer for both sides.

Just like there is on most other great news communities. It doesn't necessarily make it a problem. It just makes it a concern for you. Well, I mean, I consider the concern a problem, but yes, I understand.

What we really got here is a PUD that was approved many years ago, a huge PUD. that is in existence today. It's reality. They're meeting everything, every requirement. We've gone over everything we can. There's not anything that's presented that is against the actual PUD itself that has been brought before.

We're not being asked to consider anything to do with the PUD. We're being asked to consider a subdivision, but it has nothing to do with the PUD. We're being asked to consider whether this is part of a PUD or not part of a PUD.

You're looking at it from the standpoint of what the existing PUD guidelines say it has to mean.

And it's within the guidelines of the PUD. And it does not violate that we are aware of anything about it that's not allowed for ultimate use on this property. I mean, I'm like everyone else. I hate it. I love it. And that's the reality. I think we've asked her a question we don't know how to ask. Let's see if we can try to go all the way back.

What do we want to do, Commissioner?

Make the motion we approve your presenting.

Okay, motion by the bill. Second by somebody. Okay. Motion by Phil, second by Betty Ann. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Can we do a raise of hands, please? And all those opposed? Okay.

Did you get that? Can we see a raise of hands? One more time. One, two, three, four. Folks, please give us a minute and let us finish this item.

Motion for the street names, please. I think it sucked, but I moved it. Motion by Zeta. Second by Danielle. All those in favor? All those opposed? All right. Motion carries. All right. We're going to give you all a couple minutes to clear out. Thank you all.

Good morning.

All right, moving on to text 2608 Ocean Boulevard drinking place overlay. This is Caitlin.

This is a request by the city of Merle Beach to enact an overlay zone limiting land use of nightclubs, bars, and other drinking places with occupancy exceeding 150 persons to allow existing drinking places properly licensed as of May 12, 2026 to continue as a non-informed use to direct planning commission to review zoning amendment, hold public hearings, and make recommendations. City Council has invoked the impending ordinance doctrine upon first reading approval as of 5-12-2026. City Council has directed the Planning Commission to review the text change, receive public input, and to make appropriate recommendations to City Council regarding the overlay zone, including its boundaries, restrictions, and any other conditions imposed by any places therein. City Council finds that prohibiting new drinking places with occupancy capacities exceeding 150 persons adjacent to Ocean Boulevard will promote the public health, safety, and welfare, and resolves to consider a text change to rezone, overlay, or otherwise limit the size of bars, lounges, pubs, taverns, nightclubs, and other drinking places to occupancy of 150 persons or less and to avoid the concentration of such establishments in buildings that abut or are adjacent to Ocean Boulevard. The occupancy restrictions include the bars, lounges, pubs, taverns, nightclubs, and other drinking places as defined in Section 203 of the zoning code. They shall be limited to an occupancy of 150 persons or less. The overlay zone boundaries apply to properties that are adjacent to Ocean Boulevard between Grand Dunes Boulevard and the point where Ocean Boulevard and Kings Highway intersect. An exception to this are bars, lounges, pubs, taverns, nightclubs, and any other drinking places in the overlay zone that are legally in existence and possess valid licenses as of May 12, 2026, and they may continue to operate as non-conforming uses. And then as a part of the review, Planning Commission was requested to consider the proposed amendments and provide recommendations to City Council. Staff has prepared another into regulations implemented by other municipalities. This is where we have talked about our special occupancy assembly license. So special assembly occupancy shall mean the following types of establishments. 150 or more people congregate at such establishments primarily for social entertainment purposes. These include nightclubs, discotheques, and cabarets, taverns and bars, private clubs, banquet halls, drinking places, and similar places of assembly without primary fixed seating. This shall not include businesses such as restaurants or similar places which are primarily involved in future. No person shall operate a special assembly occupancy without first obtaining a special license from the Special Review Committee. Special Review Committee shall be compromised with Director of Business Licensing, Director of Construction Services, Director of Planning and Zoning, the Zoning Administrator, the Chief of Police, and the Fire Marshal or their designees. No license shall be renewed unless the location has been inspected by the committee within the year prior to the renewal application. Licenses may be revoked upon finding a non-compliance with any provisions of this section. Finding of one instance of non-compliance may be sufficient enough to cause the revocation of the special assembly occupancy license. Revocation shall be conducted at a meeting of the committee and require a simple majority vote pertaining to the facts and violations of the articles of this section. It shall be the responsibility of every Special Assembly Occupancy licensee to ensure that patrons do not congregate in a disorderly manner and do not engage in any illegal activity, including noncompliance relating to alcoholic beverages in and around the immediate vicinity of the Special Assembly Occupancy. Any Special Assembly Occupancy licensee or whose agents or employees violate the provisions of this section may be subject to immediate revocation of his or her Special Occupancy license. And all special assembly occupancies upon request shall be subject to inspection by one or more members of the committee. Refusal shall be grounds for immediate suspension and revocation of their license. The police department, the Department of Business Licensing, or the Office of Fire Marshal shall have the power to order a place vacated or closed in the event of a special assembly office is not in compliance. The licensee and the outside operator, if there is one, shall be jointly liable for the costs incurred by the police or the fire department in responding to any violations, including any disorderly crowds, disturbances of the peace, riots, and any other public nuisances arising from their operations. And those costs should not include responding to or investigating isolated crimes or medical emergencies. business which is not listed under definitions of assembly or special assembly occupancy as defined in this section may be subject to review by the committee if found to be operating in such a manner they may constitute a special assembly occupancy and the committee shall enact such regulations as it deems proper to regulate the form and manner of the issuing and revoking license and the imposition of sanctions set forth in this regulation and then these are the two maps that Cameron had worked with GIS getting y'all the first month top shows highlighted in blue drinking overlay and then also included that day and I just and c7 area up at the top and then the bottom one shows just the green c7 area right here and then the amusement zones that were within that overlay bathroom so I'm kind of confused by these maps what what area we're proposing to cover so it's the boulevard just the boulevard both sides of the boulevard

and working search engine and i don't know that's a lot of colors but these but i don't know but these are districts in prison that we have to see so we're pretty good they're not necessarily inclusion, but for the possibility of if you want to go beyond what city council initially asked of us, these are areas to be considered.

