Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

driver. [Music] SP spell. He is um here. He was out this morning. She said he's not going to be able to make it today. Right here. I think I needed some sunglasses or something. Oh, Shazam. I will use this every day. Suntan lotion. Can use that. I like it. Look at that. How cute. Peppermint. Yeah. Oh, it's got this way or this way. Alison, we can keep We can start. You good to go? Okay. Like to call to order the planning commission meeting of Tuesday, April 8th, 2025. Madame Secretary, can you please have a roll call? Give us a roll call. Chairman Culie here. Commissioner Bellamy. Commissioner Edwards here. Commissioner Goseski present. Commissioner Horton here. Commissioner Prince here. Commissioner Weise present. Chairman,

you have a quorum. Thank you. Do we have any communications? No communications. Okay. Um like to have a motion to approve the uh meeting minutes of March 18th. So moved. I have a second. Second. Okay. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? eyes have it. Okay. Or I'm sorry, old business. We have a ordinance text amendment. Yes. This is um zoning ordinance text amendment ZTX25-2. This is an amendment initiated by city staff to amend the ordinance regarding the height of telecommunications towers. Um it currently regulates the placement and height of telecom towers based on district standards. However, um as the needs for infrastructure increase, flex the staff needs more flexibility to support the expansion of reliable service while balancing land use considerations. The proposed amendment adds to section 23110 certain public service uses exempt an item 10 telecommunication towers up to 180 ft in height when located on city-owned or city lease land. The city has sole discretion to approve these towers. This height measurement includes antennas, base pad, and other aertinances measured from the natural grade of the site. We discussed this at length this morning. Um, and I understand y'all have concerns and we can always relay those to city council if you make them a part of your motion or recommendation. This would be a recommendation that would go to city council May 5th.

We have any comments by the planning commissioners? Well, my concern of course is that they are essential. They are needed. Um, they are necessary. There are places where they are appropriate. I would never ever want to see nor I would believe city council would approve one at Heritage Shores or MLAN Park or Burgess Preserve or any of those other green spaces that we currently have. So looking at the list of areas uh that's already in the ordinance, I don't have a problem with it. I have um two main concerns. One is that um it's the city can do it in any zoning district versus where R1 is our most protected district and it can be put anywhere 180 ft. Yes, 100% we do need it because we have more people here. But if we have different height requirements in different zoning, I think that would be more appropriate. Or number two would be based off of the other um telecommunications information that we have in our current ordinances. I feel like it creates an unfair advantage to the city to be able to put up a 180 foot tower and no private business is allowed that same amount based off of our current regulations. So it it creates an unfair ability for the private sector to be able to compete. So those are my two main

concerns. I definitely don't want to see it in a R1 zoning, which is the most restrictive zoning. And we need to maybe my recommendation is that we look at maybe having height restrictions based off of zoning. Ed, were you going to say something? When it says the city has the sole discretion, that means our city council would approve that. Yes. Because each one of these towers would be accompanied with a lease or franchise agreement. So they would be the approve the approving body. So it would not be something that would be delegated to staff to make total decision whenever they decided. staff may evaluate certain criteria but then provide that as a approve any location. So based on current ordinances um private sector can only build a tower up to I believe 100 ft based on our current ordinances. Is that correct? I believe so. And we would be allowing our city to do up to 185 ft. So it provides a substantial advantage over the private sector to be able to compete with the city. That would be my personal opinion. Any further comments by the commissioners? Any comments from the public on this submission? Welcome Harry. Hey, how are you? Harry Ola 3624 pitches plays Park Point. My only I just want clarity in regards to it since we have some towers that are

