by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer

At a Feb. 15 special called meeting, the Monteagle Planning Commission approved the site plan for a 12-port Tesla electric vehicle charging station in the Piggly Wiggly parking lot bordering Indigo Lane. The commission discussed at great length, but did not recommend adopting, a zoning ordinance amendment allowing a 12 feet by 50 feet loading zone as an alternative to a 30-foot rear setback for service.

Tesla representative Mark Edwards outlined the features that prompted the company to identify the Piggly Wiggly site. Tesla looked for locations close to where people traveled and that offered amenities people could visit while charging their vehicles; readily available electric service and underutilized parking were the other important features. The 11-feet wide charging slots will be available for regular parking when not in use for vehicle charging, with a total of 64 parking spaces available on the lot. “The lot is under parked,” said engineer Mathew Selkirk. “We hope this is a zero net change.” Town planner Annya Shalun concurred. “I don’t think it will affect parking at the Piggly Wiggly the way it is now.”

Customers will pull into the charging port slots. Wheel stops will prevent them from driving through to Indigo Lane. Bollards in front of each charging post and surrounding the cabinet and switch boards will protect the equipment from vehicle impact damage. A full charge will take 25-30 minutes, cost approximately $15. The ports will only charge Tesla vehicles, Edwards acknowledged, but Tesla has plans to open part of its charging network to non-Tesla vehicles in the future and has made Tesla’s vehicle connections available to other manufacturers. Tesla preferred shrubs over fencing for landscaping. “Fences don’t last,” Edwards observed. Maintenance of the landscaping will fall to the Piggly Wiggly site landowner, Jim Myers Inc. Construction typically takes three weeks, Edwards said. Tesla monitors its charging ports remotely and tries to rectify service issues in 24 hours.

Pat Neuhoff, architect for a neighboring West Main convenience-retail market project, requested the ordinance amendment allowing a 12 feet by 50 feet loading zone as an alternative to a 30-foot rear setback for service. The site plan calls for drive-thru windows on each side and front loading and unloading, with only 15 feet in the rear of the building. “I have concerns about a car not being able to go around the loading and unloading,” Shalun said. Commissioner Katie Trahan and Fire Chief Travis Lawyer concurred. “What about if there is a car at the window and their car catches fire, and there is limited accessibility because of the drive-thru line for an engine to get back to the car,” Lawyer said. “There is no option except for the front to come in to administer a fire attack.”

Commissioner Alex Mosley asked about the possibility of a variance rather than an ordinance amendment. Shalun said the lot was not sufficiently small to justify a variance.

“They are trying to put too large of a building on the size site they have,” Trahan said. She argued any change to the ordinance addressing loading and unloading should take into account the lot and building size “from a safety standpoint.”

Shalun pointed out the 30-foot rear setback for a service area was adopted for “aesthetic” reasons, to discourage front loading and unloading.

The commission approved the site plan for the West Main project at the Feb. 7 meeting conditional upon the ordinance amendment being recommended by the planning commission and approved by the council. The commission will revisit the proposed amendment at the March 7 meeting.

The commission also discussed amending the bylaws to require an odd number of commissioners to avoid a tie vote such as occurred with the Hideaway Subdivision vote at the Feb. 7 meeting.