by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer

With the goal in sight of amending ordinance to foster a walkable, high-density downtown corridor, at the May 7 meeting the Monteagle Planning Commission bumped up against the unexpected challenge of deciding on the best mechanism to delineate the use of specific sectors in the corridor. As presented, a color-coded map delineated the boundaries. Commissioner Dan Brown pointed to a boundary division running through a parking lot. “I don’t want ambiguity to resolve later on,” Brown stressed. The commission discussed a written description based on streets and parcel boundaries as alternative mechanisms for locating boundaries. The ordinance amendment under consideration delineated three use-specific categories: Primary Commercial; Secondary Commercial; and Residential Overlay.

“In the primary the focus is on commercial development with limited residential,” explained Monteagle Alderman Nate Wilson who worked closely with the planning consultants who drafted the ordinance changes. In the sector designated as Primary Commercial, residential is only allowed on the second story or at the back of the lot. “Secondary Commercial allows some residential uses,” Wilson said. “The difference between primary and secondary and the rationale behind that is they [the planning consultants] didn’t think we have enough rooftops to support pure commercial all the way through the corridor.” The Residential Overlay proposed applies to all residentially zoned property touching the C-1 commercial corridor, Wilson said. Residential property within the proposed overlay designation allowed homes on smaller lots and more housing options such as connected residences. “We’re not changing the zoning,” Wilson insisted. The rules for residence size would remain the same: 800 square feet minimum for R-1 and 600 square feet minimum for R-2 and R-3.

“The purpose is to increase residential density close to downtown,” said town planner Jonathan Rush. “What do you want from this as a town?” he asked. “You should be able to have walkable all the way to the interstate.” As initially proposed, the residential overlay extended to the interstate, which offered a clear cut boundary. The idea was rejected, Wilson said, because of complaints it incorporated too large an area. Wilson pointed out, however, if a larger residential overlay area was desirable in the future, “The outer boundaries of the residential overlay can move.”

The commission supported the goal of increased density and a walkable downtown to foster economic development. “I want the growth,” Brown said.

Regarding the color-coded map delineating a parcel partially in one sector and partially in another, Wilson observed that was sometimes the case with zoning as well. Ordinance provided for the owner requesting the property be all in one zone or the other.

Commissioner Alec Mosley proposed parcel boundaries be used to delineate sectors. Rush cited a problem with that mechanism. “A parcel could change in the future if somebody divides a parcel,” Rush observed.

Mayor Greg Maloof spoke in favor of delineating the boundaries by streets, with commissioners’ comments largely in agreement. Wilson and Rush will work on drafting a street-based boundary mechanism.

Revisiting the newly adopted checklist for developers to keep them informed about what needed done for a project to move forward, Rush suggested clarifying the sequence followed when a site plan was submitted. “A site plan can’t be reviewed until the engineering fee is paid,” Rush said. He proposed adding the engineering fee to the checklist as the first step and stipulating that, following payment of the engineering fee, the site plan would then go to the engineer and town planner for review, as well as to any other professional staff with a stake in the project; following review by professional staff, the site plan would go to the commission. Rush will draft language for the zoning code to reflect the sequence he proposed.

Asked about the controversial fence on Main Street property, Wilson said the codes officer granted permission for the fence based on the relevant ordinance, but there was “an error in the language,” causing misinterpretation. The error has been corrected, and the council is seeking “an amicable solution” with the property owner.