Planning Commission Conceptual - meeting_joint_workshop

Alright, we're going to go ahead and call our City Council Planning Commission Joint Conceptual Workshop to order. If you will, if you'll bow with me and then we'll stand for the pleasure of allegiance. Father God, thank you for this day, for the things that are spoken and unspoken. Lord, I pray for the Averwater family, that you, Lord, be with them, give them strength, Lord, and give them, most of all, comfort in this time. Lord, I thank you for what you're doing in this city and that you continue to do in this city. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Jamie is our chair of the planning commission tonight. And we really, we've got a quorum. All right, so do we have any public comment tonight? No, sir. Can we sign up now? Okay. All right, let's move to our workshop items. We have North Spring Street rezoning. Matthew.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Mayor, council members, and planning commission members. Our first item tonight on the joint conceptual workshop is an application for consideration that Mr. Chad Howery has submitted regarding two parcels at the northwest corner of Olive Street. and North Spring Street. You can see the site plan on the map before you. The property is currently zoned RM12 and CCO. It's .74 acres. The sewer allocation ordinance does not apply in the CCO so the 12 units per acre would govern which equates to it would be allowed nine dwelling units by right on the property under the current zoning. What they are proposing is a 20 unit single family attached development or a condo development. They'll go over the specifics of what they're wanting to do. So 20 units on .74 acres equates to about 27 dwelling units per acre. The style of unit that they are looking to develop or the style of building would be a three-story building with units on the first, second and third floor. Once again, they'll show you those exhibits that they provided in the agenda materials. Parking, just looking at it on a very high level, this is a high level conceptual site plan. They are showing 47 parking spaces, 47 non-handicapped parking spaces and based on having 22 bedroom units that would meet the minimum requirements and include seven additional spaces as well above and beyond the minimum requirements. The future land use map as adopted in 2023 identifies this property as mixed form housing. Mixed form housing recommends a character of uses primarily of single family detached homes and single family attached homes and buildings of no more than four dwelling units per acre, or excuse me, four dwelling units per building. And a scale that maintains a traditional residential character and reflects the scale and context of the area. And it recommends that the two, three, four unit single family attached buildings resemble traditional single family residential buildings. And so for some context of what's in the area, there are a couple of I'm sorry I should have had this pulled up before. There are a couple of single family attached developments in the immediate vicinity and I'll go over those with you. So the property directly to the east across North Spring Street you can see it's these two parcels. It's currently under development with a townhome development called Spring Street Townhomes. It's 1.1 acres and 12 units which equates to a density of 10.9 dwelling units per acre. And then directly to the west at the corner of Church and Olive is the Flats at Olive development, which was developed about seven or eight years ago. It's 0.17 acres, four dwelling units, which equates to about 23.8 dwelling units per acre, I believe. But as you can see in the area, other than those particular units, it's mostly the older structures, some of which are still single-family detached homes, others are homes that have been converted into two, three, or four unit structures. So the applicant has brought this request to you tonight for consideration. In order to develop how he wishes to develop, it would require rezoning to a planned development with the density that he is proposing. So now I'll ask the applicant to come forward and present to you what he is proposing to do. and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have before or after his presentation. Are there any questions for me now?

Any questions for Mr. Conley? All right.

Hey, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Thanks for listening to us today. David Taylor and Chad and I are looking to develop this property. We're kind of looking at this area. We started looking around. There's a lot of townhomes in the area. They're a really high price. We're trying to find some affordable way to get some house, some affordable living downtown. And to get that, we need to get them a little more dense. And we're looking at trying, and these would be just for sale units. They would not be for rent or for anything like that. We're trying to hit the high threes to low fours to make it affordable for our young professionals, the lawyers, nurses, to bring the downtown alive. And with that, as far as wanting to get your input, council members input on everything kind of see what you may be looking for and what we could add or take away to uh to achieve this uh do you have the where's the scroll down it's okay the the oh there it is i see it there you okay yeah here's some of the Sorry. Sorry. If you can get it to come up here. There we go. There we are. These are some of the options and we're open to any ideas that you may have. This is kind of what we're looking at as far as the development and and everything just some options there's some things same things are in franklin and places like that with our plan on doing a rooftop also with the dog walk and place for bicycles downstairs and several amenities too and of course we can anything to council or anyone has to offer you know advising what else would be recommended we're open to any of those suggestions these are just some of the options and like i said we're flexible looking doing two bedroom units and as i said before they will be for sale not for rent So we're not looking to bring a rental, sell a rental building or anything. We're looking to sell them into individual homes. And if there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer those too.