And the vicinity of those areas.

Right now, it's that green color straight across. Yeah, green color straight across and the blue color straight across. And they're the same.

That is what the pending ordinance doctrine that came from council to y'all stated. The cap of 150 on the drinking places along the boulevard. That is what they came to you, that is what the original pending ordinance doctrine stated. There's also the part in there that says allows us, allows you as the planning commission to do research to see are there other additional options or are there other ways to go about it. Since forth we have two ordinances sitting in front of you. One being just the request of the 150 cap on drinking places, not restaurants but on drinking places. And then the other one being that the one, if you want to go over the 150 cap, or at all, you've got to have the special accuracy permit.

Okay. You didn't have the straight 150 in here. It wasn't in my packet, at least. The straight 150 one?

Yeah. It's the one that was put on your table.

Yeah, last time. I want to make sure we still have both of those that were. looking at.

And that has not changed since the last one.

So the proposal, I mean, the area that we're talking about can be, I mean, what's being put in front of us is, you're saying it could be just what the city council, which was proposed in the pending artist doctrine, which is that it's only on both sides of Ocean Boulevard. It was a hard cap of 150. A hard cap of 150. What y'all are saying is that We may want to go beyond that to possibly include the amusement districts, the arts and entertainment district, and perhaps everything east of 17 business.

As it was handed to y'all by council, to do your research, to give your opinion, and to take something back to them.

Okay. Yeah, we discussed taking it beyond Ocean Boulevard, that perhaps we might want to take it to 17 Business, and that there might be some fingers which are also considered downtown district areas that we jump up and take, which is what they've done on that top one there, it looks like. Yes. Rather than it just be a straight line down Ocean Boulevard.

And so again, this is nothing saying this is what it is, this is what it's gonna be. That'll come at the public hearing. Right now we're still in the discussion.

It was for your consideration. I think Cameron said he would get these maps to y'all at the next meeting.

Now here they are. The appeal process, once that committee makes a decision on possible revocation, who does they get appealed to? Those are the things that have to be worked out. And then what about how do we determine whether it's a restaurant primarily serving food versus a bar? From their business license.

Yes. And we went out and surveyed the properties. There are some that are over the 150, but they're licensed as a restaurant. Rib Tide's was one of those that has a restaurant capacity over 150. The only one that could be possibly brought into question as being a true drinking place that's over 150 currently right now on the boulevard is the Bowery. But you look at the Bowery, the Bowery's tied in with Duffy's. Duffy's has the grill. They serve food. all night long. What we could possibly do on that is look at your 60-40 food alcohol sales, but nonetheless there, I mean, I wouldn't say that the Bowery's grandfathered in. I'd say that the Bowery's like great-great-grandfathered in because it's been there so long. But aside from that location, there are no other drinking places currently in this range that are above 150 capacity.

And I think we talked about the fact that if you're existing there now, it's going to be grandfathered in. Correct. It would not fall under this order. The other thing I think that we, or I mentioned a little bit, is just what you're saying, making sure we don't have an unintended consequence of some facility, trying to think about all of it, which I think y'all tried to do. Will there be one? There probably will be something that we didn't intend for it to affect that it may. And that's going to be, I guess, an appeal situation.

So in a situation if a HUD ordinance is passed and covers some of the property in this overlay zone, can that HUD, if the city approves it, exclude the overlay requirements i would say no but again i would seek a true legal opinion on that so what about an amphitheater is that considered a drinking establishment if they don't serve food i consider that an amphitheater yeah his primary purpose is for entertainment above 150 people right but i think it comes down to you straight warning your primary your primary purpose

Are there any true nightclubs or any true drinking places in the city of Myrtle Beach? That is not listed as a restaurant.

I mean, I would say no, but then again, too, you've got to look at what the world's evolving to. Brew pubs encourage you to bring your children.

I mean, the market has changed generations.

I agree with that. Yeah, I would too. But therein lies, I mean, I think there needs to be more detail as to what's a tavern and bar versus a restaurant. I mean, arguably, you know, hard rock could be tavern, bar, or restaurant?

Hard Rock is a restaurant with a license to serve alcohol.

Okay, so if Hard Rock's alcohol sales are 60% versus 40% food, does that change the calculus?

It's a different zoning classification. Right now, where Hard Rock is at, A straight up bar is allowed. If you want to have a straight up bar, that's a permitted use.

I know that, but if we were to try to locate a Hard Rock in Myrtle Beach to Deer Ocean Boulevard, I don't think that's a bad thing, is it?

You'd come in as a restaurant. You're depending on which Hard Rock you're talking about.

I'm talking about the Hard Rock restaurant bar that's right by the beach. What makes it the primary purpose? That's the question.

The fact that they've got permanent seating in there for your location. The fact that they've got an extensive food venue.

