Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Lawrence, here. Danielle, here. Sharon, here. Joe, here. Zeb, here. And Paul, here. Everybody's here. Moving on to the minutes from August 4th. Do you have any corrections? Just one housekeeping that I noticed was the formatting. Moving Zeb is going over.

I fixed that. Thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve as written. Okay. With a 1, 2.

I'll second.

Motion from Paul, second from Sharon. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to presentation of new applications. Text 2606, sidewalk ordinance. This is how you show it.

This is a request from the city of Myrtle Beach to amend the Myrtle 17 design and performance standards to remove language regarding sidewalk installation and replace it with new regulations pertaining to its sidewalk development and maintenance funding. Here we have the sidewalk ordinance changes. It would remove the sidewalk requirement in the individual sections of 1705 mixed use and 1708 amusement to consolidated use. It updates section 1702 design standards for all zoning districts to include required sidewalk installations in all commercial zoning districts excluding single family residentials. It's the creation of a sidewalk assessment fee that may be used instead of installing a sidewalk when approved by the zoning administrator and acknowledged by the public board engineer. If you have any questions, I'm here next.

Why are we excluding single-family residential from the installation department, particularly if it's a big project?

Because normally whenever single-family residential, that is not excluding subdivisions. So if a single-family subdivision comes in here, you still got to put your sidewalk requirements in. But that's what this comes down to. If it's a road, that every lot on that road is built with one, and there's no sidewalk on that road, and then this house comes in, We're not going to make them put a 100-feet sidewalk in the middle of the block. That makes sense. Yeah, totally. But it does not affect subdivisions and new subdivisions. We still get the sidewalk requirements if you request them.

So that single-family development on the promenade track up there at Grand Dunes, you know, between 82nd Avenue and Grand Dunes Boulevard? There's no sidewalk along 17 business there. Was that because that was the greatest HUD that requires sidewalk?

Correct, but there is sidewalk on the interior of that development. There is on the interior, but not on that. That exterior portion where there is no sidewalk is an example where this funding could be put into place down the road in a situation similar to that.

I think there is sidewalk in between Heidi's Corner and only runs part of the way down Bishop Boulevard. It stops.

And that's the, in a nutshell, what this ordinance comes down to is there's got to be a better way than what we've been doing as far as sidewalks. And this is not a right or wrong situation. This is a better best situation that we're looking at here. If you really look at the, under number five, the authorizing criteria, Those give certain examples of situations that kind of come up in that. We also got a couple of text review comments back after we'd already sent out the packet. And one that has been requested to be added to that list of A through E with the add a F. is to add, if the right of way is controlled by SCDOT and SCDOT does not support the installation of a sidewalk at this time, then we can still get that assessment for that sidewalk on that property. So yeah, this is just, I feel a little bit of a better way bit of control of method to the madness sometimes because the requirements of allowing, requiring somebody to put a sidewalk in a commercial section where there is no other sidewalk, it just kind of makes no sense. It's a way to kind of get bigger bang for your buck. Sometimes I can, the overall, the per linear footage price is a whole lot cheaper for 1,500 feet of sidewalk than this for 150. So it's just kind of a way to get more bang for your buck and find a way to, instead of having six blocks where I've got sidewalk sections amongst those six blocks, I can now do it where now, okay, we'll get this one block and we'll do all the sidewalks on this street. So it's not like there's no, we'll start getting complete streets for sidewalks, whereas the way it is written, we'll always have incomplete sidewalk sections across streets. Again, it's not a right wrong is more of a better best. A few more options.

Just so I'm understanding, if they're doing a development and there's already a sidewalk there, they're still paying whatever that sidewalk would be and then the city would be able to say, hey, we need sidewalks on 1st Avenue.

