Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

September 15th, Myrtle Beach Planning Commission meeting. Call this meeting in order. And we will begin with roll call. Phil. Here. Lawrence. Here. Sharon. Here. Zell. Here.

Holt.

Here. And now, moving on to the approval on matters of business. STM 2612, Serenity at 10, phase two. This is Kelly.

This is request by Progress Carolina, Megan Gilbert, agent to name a new drive on the corner of McCollough Street and Mr. Joe White Avenue, servicing three multifamily buildings, rain. Here's a location map and a site map. With the street name to be approved, Rain.

Rain Street or Rain Avenue?

Rain Street.

Rain Street.

Staff typically puts this up. It's on after the name's been approved. Okay. For addressing purposes.

Any other questions? Somebody want to make a motion? I make a motion we approve the name Rain. Second by Paul. I'll second. Second by Sherry. All those in favor? I'm just on 6th Ave, or at 6th Ave.

This is a request from Schoenisch Holdings, NTSC 6th Avenue, LLC, to name a new drive off 6th Avenue North, services 3, unit Sunshine. Here's a location map. And a side map. Would the street name to be approved, Sunshine?

This is a privately maintained street, I guess, is that right? Yes. And Sunshine's not taken anywhere else in this area? No, it's not.

I'll move it to be approved. Motion by Zell. Second. Second by Paul. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Moving along, STM 2614 with Flag Street North Ocean Boulevard. Kelly.

Request from Third Avenue South LLC to name a new drive between Flag Street and North Ocean Boulevard servicing three units Coastal Dreams. A location map. Coastal Dreams as the street name regroup.

I move the regroup.

Motion by Zell. Second by Scherz. All those in favor? All those opposed?

Motion carries. All right, moving on to presentation and new applications. We've got Z2601. 3rd Avenue North, RDZ. This is Caitlin.

This is a request by Tom Miller from the Miller Design Services to rezone approximately 0.38 acres on the corner of 3rd Avenue North and Flag Street from MUH mixed-use high density to RDZ redevelopment district zone for proposed single-family detached units and development amenities. Here's our location. We're right off of 3rd Avenue North and Flag Street. currently zoned MUH. Here's a comparison chart from the requested RVZ to MUH standard, what they currently are. They are requesting zero foot setbacks on all sides and a max building height up to 55 feet. MUH currently is requiring zero foot front yard setbacks, 20 foot side yard, 20 foot side street, 20 foot rear, and has a max 240 building height. Here are those MUH requirements from our code. Here's the parking. The project currently is requesting 16 parking spaces, so it consists of eight five-bedroom units. That will be two spaces per unit. Current code requires three parking spaces for a five-bedroom unit, and current code requires 24 parking spaces for the development. Here's the proposed site plan showing the eight units and then the pool.

So there's two parking spots per unit underneath, I guess, underneath each unit? Yes. Is that right? Okay. And RDZ, this is that kind of like you set your own zoning kind of thing, is that right?

RDZ is similar to a PUD. Floating zone. Floating zone. Stuff that comes into play. Does this project make, But does it meet the design considerations that come along with the RDC? One of those is they're intended to encourage innovative land planning and site design concepts. If you look at the layout, it doesn't do that. It's just a basic concept. This is more along the lines of a variance request than it is actual RDC.

Yeah, and the concern I have is that with the zero setbacks, then you're going to have How far is the building going to be for the property line? Do we know? We own it. So there'll be no landscaping between the sidewalk and the buildings?

Pretty much. They are, I think, one of the things that they have proposed. If you go back to their public improvement, slide down. What they're showing is public benefits. The sidewalks are required. One thing that I think they were given some consideration to was in that area that is the green space that's in the right of way, I think they were considering doing some possible street scape, landscape on the city property in regard to that. But one of the biggest issues that I have with this in this board before with all these HPRs that are coming through in and around that area, even those that do meet the parking requirements. Parking is a problem. So much so that that's one of the things that we're going to possibly readdress in the zoning rewrite is up the parking requirements for these HPRs. And they're requesting to have 16 where 24 will be required. So again, it's lining up, in my opinion, more of a variance request than it is the RDC. help me out was in the new zone because where the parking space is going to be wider that's one of the things that that we're talking about is one of them that that we're proposing right um you know uh don't know where that will go we've got to kind of see where it shakes out but you know that's but we did that more so for the depth of the cars as well it was getting bigger right um you know

Ken, when was the RDZ zoning, when was that established? How long ago was it?

Probably, it came through in the 2014 rewrite.