So I've been trying to think of what would not be. So maybe House of Blues would be an example of something that would not be. that would not meet the restaurant criteria and would be something that would be subject to this, right? That's a possibility.

What I'm trying to get at is I just want to make sure that we're not shutting down the ability to put national tenants down there that live this bar restaurant concept.

And what they're not going to do is invest $20 million in a brand new facility downtown of Merle Beach, which we're trying to revitalize, if they could potentially have four or five people decide that they can no longer operate. That's the beauty of zoning. It can always be changed. So, I mean, if there's nothing right now in Merle Beach that this even applies to, What's the city concerned about?

It goes back to the concern that the police department raised. If we have a nightclub on the boulevard that holds 500 people, and come 2 AM, whenever that nightclub closes, that's 500 people not being dumped into a parking lot, but being dumped on the Ocean Boulevard. Now, let's say that we had 10 nightclubs on Ocean Boulevard that had a capacity of 500. That's 5,000 people being dumped, not into a parking lot, but on the Ocean Boulevard. That's the concern. That's along Ocean Boulevard.

So we're not worried about existing problems. We're worried about future potential problems.

It's a safety issue. General health. I understand. I just didn't know.

General health and welfare. Okay, so we're worried about the future. I can assure you, and Charlie, you verify this for me. I cannot think of any... true bar with a capacity of over 150 that's applied for a permit on the boulevard since 2013. And 2013 was the first time that we passed a pending ordinance doctrine and it just kind of died on the wayside. But nothing has come before us since then requesting of such. Now, if you want to be a successful bar only, you're probably going to be about a capacity of 80 people. If you want to be a successful business, and you want to have some size, and not make a steady income, but make a good bid off of it, you're going to be a restaurant that serves alcohol.

I have a concern. Could this be a loophole where somebody opens up a restaurant, and the capacity is more than 150 people, but their intentions are to make it a drinking place, and all the food that they have is a hot dog roller and some bags of chips, but they're licensed?

That's where the last one is, the similar places of assembly without primary fixing.

You don't see that like you used to. People used to always try to do those types of things on there. You don't see that like you used to. The most common experience like that that we've had is being where people will push their tables to the side and try to start operating that way. And they're normally dealt with by either the fire marshal or the police department. when it comes to that. We've not dealt with that situation on the boulevard, but we have dealt with that similar situation in other places in town, and they have been addressed accordingly. We go through the whole process of having their business license revoked and all those type things.

Another question. Doesn't the Arts and Entertainment District have its own guidelines? I meant they're on... This is a restriction. Yeah, they're unordered.

Right.

Yeah, so like the C-7 that we were looking at including doesn't even allow bars. Exactly. So it's kind of got its own protection to begin with because of the fact that we created its own environment there.

And again, you're looking at what was initially posed to you by city council. That was a hard cap of 150 on taverns, bars, private clubs, discotheques along the boulevard. Right.

This is an unknown. There's no need to try to cover the whole world, because it can be changed. And I'd rather go with the most minimum thing that they have tried to outline for us to look at, versus trying to expand it. Unless we could identify that it would be very valuable for that.

If you were to pass the overlay with a hard cap of 150 for bars, taverns, drinking places, That would not impact nor change one thing on the boulevard right now, but the only one possibly being into consideration would be the Bowery. But they're grandfathered, so they can't be touched. So there is no existing business currently on the boulevard that we are aware of that is a drinking place with a capacity of over 150.

But the other ordinance that we expanded on, basically looking at it, OK, we don't foresee anything being more than 150 down there now. But there could be, and it could be a very viable entity that one would want to have down there on hard rock. So they could apply for that special license to gain that. So that's why I like to have that flexibility.

It's not a guarantee, but it is a flexibility. What you're kind of looking at right now, you've got to look at the nature of zoning in general, okay? The nature of zoning in general. Right now, we don't see, we've had no, I've had no leads from anybody that I've been aware of, of trying to open such a thing on the boulevard. But again, if somebody comes to us, again, I think that's something that council could bring into consideration. And then at that time, we could implement such restrictions and things along those lines. So just because if they don't do it now, it doesn't mean we can't do it later. But right now, we've had no one coming to us for anything along those lines.

Well, we don't want to discourage new business at all. But if you think about the boulevard, there's not really enough room to build the House of Blues or something like that. They have to go away. So it's not likely to happen.

And again, I think if something like that is going to come down there, that's going to be a major undertaking. It's not going to be anything quick.

They're going to tear down a couple of hotels.

Yeah. It's not going to be anything quick. It would be something that would give enough time

do an even more in-depth study in regard to something along those lines you know i know our focus is on ocean boulevard but bringing what you said about arts and entertainment is it something that maybe we should consider including not just ocean boulevard but parts of entertainment my area as well well the ami district also has operating hours

So everything in the Office of the Entertainment District has to close at 12 o'clock anyway. See, that's what I was trying to allude to.

They've got other things that protects them. And why not try to figure, like you said, if we're going to approve something, be just a boulevard and see how it goes. And like I said, we can always change, but to try to get into somewhere else that's already got protection, I wouldn't want to try to do that too. I mean, it's just a thought. But I still like the concept of providing, I mean, the city council is the one that's going to what staff's done is they've given what they actually asked for what's the hardcore and said okay and if y'all have any other faults add to it I love that and I love well there's a way to still protect and that's the alternative which is and be able to provide you know possibly both of them to say you got to look at the big picture and y'all do your thing because y'all make the decision on it we've now looked at it we've given you an alternative where someone could if it's the right opportunity could come in and build something big if they wanted to. At the same time, we were protecting. I said, y'all have to decide what you want. I don't know what's on all of their minds.

