SummaryLookout Mountain has only a fewkey roads that receive most of itstraffic. These are two-lane roadswithout shoulders orsrdewalks onmosf segments, greatly limitingsafe pedesfrlan access.

/I

;J

I

,:

\

\, 1i

\-r-'

TH O ROIJ G H FARES Al.J D C O tul lil U N lT'/ FACIL lTlE S t-E GE f.t D

...::,,.":.*.".:) rvJAJoR ARrE R IAL

i -l cot-t-Ecron

: LOCAL STREET

l 'raffic AccidentsThe roadways in Walker County are characterized asrelatively safe in comparison to similar roadways in Geor-gia. The overal lvehicular crash, fatal i ty, injury, and pe-destrian involvement rates are substantial ly below theaverage Georgia rates for the years 2000-2006 (GDOTCASlReport).

Georgia'sAccident Rate for rural local roadways for2006is 156/100 mi l l ion vehic le mi les (MVM) and for 2007 is168/100 MVM; the 2008 accident data is not currenflyavailable. To be compared to the statewide Georgia Ac-cident Rates, Table 1 shows the Accident Rates for LulaLake Road, McFarland Road, and Red Riding Hood Trai lin Lookout Mountain, Table 2 shows the total number ofaccidents per Roadway forYears 2006,2007, and 2008.

Tob le 1 . Acc idents Ro les fo r Yeors 2006"200S ( ln 100 MVM)

Roqd Nome 20CI6 2007 200sl-r-rk: Lcrkc Rcl 1 8 7 I 86',r 450

fvtcFurl*:n*j Rd s l r l l 839 79Il ier i l i i t : l i r tg l* lclc:<i i rqri l ')_4"2 $3 108

Iob le ? . Number o l Acc idents per Roodwoy fo r Yeqrs 200d-2008

Road Name 2006 2007 2008 Total

L u l a L a k e R d 21 t q 1 1 5 1M c F a r l a n d R o a d

OCHS l'lvuy

j 1

7

1 1v

1 a

1 63410

Pat te r r RoadRec l R id ins Hood Tra i l

o

c

I

2

74

1 6

12F lee twood D r i ve I 3 2 6Scenic l" lv,ry I l 5 7Moc l< ing l : i r d Lane 1

013

3 5Wood Nu r l p l r T ra i l I 4

f tock C i ty Tra i l

Wendv Tra i l00

22

il

02)

Turnber rv Lar re L 0 C) 1

Peter Pan Road I r) 0 1

l \4ock ingb i rd Tra i l L 0 0 I

Dunrsnd Dr i r , 'e 1 0 tJ 1T i n k e r b e l l I a n e I 0 0 I

Ch i ckamauga - [ t a i l

l l a rdy Road

rlo

I

0

{) tII

M o t h e r G o o s e T r a i l 0 0 l. I( l i nde re l l a Ro , rd

Fo r t S teFhenson Ro i rd

00

00

1

f,

I

I

Pr incers J ra i l 0 0 I I

TransitThe Walker County Transit Authority provides public,wheelchair accessible, transportation to the area uponspecific requests. The City is serviced by Chattanooga'srai lroad, water, and air terminals and connections.

'r i) :':

Lula lake Ruarl

Posted at 25 mph

Postetl at 30 nrph

t j l : : , i i t . i t i : : 1 ' . ' ,

Publ ic Water & Sewer

Publ ic Water

Pub l ic water in Lookout Mounta in i s p rov ided by theTennessee American Water Company. The map at r lghti l lustrates al l water l ines that are 8 inches in diameter orlarger Water l ines are run along the ci ty 's roads. Asthe main north-south corr idor, a water l ine runs from thevery northern end of Lula Lake Road to a point not farfrom the south end of the ci ty. From this l ine other waterl ines extend along key roads that extend from Lula Laketo the east and west, Because of the relat ive ease ofextending water l ines where needed, publ ic water doesnot appear to be a l imit ing factor for future growth

Pub l ic Sewer

A "Feas ib i l i t y S tudy Sewer Serv ice Ex tens ion" wasprepared by Consolrdated Technologies, Inc. in June 2007

The intent was to determine whether f ive potent ial new

deve lopments to ta l ing 204 res ident ia l un i ts can besupported by the current system That report is theprimary source of information for this plan sect ion

Lookout Mounta in owns and opera tes a low pressure

gr inder pump (LPGP) co l lec t ron sys tem, Accord ing to

the report , wastewater is col lected by individual gr inder

pump units and conveyed to a central ized pump stat ion^ ^ ^ L i ^ r ' ^ * ^ " ^ ^ - - f i l F f O m t h e f e l l j g 6 . n n v o v a r l f nu i l \ / | r u r \ d i l r d L r v d r t d i l | r u i l r r . r t u t E t L t 5 u u I v u y u u t u

Lookout Mounta in , Tennessee, and u l t rn ra te t rea tment

and drsposa l occurs a t the Moccas in Bend reg iona l

wastewater treatment plant in Chattanooga The key

sewer system faci l i t ies locat ions in Lookout Mountain

are i l lustrated on the map at r ight Roughly 570 indrvidual

g r inder pump un i ts a re connected to the c i ty ' s sys tem

l 'here are a lso th ree la rger comrrerc ia l pump un i ts

C o v e n a n t C o l l e g e , R o c k C i t y a n d t h e F l i n t s t o n e

S i u b d i v i s i o n C o v e n a n t C o l l e g e , t h e ' s i n g l e l a r g e s t

customer," abandoned rts own wastewater treatment plant

and connected to the c i ty ' s sys tem That o ld sys tem is

cons idered to be obso le te , and i t does no t appear to be

feas ib le to redeve lop i t tn to a func t ron ing sys tem

Chickamattga Tratl Pttmp Station

Th is fac i l i t y i s loca ted in a res ident ia l ne ighborhood jus t

south of Rock City l t has experienced overf lows during

extremely wet weather. There have also been odorproblems during dry weather and when Covenant Collegeis not in session (f lows are lower, which decreases theamount of chemical odor treatment added to the college'spump stat ion) The City has made efforts to r :orrect theodor problem to the extent that it can with odor controllingchemicals. The study determined that, for er var iety ofr e a s o n s , t h i s f a c i l i t y c a n n o t b e e x p a n d e d t oa c c o m m o d a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r v o l u m e s o fwastewater

F I i ntston e S u bd ivi sio n SysfemThis resident ial subdivis ion is located south of CovenantCo l lege and immedia te ly west o f ihe c i ty ' s l im i ts Th issystem experiences inflow/infiltration problems during wetweather , wh ich cause the pumps to opera te a lmostcont inuously According to the report , "The ChickamaugaTrai l pumps cannot keep up with the combined pumping

ra te f rom F l in ts tone Subd iv is ion and Covenant Co l legeplus the rout ine domest ic f low in the system "

Conclttsiot'ts of the Study

T h e s t u d y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g w a s t e w a t e r

treatment system can handle the proposed new 204hous ing un i ts i f the ex t raneous f lows in the F l rn ts toneSubdivis ion are reduced l t also determined t l "rat the bestroute for serving the proposed 150 units associated with

a new ret i rement vi l lage would be to connect at LLr la Lake

Road to the eas t A new fa l lou t l ine wou ld evr :n tua l l y be

needed, a l though the f i rs t phase o f deve loprnent migh tu t i l i ze an ex is t ing sys tem a long Lu la Lake Road to thenorth to the McCal l ie Lane area Final ly, potent ial funding

sources fo r an expanded sys tem might inc lude the

Special Purpose Local Opt ion Sales Tax (SPl_OST) and

the Georg ia Env i ron menta l Fac i l i t ies Author i ty (GEFA)

SummaryThe provision of public water to futuredevelopmenf does not appear to be anissue However, even with remedtalimprovemenfs to the current sewagetreatment system, it appears that only aIimited amount of future growth can occLtrwithotrt a substantial expansion of facilities.

