STAFF REPORT – ANNEXATION/ZONING
Burroughs & Chapin
Multiple TMS #s
1-14-10
FILE #: ANEX 10-01
1st Review - January 19, 2010
General Information
APPLICANT
Burroughs & Chapin
STATUS OF APPLICANT
Owner
REQUESTED ACTION
Annex and zone 585.9 acres to R-15 (One Family
Residential), TA-55/TA-80/TA-120 (Transient
Accommodations), C-3 (General Commercial), and a new
Waterway Overlay Zone (OZ).
EXPLANATION FOR ZONING
“Requested zoning is comparable to current zoning and is
consistent with surrounding uses.”
EXISTING COUNTY ZONING
SF-10 (formerly R-4, Single Family), RC (Resort
Commercial), GR (General Residential), HC (Highway
Commercial)
SITE LOCATION
Plantation Point, Myrtlewood
SIZE
585.90 acres
EXISTING LAND USE
Vacant/Golf Courses
PROPOSED LAND USE
Mixed use (housing, commercial, golf)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Identifies the area as Medium Density Residential, Parks
and Recreation, and Neighborhood Commercial.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
NE
NW
SW
= Directional keys
Plantation Point
Horry County SF 10
Intracoastal Waterway
Unzoned
“Mama Ditch”
CMB R-15
Subject Property
Multiple zones
Vacant
Horry County RC
Vacant
CMB Grande Dunes PUD
Vacant
Horry County HC
US Hwy 17
Multiple zones (HC, GR, SF 6)
Vacant
Horry County HC
SE
Public Comment
Number of letters sent to property owners within 300 feet of the proposal:
Number of signs posted for ten (10) days prior to public hearing:
Legal ad ran in the Sun News:
Number of calls received at the time the staff report was written:
Number of emails/letters/fax received at the time the staff report was written:
2,386
13
Yes
208
70
1
Burroughs & Chapin
Multiple TMS #s
1-14-10
FILE #: ANEX 10-01
1st Review –January 19, 2010
Analysis of Request
Section 405 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the following factors, which should be part of the
information considered when evaluating requests to change the Zoning Ordinance Text or Map.
Section 405.1 Whether or not the requested zoning change is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan or is justified by an error in the original ordinance.
The Comprehensive Plan shows this property as Medium Density Residential, Parks and
Recreation, and Neighborhood Commercial. Existing land use conditions for the parcel have
not changed. There are no known map errors associated with this request.
Section 405.2 – The precedents, and the possible effects of such precedents, which
might result from approval or denial of the petition.
Precedent 1 – Proximity to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIW): Historically, the city
limits have come close but not crossed the AIW. The initial airport annexation gave the city its
first reach to the Waterway; the next wasn’t achieved until Grande Dunes was annexed in 2000.
The Shriner’s property (2003), the Mama Ditch (2007), and Butch Jones’ property (2009) are the
other properties in the city limits that reach the Intracoastal Waterway.
Effect: There is still a considerable amount of undeveloped land along the Intracoastal
Waterway in and near the city limits. Staff believes that the time has come to evaluate the
impacts of annexing the areas of AIW that abut city jurisdiction, taking into consideration water
recreation uses, natural resources, floodplain regulations, plus guidelines and/or regulations for
docks and marinas.
Precedent 2 – Annexing Property Covered by the Horry County Development Agreement:
Portions of the 585+ acres are covered under a Development Agreement with Horry County.
The agreement was signed in 1995 and is set to expire in 2025. Under state code Title 6,
Chapter 31 (South Carolina Local Government Development Agreement Act), provisions are
made for development agreement properties annexed into a municipality:
SECTION 6-31-110. Validity and duration of agreement entered into prior to incorporation or
annexation of affected area; subsequent modification or suspension by municipality.
(A) …if a … newly-annexed area comprises territory that was formerly unincorporated, any
development agreement entered into by a local government before the effective date of the
annexation remains valid for the duration of the agreement, or eight years from the effective date of
the incorporation or annexation, whichever is earlier. The parties to the development agreement and
the municipality may agree that the development agreement remains valid for more than eight years;
provided, that the longer period may not exceed fifteen years from the effective date of the
annexation. The parties to the development agreement and the municipality have the same rights
and obligations with respect to each other regarding matters addressed in the development
agreement as if the property had remained in the unincorporated territory of the county. ….