The biggest difference between those two orders is the complexity. cut and dry simple and one's got a bunch of if this then that scenarios that come into play and if that's the route that council decides that they want to go then we probably got about a good solid two to four months of more research to get that hammered out we didn't go full death dive into this because we don't know where it's going to end up out of which direction that it's going to go right well if we were to send

Like Bill was saying, both of these to city council and then... Which I recommend. And they wanted more info on the in-depth one where you could go over 150. That's going to come back to staff.

Y'all are going to do all the... And then bring it back to y'all and then bring it back to us. We just give them an upfront. It's like, you know, we already read, really, this one. Right. They read the hard-net one. They've already approved that first reading.

Basically, we did what most... departments do, we found somebody else out there that had already done something similar. So we can read it, we can understand it, but we don't know true the application or such of how all that's going to play out. What authority and power does that committee have? How do we grant that power and authority to that committee? Those are the details that would have to be worked out if that was the path that they chose to go down.

And some of the details would be more specific things because right now it's given the general

law if you to try to do it just have to say as we get a law standpoint because it's not specific about what is it exactly that people say you can't have your license the state laws of South Carolina may differ than from the state laws that we pulled this from their state laws may give them more authority to parties whereas ours may give it less right by next meeting are we

thinking we're going to be good to have a public hearing on this so the public hearing will have to be on august 4th so at our next public hearing okay so the next meeting either we can discuss it again or just continue it and if y'all go this way it'll go forward like this to the vote meeting but if you want to bring it back for discussion i mean i think we've pretty much talked this over enough

There was a little bit of more information that y'all were wanting to have. One of them was, what is the business currently on the boulevard in regard to this 150 ratio? I think we've pretty much supplied y'all with all the information that we can supply y'all with. If we put this on workshop again next meeting, it's probably going to be the same discussion that we just had here today. I would recommend that we just move forward with the August public hearing date.

Now, what you submitted in the packet said 100 instead of 150. Was there a reason you did that that way?

No, sir. That was decided at the last meeting that we were going to go with 150 across the board on both of them.

I just want to make sure because the one that you gave me is still the original set of 100.

To your point, the primary involved in food service does give me some concern from, I guess, maybe from a legal perspective. Does that mean if it's greater than 50% of sales, Is alcohol a set of food? Does that mean it's not primarily involved in food service?

60-40 is pretty much always the rule of thumb.

It can be 60% up to... 60% food, 40% alcohol. So, I mean, a lot of these entertainment restaurants don't meet that threshold.

How do you know that for sure?

I have a client who's involved with this. Are they on the boulevard? They're not, but it's possible that one day somebody might want to be.

Again, that would be if you had the location, we'd be more than glad to turn it over to business license and let them go investigate.

I'd like to applaud the staff. Did a fantastic job putting this together and making it, at least for me, pretty simplistic for you. I agree.

Very thorough.

Very thorough. Very well.

All right. Moving on for this next agenda item, I am going to hand it over to Vice Chair Stalby.

This is request by Xochitl Pine Island LLC Robert S. Guyton agent to amend section 11 special requirements, section 13 public improvements, and to include appendix I into the finalized Seaside Farms PUD ordinance. Here is a location map of the Seaside Farms PUD, an aerial view, the zoning map, The master site plan section 11 will be amended to install a five foot wide sidewalk as shown on appendix J. In addition, the developer will construct and install a public transportation shelter for those using public transportation within the existing right of way. That will be on the north side of Pine Island Road near the intersection with Robert and Gresham Parkway. That will be shown on Appendix K. On the left, you see the roadway improvement exhibit. On the right, the example public transportation shelter. As you can see, this red line extension of the amended sidewalk extension along the boundary to the subject property. Section 13 will be amended to install that five foot sidewalk within the boundary of the subject property as well as the installation of the improvements set forth in Section 13.3 to widen Pine Island Road. Need a four lanes?

Just turn right.

Okay.

Appendix I will be amended to include the parking requirements for the PED. One bedroom will be one space, two bedrooms will be 1.5 spaces, three bedrooms will be two spaces with the total number of spaces required as 607 and the total number of spaces provided as 681. Here are our findings of fact required. Happy to answer any questions you may have. The applicant is also in the room with us.

should have been addressed. Some of these should have been addressed originally. Schedule I, for example, was called for in the original PDP. It's never got attached, so it's attached now. The originally proposed improvements, if you recall, went all the way down Pine Island Road, but they conflicted with both DOT improvements and Santee Cooper improvements, so that's why you see the scale of that reduced down. follow the boundary of the project itself. And in lieu of that, the public transportation shelter is being installed . I think you had a question last time about the commercial parcel out front. That's just a commercial out parcel. So if and when it's ever developed, it'll have to meet the requirements on its own. It's not part of the current .

Questions? Thank you. Any further discussion among commissioners? I'll make a motion to approve. Second. There's a motion by March 1st and 2nd. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Announce. Thank you.

Text 2610, 21st Avenue, this is Kate.