Existing Water & Sewer Map of Lookout City, GeorgiaSource for Water Map: Northwest Georgia Regional CommissionModifications for Sewer lrrfo : Tlre Walker Collaborative

Publ ic / Inst i tut ional Faci l i t ies

Lookout Mountain's var ious publ ic and inst i tut ional usesare important in adding to a strong sense of communitv.Below is a summary of each:

Covenant College

Covenant Col lege is a Christ ian l iberal arts school estab-l ished in 1955. Located on Scenic Highway, most of thecampus is on the west side of the road, al though port ionsalso exist on the east s ide Current enrol lment is at ap-proximately 1,000 students, of which 87 percent l ive oncampus There are current ly 64 ful l { ime teaching facultyThe 300-acre campus features f ive classroom bui ldings,four residence hal ls, one l ibrary, and two athlet ic bui ld-ings. According to representat ives of the col lege, thereare no current plans for substant ial future growth,

lairy land School

Fa i ry land Schoo l i s loca ted a t 1306 Lu la Lake Road,which rs at the west end terminat ion of Rock City Trai l . l tis a pre-K through 5th grade school with a student popu-la t ion o f 300 The schoo l bu i ld ing cons is ts o f mut t ip tesegments bu i l t a t var ious t imes There is a park ing lo ton the south side of the property, and a recreat ional areawr th a baseba l l f ie ld to the rear (wes t o f the schoo l bu i ld -Ing) A key issue for the school is the need for moresidewalks and overal l improved pedestr ian safety Whi lemany s tudents wa lk to schoo l , surveys suggest more

would with improved pedestr ian safety. Also, accordingto school system off ic ials, the school could physical lyaccommodate roughly 100 to 120 more students withinthe current faci l i t ies. However, that does not mean thatthe qual i ty of educat ion would cont inue i f addit ional teach_ers were not hired.

Municipal ComplexThe ci ty 's exist ing town center area near Lul ia Lake andMcFarland Roads includes City Hal l , the f i re department,the pol ice department, and publ ic works. publ ic works isabout to move to a property to the south on Lula LakeRoad where more space exists for the department 's ve-hicles and equipment. The receni ly completed TownCenter Plan proposes new buildings for these various Citydepartments and funct ions (see page 38).

Churches

There are two churches located in Lookout Mountain

Lookout Mountain United Methodist ChurchLocated on Lula Lake Road at the western terminat ion ofRed Riding Hood Trai l

Ottr Lady of the Mount Catholic ChurchLocated on Scenic Highway north of the intersect ion ofMcFarland Road

Fairyland Schoo/ is a ltighlylreasuredresource in the contntunity. Altltougltmany children are able to walk to school,pedestrian safely is a rnajor issue inneed of attention Among the needeclimprovenen t s a re s i dewa lks , en -hanced crosswa/ks, and signage.

Parks, Recreation & Attractions

Although Lookout Mountain's parks and recreat ionalfaci l i t ies are intended pr imari ly for c i ty residents, the solemalor attract ion - Rock City - rel ies upon an externatmarket for support .

Parks

Lookout Mountain has two publ ic parks One is a conven-t ional park and the other is a l inear park - a greenway.

City Park

l-his smal l park located on Lula Lake Road across fromthe Town Center was establ ished in '199'1. l t is intendedfor oassive activities

Oreenway

l-he ci ty 's greenway is a new and welcomed addit ion tothe community Funded pr imari ly by federal t ransporta-

tron enhancement money and orchestrated by the City,the greenway fol lows Lula Lake Road from the City Parkto Fairyland School Expansions to this ini t ia l segmenterre in the planning stages

Flecreation

Siome of Lookout Mountain's recreat ionalfacr lr t ies are l im-rted to paying members, but even those are viewed byrnany as community resources

L-ookout Mountain Golf Club

Des igned in 1925, th is p r iva te c lub fea tures an 1B-ho le

c)ourse and a club house frontrng onto Wood Nymph

Trai l . A dr iv ing range is the only port ion of the faci l i tylocated west of this road.

Fairyland Club

This pr ivate club, located just north of Rock City has aswimming pool and six tennis courts, in addit ion to otherclub faci l i t ies.

Cafter Field

Carter Field - a soccer faci l i ty - is located on McFarlandRoad at i ts intersect ion with Whit t Road

Fairyland Schoo/ Recreation FacilitiesThe recreat ional faci l i t ies located behind ther school in-clude a basebal l f ie ld, an adjacent mult i -purpose f ield,and a peripheral paved trai l .

The rna in por t ion o f Covenant Co l lege 's car rpus is lo -ca ted jus t beyond the c i ty l im i ts , bu t the schoo l i s gen-erous enough to make their recreat ional faci l i t ies avai l -ab le to loca l res idents

Attractions

Al though the te rm "a t t rac t ion" can be app l ied loose ly tomany places, Rock City is unquest ionably " l ,he" attrac-t ion in Lookout Mounta in , Georg ia

Rock City

Rock City Gardens formal ly opened to the publ ic in 1932and now attracts nearly a half mi l l ion vis i tors each year

I t features a 4,100 foot walking trai l through various rock

formations and other i tems of interest

The City's new greenway has been very wellreceivecl by Lookout Mourttain cit izerrs lVolonly is it well designecl, but it leveraged theCity's clollars by tapping into fec|eral funds tofinance most of its construction Exfensionsto tltis initial segntent are in the works.

s*fi{G-HCfir{0fr48#S

DemographicsUnless otherwise indicated, the data on this page is fromCity-Data.com

Population2008 - 1,524Change since 2000 - 5.8% decrease

GenderMales -737 (48.4%) / Females -787 (51.6%)

AseMedian Lookout Mountain resident - 37.4 yearsMedian Georgia resident - 33.4 years

RaceWhite (Non-Hispanic) - 98,5%Hispanic - 0 .8%Two or more races - 0.6%

Education (25 years and older)High schoolor h igher -96.4o/oBachelor's degree or higher - 70%Graduate or professional degree -26.9o/o

Averaoe Household SizeLookout Mountain - 2.6 people / Georgia - 2.6 people

SummaryBecause the last US Census data was gatheredin 2000, it is not current, and mere recent data is/ess reliable. Regardless, Lookout Mountain'saverage income /evels are well above those forthe rest of the state.

lncome & Employment

Median Household Income (2007)Lookout Mountain -$71,252 ($62,045 in 2000)Georgia - $49,136

Per Capita Income (2007)Lookout Mountain - $36,953Georgia -$24,928

Residents with lncome Below Poverty Level (2007)Lookout Mountain - 5.6%.Georgia - 13.0oh

Unemployment */"*

Lookout Mountain - 11.2%United States - 8.5%

Recent Job Growth**Lookout Mountain -7.5o/o decreaseUnited States - 3j% decrease

Eu[ulgJs.b-G.[swth**Lookout Mountain - 13,7% increaseUnited States -26.4% increase

Population by Occupation**Management , Business and Finance -20.48%Professional and Related Occupations - 34.04%Services - 5.72o/oSales and Office -33.28o/oFarming, Fishing and Forestry - 0.30%Construction, Extraction and Maintenance - 2.860/oP rod uction, Transportation and Material Movin g - 3.31 o/o

. These statistics are questionable and likely incorporate areasbeyond the Lookout Mountain city l imits

*n Source: Sper l ing 's Best Places

Population by Occupation

uManagement, Business and Finance

& Professional and Related Occupalions

tt Services

EI Sale$ and Office

nFarming, Fishing and Forestry

trConstruction. Extraction and Maint

i lProduction. Transport and Material MovinESource: Sperl ing's Best Places

F'*y"i* 3+ ;:: :,t:,

GENERALHOUSING DATAMedian Home AgeMedian Home CostHome Appreciat ionHomes OwnedHousing VacantHomes RentedPrope(y Tax Rate

OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY VALUELess Than $20,000$20,000 to $39,999$40,000 to $59,999$60,000 to $79,999$80,000 to $99,999$100,000 to $149,999$150,000 to $199,999$200,000 to $299,999$300,000 to $399,999$400,000 to $499,999$500,000 to $749,999$1,000,000 or more

HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR STRUCTU RE BUILT1999 to October 20051995 to 19981990 io 19941980 to '1989'1970 to 19791960 to '1969

1950 to 19591940 to '1949

1939 or Earl ier

Source: Sperl ing's Best Places

LOOKOUTMOUNTAINC U

$278,900-4.80%78.75%5.700/o15.62Yo$7.36

0.83%0.00%0.21%2.08%0.83%646%21 .460/o31.88%16.88%9.38%4,79%2.50%

0.65%0.98%3.44%B , 1 B %10.15o/o16.69%23.90%17 .68%1 8 . 3 3 %

UNITEDSTATESz t

$202,300-4.600h

64.070/o14/8%

21 .45o/o

$ 1 3 . 2 8

3.01%4.37%5.74%7.07Yo8.41%19.74%14.060/o16.590k8 ,21%4.5s%4.75%1.86%

10.15%6.69%6.70%14,7 50/o1 7 , 1 1 %1 2 . 7 8 %11 64%6.64%13.550/o

Given the relatively sntall pool of homesales from which to draw sfafisfics, lf isnot surprising that the pattent of homesa/es in Lookout Mountain during thepast three years is erratic The thirdquafter of 2008 stands out with a mediansales price of $350,000.