And do you recall kind of what the intent was that brought about that rezoning for this area?

What was trying to be accomplished? One of the big qualifying things of this is that it came about from a standpoint of if there were dilapidated properties. So that's what I said earlier, that it meets the redevelopment factors and it meets the eligibility requirements. Some of the development factors are aging of accommodation, structured dilapidation, structured deterioration. This is an older hotel. I mean, we could easily check off four of those. But then you go to your general eligibility requirements, and they have those where it's Must be a minimum threshold investment of a million dollars, but the city council can't approve less. Must be located in a specifically identified and designated area as determined by the city council. So whenever this first came about, they were trying to drive development on the south end of Myrtle Beach. That's where we had a number of rundown progress.

I've heard it said, and I don't know whether it's true, and I'm not saying it's good or bad, but that This kind of development of single-family horizontal property regimes, very tight, was not necessarily part of the original intent. Not that it wasn't allowed, but there were other issues.

I was actually on the council when we, or commission when we approved this. And it was really, I think the city was encouraging that we look at this and adopted and i mean the things that kind of presented us at the time was the potential of redevelopment property for a brew pub or something along those lines you know like ken said the design was going to be a very big factor and um and it was unlike you know a lot of other zoning where it's the community appearance board is the one that really kind of chimes in on design the thought was with these rdz's because they were really kind of you know, they're not spot zoning, but they kind of seem like spot zoning because they're basically just mini-puds. Right. That design was going to be a big factor in whether or not we would want to approve these types of rezoning.

Because what this actually does, it takes off Ocean Boulevard, which normally you would think you'd have commercial almost on both sides of that, even if it's just like a first floor element of it.

Well, I mean, these would be short-term rentals, so they would be commercial in nature, even though they're a single-family concept, but it's not a high-rise hotel.

I'm not sure that's the kind of commercial that was envisioned, perhaps.

And if you go through and read about the whole requirements of the RDZ, it talks about roadways and all these other types of stuff, so it may have been oriented more toward a bigger type of property. Again, that's why I'm saying connect the site to I mean, it was, like I said, with our HPRs, we're already considering it in the zone and rewrite to have a higher parking standard for the HPRs than we do for the hotel motels. Because parking is such an issue with the HPRs, even if it does meet code. And so, you know, this is, I'm going to be honest with you, we were even given consideration to, we still are given consideration to possibly removing the RDZ from the zoning code all together as an option. We went about six or seven years and nobody even tried to touch our RDZ because a couple of the RDZs that did get approved never even came into fruition. And so we were in the process of talking through and going away with the RDZ.

So really the only thing that's been done in that zoning is this type of projects, just about? Yes, sir.

It's mainly involving single lots, not too many where you're combining lots together to kind of try to do something along those lines. It's more of like just a single lot shot that we've been seeing with these RDZs.

How many RDZs have been approved?

I think four. I've been approved, I think one of them's been developed. Sorry, go ahead.

Which of these requests, when it comes to like, you talked about the parking lots, with the landscaping, and you talked about the setback, etc. Which one are actually part of the RDZ, and which one are they proposing? Is the RDZ, they just make up their own RDD is just like a PUD. RDD is just like a PUD. All these are their guidelines requested. Nothing here has been approved by the city. No, this is the ask. Okay. This is the ask. There's nothing in the RDD currently that says some of these standards are in line with what they approve of the RDDs.

The RDDs are reviewed on a per item basis. Okay. Like I said, it meets the criteria as far as redevelopment factors and general eligibility criteria. We've seen this. But the Blake Motel currently wouldn't even accommodate that.

They'd have to tear on the motel, wouldn't they? That's what the plan is. And you can tear it completely down to do it? You don't just have to renovate it. You can tear it completely down and do a whole new plan. Yes. That's one of the criteria is,

aging, accommodation, structural dilapidation, or structural deterioration. It meets all of those. Absolutely. But yeah, it's just the other issues I have. Okay. I could...

Sorry. MUH is what it's done now, right? Correct. By going to RDZ, essentially they're trying to avoid the parking requirement and... And the setbacks. Other than that, they could do this, I mean, maybe less density, but they could do this plan.

We've approved very similar plans to this, yes, sir. That's my question.

Could they do this, but probably lower density with the MUHs?

And then again, I keep throwing this up there, but that's something in the zoning rewrite that we're looking at, too, is the setbacks within the MUHs. Right now, the setbacks in the MUH, they're pretty stringent in regard to it. But the idea behind that was to get people to combine lots to keep them from trying to cram so much on there. And that really hadn't panned out 100% like we wanted it to either. So we are re-looking at the MUH setbacks as well right now.

