Walmart's Revenge: City Council Approves Zoning Change and Shopping Center

No minds in City Council were changed last night in the second hearing on the Lowe's shopping center. After debates about the future of Issaqueena Trail and its surrounding neighborhoods stretching back at least eight years, the prevailing regime in City Council seems to have finally gotten its wish.

At this moment, although some are disappointed with the outcome, not to mention the lack of sympathy on City Council, we remember and salute the efforts of the debate's veterans--those who prevented the construction of an even bigger and uglier box on Issaqueena Trail. They helped preserve the integrity of our community in amazing ways. In fact, many of the new-comers to the big box debate would never have even met each other if it wasn't for them (because, as stated in a number of meetings, some of us may never have moved to Issaqueena Trail if there had been a Walmart across the street)!

So we are grateful for the efforts of those who came before us, those who worked to improve the existing plan, and those who will yet join us in making Clemson a livable place to live.

In the meantime, even as we follow the progress of this development on Issaqueena Trail, let's remember that there are other neighbors, in other parts of the city (such as Freedom Drive), who are engaged in similar debates, with identical issues.

In other words, keep posted.

Statement by Jack Davis to City Council, Mon. Dec. 15

Mayor Abernathy, and Ladies and Gentlemen of City Council:

Before proceeding, we ask for a clarification of Section 5, Effective Date, of Ordinance No: CC-2008-19. Does the wording “this ordinance is adopted if and only if” the property is purchased at the end of 90 days, mean the property will revert to the 2002 Ordinance if not purchased within that time period?

We understand the importance of growth to the City of Clemson, and the need for the increased jobs and tax revenue. While we would prefer that you honor the commitment made to the community in 2002, we ask that you take the time to grant us the following requests:

We ask that the inclusion of a convenience store/gas station be banned from the “Approved Uses” because:

• The gasoline spilled by patrons refueling their vehicles will not be removed by the Detention Pond, i.e. gasoline and oil float, and find its way into Eight Mile Creek and eventually to Nettles Park.
• The facility will attract children living nearby and have them cross an unguarded four-lane Issaqueena Trail.
• The litter from its patrons will be strewn along the length of Issaqueena Trail.

We ask that the buffer areas not be breached, by allowing “grade level patios and seating”, and that the buffer along Issaqueena Trail be made deeper.

We ask that building size restrictions be put on the out-parcels, as they were in the 2002 Ordinance. As written the new ordinance, with its consolidation into one parcel and the provision for shared parking, will permit buildings nearly 70% larger than those envisioned under the 2002 Ordinance.

We ask that you limit access to the Site only via Tramlaw Court. This would give pedestrians a needed “guarded crossing” of Issaqueena Trail, and eliminate the confusion of the “right-turn only exit” from the Site’s center driveway. Those patrons seeking to return to Highway 123 will use the driveways of our Wescott Subdivision to correct their error.

Finally, we ask that you consider the impact of the loss of this strategic property to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Where else, within Clemson, is there 19 Acres on which to locate a health care facility, research facility, or similar development more vital to Clemson’s growth than an occasional trip to a Home Center?

Your Honor, members of City Council, we ask that you delay your decision while our requests are considered. As the saying goes “haste makes waste”.

Questions for City Council, Mon. Dec. 15, 7:30

The following are some questions developed by Citizens for Responsible Growth in Clemson for discussion at Monday's City Council Meeting. Please add a comment to suggest other questions and to indicate which question you may take up at this Monday's meeting. Many of these questions apply to both the Issaqueena Trail and Freedom Drive developments.

What has changed since Walmart? A number of Council Members voted for the planned development ordinance in 2002 that is now being revised. Why are they now revising their positions and undoing the previous compromise with neighbors and residents by rejecting the key features of that ordinance?

How can Council Members be in favor of a zoning change and proposed shopping center that in so many ways does not conform with the Comprehensive Plan?

What evidence is there for the claimed benefits--including tax revenue and jobs--of the big box shopping center?

What studies or evidence is there of the total costs--including infrastructure and city services--of the proposed big box shopping center?

Why is this the best use of this prime piece of property from the City’s perspective? Insofar as the Comprehensive Plan and pre-existing Planned Development Ordinance were written with these factors in mind, why is the proposed development, which does not conform with the Comprehensive Plan, the best use of this site?

