{ "Debug": [ "AGENDA-ATTGLOBAL:0.001162052154541", "AGENDA-ITEMS:0.0018730163574219", "AGENDA-ATTLOCAL:0.01793098449707", "AGENDA-INSERTINORDER:0.010046005249023", "MINUTES-GLOBAL:0.0012800693511963", "MINUTES-ATTGLOBAL:0.001101016998291", "MINUTES-AND-ATTLOCAL:0.019273996353149", "MEDIA-AND-SVCS:0.0053248405456543" ], "Customer": { "CustomerName": "Thompsons Station TN", "CustomerAccessID": "thompsonsstationtn", "CustomerTimezone": "America\/Chicago", "ServiceGroupID": 1, "CustomerEventAreaMask": 15359, "CustomerOtherAreaMask": 16383 }, "Event": { "CustomerEventID": 381, "CustomerUUID": "", "EventTypeID": 0, "CustomerBoardID": 6, "CustomerViewStyleID": 6, "EventDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-28 23:00:00", "EventTitle": "Planning Commission Regular Meeting", "EventDescription": "

July Agenda<\/p>\n

 <\/p>", "EventLocation": "", "EventPublishStatusID": 2, "CustomerPlayerID": 0, "EnabledItemMask": 2075, "HasItemMask": 0, "AgendaStyleMask": 0, "MinutesStyleMask": 0, "IndexPointsStyleMask": 0, "EventExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-09-23 19:18:06", "LastModifyAgendaDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-28 16:47:26", "LastModifyMinutesDateTimeUTC": "2026-08-17 21:14:14", "LastModifyIndexPointDateTimeUTC": null, "EventMediaClassID": 2, "EventMediaTargetID": 4576, "EventDateTimeCustomerLocal": "2026-07-28 18:00:00", "ViewStyleTargetID": 1, "ViewStyleDateRange": 2 }, "Board": { "CustomerBoardID": 6, "CustomerBoardIDParent": 0, "BoardName": "Planning Commission", "BoardDescription": "", "VisibilityMask": 0, "FeatureMask": 0, "BoardTypeID": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": null, "OrderOrdinal": 0, "PositionCountMin": 0, "PositionCountMax": 0 }, "Agenda": { "Attachments": [], "AgendaItems": [ { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4852, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Meeting Called to Order:", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 0, "DisplayMask": 1, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-14 14:20:55", "Children": [], "Attachments": [] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4853, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Public Comments:", "Description": "

(T.C.A. § 8-44-102) The public comments must be germane to items on the agenda. Each participant is allowed up to 3 minutes each with a combined time limit of no more than 30 minutes.<\/p>", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 10, "DisplayMask": 1, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-14 14:20:55", "Children": [], "Attachments": [] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4854, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Approval of the Minutes:", "Description": "

Consideration of the Minutes of the June 23, 2026 Regular Meeting<\/p>", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 20, "DisplayMask": 1, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-21 21:35:30", "Children": [], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 4463, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4854, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "300cae6a515d87c04b5027a53643a4638239916b.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "June%202026%20PC%20Meeting%20Minutes", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-21 21:35:28", "SizeBytes": 101875, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4855, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Staff Announcements:", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 30, "DisplayMask": 1, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-14 14:20:55", "Children": [], "Attachments": [] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4856, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Agenda Items:", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 40, "DisplayMask": 1, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-14 14:20:55", "Children": [ { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4863, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN:", "Description": "

4621 Columbia Pike, PDP, Thompson's Exchange<\/p>", "OrderParentID": 4856, "OrderOrdinal": 0, "DisplayMask": 0, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-28 16:47:26", "Children": [], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 4445, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "91edda7757859a73a21e295d6782d5a96d31d171.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201a%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:08:37", "SizeBytes": 170134969, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4561, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "d966105ba32b5a6a9a1ca1b4ecc3df28fa9231ae.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201b%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompsons%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20PC%20Report%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 10, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-28 16:47:23", "SizeBytes": 2745490, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4438, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "62681310d53f7d81c0f819d631d679908192e608.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201c%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20Modifications%20of%20Standards%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 20, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:09:07", "SizeBytes": 16431012, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4439, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "19266536838c9ff503ca7437b9567946018b268e.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201d%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20Traffic%20Impact%20Study%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 30, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:26:00", "SizeBytes": 30229111, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4440, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "6f1acd717fa45f16304556eb3ac707f9abe74967.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201e%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20Access%20%234%20Deferral%20Memo%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 40, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:09:58", "SizeBytes": 7260854, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4441, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "4b9e255424929e20657e46cfad27b107a95e38e6.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201f%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20Alternative%20Parking%20Study%20(Flex%20Buildings)%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 50, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:10:42", "SizeBytes": 2047548, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4442, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "1a2e3e9fe7caa789795b5a237a970c9c0766d40e.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201g%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20Alternative%20Parking%20Study%20(Retail%20Buildings)%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 60, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:11:10", "SizeBytes": 6264735, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4448, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "9d2662b0edfcb885668e2121b4f7c7008679bcb5.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201h%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20Storage%2FWarehouse%20Alternative%20Parking%20Rate%20Study%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 70, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:11:52", "SizeBytes": 188763, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4443, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "6fe50a5e97f4636d26c4847c0eea207a325cd230.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201i%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%203D%20Rendering%20from%20Columbia%20Pike%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 80, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:12:21", "SizeBytes": 71124995, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4446, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "135b845e29ffa5e8f87aac7cb7969fe7aa7f4aaa.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201j%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20Cover%20Letter%20%26%20Checklist%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 90, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:12:46", "SizeBytes": 476268, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4457, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "20b60161fa3162204a670df583b4f66686a763e4.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201k%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20BZA%20Action%20Form%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 100, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:16:40", "SizeBytes": 335219, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4461, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4863, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "8909077327904b40e1364c315cc5baa419f7117f.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%201L%20-%204621%20Columbia%20Pike%2C%20Thompson's%20Exchange%3B%20PDP%20-%20Comment%20Letter%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 110, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-21 15:56:56", "SizeBytes": 133136, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4886, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "LDO Text Amendment: Ordinance 2026-018", "Description": "