This is a request by Indian Breakers, Seaside Breakers Development, Indian National Joint Venture, to man 21st Avenue Oceanfront PUD, Division 1A Breakers Resort. Here is our zoning map. In green is the 21st Avenue Oceanfront PUD. An aerial view of that Phase 2 development, highlighted in blue. Here we have our GIS image of that. Phase two development. Post changes on the phase two development is removal of phase one, the interim phase, and phase three references. The public now consists of only two phases, adding parking reference language for Sailfish 21 spaces and River City Cafe 25 spaces within the parking garage division two, crystal blue. And then we also have the Phase 2 improvements, improvements to Oceanfront Park area created by the relocation of the alleyways, improvements to 21st Avenue North Streetscape. There will now be three alleys to be closed instead of the original two. The applicant has requested that the required spaces be lowered from 1.0 spaces per one bedroom unit to 0.9 spaces. And Phase 2 is to be completed no later than November of 2032. Here we have again that proposed Phase 2 development on the dotted line. and the amendment boundaries in blue, with Division 1A in the hatched gray area. These are the alleyway changes. We have two oceanfront alleyway swaps, one non-oceanfront alleyway swap, and then the improvements for those improvements to the oceanfront park area created by the relocation of those alleyways, and then the improvements to 21st Avenue and North Street's gate. And here's a slide showing that. We have two oceanfront ones in pink and purple, and then the non-oceanfront alley in blue. And then here are the alleyway relocations. Pink and the purple have moved over, and then the blue has moved to the third row.

So there's no net loss in the oceanfront public space right now?

Here in pink is a proposed 20-story hotel. And then yellow are the public improvement sites with the oceanfront park area, which is created by those alley relocations, and then the 21st Avenue streetscaping.

So is the building cantilevered? I'm sorry I missed the last meeting, but was it cantilevered? Is that?

Yes, sir, similar to the existing courtyard. They have the same little overhang on that side. They're just looking to do the same thing here. The reason it's going to be a mirrored hotel, they're just still going to do the same overhang.

I can't remember. The overhang, like a reception area or something? No, sir.

It's an open air to the beach. I think it's close to 24-foot clearance on that overhang.

And here we have the open space. The public use is in green, that private use being the ocean front pool side. And then here we have our phase two amendments in pink. Note that the phase two post 20 story hotel is supposed to be 210 feet. And then we have a total unit of 676. And then it shows our existing parking of 671. The post-phase two is 645. Here's our parking ratio breakdown. You see that 612 one-bedroom units with that 0.90 parking rate. And it gives us 551 parking spaces as opposed to 612. Is that the 0.9?

That standard? No, that's a request for you. That's one of the requests for you to know where the parking center is. Normally for a one bedroom hotel efficiency, what's the ratio? One space. One space? One space. You see some that are 1.15. So we're going to be, I mean, short, compared to what we normally require, we're going to be short 50. 61 spaces. 61 spaces.

I have a question. Is that calculation based upon An occupancy rate for the hotel? Just per room. Just per room.

And secondly, this is not just for this construction that she outlined too. This parking is going to be approved for the whole putt, which is all the other ones too, not just this building that they're looking at. So for proposed and existing?

Yes. So it's going to be more than just... And the existing meets the one... unit or one parking space per unit? Yes, sir. Under the existing. So it's the third tower that's going to take it back.

Well, I think last time we discussed it, they talked about that there's three days out of the year where it's going to be a short parking, which would be a problem for me, but... And the last slide is a 300-foot parking radius showing where those proposed parking would be for the hotel.

If you guys have any questions.

I think one of my issues with this is if we were to go with the .9 parking spaces, we have no, unless staff come back and bring it up. We're not, once we set that at .9, we're stuck with that.

I mean, we could go back and change it, but if all they have is that number of spaces, then you have a non-formative. Right. Okay.

And if we're only doing it in the PUD, it's not like we typically make an amendment to the PUD without the applicant initiating it, right?

No, a PUD is just like a regular zoning order. We could initiate a change to a zoning order any time we see fit. But do you do that very often?

Not very often, but it is an option. Meanwhile, anyone else would still have to meet the one per room requirement? Yes, sir.

And in the discussion of this amongst staff, especially amongst myself and Charlie, having been here longer than the other staff, Parking requirements have done nothing except decrease since I've been here. That was one of the big things in the 2014 rewrite was parking reduction requirements. We even went so far into one district, if you meet the parking requirements, that you get additional parking stipulations in regard to it. So we've lowered parking We have never increased parking requirements since I've been here. We have only lowered them since I've been here, and that's going on 20 years.

The parking that's in there for River City, is that so that they meet their standards? Yes, that's what River City means, their standards, yes. Not only do they have their parking, I guess, parking around the building itself but then also within this parking garage.

They didn't have enough to make the 1 to 100 on their property.

To be a restaurant. Yes sir. Which I mean I see that facility probably not remediating the actual required number of parking just because of its location. It's probably more of a walk-to location but And I'm not sure how many people probably find the parking garage for it. So it is taking away, what did you say, 25 spaces of the 61 that are... I think it was something else that took... Yeah, the sailfish was also taken away, but that's a hotel, so it's... did. River City probably does not use this 25.

At one time it did but perhaps the island may not.

I'm sure a few people drive to it but I probably most walk around from the surrounding facilities. If you were closer into discrepancy rather than 60, whether it's 61 units or 61 spaces, that's a lot. If you were half of that and you had River City there, that might make some sense.

And you could say that's 10% of your market.

Yeah.

I mean, you know, we do have a few people who fly here and stay at hotel rooms, but Most rooms are going to have at least one car, and oftentimes have more than one car, even at the efficiency level, one bedroom level. So I mean, I don't know. I've never seen anything less than a one space per room ratio. Even the roadside motels have that. And if we allow it here, what's the reason for allowing it here and not allowing it anywhere else? How is this a unique situation?

This is kind of one of those scenarios where it's not a problem until it is.

And then it's too late.

That's what I was saying when we started this conversation. It might be fun for a little while until it becomes a problem, and then it's hard to unwind it once we've gotten to that point of problem. Any other questions for staff? I'd like to hear from the applicant.