The state law says that the agreement (including zoning) reached between the developer and
the unincorporated jurisdiction is still valid for at least eight years. With agreement between the
city and developer, this agreement could be extended to 15 years. During those years, the
developer may not develop the property in a way that violates the original development
agreement.
2
Burroughs & Chapin
Multiple TMS #s
1-14-10
FILE #: ANEX 10-01
1st Review –January 19, 2010
Analysis of Request
Effect: Without a comparable zoning plan established by the City, the City becomes marshals
of the County zoning within these areas. Staff would not be in favor of enforcing any other
jurisdiction’s laws. It defeats the purpose of home rule that is granted to municipalities (and
counties) by the state government. In conversation with the County Planning staff, which
reviewed the request and have provided input to the public, the City may annex the property
without the County and applicant being required to amend the existing development agreement.
To summarize, the annexation can be any zone the city uses – but the developer holds an
agreement that guarantees their rights under current zoning for at least eight more years. Then,
if the development agreement is not extended for another seven years as provided for in state
law, and if the City has new zones in place, the parcels would need to be rezoned to meet
current City code. Rezoning actions are public hearings with the Planning Commission and two
reviews by City Council. There are few clear conversions between the proposed zoning and
the pending zones. Each area is evaluated on its own merit, and the same process would be
followed for the Myrtlewood / Plantation Point area.
Precedent 3 – Annexing Billboards: There are several billboards on the property proposed
for annexation along Hwy 17 (staff is in process of inventorying). At least one has been
converted to a Changeable Electronic Variable Message (CEVM) billboard. Any CEVMs that
are annexed into the city limits would be nonconforming until such time as an ordinance is
drafted regarding the regulation of CEVMs.
Effect: The City Attorney, along with Code Enforcement staff, will need to evaluate the
inventory to determine which billboards are covered under the federal highways act and which
may be eligible for amortization.
Section 405.3 – The capability of the city or other government agencies to provide any
services, facilities or programs that might be required if the petition were approved.
Water:
currently serves the area.
Sewer:
currently serves the area.
Streets:
There are multiple property access points – Old Bryan Dr, Arundel Rd, Shipyard
Way, Wild Iris Dr, 48th Ave N Extension, and US Hwy 17.
Sidewalks: There are sidewalks along Wild Iris Dr.
Section 405.4 Effect of approval on the condition or value of property in the city.
Annexing and zoning this parcel as requested would allow for development as regulated by the
zones requested. It would result in an overall density increase. Definite numbers cannot be
provided due to the differences between the ways the County and City determine density, and
due to the Resort Commercial (RC) zone having density or height restrictions not easily
discernable by City staff.
The effect of the approval of the petition on value of property in the city is difficult for staff to
ascertain. If the golf courses remain “as existing,” as the applicant’s representatives have
stated in public meetings and in print, the annexation should not affect the surrounding property
values. If the developer creates a resort area along the Intracoastal Waterway (as the RC
zoning and Waterway Overlay Zone would allow), it might increase the value of nearby units
who would be close to a new waterfront amenity.
3
Burroughs & Chapin
Multiple TMS #s
1-14-10
FILE #: ANEX 10-01
1st Review –January 19, 2010
Analysis (Continued)
Section 405.5 Effect of approval of the petition on adopted development plans and
policies of the City of Myrtle Beach.
No city development plans or polices are affected by the annexation and zoning of this parcel.
The annexation furthers the City’s policy of annexing unincorporated property into the city.
STAFF SUMMARY
The discussion centers on the Myrtlewood Golf Club and surrounding areas. These areas
together form a golf resort community, with varying degrees of home ownership (from
permanent to part-time to investment rentals). There is one other complex similar to this in the
city limits – Grande Dunes. That complex, however, is in a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
and contains zoning code written specifically for that neighborhood. The other golf resort in the
city limits, South Beach Resort [AC-3], is much smaller in scale, on a Par 3 course, and not a
good point of reference for this application. The AC-3 zone was written to accommodate
amusement parks near the beach and beachfront hotels. It would not be a good fit with the
residential character in this area of the Intracoastal Waterway. The zoning plan provided by the
applicant seeks to retain the character of a golf resort community without requiring a PUD.