Any questions?

I'll make a statement. I kind of look, we've got a lot of tall and skinnies downtown now, and I like the, I like the look, the direction of the same tall and skinnies every single block. So it kind of gives a little extra touch, a little different elevation, especially with the vicinity to Winnie's College. If it ever comes out of the ground, it'll feed well off of that.

Any questions for Mr. Shutter?

I was looking at the plant that you had there. How are you handling your trash?

Yes, sir. There's a dumpster pad on the back side here. Yes, sir.

Any other questions? All right, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Malmy, do you have anything else on that one?

No, sir. Just looking for any feedback that you may have and so that the applicant and staff can proceed. if it's the unless the Planning Commissioner Council has any issues they'd like to discuss.

All right. Let's move to the proposed zoning ordinance amendment regarding outdoor pickleball courts.

Thank you mayor, good evening members of council and planning commission. We're bringing to you tonight an ordinance to define outdoor pickleball courts and then also look at how those are regulated as far as distance from residential and the areas that they're allowed in and then the times of use for those when they can open when they need to shut down and then any type of noise studies and mitigation that needs to take place for these outdoor pickleball courts. This came about when we had a commercial pickleball court that opened up in the city and it was between 40 and 50 feet away from residential dwelling units and so that caused a lot of phone calls, a lot of questions, a lot of you know, complaints and things like that. So we realize that we need to look at this. That won't be the only one that comes into town. We need to be able to regulate these in a way that allow people to continue and move forward with some of these commercial products, but also protect people in their homes so that they can enjoy their property without some of the noise that comes along with the outdoor pickleball courts. And so we've been working internally With staff, we've also taken this draft version to the Tennis and Pickleball Commission to get some feedback from those stakeholders. So we wanted to bring this to you tonight to get a little bit more feedback, see if we're going in the right direction. move it forward to next steps. I have Steven Anthony who's one of our planners and he's done a lot of work on this. He's done research on other municipalities to see how they regulate pickleball courts and so I'm going to let Mr. Anthony present the rest of this to you tonight in a little bit more detail and then we're all available for any questions.

Good evening mayor, city council members, and planning commissioners. Just to start out with a summary of what all would be included in this proposed ordinance amendment. It would add a definition for outdoor pickleball courts to section two of the zoning ordinance as a distinct use. It would add a definition for park to section two of the zoning ordinance as a distinct use. We identified throughout this process that there's language in the proposed amendment that would require park to be defined as its own use as well. It would advise the definition of recreation field to exclude outdoor pickleball courts from that definition. It would amend section 7 of the zoning ordinance to require site plans for all outdoor pickleball courts as a principal use and as an accessory use. It would add outdoor pickleball courts as a distinct use in chart one and within that it would permit outdoor pickleball courts as a use by right in the commercial highway zone, the heavy industrial zone, the general industrial zone, the light industrial zone, and the park zone. And it would permit outdoor pickleball courts by special use permit in the office general, commercial local, and commercial fringe zone. and it creates a new end note establishing standards for outdoor pickleball courts which include minimum separation distances from residential zoning districts and residential uses, restrictions on hours of operation, noise mitigation requirements, standards related to lighting and buffering, and exemptions for parks and public and private schools from the residential distance separation and hours of operation requirements. Within the bulk of the text, I'm going to go through the end notes that contain all the conditions, but if you have questions about other parts of the proposed ordinance, such as definitions or anything, I will happily take those questions as well. Within the amended chart one end notes, condition A would be all distance requirements contained herein shall be measured from the playable surface of the outdoor pickleball court to the nearest property line of any property zoned or used for residential purposes. In Note B outdoor pickleball courts shall be prohibited within 300 feet of any property zoned or used for residential purposes. In Note C outdoor pickleball courts located between 301 feet and 600 feet of any property zoned or used for residential purposes shall provide noise mitigation measures pursuant to a noise impact assessment prepared by a qualified professional. In note D, outdoor pickleball courts including court lighting located 600 feet or less from any property zoned or used for residential purposes shall only operate between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Outdoor pickleball courts located greater than 600 feet from any property zoned or used for residential purposes will not be subject to this requirement. Endnote E, outdoor pickleball courts shall not generate sound levels exceeding 47 decibels as measured to the nearest residential property line. Endnote F, site plan review and approval shall be required for all outdoor pickleball court uses pursuant to section 7 of the zoning ordinance. The distance and hours of operation requirements contained herein shall not apply to outdoor pickleball courts in the following locations. Public or private schools, parks, or publicly owned recreational facilities in any zoning district, including residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission Board of Zoning Appeals or applicable reviewing authority may require additional distance, buffering, screening, lighting, or operational restrictions as necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties. And I'm free for any questions or if there's any other part of the ordinance that you would like me to go through.