Yeah, let me just, we do have some, well, first off, I'm Jim Harper with LS3P. Thank you. It's good to see everybody again. I know we had a couple of commissioners that were not at the workshop, so I'm just going to give a very brief sort of primer on why we're here making this request to begin with. As many of you know, this is one of the earliest or original PUDs in the city. It's very expansive, as you can see in the exhibits that were presented. And that does make this an opportunity A little bit unique. There's a lot of parking in and around this area. And there is a lot of capacity and properties that are all predominantly hotels. So there is some uniqueness to the 21st Avenue PUD that perhaps doesn't apply, certainly not to a one-off project on a site somewhere would not apply. The other thing that's unique here is with Britton Resort, and hotels, they're able to study the parking and have been needs over the last three years of this property. And I think it was Commissioner Mills that mentioned perhaps three a year. The number actually that they studied was really a handful of days over the entire three year, three and a half year time period where it would have ever reached to the one per, right? So it's not that there was a problem, it's that the need never even hit one, except for a handful of days over three and a half years. I'm just really looking for an opportunity here to engage in this conversation with you. We certainly appreciate that. We understand that that's not been the norm, but the client is uniquely positioned to understand what their needs are, they're certainly not proposing something that they think is going to be a problem for their business and operation. And so we're here also to talk about the scenario, you know, what you have, right? And you guys are a reasonable question.

I'm Jeff King, Kim Cunningham representing Delbert. A couple of little clarifications. The inclusion in this request where it talks about the Sailfish 25 or whatever number had the River City, that really doesn't have anything to do with this reduction or anything. That's actually already existing. I just thought it would be a cleanup item. I never really had a chance to talk with Ken or Charles about this. I added that in there just because it's existing now. When we did the Ocean 22, which is part of the different phase of the 21st Avenue PUD, that was required and part of that ordinance to put that for the sailfish in that garage. I just thought since we're doing an amendment now, it'd be good to just mention in this ordinance, which includes the sailfish in River City, that, hey, there's some parking over here that is that. So that was really just a cleanup item on my part, really. not part of what the request for the hotel is.

When you say clean up, are you saying that you don't think that parking is actually used by that facility, or you're just making clarification?

Well, I'm just putting into this ordinance, which includes the actual buildings for River City and Sailfish, that, hey, they do have parking over here, because that is the existing situation, and it was built into the other division of the PUD. I just thought it ought to be mentioned here. So I was just trying to clean up the language.

But it had to be mentioned, because that's how they determined their required parking. Some of those spaces that are in that parking deck are a lot of them somewhere else. So it was part of their overall required parking.

So yeah, so it had to be mentioned because it's taken away that when you build X number of spaces, some of those are already allocated. The seal fish.

Well, those spaces, well, okay, let me go back another way. Those spaces weren't required when the original 21st Avenue was. It was when we came in and did the, I mean, yeah, you're right. But when we came in and did the Ocean 22, we moved spaces. Of course. are part of the required spaces I mean I'm just saying it was not ever mentioned it was never amended in this part of the order so I added that in there I'm not saying it's not part of the count I'm not making any assertion like that I'm just sort of I added that in to clean up and put it into this part of the order based off that I have to pose this question are your parking calculations as shown correct they are correct okay yeah and I'm not instantly as instantly aware of those I just wanted to try to clear that up. That was just to get it in the next part of the ordinance. But it is part of the county. The other thing is, we do realize this is, I think last time, and it was just mentioned that we went over the study that they had done for the last few years with the dual rating Marriott next door. The fact that even if you reduce it to this .9, it would only hit that number a few times a year over the last three years. And so that's kind of where we're coming from, that it wouldn't hurt the business. I think we all understand that. The mall with the empty parking lot, I understand this is different. There is a trend that perhaps overbuilding the parking spaces is occurring. That being said, understand it's a challenge, and this goes to the issue that was raised about when you can't change it later.

We have looked back at, well, they suggested to us,

There is a provision in the existing ordinance, or the existing parking code, Article 10, 10-06-E-1, that says it has an excessive parking provision, whereas in any zone, if the zoning administrator determines this meeting requirements may result in over-parking, over-building of parking, that they can allow it to be less, but you've got to show, okay, here's where we can put it if we have to, and if the zoning administrator later determines that that it didn't work, then they can require that to be built. We've actually drafted an addition to the ordinance, modeled on that, to basically put that resolution in place, that it would only take the zoning administrator to then determine, okay, this didn't work, you gotta build it up to the one person per unit level.

Do we have a copy of that?

We did not have time to get that in before the changes, so we are passing it around now.

Let me put that in layman's terms for you. So basically what he's saying is that they're proposing with this that the parking requirements stay at the one space per one bedroom, but that they're adding language into the PUD that says that they will only provide the .9 spaces until such time as it is determined by the zoning administrator that the additional parking is required. That is currently what is allowed under our underlying zoning. Normally whenever we do that, it's not in conjunction with hotels. We have done it in conjunction with a senior living center. We've done it in conjunction with some businesses that are in regard to those types of things. But they have to earmark that space. That space has to always be there. Nothing can be developed in that space. And so that's what they're proposing for you here today, is that this language would allow to keep them at the one space per unit. But this language we put in there that they're going to actually only install the .9 spaces per unit, but with us having the right to go back and require the additional part. The only space that actually exists to do that now

be a layer to a parking garage. Yes sir. That's it.

You don't have any surface area that is just. And we propose that there's a two level garage that would be if it's ordered by the zoning administrator.