For discussion purposes, staff will divide the proposed annexation into four areas: the
Plantation Point golf course (Palmetto), the Myrtlewood golf courses (Palmetto and Pine Hills),
the land along the Intracoastal Waterway, and the Highway 17 corridor. Property ownership
assumptions were guided by field work, conversations with homeowners, Horry County GIS and
tax billing records.
Zoning codes discussed (and occasionally indicated in [brackets]) are defined as:
SF 10 – Horry County zone - Single Family Residential, minimum of 10,000 sq ft per lot
SF 6 – Horry County zone – Single Family Residential, minimum of 6,000 sq ft per lot
GR – Horry County zone – General Residential, varying densities
HC – Horry County zone – Highway Commercial
R-15 – Myrtle Beach zone – Single Family Residential, minimum of 15,000 sq ft per lot
R-10 – Myrtle Beach zone – Single Family Residential, minimum of 10,000 sq ft per lot
R-7 – Myrtle Beach zone – Single Family Residential, minimum of 7,000 sq ft per lot
TA-55 – Myrtle Beach zone – Transient Accommodations, 55 ft base height limit
TA-80 – Myrtle Beach zone – Transient Accommodations, 80 ft base height limit
TA-120 – Myrtle Beach zone – Transient Accommodations, 120 ft base height limit
C-3 – Myrtle Beach zone – General Commercial
C-2 – Myrtle Beach zone – Highway Commercial
AC-3 – Myrtle Beach zone – Accommodations/Commercial (amusements)
PLANTATION POINT/PALMETTO GOLF COURSE
Plantation Point is a long-established residential neighborhood with a mix of single family and
multifamily development around a central golf course (the Palmetto course of Myrtlewood) and
bound by the Intracoastal Waterway. The largest neighborhood is Plantation Point [SF 10], the
single family neighborhood between Arundel Rd and “the Mama Ditch.” Other smaller
neighborhoods around the Palmetto course include Palmetto Greens (annexed and zoned R-7
in 2007), Shorewood [GR], Charleston Place [SF 6], and the Landing at Plantation Point [SF 6].
4
Burroughs & Chapin
Multiple TMS #s
1-14-10
FILE #: ANEX 10-01
1st Review –January 19, 2010
Analysis (Continued)
The primary land use of Plantation Point is single-family residential. The zoning proposed for
the Palmetto course [R-15] is the strictest residential zone in the City code, permits golf courses
as a use, and would allow any future development to match the character of the lots and streets
as currently developed. R-15 allows for fewer units per acre than the City’s zone [R-10] that
comes closest to the County zoning [SF 10], but if the property owner requests less density,
staff is in support.
MYRTLEWOOD/PINE HILLS GOLF COURSE
The Myrtlewood area, considered for this report as being everything north of Arundel Rd,
consists of golf courses (Arthur Hills-designed Pine Hills [SF10] and a portion of Palmetto
[SF10]) surrounded by condominiums (Fairway Lakes [GR], Fairway Park [GR], Fairway Pointe
[SF6], Myrtle Pointe [GR], Magnolia Place [annexed in 2006 as TA-55], Magnolia Place North
[GR], and Magnolia Pointe [GR]). Undeveloped areas exist along the Intracoastal Waterway
[RC] beginning just north of the Myrtlewood clubhouse and following the Intracoastal Waterway
to the Robert Grissom Pkwy overpass. These areas are separated from the Pine Hills golf
course by tree buffers.
Outside of the golf courses [currently SF 10], the primary land use in the Myrtlewood
neighborhoods is what is considered “transient accommodations” in Myrtle Beach. (There were
a few calls from the public who assumed “transient” meant “homeless” – for clarification, in the
City’s zoning code, “transient” refers to “a living unit or other accommodation used as a place of
human habitation with sleeping accommodations … which is rented, leased or sub-leased for
less than monthly periods….”)