So how would this relate to existing facilities? I think all of us, I mean, like, you know, not that there's an elephant in the room, but I play pickleball. love pickleball but at the same time you know I'm extremely I think all of us are very disappointed in the developer who developed the River Rock property and said one thing I know y'all worked on it for a year but that individual said this is what they were going to do and then did something different and so now you've got a retirement community that's 60, 100 I don't know how many feet away 45 feet and I don't want to make any pickleball player mad. I mean I don't want to make any tennis player mad either. Maybe the two of them could get together and agree pickleball and tennis but what I'm saying is there's nothing right about a group playing at 6 o'clock in the morning 50 feet away from somebody's house. I mean that's not right. So how can we fix that?

Mayor, so to the extent that there is an existing pickleball facility prior to this going into effect, then that would be grandfathered in for the way that they currently operate. So if they operate earlier than the time limits in this ordinance amendment, then they would still be able to operate

Can I, I mean I'm not trying to argue, but you know we can't, people can't start construction in Murfreesboro until seven o'clock in the morning. So why should someone be able produce noise at six o'clock in the morning, and in some cases, 5.30 in the morning. That just doesn't seem like that's...

So the way that that is regulated now, currently, without any of this, is that it would fall on our law enforcement officers to respond to a complaint for a noise ordinance violation. So qualified officer with the correct equipment would come out and would get his monitor out and see what that noise level is at the property line and if it's over the amount, the noise level for that time period then he could issue a violation and resolve the complaint that way.

Okay, but what happens if you have continued violations?

I think those violations go to the person who's creating the disturbance and not the owner of the property. I'm not... If there's multiple violations, I think they would keep going to the people that are causing the violation. Okay. Would this not be an HOA matter?

No, I think the... The one we're talking about is a private business.

I'm not sure if those violations go straight to the business itself or to the individual who's causing that noise violation.

That would be my question because I would assume if we've got a bar that's causing a lot of noise that we're not going to cite all the people in the bar. We're going to cite the bar. But I don't know. I just wish that there was some way legally and reasonably that we could... protect people who are 50 feet from a pickleball facility that are in a retirement or age restricted community that they're not getting woken up at 5.30 and 6 o'clock in the morning. I wish there was a way to fix that.

My understanding, Mayor, is I am certainly no engineer, sound engineer, but my understanding is one of the added difficulties of pickleball specifically is the precise type of impulsive sound that is made by pickleball is not necessarily picked up by the noise devices that are used by the police department, or at least it's more difficult for them to be picked up. And the particular frequency of sound that the pickleball creates is the human ear is more sensitive to it than other types of sound. And so when you use the noise ordinance device on the property line, it may not register that these sounds are greater than the decibel level that is allowed under the ordinance, but it is picked up by the residents and is particularly stressful for residents to hear it because of that specific frequency of sound. And so one of our goals with this ordinance, after doing quite a bit of research on this, really the only, the most effective way to regulate Hickaball, particularly for residents nearby, is just distance. Maximum noise levels don't necessarily capture it, nor do traditional solid vinyl fences that we use for other types of noise producing uses. Those are not as effective against pickleball. Distance really is the best, which is what we attempt to do here. So to your question, Mayor, to enforce violation of the noise ordinance of current pickleball uses, we are limited. But the hope with this amendment is at least going forward we can limit the problem to those existing. Got you. Okay.

