HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF: A LOOK BACK AT ISSAQUEENA TRAIL IN 2002

The following is a memo circulated by CRGC (Citizens for Responsible Growth in Clemson) in August 2002, following 2 1/2 years of efforts seeking to promote responsible development on Issaqueena Trail. More than five years later, many of the issues are still the same. Today's continued debates, and the Wal-Mart later built on Eighteen Mile Road (reportedly the single worst source of traffic and crime in Central), seem to prove many of these concerns to be well founded.

PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 19, 2002, 6 PM

Citizens for Responsible Growth in Clemson encourages all citizens to attend the public hearing on a proposed Planned Development Ordinance for the property at Route 123 and Issaqueena Trail on August 19th at 6 pm at the Littlejohn Community Center. During the past two and one-half years citizen efforts prevented a Wal-Mart Supercenter from going on this site. Now the City is considering an ordinance to annex this property into the City, providing zoning that will allow for a mix of residential (including apartments) and commercial use (including a gas station, restaurant and significant retail space). Given all the energy that was used to avoid inappropriate development at this location, does the proposed ordinance provide adequate protection? Judge for yourself.

1. A planned development? Where's the plan? How can the Council and the community adequately assess this "planned development" without a physical plan? The language in the Ordinance allows so much latitude that a wide range of uses are possible. Many of these would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, which states "This area has been discussed as a possible small scale commercial node and… this area might be appropriate for a smaller scale and low intensity commercial use." The proposed PD Ordinance places minimal restrictions on commercial use of the site. Given the acreage designated for commercial activity, the existing Bi-Lo and Winn Dixie stores (along with their related small retail outlets) could BOTH be placed on this site. Is this small scale and low intensity? The Comprehensive Plan also sees this site as a gateway to the community. The ordinance permits a 3,000 square foot gas station directly on the corner—this is the size of the 12 pump Exxon/Subway just down the road at Highway 93 and Cambridge. Would such development mark an appropriate gateway for the community? Finally, the Comprehensive Plan places a high priority on protecting "established neighborhoods." Would development of this scale on this site protect established neighborhoods, particularly Peaceful Valley?

2. A planned development? Where's the process? Public meetings, including a recent City Council work session on the project, have been scheduled with very short notice and a minimum of publicity. Copies of the ordinance were only made available to the public hours before the meetings. Under these circumstances meaningful public input is nearly impossible.

3. Much has been made of the agreement to limit commercial buildings on the site to 100,000 square feet, but 100,000 sf. does not necessarily rule out a big box store. Home Depot, Lowe's and Wal-Mart will build stores right at the 100,000 sf level and then put another 30,000 sf. of retail in an outside "garden" center. True, 100,000 sf. does seem small compared to a 204,000 sf. Super Wal-Mart. But a 45,000 sf. store is the size of a football field. The ordinance permits a building more than twice that size. It has been said that the goal of the 100,000 sf limit was to prevent big box retail development. But many municipalities around the country that seek this aim have limited retail building areas at levels far lower than 100,000 sf.: for example, Buckingham, PA (35,000 sf.), Hood River, OR (50,000 sf.), Easton, MD (65,000 sf), Milford, PA (60,000 sf.), Belfast, ME (75,000 sf.). Why should Clemson settle for 100,000 sf.?

4. Trees and grading? Yes, the ordinance does say that trees over a certain size that are removed or die need to be replaced. But the replacement trees are significantly smaller and there really is nothing to prevent a developer from clear cutting the entire site, leveling it and then replacing existing trees with smaller trees. This is likely with a 100,000 s.f. building. If anyone wonders what this means, take a look at the site of the new Publix in Easley at 123 and Brushy Creek Road. Nothing in the Ordinance limits grading on the site or the height of the retaining walls that may be necessary-this may make the 50' buffer for Peaceful Valley trivial.