out on the other side of 31 already. Is it Susan? Is it 180 ft from the floor on grade? Is that what you said? And that's as high as it can go. It can't be put on top of a building and another 180t above that. That would count from the natural grade. All right. So, whatever the the ground is and then they could build and everything will be included to get them up to 180. As you know, more people terrible service out there, but when we come in town, it's even worse. It's amaz you go to the shop and they say, "How is the signal going over the top of you?" I said, "I'm right next to the tower. Don't tell me that. I don't understand. But we do need to have some more service. Just find somewhere where it's agreeable cuz ultimately it will bring in revenue to the city. But as your concern is competition, fair across the board and if there's something that might change it around that says, okay, whatever zone you're in, that's the height requirement you get. I feel that's, you know, what may be best. don't prevent us from getting better, but each neighborhood wherever it chooses to go and with Miss Joe's concern to stay out of the green space if all possible. But you answer my question. Thank you. Thank you. From the st, you know, I really from the standpoint of the competition for the private market versus what we do as city. I mean, a lot of our government bodies, we grant them, you know, there's uh public service uh areas of responsibility that we grant to a lot of our municipalities, our counties, and our states. So I think from that standpoint, granting that to our city to provide us, you know, to make it make that kind of service available to the public,

u you know, I think it's I don't think it's an terrible thing for us to do. And the I don't think anybody on this commission um disagrees with the fact that we need more service here. We have more people summertime. you can't dial out. A lot of times when we have a lot of people here, I don't think anybody disagrees with the fact that we need more coverage and more service. It's just placing the towers and the ability to have certain height limits in certain zoning areas. We wouldn't have electricity through our city if we took some of those kind of an idea. Look how ugly those telephone poles are that we get. They're not You're not got to speak into the mic. I'm sorry. I said we we as we're trying to accommodate these kinds of technologies to give us service, we do have to have some reasonable allowance. So it' be like if we were here today in, you know, 1894 and they were saying, "Oh, we going to put these telephone poles up there so we can give you electricity." We got to have them. I'm sorry. Exactly. But what is the city paying millions and millions of dollars for now to do underground utilities? Well, we are. And at some time, in fact, I do believe that there'll be a technology that we'll be able to do something. will be but I feel like we could cart blanc 180 ft on any city property any lease city property which is above and beyond it's not cart blanc we have a path where there's a a decision by our body that's doing that it's not cart blanch I think once a tower is put in one area then you don't have reason for another tower here and nobody would spend the money to put a

competing tower of stuff. So, these wouldn't be on top of one another, even even within 3 to 5 miles of each other, more than likely. City of North Beach is 9 miles long and we don't have a 180 foot tower now. When we don't have enough service, but is that the end all be all? So, and we're not the experts. I I'm not the expert either. I'm just relaying the proposed the proposal. Um I do I I did look into I think the they are wanting to do this at sports at sports field lighting but it is at the one the sports park um that lighting out there and it's limited to 100 feet. It is R1. Most of our parks are R1. um the most the most restricted zoning districts have come up around these parks and so with the and I understand because this has been a big change in the last now they've opened that park in 201 11 12 no it was 2014 15 14 14 or 15 they opened the park this the big sports park prior to that there was no park larger than 20 acres. So with our planned development PDDDs, they have to be how many acres? Uh I believe it's Oh, I don't know that off. Two, I think is the minimum. So this the sports park is a different beast. How many acres is that total now that they've added on that other section? That's a totally different and I don't feel like should be zoned R1 because it's

not small residential single family homes. I think the second part is R2A the expansion the new 96 acres but the first part is R1. Um yeah, so that might be something for the future to look at because anything over a certain acreage that way it provs for telecommunications to be there. Mr. Chairman, you ready to entertain a motion? I am enter I am willing to entertain a motion. I just want to make sure everyone's had their say. All right, let's have a motion. I move the planning commission recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment ZTX-25-2 as submitted. Second. Any last minute discussion before we take a vote? Okay. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. I Two opposed. Did you vote, Tom? Okay. Just one two and myself. Suzanne, you will move that forward with the recom with the discussion as well so that they're aware of the concerns. The concerns, right? Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Can we move item um the the last item 6C to the next item