Recommendation of Ordinance 2026-018: An Ordinance of the Town of Thompson’s Station, Tennessee to Amend Certain Provisions of the Land Development Ordinance Related to Standards for On-Site Wastewater Systems.<\/p>", "OrderParentID": 4856, "OrderOrdinal": 10, "DisplayMask": 0, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 21:09:02", "Children": [], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 4456, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4886, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "92f8009cbd8fafb43aac7219de4577906b89d922.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%202a%20-%20Ordinance%202026-018%3B%20LDO%20Text%20Amendment%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 21:08:42", "SizeBytes": 134979, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" }, { "CustomerMediaID": 4458, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4886, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "e3b150cdb42a70642bde383aa72fe73b1b53d540.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "Item%202b%20-%20Ordinance%202026-018%3B%20LDO%20Text%20Amendment%20-%20PC%20Report%20-%20TSPC%207-28-2026", "OrderOrdinal": 10, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 21:08:59", "SizeBytes": 345148, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] } ], "Attachments": [] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4865, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Bond Agenda Items:", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 60, "DisplayMask": 1, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-14 14:20:55", "Children": [ { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4866, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "BOND ACTION AGENDA:", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 4865, "OrderOrdinal": 0, "DisplayMask": 0, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-17 13:48:37", "Children": [ { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4867, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3A, RDEC, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 4866, "OrderOrdinal": 0, "DisplayMask": 0, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:24:16", "Children": [], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 4450, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4867, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "4e1c8ef72c922db67a30d387b69a715e25e8681a.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "TV%20Town%20Center%2C%20Section%203A%20-%20RDEC%20Bond%20Reduction", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:24:13", "SizeBytes": 134530, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4868, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3A, Sewer, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 4866, "OrderOrdinal": 10, "DisplayMask": 0, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:24:36", "Children": [], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 4451, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4868, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "2a87864a71a1a2605fa7c54486548fd23200255c.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "TV%20Town%20Center%2C%20Section%203A%20-%20Sewer%20Bond%20Reduction", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:24:34", "SizeBytes": 132428, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4869, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3B, RDEC, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 4866, "OrderOrdinal": 20, "DisplayMask": 0, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:24:52", "Children": [], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 4452, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4869, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "4fcd8e3256215c533f194b99d5d50d220c5411c6.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "TV%20Town%20Center%2C%20Section%203B%20-%20RDEC%20Bond%20Reduction", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:24:49", "SizeBytes": 134127, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4870, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3B, Sewer, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 4866, "OrderOrdinal": 30, "DisplayMask": 0, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:25:07", "Children": [], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 4453, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4870, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "a762a5d2ea3f840e59501a75680551fa758fdd32.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "TV%20Town%20Center%2C%20Section%203B%20-%20Sewer%20Bond%20Reduction", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:25:04", "SizeBytes": 132443, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4871, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3C, RDEC, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 4866, "OrderOrdinal": 40, "DisplayMask": 0, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:25:21", "Children": [], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 4454, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4871, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "c60c3ca18705ab7c61d1f36e8a1773461b672838.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "TV%20Town%20Center%2C%20Section%203C%20-%20RDEC%20Bond%20Reduction", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:25:18", "SizeBytes": 132976, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4872, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3C, Sewer, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 4866, "OrderOrdinal": 50, "DisplayMask": 0, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:25:34", "Children": [], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 4455, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4872, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "3d9f2a4d9366a731ada2bfcb4c4b82bf1bd93994.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "TV%20Town%20Center%2C%20Section%203C%20-%20Sewer%20Bond%20Reduction", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-16 20:25:31", "SizeBytes": 132472, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] } ], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 4459, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 2, "MediaTargetID": 4866, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "2d8d94c0c8087ba7843d65ba635f4fb3f5ea5e4b.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-07", "MediaNickName": "July%202026%20PC%20Bond%20Action%20Agenda", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-17 13:48:35", "SizeBytes": 313220, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] } ], "Attachments": [] }, { "CustomerAgendaItemID": 4857, "LegislativeItemID": "0", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 0, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Adjourn:", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 70, "DisplayMask": 1, "StatusMask": 0, "StatusClassID": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-14 14:20:55", "Children": [], "Attachments": [] } ] }, "Minutes": { "Items": [ { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1306, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4852, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Meeting Called to Order:", "Description": "

The July meeting of the Town of Thompson's Station Planning Commission was on Tuesday, July, 28 2026, at 6:00 p.m. at the Thompson's Station Community Center.   Commissioners and Staff present were as follows: Chair Tara Rumpler; Vice-Chair Sean Cagle; Commissioner Trent Harris; Commissioner Tom Stephenson; Commissioner Charles Starck; Commissioner Sarah Alexander; Community Development Director Micah Sullivan; Community Development Planner Susan Steffenhagen; Town Attorney Andrew Mills; Town Engineer Will Owen; Building & Planning Technician Susan Fox.  Alderman Kreis White was absent.<\/p>", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 0, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-08-07 16:12:00" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1307, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4853, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Public Comments:", "Description": "

(T.C.A. § 8-44-102) The public comments must be germane to items on the agenda. Each participant is allowed up to 3 minutes each with a combined time limit of no more than 30 minutes.
There were no public comments.<\/strong><\/p>", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 10, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-08-16 21:10:04" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1308, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4854, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Approval of the Minutes:", "Description": "

Consideration of the Minutes of the June 23, 2026 Regular Meeting<\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler called for a motion; Commissioner Harris made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2026 meeting; Commissioner Stephenson seconded the motion.  The motion was adopted with the following roll call votes: Chair Rumpler, Yes; Vice-Chair Cagle, Yes; Commissioner Stephenson, Yes; Commissioner Harris, Yes; Commissioner Alexander, Yes; Commissioner Starck, Yes.<\/strong><\/p>", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 20, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-08-12 14:34:38" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1309, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4855, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Staff Announcements:", "Description": "

Staff reminded everyone that we will be back at the Thompson's Station Community Center for the August meeting, and likely back at Town Hall for the September meeting.<\/p>\n

Staff noted that the next regular meeting in August will again be held in the Thompson's Station Community Center, and we hope to be back at Town Hall for the September meeting.<\/p>", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 30, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-08-07 16:38:52" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1310, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4856, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Agenda Items:", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 40, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-30 18:45:01" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1311, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4863, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN: ", "Description": "

4621 Columbia Pike, PDP, Thompson's Exchange<\/p>\n


Staff Report<\/u><\/p>\n

The Thompson’s Exchange project consists of 11 proposed commercial and flex use buildings with supporting infrastructure across 9 lots on 63.31 acres, representing a total of 331,810 square feet of commercial and flex use buildings. Parking, sidewalks, a multi-use path, and stormwater management will support the construction of the proposed development. The project is located at 4621 Columbia Pike (Maps 145 & 146, Parcels 1.02, 1.03, 16.02) within the Community Commercial (CC) Zoning District.<\/p>\n

The PDP process has been requested for this project by the applicant, due to modifications of standards.  With the recommendation of the TSPC, BOMA will review the request. The PDP shall be considered by resolution for one reading by the BOMA. The BOMA may make alterations, additions, or modification to the PDP application and\/or impose conditions or contingencies that are reasonable and based upon the provisions of the LDO, including Section 2.4.4(a).  The site is required to meet the minimum requirements of the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and show general conformity with the Development Standards within the LDO. As part of the Planned Development Plan process, the applicant may request Modifications of Standards (MOS), and each may be granted at the pleasure of the TSPC and BOMA.<\/p>\n