Who owns the property and who may hold an option on the property and under what conditions?

Often developers and property owners are offered incentives to complete projects. Have any incentives been offered in this case? If so, what are they and what will they cost?

Have Council Members reviewed or visited any actual built examples of the developer’s work? Does any of their previous work look like what is being proposed here? Would their previous work be an appropriate fit for this site?

Given the economic situation and Lowe's publicized cut-back in new store construction, what happens if the current project is approved by Council but does not move forward and is not built?

If built, what will happen to this shopping center if Lowe's moves out? How can the City prevent the blight of a future empty shopping center? Can the City prevent the typical non-compete clauses in the lease (as is done in other communities) that would prevent a new tenant from occupying the building?

Why is the Council changing its mind? How can citizens have any confidence in Council's decisions from one term to the next?

What is happening to city planning and zoning in the City of Clemson? Do Council Members support the idea of city planning? Can citizens have any confidence that existing zoning ordinances will be respected in the future?

What will Council do to mitigate the concerns of neighbors on Issaqueena Trail (and Freedom Drive)?

How will Council and the City handle the traffic impacts on Issaqueena Trail?

What will Council do to prevent Issaqueena Trail from becoming a new commercial strip?

What administrative and procedural steps will follow the votes for zoning change on Issaqueena Trail and Freedom Drive?

Letter from Joseph Johnson to City Council

Sat. December 13, 2008

To the Clemson City Council,

I will be unable to attend the city council meeting on 12/15/2008, but I want to take the opportunity to express my opinion on a matter to be discussed. I have followed the proposed Lowe's store since I first heard about it, and I find it deeply disturbing that Issaqueena Trail is first on the list (and apparently, the only street on the list) for a location. In fact, I can hardly think of a worse location. What business does a retail store such as Lowe's have on a two-lane residential road? I think the Super Wal-mart two miles up the road clearly demonstrates the answer: none at all.

While I am not against the idea of "big box" retail stores in general, they must be placed in areas conducive to their effects. Those effects include (but are not limited to): massive increases in traffic, noise, and light. What will be done to shield Clemson's residents from these effects? Turning Issaqueena Trail into a four-lane road for 1000 ft. is not sufficient, and will simply add to the problem for those closest to the site.

I have one question I would like asked at the council meeting. "Would any Clemson resident currently present, without financial or other ties to the proposed retail development, who is in favor of said development, please stand?" If less than half of those present, not including Council members, do not stand, the Council should delay action until such time as a city-wide referendum passes in favor of the development. While the decision (currently) rests with the City Council, it does so with the trust and understanding that the Council will make the decision that the majority of residents wish made, not the decision that individuals on the Council wish made.

Remember, the residents of Clemson aren't here to serve the city, the city (and by extension, the Council) is here to serve the residents.

Joseph P. Johnson and family

Letter from Jack Davis to Mayor Abernathy and City Council

December 13, 2008

Clemson City Council
1250 Tiger Boulevard
Clemson, South Carolina 29631

Subject: December 15th, Clemson Home Center Reading

Honorable Mayor Abernathy and Members of City Council,

Before approving the replacement for the 2002 Ordinance, we ask you to again to consciously consider the replacement ordinance’s many shortfalls.

Although the proposed “Permitted Uses” are said to be more restrictive, the removal of the building size limitations on the Out Parcels, the reduction of the parking space requirement to one per 300 sq. ft of building, and the allowed sharing of parking, will put more traffic to Issaqueena Trail than conceived under the 2002 Ordinance.

For instance, a “Seated Restaurant” could be as large as 25,000 sq. ft. exceeding the current limit on Area III by almost 70%. Under the City’s “normal standards” this would require 500 parking spaces. Such a facility, under the relaxed parking space requirement, could put an additional 340 vehicles onto Issaquenna Trail. We urge you to require that the facilities built on the Out Parcels adhere to parking standards required elsewhere in Clemson.

We ask that you revisit the allowed “lighted roof-top patio or deck” on such a facility. This is both a potential “nuisance” for residents of Ashley Estates and a violation of the City of Clemson’s Municipal Code.