So all the other properties around this are MUH, is that right? These are proposed benefits. Reconstruction of the adjacent sidewalk on Ocean Boulevard. The construction of the sidewalks for 3rd Avenue North and Flash Street. There will be sidewalk landscaping throughout.

and then handicap-compliant curb cuts along all crosswalks and curb cuts. Thank you. We've got another one. Here we can see this is the site plan of how it currently sits today. That's all for the presentation. The applicant is in the room answering questions.

I have one question for you, Caitlin, before we get to the applicant. In PUDS, there's a sunset clause in RDC, there's a sunset clause as well?

Yes. It can be.

It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

It actually reads, the plan agreement will remain valid unless a sunset clause or other expiration date is agreed upon by the developer and city council and is reflected in the ordinance.

And they currently are proposing to be, I think, complete with this project December of 2028. And then they also have language in their proposal for 10 years. 10 years possible. But they have a proposed deadline of 2028.

Closed completion date. Yes. But they're asking for 10 years. Plus two, five extensions. Do we have any other questions for staff? I believe Mr. Miller's in the audience.

This is number one on the agenda, one on RDC or whatever?

Yes.

Under oath or no?

No, we don't swear. Okay, I'm used to CAB.

Thanks for here this out okay around table I do wanna where he says the question he but the that are we not the RC the not you can crack

Yes, sir. Minimum side street setback. You fall between that district. Okay. But up to 35 feet in height. But once you're 20 feet, between 20 feet and 35, it's 20 feet between 35 and 120 feet in height. So we got you down to 20 feet. As far as your side yard setbacks, it's the same thing. Up to 35 feet in height. It's 10 feet per structure taller than 35 feet. So minimum rear... you're above 35 feet in height, so you're going with the 20.

Again, forgive me for pressing, but that's not the section in the code that talks about exceptions in the DRC. Can you put the exception in the DRC? Because it changes some of the setbacks and some of the height requirements.

between 20 and 35 feet, and it is 20 feet between 35 and 120 feet in height. So it does refer to the investitive sections.

Okay, so are we not, I'm sorry, so are we not, that's for all the street furniture, not the side furniture. Is that right?

Sides B. Side yard, side yard, and then you pre-set back. You're surrounded on streets by all three sides. For you to fly up to the end, which is the kind of a three-step back, which is between 35 and 120 feet in height.

And then, again, go back to that first slide. I just wanted to look at that. The zero front yard, okay. Yes, sir. Isn't the 20-foot side, I know the, I guess the side street and the rear, wait, well, Even the rear, I thought, was 10 feet up to 35 feet, because we've got that on several of our other projects. And there is no, there was no side, not side street, but side property line setback.

Well, even if you went, I view it all as being side street setback, because you've got street money going all the time. Even if you go to the one that you're talking about, it would still be 10 to the

the rear of the side. Well, I guess the rear is considered a street, right? Yes, sir. All right. I just wanted that clarification. This is unique in that the property that we have has three side streets and then one adjacent property. When the owner requested to get involved on this stuff, really the priority was And I understand what Kenneth pointed out about the design part, but it was really an effort to have a property, be able to get to the RDZ, and trade out all the public benefit issues in exchange for basically getting rid of a very dilapidated building. We don't know, and obviously it's up to you guys as shepherds for the city's interest to decide how long you want that to remain a dilapidated property versus working through an RDZ process that might allow for new construction in that area. So as Ken had mentioned, we met the technical aspects of what we were requesting. And yes, we were asking for relief on setbacks and on parking, again, in exchange for the perimeter property improvements. So in that respect, that's why we're coming to you sort of head in hand to see if we can work out an RDZ situation. That's really, that's in the hands of the board. I'll be glad to answer any questions about the design that there's clarification needed.

Just to clarify, the perimeter property improvements are already required under MUH, are they not? So you're not really giving any... Well, except for we are...

I'm not sure exactly what's in play in terms of Flagstreet, because Flagstreet has, I think... I think it has some perpendicular. I mean, I don't know if it's hybrid or totally on the property. We were kind of cleaning that up and going to parallel spaces. Definitely Third Avenue is hybrid. simply go with the sidewalk improvements, which is what's shown there. And then we do have to come in with the 14 feet off of Ocean Boulevard. And again, I'm not suggesting that we're not... It's really more of, hey, when do you want the public improvements made, whether they're required anyway or not? Or do you want to see the property remain in its present state until somebody finally buys it and does something individually? Or somebody combines lots, like apparently the whole RDZ concept was kind of centered around that hope that those properties would be combined. Again, ours is more of a, you know, can we do this now or through the RDZ process? Or is it just indeterminate when that property will ever be improved?