The applicant has provided the following MOS requests:<\/p>\n

A.     Modification of Standard A – Internal Roads Cross Sections and Pavement Sections:<\/p>\n

1. Elimination of grass strips\/planting strips between curb and sidewalk\/multi-use path<\/p>\n

2. Road Section B shall have a sidewalk on one side of the road<\/p>\n

3. Reduction of lawn area at Road Section E (stream crossings) from 6.5’ to 5’ per side<\/p>\n

Town Staff support Modification of Standard A (1-3) as requested by the applicant.<\/p>\n

Condition #10 has been added, which states that MOS A is approved with the following contingencies:<\/p>\n

a.      the site shall adhere to the road section specifications (A-E), as detailed on Sheet C6.2 of the PDP, and<\/p>\n

b.      each road section shall be implemented only in the corresponding area(s) per the Roadway Index Map on PDP Sheet C6.2.<\/p>\n

B.     Modification of Standard B – Multi-Use path and Associated Curb and Gutter Installation from Access #3 to the Southern Boundary of the Site:<\/p>\n

SJP requests a MOS to eliminate the multi-use path (MUP) and curb and gutter installation<\/p>\n

requirement along Columbia Pike from Access #3 to the southern boundary of the site.<\/p>\n

Condition #11 has been added, which states that MOS B is approved with the following contingencies:<\/p>\n

a.      With the Site Plan for Lot 4, the Town and TDOT will re-evaluate if the multi-use path and curb and gutter need to be constructed between Access #3 and the site’s southern boundary. <\/p>\n

b.      If the Town and TDOT determine that the multi-use path and curb and gutter do not need to be constructed as part of the site development for Lot 4, between Access #3 and the site’s southern boundary, the developer shall establish an in-lieu payment to cover the cost of construction of the multi-use path and curb and gutter.<\/p>\n

C.    Modification of Standard C – Drive-Through Window Orientation – Lots 4-8:<\/p>\n

Town Staff support Modification of Standard C for the PDP approval, with two added conditions: 1) that the applicant shall submit a viewshed analysis, including landscaping, reflecting final building orientation and window placement, showing the view of the drive-through window from Columbia Pike as part of each future Site Plan submittal for lots 4-8, to be reviewed by Town Staff. As part of the approval of this MOS, it shall become part of the record that no drive-through\/pick-up window shall face Columbia Pike.  Please refer to Condition #12 for the corresponding conditions of approval.<\/p>\n

D.    Modification of Standard D – Flex Service Courts – Lots 1, 2, and 3:<\/p>\n

Town Staff support Modification of Standard D (1-3) as requested by the applicant.<\/p>\n

Condition #13 has been added, which states that MOS D is approved with the following contingency: The applicant shall provide service court enhanced landscaping, masonry screen walls, and Flex Service Court Gates, as shown in the PDP and Modifications of Standards Requests, in order to alleviate the LDO’s dumpster enclosure, parking lot landscaping, and electrical transformer landscaping requirements for Lots 1-3, as requested by MOS D.<\/p>\n

E.     Modification of Standard E – Internal Landscape Buffers:<\/p>\n

SJP is requesting a modification of standard to eliminate landscape buffers between internal lots lines\/uses within the PDP. This MOS request does not modify or reduce any required front, rear, or side yard landscape buffers along the perimeter external property boundaries of the PDP.<\/p>\n

Town Staff support Modification of Standard E as requested by the applicant.<\/p>\n

Condition #14 has been added, which states that MOS E is approved with the following contingency: The applicant shall provide required landscape buffers along the site’s outer boundaries, as shown on the PDP and required per the LDO, but may eliminate internal landscape buffers between Lots 1-8 within the Thompson’s Exchange site, as this is a single unified development.<\/p>\n

F.     Modification of Standard F – Townwide Development Buffer – Columbia Pike Frontage (Lots 4-8):<\/p>\n

SJP requests that the Townwide Development Buffer along the Columbia Pike frontage of Lots 4-8 be reduced from eighty feet (80′) to forty feet (40′) for this PDP, measured from the edge of pavement along the entirety of the development's Columbia Pike frontage as depicted on the PDP, except that along approximately 159 linear feet at the Lot 5 frontage the buffer is reduced to twenty feet (20′), measured from the same edge of pavement, to accommodate paved roadway improvements. In no case will any building floor area be located within any portion of the forty-foot (40′) buffer, including within the reduced twenty-foot (20′) area at the Lot 5 frontage.<\/p>\n

Town Staff support Modification of Standard F as requested by the applicant.<\/p>\n

Condition #15 has been added, which states that MOS F is approved with the following contingency: The development shall adhere to a 40’ Development Buffer, measured from edge of pavement of Columbia Pike. The exception to this is the frontage of Lot 5, which shall adhere to a 20’ Development Buffer, measured from edge of pavement of Columbia Pike, including the increased pavement area shown on the PDP at the Lot 5 frontage.<\/p>\n

In Staff’s review, the PDP – with the exception of the requested Modifications of the Development Standards (LDO 2.4.4(j)) – meet the minimum requirements of the LDO. Conditions of approval include requirements in future Site Plan submittals. Each Site Plan submittal will be required to meet the minimum standards of the LDO as well as the PDP, including all conditions and contingencies of approval.  Now I’ll turn it over to Will to go over the Traffic Impact Study Analysis.<\/p>\n

Traffic Impact Study Analysis<\/u><\/p>\n

Town Engineer Owen stated that as this development and application were initiated in early summer of 2025 and the TIS is based on the previous guideline requirements; however, the current guidelines were in draft form and the Traffic Engineer did consider portions of that draft document during the Traffic Study.  Also, existing counts were done in August of 2025 when school was in session.  The proposed improvements include an addition southbound through lane, so there will be two southbound through lanes from Critz Lane to the fourth most southern entry point to this development and a taper will begin just south of that entry point.  There will also be southbound right turn lanes added into all four of the proposed access points.  There will also be northbound left turn lanes added into two of the entry points, which are Access Point One and Access Point Three, and both of these will be signalized.  Access Point One coincides with the Generations Way connector on the east side of Columbia Pike.<\/p>\n

Staff recommends approval of the Planned Development Plan by TSPC's positive recommendation to BOMA, with contingencies.<\/p>\n