Home Sales in Lookout Mountain. GAlJ . . t ' i

-1C

3C

2 8 ,

2C

1 5

1 0

5

i -a:

( l ( a a . i

Hlu: S:,:sr_4r L;;'..1r

91*f.$0f

$

t i 6 . a n!,.1:: :. i ,:;

:: i,;1 q: ,;t ::t t:1 ::.t t,] lr i t Q2

:00 [ 1 ! r ] l 2006 200! , t_e Source: City-Data com

;t,- ' ; , t ' , .

t ;

Future Land Use Plan

Lookout Mountain's most recent comprehensive plan wasprepared in 2006 as part of the broader "Joint City-CountyComprehens ive P lan Update 2007 -2027 " Th is "par t ia lplan update" was prepared joint ly by the Coosa Val leyRegional Development Center (now the Northwest GeorgiaReg iona l Commiss ion) Walker County , and the var iousmunicipal staffs In addit ion to addressing Walker County,i t also featured the ci t ies of Chickamauga, LaFayette,

Lookout Mountain, and Rossvi l le Within this nearly 200-page document is a 27-page sect ion on Lookout Mountain

start ing on page lV-1 l t is comprised of the fol lowingp lan sec t ions :

. Vision Statement

. Pr io r i t y l ssues

. Analysis of Areas Requir ing SpecialAttent ion

. Future Development Narrat ive

. Qual i ty Community Oblect ives

. Short Term Work Program

. Accomplishments from the Previous Work Program

GeleralFlndrngsT h i s p l a n p o i n t s o u t m a n y d e f i c i e n c i e s w i t h t h e

community 's exist ing pLrbl ic pol ic ies related to growth

and development yet i t a lso offers few solut ions, For

example , i t i s no ted th roughout the p lan tha t there is a

lack o f hous ing op t ions fo r those 65 years o ld and o lder ,

as wel l as a general lack of af fordable housing However,

the plan does nothing to recommend al ternat ive housing

types As the proposed deve lopment p lan a t r igh t

i l lustrates, there are two resident ial areas, none of which

wou ld a l low a l te rna t ives to de ta tched s ing le - fami ly

houses S imi la r ly , the town center des ignat ion does no t

rnc lude hous ing as a suggested use Another i ssue is

that some information is inaccurate The Analysis of Areas

Requ i r ing Specra lA t ten t ion s ta tes tha t the c i ty 'has on ly

minor a reas where s lopes are s teep, on the very edges

of the ci ty." In real i ty roughly 20 percent of the ci ty 's

undeveloped land features slopes of 20 percent or greater.

A s i l l u s t r a t e d o n t h e m a p a t r i g h t , t h e " F u t u r eDevelopment Narrative" designates four d istinct "character

areas" - Tradit ional Neighborhood Regional Act iv i tyCenter/Recreat ion, Rural Resident ial , and Town Center.The sect ion on the Rural Resident ial area suggests adensity of one unit per two acres (87 ,120 square feet) ,yet the exist ing zoning for resident ial areas al lows amin imum lo t s ize o f 35 ,000 square fee t . That dens i tylevel is nearly tr ip le of what the plan suggests for RuralResident ial areas

F i n a l l y s o m e o f t h e r e c o m m e n d e d i m p l e m e n t a t i o nmeasures are ques t ionab le . For example , there is thesuggested " incent ive" to a l low "des ign var iances fo rconservat ion subdivis ions and individual homes " Whi lepo l i c ies to a l low conserva t ion subd iv is ions ; in wh ichhousing is clustered to preserve open space is certainlya good idea, achieving i t through the issuance of var iancesmay not be. A more effective approach would be to createan Open Space Development (OSD) ordinan<;e to ei therbe mandated in certain areas or provided as ern opt ional

zon ing (perhaps even w i th incent ives bu i l t in )

The City's current contprehensive plan - preparedin 2006 - was part of a much broader plttn thataddresses the ent i re countv. as wel l as fourmunicipalit ies.

\ /

I I:1.)1":${"}

f f i l , . r r t i l r : t [ ! ' I l i l r| !.l.itl;Jtl i( J'N,,. i i.,ltrll.;J li:i..]ii:l i{.}i.il.)

lrl lFti.t l!Rslf.;lr.l.J I l-rit

t;rf , . i :(rl(A?.,\, : I 1,,, ' t i ,r {: i j l i i ir I. i

Future Development Map of Lookout City, GeorgiaSource: Northwest Georgia Regional Commission

{Il{

Town Center PlanOn August 17 ,2007 , the grocery store anchoring LookoutMountain's small commercial center burned down. Thisunfortunate event prompted citizens to step back and takea broader view of the entire area and its future. Choosingto turn a negative into a posit ive, the community decidedit wanted to transform the faceless commercial centerdominated by a "str ip commerical" character into adist inctive and walkableTown Center. Consequently, theCity commissioned the creation of a Town Center Plan.The pr imary s tudy area inc luded '16.5 acres. Theboundaries are irregular in shape, as they follow propertyl ines. l t includes the exist ing mixed use area, and it isanchored by the intersection of Lula Lake Road andMcFarland Road. The area includes a diverse mix of uses,including insti tut ional, retai l , services, housing andlodging.

A strong community input process was uti l ized to createthe plan, which included a project kick-off meeting, a se-ries of stakeholder meetings, a charrette workshop, anda concept plan presentation designed to encourage anopen discussion with cit izens. The result ing Town Centerplan is i l lustated at r ight.

Key Features of the PlanThe olan advocates a mixed use environment that is ur-ban rn form and pedestrian fr iendly. The fol lowing rs asummary of the some of the key components recom-mended by the p lan:

Town GreenThis small ceremonial park is the focal point for the area.It fronts onto Lula Lake and is surrounded by a street with

angled on-street parking.

Municipal Buildings

The plan provides for much-needed addit ional space forCity Hall, the police department and fire department. Whilepubl ic works might st i l l have off ice space here, the mainoperat ions would relocate given the space needs of ve-hicles and equipment.

Mixed Use Buildings

Depicted in orange on the plan map at r ight, these bui ld-ings would feature groundf loor commercial uses with up-per floor housing and/or offices.

Housing

Housing would be in the form of per ipheral mult i - family

bu i ld ings and townhouses , as we l l as some upper f loor

units above commercial uses within mixed use bui ldinqs,

Plan lmplementat ion

One drawback of this plan is that i t was not within the

master planning project 's scope and budget to include a

market and feasibi l i ty analysis to determine f inancial v i-

abi l i ty. Furthermore, the current economic downturn wi l l

l ikely stal l the plan's implementat ion for the near future.

Final ly, new zoning and design standards tai lored spe-

ci f ical ly to the plan are st i l l needed to avoid the possibi l -

i ty of a suburban style "str ip cente/ ' f rom happening.

SummaryAlthaugh the financial feasibility and timing of thisproject are still unknowns, the plan's broad com-munity support and relatively recent occurrencecause it to still be a relevant nlan.

As this pie chaft i l lustrates,the majority of proposedbui ld ing area wi th in theTown Center would consistof residential uses. Hous-ing would be in the form ofper ipheral mul t i - fami lybuildings and townhouses,as well as a few upper floorun i t s above commerc ia lt/ses.