It's kind of like we've increased our sidewalk bids over time. There might be a new construction on a piece of property that's That one time had something on it and it's got torn down. It's been vacant for 10 years. Well, there's a four-foot sidewalk running across the front of that property. Our code now requires a six-foot sidewalk. We're not going to let you go in there and just pour a two-foot band. We're not going to let you pour a new sidewalk next to a 40-year-old sidewalk. We're not going to let you do that. So it would have been your requirement that you would have had to replace all that sidewalk. Well, then we don't want to get into a section where I got four-foot sidewalk that turns into brand new six-foot sidewalk that goes back down to four-foot sidewalk. So that would be a good example of one where we could say, all right, here's the assessment fee for the sidewalk replacement reinstallation, and we'll wait until we get some more development on that thing, and then we go ahead and get the six-foot sidewalk all the way down the road. We're just trying to get some consistency and some conformity. With the sidewalks. It's also a way to get away from, there are some times where we're getting an easement on private property to put a public sidewalk. It's not really our first choice, and this gives us the option not to do that anymore.

Instead of doing it the right way, you would have to get it your way?

Yeah, right now. across your property to put two foot of sidewalk on there. Then it becomes an insurance thing for them, it becomes an insurance thing for us. So again, we're just trying to kind of clean up a little bit.

So the assessment's not set aside for an eventual sidewalk in that area, it could really be applied anywhere in the city, right? Pretty much, yes sir.

What would happen in the event that there is a four-foot sidewalk and our code states it needs to be a six-foot, there's no room to do a six-foot? It would stay a four-foot?

Yes, sir, we have to factor those type things in. I think one of the examples could be that right now we can't put a six-foot sidewalk in there because we've got this, this, and this. Well, there might be a property that we have coming two or three years down the road from now where we're going to do some improvements on that road. We might take some utilities and throw them underground and things along those lines. So it just makes sense to wait until you've got the space to put the four-foot sidewalk, maybe six-foot sidewalk in there at that time. It allows us to make better decisions. It allows us that flexibility to make better decisions and better interest in the city of Murray Beach.

In your guesstimate, do you feel that the sidewalk fund is being used majorly for new sidewalks or is it more for new sidewalks?

much to do with the sidewalk fund because we've never had anything in our zoning ordinance that gave us the option to allow you to make the contribution to do the assessment to pay the fee in lieu of in regard to it. That's what you're saying. How much would the assessment fee be? Depending on the price of concrete. Okay. It depends on your way with market pricing. It will be yes sir. It will be you know It might be this price one year, and it might be a little bit higher next year. It might be a little bit lower next year. It's just going to be just like getting a bid to come in here and pour concrete across the front of this property. Whatever that bid comes out, it's going to be our assessment and not the developer's assessment. It's going to be us. see what that assessment value is okay in regard to it um you know that's one of the things that came up in our discussions amongst each other was you know well concrete might cost more next year well it might be less next year and if it comes down to us having to know that we're not going to put this sidewalk in for a couple more years and our assessment will reflect so often is the city's manual fees updated it was just updated this last uh last budget so i'm not i'm not going to say it's every year but it's more often than not just still and we feel there's been a major change sometimes we do sometimes we wait too late to do it you know whenever you see that your fee is 50 less than the state average we've probably waited too the assessment schedule. And there's a couple of things that we've learned in there too well. We're now going to, instead of the city's manual fees, it's now, it's now just going to be a part of the city's municipal budget. So there's some changes on that that aren't changing the context. It's changing a couple of words. Like Public Works wanted us to put the public works director or assignee as opposed to the public works engineer. There's little small changes like that that aren't changing the meaning of anything. Just a little small corrections for understanding and making sure that we are using the appropriate term for the accounts and things along those lines. But I said there is the one proposal to add under number five is that right-of-way controlled by DOT.

I like what happened with the Highland Road project where we were going to have a water sidewalk because SDOT said no, we could do an assessment for that.

Correct. We could do this. I'd like to see their assessment of that. You're talking about piping a ditch and everything then. That's pretty much a good example. Or there's even been one where DOT could have a major project coming on that roadway in the pipeline that happened two years from now. And they may say, no, we're just going to wait until we do our project to put the sidewalk And the city still has the right to make them put the sidewalk in? Correct. You can't just come in and say, I don't want to put the sidewalk in. I've got to be able to show one of those five authorizations, or now six authorization criteria can actually apply to your situation. It can't be that you just don't want to put the sidewalk in.

but does not meet the current siloing code requirement.