So what will happen if they don't construct it? Or what would happen 24 months from now when when the zoning administrator decides he needs it? Instead of 12 months.

Do you have a capital set aside to build that? Are you going to ask for one?

Well, it's going to be, I mean, anything like this would be an issue with the financing and stuff to make sure that they have compliance.

I mean, it's not very realistic.

Well, the answer, the real answer to your question would be the same as if you no longer have compliance, they would be able to have their remedies and business licenses and things like that. I mean, so if they don't comply, you've got the remedies you have to modify them.

I'm going back to why is this any different from anybody else? Everybody is burdened with these parking requirements. Why are you not burdened by these parking requirements? The next person who goes, unless we want to change this for everybody, if everybody should be at the .90 ratio, then it makes sense. We don't even need to do it in the plan. We just need to change the parking ordinance. But I don't understand why you feel like you deserve special consideration here for parking.

We're not saying we're special, we're asking for it here and it's part of the zoning rewrite. We think that probably that ought to be looked at in other areas as well, over parking. As Ken mentioned, the trend has been to realize that cities have over

It's all a judgment call. You weren't here at the last meeting. And at the last meeting, I stated I would never support anything requiring less than one parking space in an underlying zoning, a PUD, zoning rewrite, or anything. The only place that we have parking of less than one is whenever we have our congregate care facilities where those folks don't drive.

And I think, too, when you said it's where you can do what they're trying to do. It's where they have vacant land. If they have land, like a mall, you don't have to go ahead and put in all the asphalt pavement and everything else. But you've got the land available. It's much easier. You can drive a car on a piece of property and do it than you are to build a, let's just say, you want to build a structure. They just have excess space. If they have overrun, they've got to overrun the parking lot.

I mean, to go back and restage the level on top of the parking lot? Well, they'd probably be doing it right this moment.

They'd shut it down if they didn't. So, I mean, I don't see

After you completed the park garage to come back two years later and put another level on it?

The garage is already there. We're not building that now. We'd have to do that right at this moment.

It was built to put more levels on top.

Okay, so you're wanting to use the existing garage for the park garage. Just not build that level.

I see. I do think this is married to what you're saying as far as if you would consider something like that, you've got to somehow have some financial ability that's guaranteed, whether it's a letter of credit or something like that, but not actually put the cash in. Because otherwise, it's a nightmare for these guys to try and enforce something like that, and it just becomes a court battle as far as whether or not you do it. But there may be some method that guarantees that it can be done without

But I mean, it'd be perpetual.

I mean, yeah, I mean, I agree. It's not something you want to do.

I just don't see why this should be any different from anything else. Well, you know, I mean, I will revisit the parking if we've got evidence to show that this should be applied across the board, but why we should apply just this project and not any other project doesn't make sense.

Again, Professionally, I have to take the stances that I take. They came to me and said, what's another option? Whether I agree with it or not, professionally, this is the option that's available to them. And then hearing what you're saying right there, and hearing what Mr. Stalvey said, there's a big difference between going and laying some asphalt down on an existing piece of grass than there is on adding another layer to a parking deck. But you also need to look in the fact, based off the comment that you just said, that this is a PUD. This is a freestanding zoning ordinance. And this only would apply to this property. This does not make it an across the board kind of thing in any such way. But it would not keep someone from coming back and asking for that same requirement. But it's not a just because one guy that the other is guaranteed to get it to. Valid point that you were making in regard to that. But it's not really setting a precedent as much as it is giving an idea.

But if you had somebody that said, we did this.

It's going to be hard to tell them no.

It would be tough to say, well, no. But they could.

I mean, the only way you could justify it would be to kind of find unique situations of this particular project that justified going down to that .90 level. I mean, that way you could say the next person comes along and says, hey, well, I want to do .9. Well, no, that was a unique situation. We're not looking to relax that standard across the board.

Generally, whenever we've done past exceptions or whatever you want to call them, there's a uniqueness to the property and the situation and circumstance that makes sense. Reduce it.

Or build to the requirement of one. So you might have to build a parking garage to begin with instead of point nine and then come back later if you need it.

And we don't have the land currently to do that, correct?

Well, so the analogy of the mall is a good one, but it's more of a suburban analogy. Here, you know, this is more of an urban area, so we do have the land, we have the ownership of the parking structure that the exhibit is indicating that we can add levels on. That was designed to accommodate additional levels. So it's, in a sense, it's the same idea as paving in a mall. We're parsing, is it more expensive to lay asphalt under Because the structured parking costs more per car, right? But the analogy holds here, right? This is a viable solution.

Are there any other facilities in the immediate area that have excess parking or are shared?

There are lots of opportunities in that area. This is the one that we felt like was the most feasible and easiest to communicate as a whole specific parcel in this one location can accommodate it if needed, right? Rather than saying, well, we can do 30 up here, we can buy a lot somewhere else and put parking on it. There's lots of options there, but we're also really working hard here to preserve the ability to make these improvements in the right way. And you may have noticed, but the two surface parking lots that we're improving I know Zed was not at the workshop, but we showed that we're making vast improvements to existing, what I would call legacy surface parking lots that are asphalt from 21st Avenue all the way back to the property line. In both directions, the spaces are tight, et cetera, et cetera. So part of doing this also, allowing us to do this, is to make real investments The improvements of 21st Avenue and the pedestrian experience across from the parcels that this developer and landowner owns, right? And so if you go back to some of those non-regulatory exhibits, you can see we're making really big improvements to the streetscape. And by reducing the parking, we're making choices in doing that, right? To make those improvements. We're trying to find the right balance. arguing that there's something unique about this. I mean, I've been doing this a long time in this, almost 30 years. There's not much property in the city of Myrtle Beach, if any, that encompasses the scale and the total number of parking spaces that are available through a variety of different resources in this general area, all in this area. And the owner's own The parking analysis indicates that there's only been a handful of days that we would ever even, over three and a half years, that we would even need the one per, right? So it just, to us, it just seems like a logical ask, but we do understand that we're sympathetic to the fact that your charge is, and we're not asking for a variance, it's a but, and so we're asking for the PUD, which is designed to deal with special consideration like this. That's the purpose, one of the purposes of it, to give us consideration to support that.

