North Myrtle Beach council postpones Parkway Group PDD amendments after staff flags missing details

The North Myrtle Beach City Council voted to postpone second-reading consideration of amendments to the Parkway Group Plan Development District (PDD) after staff and several council members said the submission lacked required detail.

Council postponed the ordinance at second reading after planning staff and council members said the packet did not include rear elevations, landscaping plans and clear pavement/right-of-way dimensions needed to create a recordable PDD. Staff said those missing items were present in an earlier (February 17) packet but were not carried into the current draft that would be recorded if approved.

Council members and staff said the omitted materials matter because the PDD becomes a binding entitlement document recorded at the register of deeds. Planning staff told the council the rear elevations (the “motor court” elevation in this application), landscaping locations, and a clear pavement/right-of-way standard must appear in the recordable documents so future subdivision and construction reviews can require what was promised. Staff also asked the applicant to coordinate pavement widths with public works; the packet showed inconsistent options (20-foot pavement in a 25-foot right-of-way versus other widths).

City staff indicated the applicant had made many prior requested changes, including substantial density reductions, but that the current submittal still lacked the complete set of small-scale plans and landscape details needed for a predictable outcome. Council members said the developer had reduced unit counts substantially from earlier proposals and had otherwise met many requests, but the recordable plans must fully reflect landscaping and rear-elevation details.

A motion to postpone the ordinance was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote. Council directed staff to receive the missing details from the applicant and to return the item for consideration at the next meeting cycle (the council discussed returning it in three weeks). Councilmembers also referenced coordinating final pavement and street section details with public works and requested a clear list of outstanding changes from staff so the council could verify the recordable package before voting.

The postponement applies to the second-reading PDD amendment (item 6a) and a closely related second-reading amendment (item 6b) the staff also asked to delay. No formal vote tallies or named mover/second were recorded in the transcript; action was taken by voice vote.

Council materials show prior review at TRC and a February packet that included the missing illustrations, and staff said the applicant removed some landscaping information in the version now before council. Staff told council the applicant had agreed to provide revised materials; councilmembers asked staff to make sure the recordable document shows the exact elements the city expects to be built.

No final decision on the merits of the PDD amendment was made; the postponement pauses the ordinance so staff and the applicant can supply a complete, recordable set of plans and specific street-section and landscaping information.