by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer

The Monteagle Planning Commission tackled a long agenda at a two-and-a-half hour meeting on June 2. The commission approved the site plan for Morton Memorial United Methodist’s food pantry. Parking, group living quarters, and fencing topped the discussion list for the new rules for C-1 commercial and adjacent residential property. To deter data centers from locating in Monteagle, the commission charged town planner Jonathan Rush with drafting an amendment to Industrial Zoning ordinance.

Located across the street from the church on a lot bordered by Church Street, Catherine Avenue, Winston Avenue, half of the 5,000 square foot food pantry will be a warehouse, and half will be for food distribution. The food ministry currently operates one Saturday a month and serves 300 clients. “It’s a mad house,” said church spokesperson Rich Wyckoff. When the new facility is complete, the ministry will host two food distributions per week, eight per month. Clients will come in and shop rather than staying in their cars, observed church spokesperson David Pilcher. Plans call for 25 parking spaces.

Following up on discussion at the May meeting, the amended Downtown Zoning code drafted by Rush defined the boundaries of Primary C-1 commercial by streets, with all C-1 commercial property not within the Primary district boundary designated as Secondary, and all residential property touching the C-1 commercial corridor falling under the rules for the Residential Overlay.

Commissioner Katie Trahan took issue with no minimum parking space requirements, aside from the requirement of a minimum of one parking space for residences in the Residential Overlay district. “If parking is a problem in the future, it would be a good problem to have,” said Commissioner Nate Wilson. The rationale of no minimum parking requirement in C-I commercial was to encourage development rather than “to fill downtown with parking,” Wilson stressed. “We’re trying to lower the barriers for commercial development.” When parking is offered, the new rules call for parking at the side or in the rear. Trahan argued, “tourists need parking” and “employees need to park.” Wilson suggested private parking could be supplemented with public parking and noted the new rules encouraged shared parking. He pointed to an opportunity for public parking by narrowing College Street. “Narrow lanes would slow traffic,” commented Commissioner Dan Sargent, citing an additional advantage.

By the new rules, if a business chooses to have parking, there is no required minimum number of spaces. Currently, building size, use, and other criteria determine the number of parking spaces required, with the number of handicapped parking spaces required based on the total number of spaces. If there is no parking, a business was not required to provide handicapped parking, Wilson said.

Trahan challenged the rule calling for landscaping adjacent to all parking. “That’s a lot,” she insisted. Wilson agreed 70 percent landscaping would be more reasonable.

Trahan also questioned there being no minimum building footprint size in C-1 commercial. “What would that save us from?” Wilson asked. “To encourage small businesses, we need to lower the entry points.” On the subject of fencing, Trahan spoke for forbidding chain-link fences in front, rather than just discouraging them. By the new rules, the maximum height for fences is 48 inches and requires 50 percent transparency. Wilson commented there were no rules on materials used for building construction. “That gets into design standards we’re trying to avoid,” he said.

The rules for Residential Overly property call for a 2,500 square foot minimum lot size; 40 feet maximum width and 70 feet maximum depth residence size (allowing for a shot-gun style house); and a 9 foot minimum ceiling height. Trahan asked about the provision allowing for “group quarters and dormitories.” Wilson said the intention was to allow for “hostels,” group living with individual quarters and a shared kitchen. “It’s just so broad,” Trahan countered. “Sometimes there are things [consequences] you don’t think of.” She approved of Wilson’s suggestion to add “short-term” shared quarters. Rush proposed the rule stipulate “hostels” which had a “very specific” definition.

The commission tabled approving the new C-1 rules and Residential Overlay proposal to allow for final proofreading and incorporating the suggested changes.

Wilson introduced the discussion on data centers locating in Monteagle. “The county is wrestling with it [allowing data centers to locate in Grundy County], because they don’t have zoning. We’re silent on it. [Data Centers] are not in our zoning ordinance.” Wilson proposed including data centers under “industrial uses.”

“We can’t ban them,” Wilson acknowledged, “but we could make it use upon review.” This would enable Monteagle to refuse to allow a data center to locate there due to having insufficient water for the facility’s cooling needs. Rush will draft a zoning ordinance amendment defining data centers as an industrial use only allowed upon review.

Revisiting the May discussion about the site-plan submittal process, the commission voted to adopt a timeline delineating the steps: the developer must submit an electronic copy of the proposed site plan to the town staff and the required engineering fee must be paid no later than 30 days before the next planning commission meeting; the staff will distribute the electronic copy for review to the enforcement officer, town planner, town engineer, and other reviewing officials; once all reviewing parties have made their comments, the site plan will go back to the developer for revisions. The developer will provide reviewers with a paper copy upon request. The developer must supply a paper copy for final site plan review by the planning commission.