The proposed zoning for Myrtlewood [TA-55] is comparable to the existing zoning of the
neighboring properties. Although the adjacent developments are three- and four-story
condominiums, the GR zoning code allows for building heights to 120 feet if all other regulations
can be met. The City’s TA-55 zone also requires a developer to meet all other criteria before
the height bonus of 120 ft can be achieved. A text amendment to allow the golf courses as
permitted uses has been requested by the applicant (see TEXT 10-01). Staff has no concerns
with the proposed text amendment.
Many of the phone calls received by staff this week have expressed concern (among other
feelings) regarding the potential development of the golf courses, particularly Pine Hills. Staff
considers that converting the golf course to condominiums is the least likely of development
options among all that the zoning plan presents for the following reasons:
• Availability of undeveloped property. It is typically easier and less expensive to develop
pristine, undeveloped land than to create “in-fill” redevelopment, where equipment and
designs are limited by the proximity to existing buildings and infrastructure. The
applicant has (according to staff’s calculations) at least 224 acres of undeveloped land in
the proposal, representing 40% of the entire annexation.
• The undeveloped Waterway. Historically, humans have associated water with life.
Rivers, lakes, and streams provided a source of drinking water, as well as food and
transportation options. It’s in our psyche and continues to draw people in the millions to
the beach. Many developers are taking note of the Intracoastal Waterway and offering
those who can’t afford a beachfront property the alternative of ICW frontage. Multiple
Waterway subdivisions have been created in the County in recent years.
5
Burroughs & Chapin
Multiple TMS #s
1-14-10
FILE #: ANEX 10-01
1st Review –January 19, 2010
Analysis (Continued)
•
•
•
Golf course revenue. The courses of Myrtlewood are respected and centrally-located.
They continue to operate and generate funds. A one-time sale of the golf course
property (and subsequent loss of leasing rights, etc) would be less of a gain for the
applicant than continued operation of the courses.
Current economic conditions. There is little market for new condominium units in the
area, and a large number of existing units listed for sale on www.realtor.com. It would
simply not be good business practice to build a product that has with no demand on top
of the main attraction in the area. It defies basic supply-and-demand models.
Future economic conditions. If a miraculous turnaround happened in 2010 and suddenly
the condo market was booming, staff still feels that redevelopment of the golf courses
would be a less likely scenario than development along the Intracoastal Waterway.
Considerable money is spent in the area annually to draw in the golf course tourist, and
the Myrtlewood courses are a draw for those in the market for golf course living.
Staff acknowledges that, given the right developer and the right economic condition, the
development options provided by the rezoning could be realized.
THE INTRACOSTAL WATERWAY
The applicant owns approximately 10,000 linear feet of Intracoastal Waterway frontage between
the “Mama Ditch” and Robert Grissom Pkwy. Approximately 8,000 of that frontage is zoned RC,
with approximately 500 feet being the area in front of Myrtlewood’s golf club. The RC zone
extends approximately 400 – 500 feet back from the Waterway, varying in width as the zone
parallels the Pine Hills property line and then widens as it curves around Magnolia Pointe
(Luster Leaf Cir) condos.
The Resort Commercial zone is unlike any standard City zone. It has no height restrictions and
bases height on the ability to meet density, parking and setback requirements. It allows all
modes of transient accommodations, neighborhood commercial uses, single family residential,
and campers/RVs. Marinas are a conditional use; bed and breakfast inns are allowed by
special exception. The applicant has presented a text amendment request to create a
Waterway Overlay Zone (see TEXT 10-01 for details) that provides additional, resort-related
uses for the area proposed to be covered by the zone.
The zoning plan presented by the applicant reduces the area covered by the RC zone and limits
it to the areas abutting the Intracoastal Waterway. The remaining acreage is proposed for TA120. This reduces some of the potential impacts to the Magnolia Point [GR] development.
However, the City’s TA-120 allows for the maximum building height to be increased to 130 ft
with additional setbacks and open space allowances. The County’s GR zone has a maximum
height of 120 feet or the height allowed by Airport Overlay zones, whichever is the lesser of the
two. Staff recommends that the TA-120 zone be replaced with either the TA-80 or TA-55 zones
to better relate to the Magnolia Point [GR] development.
