Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Moving on to the approval of minutes from July 7th, 2026. drinking place overlay. This is Caitlin.

This is a request by City of Myrtle Beach to enact an overlay zone limiting land use of nightclubs, bars, and other drinking places with the occupancy exceeding 150 persons to allow existing drinking places to be properly licensed as of May 12, 2016 to continue as non-performing uses to direct Planning Commission to review the zoning amendment and hold public hearings and make recommendations. There have been no changes to either of the two ordinance that we had. So we have the 150 hard cap, all the places up, you know, hard cap to 150. Then we also have the one that Cameron wrote, which was the special occupancy license, and nothing's changed from that one here. And I'm happy to go through the presentation if you like. So the only map that we have of the two that Cameron had created and then We have this one. It's still not shown exactly how we think about the boundaries. This shows it going all the way up to Kings Highway. The two red spots are the two amusement districts on Ocean Boulevard. But that's what we want to discuss is the boundaries, how we want the open to be at.

And that's one thing that we're kind of looking at y'all's guidance for in that, you know, Some components of what city council forwarded to us were detailed. Some were broad. I think their message was pretty clear. And I think that's where it comes to one of the things that you as a board have to come up with a recommendation on. One of the things that we at staff looked at properties that front or adjacent to Ocean Boulevard. That sounded simple enough. But in our discussion we realized there are also some properties that front on the boardwalk or actually front on the beach side of a street end. So really what we're thinking the ask was for was for along Ocean Boulevard both the east and west side of Ocean Boulevard as well as those properties between the boulevard and Atlantic Ocean that don't front on the boulevard. That's a pretty much legible map to consider. The only other thing that we contemplated on was their description of this was North Ocean, I mean the Ocean Boulevard where it intersects with 17 Bypass on the south end, and then Ocean Boulevard where it ties into Grandview Boulevard on the north end. Well, that run of Ocean Boulevard, basically from one end of our community to the other, runs straight through some residential zonal classification as well, where it's not even a permitted use. So then we just said, we'll just stop it once we get to the residential neighborhoods. But then as you go a little bit further north, You've got a long run of residential, and then you've got a run of MUH down there as well. So to come out of here with the actual specifics, I think that would be something better placed in the hands of an attorney. But to come in with a general idea, I think that's what you as a board can do, and then just let the details be worked out through all the legalese that comes along with it. One of the questions that came up in our staff discussion was if we left that section out and then one of those properties gets rezoned to something. There's no such thing as a perfect ordinance. You can't write it to catch it off. And so again, that's kind of where we sit at with that boundary. And that's why it's very important to us as a staff and the council to hear the comments of Planning Commission and see what your field's questions or concerns are in regard to that as well.

So one of the things we could do, based on what you're saying, is maybe say from, you know, basically you're talking somewhere around 31st Avenue North and South on Ocean Boulevard, or J Street going into it, there'll be a definite because that doesn't hurt anything. And then say, we have, we need more input from city council for the rest of it because we got the residential property. We don't think we can continue to sell away because we got all the residential.

Kind of, but I'm thinking that, you know, we'd be better served to come up with something that we feel comfortable with. And the only question that we have is, do we include a residential zoning classification in the overlay zone? And if we don't, does that mean that we have to create two overlay zones addressing these? I think if y'all come across with the general idea of this is the corridor that we want to keep. We don't want to go any further this way. You can't go any further this way than the Atlantic Ocean. We don't want to go any further toward North Kings Highway. and then just let them figure out the details. I think y'all, that would be, y'all would have completed the task that was assigned to you if you approach it from, there's nothing that says you still can't have some questions in regard to your answer. Right.

Kings Highway and then on one side of the street you're limited and then the other side of the street you can't. And I'd love to have you guys in that meeting when I tell that person that this side of the street. That's true for the entire city. But that's where it gets a little bit hard on Ryan when you have the same zone and then overly we kick it in the middle of the road.

So how, based on what you said, how would we feel if we just say from the ocean and properties adjacent to Ocean Boulevard which really is taken from the ocean to the boulevard and then the second row property and anything that's abutting or adjacent to those and go that all the way through that would that resolve a lot what you're saying yeah we can kind of highlight this point and then we can bring out that hey now you know that's going to run into some residential and start there or what? Correct. Whether you want it to be one consecutive or whether you want it to be split.

That was my question. Should it be continuous or can it be two overlays?