And if the development that really kind of kicked off a lot of this discussion, if they were to come back after this passes with a new request to install pickleball courts, it would have to go through the site plan.

What about other changes like parking lots or anything like that?

You know, we'd have to handle those on a case-by-case basis. There may be, you know, if it's an overhaul to what their current plan is, it may get pushed into something else. It would be a grandfathered use. It would be a legally non-conforming setup that they would have there if this passes.

Is there any, as we've looked at this ordinance, we've got city pickleball courts, are we in compliance with this ordinance with the existing city pickleball courts?

So most of the pickleball courts that we have in the city are located further away than what we have here, what we're requiring here. But they would be exempt from these regulations. as we have it currently in this draft.

So because they're city, of all courts, they're exempt?

I think what we have now is that the courts that we have are located further away. Most of the courts that we have are located further away than the 300 or 600 feet from the residential uses. I'm not saying that's all of them, but most of them are.

There might be a couple that we need to check. Right. I don't know if you got in mind a couple of them that might be kind of close.

And Councilman, I believe part of the rationale for excluding the city-run pickleball courts would be we are better able to police those courts, obviously, because we as the city run them. So if we receive complaints that we can address that with the players directly. Makes sense.

Councilmember Shacklett, also to further answer your question, that goes into why we defined park as a use and so pretty much all of our recreational facilities are in the park zone. It would fit in with that park use. The park use is not exclusive to city-owned properties. We identified that there could be not city-owned parks that would fit in that definition and they would also have that exemption. Also when we took it to the Tennis Pickleball Commission it was at the Adams Tennis Complex and they have pickleball courts and all of the parks and rec facilities fit in with the hour of operation that we have set in this ordinance as well.

One other answer to the Mayor's question about continued violations of the noise ordinance. I was just looking it up here. The noise ordinance does provide that each 30 minutes of a continuing or recurring violation is a separate offense. And as you are likely aware, we are limited under the Tennessee Constitution that each offense can only be assessed a $50 fine per day. But it is continuing every day that accrues. So every half hour of a continuing noise violation is an additional $50 per day that accrues until it's paid. That helps.

I appreciate how hard y'all worked on getting it to this point. I just hate for the residents that continue to contact us for what has happened out on Tommy Bragg Drive and River Rock that there's not much we can do.

My only comment, I wonder this is great but I wonder if you could make it more generic and not say like specifically pickleball because now there's you know what the next new thing there's paddle there's spike ball and those are going to be the next big craze after so I don't know if you can say somehow make it more generic and say that's some kind of sport that involves a court with the ball bouncing on it.

Also, in this ordinance, I think the River Rock case, the tennis courts that was grandfathered in, and then all of a sudden he expanded the tennis court and made them all pickleball. I think we need to kind of look at that when we approach this ordinance. So tennis courts versus pickleball, there should be something in the language that you tennis court your grandfather did in pickleball must go through all the proper channels. Those two groups are working it out, right? Yeah.

Mr. Prince, to answer your question, I think Pickleball specifically, as Mr. Tully said, it has that high-pitched, high-frequency sound that just happens a lot. That particular sound isn't a long duration. It's just pop, pop, pop, pop, back and forth.

I think it would be hard to throw others in to really define what that is because it is a very specific I think what Brian's talking about there's also a new emerging sport it's not pickleball but it's called paddleball that uses the same ball but the paddles are bigger so they're made out of wood they're also made out of carbon but they're They're just bigger paddles. Arguably worse.

In this ordinance, the area where we define outdoor pickleball court, we define it as pickleball is a racket sport in which players use paddles to hit a perforated plastic ball over a net.

I think you may ought to, instead of singling out pickleball, you may ought to just say racket sport or something that is, you know, as the next thing comes along. That may be the best thing to do. It's a great...

Because if the ball went in the wiffle ball, then they're like, well, we can build it wherever we want. Right. Broaden my definition. So this sport that you're referring to, is it still using a paddle? It's called paddle, P-A-D-E-L, I think. And it's like a cross between tennis and...