6
Burroughs & Chapin
Multiple TMS #s
1-14-10
FILE #: ANEX 10-01
1st Review –January 19, 2010
Analysis (Continued)
HIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR
The Highway 17 Corridor has been discussed by the Planning Commission and studied by the
Hwy 17 Task Force committee. The area around 48th Ave N experienced 44,000 – 46,000
average daily trips (ADTs) in 2007. The committee discovered that Hwy 17 will be a failing
roadway by 2030 if a maximum buildout scenario occurs in the area; 48th Ave N will experience
54,000 – 62,000 ADTs without some relief to the corridor. A copy of the recommendations
report is attached.
The applicant proposes General Commercial [C-3] zoning along Hwy 17 and for the property
adjacent to Shipyard Way. Staff has many concerns about this proposal:
• General character of C-3. The C-3 zone provides a segue way into heavier commercial
zones like Warehouse Trade [C-9]. From the zoning code:
o The purpose of the C-3 general commercial district is to serve highway users
including trucks, trucking operations, and large scale business operations
primarily engaged in the retailing of heavy durable goods, which because of their
nature, are better suited to outlying locations away from congested areas and
residential development.
• Proximity to residential development. The two properties south of Arundel (both showing
as proposed C-3) are abutting residential property lines, as is the property south of 48th
Ave N. These properties share a boundary with existing residential development, and
should be carefully considered. The proposed C-3 north of 48th Ave N should also be
carefully considered, but is separated from the residential condos by Wild Iris Dr.
• Precedent. Staff is opposed to creating precedent for future development by zoning
these parcels C-3.
• County’s HC and City’s C-2 (Highway Commercial). The better match from zone-tozone is the City’s C-2. From the zoning code:
o The purpose of the C-2 highway commercial district is to serve the automobile
and its passengers and to provide for commercial activities in harmony with
major highway development while projecting an aesthetically attractive and
refreshing image for a resort city.
Staff Comments
Staff Comments
Culture & Leisure Svcs Fire Legal Public Works –
Police Addressing Construction Svcs –
Horry County Planning Planning -
Additional ROW maintenance will add to workload for
mowing crews and tree maintenance issues.
No Concerns
No Comment
Recommends annexing additional property (see maps)
No Concerns
No Concerns
No Concerns
No Concerns
See analysis.
7
Burroughs & Chapin
Multiple TMS #s
1-14-10
FILE #: ANEX 10-01
1st Review –January 19, 2010
Attachments
•
•
•
•
•
Public Input (in 3-ring-binder) – includes staff emails [separate document]
Zoning Comparison Charts – City to County [separate document]
Hwy 17 Bypass Study Committee – Summary of Preliminary Conclusions
Application for annexation [separate document]
Ordinance and map
Recommendations
See analysis.
8
ORDINANCE NO. 2010STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HORRY
CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH
}
}
}
AN ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE CORPORATE
LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH BY
ANNEXING 585.9 ACRES LOCATED ALONG
WILD IRIS DR, US HWY 17, 48TH AVE N EXT,
OLD BRYAN DR, AND SHIPYARD WAY, AND TO
ZONE SAID PROPERTY R-15 (ONE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL), TA-55 (TRANSIENT
ACCOMMODATIONS), TA-80 (TRANSIENT
ACCOMMODATIONS), TA-120 (TRANSIENT
ACCOMMODATIONS), C-3 (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL), AND WATERWAY OVERLAY
ZONE (WATERWAY OZ).
TMS # 165-00-01-021
165-00-01-068
173-00-01-009
173-00-01-016
173-00-01-080
173-04-03-002
174-00-01-176
174-00-01-181
WHEREAS, the property in question abuts the corporate limits of the City of Myrtle Beach; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the property has petitioned to be annexed into the City of Myrtle
Beach; and,
WHEREAS, it appears to Council that annexation would be in the best interest of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDAINED that the property described in Exhibit A and shown in
Exhibit B, attached hereto, are hereby annexed to and become a part of the City of Myrtle
Beach immediately upon adoption of this ordinance.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDAINED that the official zoning map of the City of Myrtle Beach be
amended to zone the newly annexed property described in Exhibit A and shown in Exhibit B as
R-15 (Single Family Residential), TA-55 (Transient Accommodations), TA-80 (Transient
Accommodations), TA-120 (Transient Accommodations), C-3 (General Commercial), and
Waterway Overlay Zone (Waterway OZ).