That would be the example of the four-foot sidewalk in place where we've got the six-foot? Yeah, but that's if the adjacent sidewalks are not in compliance.

Correct. I was just saying, would it be best to put that there or just leave it like it is?

Right now, I'm talking about if you've got a stretch that covers ten properties and it's a four-foot-wide sidewalk going across all ten of those properties. Well, over time, before this order was adopted, eight of those ten properties have had to go back in and put six foot sidewalks across the front of that property. If lot number three comes in and lot number two and lot number four have six foot sidewalks, lot number three is putting in the six foot sidewalk.

That's why I was saying that. properties next to them, if they exist, they're going to put in the sidewalk.

Yes, sir. Like I said, if everywhere around you had six and you got four, then you're not paying the assessment. You're putting in the six to the sidewalk.

Okay. I'll say sidewalks currently exist. That's even those that are next to the properties currently exist. They're not off any of them, meaning that the

As soon as a city has any sidewalks on both sides of Highway 17, is there any plan to upgrade those? I think it's really dangerous.

Yes, ma'am. And it's, again, that's DOT, state DOT road, but you're absolutely right. We were actually, about six or seven years ago, passed an ordinance that if you make certain exceptions, where there were people that the opportunity presented itself to be able to put in sidewalk, but they were putting the sidewalk in to actually where landscaping was at, because landscaping was halfway in the right of way and halfway on their property. So we wrote an ordinance in state that safety is gonna trump bushes and so if it means that we're putting that sidewalk in then you're not going to have to go back in and put that maintain buffer across that street we chose to save travel passage over a row of hedges in regard to that so when opportunities present themselves to us like that we try to take advantage of it There aren't a lot of those out there right now, but this is one thing that kind of is a step even closer toward that same point that you just made. This is where we really need sidewalks.

I know, it's dangerous. I've walked on that sidewalk, and I could never again. That's frightening.

Well, they do have a sidewalk on 17th. It's just about a foot and a half wide, and most people call it a gutter.

I know, you're right next to the car stuff. It's really scary. So anyways.

Especially if somebody's riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, if you're just ready for them to fall off that sidewalk, why didn't you?

And those little electric scooters, that terrifies me.

That's a whole other story right there.

We won't go there, I'm sorry.

Any other questions? Sidewalk ordinance? Y'all good, miss?

As I said, I'll make those few changes that are referenced in here, but like I said, they were not changed through the actual text. It was just clarification sources. They did not change anything. All right.

Moving on. Annex 2603 Coast RTA in Fire Station.

the Baltimore Regional Transportation Authority and export parcels totaling approximately 17.11 acres, ranging from 425,018 square feet to 44,979 square feet. And to rezone them from Horry County's limited industrial to the wholesale manufacturing zone in the city of Beach. To allow for the development and construction of a fire station, a transit center, and operation and maintenance facility. There's our map of those four parcels highlighted in blue. We're right off of Robert M. Grissom and Executive Avenue. Here's our aerial view. These are the four individual parcels highlighted in blue.

So the fire station, is that going to be a city fire station or is that a fire station?

Yes, sir.

So the city will own a portion of this property after it's said and done or how?

That I don't know. I'm assuming so. I doubt very seriously that we're going to be entering into a lease, but that's probably a question that the applicant or staff can address for you on that.

I'm Jay Hood with the City of Merle Beach. I'm over past that you all do a correction. It's fire station one. Fire station one. Yeah, we're replacing the old fire station over to this one. So, yeah, so this is going to be replacing our old fire station back in the old adjunct. And it's 30,000 square foot fires. It's six bays, two stories. It's a state-of-the-art. It's a good-sized fire station. Will it be owned by the city? Owned by the city. We already did the transactions. Once it's annexed in, we'll be transferring the property needs. We're in that state right now. We're 95% involved on the plans and the site. Ready to go through the permitting and bidding.