So which one is grandfathered in? Is tennis courts grandfathered in?

Anything that's currently existing. So whether it be tennis or pickleball. If it's currently legally established today, it would continue to operate after this.

I think we can take that feedback and we can massage the definition a little bit more. I understand the intent is to really include those types of sports that may have high intense sound that is repeated And I think we can work with that and go with that direction. Because I understand, you know, they just don't call it pickleball. They call it paddleball.

Yeah, and I mean, look, this is nothing against the pickleball community, tennis community, but I mean, 45 feet is from here to that back wall.

Right.

And I mean, when you've got 20 people or 30 people that are out at 5.30 in the morning when the sun comes up, and that's, you're sleeping 40, most people in the retirement community, their homes or their bedrooms are at the back of the house. that doesn't seem very reasonable to have something that close to where someone sleeps.

And that's why we went with distance you know over just the time because distance really is the that's what helps with the sound otherwise it's building a massive sound wall to try to drown that sound out if it's closer and we are we are you know, welcome the feedback on the time. You know, if this time needs to be pushed back to 8 o'clock instead of 7, you know, we can take that direction. If it needs to end earlier than 10, we can take that. We really looked at what the local city parks were doing and this is what mirrors that.

I mean at night. I think 10 at night might be. I don't know though because I mean it doesn't get dark until almost 9 o'clock.

Doesn't mean I'm not in bed.

I get it.

I got blinds.

I did want to point out that this would prohibit someone from building their own pickleball court in their backyard since that would be a residential zone. Plan developments could allow pickleball courts to come in by use. Amendments to plan developments could allow them to come in as an allowed use. and have their own specific requirements over those that the Planning Commission and Council would look at on top of that as well.

Any other questions? Y'all have been working on this for a long time, so thank y'all so much for your hard work on this. Alright, last thing is the Manchester get back to my agenda. There, Manchester Highway, Manchester Pike Corridor for industrial, for the development potential area. Yes sir.

Good evening council members, planning commissioners. I wanted to bring this to your attention after the Manchester Pike industrial development that was brought before the council back in June. Hold on. I don't know if that's the right one. It may be.

This is it. Okay.