The applicant, Jonas Asner with St. John Properties, introduced his team of consultants, and presented a slideshow overview of this project.<\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler called for a motion to open discussion; Commissioner Harris made a motion to approve the PDP request, including all Staff contingencies; Vice-Chair Cagle seconded the motion; a discussion ensued.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Discussion:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commissioner Harris: Expressed concern regarding the aesthetics from Highway 31 with the front-loaded parking lot, which would be worsened if the buffer were to change from 80 foot to 40 foot, as the applicant is requesting.  He stated that he feels the entire development should be rear-loaded parking.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: This is my major concern, particularly with the retail.  Was rear parking considered, with the exception of accessible parking or short-term parking with any of the retail stores that have a ten minute only parking.  Asner: Yes, it was considered; however there are several reasons why we moved away from rear-loaded retail parking.  Those reasons are as follows: it creates an issue with circulation with the cross access road as it would allow the means of ingress and egress that connect Columbia Pike to that access road to be degraded; rear-loaded parking creates an element where the drive-thru stacking is visible; and, having the parking up front also pushes the building further away from Columbia Pike.  Rumpler: Because this is prime commercial real estate, and is one of our main arteries through Town, I don't think that the focus we want for residents or non-residents passing through is to see a large parking lot.  I am also concerned about the stacking with the drive-thrus and if that will cause circulation issues onto the site, whether or not they spill out onto Highway 31, the arterial roads on the site, or into the parking lot.  It feels very parking lot heavy in the viewpoint, even from the 3D renderings that are in the packet.  It is the first thing I see.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vice-Chair Cagle: Logically it seems that you would want high visibility for your two retail buildings, so I do understand the design behind it.  I do have an issue with the amount of surface parking visible from Highway 31, and given the lack of buffer that you are asking that you're asking for on the modification of standard, it is shrinking that down.  It seems from the renderings that the buffer between the four rail fence and the parking lot is a row of shrubs, and that will make what is predominantly seen coming down Highway 31 a large parking area in front of retail.  I'm not sure if flipping it would help, as then the view would be of the backs of buildings.  Asner: It's proven through decades of retail research that rear parking reduces patronage, and major retail players avoid rear retail parking.  The amount of surface parking has been reduced as much as possible via alternative parking studies that have been submitted.  There is a shared parking analyses similar to what Simon did in order to study how to reduce the surface parking as much as possible, while still accommodating the parking that is needed at peak demand hours, and this Site Plan is reflective of that reduction in parking.  Creating the ability to have the circulation and the parking reduced were top of mind, as we want this cross access road to function as it's intended to.  When the parking is flipped on the rear side toward the site, the right in, right out in the middle of the two retail buildings does not work properly, as it puts more traffic out onto site access one and three and does not allow flow through traffic on the cross access road in the same way.  We have found that providing the storefront can be key to the success of the businesses.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: Noted that other retail in Fountain View across from access site one shows the majority of parking in the rear, and is much more friendly to have the retail building facing Highway 31 and not the parking lot.  Asner: The stream on the property causes some constraints and there isn't enough depth to achieve the same town center look as the Fountain View retail buildings.  We want to provide more variety and options for retail and restaurants.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commissioner Harris: Noted that the applicant's justifications for allowing the Modification of Standards is more sales tax revenue, and speaking for myself, less would be better if the Town gets a product that we want and that fits into the Town's long-term plan.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: We want something different, and don't want to feel like we are in Franklin, Murfreesboro, Spring Hill, and would like something that looks specific to the Town.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vice-Chair Cagle: In reference to the Site Plan and the request to go from the 80 foot buffer to the 40 foot buffer, when looking at where the cross access road is, between the retail and the stream buffer areas, I see available space and the ability to shift that cross access road to the west and create that delineation and that buffer between Highway 31 and the parking area.  He asked the other Board members if that was changed, if it would change their opinions on what is required because we don't want 40 feet of grass, but the actual intent of the buffer is to keep businesses, retail, a certain distance from a main throughway. Was that evaluated?  Asner: Yes.  The space between the road and the stream is heavily stormwater detention and a grading down to the stormwater detention so the tie back slopes down to the stream and is a very limited area to maneuver in.  Vice-Chair Cagle: With the 40 foot offset from the required buffer, how far is it from the cross access road to where the storm detention area starts?  Asner: There is not a Town mandated, LDO mandated distance, and I don't know offhand.  Vice-Chair Cagle: We have multiple Board members who have the same concerns, and are looking at this design to determine if the site has been maximized and are we willing to trade 20, 30, 40 feet behind to shift the retail back to gain it on Highway 31 where it seems to be critically important.  Asner: We have maximized that and we still have retaining walls there as well, and we have worked with Town staff to understand the LDO as it's written.  The LDO language does not necessitate that parking is behind these buildings, and there's no Modification of Standard requesting that.  The level of visual separation here also is created in that offset to the building.  Without that reduced buffer, which is in part a request because of the additional improvements that the TIS isn't necessitating, you are correct, Mr. Harris, we would lose the sales tax producing retail frontage, which was from the onset during discussion with the Town, seemed really important, as sales tax revenue is what is going to create future road improvements monies.  We had also asked to do retail along the rear as well and there is not an interest from big box retailers to be invisible behind the stream.  We feel like this product compliments the retail ecosystem of Thompson's Station in a holistic way and it serves the residents.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler:  Are you also planning to have drive-thrus on the edges of those two larger retail buildings?  Asner: The applicant pointed out two areas on the Site Plan where there will be drive-thrus on end caps. <\/em> Chair Rumpler:  On top of three restaurants with drive-thrus also?  Asner:  These are not known to be restaurants with drive-thrus.  The Community Commercial zoning district allows them to be restaurants, or restaurants with drive-thrus, but we are building on this site on a speculative basis so we haven't started marketing this.  Chair Rumpler:  How is this retail front pedestrian oriented if you have a plan to have drive-thrus on the sides of your retail buildings, as well as the possibility of restaurants with drive-thrus in those other three buildings?  Asner: There is site-wide pedestrian connectivity via sidewalks.  The applicant pointed out areas on the Site Plan with sidewalks\/pedestrian connectivity.   <\/em>Post-Covid, drive-thrus are a feature that are needed to maximize the viability of these buildings.  Chair Rumpler: In theory, because the renderings do have Chick-Fil-A, if that is on Lot 8, and then you add Starbucks on Lot 7, during peak times you would have cars stacked around the back of Lot 7, where are they going?  Are they going from Access Road 1, from the middle of those two, across the parking lot, to the back of the building, order, and then you have the other possible restaurant at a peak time as well, also stacking, that to me does not....  Asner: This building is not meant to be a whole drive-thru.  Chair Rumpler: I understand that; I saw the renderings.  If you have a coffee shop, or a major coffee shop, you have peak times for that.  So, I'm wondering if you have a drive-thru at the end of that, and then you have another restaurant with similar peak times over to Lot 8, those can start stacking heavily and stack outside of, through the parking lots, and causing some issues with parking and pedestrian access if they're going across the parking lot, and stacking out onto Highway 31.  Vice-Chair Cagle:  Is the stacking cue behind the buildings?  Asner: Yes.  Vice-Chair Cagle: There is the potential for heavy stacking.  Asner: We have to look at the 15 car stacking as determined by the LDO, and that 15 car stacking does not loop all the back around to the front.  This may not be a restaurant; this is a place holder layout.  Chair Rumpler:  Is this part of Phase 1 buildout?  Asner: The mass grading for it is.  The Site Plan that comes in will have to function with the circulation that works for Staff and PC.  If it is a drive-thru exactly like this, their drive-thru is completely segmented away and they don't bleed into one another.  