Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presents sketch plan for 18‑lot conservation subdivision near Rock Creek Road; neighbors raise tree, drainage and access concerns
Summary
Developer Dan Jones presented a sketch plan for an 18‑lot conservation subdivision off Rock Creek Road; residents pressed the commission and staff for assurances on preserving trees, controlling runoff and whether lots 5‑8 need new road access. Staff said technical wetlands and stormwater reviews remain required.
Dan Jones, the project presenter, told the Clemson Planning Commission on Dec. 8 that the owners are seeking final layout review for a conservation subdivision that could have up to 18 lots and that the project is the first of three code reviews the commission will see.
The developer said the current owner recombined older platted lots and that the first phase’s detention work has been completed, which allows the next phase to move forward. “Our plan is to put parking places back there. We just haven't sketched any of that out until we get the retention pond finished up,” Jones said, describing the planned pocket‑park amenities and limited parking intended for neighborhood use.
Neighbors who live immediately adjacent to the site pressed the developer and staff on several fronts. Pap Wheeler (2011 Augusta Road) said earlier agreements called for wooded buffers to be retained and urged removal of invasive vines in the conserved area: “I think that the city should demand that the developer remove the invasives and clear the ivy from the trees,” he said, asking for a covenant that preserves trees larger than 6 inches diameter at breast height.
William Brown (311 Rock Creek) raised drainage concerns where a local creek runs near lots 11–13 and said increased runoff could worsen flooding: “If there is increased water, there will be flooding,” he said. A campus groundwater hydrologist who spoke at the meeting warned that the site’s clay soils do not drain well and that, as designed, the pond may function as a retention pond rather than a detention feature: “If there's any rainfall, it will be a retention pond and it will not drain within 48 hours.”
Staff and the developer repeatedly told attendees that technical studies remain outstanding. Jacob Peabody, planning and zoning administrator, and other staff emphasized that a wetlands/stream determination and a full stormwater review must be completed and that any changes required by those technical reviews will return the project to the commission. Peabody noted the wetlands study is governed by state timing rules and will be updated before the project’s second review.
Commissioners asked technical questions about lot frontage, whether some rear lots will use alleys or an internal road, required setbacks under the conservation subdivision rules (modified from R20), and whether the existing homeowners association will be reactivated; the developer said the HOA currently sits with the owner and that developers plan to cover initial HOA costs rather than immediately assess existing residents.
No formal action was taken; staff treated the meeting as a sketch plan discussion and advised the developer to return with wetlands and topo/tree survey results and revised layouts for the next required review.
What happens next: the developer expects to complete wetlands and tree surveys and return to the commission for the second of the three required reviews. Technical stormwater measures and any design changes arising from the wetlands determination will be handled through the city’s stormwater review process before any final approval.