I mean, it's the same concern that I've got. And right now, with this just being workshop, I don't have a definite answer on that. Between here and the next meeting, when it's actually a public hearing, that's an answer that we could probably try to have worked out, because I'll have some time scheduled to meet with the city attorney in regard to that. I just want to know if that was a comfortable feeling for this board, with that kind of being a corridor parameter going down.

i would feel more personally i'd be a little more comfortable once you talk to the city attorney to come back and see what he says well we have to because again we're still workshopping it right now you're still going to come back to you one more time for the actual public hearing but i think one of the things says we're comfortable not going all the way to 17 we'll just say from the ocean to boulevard and what's adjacent so we're definitely got that anybody feel something differently You want to go further in any way? And then they can try to work out in between the time that... Yeah, I'm just looking more for the general idea of this disestablished corridor width that y'all feel comfortable moving forward with, Mr. Chairman.

Would it not be easier to just say fronting Ocean Boulevard and east to the Atlantic Ocean?

Yeah. I mean, like I said, it's all about the exact verge is...

Versus adjacent or joint. If it fronts or it's east all the way to the Atlantic...

It might be one of those things, front slash adjoining, because I don't want to get caught up in a plate of words somehow. I'm going to have an extra word in there just for some CYA in the future. But yes, basically along those quarters. We would just come up with the simplest way to state that.

I think that using adjoining versus adjacent would be better because adjoining is...

Whichever word gives us the most teeth and the most cases of adjoining. Adjacent can mean in the vicinity of.

Which means you can't hit. The third row is going to be safe. It's going to be anything that's on that, but it's actually touching property that's on motion mobile. We don't want to leave anything up for interpretation. Right. Exactly. Well, it seems like that's y'all's favorite thing after all the coming years.

And then I think the next thing that we need to decide coming forth for the next meeting on the public hearing is, as Caitlin said, we've got two ordinances in front of you. We've got one which makes 100% not that neither one of them don't make the direction that we were given or that y'all were given by counsel. But one of them is plain and simple, 100% what they were asking for. The other one is in a roundabout way of getting to what they were asking for. But we thought through discussions we had in here that that would be a little bit more than just zoning if we went in there with that one. So we needed to kind of decide which one do you want to go forward with as you plan A and which one do you want to go forward with as you plan B.

My call to that is it would be best to go with just the plain and simple, straightforward, what they asked for. And if they want more, they can always send it back to us, correct? Yes, yeah. So give them what they want, what they asked for,

and then if they want more detail for us to go into expand on it we've already started here's here's the possible direction that that could go right well here's the problem i had too is when i went back and actually did the video and i transcribed it the city attorney specifically stated planning commission will then review the organs possible additional conditions that may be imposed on new forest clubs green state and then they go on to say and the planning commission the review the tech stuff but they said nothing about making a completely new dog they said this is what we want y'all refine is what they're saying that's what i read but everything i read i went back to read it says refine but they didn't say nothing about

So you like what you're saying as a kind of a minimalistic approach with this, which would answer that. I kind of like the detailed one, but I understand what you're saying is they're asking for, hey, pretty much a minimalistic response.

They may come up with saying, I want all of this, and maybe a little bit of this, or I just want this, or like all of a sudden they might just say, kick it back and go a little bit deeper into that. But that's their choice to make. here what y'all are here say in the comments I've made what we plan to bring back to you at the next meeting for the actual public hearing is the minimalistic approach being the first option and We will come up with a map and description for the corridor, which is mainly boulevard and properties that are adjacent or front of the boulevard, and those properties between the boulevard and the ocean. Let's get that terminology in there correct. We'll go ahead and run that map all the way down from one end of the boulevard to the next end of the boulevard. And between now and the next meeting, I will talk with legal in regards to see what's the best way to handle it. that true mapping process.

To do one or two overlays to handle the more thin?

Yeah, we can do it. I mean, because I don't really know how to place an overlay, which is a restriction, or sometimes it's an enhancement, normally it's a restriction, to place an overlay over a property where the use is not even permitted to begin with.

That's my answer that I believe. Can you have one overlay that has two different, like one description is from what you said there, and then as you get to where one side's residential, one side's the commercial part. That's the stuff I've got. You could say a stretch, that's the thing you've got to work with.

That's what I've got to get detailed out. Okay. But I wanted to make sure that that was the way that y'all wanted to go before I started going down a rabbit hole. We good with that? Yes, buddy, yes.

Hang on, hang on, sir. This is not a public hearing.

Can I speak later? I mean, there's a piece of paper there.

I mean, the public hearing is next week, but if council wants to, I mean, if the board wishes as a whole to entertain a question, there will be limitations placed upon it. That's up to you all.

Well, can I email?

Would y'all like to hear from this man? I think we should. It relates to this. We're trying to figure it out.