O Residential

ElRetail / Selvice

NOffice

NC iv i c

lr;L.t"1;.'t 3h t:; i:,,:l

Existing Zoning & Development Regulations

The City's zoning and subdivision regulations have evolvedover t ime and have a piecemeal quali ty to them lacking aclear structure and cohesiveness. Below is a summary,

ZoningAs the zoning map at r ight i l lustrates, there are a total ofseven zoning distr icts in Lookout Mountain, as fol lows:

Co m m u n ity Con ve n ie nce Co m m e rcial D istrictThis designation has been applied to one specif ic area inthe city, That area is the same that has been designatedas the Town Center, including the adjacent B&B property

to the immediate north of the small commercial area, aswell as the bank property on the south side of McFarland.

This distr ict al lows a broad range of commercial uses,

such as s tores, restaurants, serv ices and mote ls .Development requirements include a maximum building

height of 2 stories or 35 feet, and one off-street parking

space for every 200 square feet of bui lding area.

Multiple Family Dwelling District

This designation has been applied to three areas, Twopropert ies are those that presently have the city's only

two mult i-family developments, while the third one is

applied to an undeveloped area that straddles the western

terminus of Durand Drive. Permitted uses are l imited to

mul t ip le fami ly dwel l ings. Development requi rements

include a minumum front setback of 30 feet, a maximum

building height of 2 stories or 35 feet, 1 5 off-street parking

spaces for each unit, a minimum lot size of 4,000 square

feet for each uni t , a min imum lot width of 190 feet , a

minimum front yard of 30 feet, a side yard of 30 feet, and

a rear yard of 25 feet (side and rear yards are increased

by 10 feet when adjoining a different zone). There are

also minimum separation requirements between buildings,

and a minimum of 50 percent of the site must be left

natural or landscaPed

Singie Family District

Over 90 percent of the community is zoned the Single

Family Distr ict In addit ion to permitt ing single family

houses, i t also al lows a variety of public uses, such as

schools and l ibraries. Development requirements include

a maximum bui ld ing height o f 2 .5 s tor ies or 35 feet , a

min imum lot s ize of '15,000 square feet , and a min imum

lot width of 75 feet. The minimum front yard setback is

40 feet, the rear yard must be at least 25 feet, and

sideyards must be at least 15 feet. lt is noteworthy that,

al though the minimum permit ted lot s ize for this zone is'15,000 square feet, the subdivis ion regulat ions require

al l new lots to be at least 35,000 square feet in area.

Slngie Family / Buslness Conference District

This zoning permits al l uses al lowed in the Single Family

Distr ict , as wel l as business and educat ional meetings

and soc ia l ga ther ings . L ikewise , he igh t and area

requirements are the same as those in the Single Family

Distr ict . This distr ict is not v is ible on the draft zoning

map at r ight.

Slng/e Family / Neighborhood Commercial District

The only property with this designat ion is on the south

side of McFarland Road west of Whit t Road and east of

Scenic Highway, This zoning permits al l uses al lowed

in the Single Family Distr ict , as wel l as off ices and a few

specif ic repair-related businesses. The height and area

regu la t ions o f the S ing le Fami ly D is t r i c t sha l l app ly .

Tourist Oriented Commercial District

This designat ion has been appl ied only to Rock City and

the small commercial development across the street from

it (west side of Mockingbird Lane). Permit ted uses are

l imited to tour ist at tract ions and support ive retai l and

serv ice uses , as we l l as o f f i ces and warehouses .

Development requirements include a maximum bui lding

height of 2.5 stor ies or 35 feet, and one off-street parking

space for every 200 square feet of bui lding area

Municipal District

Th is zon ing permi ts a l l uses a l lowed in the S ing le Fami ly

D is t r i c t , as we l l as mun ic ipa l bu i ld ings anc l fac i l i t i es .

He igh t and area requ i rements a re the same as those in

the S ing le Fami ly D is t r i c t . Th is d is t r i c t i s no t v is ib le on

the draft zoning map at r lght.

Development Regulat ions

The C i ty 's subd iv is ion regu la t ions fo r new lo ts l im i t

minimum lot s izes to 35,000 square feet, street f rontages

must be at least 175 feet, lot depths must be at least

200 fee t , and pub l ic sewer i s requ i red fo r a l l new

development within proximity to ci ty sewer l ines. The

City also has regulations related to grading, erosion control

SummaryThe City's zoning and developmentregulations have evolved overtimein a piecemeal fashion, makingthe m difficult to com p rehe n d. T h e irconsolidation, expansion and im-provement into a single Unified De-velopment Code would greatly en-hance the City's ability to accom-modatefuture grrowth.

' ,o:l

j jfi

\q

t{

zONlhl6 Dl$TRlcr$

and stormwater management However, compared to

the deve lopment regu la t ions o f many communi t ies ,

regulat ions are needed that are more protect ive of the

naturalenvironment The exist ing regulat ions are stand-

alone and not integrated into a clear, comprehensive

development plan review and approval process. For

example, there are no provisions for submittal and approval

This qiraffi a*rating nrag:wl$$ be v*ptra*rtd *r1** 47zu #ity Llp*atea it.

of construci ion plans prror to construct ion, and there is

no di f ferent iat ion in requtrements for resident ial verses

commercial development act iv i t ies. In addit ion, there are

no current regulat ions with respect to development on

steep slopes or stream buffer protection greater than the

state minimum of 25 feet.

ff iH$$T$F*S pmL*#Vffiil$LS-ffi$T $*ffiS$$\ffi*#

Purpose

The purpose of this exercise is to establ ish a point ofreference i l lustrat ing where the community stands atpresent. Al though the average ci t izen may look around

and see more green space than development, that is not

what they wi l l have in the future. l t must be assumed

that, over t ime, growth wi l l cont inue and the community 's

cur ren t po l i c ies - zon ing and deve lopment regu la t ions -

w i l leventua l l y be fu l l y rea l i zed . Once th is ex is t ing po in t

of reference is understood, al ternat ive growth scenarios

can be object ively considered.

Methodology

The map at r ight i l lustrates the steps that were taken to

arr ive at this scenario. Those steps are descr ibed below:

E l im ina t ion o f Lands Not Used in Ca lcu la t ions

L a n d s a l r e a d y d e v e l o p e d , t h o s e w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t

environmental constraints, parks, and simi lar lands were

f i rst ident i f ied as fol lows:

1 ) L a n d s w i t h c o n s o l i d a t e d d r a i n s / s t r e a m s a n d

topography in excess of 20% s/ope were first removed

from calculat ions (green on map). See pages 5-19 of

the Background Study for more detai led information

on exist ing environmental constraints.

2) Existing subdivided propefty thatwill l ikely not be re-

developed in the near future were then removed from

calculat ions (cross-hatched dark beige on map)

3) Propert ies reserved for publ ic/pr ivate parks and

recreation were removed from calculations (olive green

on map) l t is noteworthy, however, that i f the golf

course and dr iv ing range were to deve lop under the i r

cur ren t zon ing , they wou ld y ie ld approx imate ly 132

single{amily lots

4) Propert ies not located within the Town Center that are

cu rrently uti I ized f or p u bl ic/i n stitttti o n a I uses were also

removed from calculat ions (blue on map)

Calculat ions for Developable LandFol lowing the process of el iminat ion just descr ibed, landsthat can/might be developed were calculated based upontheir current zoning, as fol lows:

Single-Family Areas

First , calculat ions were made for areas zoned for s ingle-family resident ial development that are not necessari ly

environ mental ly-constrai ned or already subd iv ided intosmallsingle-family lots and could potentially be developedin the near future ( l ight beige on map), These areas

contain approximately 400 acres of developable land.

Fif teen percent of this acreage should be removed pr ior

to determining density rn order to account for publ ic r ights-

of-way for new roads and infrastructure. This leaves 340

acres that could be developed for s ingle-family lots. Thepotent ial density for this acreage was est imated by

applying the fol lowing calculat ion:

340 (total acres) X 43,560 (number of square feet in

an acre) / 35 ,000 (min imum number g f gnr ra ra roo t

required for a single-family lot) .

