Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gateway Oasis Pdd topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hardeeville workshop: Gateway Oasis plan would convert RV sites to homes; applicant agrees to cap lots to match traffic study
Summary
At a June 29 Hardeeville City Council workshop, planning staff and the applicant described amendments to the Gateway Oasis planned development that would convert a center section of an RV park into single‑family homes and increase overall single‑family units. The applicant agreed to revise language to cap the center section at 160 lots to match the traffic impact analysis; no formal action was taken.
Get email alerts on the Gateway Oasis Pdd topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hardeeville planning staff and the applicant presented proposed amendments to the Gateway Oasis planned development at a June 29 city council workshop that would convert part of an existing RV park into single‑family homes and adjust related master‑plan uses.
Planning staff said the development sits off Speedway Boulevard (U.S. 17 South) with commercial frontage on Bayway Boulevard and a center section that was originally approved for RV stalls. As presented, the amendment would convert about 182 RV stalls in the middle section to 160 detached single‑family lots; the overall PDD would reduce RV stalls from 575 to 375 and increase single‑family residential capacity from 250 to 420 units. Staff noted the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared accounting for 380 residential dwelling units.
“We’re asking to reassign the RV uses for phase three of the residential use,” planning staff member Ms. Snowden said, explaining site phasing and access points. She told council members the Planning Commission recommended updating the PDD to a maximum of 380 residential units and recommended amending the master plan (IMP) to a maximum of 160 units for the center portion.
An engineer for the applicant, Boney of Ward Edwards Engineering, said the amendment language initially included flexibility above the traffic study’s assumptions but that the applicant would revise the text to state exactly 160 lots to conform to the TIA. “We drew it as 160 lots, but we wrote it as higher than that to have some flexibility. Staff has recommended that we change that language to state exactly 160 to match the exact language of the TIA and conform to how the study was done. Not only do we agree to that, we agree to conforming with all of planning commission and staff’s recommendations,” Boney said.
Council members also pressed the applicant on access and signage. Applicant representatives agreed to comply with the city’s gateway corridor overlay sign requirements and to remove the proposed right‑in/right‑out access for the commercial parcel.
A council member asked whether the homes would be rental units or for sale; Kevin Frugeau, the owner’s representative with ROI, said the residential center was planned as fee‑simple homes for sale and that a builder previously present had indicated pricing in the mid‑$300,000 range. “It’s fee simple for sale,” Frugeau said.
Several council members expressed concern that homes priced in the mid‑$300,000s would not qualify as workforce housing and would be out of reach for teachers, first responders and other local workers. One council member said, “There’s no way workforce housing folks can afford that... You’re disenfranchising those folks,” and pressed the team for a commitment on units set aside for workforce housing. Staff and applicant representatives said other phases include smaller lots and townhomes expected at lower price points and noted ongoing city efforts — including donated land and outreach to tax‑credit developers — to expand affordable housing options; the applicant said it could not commit to a workforce housing percentage without its builder partner present.
The workshop was informational only; no votes or formal actions were taken. Planning staff and the applicant said they would revise the amendment language to match the TIA and staff recommendations and return with updated materials for future review.
The council did not take action at the workshop; further review and potential formal consideration will follow the staff’s revised submittal and the applicant’s updated documentation.

