Taking sides: City sees divide in downtown Myrtle Beach development planning
Two Myrtle Beach City Council members are siding with planning officials in opposing a proposal that looks to strip nearly all zoning regulations along Ocean Boulevard to pave the way for a desired influx of development.
Council members Mike Lowder and Jackie Hatley went before Planning Commission on Tuesday, stressing that more time is needed for officials to research and improve the proposal before it can go back to council for second reading approval. Both agreed they wouldn’t be able to support it in its current form, with Lowder calling it a “zoning nightmare.”
“I would like to see some more input, some more thought put into it before we pass it along,” Hatley said. “This is a big deal, and I think everybody realizes that we want something to happen to kind of spur that growth, spur what needs to be done in our city, but sometimes you have to step back and look at it a little bit more before we pass it through.”
City Manager John Pedersen originally granted planning 30 days to review the proposal, despite them requesting more time.
Since January, planning officials have lauded the proposal as a reckless endeavor that will have a detrimental impact to the city for years to come. They’ve also criticized council for a lack of communication on the issue. Pedersen and Mayor Brenda Bethune say the topic has been thoroughly discussed and researched, calling the proposal a positive and necessary step in the right direction.
The proposal, which received first reading approval on Jan. 14 from city council, aims to expand the Redevelopment District Zone to encourage investment, mixed-use development and redevelopment in areas that are struggling economically from 29th Avenue North to the southern city limits between Kings Highway and Ocean Boulevard.
The zoning designation, also known as a floating zone, currently spans east of Kings Highway from 8th Avenue North to 3rd Avenue South. A floating zone is typically used to plan for future land uses that are anticipated or desired by the community, but are not confirmed. Each zone, upon approval, is unique to its own specifications.
The current RDZ, which was implemented in 2015 to jump-start development, has only received two proposals.
While Hatley and Lowder approved the proposal’s first reading, both admitted to having reservations and concerns. Lowder added he could support the proposal if it was a smaller more specific geographical area, an idea planning officials have discussed ad nauseam.
“I don’t think there’s a soul in this room and I don’t think there’s a soul that’s a member of city council, including the mayor, that doesn’t want to see development set in place, but I think this becomes a zoning nightmare,” Lowder said. “We do need to slow down, we do need to evaluate this a lot closer. I don’t want to see this move forward as is.”
Per the ordinance, the RDZ expansion would exclude residential and highway commercial zoning districts but would allow developers or businesses to start with a blank slate of zoning on eligible land and basically dictate their own zoning district instead of adhering to the city’s current zoning code.
Staff would consider applications on a case-by-case basis, with each property subject to a public hearing before planning and approval by council. However, while planning would have the ability to recommend approval or deny the proposal, city council will ultimately have the final say.
“It’s not going to be a simple review,” Zoning Administrator Kenneth May said. “We as staff will have to spend more time reviewing these items than something that was submitted under an established criteria.”
Retail uses, tourism-related business, cultural arts activities, corporate headquarters, research and development corporations, high technology growth business, residential uses, particularly workforce housing, and historical preservation projects would be eligible for an RDZ district.
Applicants must have a minimum threshold investment of $1 million for mixed-use or commercial purposes, according to the ordinance. Architecture designs must be aesthetically pleasing and enhance the character and value of surrounding properties.
Planning ultimately denied the proposal with the recommendation that council grant them additional time and support to craft an ordinance that is suitable for passage but also considers the need to boost economic development. If council objects, planning members urge them to scrap the original proposal and consider an amended version comprised with suggestions and tweaks made over the last month.
“My contention would be that this is so much better than what we started with that I would prefer if there is the wisdom of the body to pass something on second reading, please pass this,” Chairman Bill Pritchard said. “But I don’t recommend that they pass anything.”