The areas represented on the map in l ight yel low would

y ie ld approx imate ly 423 lo ts . Ex is t ing s ing le - fami ly

houses w i th in the l igh t ye l low areas shou ld a lso be

considered in determrning result ing development yields

There are approximately 19 exist ing single-family houses

wi th in these areas ,

Multi-Family Areas

Propert ies zoned for mult i - family development comprise

approximately 4.5 acres of land that is sui table for mult i -

fami ly deve lopment (o range on map) . The po ten t ia l

deve lopment y ie ld fo r th is acreage is es t imated by

applying the fol lowing calcu lat ion :

4.5 ( total acres) X 43,560 (number of square feet in

an acre) / 4,000 (minimum number of square feet per

mul t i - fami ly dwe l l ing per zon ing)

These areas would yield approximately 49 ntul t i - family

units. Exist ing mult i - family dwel l ings within thts area

should be considered in determining total mult i - family

un i ts in Lookout Mounta in

Areas El iminated FromCalculat ions

Constrained Lands

Subdivided Lands

Publ ic/Private Parks

Publ ic/ lnst i tut ionalUsesOutsideTown Center

Areas Ca lcu la ted fo rDeve lopment

S ing le -Fami ly

Mul t i -Fami ly

I I Opt ional Use Areas

Town Center

Property within Lookout Mountain's designated Town

Center have been ident i f ied (pink on map). Based upon

the recently-completed Town Center Plan, redevelopment

of this area would yield the fol lowing in addit ion to the

exist ing adjacent bed and breakfast, apartments, gas

stat ion, bank, and church:

Mult i - familv: 99 units

OptionalUse AreasIn accordance with the City's exist ing zoning, somepropert ies are permitted to have single-family uses, aswell as commercial/business-related uses (purple onmap), The property between Fairyland Club and RockCity would yield a small meeting placeiconference hallor a single-family residence, The property on the southside of McFarland Road, adjacent to the soccer f ield, iscurrently occupied by a small supply/distr ibution faci l i ty.These areas will be considered based upon their existingU S C S .

Retai l :

Civic:

Office:

20,925 square feet

11 ,400 square feet

4,200 square feet

Calculated Development Yields

Land Use Category Existing Future Total Population

Single-Family Units 565111 423et 988 2,5681sr

Mult i-Family Units 42st 148rsr 190 38Otor

Retail(sq. ft.) NAtzr 20,925 20,925 NA

Offices (sq ft ) NArzr 4,200 4,200 NA

Civic (sq. ft .) NArzr 11,400 1'1,400 NA

(1 ) Number o f non- ren ta l un i ts per 2000 US Census (does no t account fo r ex is t ing ren ta l s ing le - fami ly un i ts - # unava i lab le )

(2 ) Number o f po ten t ia l new s ing le - fami ly houses per bu i ld -ou t ca lcu la t ions

(3) Based on ex is t ing average o f 2 6 peop le per househo ld in Lookout Mounta in per 2000 US Census

(4) Stat ist ic provided by the CitY

(5) Potential bui ld-out for mult i- family areas and Town Center combined

(6) Based on average number o f househo ld members in apar tments (2 ) per U S Census Bureau 's 2007 Amer ican Hous ing Survey

(7) Exist ing square footage wil l be replaced with that created by the redeveloped Town Center

Resu l ts & P lann ing lmp l ica t ions

Resu l ts , Fu ture Bu i ld -Out Based on Cur ren t Po l i c ies

The calculat ions documented on the previous pages yield

the following future buid-out scenario based upon the City's

current zoning and plans (exist ing and future development

combined):

P lann ino lmp l ica t ions

The result ing populat ion of a ful l bui ld-out scenario based

upon current City pol ic ies would be roughly 2,948 people.

This compares to the current populat ion'1,524 people.

Thus, the resident ial populat ion would increaseby 1,424

people - nearly double from i ts current level,

P o t e n t i a l P o p u l a t i o n C h a n g e

Sing le -Fami ly :

Mu l t i -Fami ly :

Retail:

Office:

Civic:

9BB uni ts'190 uni ts20,925 square feet4,200 square feet11,400 square feet

3,0002,000

1,000

0

. : . . . .

2,948ii::$

F;*E*,€$ ut fr4

Cur (0n t

Transportation I mpactsBased on the future build-out scenario with the City'scurrent zoning and plans, approximately 8,892 new tr ipsper day wil l be added to the City's streets. Of these newtrips, the majority wil l go to and from the south and westof the Town Center, about 3,219 wil l go to and from thes o u t h , a n d 2 , 5 9 8 w i l l g o t o a n d f r o m t h e w e s t .Approximately 2,093 tr ips wil l come to and from the eastand 982 will go to and from the north of the Town Center.These projections are based on the existing distributionof traffic in the city, as wellas the proposed new locationsof the future single and mult i-family residential units.

The current number of average daily tr ips on Lula LakeRoad just north of the intersection with McFarland Roadis 2,480 Therefore, with an addit ional 982 daily tr ipsadded, there wil l be a nearly 40% increase in traff ic forthis port ion of roadway. Other city roads wil l encountera similar magnitude of increased traff ic. Based on thisincrease in traffic volume, there will be fewer gaps in traffic

to al low side street traff ic at unsignalized intersections toenter the major roadways. There wil l also be less of anopportunity for pedestrians to cross roadways safely.Also, roadway improvements near the Town Center onroads such as, Lu la Lake Road, McFar land Road, andRed Riding Hood Trai l wil l need to be completed to beable to handle the new capacity of tr ips generated with

the future development. Based on the Georgia RegionalTransportatlon Authority's Generalized Ann ual Average

Daily Volumes table for a two-way arterial, unsignalized,

with two lanes, undivided, without left turn bays the "level

of serv ice" (LOS)for Lu la Lake Road, Red Rid ing HoodTrai l , and McFar land Road is "A." Even in a fu l l bu i ld-out

scenar io , that LOS of Awould remain.

I n f ra stru ctu re I m p actsBased upon the sewer study conducted in 2007, and

assuming that remedial improvements can be made to

the system, approximately 200 addit ional new housing

units can be accommodated The study implies ihat

beyond that number, i t is questionable how many more

can be accommodated. Based upon the projected future

build-out potential of 571 new housing units, 37'1 new

units (65% of the total potential new units) might not be

accommodated by the exist ing sewer system - even if

the current system is improved to f ix exist ing problems.

Schoo/ lmpacts

The Fairyland School current ly has an enrol lment of

approximately 300 students. Based upon discussions

with school representat ives, the school is not yet atcapacity and could accommodate roughly '100 to 120

more students, al though they emphasized that those

numbers require much more study When the current

607 househo lds are cons idered in l igh t o f cur ren t

enrollment, an average of .49 students are generated per

household. Thus, the potent ial new 571 households

would generate approximately 280 chi ldren, which would

far exceed current capacity at Fairyland School. Uslng

the figures available, the addition of 225 new housing

units would generate 110 new sfudenfs, which is in the

middle of the approximate "breaking point" forthe schoo/'s

current capacity. One way to lessen this impact would

be for fewer convent ional s ingle-family houses to be

constructed and, instead, more diverse housing types

tha t genera te less ch i ld ren .

Environmental Impacts

The vast majority of land to be developed in the future will

be in the form of s ingle-family resident ial development.

Based upon the bu i ld -ou t scenar io ca lcu la t ion , rough ly

400 acres of land would be developed Only 4.5 acres of

land would be developed for mult i - family development.

Thus, a total of roughly 405 acres of land would be

transformed from its current natural condition to developed

l a n d . T h a t c o m p a r e s w i t h a t o t a l l a n d a r e a o f

approximately 1 ,728 acres in the ci ty. Thus, 23% of the

c i ty 's land wou ld be deve loped, in add i t ion to a reas

already developed. lt must also be considered Ihat much

of the environmentally constrained lands remaining

undeveloped would now be fragmented and disconnected

from other such areas by development, tremendottsly

reducing its environmental value - including its ability to

sttppotl a diverse range of plant and animalspecies

Com m u n ity Ch a racte r I mpacts

While these impacts cannot be quant i f ied, the potent ial

new volume of development would clearly alter the current

c h a r a c t e r o f t h e c o m m u n i t y . H o w e v e r , s t r o n g

development standards such as those related to tree

preservat ion and replacement could mtt igate impacts.

F*gner 45 mf 8"ttr

Ft {*$ fii i"" i {** { {l.$ tr:} e.,i ' l i.;*\-3';q,t'i ti {

Purpose & Approach

As;a l ready summar ized on pages 4 and 5 o f th is p lan , a

variety of approaches were used to sol ic i t publ ic input for

t h i s c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n O n e a p p r o a c h w a s t h e

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a s i m p l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o b e t t e r

unders tand the perspec t ives , op in ions and va lues o f

Lookout Mountain's ci t izens. The quest ionnaire featured

four specif ic quest ions, as fol low:

1) What do you love about Lookout Mountain that we

need to keep?