um try to further define this area that we're talking about looking at in more detail you can kind of see the south east broad manchester pike rutherford boulevard and joe b jackson parkway just 30 000 foot description of this area really about um halfway into the into the purple area on Manchester Pike, we really run into sewer limitations. So there's not capability for a lot of this land use in this area to support dense residential land use. And so we've seen over time a lot of light industrial proposals that have come forward. We've also seen that obviously along Rutherford Boulevard. What we want to do today is kind of show you the big picture of how many proposals, some that are currently entitled and some that are not currently entitled but are still conceptual and really talk about not so much the need for additional sewer but the fact that the trip generation, the traffic that's going to be generated from these and your direct statements that you do not want to see increase traffic on Manchester Pike and how do we reconcile those two requirements of light industrial that requires trucks and your desire to not have trucks on Manchester Pike. So real quickly, I say real quickly, this is kind of the Very sensitive. This is kind of the color coded, I don't know if you can read all these, but I'll go through them individually. There's really 10 projects either at the approved stage or at the conceptual stage that we wanted to reacquaint you with or acquaint you with for the first time if you haven't seen them before. What I've done, the letters out there that are white. Those are entitled projects that have been approved. The numbers that are in black are projects that have been in some form or fashion submitted in concept. And I just want to again show you each one of these individually and then talk about the collective study we want to pursue. So the Rutherford County, this is currently under construction, about four buildings, 700,000 square feet. We have a traffic study that shows about 1,150 daily trips and you can see the breakdown between truck trips and passenger car trips. When you go over to the Dairy Berry property, this is concept only. There's been concepts provided to staff that look at an area that's to the west that is more industrial. Again, 750,000 square feet. Looking at approximately 1,225 trips, and then an area to the east that really more aligns with the southeast Broad Street as residential, looking at almost 4,200 trips of residential passenger cars. Going down to the Hoover property again, conceptual, but we're looking at four buildings that could be a total of 1.6 million square feet. generating approximately 2,500 trips, 950 of those being tractor-trailer or truck trips. Going over the Berryman property, this is an entitled Heavy industrial use is probably one of the largest green field heavy industrial properties that we have remaining in the city. We just received a traffic impact study showing that there's almost 10,000 daily trips that could be generated from this property. 1,660 of those being truck trips. Going over to the Hoover adjacent property. This is again concept only. We've had some folks interested in developing this into residential up to 460 units. We're showing that it could anticipate or generate between 4,000 to 6,000 passenger car trips. Going down to the Manchester Farms apartments, this is currently under construction. Again, around 1,000 daily trips, primarily passenger cars. Going over to the Manchester industrial development that was again brought back in June, the traffic impact studies showed about 1,116 daily trips, 446 of those passengers, 670 being truck. This proposed site is Tittman property expansion. This has not been brought forward it's being proposed, it's being discussed as coming forward. However, given the decision on the previous project, they are also looking at wanting to connect to Manchester Pike and understanding the pretty strong position the council took on prohibiting truck traffic on Manchester Pike. Again, this was a project that prompted us to bring this type of study or proposal to you, but they're looking around 710 daily trips, 255 of those truck. This is an entitled Buchanan Business Park. This is county approved. Again, they're showing around 6,500 daily trips, 1,600 of those being truck trips. I think this has been approved in the county now for a couple of years and has not had any progress. There's been no construction activity, but it is entitled in the county. And then finally, and this is the Jones property that's been annexed in the city since 2007. We bring this into the study area just because It's got a planned unit development on it now. We don't have any traffic impact study. I believe the only way that this would probably meet the development standards of the PUD would be if sewer came down through here along Lytle Creek. And I know that that's been a limitation to a lot of projects along Manchester Pike. Again, the sewer capacity. So this may stay stagnant for quite some time. So this brings them back all together again. Total estimated trips for this entire suite of projects looks around 6,000 truck trips, 4,000 of those are already currently entitled. About 27,000 car trips or passenger car trips, 15,000 of those are currently entitled. This is TDOT count stations. Would you mind just kind of explaining what this means, Matt?

So Matt Fasig, I'm here representing public infrastructure. So I wanted to give you guys a baseline of the volume that's out there today and what we're looking at. So if you guys are familiar with the black pneumatic tubes that you occasionally see on the roadways, TDOT does a recurring count stations every year on an annual basis and then post those online for public consumption. So I went to their website and I've pulled a snip of the counts from 2025. So anything with in parentheses that says 25 is indicating the year and then the number on the left is your volumes. So South Rutherford Boulevard is five lanes. You can see those volumes are 20,000 on the east and west side of Southeast Broad. Then as you move to the commercial district like Walmart area you're getting up in the 27,000. You can see out on South Church you're around 29,000 and then as you come down Manchester Pike, you're in that 11,000 to 12,000 range for volumes. So for us, when we're looking at it from a traffic standpoint, three lane cross section for safety, that really triggers for us around 12,000. So when you drive this corridor and you're on it, you feel that today. If you want to make a left turn, you hold people up and you're waiting to cross opposing traffic and those left turnpockets would be valuable out there today and TIAT's data backs that up. Working with our public infrastructure staff When we go to approach TDOT for a five-lane cross-section, it's around 15,000 trips. They want to see that total get to about 20 or have the potential to get to 20, but they start analyzing, considering it, so you can go into design starting around that 15,000. And then when you hit that 35,000 threshold, really when you're looking at getting to a seven-lane cross-section. So you can see some of our volumes. You see it on South Church where it's around 30, and then you see... Manchester Pike around 12 and with the amount of potential this area has you can see that this stuff's going to start trending up and needing adjustment. We have a major transportation plan and that gives us some guidance but we rely heavily on our development community to provide those individual impacts and what's needed for their projects. Being that there's so much development potential in this area, it's hard to get our development community to give us a good plan of action on what's needed and when it's needed as these projects, especially these large acre projects, develop over a 10 to 15 year period. They don't, you know, you're not developing all this in a year or two. So it's it's going to take time. So just trying to give you some basis and background where we're at today given the information saying hey we're projecting out and see this development in the area. So I'll transition that.