so doesn't have to stay here for the whole meeting? My apologies for totally spacing on that. Okay. Item 6 C, minor PDD amendment Z25-5, an application for a minor amendment to the Parkway Group PD revising the amenities at Abrazo at Waterway Hills. Um, we discussed this this morning. Planning Commission reviewed this amendment when it was originally entitled May 17 of 2022 and it was approved by council August 15 of 22. This amendment revises the amenities. It um removes the originally proposed fishing peers and fire pits you can see in the lakes. And in doing so, it enlarges the the footprint of those lakes. And they've added two pickle two pickle ball courts and a putting green. You can see the finished layout has a clubhouse, pool, grilling station, pickle ball courts, benches, dog parks, playground, putting green, and a social circle, gathering space, and fountains. Um, the only other Yeah, that's it, I guess. Okay. Are you Are you through? Mhm. I'm sorry. Yes. Yeah. Left me hanging. Um, any discussion by the commissioners on this item? Oh, I remember I wanted to add that they were removing those elements because of liability concerns. Yeah. Only thing I could add is that the

configuration of a couple of the ponds were modified and uh but no real impact. Okay. Any other comments by the commissioners? We have any comments by the public on this? Nope. Okay. And I'll call for a motion. I move that the planning commission approves the minor planned development district agreement to the Parkway Group PDZ-25-5 as submitted. Last chance for comments. Okay. All those in favor? I I opposed. Eyes have it. Hello. Okay. So item 5B uh preliminary subdivision plat SUB 2463 uh a major preliminary plat creating 55 residential lots, common area and rights of way in phase three of the Bell tract. Uh planning commission recommended the annexation and zoning of this parcel to midrise multifamily residential R2A on July 19th of 2022. Uh, city council approved the annexation and zoning petition on September 19th, 2022. Planning commission granted approval for a block length waiver request on November 9th, 2022. The phase 1 preliminary plat was approved in June of 23 and the phase 1

final plat was approved in October of 23. The phase 2 preliminary plot was approved in April of 24 and the phase 2 preliminary uh final plot was approved uh February of 25. Um the application was postponed at the previous meeting to make changes. Um those changes were to reduce the number of lots from 58 to 55. Um currently the total area of the subdivision is 18.26 acres. The subject property is one lot of record and is zoned R2A. All residential lots are intended for the construction of single family residential. The smallest lot size being 6,360 ft and the largest lot size is 12,668 ft. The density of the subdivision is 3.01 dwelling units per acre. All setbacks conform to the standards of the R2A district. Uh this plat will continue Long Meadow Way and and it will create Silverl Drive and Bright Leaf Drive which are all 50 foot wide public rights away. All new roadways are designed to city standards including sidewalks and street trees according to the land development regulations. Um, and this preliminary plat does meet all of our development regulations and staff has no issues. Okay. Commissioners have any comments? We talked about this in workshop. Um I think in my opinion I think um the motion should include uh something about paving of Long Mega Long Long Meadow and Bright Leaf to Coats Road because that is nowhere to be found in the development agreement or um

in what we have ahead of us. We did discuss it. They said that they were going to do it, but I think it should be in the uh in the motion to approve. And you're you're saying Long Meadow and Bright Leaf and Bright Leaf. Is it correct in assuming that that's coming with the major subdivision and that what was discussed this morning? Hello. Good afternoon. If I need to state my name in James Baldwin, 11:04 Palm Bay Drive, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. So, Long Meadow Court and Bright Leaf Way um have both been discussed with staff and the right ofways for both of those in the final plat will extend out to the Coach Road rightway and there will, you know, potentially be an extension there of of that of the pavement. Sorry. Okay. So, they're indicating it will be in the final plat stage, right? So, speaking with the engineer this morning, um he's going to make that clear in the final plat as well as in the construction drawings for that accompany this document. So, it's not necessary. The language is temporary in in the plat. You can add it to your motion. I think that would be fine. Okay. Right. But it says temporary, not for another years until coach road is paid by the county. At some point, yeah, I think Mark would be fine with that. Yeah, because he said that was going to happen anyways.