2) What wou ld you l i ke to change?

3) What would you l ike to see in 20 years?

4) What aspects of other communit ies, i f any, shouldwe consider emu lat ing/borrowing?

The survey was admin is te red tn th ree manners , l t was

f i rs t handed ou t a t the Ju ly 14 , 2009, pub l i c k ick -o f f

meeting for the project, which was held at the Fairyland

Club The meeting attendees completed the survey and

handed them in when the meeting ended Other ci t izens

p icked up cop ies o f the survey a t C i ty Ha l l and then

completed them and returned them Others downloaded

the survey off of the City 's website to complete and submit

the survey

Survey Results

A total of ' . ; t , " , surveys were completed and submitted

The results are provided at r ight and summarized here

The public input survey was flrst distributed to thepublic on July 14, 2009 during the public kick-offmeeting held at the Fairyland Cltrb.

What Peop le L ike MostAbout Lookout Mounta in

Of the 721 individual comments on this subjeci , the mostcommon responses were as fol lows:. Sense o f Communi ty / Smal l Town - 180 (25%). Safe ty / Secur i ty ( inc lud ing fo rch i ld ren) - 118 (16%). Natura l Beauty - 114 (160/0). Elementary School - 60 (B%). Peop le / F r iend l iness - a l (6%). Good City Services - a0 (6%). Other Comments - 168 Q3%\

Sen ior Hous ing

A to ta l o f 97 comments were made in suppot l o f sen io r

h o u s i n g , i n c l u d i n g " a s s i s t e d l i v i n g , " " a r e t i r e m e n t

community," and "Chapelbrow "

Comments Support ing Restr icted Growth

Of the 349 ind iv idua lcomments on th ts sub jec , t the most

common responses were as fol lows:. P lanned,care fu l , res t r i c ted growth - 103 (30%). No more traf f ic / low traff ic levels - 90 (26%,). No growth / l i t t le change - 89 (26%). No la rge deve lopment - 34 (10%). Low density development - 33 (9%)

Other Key lssues

Among the other f indings of the survey, there was strong

community st" tpport for the fol lowing:. More pathways / s idewalks. Town Center (shopp ing , d in ing , C i ty Ha l l , e r tc ). Underground ut i l i t ies. lmnrnvpd qe \A/pr svStem, , , , y I v v

o l \ / ln ro n raan en2aa, v , v , v : J '

What Peoo le L ike Most About Lookout Mounta in

n Sense of CommLrnr ty /

n Safety / Security

Natura l Beauly

fl Elementary School

S m a l lTown uPeople / Fr iendl iness

EGood Ci ty Serv ices

trOther Corrr rents

r i , i

Things lo Keep i Things People Like

Planned, careful, restricted growth to compliment /protec{ integrity of comrlunity.,.

No rrcre traftic I Low lraffic ,,".No gfowth 1 ${ay the sanre / Li l t le ahfin9e,., . . . , . , . .No large developrnenlLow density,No Chapelbrow..

Restfiateci Gr6wth Conrmenls

Sense of contmunity / snrall tourn.

Safety I $ecurity including for chi ldren... .".

Natural beauty.

Elernentary school . .

People / Friendl iness

Good city services - police, fire

Quiet I Peace{tt l , . .

Pr ivacy , .

Variety of honles-

H i k i n g t r a i l s , . . , . . . . , , ,

l -ocal busirress*s i No chain stofe$ i No fast food

lvlarntaineci yards

Minimunr commercial grovJlh

No Covenanl Coll€ge Qro\,vth,.Single fanri ly honres

Speed enlorcentent

I l c q s / t l g t l d r r u P y , .

Good churches

Keep Scenic Hwy fronr rt tovit tg

l* l istofrc character

Par ks

Clubs

Longevity of tesrdence / Live l lef e lon0

QLral i ty of lr fe.R a a r a i l i n n l t r i n i l p q

Tour is t communi ty , , , , ,

Tolvrt Cor'rtnton

Things to Cltarrqe / Thinqs People Want

More paihways I siclewalks / trails 1 bike paths

Town Cenler...Restaufant i public dining..Grocerygeaoty sfrop"...New c i tv ha| | . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ,

Towrr Center Cornments ,,I RA

1 1 1

1 0 3gi0

893433l d

ztx

l o

{ a

public rraorks

349

1 8 01 1 81 4 4

60

4 14 0

231 4

I J

1 l

1 I

1 1

l l

t 1

1 . 1

1 0

I

6

6

4

4

3

2

2

2

7_

2

Assisted l iving .." . . . . ,

Retirement comrnunity

Senior ci t ieen hoosing i c*re options

Condos for *eniots , .

Chapelbror,vAssisted l iving focuseC on

Nursirtcl home . .

284 A

1 B1 1

f-f.t n,tf n resiOerrce ismattl. . I2

Senior Housing Comments

Underground u t i l i t i es . , , . .

Bettef $rlwer sy$terr,

More green space ..

No r less rental propedy

l l igh School 1 Middle Sohool Options

Enfclrcement cf lavrrt arrcl hor,rse upkeep

Recycting

Communi ty Poo l . . , . . .

Less iouri$m

fulore $tr.6st lantps

Publrc l i t l rary

Too small / need grolr'riir-

fulare recreai icrn f act l i t ies

Annexation of DacJe County erea,

More po|ce presence

More Fairyland School sttpporl. , .

Goli carts

Leash law,

l"{ore coflrmunity e',,{ents

0omrxunity Garden

Lowel (axqls.

City governrnefl t rnore involved with Fairyland School

Fix storm water problems

tuledicat facilily

Public TransitStreet sign$ - better i nrore legible

F(]t]tn0le$l

Al ' i ' lre

l0ur quostion$ pfi i)s0n!scl t$ tho ditizen's of Lookotlt Mountoin \(glf(i

! Wh.qt do you love irboul Loqkoul l lollntait l l l lol vJe ne8dto kee8?

2 Whfrt woil ld you l jks to chsngc?

3 Whet lvoulci yov l ike to se€ ,n 20 year$')

c Whnt aspetls of othef conlmunities, if Fny. ehoulcl wd, coflsidef 6rlrr, lating?

!31 Ths responses to lhe four qusslion$ wsr'o csnsolidated untier the t ',,vo hesdinos above, Sirl l i lar fe$Fclrlsor6 to dit{erent qilesliorls \T/ira

cor]"sfibclalBd F0r exa0r[te, onre cornr]tenls iOr ntore F:.:thvrays / $icJ*'ri/alks \r 'ete nti lde in t 'qtponse to que$horls ?. ? eln(i 4

ll Comdlents required i lt le': ist t!" 'o resFr0nges to be re{lsterBcj

o ) E e c a U s e o f 1 h e o p e l . } e n C 1 e d J | ] R t t l l € O f t h e q U e s | i o n 5 a n d 1 h e V a l | e t v o f o I s u l e r s i h e ! a I | y I l . ] g e n d c o J 1 S o I | d . d t i o n

as nrucl) itd as science

F } V f ' , r e l t s e e l n e { i a p p r a p . n a t e c o f 1 | I e n t 5 w | t | ' a ' ' o m n ' ] c l . ] | h e m e ( R e s t r t c . t e d G r c J s 1 | r l D , , v n C e n | e r e l l i o r

tc,gether .rnd lot;l l ed

a 7

54, 2 9

I J

.1 Sr

, l 8

. 1 7

1 7

1 3

, , 1 3l n

'I .l

. 1 0

I

T

. , 0

5

44

3

3

2

2

2

, 22

ils** 4T" *f ilrl

ssALs & ffiffi-iffi#T$wffi$

Once a community 's exist ing condit ions are understood,

as wel l as the community preferences and values, a set

of goals and objectives are critical to provide direction to

the comprehensive planning process. Al l of the goals

listed below have been adapted directly from the "State-

wide Planning Goals" found in the Rules of Georgia De-

partment of Community Affairs Chapter 110-12-1 Stan-

dards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning

"Local Planning Requirements." Many of the object ives

(al l but two), including al l that are relevant to Lookout

Mountain and that c lear ly f i t wi thin a part icular goal, have

been adapted from the "Qual i ty Community Object ives"

section of the same chapter. Such objectives have been

aster isked (") .