I think that Zeb's point, and I don't want to speak for you, but this would be required no matter what if this property was to ever be redeveloped. And so it's not a trade-out for us. We're not getting anything above and beyond what we would normally get. Other than the time capsule there.

Other than the price of the time capsule. Right. And that's why we're here. The owner saw a possibility and a need that could benefit both the city and the owner, obviously, if that'd be a win-win. And that's why we're here before you.

Any other questions for Mr. Miller? With having no setbacks, I mean, you've got that, I don't know if that's a motel or an old beach house that's on the south side there? I mean, is that going to be a building that's going to be, what, right on the property line? I mean, you know, when we did RDZ, you know, we were all concerned about zero setbacks, but the idea was We weren't going to make it all zero, but we might require setbacks when we go to approve the actual RDZ because, you know, setbacks are generally important. I mean, you want buffering in any kind of development. And so, you know, Like Ken said, it was the idea of like we could kind of give a take on design, like if there was a good reason to have a zero setback on one particular side because of some unusual situation with the building, then that would be available as part of the approval process. But it wasn't designed to just be able to build developments with zero setbacks on all sides.

Totally understand, and we're consistent with that as far as the neighboring property, because if you look at the plan and the renderings, that's the pool side, that's the amenity side of our development.

That'd be the pool.

And see, we're automatically required, and we did not, I think we might have tried to change the language to a five-foot setback, where the city normally has a ten-foot setback, but we can work within either configuration. I'm just saying that plan shows the pool with a five-foot setback, which I think is language in the DRC. The city has sort of a of a multi-zone normal requirement of 10 feet to the pool. But to just answer your question, that was thought on. We were not going to try to take any of these dwellings to the property line.

So, for instance, will the pool deck go to the property line?

Yes.

So there's going to be no landscaping between the pool deck and the majority of the property area?

right next to the pool, we'd have opportunities on that deck area. But as you know, and this is something we normally go through CAB on, but the city's ordinance is based on vehicle use area. This is not part of the vehicle use area. So at the very minimum, it's not required by ordinance to have landscaping in that area. I agree with that. And another, and just to point out just part of the public improvement, just a small item, but you have overhead power lines running along Flag Street, which we're showing, which we're indicating on the upper plan. But in the end, because we have the seven-foot buffer with the six-foot sidewalk, we would have, and my understanding is, we would have to go underground with those utilities anyway. So again, that's a time now improvement, not a time 10 years from now improvement. Who knows? I know I'm just speaking here.

What's the reason for your sunset being 10 years with two five-year extensions instead of when you're going to build it in a year and a half? I'm going to defer.

It was a request by the governor. I mean, as I think Caitlin pointed out, I mean, If we were to move forward with this, the plan would be to have this done by the end of 28. I think it's just built in just in case there's things that come along that prohibit that accelerated plan. That's a common ask among all these people. I mean, it's like a lease on a town space.

Don't ask, don't know. It's kind of asking for the 10-year, that's a common ask. It has been such a close one.

and city about cutting those down because that's where we got in trouble with a lot of these puds is they had so long to do things and then things change but we cannot move with it. We were talking about cutting back a lot.

Well the biggest attraction of this proposal is the fact that it does clean up a blighted area now. I mean, if it's something that could happen 10 years from now, then it loses, I think it's attractive to us to, you know, or at least it's positive points.

Well, we're in a workshop, right? So that could be a text change, correct? Yes. Okay.

I mean, this is all work. Yeah. I know we're not trying to get to a vote.

We're trying to go through the questions.

But you're also a separate president in the middle.

Please state your name. My name is . I'm with my son today. I didn't plan the meeting with me today when I told my wife that I've got a date. But the issue with the 10 years, my plan is to buy it by the end of the year. I've got due diligence because it's such a long process, of course, between you and the city. and to do the due diligence and to buy by the end of the year and that's it starts working on it taking it down i already working with the bank about financing right now the the the issue with this property and it's not that it's something that is relevant to you guys but the prices for the locks at ocean boulevard ocean view doesn't matter became so expensive so to do a project like this without putting a higher number of units, it's almost impossible. So, and again, the economics of it, it's not related to you, I do understand. But for, let's say, for an entrepreneur like myself, a developer that is looking to actually build something, unless it can actually bring the value to it, like with, let's say, five or six units, it's just not doable today, in today's economy especially. But my plan is not to sit on it for 10 years. I'm not looking to to spend so much money on buying the land, of course, and just sit on it. The same way that I'm developing right now in the downtown area and in other places in town, Market Common, 27th Avenue, Investable, but I'm developing all those properties as fast as I can. Yeah, that's it.