Okay. We'll add that to the uh motion. Okay. There any comments by the public on this? Okay. Never mind. All right, then. Okay. So, I think everyone's had their say on this. Uh, I'll entertain a motion. I move that the planning commission approve the major preliminary plat of subdivision SUB-24-63 prepared for phase three of the Bell Track including paving of Long Meadow and Bright Leaf to Coats Road. Second. And we have a motion and a second. Call for a vote. All the pardon. All in favor? I I Okay. I I thought you had something. No. Okay. Eyes have it. Eyes have. Okay. Item 6A, zoning overlay request uh Z25-3. We discussed this this morning in workshop. This is um a zoning map amendment to apply the historic

lowdensity residential overlay R1H to one lot that's 34 acres and it's located on 21st Avenue North where it intersects with Paul Street. The the house the the lot currently contains a single family home and a utility shed. All the surrounding parcels are zoned R1 and this will maintain the underlying R1 zoning. This action the mixture of lot sizes around the property in this block range from 3250 square ft to 12,739 square ft. Average lot size in this surrounding block is 5758. The purpose and intent of the R1H overlay is to recognize the historic development pattern of several existing neighborhoods that were created prior to the incorporation of the city of North Myrtle Beach. Um it makes accommodation to allow reestablishment of that pattern with respect to lot sizes and setbacks. So the minimum site lot area for R1 is 10,000 square ft. R1H is 5,000 square feet. The minimum lot width for R1 is 80 feet, but R1H is 50 feet. And then the other element that's affected is the imperous surface ratio. It's 40% in R1 and 50% in R1H. Also to note, the setback is 5T in R1H. Setback is 10 feet in R1 except for substandard lots of record where it is also 5T. In terms of the questions that um planning commission considers with any action um the relationship to the of the request to the comprehensive plan. Uh this does not alter the existing R1 zoning. However, it would allow smaller minimum lot sizes and minimum lot

widths, reduce sideyard setbacks, and more impervious surface. Staff notes that the average lot size within the surrounding block is 5758 square ft. Um, in terms of whether the request violates or supports the plan, the request provides only for single family housing and prohibits any development that would compromise the existing residential conditions that the residential suburban land use class seeks to maintain in the surrounding block. 44% of the lots are less than 10,000 square feet. Currently, uh, the use is permitted. This does notac impact the allowed use. It it only allows for single family residential. And in terms of public school facilities, roads and other public services, access and public services are available currently and water and ser sewer services exist and would not be affected by the application. Um if you move this forward to city council with the recommendation of approval, you should choose one of the reasons. And in this case, it would probably be where necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. and this would go to their next meeting scheduled for May 5th. I have a question. Um with regards to the comprehensive plan would this need would the R1H overlay districts be needed to be added to that plan? No. The overlay district does not change the underlying zoning district. We don't reference overlays in the future land use map. Um if you look at the purpose of the residential suburban future land use class, it is to define, protect and provide lowdensity single

family detached housing areas were designated and to prohibit any development that would compromise existing residential characteristics. These areas are intended to provide for infill and expansion of existing neighborhoods and subdivisions. standards and densities are designated to reflect existing conditions. The area is intended to allow incorporation of property west of the waterway. Less useful here, but um primarily single family lots, small farms, and farm related uses. So, it is staff's opinion that the preservation of the existing neighborhoods that is the point of the future land use class. It meets those requirements from the comprehensive plan. Okay. Any other comments by the commissioners? No. Do we have any comment from the public on this item? No. Okay. Then I call for a motion. I move that the planning commission recommend approval of the zoning map amendment request Z-25-3 as submitted where A would implement the comprehensive plan. Second. Last last chance for comments before we vote. Okay. All those in favor? I I opposed. Eyes have it. Item 6B was erroneously advertised for tonight, but it requires a 30-day public notice. So, staff is requesting that we postpone this to the May 6th meeting. It's a land development regulations text amendment addressing street and rights of way standards and PDDs.

Any comments? Any comments from the public on this item? Okay, they stand for comments. I'll call for a motion. I move that the planning commission postpone the petition for annexation and zoning STX-25-1 to the May 6th meeting. Second. Last chance for comments. All those in favor? I opposed. I do. We have any comments uh from the public about anything before the commissioners? No public comment. Okay. I move we adjourn. Second. Okay. Meeting adjourned. All those in favor? I I opposed. It's going to keep you guys after the meeting. Oh my. Oh my.