What's the reason for bringing the transit authority property to the city? Is there any reason?

It's a donut, and working with Brian, the RTA, we just joined that person to do it all together. We can get rid of the donut inside the city.

So which property is the fire station going on?

This one. That one? Okay. And the bus station? We've been working for about a year. What did you say about the bus station?

It takes an hour and a half.

Will that eliminate the need for that temporary transfer station over by City Hall?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. All that. Everything will move out.

Yes. Absolutely, yes.

Everything will move out to this site here.

The container garden will be gone, slash office, and we'll have everything relocated. We're trying to phase it such that the transfer center can be done first.

Ma'am, can we ask you to come forward? Yes. Apologies. I need to sign in. Let us kind of get back on the agenda a little bit right now. Let us go through the board and see if they have any questions, and then we'll bring applicants up. Thank you.

Alright, here's the four individual parcels, and then our current zoning as it stands, and then the proposed zoning. You can see the partner is going to be Wholesale Manufacturing. This is a submitted site plan sent by the applicant. And then just a zoning map.

And that is all.

Can you, I'm sorry, can you go back to the aerial?

Yeah.

What are those businesses behind it? Because that'll be the next one I'll hold.

I think that's Stuart.

Right?

Yes, sir.

I think that's- One of them is owned by, one of them is Elvis.

Elvis is one of the big ones that's back there. Okay. And that's the one that's the majority that's in the county. The front, up here and they'll go all the way through. So we're basically just taking in every piece that has not had some type of development on it right now.

Any other questions for staff? On the plant that I'm looking at, there's an access element that runs in there for these properties. Will that be done away with and the other three parts of anybody, RTA, would they be combined?

That would be a question for the applicant to be able to answer. Give us one second.

All right. Yes, sir. Please state your name and sign in if you don't mind.

My name is Sean Flynn. I am with Thomas & Hutton. And the answer to your question as to why the access easement was created in the first place is because you've got multiple parcels. And in order to create the subdivision that you see on that piece of paper there that's on your screen, there needed to be access provided to all parcels. Yeah.

into the city the intent is to recombine them and then that access easement will be done away with so the rta properties will be combined yes the city fire station will be a separate parcel yes sir and then that access easement basically goes away yes sir so we're going to have to do a new subdivision plan or that's something stuff that could probably be a staff level because we're not not creating a lot Commissioners, any other questions for the applicants?

Will the road that's going to be built in there, will that be a city road?

Or will that be private to the authority? The intent is that there won't actually be a road. It'll be effectively a parking lot. So it won't be a right of way. Gotcha.

What the map is saying up there right now is pretty much as it exists. Today, as far as... That is a recorded survey. Yes, but that is not what it's going to look like once it's all said and done and all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed. Correct. So none of the parcels are going to change. It's just where they're going to put certain things. I would say the parcels are going to change, but the size of the area is not going to change.

Some of the lines that are on that screen there that segregate parcels from one another will be removed in order to create effectively two parcels. one of which where the fire station will be located, one of which where Coast RTA's facilities will be located.

Basically parcel three becomes a fire station, parcel one and two just combine together to be RTA.

Since this is a workshop and that seems to be, this is a good question to ask but it's kind of hard to visualize what you're explaining. Even if it's just a rough draft thing, do you think you could have something for us to be able to show which shows these are what the proposed two parcels, final two parcels will look like? Oh sure. in regard to that for the next meeting? Absolutely.

So both those parcels will have access to them off of Bristol Bazaar, right? Yes.

There'll also probably be access between them as well. Okay. Meaning a separate private road? Well, like I said, I don't know if between the two parcels so that you could come in in either location in order to access various facilities. You could come in at the entrance that's, I'll call it the primary entrance for the fire station, and still get to the transit center and operations and maintenance facility. And vice versa, if need be, recognizing that there will be certain security between the various facilities.