A . Economic Deve loPment Goa l

Achieve a growing and balanced economy consistent

with prudent management of Lookout Mountain's re-

sources that equitably benef i ts al l segments of the popu-

lat ion.

A-1 . Appr:opriate Businesses Object ive.

The businesses and industr ies encouraged to develop or

expand in Lookout Mountain should be sui table for the

community in terms of job ski l ls required, l inkages to

other economic act iv i t ies in the region, impact on the

resources of the area, and future prospects for expan-

sion and creat ion of higher-ski l l job opportunit ies.

A-2 Emplo) iment Options Obiect ive-

A range of job types should be provided in Lookout Moun-

tarn to meet the diverse needs of the local workforce

A-3. Limited Commercial Uses Object ive

Commercial uses in Lookout Mountain should be intended

primari ly for the benef i t of the community 's residents

Businesses should not be developed or expanded to the

extent that there is an overwhelming increase in the num-

ber of non-residents regular ly vis i t ing the community

A-4. Local Support of Businesses Obiect ive

To the extent that businesses do exist in Lookout Moun-

tain and new ones wi l l be establ ished in the future, i t is

important that local residents support them so they can

orosoer and cont inue to serve the community

B. Natural and Cultural Resources Goal

Conserve and protect the environmental , natural and

cultural resources of Lookout Mountain.

B-1 . Heritage Preservation Obiective*The tradi t ional character of Lookout Mountain should

be maintained through preserving and revi tal iz ing his-

toric areas of the community, encouraging new develop-

ment that is compatible with the tradi t ional features of

the community, and protect ing other scenic or natural

features that are impodant to def ining the community 's

character,

B-2. Open Space Preservation Objective.

New development should be designed to minimize the

amount o f land consumed, and open space shou ld be

set aside from development for use as publ ic parks or

as g reenbelts/wi ldlife corridors.

B-3. Environmental Protecl ion Object ive*

A i r qua l i t y and env i ronmenta l l y sens i t i ve a reas shou ld

be protected from negat ive impacts of development

Environmentally sensitive areas deserve special protec-

t ion, part icular ly when they are important for maintain-

ing tradi t ional character or qual i ty of l i fe of the commu-

n i ty . Whenever poss ib le , the na tura l te r ra in , d ra inage,

and vegetatton of an area should be preserved

B-4-Jree Canopy & Indigenpus Vegetalan Obiective

Lookout Mountain's deciduous tree canopy should be

protected to preserve the habitat of many impoftant ani-

mal species. Simi lar ly, natural areas should be pro-

tected from invasive plant species. Preserved areas

shou ld be phys ica l l y con t iguous to ma in ta in a cohes ive

ecosystem.

C. Communi ty Serv ices and Fac i l i t ies Goa l

Ensure the provision of community faci l i t ies and ser-

vices to support ef f ic ient growth and development pat-

terns that wi l l protect and enhance the qual i ty of l i fe of

Lookout Mountain's residents

C-1. Publ ic Sewer & Water Object ive

Al l new development should be serviced by publ ic sewer

and water systems. Such systems should also not ex-

ceed their capacity to funct ion in an effect ive and eff i -

c ient manner, and they should avoid negat ive impacts

on the qual i ty of l i fe for residents.

il '*gr. 4{i *i S4

C-2 Education Obiective

Maintarn a high quality of education for Lookout Mountain's

young people, including wel l -qual i f ied teachers and good

physical faci l i t ies. The Fairyland School 's capacity to

accommodate students should not be overburdened, and

the school should have convenient and safe accessibility

to a large percentage of students who might choose to

walk or bicycle to school.

C-3. Recreation Objective

A broad range of recreat ional opportunit ies should exist

for al l Lookout Mountain ci t izens, both publ ic ly and pr i-

vate operated, The City should play a leadership role in

providing passive recreattonal opportu ni t ies through fa-

ci l i t ies such as greenways, parks and open space,

D. Hous ing Goa l

Ensure that al l residents of Lookout Mountain have ac-

cess to adequate and affordable housing,

D-1 . Housing Opportunit ies Obiect ive.

Qua l i t y hous ing and a range o f hous ing s ize , cos t , and

density should be provided in Lookout Mountain to make

i t poss ib le fo r a l lwho work in the communi ty to a lso l i ve

in the communi tY

D-2. Mult i -Family!ot ls ing Design & Locat ipn Object ive

A l l mu l t i - fami ly hous ing shou ld have a h igh qua l i t y o f

design to proiect the community 's aesthet ics' character

and property values. To achieve a var iety of planning

object ives, most mult i - family housing should be located

in or near the Town Center.

D-3. Resident ial Maintenance & Appearance Object ive

Al l housing should be maintained at a level that ensures

that bui ldings remain structural ly sound and safe, and

that properties are attractive and contribute positively to

the character of their surroundings. Vehicles and simi lar

i tems should not be stored in front yards

E. Land Use and Transportat ion Goal

Ensure the coord ina t ion o f land use p lann ing and t rans-

portat ion planning to support ef f ic ient growth and devel-

opment patterns thatwi l l promote sustainable economic

development protection of natural and cultural resources,

and proviston of adequate and affordable housing

E-1 . Traditional Nei ghborhood Obiective-

Tradit ional neighborhood development patterns should

be encouraged, including use of more human scale de-

velopment, mixing of uses within easy walking distance

of one another, and facilitating pedestrian activity.

E-2. I nfil l Development Objective*Lookout Mountain should maximize the use of exist ing

infrastructure and minimize the conversion of undevel-

oped land at the urban periphery by encouraging devel-

opment or redevelopment of s i tes closer to the tradi-

t ional urban core of the community.

E-3. Sense of Place Obiect ive*

The development of an act iv i ty center that serves as a

community focal point should be encouraged. This com-

munity focal point should be an attract ive, mixed-use,

pedestrian-friendly place where people choose to gather

fo r shopp ing , d in ing , soc ia l i z ing , and en ter ta inment .

E-4. Town Center Objective

The City's proposed redevelopment of the existing Town

Center should be achieved. Most future civ ic, commer-

cial , mult i - family and mixed-use development in Look-

out Mountatn should occurwithin or adjacentto the Town

Center.

E-5. Transportation Oblective

Development levels should not exceed the capacity of

roads to handle traf f ic without undue safety and con-

gest ion problems. Safe and convenient transportat ion

opt ions beyond motor ized vehicles should exist through-

out the communi ty , inc lud ing wa lk ing , jogg ing and cy-

c l ing

F, Intergovernmental Coordinat ion Goal

Ensure the coordination of local planning efforts with other

local service providers and ar,rthorities, with neighboring

communit ies, and with state and regional plans and pro-

grams

F-1 . Regional Cooperat ion Obiect ive.

Regional cooperat ion should be encouraged in sett ing

pr io r i t ies , iden t i f y ing shared needs, and f ind ing co l -

laborat ive solut ions, part icular ly where i t is cr i t ical

to success of a venture, such as protect ion of

shared natural resources.

F*g* 4* r::f i ld

trtiffi $-[# *F{.&ffiRffiTTffi Wffi ffi"K$h$Sp

Although the overal l project methodology was designed

to encourage strong publ ic input throughout the l i fe of

this project, the public charrette workshop offered the

srngle greatest opportunity for meaningful "hands-on" in-

volvement of key stakeholders. A"charrette" is an inten-

sive brain-storming process used by planners and de-

signers to create planning concepts within a l imited

amount of time. The purpose of the charrette process is

to provide a forum for key stakeholders to achieve a con-

sensus on the future of the study area The most tan-

gible outcome of the charrette is the creat ion of Al terna-

t ive Growth Scenarios for considerat ion as the basis for

the ul t imate plan The three (3) day charrette (AugLtst

25-27 ,2009) included the fol lowing steps:

Fol low-Up Field Work

This task gave the consultants another opportunity pr ior

to the evenlng Planning Workshop to bui ld on previous

impressions of the study area. ln part icular ' examples

of land use and development features in the City that

"work" and "don't work" were ident i f ied. Also' any f ie ld

information not previously obtained, but later recognized

as necessary, was gathered as part of this task

Planning WorkshoP

Prior to the charrette, the City recrui ted approximately

60 part ic ipants to be involved in the Planning Workshop.