So The next slide here is kind of maybe the telltale where I've got those red X's. That's our current major thoroughfare plan. It showed a very short loop going from Southeast Broad across Rutherford Boulevard and back to Manchester Pike. What we think we're really witnessing today or what we have the potential for is that orange line that really where I've got the recommended add where the best way I can describe this, you're almost talking about a Manchester Pike bypass. This would get traffic all the way off Southeast Broad, through Rutherford, through the Berryman Tract, down to Distribution Drive and ultimately even to Joe B. Jackson intersection. So we believe that this would extend the time necessary to do something to Manchester Pike. Manchester Pike is not even on the 10-year plan for TDOT for widening that two-lane section to three-lane. And with all the, again, the projected development that we've got, that traffic that's going to be generated is going to be here quicker than we believe TDOT's going to react to it. What we're asking for really and this is again just for your feedback today but we're looking to bring a proposal to you similar to what we did with Stone's Battle Drive where we would not maybe necessarily suspend approvals along this corridor but we would need to be very diligent in approving those projects until such time that we look at what are some economic impact scenarios, how much of this development do we think will generate property tax revenue or employment generating revenue that could help fund some of these roads if the city, one of these lines I say, if it's a city-driven project versus a development-driven project. When we talk to staff today, public infrastructure, there are benefits to a development-driven project. They are not subject to as much of the wetlands and a lot of the permitting requirements as the city is. And so that would be another component of the study is looking at the anticipated breakdown between what would be more development driven on these road widenings or extensions and what would be more city driven. We do know that the intersections at South Church Street and Rutherford Boulevard and Boulevard and Manchester Pike are in pretty much immediate need of improvements and I think, are we doing Rutherford at Southeast Broad right now, to think about all that truck traffic coming on to South Church from Rutherford, it's already at a failing condition and it would just exacerbate that tremendously. So we think that there may be the city's best interest if development gets half of the Manchester Pike Bypass built, the city may need to go ahead and expend funds on that other half. I think this is something we want to again study, be very deliberate about and obviously there's also last bullet remaining vacant parcels and what future land use recommendations do we see on those vacant properties that are still out there. get a road map here, pun intended, get a guide, get a proactive approach so that when we talk with these developers and these developments that we do show them how the pieces that need to be connected and most of all prohibit something blocking this necessary bypass. We don't want to approve something that doesn't take this into consideration, but we also want to be very attuned to our development community that there is an expectation here that we need to make these road connections work. So that would be our next step, is to bring you a proposal and ask you to consider funding a study to look at all of this over the next six months or so. Hopefully we can get it done quicker than Stone's Battle. But we've just, hopefully we've demonstrated there's a need for this so that projects can projects can be viewed in light of the overall transportation network and how we make this connectivity work and this future traffic, deal with this future traffic. So there's a lot of us here, there's a lot of folks in traffic much smarter than me but you guys can ask questions if you have any but we wanted to give you all a heads up on this.

Any questions?

I could ask questions for days. I do have one question. He said the cutoff was 15,000. Before we go to TDOT, I'm looking at the TDOT count stations. So just for comparison, I can see South Church. And what was it for Memorial for that project that we just, I guess, asked TDOT for the widening, and they said no, or they're thinking about what's the count on that? $17,000. $17,000, okay. Yeah. So even... I guess what I'm getting at is even if it was higher on Manchester Pike or some of these others, there's no guarantee that they would say yes.

That's right. confirmed today that Manchester Pike is not even on TDOT's 10-year plan. Memorial Boulevard was on their 10-year plan, and they just elected not to partner with our... Oh, we're trying to get on our 10-year plan. Okay, I got you. Okay, so we're trying to move that into the 10-year plan. And this could be another thing we try to move onto their 10-year plan. I think... Staff is trying to get ahead of proactive position and create the data and generate the need so that when we go to TDOT we can say, hey, look at what we're doing. Here's our anticipated need. Let's have a discussion. And then how can we pay for this? How much can the state help?