Chair Rumpler: Not on the front side either, where it connects?  Jonas: There is no drive-thru happening there.  Vice-Chair Cagle: I am curious about the phasing plan, as we will potentially have empty pads until things are off the ground.  The second retail building shown not being included in Phase 1 is curious to me.  Is it a cost saving issue?  It's disconnected from Phase 2 all together, and it's a primary portion of the site.  Asner: We are investing so much money in the infrastructure of the whole site on the front end in Phase 1 that we don't want to say that we are going to build both buildings.  When we are ready to build we will get a construction loan and will debt carry on that loan so we want to see if there is market movement from Building 1.  We feel confident that there will be, and weigh between an empty lot or an empty building.  From our perspective, we would rather not spend the money if leasing is slow on the first building.  We typically start the next building phase at 50% leased on the first building. We can't get COs until all of the traffic improvements are completed.  Once we start leasing the buildings and doing interior buildouts, and we see some market velocity, we will then start on the second building.  Vice-Chair Cagle: Is that 50% of the retail, or 50% of the Phase 1 total?  Asner: The retail.  This is a high level phasing plan, but if these flex buildings achieve 50% leasing and this one is at 20%, we will start Phase 2 for the next two flex buildings, or vice versa.  We are invested in creating infrastructure for future phases, and all major infrastructure will be completed in Phase 1.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vice-Chair Cagle: We still don't have clarity on the buffer or the orientation of the parking lot.  Commissioner Stephenson: The 80 foot buffer is in the LDO for a reason, and that is the way we are going to present what you see going down the road.  We were excited because Sagefield has an 80 foot buffer.  I believe what you will see is compared to on Carothers in Franklin, where there is strip mall after strip mall.  The 80 foot is there for a reason, and I understand you have constraints about it but the predominant discussion at the Joint Workshop was about what we will see as we are driving down Highway 31, and I agree with everyone else's assessment (PC members).  Asner: A large part of the reason is because of the TDOT improvements we are putting in, so that buffer reduction we are asking is coming out of  the public benefit that we are providing.  Commissioner Stephenson: I understand that but it still presents the same thing, and even with the improvements what will we see driving down the road is the same thing.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commissioner Harris: We have at least four people (PC members) that have similar thoughts about what the frontage is going to look like on Highway 31.  Is there a willingness on the part of your organization to find some happy medium so that we do have a product that we feels meets our Town's culture?  Asner: Absolutely.  We have been working on this since February in order to get to something that works, and this is the product of that. Ultimately we have this site that has constraints but we are trying to give as much to the Town as possible in return for the relief, and invest in the traffic improvements, onsite amenities, green spaces, nice landscaping.  The landscaping we are providing is above the LDO standards required.  We are maxed out on what we can invest in this development, while keeping it viable and a project that will be affordable for Thompson's Station business owners.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commissioner Harris: Madam Chair, I either want to revise my original motion, or withdraw it.  What are my options?  Town Attorney Mills: You have a motion on the floor and obviously you can make any amendment to that motion, whether it's a wholesale change, or making individual amendments for contingencies, or alterations to the Modifications of Standards.  Those can be taken up as individual amendments, so if a motion is made, it's seconded, you're only discussing that amendment and then voting on it, and then it incorporates back into the main motion.  Commissioner Harris: Ok, guide me.  Based upon what he said maybe there is some happy ground here, and I'm thinking that a deferral is more pertinent for tonight.  Town Attorney Mills: You would make a motion to amend to a deferral, you would need a second, and then you would debate that, it would be incorporated back into the main motion, and then you can keep talking about other things, and that would be deferring it to the next month.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: Before you do that, can we continue to talk about the frontage and see if maybe there is a... Commissioner Harris: We still have a motion on the floor?  Town Attorney Mills: Yes.  Commissioner Harris: I am curious as to what the options might be.  Town Attorney Mills: That is an option.  In the PDP process in the LDO, and I think this is in the Staff Report, your options are to approve as presented, approve with contingencies, and that can be any number, or disapprove, and that would be a negative recommendation up to BOMA.  A deferral is in that world; we wouldn't want to defer multiple times, as I think it needs to make it's way up.  I will say, if I may Madam Chair, the PDP process is not terribly old, and we're getting used to it.  The way I've viewed this is the goal should be to get to a positive recommendation.  That should be the goal, and I'm not saying every project is going to get a positive recommendation, but the idea is what reasonable contingencies get this body to a positive.  I think if you approach it from that lens, that is more in line with what the PDP process is designed for.  I'm not saying you're always going to get there, but that should be the goal, and if a deferral is needed to march toward that I think that would be appropriate if that's the will of this body.  Vice-Chair Cagle: In the case of a deferral, is there work that's going back and being done, or are we just then being presented the same thing the following month?  Town Attorney Mills: Y'all need to give that direction.  Do you want to see other elements that you are not seeing today?  I think you would want to give that directive to the applicant so they know what to bring back, or, if it's just a matter of needing more time.  Typically the PDP process is designed to go through the Planning Commission and then on to the BOMA, and right now it is planned to be on the next BOMA agenda.  If you defer it, it would not be on the next BOMA agenda.  Again, given the process itself, I don't think more than one deferral would be appropriate, but if you need more time, that is understandable for a deferral.  If you want to see certain things, I think you need to make it known.  You don't have to necessarily make it part of your deferral motion, but it needs to probably be espoused by members of this body, but you can incorporate it into the motion, such as 'I defer so we can see X, Y, Z', second it, discuss it, vote on it, and we're back to the main motion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: If we wanted to see changes to the front elevation, architecturally, is that a reason to defer, or can we tack on an amendment for them to make those modifications?  I guess what I'm asking is are those retail buildings part of the Site Plan that if we approve tonight as is with no other contingencies, will those retail buildings, or Phase 1, be built to what it looks like on paper?  Town Attorney Mills: I want Staff to weigh in, of course, but when you approve a PDP, you're setting the standard for what these Site Plans have to come in as.  Chair Rumpler: Right, so I guess what my question is is if we have no other further guidance or contingencies set on the architectural elevation for the Columbia Pike facing side, that doesn't come back to us as a Site Plan looking differently than what it does tonight?  Vice-Chair Cagle: Now is the chance.  Chair Rumpler: I would not want to defer this because I do think there is some work to be done, but I also think that we might be able to accomplish that with further contingencies or amendments to these MOS items.  Town Attorney Mills: Right.  I think the idea is that when you make an amendment of \"change this\" it's not going to magically appear on the screen.  I think they are going to have to have it together to conform to that by the time it gets to the BOMA, knowing that BOMA has full discretion to accept or reject any of your amendments or contingencies. so that process is a little fluid.  Staff: With this being specifically with architecture and not part of a Modification of Standard, when the Site Plan comes in it would have to meet the LDO standards.  I think there would be some intent with the style as the PDP, but as long as it would meet the LDO with no further action from y'all tonight for those architectural standards.  So if there is something that you see fit to have additional standards based on potential requests of the Modifications of Standards that you want to add as a condition, that gives guidance to the Site Plan, but it also does set the standard once approved by BOMA, if approved by BOMA, as to what has to be brought back to this Board at the Site Plan.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vice-Chair Cagle: If we were to, for example, deny  MOS F, which is to change from 80 foot to 40 foot buffer, and that is a major overhaul to this design, so how does that proceed beyond us?  Does it get changed and then presented to BOMA?  Staff: If it's a recommendation to BOMA for approval of the site with that MOS removed, it would then at BOMA's discretion to either keep that as a modification, or to follow with this Board and remove that as a modification.  It would then go back after BOMA's vote and be updated and be brought back to BOMA, and from my understanding they would be the deciding body for approval.  