Part ic ipants were stakeholders represent ing a broad

spectrum of community interests The consultants, Clty

off ic ials, and Planning Workshop part ic ipants gathered

atthe Our Lady of the Mount Catholic Church and achieved

the fol lowing steps over a roughly two-hour period:

WorkshoP Orientatron

The consultants presented the fol lowing i tems:

r WorkshoP PurPose & Overview

. Background Research Findings

. Results of the Publ ic Input to Date / Goals & Objec-

tives. WorkshoP "Ground Rules"

Planning Session

The Planning Session consisted of splitting participants

into teams of roughly ten ('10) members each, and each

team created i ts own concept plan by applying col-

ored markers to base maps. Notes explaining non-

graphic issueswere also encouraged. Avariety of plan-

ning topics were addressed, and each was graphical ly

represented on the plans by a specif ic color. For ex-

ample, environmental conservation was represented by

the color green, commercial uses were represented

by red, housing was represented by yel low, and so

forth. Al though a l imited amount of t ime was al located

for each issue, substant ial t ime was reserved at the

end for teams to go back and revisi t any issues neces-

s d t v .

Worksh op Te a m P re se ntatio n s & Wrap- U p

Fo l low ing the comple t ion o f the P lann ing Sess ion , the

Workshop Teams reassembled into a single group and

one or more members of each team brief ly presented

their plans, After each presentat ion, there was plenty

of t ime for quest ions and comments. Fol lowing the

Workshop Team presentat ions, the consultants con-

cluded the evening by ident i fy ing common elements

between the var ious ideas, and suggested how those

ideas might be combined to form the basis for the Al-

ternat ive Growth Scenarios as a prelude to the ul t i -

mate Comprehensive Plan.

Alternat ive Growth Scenarios Preparat ion

Based upon th rs p ro jec t ' s background ana lys is and

v is ion ing , the es tab l i shed goa ls and ob jec t ives , and the

r e s u l t s o f t h e c h a r r e t t e P l a n n i n g W o r k s h o p , t h e

consultants developed the Alternative Growth Scenarios.

Three scenar ios were deve loped, one be ing the "bu i ld -

out scenario" based upon existing zoning that was created

previously. Each scenario addressed key considerat ions

for the study area, such as:

. Land uses

. Development densit ies and character

. Transportation

. CommunitY faci l i t ies

i ' i i l ' . r i . t i ' ) i i ; ' l

During this step, the consultants met with key City rep-

resentat ives to receive feedback on the work accom-

pl ished up to this Point.

Alternative Growth Scenarios P resentation

Similar to the publ ic "kick-off" meeting conducted at the

beginning of the project, this meeting was widely-publ i -

c ized to encourage a strong turn-out. This meeting, held

on the eventng of August 27 ,2009 at the Fairyland Club,

included the fol lowing key components.

. Opening Comments & ProjectApproach

. Overview of Existing Conditions

. Summary o f Pub l ic Input Resu l ts

. Review of Goals & Objectives

. Presentation of the Alternative Growth Scenarios

. D iscuss ion w i th the Pub l ic

The majority of meeting time was dedicated to the Alter-

native Growth Scenarios, as opposed to the biackground

information. Because of the importance of pl tbl ic inter-

ac t ion , a generous amount o f t ime was prov ided fo r an

open d iscuss ion .

Key ldeas Generated by the Workshop. Develop the Town Center. Protect natural areas, especial ly those with environmental constraints. Preserve histor ic features of the community (Fairyland Club, gol f course, etc ). Provide sidewalks on key roads, as wel l as trai ls through natural areas. Avoid too much growth that might detract f rom the character of the communi iy and qual i ty of l i fe

; 'rt-1," ., '" xi i i :: i

s\$-Tffi R NAYi\/ffi ffi R#lffTh*$sffir$4ffi$#S

Purpose & APProach

From the beginning of th is comprehensive p lanning

orocess, it has been anticipated that up to three alternative

growth scenarios would be explored so that citizens could

compare different options for future growth lt was

recognized that one of the three scenarios would be the

"build-out scenario" based upon exist ing zoning An

evaluation of that scenario was conducted prior to the

planning charrette (see pages 42-45)' Rather than

producing two separate scenario maps whereby many

features would be repeated, a single map was produced

(see at right), and differences between the two scenarlos

have been conveyed graphically and through support ive

text. To best articulate the distinctions between the two

alternative growth scenarios, a summary of the key

concepts proposed in any scenarto is provided below'

Key ConcePts: AnY Scenario

The fol lowing key concepts are described in more detai l

in the "plan" port ion of this comprehensive plan document'

but below is a summarY:

Town CenterThe 2O0B Town Center Plan proposes a mixture of

governmental, commercial and resrdential uses developed

in a pedestrian-fr iendly form and anchored by a small

town green. The Town Center Plan, which has enjoyed

s t rong communr l y suppor t , i s rea f f i rmed by th i s

comPrehensive Plan.

Low-lmPact Business

This designation applies to a single parcel on McFarland

Road that is currently used for a business and zoned as

Single Family / Neighborhood Commercial Distr ict l t is

the intentof th isp|antoa| |owtheexis t ingusetocont inue,but any otner non-fesidential uses on the land should be

of a low-impact nature with respect to traff ic, noise' etc

High-Density Residential

These areas are intended to accommodate a broad range

of resident ial uses that are higher in density relat ive to

other areas of the ci ty. Such uses include single-family

detached houses on small lots (including "patio homes"),

a t tached houses (dup lexes , t r ip lexes , quads , e tc . ) ,

townhouses , condomin ium/apar tment bu i ld ings , and

various forms of senior housing (assisted l iv ing, etc.) . l t

is important that higher-density housing be located within

or near the Town Center. As indicated on the map at

right, the cross-hatching on the most northern portion of

this designat ion represents the opt ion of ei ther High-

Density Resident ial or Medium-Density Resident ial '

Me-d i u m-Density Residential

This designat ion is l imited to the northern half of the ci ty

where most of the exist ing housing already exists This

designat ion supports the exist ing density and character

of single-family detached houses, which features average

lots sizes of approximately '1 5,000 square feet (.34 acres)

Low-Density Residential

This designat ion dominates the undeveloped southern

half of the city, which has many environmentally sensitive

f e a t u r e s , a s d o c u m e n t e d i n t h i s p l a n d o c u m e n t ' s

background study of exist ing condit ions. The current

minimum lot s ize per zoning is 35,000 square feet ' whi le

the two al ternat ives tested out were densit ies featur ing

minimum average lot s izes of 60,000 square feet and 3

acres, respect lvely, See page 56 for more on these

alternat ive scenarios.

Open Space, Recreat ion & Attract ions

This designat ion is appl ied pr imari ly to propert ies already

in use as open space, recreat ion, or at tract ions These

propert ies include the golf course, Fairyland Club, Rock

City, thesoccerf ield,andrecreat ionalfaci l i t iesassociated

with the Fairyland School ' The only new such area is

the park proposed on the southeast edge of the ci ty that

would offer spectacular views of the val ley below

lnst i tut ional

T h e I n s t i t u t i o n a l d e s i g n a t i o n r e c o g n i z e s e x i s t i n g

i n s t r t u t i o n s , s u c h a s t h e C a t h o l i c c h u r c h a n d t h e

elementary school, but not those that are part of the Town

Center, which has i ts own designat ion'

Fx6* Sf i;i ft4

Sidewalks / Trai ls Plan

ffi'ffiljT'l Prooosedffi\rffiki{ ^:;---;ffiffiffi1 sroewarK

to street)

i FSi Dr^h^cacl

ffiffirH :'".t,"""{l*4dgirru4ggI t:tftr. !a.f . t!r. 1t ( seoara le

from street)

Proposed Land Use &Character Areas

Town Center

Low-lmpact Business

I ff lSf,-oensity Residential*

l , I vuo i rm-Dens i tYRes ident ia l

[ ' ' ] Low-oens i ty Res ident ia l

ffi Onun Space, Rec. &Attract

lnst i tut ional

" Cross-ha ich ing represents an op t iona l des ignat ion

f ;r6i* $t rf 84