We all agreed to what Ken was trying to make sure. I think we all agreed.

We don't need no more discussion on our end about what we've directed him to do. I think we all agreed to this.

let me let me ask him is this isn't a public hearing if we let this gentleman speak then that might be setting the precedence i'm just saying i don't know that's when you need to uh that's that's up that you're you're right but that's up to the board in regards to that and i'd like to say you know you put limitations on it you use each one of these view on an individual basis

I'd leave that up to you all, if that's what you want. If not, you can come back for the public hearing and speak with everybody else.

Thank you.

So next meeting, I believe it's August 4th. There's a public hearing on this item.

How many public meetings are per month? Once a month? It's once a month, yes. At the first Tuesday or Thursday or whatever else this day is?

I'll be glad to go over the schedule with you.

Well, I can look it up. So next meeting, August 4th, will be the public hearing. You're welcome to come back and give a show of hands.

But he can submit to the staff if he wants. I did yesterday. OK. And they'll submit it to him. OK. Good.

OK. All right. Moving on to the street names. STM 2609, Pinkhouse Square. This is Alexis.

So this is a request by Tom Miller to name a new drive off Kings Highway, servicing five multi-family buildings, Pink House. And this is the site plan. And then this is the location. And then this one is STN 26.

we had some concerns from the fire department they weren't so as much in regard to the street name as they were to some configurations of the parking lot as far as movement the ingress the egress of apparatuses into the site so if you do do a street name approval this kind of it will be contingent upon the plan approval for the issuance of the building permit because the concerns that the fire department had were not with the name of the street it was just with the configuration of the site plan it's already but they did have, they had set the concerns box on the tech review, but that was their concern, not the road name, but just the configuration within the property.

They have no concern naming the street?

you get back to the e911 addressing requirements which we just play a very small role in which is just part of the actual name of the streets they're the ones that give us the requirements one of the requirements is that any access serving more than three units has to be named this is very unique from the standpoint that through the parking lot of a beach wear store. Yep.

Does that have any reference to the old Pink House Square that used to be on 17th Street?

The best I can say is yes.

Just curious.

What was the, I guess that's a question for Africa. So, exactly, I'm like you, because Pink House isn't there anymore.

No, but it was on 17 Business. It wasn't, you know, behind it, like, or Jason or Joanie or whatever you call it now. So I don't know.

I just, this was a part of the original Pink House Square property.

I got you there. I just, yeah, I'm like, that's what I looked at when I first saw it. It's going right through the detour store parking.

Any other questions? Any comments or questions from the applicant?

I can try to help as much as I can. Do we have any questions for the applicant?

Would you please come in and sign in please? Yeah.

I'm sorry, what is your name? My name is Michael Lester with Miller Design Services. Yeah.

Yes. Explain how that's not going to impact anything and why you're going through a commercial parking lot to get to the entrance for residential.

Well, the only problem with that property is that is the only access the retail is through the through that in the owner for the commercial is also the same owner and developer for the retail I mean for the residential

So this property will not be self-divided then?

No, it doesn't have frontage. Yeah, it has no frontage. And it is basically landlocked behind the retail. Because to the south, as we're looking at the picture, is the property where the large shopping plaza is. The area to the north is another residential, um, I think those are town homes here. This is town homes. This is retail. This is the two buildings that make up pink house, um, square. And then this is the area that we're talking about. So it's, um, landlocked behind the retail.

Whenever they first submitted plans to us many years ago for the building of the of the beach where the commercial component of their whole plan included the residential in the back and that was just phase two. It was a little bit longer coming to fruition than probably what the property owner had initially anticipated. But this was the original plan that was approved, basically the original plan that was approved whenever the The reason you couldn't subdivide this property is you have to have road furniture. If you subdivided that piece of property off, you wouldn't have the road furniture.

Is there an easement on this piece of land to get to the landlocked land?

It's all one. It's all one property. So these units won't be for sale to refurbishment? You can't assume about them?

I mean, you could sell them as condos, possibly. I haven't seen a building plan as far as how they're

They're basically two-story townhouses. That's what the property comes in. I don't know from the owner's side of it what their intentions are. I guess that a lot kind of comes into the intentions of the board. You know, with the short-term rental versus... two-story townhouses.

So I guess what we have before us is really is do we feel the name is appropriate with us subjected to subject to that their proposed street is in conformance to

No, no, basically what we decided long ago when we started doing the street name things this way, unless we rehearse something back from the emergency 911 people that there was a dispute in regard to the name, that it was pretty much a going through the motions type thing, you know, to get in there and say I just don't like that street name, We can't just pick a street name because anything we pick has to be run through the gamut to make sure it's not, that it's in line with the E911. No one's objecting to the street name, are you?

