Council workshop probes alley widths, density and phasing in proposed Indigo PDD revisions

At a North Myrtle Beach City Council workshop, council members, planning staff and the developer reviewed proposed revisions to a planned development district (PDD) for a multi‑phase project often referred to in the meeting as the Indigo project, focusing on alley (private right‑of‑way) widths, driveway maneuverability and an offered reduction in overall density.

The developer’s representative, Mister Hughes, presented two main alternatives for the private driveways and setbacks intended to address backing and turning: keep the current 20‑foot private right‑of‑way and add 2.5‑foot easements on each side (creating more clear public/resident use), or adopt a 25‑foot right‑of‑way while keeping 5‑foot setbacks so the building footprints would not move. Hughes said the discussion “all really comes back to these driveways” and described the options as ways to give more room for vehicles to back out without shifting house footprints.

Why this matters: council members said alley width and the length of dead‑end alleys affect daily maneuverability for residents and visitors, emergency vehicle access and the marketability of units if they are sold as fee‑simple lots. The project team presented campus‑style alternatives used elsewhere in the area and said they had already reduced the overall project density compared with earlier approvals.

Most important facts

- Current proposals discussed: a 20‑foot private right‑of‑way (ROW) as the baseline, a 25‑foot ROW alternative, and a proposal to add 2.5‑foot easements on either side of the 20‑foot ROW to secure turning space.

- Unit counts: the developer said the revised plan reduces the previously approved density; participants repeatedly referenced a reduction of 91 units, and one speaker at one point said “191” (the transcript contains both figures). The transcript records the developer repeatedly describing a reduction of 91 units as the current agreed change.

- Alley width tradeoffs: staff and council were told that making the alleyways wider (for example to 25 feet and increasing separation between buildings from 30 to 35 feet) would likely require removing 8–16 units (one or two pods) from the site to gain the necessary width.

- Amenities and open space: the developer said overall green space would be about 32 percent; the Indigo amenity area was described as increasing from roughly 0.96 acres (in the original entitlement) to about 1.75 acres, and the plan would include three amenity centers (two large amenity centers plus one smaller area adjacent to townhomes).

- Commercial sequencing and obligations: council asked whether the retail/commercial portion is required to be built before residential; staff said the development agreement contains a schedule (Exhibit N) but that Exhibit N allows flexibility. The city’s summary read that, in broad terms, about one‑third of the project could be complete within four years of the agreement’s effective date, with the remainder completed over the following five years, and that market demand typically dictates phasing. The city attorney reiterated that the agreement’s language gives the developer flexibility and that staff would confirm the precise commercial sequencing language in the development agreement.

Council concerns and options

Council members repeatedly returned to vehicle maneuverability and the length of dead‑end alleys. Several council members said the proposed private drives could be “a borderline nightmare” for some homeowners if units are sold rather than rented; one council member said either to accept the approved layout as built or remove a row to widen drives. Staff and the developer suggested compromise approaches short of removing many units: widen pavement within the existing ROW (for example to achieve a 22‑foot paved travel width) or remove one pod (eight units) plus parts of another pod (bringing the likely reduction to about 12–16 units) to achieve wider alleys and 35 feet between buildings.

Engineering, utilities and codes

Staff said they had received no new engineering or utility submittals for the revisions and that utility companies’ work would control some implementation timing. The conversation referenced the state permitting process (DHEC land‑disturbance permitting) and a fire code limit on certain dead‑end lengths (speakers mentioned a 150‑foot length limit). The developer noted that infrastructure ordering and installation would begin only after the city approvals and that permitting and market conditions affect construction start; staff pointed to Exhibit N in the development agreement for a broad timing plan but said they would check the document for any commercial building sequencing requirements.

No formal action

The workshop was a discussion session; no motion or formal council vote was recorded on the PDD revisions at the workshop. Staff said they would review the development agreement language (including Exhibit N) and confirm timing and any commercial sequencing requirements, and the developer said they would continue to evaluate unit counts and alley layouts based on council feedback.

What’s next

Council directed staff to verify the development agreement language and to circulate additional visuals requested by council (elevations and larger‑scale alley views were requested). The developer said it would return with details or adjustments after further internal conversations about unit counts and layout.

Ending: The meeting concluded with staff and the developer agreeing to follow up with the requested clarifications; no formal vote or approval was taken at the workshop.