Let me ask this question. What happens to the existing parking structure if you were to add on to it at another level? I'm assuming you have to close down the parking structure while you're building more levels. Great question. Yeah, great question, Mr. Chairman.

So there are opportunities as the improvements are made, there will be a period of time that those parking spaces will not be available, and there will have to be accommodation made for those cars, but that would be true of any construction project that would happen. And those can be temporary, but if and when that was asked for, the city would want to know, in this case, a good billing permit zoning, What are you doing with those cars during the two months that you have reshoring or whatever that time period is? So you could do that during the off-season where the demand is so much lower. Absolutely, yes. I don't believe that in any of the scenarios that have taken this approach have ever had to go back and make these changes or additions. I'm not intimately familiar with it.

Do we have a scenario that we've done this before?

Yeah, we've got several scenarios. I mean, never for a hotel.

The hotel is unique. That's what I'm saying. I understand the mall analogy and that kind of thing, but do we have a one-to-one?

The housing on the corner of 38 and maybe Oliander. the corner of 38 and Oleander. They've got a spot, you'll see a green grass spot right behind their parking lot where there's, that's where 20 additional spaces. Senior living? Yes, senior living facility. That's one that we've done it at. The wall itself? Technically. Originally, yeah. A wire that could be part of the lot.

But I mean, it seems so, it's got the curving in place where they just never paid for it, right?

And then most of those lots, they have proposed for out parcel development. It's never come about either. There are a few other places, but again, it's always been smaller spaces. I think there was one that it was four spaces that he would need to provide. They're on the backside of the building, but that's the space where he could put those four parking spaces if he needed to. never had to go back in and exercise to make anybody for the 19 years I've been here, to make them put in the additional parking. And we've probably done it probably eight to 10 times at most. It's rare.

What happened or what changed with the Sailfish and River City that required them to have the parking in the garage? Did they lose some of their parking? The garage got built. Was there surface parking? Yeah, there was some surface parking. Okay.

That was back in the other part of PED, right?

And then the other thing that you've got to look at, too, where some of these existing hotels that are in pubs, just not in pubs, that are over-parked now is because we've changed our parking standards. There's like some of these hotels now that have been allowed to go in in areas of their parking garage and enclose part of it and make a laundry because those are no longer required parking spaces because we went from a 1.25 to 1.15 per room. So there's been those types of situations where excess spaces have been created in parking garages.

Any other questions for the applicant? Any other questions from staff? Any other comments from commissioners? This is a public hearing. Anybody would like to address the commission, please come up and state your name. All right. Seeing nobody, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the planning commissioners.

I still don't see, I mean, we have the parking requirements for a reason. I mean, if, and I don't understand why this should deserve a special situation of, you know, of having a reduced parking. If it's not necessary, then it should be not necessary for everybody, not just the And the idea of building the parking deck in the future if it's necessary, I just don't think it's even realistic. But even then, like Ken said, this hasn't been done before at a hotel level. If they want to go ahead and build the level now and then apply to Ken through that process to reduce the requirement later by showing evidence that it's not necessary, then they can reallocate that space to somebody else. They can lease those spaces out to somebody if necessary. I mean, or if they want to. Or put a laundry, you know, or storage area in their parking area for that, like some other hotels have done. But I just don't think it's practical to, if they're ever going to build more spaces years down the road if it's ever necessary. Now is the time to acquire or not acquire.

So I make a motion that we deny this application based on We have to always remember the findings of facts. So based on 403B, this says this is a precedent and the possible effects of such precedent, which might result for the approval for him out. So I would make a motion to move that.

Second. Motion by Danielle, second by Paul. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

We'll let you know when it's going to be placed on the council agenda. Okay. Thank you.

Communications from staff.

In your packet, there are two donor posts, Article 10, standards of measurement, and Article 8, uses and standards. comments or you can also email us. Also, the next packet will be sent to other different articles as well. These are still draft, yes, but we're almost there to the final.

Kind of an update on that. Kelly Klepper, who was our main point of contact, in the last year. He's been out for going on two months. He should be back July 21st. I'm not going to say that that stalled us, but it has kind of slowed us down a little bit because he was a man with 30 plus years of experience and he could give us on the fly answers in regards to some of this stuff. We're still pretty much on schedule. I think it was an aggressive schedule. The reason he had surgery a third time was he wasn't listening to the doctors as far as not traveling when he wasn't supposed to, when he wasn't supposed to. So his wife is playing nurse now and he is definitely not traveling, not doing anything except hanging around the house to get that attached retina procured up properly.

Any communications from commissioners?

I hear communication from staff. Never said this was going to always be easy. I appreciate y'all weighing the information that was out there and factoring in the decisions that we have to make in regard to the decisions that y'all have to make. Very much appreciated and very much recognized.

Are we still on the record? Yes.

Can I have a motion to adjourn?

Second by Joe. All those in favor?