We ask you to revisit the allowed “grade level patios or seating” within the Buffer Areas, as these destroy both the integrity and very purpose of the buffers.

We ask that you revisit the egress requirements to the Site and eliminate the center driveway and limit egress solely from Tramway Court, as would be required under the Pickens County Unified Development Standards Ordinance. This would eliminate both the confusion to the patrons exiting the Site, seeking to return to Highway 123, from using the driveways of our Wescott Subdivision to turn around and promote safer access by pedestrians.

We ask that you incorporate provisions for the safety of pedestrians crossing a four-lane Issaqueena Trail, encouraged by the existence of a Convenience Store. There must be accommodations for pedestrian crossing, safely located, properly marked, controlled, and guarded, as are required by the afore-mentioned Unified Development Standards Ordinance and Strategy 1.3.1 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan 2014.

Finally, we ask that you consider the impact of the loss of this strategic property to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Where else, within Clemson, is there 19 Acres on which to locate a health care facility, research facility, or similar development more vital to Clemson’s growth than an occasional trip to a Home center?

Your Honor, members of City Council, we beg you consider these issues.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Davis

Download, Print, and Distribute This Flyer!

To download the flyer (pdf), please click this link.

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.

CRGC (Citizens for Responsible Growth in Clemson) Community Meeting Report

Citizens for Responsible Growth in Clemson met this evening at Littlejohn Community Center in Clemson.

Discussion topics at this well-attended meeting included the proposed Issaqueena Trail shopping center; the big box store proposed for the same site in 2002; and other poorly conceived developments in the city, including the proposed Freedom Trail development, which will fragment another neighborhood by turning a residential area into another shopping center.

Discussion emphasized the fact that the group supports responsible growth that locates development in the right place--for example, locating highway commerical development on highways, and neighborhood commercial development in neighborhoods. It was observed, for example, that there was no community opposition to the large Patrick Square development on Issaqueena Trail, which received community buy-in through innovative site planning and contextual urban design.

The group will continue to press the City Planning Commission and City Council to follow the City of Clemson's Comprehensive Plan, which has been largely ignored in recent decisions. Meanwhile it will continue to advocate for responsible development on Issaqueena Trail. It will also expand its efforts to other parts of the city, seeking to increase its membership with city residents similarly affected by poor planning decisions. Group members recognize that these issues are not unique to individual projects, but will continue to play out across the city for years to come.

"Second Reading" on Lowe's Shopping Center at City Council Meeting Mon. Dec. 15

As anticipated, on Dec. 15, 7:30pm, City Council will hold the second reading on the zoning change and proposed Lowe's Shopping Center. A time for public comment is on the Agenda, which includes the following:

7. Policy/Action Agenda:
a. Item Request – Consider 2nd Reading of a Zoning Amendment for a 20+/-acre commercial planned development at the intersection of Issaqueena Trail and US Highway 123 to be called Clemson Home Center by Paramount Development Corporation for Davenport Capital, LLC (owner). PIN: 4064-14-24-6243 – Planning & Codes Administration.

Follow this link to supporting documents and the staff report.

Continued public comment and action is needed because many issues have not been fully addressed or considered in the proposed zoning change and proposed shopping center. Neither the City Council's first vote, nor its second, nor building the store, will make City Council's support for this project a good decision. As indicated in many meetings, no one, not even the developers or the Planning Commission could convincingly argue that Issaqueena Trail is the right place for a big box store. Issaqueena Trail is not a highway like the roads where Easley, Seneca, and Anderson's Lowe's are located, and it is not the right place for a big box store.

Citizens for Responsible Growth in Clemson (CRGC) Meeting Thursday

Citizens for Responsible Growth in Clemson (CRGC) is reconvening to discuss irresponsible development on Issaqueena Trail and in other parts of the city. The meeting will be held this Thursday, December 11, at 7 pm at the Littlejohn Community Center on Route 93 in Clemson.

If you would like to discuss these matters and would like to help, please attend. If you are interested and can not attend, please contact Jim Witte to subscribe to the email list at jim_witte(at)hotmail.com.

Neighborhood News: Issaqueena Zoning Change

For those who may be wondering, the sign indicating a Zoning Change on Issaqueena at Nettles/Central Road is for a variance to allow a new driveway. Click here for a link to the Board of Zoning Appeals 12/18/08 Agenda.