Town Attorney Mills: We can talk about that later, on process.  I think it's one of two things; I think it's what you just said that in that it's such a substantial change, I think BOMA would have to say 'we're removing this; bring it back for final approval'.  If they didn't do that and you remove a MOS, they could put it back, as BOMA has ultimate authority.  The PC is vetting this and BOMA is looking for guidance.  If the PC removed one of the MOS items and BOMA kept that and didn't say anything else, in my opinion it would come back to Staff again to see if it complied.  It is possible for some of these to happen, and we would need to address that at the BOMA level, and if it's major there would need to be a recommendation in the meeting that it has to come back to make sure it still fits within that framework.  Bearing in mind, Modifications of Standards are in the PDP process; it's in the whole purpose of PDPs and again I encourage this body to explore conditions to find comfort with these MOS items.  I know we are talking about the buffer a lot, so I will give an example, that if they are asking for a 40 foot reduction in the buffer, are there amendments or contingencies that make this body more comfortable with that MOS.  If there's not, there's not but I encourage you to explore it rather than just saying \"no\".  If that ends up being the ultimate result, then so be it, that's the will of this body.  However, I encourage you to explore it because that is how the process is set up to be.  It is different than a site plan or plat where unfortunately you get to be told \"it meets the standards\" or \"it doesn't\"; this is much more of a fluid thing, and especially when they're asking for of Modifications of Standards, you are tasked with vetting what makes this work as a MOS, or not.  You are going to make that ultimate decision, and the BOMA is going to review that.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: Can you tell us, since we are talking about the buffer and have concerns, I can accept that the parking lot has to be in the front, but what landscaping is going to be within that buffer?  Asner: If you have L1.0, this details the landscaping in the buffer area.  This is Tyler, our Landscape Architect.  Tyler: Right now what we have showing up front in that buffer between the parking lot and Columbia Pike is just what the LDO calls for for perimeter parking lot screening.  There is no additional landscaping along the fence area, so right now there is the fence, what the LDO calls for for standard parking lot screening, and whatever trees are required for the parking lot.  Vice-Chair Cagle:  I guess what we are asking is can that change or be enhanced.  Also, if we are going to entertain, as a body, the MOS to reduce the buffer by 40 feet, this is where we are asking for something different, or better, to offset.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commissioner Alexander: So, I think the motion is that we would want a contingency to the landscape design to exceed what is currently there, to potentially make us feel more comfortable with the reduction in the space; I think that would be one.  Also, for me I would like to see it without the reduction.  What if you redesigned that, took another look at it, didn't ask for that additional easement; what does that look like, and can you restructure those buildings?  Asner: Without that 40 foot reduction, which you can see faintly, if you add another 40 feet, and this retail area ceases to exist.  Commissioner Alexander: For me, I would want to, I think it's a motion, to see what the landscaping improvements could be that exceed what is the bare minimum with the modification that you're asking for.  Also, I hear you that you would lose retail space, but what does that look like, can you show us what that looks like?  Asner: We would not be able to park these buildings and would not be able to accommodate retail buildings in this area in a holistic way.  That 40 feet is crucial to accommodating these buildings.  This is what it looks like, and with the buffer area reduced it is still providing a level of visual mitigation.  We would totally be open to adding some other landscaping; that is something we could discuss.  The 40 foot buffer is measured from the edge of pavement, and the road is being widened from what is depicted in the renderings.  That is why we are asking for the reduced buffer, and also with the 40 foot buffer slicing through some of these areas, we would not be able to meet parking, and there wouldn't be a retail area, if we're doing the road widening that we are proferring to do.  If we were keeping the road as is, which we can't do because Columbia Pike is a suffering road and it needs investment, it needs private development, we wouldn't be asking for that reduced buffer.  Maybe an alternative is some sort of additional landscape screening, or the trees will mature and get bigger, and we can add more trees along the frontage.  It is a little tight in that area with utilities, so I wouldn't want to say how many could be added, but that feels like it could be a good middle ground.  Ultimately this MOS is coming from the traffic improvements that are being made.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commissioner Stephenson: The reality is that if you don't make the traffic improvement, TDOT would at some point.  The fact that you're making them, you're going to have that same issue whether you make them or not because TDOT is going to widen the road.  Asner:  Yes, and with us making those improvements, that's taking off five million dollars off the Town.  Commissioner Stephenson: I understand that, but you're saying you need 40 feet because you're widening the road, but if you didn't widen it, you still couldn't use that property anyway because the State would come through and widen the road.  Asner: If we were coming in after TDOT had done this, that road would be existing.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Town Attorney Mills: Madam Chair, if I may, I couldn't tell if you were making a formal motion yet, or not.  Commissioner Alexander: I was about to, but wanted to clarify.  Town Attorney Mills: So to have clarity, and I was just asking if I misheard from Staff, the buffering type on the sides is Type1.  Because it's similar zoning, it's CC to CC, I don't think there's a type of buffer in the front.  The Town has five different buffer types, as you go up they get more intense, going from just having something there to full opacity. I think using those, unless Staff thinks differently, we need specificity with the motion so that they know what to do.  Obviously I think better landscaping is good, but what is better landscaping?  I think saying the buffer type, and I would want Staff to weigh in on what those are, but as an example \"I want to see buffer Type 1, just like on the sides, in the front\".  That would be a very succinct, simple motion and everybody knows what that means.  Staff, do you have any more thoughts on buffer?  Staff:  The one to five are mainly used between sites, and that was something that one of the MOSs on this site removed those internal buffers because it is a development site as a whole, and still buffering the outside area, and I believe that is all Type 1.  Types 4 and 5 are very similar and are full opaque screens, including height requirements, setback requirements, walls, fences, landscape berms, planting and existing vegetation; Types 4 and 5 would be the higher levels and then it goes down to a more standard landscape strip.  I don't have all of that to give you a quick rundown because it's is about three pages of information on buffers.  Types 2 and 3 are semi-opaque, so with those, setbacks are no less than 25 feet, it has a screen that's opaque from the ground to a height of three feet with intermittent visual openings from above the opaque portion of the height up to 20.  The semi-opaque is intended to partially block visual contact between uses and create a strong impression of a separation of spaces.  They may be composed of a combination of walls, fences, landscape berms, planted or earth vegetation.  All of the landscaping must be composed of low water consumption, and trees and shrubs must be located so that their outermost limbs touch at the time of maturity.  So, Types 2 and 3 would be going from more of a heavy solid wall to a shorter wall or berm, and making sure that at maturity all of the trees do have a full screening with that landscape.  Down from there to a Type 1 would be screening from ground up to 20 feet to broken screen intended to create the impression of separation without necessarily eliminating the visual contract between the spaces.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: Before you make that, we want to be able to see the retail, although I do have concerns about the frontage, but we don't want the initial focus to be the parking lot, so I don't know that we need a completely opaque screening, but we want to take the focus off of that parking lot.  Even on your own renderings, that is the one thing that jumps out is that it's very parking lot heavy.  When you look at it as an overview, on the frontage side it looks parking lot dominant.  Obviously there are different businesses that are going to be in there, so we do understand that they are going to need parking in order to be successful, but we don't want that to be the focus.  We don't want to block the frontages of the buildings but the focus needs to be off of the parking lot if they cannot be relocated to the sides and the back, but still low enough where we still can see the retail space.  I'm not sure which type of landscaping that would be.  Commissioner Harris: If I may, if we went with a wall, like a stall wall, it matches what is right across the street over at Fountain View.  Chair Rumpler:  Is that going to stay?  Commissioner Harris: It would shield some of the vehicular traffic, but certainly not the signage.  Staff:  The buffer Types 1-5 are meant more between uses that are not compatible.  I believe it would be against the intent of the LDO to have that across the frontage.  