Tom, have you looked at what you would lose if you stayed under the EUH? How many years?

I'm sorry. probably down to four yeah yeah just because of the setbacks and the number of parking spaces that they've been asking for because i mean we normally when they look at this they look at it as the more restrictive of is the is this considered a transient under the transient formula or permanent residence so either way a five bedroom translates to three cars these are big some but we've got one complete one nearly complete and three others on the construction and they're basically all this size every one of them well excuse me 17th which is not in the DRC but on 17th Avenue north we do have some four bedrooms but that's because the one bedroom that's downstairs is a rec room not a bedroom So physically, they're all the same. They occupy kind of the same modeling space.

I'll go ahead. I mean, aside from the setbacks and everything else, good-looking house, good-looking project. I cannot support this due to parking compilations that we currently have with the ones that do meet code. We've got the ones currently that do meet code that we have parking issues with on all those. In all honesty, three parking spaces and five bedrooms on some of the previous HPRs we've done have still led to issues for us on those HPRs. So to cut that parking down to two on a five bedroom, I can't support that.

Well, then some of it could be eight bedrooms, right?

No, it's eight total.

Eight five bedroom. I have some questions about the ornaments.

Okay. Whenever you're ready. On page two, you've got item four that says reserve, contention. What's that supposed to be about? Ralph Shelton.

That was just in the city's draft examples he used to go on. That was already reserved. It means nothing to us. So you're going to take it out? If you'd like it out, we'll take it out.

That was in the city's model.

Sometimes you leave stuff like that in there just in case.

During the workshop, something else comes up and we need to include something else in the document. We've just got that reserved space so you can go ahead and throw it in there.

Page 3, 5.2, you talk about facilities like recreation centers, convention facilities, meeting rooms, spas, etc. You don't say anything that's only for... Yes, but in 5.1 you state that, but still we may be using it only for registered guests. Are you going to do something else with it other than register guests? No, this would be entirely for registered guests. So do you need to put that in there?

Yeah.

It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't hurt me. Right. I mean, we don't mind the clarification.

Okay.

6.3. the setbacks, the equipment and utilities and heatbacks and all that can be within the setback area.

Well, in our scenario, since we're zero setbacks, anything other than being inside the property would be outside the property, so it kind of goes hand in hand. If for some reason there was in the final dissolution of this a setback, then we would want to be able to put... An outdoor unit in the setback area, as it stands, if that works regardless.

So does generally, this is a staff question, does generally the feedback that's sitting on the ground, is that part can be within a setback area? In most cases. In some cases, yes, sir. I think if it's elevated on a building, it can. And then 6.5, you're going to use 90% of the area. Only 10 or less is going to be landscape work.

I don't see any landscape. Where's the landscape?

Well, we're going to ask about that. Yeah, I'm going to ask about that in a minute. We need to get a landscape.

I understand. I think, yeah, open space versus landscaping are two different things because the amenity area including the pool would count as the open space.

But it says that 90% could be the building coverage.

Right. All the space between each of the buildings is a landscape area that's not paved. I mean, this is a site plan. It's not a landscaping plan. Again, a lot of the content of the design was to displace the landscaping on public property along the three right of ways. We aren't totally locked out in putting landscaping in. We've just not, at this point, gotten to trying to meet some sort of an open space threshold, other than the one that's noted in here. Typically, I think it's 25% in the menu page.

So what I'm saying, you're requesting a 90% based on this. 90% developed areas? Right. So 10% in buildings.

from 25 to 10 in the language, is what you're pointing out.

I'm just going by what y'all submitted. I got you. I'm just saying that's something you need to look at next time as far as I'm concerned. Another thing is a page. You said here that a landscape plan will be submitted to CED, which we know that. But I'm going to bring it out. We do need to get a conceptual landscape plan, particularly given what you're trying to request. That's going to be really critical to understand exactly how other things are going to look.

Tom, how much space is in between the buildings? Five feet. Five feet. So is there enough sunlight for anything to grow in that little five-foot alleyway? No, just shade-tolerant plants. So like cast iron plants or something like that?

