News from the Second-to-Last City Planning Commission Meeting

Following discussion of changes to the proposed shopping center by the developer, comments from the public, and questions from the Planning Commissioners, the chair of the Commission convinced his colleagues to postpone a vote on the developer's proposal. Despite the desire of all parties to put the matter behind them, this seemed like a reasonable thing to do after a long meeting that would have only concluded, given where things stand, with a rush to judgment.

The Planning Commission seems split, but since nearly half of Commissioners are silent (have they already made up their minds? do they have no questions or concerns about this important decision?), it is difficult to gauge where they stand.

The latter part of the meeting ended with what can only be described as a preliminary "negotiation," although when described as such during this process, this description did not sit well with some.

To the surprise of others in attendance, rejecting the developer's proposal did not seem to be an option. There were murmurs in the audience when the Planning Commission chair suggested that the only options were to approve the proposal, or to approve it with modifications. Apparently following his lead, the commission's discussion turned to various details.

In the discussion of such details, the important questions were almost completely ignored. These questions are:

(1) Is it appropriate for the Commission to allow the developer to reneg on the compromise made with the neighbors, citizens, planning commissioners, and city council-members who rightly opposed locating the previous big box on Issaqueena Trail?

(2) Is the proposed regional shopping center consistent in zoning and use with the surrounding zoning and uses?

(3) Is the proposed shopping center development consistent with the City of Clemson's Comprehensive Plan?

Despite the fact that the chairman of the Planning Commission made it clear that the purpose of the meeting was only to discuss specific city planning matters, none of these essential questions were addressed.

In the end, last night's meeting failed to address its stated agenda: questions of the "conformity of the proposed amendment [the developer's rezoning request] with the Comprehensive Plan and the impact of the amendment on the elements of the Comprehensive Plan." Specifically, as stated in the "Clemson Home Center Staff Report" dated October 9, the primary agenda items were two questions:

1. What is the relationship of this request to the 2014 Comprehensive Plan?
2. Does the [rezoning] request support or violate the [Comprehensive] plan?

The answer to question 1 seems to be the rezoning request itself. This development appears to require rezoning exactly because it does not conform with neighboring uses or with the Comprehensive Plan.

The answer to question 2 is clearly that the proposed development does not conform with a long list of items in the Comprehensive Plan. Here are some of them:

Strategy 5.1.1. Locate primary shopping areas on major arterials and transit routes, including Highways 123, 76, and 93 north of Highway 123 intersection.

Strategy 5.1.2. Encourage small‐scale neighborhood shopping within easy reach of neighborhoods.

Strategy 5.1.3. Review and revise existing commercial zoning districts to ensure that uses allowed are compatible with the intent and location of the district and surrounding land uses.

Strategy 5.1.5. Establish definitions and square footages for various size “big‐box” retail establishments and revise commercial zoning district regulations to include maximum allowed gross floor area for retail uses in all commercial districts.

The last of these items seems to be a serious omission from the Planning Commission's Staff Report, which set out to outline the "goals and objectives of the 2014 Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the rezoning request". Isn't the primary issue pertaining to the rezoning request the existing "maximum allowed gross floor area" that prohibits the development proposal?

Even without this omission, it is difficult to understand how the report could conclude that the "proposed plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan 2014 and with the established zoning in the area." Very few of the goals and objectives that are outlined in the report, including 5.1.1, are met by the proposed development.

The City Planning Commission will meet again to discuss these questions. It is unclear whether this will be in a "special session," or at the next scheduled commission meeting on November 10. Let's hope that the essential planning questions are addressed directly by all members of the Planning Commission. They will be deciding not only on the proposed development, but whether the City of Clemson's Comprehensive Plan will be regarded by the public as a waste of paper and consultant's fees, or as a blueprint for a better city.