Case Study in Urban Sprawl: An Update on the Proposed Issaquena Trail “Lowe’s” Shopping CenterDRAFT Oct. 8, 2008
In May 2008, the Paramount Development Corporation of Myrtle Beach filed an application with the City of Clemson for the review of a proposed shopping center with a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center and three out-parcel stores to be built at the northeast corner of Issaquena Trail and Highway 123.
Paramount Development (www.paramountdevcorp.com) specializes in “big box” developments, grocery stores, and commercial strip development. They have built or are now building twelve Food Lion stores, seven Lowe’s stores, six Wal-Mart stores, one Sam’s Club, and several additional stores like CVS, Wendy’s, Cici’s pizza, and car washes in developments of up to 350,000 sq. ft. of retail space. As can be seen on their website, these developments are typical in arrangement and appearance of the kind of retail development that can be found on any commercial strip or boulevard.
After the 2002 controversy over the previous big box development for this site (a Wal-Mart shopping center now located at Eighteen Mile Road, at Highway 123), the Issaquena Trail site was zoned as a “Planned Development” by Clemson City Ordinance No. CC-2002-20. The most significant characteristic of this zoning is that it permits a mixture of residential and commercial development, like the Patrick Square Planned Development just south on Issaqueena. Another significant qualification is that it limits the total footprint of an individual building to 100,000 sq. ft. All retail areas of the store (i.e. the building and associated covered and/or enclosed areas) are required to be included in the area calculation. The Ordinance further bans the outside display and sales of merchandise outside of those areas.
Although they were aware of these restrictions, Paramount Development’s initially proposed Lowe’s with garden center was more than 50% larger than the maximum permitted size, at a total of 156,133 sq. ft (now reduced to 137,916 sq. ft.). Now the developer must petition City Council to approve a change of the maximum allowable building size to accommodate the Lowe’s store, or seek to have the rules changed (for example, by getting City Council to revise how the permitted retail area is calculated). With the present zoning, however, there seems to be nothing preventing the development of out-parcels (two buildings at 4,000 sq. ft. each and one at 12,600 sq. ft.), to include restaurants, a drive-thru bank, a convenience store and gas station, drugstore, or a single strip shopping center, despite the fact that Issaquena Trail, for the most part, is a residential street.
Most developments like the proposed shopping center are accessed directly from multi-lane boulevards or highways, as is the case for similar shopping centers already developed by Paramount. This should be a clue to City Council, and all who live and travel along Issaquena Trail, that the proposed shopping center does not belong on a two-lane road. However this will change, if the developers have their way. To accommodate the new traffic, the developer proposes widening Issaquena up to four lanes, inserting two turn lanes and a median, from Highway 123 to Tramlaw Court, where there will be a new traffic light. This widening will serve the new shopping center, but it ignores the increased number of car trips and truck traffic along the length of Issaquena Trail.
Apart from a concern about traffic along Issaquena, which is already a relatively dangerous road from an engineering standpoint, there are questions about the esthetics of the proposed shopping center and its impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the environment. Unlike the Wal-Mart at the next exit of Highway 123, the back side of the Lowe’s will likely present itself very visibly to Highway 123, making the giant retaining wall, the store’s loading dock, and a large storm water retention pond the new “welcome” sign for the eastern entrance to the City of Clemson. There is no guarantee that these huge surfaces will be screened by trees, since it is unclear how many trees will be preserved on the 18 acre site, and along Issaquena Trail and Highway 123. The developer has already stated that the preservation of the site’s old growth trees, including an ancient 50 ft. oak tree, which should be treated as special assets, is “highly unlikely.” The typical big box store development does not preserve trees, however, and, it is clear from the photos on the developer’s website, that their other comparable projects have not done this either. Architecturally speaking, Paramount’s developments have also been the typical of the standard design and construction of such stores, which do not try to blend into residential neighborhoods and are insensitive to the natural landscape.
As close neighbors to this new shopping center, we need to think ahead and imagine the impacts to our neighborhood before they occur. We must think carefully if we are prepared to trade some shopping convenience for the increased car and truck traffic on Issaquena Trail, perhaps necessitating additional street widening, and still more traffic. We must think about the appearance of this shopping center, with its large, nearly treeless parking lot, and bright lights that are seldom turned off, despite what the developer may say. We must imagine what the other impacts on our neighborhood may be, such as litter from fast-food restaurants and 24/7 trailer truck deliveries needed to supply stores such as Lowe’s. Moreover, we must consider the precedent that will be set for future commercial development along Issaquena Trail. Finally, we must imagine what will happen with the proposed shopping center five or ten years from now, when the stores move or go out of business, leaving another vacant big box building that will sit empty for years because of the typical non-competition lease terms, as has happened elsewhere in town. Due to our proximity to the shopping center, all of these things have a potential impact on our property values.
As of this writing, the developers must pass just three more steps for the approval of the shopping center. The City Planning Commission is scheduled to meet again on Monday, October 13, 2008, and soon thereafter to recommend or to disapprove the developer’s plans. The City Planning Commission is only an advisory group, however. The decision to approve the shopping center or not rests with Clemson’s City Council. The Council must hear and vote on the developer’s proposal three times before passage, most likely on October 20th, November 3rd, and November 17th (those dates to be confirmed). If City Council approves this project, however, it will only be done by overturning the law and reneging on the compromise made with neighbors, citizens, and those City Council members who previously objected to locating the Wal-Mart on Issaqueena Trail.
For further information about the proposed development and the public hearings, see the city’s website at www.cityofclemson.org. Although the Planning Commission promised in the July 14th Meeting, that all future meetings would be well advertised, they have not been advertised in a timely manner on the website or elsewhere, which has tended to make the process less transparent than it should be.
If you have an opinion about this change to our neighborhood, you must confirm the dates and make your voice heard at these meetings before it is too late.
Public statements are needed to persuade the members of Clemson’s Planning Commission and City Council who seem prepared to give the developers anything that they want for the added tax revenue. In the August 25, 2008 “Work Session,” one Planning Commissioner stated that the existing 2002 Ordinance “must be tossed out the door,” and that the “replacement Ordinance is to be drafted by the developer.”
Allowing the developer to draft regulation, or to otherwise run around the legislation that was put in place specifically to prevent inappropriate development (for example, by changing the square footage requirements), represents a failure of leadership and an abdication of responsibility on the part of our representatives in city government. As property owners and taxpayers, we will ultimately pay for the developer’s “free lunch.” Now is the time to insist that we will not be forced to subsidize the developer’s and Lowe’s profits by carrying the burden of an ugly, traffic-generating shopping center that does not respect our neighborhood.
Peter Laurence and Jack Davis
Clemson, SC