Well, the sad thing is that you've got to have the information to be able to present the facts and make your case for this. And it's a whole lot clearer picture looking forward been trying to fix what is in the rear view mirror, to use that analogy. And I think, I don't know how long this would take, but I think this is very important for this area. It looks like there's going to be several developers looking at this area. And if we don't have a clear plan, We've seen where sometimes we don't see far enough into the future and we create more problems going one project by one project, one by another project as they come to us, first ones to the table. And sometimes approving that can create more problems down the road. So I think we need it quicker, as quick as possible.

I will tell you that staff looks at this holistically all the time. And I appreciate this workshop environment so that we can kind of show you and get ahead of these things and kind of give you all the big picture that we get to see every day. And just to give you the confidence that we're trying to be proactive and get ahead of it.

Plus, when we go to developers and we look at how this whole thing is coming together, where they can fund some of these projects or at least help in some funding some of these projects, you know, we know what we're asking. Right. You know, and reasonable expectations is what good planning is based in. You know, reasonable expectations for everybody involved is what good planning does. So, like I say, I don't think we can get it any sooner, soon enough. It needs to be, we need to move forward with that.

Okay. We'll have something to you all post haste.

Darren, this is probably more of a Jim question. Just out of curiosity, what's the logic on the Elam Road intersection there at 41, I guess terminating that into a cul-de-sac versus leaving it as is or turning it into a roundabout there? What's the logic on that? I'm just curious. Well, the...

Right now we're widening Broad Street in that area. It's been a conflict as far as distance and separation from the intersection. We've always had a problem there with accidents. So that is the intent. I did want to address the Southeast Broad Street section and kind of talk about the TDOT perspective from it. The city, through the MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan, we actually put this project in the and the MPOs long-running transportation plan, so it's there. Okay. This study could help us with maybe establishing the dialogue with TDOT to look at this further and even maybe develop a concept report where we could get into the statewide partnership program process. So this is kind of the first step in getting that process moving forward. Okay.

Obviously I'm biased because I live out there.

When I saw the map and we finally pulled it all together and saw that and then you see that total estimated generation of vehicular trips, it's a little, I mean not overwhelming, but it's a little intimidating.

Tripling the volume. The volume would be tripled.

Yeah.

So you're going to bring this back? We'll bring it back. Again, this is just, this is giving you all a heads up and really again, I don't, I know that we did stones about a parkway. We kind of suspended approvals of projects during the time that we created the study. I don't know that, I don't know if we need to do that in this particular instance, but I do think you all understanding the overall picture, it may be a higher level of scrutiny maybe for projects that are in this area. And maybe staff needs to take those projects to a higher level of scrutiny. Where I find we're kind of between a rock and a hard place is if you don't want any truck trips on Manchester Pike between Rutherford and Joe B. Jackson, a lot of these projects, that bypass is going to have to be built first, which will be years. I don't know if there's a way to compromise on that or not. So part of this study may be looking at is there a compromise position if we can set timelines to getting the bypass in place. Is there a short term allowance for trucks on Manchester Pike? And then just work the plan.

I mean I think Brian, you look at the daily trips and with all of that development, I'm not being skeptical, but if we know how many TDOT projects that we've got in our community that we know that need to be done right now and this is not on the priority list for the 10-year plan, once this even gets on the priority list for the 10-year plan, that still doesn't mean it's gonna be funded in that 10-year plan. So we're talking about Old Fort Parkway, Memorial to West Jefferson Pike, all these areas that we've talked about priorities. The part I struggle with is allowing all of this development in an area that, I mean, I would bet dollars to donuts that 20 years from now that road's probably still not going to be widened as we're here. I may be wrong. Maybe it's 10 or 15 years, but... That's a heavy lift right now.

I get it. And that's where, if you look at this orange line, that's why I think our, as a city, as a municipality, our best bet is to team with the development community and get in what I'm coining the Manchester Pike bypass so that trucks can get down to Joe B. Jackson and we can get trucks, eliminate trucks from having to use Manchester Pike, giving them a better way to Joe B.

I mean, we've even taken Highway 96, Las Casas Highway. We've taken that sort of off of our hot list right now because that's where we diverted funds from 96 over to 04 Parkway. I believe that's what we did. We'll be back. All right. All right. Thank you. Let's push this at 530. Unless anybody has anything else, we'll stand adjourned and you guys can get ready for your planning commission meeting.