I think there may be some direction possibly with the buffer Type 1, even a little bit reduced there.  One of the LDO requirements is to have the strip across the frontage; have either a stone wall or a fence, landscape similar to this.  They have chosen the fence to be consistent with other property along Highway 31 on their side.  If that's something that this Board wants to see is for that to be stone, I think that is something that could be added as a condition to match across and that could be part of a condition that is defensible.  I do not believe that going to a full Type 4 or 5 would meet the intent of the code or be what we would want to see driving down Highway 31 because at that point you do see a wall.  Vice-Chair Cagle: I don't believe anyone is pushing for a Type 5.  Chair Rumpler: No, and across the street they have the stone wall, and Tollgate also has a mixture of materials within their landscaping buffer; they have shrubs, fencing, and they have some stone within that as well as trees., correct?  Staff: I believe that's the case, but I'm not recalling exactly what that looks like.  One thing that this Board could have as part of the condition is a line of trees, and this is just an example, at mature height being 25 feet, spaced on center every 20 feet staggered, or something similar, so you are making your own buffer across the front that is opaque, still having that landscape.  We're talking about the frontage, but it may be something internal to the parking lot where you want to see additional landscaping.  If the question as Town Attorney Mills was saying is how to move forward with a favorable recommendation, I think that there are numerous options that this Board can consider for landscaping alone.  Then if you want to get into facade of the building or architectural styles, there is that as well.  There are options that between the pavement and the front of the buildings where you could see additional landscaping that would help break up that frontage.  Asner: Part of what inspired this choice from a landscape architectural standpoint is what is coming in next door with the bank.  The bank has the four rail fence, and they've got the parking up front so we wanted to continue that here.  Something that is not on the renderings is we have more flowers and we can add and beautify this, and I believe it's a good idea to look at that as an option.  The visibility is important to retailers as you guys know, but creating some sort of visual screening in lieu of this buffer is important too, and we are open to finding that middle ground.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler:  I think that, I feel that if we are going to do a 50% reduction in buffer, it's important what is in that 40%.  Commissioner Alexander: What does the parking lot look like?  I know that is a rendering, but how many trees do you have in the parking lot, because just on the screen it looks pretty bare.  Tyler: Right now it's based on the green space in each parking lot, and there's a calculation to it.  It comes out to basically two per island where it's a double island, and one where it's a single island.  Along the outside edge it's just a shrub row.  As Staff stated,  something with on center spacing as part of that shrub row, and maybe trees would be possibly something we could look at.  20 feet is probably a little tight to keep views open to these retail facades, so I would say more like 40 feet, so you could have tree, gap, tree, gap, with shrubs in between.  Commissioner Alexander:  I would like to see something like that.  Chair Rumpler: I would be comfortable with that.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: I have my own amendment for MOS F that I would like to make, but if you want to do....Commissioner Alexander: We can do multiple...Chair Rumpler: How ugly will that get if we start making multiple amendments to the same MOS?  Town Attorney Mills: I would not modify the MOS; I would add conditions to the MOS.  That allows each motion to be unique, and obviously you need to take into account prior motions because you don't want to say the same thing, or almost the same thing, which is why when you make a motion and a second, you're going to debate it.  Maybe that needs to be modified slightly based on someone else's motion they might want to make.  I would consider these an amendment to the PDP process, and you could specify to which MOS you are referring.  That's fine; that helps us track it.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commissioner Alexander: You will need to let me know how to word it, but my contingency would be that if we maintain the easement that you're asking for, that we ask for the contingency for improved landscaping, but I don't know if it's an L1 or an L2.  Vice-Chair Cagle: L1 is what is there.  Staff: The buffer there is, there will be Type 1, Type 2.  Type 1 is what is along the edge of the property.  Type 2 and Type 3 have the broken, shorter walls, and Type 4 and Type 5 have the taller, solid walls.  Town Attorney Mills: There is no type on the front right now.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commissioner Alexander: So I think we want a Type 2, I'm thinking is what I'm hearing, with a 30 or 40 foot gap between the trees.  I'd like to see something like that, so I would make a motion to put that as part of the contingency.  I don't know if you want to add it to yours, and we can just have one, but that's where my head is.  Chair Rumpler: Mine has to do with architectural elevation.  Town Attorney Mills: So we have a motion on the floor so we need a second or the motion fails.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commissioner Harris: Can we have the amendment repeated.  Town Attorney Mills: Let me repeat it to see if I have it written down correctly.  We have a motion to add a contingency onto this Modification of Standard for improved landscaping, specifically to a Type 2 buffer with 30 to 40 foot gaps in between the trees.  Commissioner Alexander: Yes  Commissioner Harris:  At maturity?  Town Attorney Mills: I think that's addressed in the LDO.  Staff: Is that along the entirety of the frontage?  Commissioner Alexander: Yes.  Staff: You could include that as well.  Commissioner Alexander: Yes.  Asner: As well as for the power line up there, the height of any trees there.  Can that be part of the amendment like subject to utility?  Commissioner Alexander: INAUDIBLE  Vice-Chair Cagle: I don't think so, because if the utilities come back and say that it's a \"no go\", that basically kills the intent of what we are trying to accomplish.  Commissioner Alexander: I don't want to put that in there.  Vice-Chair Cagle: Do we have a Civil Engineer here who can speak to it?  Foster: We do have an HB&TS water line running along the frontage as well as MTE overhead power lines, so adding to those details there would be a limitation to how high those trees could be before they start interfering with the overhead lines, and root growth with the water lines would be a concern.  Town Engineer Owen: I concur.  Any of our utility clients that we have would prohibit any tree of any substance; oak trees, sycamores, maples would not be allowed, not only within a water line easement because of root growth, but also the overhead.  Overhead you can get away with some ornamental trees, lower growing with a maximum height of 20 feet at most, but it would be an understory type tree, but I suspect HB&TS would not allow any trees at all.  That would be my guess.  <\/strong>Vice-Chair Cagle: Given where the fence is in relation to the 40 feet that's from the edge of concrete, do you see any opportunity for tree planting?  Town Engineer Owen: I see very limited opportunity beyond what's been presented in the application already.  I don't doubt that the applicant has good intentions to do that if they were allowed to, but I don't know if that is a logistical option with the way this is laid out.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: So what would our options be?  Commissioner Alexander: We would need to find out.  Town Engineer Owen: I want to be careful because I know it pertains specifically to the amendment, correct?  Chair Rumpler: Right.  Town Engineer Owen: There may be a way we can accomplish this amendment.  Can I see the more zoomed in section of the front retail area?  Tyler: The first thing you're going to see when you're coming from the north at the first entrance is some enhanced landscaping.  It will fill up that corner right at the first retail pad, and then the hedgerow starts, your tree island planting, and your fence.  By the time you get to the next entrance, there's a massive amount of landscaping there also.  These pockets where the entrances are, where most people are going to be focusing their eyes, there is a lot more going on.  Vice-Chair Cagle: Are there options, evergreen or otherwise, that are above 3 or 4 feet, that could be planted intermittently to create a break between?  Tyler: We can do some larger shrubs.  I believe right now the LDO has a maximum on the hedge height against parking lots.  Is 30 or 36 inch?  Staff: I will have to look that up.  Tyler:  We can take the landscape islands and we can add a lower level planting to those too.  Right now they are just mulch or grass, so we can get shrubbery or low ornamental grasses in those islands also.  Vice-Chair Cagle: I think what the intent of the motion, the comments, and the feedback is create some sort of screening, it doesn't have to be fully opaque because we understand you want to see retail, but we're asking you to work with us and help us and figure out how to solve this problem, rather than us trying to solve this problem, because I guarantee you're not going to like the result.  Asner: So to that end, we want to work with you for sure to do that.  Would it create if we added understory planting to the islands and can we enhance the area up front with hedgerows or something that is above what the LDO calls for?  Would that get us there if we could do that?  Would you have to see what it looks like?  Commissioner Alexander: Yes<\/strong><\/p>\n