Yeah, yeah. Those are nice, big, leafy plants. I've got a ton of them myself. I'm sure there's more than just that. I mean, obviously, there's more shade-tolerant.

But up on the north end, you've got townhomes that kind of have this similar format. If you were to do townhomes and not have that five-foot separation, that would leave you space on the ends, at least for some landscaping.

Right. And we've discussed this through all the developments, that the owner sees the value of detached homes versus townhouses. We generally try to do what we can regarding the separate homes.

Sounds like a noise slacker.

Well, yeah, I mean that- The type of- Right. Now this is, these are HPRs, so the HOA is responsible for the maintenance of everything outside the building.

And then we did address the revisionary.

So, if I understood right, 36 months to remove the existing and 60 months to build? Yeah. So, I mean, that's just on the table. It still may not be sufficient. We'd like your input on that.

Just to clarify, you said there's only 5 feet in between? Yes. Is it typically 5 feet or is it typically 10?

Well, it just... The IBC and IFC allow both. There are places that are five feet between. All it restricts us to from a building design is that the overhangs on the side of the building can't exceed six inches off of each unit because we have to make four feet of airspace for fire purposes between dwellings, including the overhang.

And the five foot, ten foot comes into building code as far as the fire rating? Right, that's right, yeah.

For example, I can tell you there won't be any windows on these building sides either, again, for the very same code provision.

What do you think the exterior will be made of?

Well, we're showing hardy as both board and batten, hardy siding, and hardy trim. And you'll have a four-inch overhang? Pardon me?

You'll just have a four-inch overhang?

At the roof level, it'll be, if you go back to the plan there, excuse me, the renderings, sorry. So, I mean, we used a model that we had on a project. That's a 12-inch overhang right there, so we would have to reduce that to 6 inches. But you can see they're all ridgeline front to back, so we're talking about an overhang that extends to 6 inches over that wall. And also you can see by that where the We're deciding in the tram, we even have some, I thought we had some brick at the base. I mean, we've done water table on there, that sort of thing.

But there would be no windows on the out?

Well, on that street side there can be, but not between buildings.

Okay, that's part of the building. Okay, cool. Mr. Chairman, what I'm seeing is what I think everybody's saying is we have issues that maybe the address is set back. and especially the plans about parking and other things. And we need to have a clear understanding of landscaping. Is that about right, everybody here? Equally? Is here at Land Street? Yes.

I think parking's going to be a major issue. Right. You've got parking setbacks, sunsets, and landscaping. You have five bedrooms. You have five couples that come. You've got five people trying to park in there. You're going to have a nightmare. And I know that's the max probably.

More people tend to come.

you're staying in a place like this they do to a hotel exactly yeah even if they're just visiting friends or they live here and they're going down there to visit their friends or whatever they were units that you were living in and you only needed i think the two that would probably be sufficient when you're renting it and you know you're going to have several couples there that's going to really you're not having a parking when they're all utilized well i think that to ken's point even the ones that were to code now or they're still having issues with the parking?

Yeah, I'm not sure how you get away from that other than reducing your units, bedrooms count.

You'll remember while back on the south end they wanted to build some of these type products and change the zoning and the people came here in the past and talked about the normal car that was parking on the side of the streets and etc. It's the exact same type concept.

The landscaping you have in these renderings is not going to exist, right?

Well, the palm trees on the street have to. Actually, that landscaping on the left is off-property, so there's really... But we do have pockets. Yeah, like what's along that building between that and the... You know, there's going to be small little pockets in there. And the street front will be there because, again, we're required a 14-foot... Pedestrian setback of which 10 feet has to be sidewalks. So that's what we're showing. So there is four feet of foundation planning on the Ocean Boulevard side.

So, I mean, so for instance, your pool deck could at least have four feet of landscaping from the deck to the sidewalk, right? That's correct. That's right. And you got four feet basically. I mean, so the vegetation you're showing between the sidewalk and the front porch area is in the city right of way.

No, actually it's not. But to the extent that that 14 feet encroaches on the property, we have to bite that bullet. So actually what I'm seeing is an inaccuracy in this rendering is that that four feet, that fence would actually start four foot off of that sidewalk with landscaping. It doesn't matter where the fence is, but there's going to be landscaping on one side of that fence or the other regardless because of the 14-foot requirement.

Again, this is the RDZ. It's just like a PUD. He doesn't want to put it in there. He doesn't have to put it in there because it has to be a parking door.

That's only a provision of the MU zone, so it would no longer be an MU zone.