ATTEST:
___________________________
JOHN RHODES
MAYOR
_________________________________
JOAN GROVE, CITY CLERK
1st Reading:
2nd Reading:
9
10
Summary of Preliminary Conclusions
Of
Bypass Study Committee
The Myrtle Beach Planning Commission set up the Hwy 17 Bypass Study Committee to study future uses
of and create a vision for the Hwy 17 Bypass Corridor from Broadway at the Beach North to the
intersection of Kings Hwy. For study purposes, the Committee clarified the southern terminus to be 29th
Ave N instead of 38th Ave North at Broadway at the Beach.
UNDERSTANDING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The Grand Strand Area Transportation Study (GSATS) supplied the GSATS Travel Demand Model for
Hwy 17 Bypass and key collector and arterial streets to assist the Committee’s analysis, discussion, and
understanding of the traffic condition in the corridor. The Model is updated every five years and
calibrated to SCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration standards similar to other travel demand
models nationwide. Year 2030 is the horizon year for the analysis and is consistent with the overall
Grand Strand Area Long Range Transportation Plan for 2030, which was approved in March 2005.
The model shows that Hwy 17 Bypass (four or six lanes) would operate at Level of Service F (LOS F) by
the horizon year 2030. The following further describes the level of service (traffic conditions):
A = Free Flow
B = Reasonably Free Flow
C = Stable Flow
D = Approaching Unstable Flow
E = Unstable Flow
F = Forced or Breakdown Flow
With the full build-out of the Grande Dunes Planned Unit Development (PUD), some segments on Hwy 17
Bypass would have as many as 20,000 trips above LOS F. Three degrees of Level of Service F (LOS F,
LOS F-Mid, and LOS F-High) were evaluated as part of the model analysis and to be consistent with the
GSATS Long Range Transportation Plan. The bottom line is that, should development occur as planned,
Myrtle Beach would have to live with LOS F. However, does Myrtle Beach want to live with a LOS FHigh? SCDOT indicates that the traffic on Hwy 17 Bypass is equal to the traffic on Interstate 95 in
Florence, both having recorded Average Daily Trips (ADTs) around 46,000. (See attached map.)
Key inputs to the model are existing land uses and assumed development within the corridor study area.
For example, the Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) for the entire Grande Dunes PUD were converted
to accepted levels of generated trips based on travel demand forecasts, which are commonly expressed
as peak season Average Daily Trips (ATDs). The City of Myrtle Beach approved the Grande Dunes PUD
twelve years ago for 56,000 ERUs. Development scenarios were analyzed – ranging from 56,000 to
37,000 to 16,000 ERUs – with a two- and four-lane Marina Parkway. It should be pointed out that the
Hwy 17 Bypass will operate at LOS F with or without a full build out of the Grande Dunes PUD. Even
though the PUD does not dictate a land use mixture, the Committee concurred with GSAT’s staff that a
mixture of forty percent of Grande Dunes’ ERUs would be a single-family residential use, forty percent
multi-family residential uses, and twenty percent commercial uses. A major deviation from the
expectation (e.g. one hundred percent commercial or residential) would result in an increase in the
model’s assigned daily trips.
Adding two lanes to the existing four lanes of Hwy 17 Bypass would provide additional capacity for 17,000
ADT. Model results indicate that 14,000 of those trips would be induced (attracted) trips; thus, a net gain
of 3,000 ADTs or 18% of the additional capacity would be gained by adding two more lanes.
Furthermore, in encouraging additional north-bound traffic on Hwy 17 Bypass would exacerbate existing
traffic congestion at the bridge and Kings Hwy interchange. Having a six-lane facility merging into a
single lane at the bridge would exacerbate traffic congestion causing peak season traffic to back up well
beyond 82nd Parkway. The single lane at the bridge is already a bottleneck. Major bridge improvements
would be needed to accommodate the additional traffic.
11
The neighborhood representatives on the Committee are opposed to adding two lanes to the existing four
lanes on Hwy 17 Bypass between Grissom Parkway and the bridge at Kings Hwy. However, two lanes
should be added on Hwy 17 Bypass from 29th Avenue North at Broadway at the Beach to Grissom
Parkway as a measure to route north-bound traffic over to Hwy 31 (Carolina Bays Parkway).