No, right?

No, I don't think so. I think we're just trying to get a grasp on what the property is and how the street name is.

We're trying to get an understanding of something that's hard to understand. Okay. There's nothing, no problem with this thing. Correct. If it was, it wouldn't be before you're here today.

But you did say the fire had an issue with the layout and circulation. But that's not, they'll have to figure that out with building. Correct. And that's been

committed to CAA. Thank you. Is this done? We good? Do we have any more questions?

Yeah, it's time for me to answer.

Okay. I'd like to hear a motion. I move that we approve the street name. I'll second.

Do we want to do a motion to change our subject to fire?

That's fine. Yeah, I would move to continue the bond supply plan approval. Okay. Okay.

I'll amend it to being contingent upon the site plan. Okay.

Motion by Betty Ann.

And I'll second.

Second by Sharon. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed?

So this time we have STN 2610 Highway 15 and 17th Avenue Town Village. This is a request by David Stone with Sarah Malone as the representative to name a new drive off of Highway 15 and 17th Avenue South servicing 40 proposed townhome units away. And this is the site plan. And here's the location.

We don't have any questions.

I do have a question.

Okay. Yes, sir. I noticed that option A was Paul Drive, but although in here we're talking about option B, Oasis, Paul Drive wasn't available. Oh, that's what I was thinking. I would make a motion that we approve Oasis as written in the agenda.

Okay. Motion by, did you, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry.

No, I just signed it. Okay. I'm sorry.

Motion by Paul. Second. Second by Joe. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. I apologize. Oh, you're good. Alexis, last one.

And then finally we have STN 2611 South Oak Vista Mar. This is a request by David Stone with Sarah Malone as the representative to name a new drive near South Oak Street and 11th Avenue South servicing 10 proposed residential units. And here's that site plan. And then the location.

That's the site plan again.

Just so I'm clear, because the application has a phase two, we're only doing Chase Street? Yes, sir. Okay. So the phase two will come back to us at a later date?

Yes, it will have yet to be combined.

Any questions for the applicant? Questions? I'd like to hear a motion. Motion approved. Motion by Phil. I'll second. Second by Sharon. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on, communications from staff.

Yes, in your packets you'll have two new zoning codes, two zoning chapters. I am working with Kimberly Horn to come up with some questions and some more detailed changes from our current zone right now to the update. So hopefully by next meeting, I'll have some questions so we can have a more detailed discussion.

Quick question. I don't know if it was the last meeting or the meeting before last. Did anything for the one-to-one change? One unit to one parking space? Did that stay the same? Yes, sir.

We don't see us go below one for anything in our standard ordinance. Okay.

And related to this, the two that you submitted prior to this, when I reviewed them, I loved the new format. It was above my head.

getting more into the meat and potatoes of it is kind of highlight the other sections that we made the greatest changes in, and then just kind of get your feedback and your input on those, because a majority of it is just providing clarity without changing any meaning, just reformatting it to lay it out better, but there are some parts that aren't changes, and those are the ones that we were really concentrating on with you further down the line.

But the graphics are good. I mean, you said they were common, and it just shows it. Because when you read it, you do start thinking about which did it, and then as soon as you look at the graphics, it just poof, right to the other. So it's very, very, very, very well done. Okay.

Okay, thanks. All right. Any communications from commissioners? I have one.

and show us the plat. It's without the name on it. Is there a reason? Does that come in later or something after? What is it? The plat that we're looking at the street names for.

So the plat is just a site plan that they give in. It's one of the construction plans or something we add the street name onto.

Do y'all, so y'all add that to their plat?

To their plat, yes.

Because it does look, you can figure out so much easier what it's doing.

And see that's where it gets, that's where the actual new roadways coming in. And so yes, it's a different scenario. The majority of the time, most of the street names that have been coming to y'all lately have been HPRs or apartment complexes or townhome complexes like that, where there is not a flat or a subdivision involved in it because there are no property lines. It's all on one piece of property. So they're They're both in the grocery store, but one's in the produce section and one's in the meat department. But they are both in the grocery store. So there are a lot of similarities, but there also are some slight differences between the two.

Okay. But that explains why. Because as soon as you see pops up there, it gets so clear. Yes. I wish they'd have them when we get them. But that's good enough. I understand.

Any other communications? All right. Motion to adjourn, anybody? Motion to adjourn.

I'll second.

Motion by Paul, second by Sharon. All those in favor?