That's why I think we need to see what you're actually going to do. It doesn't mean it's a final one, but where you may actually go.

three of the five points again. Landscaping, parking, the sunset clause, what were the other two? Setback. Setback, okay.

And then how it fits in and how it's gonna fit in with the zoning relight and the planning of the city.

Yeah, I guess I get back to, and I know I talk about buffers all the time, but it's just not very pleasing. I mean, we're trying to redevelop the city You've got these old motels that went straight to the property line. They've got hybrid parking sometimes right off the street or whatever like that. There was no kind of setback when some of these motels were developed. No open space requirements were very little. We're trying to reverse that. Having a concrete

you have the sidewalk concrete concrete it's just not not in the nature of what we were trying to get at with the rdz i understand and as i stated there should be there should have been four feet of landscaping along that along that fence road so it's not it's not that it can't be there it has to be there except for the ken's uh exception if we were i guess silly enough to try to Yeah, that can definitely be reduced because I can tell you now, we probably, I'm sure we exceed the, between all the spaces in between and that. I'll bet you we're very close to the 25% that we would normally be required under that new age.

what's done here, like I said, with all the MUH right around it, you know that's going to be the precedent that everybody else is going to look to.

Exactly. Well, zoning wouldn't enforce it that way. It'd have to be just a straight-up MUH review.

No, I think what Lawrence is saying, when somebody sees this project happen on that block, they're going to come in and ask for the next thing. They're going to be asking for the next hotel. They're going to be asking for the next thing.

I understand that. Because we usually try to do things like that when there's a, like you say, there's a benefit, public benefit, or it's a unique property that has to have this sort of situation, or not just to do it because they want to maximize it.

Yeah, I get that. I just, it's hard to read sometimes the urgency of getting rid of these dilapidated properties versus long-term plans. And I get it.

I think we're all in favor of seeing that The old motel is being redeveloped. I don't, I think the question is what are we willing to give up and this might be a bit of an ask, but we'll see.

Okay.

Okay. Any other questions? All right. We'll see you in a couple weeks.

All right. Thank you for your time. You bet.

Good to see you. Thanks. Thank you very much. Moving on to communications from the staff. We've got one from Caitlin, one from Kelly, and one from Susan.

So just a quick update. This is going to be like a firebird area, if you remember. We've got some new commissioners. We've done a flood revocation where we are dismembering, making the flood dissolve. This is going to be like that. It's a long process. I just wanted to let you guys know that it's going to be coming at you in the next coming months.

That's a flood that's been in place for over 20 years and no action has been taken. It's been in place for over 20 years and no action or no development has been taken whatsoever in regards to the land. It's just the same old original buildings that were up there.

So it will revert to MUH at that point?

Commission, for you guys that are on the cultural resources element committee, our next meeting will be September 21st at 1 p.m. Make note of it, y'all.