UPDATED: City of Clemson Announces Open Positions on Boards and Commissions

Following the resignation of City Planning Commission Chair Del Kimbler and the end of John Peter and Julie Craig's terms of service, the City Planning Commission has three vacancies. There are also vacancies on other important boards. As indicated on the city website:

The City of Clemson is seeking interested residents who would like to serve on the following boards and commissions:

• Planning Commission (3 positions)

• Board of Zoning Appeals (3 positions)

• Building Board of Appeals (2 positions)

NEW Deadline for applications: FEB. 9, 2008.

board application

Zoning and City Planning Principles Under Threat in Clemson?

On Monday night at the City Council meeting, the council members were presented with a decision very similar to the one on Issaqueena Trail-- the decision to up-zone a development site at Freedom Drive near the corner of Hwy 93 and Tiger Boulevard.

The case is unfortunately very similar to the one on Issaqueena Trail, and in some ways it is much worse. Whereas on Issaqueena, the City Planning Commission (and apparently City Council) approved up-zoning by increasing the intensity of use of a commercial property, on Freedom Drive they may approve changing a large residential area to a commercial one for another new shopping center. In both cases, there is no understanding of the nature of neighborhoods and streets--which traditionally have the same uses, or mix of uses, on both sides of the street. In both cases, there is a callous disregard for residents and the physical and social fabric of the city.

The residents and property-owners who spoke against this unexpected change were polite and calm in stating their opinions, but the proposal is really an outrage. As one resident who will be right across the street from the new shopping center put it, 'If this project is approved, I will look at the back of a grocery store when I open my front door. It will practically be in my front yard.'

How can people invest themselves in their homes and neighborhoods when any "under-developed" property is subject to such unforeseen zoning changes?

If Issaqueena Trail and Freedom Drive are a trend, people will lose confidence in the stability of zoning and the idea of city planning in our town. The result will be a town effectively shaped by those who can "buy" a zoning change. This is not really a fair or balanced way to build and shape a city.

City Council Meeting Report by Jack Davis

Fellow Clemson Residents,

If you haven't read the GVL News or seen Fox 13, City Council passed the "first reading" on the Clemson (Lowe's) Home Center last evening.

J.C. Cook made the initial Motion for the project, and each member voiced their opinion (i.e., the promised jobs, tax revenue, etc.), and a vote was taken.

All members, except for Mayor Abernathy, voted for the project. Mayor Abernathy voted against the project, saying, "I can't break my promise of 2002."

The Second (and last) Reading is scheduled for December 15th. Until then, I urge you to contact the Council Members and voice your opinion.

As for Council, I find it unacceptable that 5 of the 7 Council Members live within 1/2 mile (near Berkeley Drive) of each other. How do the residents in other areas of Clemson get proper representation? As the current Members' terms expire, we should consider running for these positions to balance our representation in Clemson.

Jack Davis

On First Reading, Clemson City Council Votes Unanimously in Favor of Regional Shopping Center for Issaqueena Trail

Despite community opposition, Clemson City Council voted unanimously in favor of up-zoning the Issaqueena Trail site for a Lowe's Shopping Center on the "first reading." Mayor Abernathy voted against.

If approved on the "second reading" at the next City Council meeting in two weeks, Issaqueena Trail will be one step closer to becoming the city's new highway. Issaqueena Trail, now a two-lane residential street, may become home to a regional shopping center that will draw traffic from half-way to Anderson, Seneca, and Easley. The City Planning Commission and City Council have yet to explain why it makes sense to locate what may be the highest traffic-generating shopping center in the city on a residential street.

Moreover, the new shopping center will promote sprawl by setting a new low standard for commercial development along Issaqueena Trail. With a big box store in place, all re-zonable property along Issaqueena Trail will seem "under-developed." This will create more development interest, and more sprawl. And with the present re-zoning trend, there will be little resistance to future up-zoning. In other words, Commission and Council votes for this project are bad decisions in the short and long term.

This prompts the question, "Does zoning (or city planning) exist in Clemson?" More on this to follow.

Thanks to those who attended tonight's meeting and for your reports--please keep them coming.