Okay, okay. But so you're just saying there's going to be two curb cuts on Grissom. That is the curb cut.

That will have cross access. Yes, that is. And the first step in this process is having to get it annexed into the city of Myrtle Beach so they can start preparing plans that meet the city of Myrtle Beach code and requirements and regulations. So this is the first step.

And when you're cutting through, I just envision buses backed up and the firetrucks trying to get out. I'm assuming Public Works will have their...

I'm pretty sure engineering is going to make, the engineering of this project is going to make sure that there is no chance that that will happen. All right, very good.

Any other questions?

I would like... I haven't heard him offer me to answer the question that Zed presented about the relocation of the...

Any more questions you can answer for me?

I was asking about, so the temporary transfer stations over there by City Hall will be abandoned in favor of the .

We had to relocate due to some of the infrastructure works. So that's our intent, is just to kind of be there temporary. Our hope is that we can get the transfer center a little ahead of schedule, of course, but we're about 15% at design.

That is the intention.

Correct.

Where do you think you have a problem on?

Good question. You know, we would like to have shovels under the door. I would like to be, have signed up right now, but I know I have to be patient. I think three years, maybe. That's tough to say. I feel like I'm in the hot seat for that one, but Ryan's not here, so I'm on the line.

We've written that down.

Anybody have any other questions?

I'm good. is there anything that the board feels like they need to see if if we get him to provide us a preliminary plat showing the two parcels i think that would give a whole lot of clarity to what y'all were looking at in regard to that it's hard to imagine but again we are here before you today today just solely This is not for a project approval, but for annexation into the city.

Okay, thank you. Bring it back to commissioners. Any other questions for staff? Okay, moving on to communications from staff. Is there any update?

Yes, we're still working with the questions that will be provided. But if you guys have a chance to review a document and Any questions or comments that you want to bring up? If I have a chance to.

Who do we see? You indicated last time not the way to submit stuff, but we have things that we want to possibly have you look at for ideas or suggestions. Who do we send that to?

You can send them to me.

Send them to you.

Yeah, and then I'll be able to talk to Kimberly Horn and discuss it with them.

I just want to make sure, because I didn't have the stuff prepared. I didn't want to send you all.

And also, I know in the email that I sent, if you need the physical copies, just let me know. I can print more and bring it to you as well.

I wanted to ask, at one point we talked about highlighting what the changes are. Yes, that's what we'll be working with. Okay, we're still working on that. I need that.

Yeah, that's, that's, that's, it's, Whenever we have our meetings, we're meeting on like one section at a time, and it kind of seems simple then. Once you put it all together, then you say, well, this change in this section is not going to affect this change in this section. So a change is not just going to affect that section. A change in this one section is going to end up affecting a change in this section, this section, and this section. So like I said, once it starts coming, it's going to come quickly. Right now, we're kind of giving you a good trickle. We're getting ready to open up wide. It's going to start a lot coming at you. Okay. Be prepared, huh? Yes, ma'am. When do we think we'll have everything ready? Everything ready? Not as soon as everybody wants. And my take on this is, yes, we did a zoning rewrite in 2014. That was an in-house job. This is the first time in 30 to 40 years that we've actually had a professional consultant come in to do our ordinance. So, yeah, we're kind of slow playing this a little bit because we're not just doing the ordinance to get called up to what's going on in the world today. We're preparing an ordinance for what we see coming on the horizon as well in regard to a lot of things. you get one chance to do it right. And that's what I want. I do not want to pass an ordinance that within the first 12 months of passing that ordinance that we've got 72 amendments lined up on it. That's two steps forward, three steps back. So we're looking to have one good final document that's gonna stand the test of time and the amendments should hopefully be few and far between. that come in, that come in accordance with us. We don't want to save a dime today. They have to spend a quarter tomorrow. That's all good.

Any other communications from staff? Communications from commissioners? How about a motion? Move to adjourn. Motion by Senator, second by Paul.