The zoning rewrite update. I kind of knew what I was doing whenever I handed that sheet out to y'all at the last meeting. I handed that sheet out to y'all mainly for the purpose of letting you know that this is a compliment. was not given back to you as a drop dead assignment, as a you're either going to pass or you're going to fail. It was given to you more as the idea to make you familiar with what's going to be coming, to show you how deep that we are digging into it. But what we bring back to you is not going to be that deep. It's not going to be that in depth. It's going to be more of a here's what it was, here's what we're kind of going to, here's what we're proposing, here's what we're requesting. So again, this was not anything that was, I appreciate the comments that we got from folks that have been there. We will receive any comment that anybody wants to send us in regard to it. But that was more along with the lines of kind of going ahead and plucking the pedals, hit you with something hard first, and then we're going to make it a little bit easier from here on down. But that was just to give you an understanding of the complexness of what we're doing in regard to this. If there are any areas that you really have some concerns about, I know Lawrence has expressed a few to me, Phil's expressed a few to me. I haven't seen your comments, but I know Paul sent some comments into it as well. We welcome those, we appreciate those. But I didn't want this thing to be viewed as, you know, If you don't answer all these questions and turn this back into me at the end of two weeks, you're getting free demerits. I thought it was an assignment. I view it more as an opportunity. That's what I think would be the best way to do it. It's an opportunity for you to go ahead and kind of get a feel for what's going to be coming your way. clear to you next time because the further we go along, the more detail we're going to get. These are a bunch of broad stroke. We went broad stroke for several reasons because we didn't want the wormhole you in the thinking one way. We wanted a broad stroke for you to come up with your own creative thoughts, your own creative ideas, or just your own way of looking at it. Because if one of y'all looks at it that way, that means somebody else out there in this world is gonna possibly look at it that exact same way. And that's a plus to us, to know how people feel and to know what people are thinking about in regards to this zoning rewrite. We're currently putting together, working on getting our public input sessions going about how we want to lay those out. And again, those are all things that you're going to be welcome to and everything else along those lines. One of the other things that we've considered is this does get, it's fixing to get real cumbersome in regard to this. If we wanted to possibly form some type of like ad hoc review committee where that would be hours above and beyond the regular meeting, we would still have the update meetings. But those ad hoc committees are where we can dig a little bit deeper and peel back some layers in regard to a few things. If there are certain areas of the code that you've got a real desire to see some changes in, you know, we make and just say, okay, we're going to have a meeting today. We're going to talk about these three areas of this code. This is not anything that we can throw at you all at once. It'll be too overwhelming to you in regard to that. So I just kind of want to let you know that that was a, The biggest thing, I think it got the point across that I was wanting to get across. This ain't easy, y'all. This ain't easy. We're planning the future of Myrtle Beach. We're not trying to put a Band-Aid on it. We're trying to be futuristic in our thinking and address everything, similar to the RDZ that we just talked about. The ultimatum that they threw out there, do you want this old building or do you want this? that's probably not the best way to handle that. The other thing they said about, for me to be able to buy this property, this is how much development I've got to put on it. Well, the price of your property needs to match what you can do on it. And so just because you're going to overpay for a piece of property doesn't mean that we've got to bear that burden with you as well in regard to it. And it's Myrtle Beach is changing just like the world, y'all. It's changing just like the world. Things that we used to be able to kind of work with people on, we've got to be a little bit more stringent than we used to be because, you know, if the biggest thing that you hear right now is the setbacks keep me from building the size house I need for what I paid for that lot. Well, then you paid too much for the lot. But that's what the price of the lot is. And one of the big things that always comes into play in all of our decisions that we make on any board that I have, monetary reasons cannot factor in. It has to be based on principles of planning and principles of zoning. So again, the task that we're working with is not hard, it's difficult. Probably going to make more enemies than we do friends. Once this is all said and done, too. But that's fine, too, because we're doing what's in the best interest of the city of Myrtle Beach. Whether everybody knows it's in their best interest or not, that's what our job and that's what our responsibilities are. So, again, just wanted to kind of throw that out there. Listen, I read some of those questions myself. Those are hard digs, man. Those are hard digs. They're deep dives.

Deep dives. I'm not that big of an understanding. That's why we need some context and group discussion because it's overwhelming to sit there and try to say this is the right thing to do. Because it affects this, it affects this, it affects this. One change in this section may affect three changes in another section.

So like I said, it does get convoluted sometimes. And so I guess I wanted to, you know, They say it's easier to come back and tell you yes after you've told somebody, or it's easier to come back and tell them yes after you've told them no. I kind of apply that same thing here. It's going to be easier for you to understand the next time we come across to you with something because you've seen how convoluted that it can be.

I also don't like the idea of getting these entitlements that wouldn't normally be given then go in and shopping your property to see what might buy.

You know, I mean. That goes back to the sunset clause. Okay, that's always been the big kicker of the sunset clause. And I mean, that's been a big kicker now for about four or five years with council is that, you know, we won't, that's one of the reasons that the RDZ was kind of brought up too, because that was going to be more like a single shot, simple project. to get something done. And it's, when you've been traveling down the road in this direction for all these years, it's sometimes hard to veer off, much less turn completely around. But we're at that point now where we've got to veer. We have to veer off.

Because it's... I think the sunset clauses ought to be kept to a minimum. Either you're going to develop it according to however you're presenting it, or else... somebody else is going to do it according to another type of plan.

Or it reverts. I mean, if you don't get it off the ground, it reverts, and then somebody else replaces something. That's us.

The extended time just does exactly what you're saying. It gives them the opportunity to go shop it out.

Here's what I can get. That's one of the questions that we always ask people sometimes when they come in here. Are you looking to develop this land, or are you looking to broker it? And there's a big, big difference between those two because of the The broker is going to tell you everything that you want to hear. And then the developer is going to come in here and make the minimum qualifications. That's just the way it always works with us on that. Nothing against either one of them. I like brokers and I like developers. But that's just the nature of the beast when it comes down to it.

All right, moving on. Communications from... Anybody got anything? How about a motion? Do we have that? Motion by Lawrence. Second. Second by Sharon. All those in favor? Aye.