In addition, similar efforts to reduce traffic on Hwy 17 Bypass should be pursued throughout the study
area and the Grand Strand. This includes not reducing lanes on Kings Hwy. The City Engineer
suggested several traffic reduction strategies on Hwy 17, Kings Hwy, collector, arterials, and local
residential streets to shift traffic patterns, reduce traffic demands, and repackage traffic:
1. Reduce traffic volume by guiding unfamiliar users (drivers) to select appropriate routes to their
destinations by using service and recreational guide signs and cultural interest area signs (e.g.
“Aquarium – Next Exit” sign guiding southbound traffic to Grissom Parkway rather than 29th Ave
North).
2. Reduce peak season traffic by distributing the timing of recreational and cultural activities
throughout the day and week.
3. Develop bus transit routes that serve between major traffic generators and heavily used
commercial facilities.
4. Develop “Park and Ride” facilities at major traffic generators.
Hwy 31 should be recognized as the new “Bypass” replacing the existing Hwy 17 Bypass, which would
become a local parkway. North bound signs should be used to identify Hwy 31 as the “Myrtle Beach
Bypass” starting at Murrells Inlet and ending at Hwy 9 on the north end. Hwy 707 is planned for five lanes
to connect with the south end of Route 31 and should be used at Murrells Inlet and again at Glens Bay
Road, Hwy 544, etc. to direct north bound traffic to use Hwy 31. The south bound traffic would be
encouraged to switch to Hwy 31 beginning at Hwy 9, main street, Hwy 22, etc.
The Grand Strand Area Transportation Study staff has supplied technical reports during the Committee’s
work and discussions. Any new major project or modifications to existing projects in the GSATS Long
Range Transportation Plan should be presented to the GSATS Policy Committee for inclusion in the
Transportation Plan. The Bypass Study Committee recommends that this step be taken to ensure that
projects are eligible for Federal funding should they become available.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are preliminary conclusions and recommendations of the Committee at this point in time
and will be used to guide future direction and courses of action to complete the work of the Committee:
1. Begin viewing Hwy 31 as the “Bypass” of Myrtle Beach instead of Hwy 17. Consistent and wellpositioned, hierarchical and directional signage should be well positioned in a consistent manner
to assist in shifting “Bypass” traffic patterns. International insignia for beaches, hospitals, fuel,
lodging, etc. should be used on signage.
2. The existing Hwy 17 Bypass should be six lanes from 29th Ave North to the Grissom Parkway
interchange. The northbound outside lane should terminate as “Exit Only” onto Grissom
Parkway/International Boulevard. The existing Hwy 17 Bypass should remain as four lanes from
Grissom Parkway to the Kings Hwy interchange.
3. The existing Hwy 17 should be reclassified and improved as a parkways-type facility. The crosssectional design of the parkway-type facility should include multimodal features for long range
transit, bike, and /or pedestrian transportation and complimentary landscaping.
4. Each intersection from Grande Dunes Boulevard to 62nd Ave North should be improved with
geometric designs to accommodate the travel forecast for the base year and multimodal features
and to eliminate safety hazards identified during the Committee’s work. The City Engineer should
12
continue to collect safety data to determine the high accident locations and probably causes and
develop counter-measures to improve survivability.
5. New access points to Hwy 17 should undergo a full and objective evaluation of traffic impacts on
the newly created vision and future uses of Hwy 17 as a parkway and on the adjacent residential
neighborhoods. This includes 79th and 71st Avenues North.
6. The desires of adjacent neighborhoods should be accommodated by providing “Right-In/RightOut” designs for non-signalized residential streets.
7. Develop signage design and placement criteria. Street signage should be provided in consistent
positions (i.e. same identifier in the same location at each corner). Determine SCHOT
requirements for Hwy 17 signalization (i.e. distance, costs, etc…).
8. Continue to implement traffic reduction strategies on Hwy 17, Kings Hwy, collector, arterials and
local residential streets. This includes shifting traffic patterns, reducing traffic demands, and
repackaging traffic.
9. Use the designated funding in the multi-county business park plan for a six-lane Hwy 17 to pay
for the features of the newly created vision and the future uses of Hwy 17 Parkway.
13