Council approves first reading of Parkway PDD amendment amid questions about amenities, roads and green space

The North Myrtle Beach City Council on an item considered at a public hearing approved on first reading an amendment to the Parkway Planned Development District (PDD) master development agreement that revises the preserve area and authorizes the interim city manager to sign the amended agreement.

The amendment, presented by the developer, describes a proposed reduction in the total residential units and restructures the project into three segments; it also revises timing triggers for completion of amenity areas, clarifies which roads will be public and which will remain private, and adds requirements for a private owners association to maintain private roads and provide curbside trash service in specific segments.

Why it matters: The size, layout and infrastructure commitments in a PDD shape traffic, public services and the availability of open space for both new residents and nearby neighborhoods. Council members and several public commenters said they are not satisfied with the current site plan and asked the developer to address multiple design and infrastructure concerns before the amendment proceeds to final passage.

Key proposal details and points of council concern

- Unit counts and phasing: The developer said the amendment decreases the total residential development units “from 826 to 609” and proposes three segments described in the submittal as Bayberry (35 RDUs), Retreat (247 RDUs) and Indigo (227 RDUs). The numeric values reported in the presentation do not add up: 35 + 247 + 227 = 509, not 609. The transcript shows inconsistent numeric statements in the developer’s presentation; council members noted the need for clarification.

- Amenity completion triggers: The amendment ties completion of amenity areas to certificates of occupancy. For Bayberry and Retreat, amenity areas would be completed at or before issuance of certificates of occupancy for 50% of RDUs in those segments. For Indigo, the developer asked that the amenity area be completed on or before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for 85% of RDUs in that segment. Council members expressed discomfort with an 85% trigger for Indigo and several members said they preferred a 50% trigger; staff and the applicant said the higher Indigo trigger was requested because the amenity location moved and the lift station / utility sequencing could delay delivering the facility without delaying housing units.

- Road cross-section and traffic design: Public works flagged what it described as a discrepancy between the currently approved PDD/site plan (which showed continuation of a three‑lane section) and later submittals that depict narrowing to a two‑lane section for a portion of the corridor approaching the development. Staff said the street was permitted as a 70‑foot rural collector in the development agreement and narrative, and that the applicant had added curbing and local three‑lane widening at specific turn locations. Public works called the proposed three‑to‑two‑to‑three lane sequence inefficient; several council members asked staff and the applicant to reconcile the cross‑section shown on the approved PDD, the approved site plan and the latest large‑scale plans.

- Alley widths, garage counts and parking: Staff and council discussed 20‑foot alley widths where some members had earlier expressed a preference for 25 feet to enable maneuvering. The applicant noted that planning commission asked for changes including converting many one‑car garages to two‑car garages in one neighborhood pocket; the applicant said that change increases the footprint of individual units and reduces some internal green corridors, which it said is an unintended consequence of the commission’s direction.

- Green space and trails: Multiple public commenters and council members said the green corridor and the trail connection shown on the previously approved plan appear reduced or relocated in the new plan. Applicant and staff said the total green‑space acreage was shifted to different locations but that the overall count of green acreage remains in the plan; residents and council members said the relocated green areas do not provide the same contiguous amenity or trail connection previously approved.

Council action and next steps

Council conducted the required second public hearing and then took the item as an ordinance on first reading. A council member moved to accept the ordinance on first reading and the motion carried on voice vote. Several council members said they were willing to approve first reading to keep the schedule but insisted that substantive outstanding concerns — particularly the Indigo amenity trigger, the road cross‑section discrepancy and the green‑space layout — be addressed before a final decision. City staff noted the PDD and the site plan will return together for the March 17 meeting for second reading and any further action; the applicant said it would discuss the concerns with its team and could either proceed to second reading with changes or pull the item for redesign.

The council’s first‑reading approval advances the development agreement amendment to a subsequent meeting but does not finalize project approvals for the PDD/site plan; council members repeatedly emphasized that they expect clearer, consistent plan documents and corrected numeric summaries before final enactment.

Ending: The city clerk confirmed there were no further public comments on this item and the council moved on to new business. The item will return to council for further consideration at the next scheduled meeting on March 17 (as referenced in the meeting discussion).