Town Engineer Owen: Would there be opportunities to either add landscape islands or make these bigger by removing each parking spot on each side?  I think you have some opportunity here to replace those parking spots possibly if you can shift this to the south slightly, the whole complex to the south and maybe put parking that would access from there.  This is three parallel spots so if you can find another 8 or 9 feet those can turn into perpendicular and we can increase the size of these landscape islands, which would create a more voluminous break in that asphalt pavement.  Chair Rumpler: They're looking to do drive-thrus there.  Town Engineer Owen: I think these drive thru widths are still, there is a cueing lane and a width for a bypass lane.  I think you can probably find somewhere in that area to find maybe 8 parking spots to distribute it somewhere to increase the size of those landscape islands, at least for the ones that front Columbia Pike.  Asner: I can't say for sure that we can do that, but if we could add additional island planting along the Columbia side of those parking areas, would that mitigate the concern?  Town Engineer Owen: It wouldn't give you the full screen.  You would still expect the shrubs to be in between these more distinct landscape areas.  The other option is if you can somehow replace that whole front row, and either flip it to the back and reorient.  Asner: What if we put trees there, where there are no utilities, and that would mitigate the northbound approach.  We could add flowers and shrubbery and do something similar on this side where when you're approaching from Columbia Pike it looks less like a parking lot.  Commissioner Stephenson:  You are seeing a huge parking lot down here as you're going north, and that's the first thing you see.  Chair Rumpler: We all live here, and you don't drive 45 miles an hour on Columbia Pike, ever, not in this corridor.  I don't want to speak for other people, but I know that's a concern that when I'm looking at this I know someone's not going to be driving by doing 45 miles an hour.  They are going to be sitting there potentially for a while waiting for the cues for the light at Generations Way or the light that cues back for Thompson's Station Road, or additional lights.  Those cues will be stacked up coming down even with the two additional lanes that you are proposing to build.  I still think because ultimately the two additional lanes move the merging further to the south of this property, so you are going to have more cars stacking and waiting for the Thompson's Station Road light.  I'm looking at it from that standpoint.  I know if you're going to do 45 miles an hour it's going to be at 6:00 a.m. on a Saturday or late at night, but on a typical day, and our p.m. peaks start at 2:30 when the high school gets out, not 4:00, and you have 2,200 cars leaving Independence.  That's where I'm looking at it from, and though the additional screening is appreciated, it is not necessarily on the north and south side corners of this property.  I would like to see additional screening, if we could do a reduction in the amount of parking lanes along the Columbia Pike frontage, if that would satisfy the additional screening that is needed.  Commissioner Alexander: I did like the creative solution that if that front row is moved somewhere else, or if we shift the whole layout so that the front is more screened instead of more parking spots, and then Lot 6 or 4 that probably would need some more work and more screening also.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Town Attorney Mills: Madam Chair, if I may frame this a little bit, in talking with Town Engineer Owen just now and what you've heard, the motion as stated is not going to be able to be complied with, so I think what we're talking about is how do we rework that.  We will have to vote on that motion, and I think at the moment I would ask you all to deny that motion, just because, and then let's try another one.  Another way to think about this, and this is \"punting\" to the BOMA which I don't necessarily recommend but it is a directive to the applicant of back to what you were originally saying, you've given some ideas, and we need some more screening on the front.  However to make that work, get it done before the BOMA sees it because if it's not there, they're probably not going to like it either.  We want as much specificity as possible so that the applicant knows what you're saying, but if that's all that you can decide tonight, is make it better on the front, we need more buffering, more screening, be in line with Type 1, Type 2, come up with something.  We're not going to engineer on the fly over the next hour and truly accomplish anything.  That is a possibility.  Back to Commissioner Harris, you have said some things, and I'm sure there will be some more things said, but maybe a deferral at the end of that to bring back some enhanced landscaping and screening on the front.  Chairman, I know that you have mentioned some aesthetics and maybe there's something from that.  Maybe there's 3 or 4 things that this body really wants to see before voting, and I know that's what we're getting into right now, but I just wanted to point that out that the motion as stated I don't think can be complied with, and that's going to be a problem so we do need to address that motion at some point before we move off of screening and landscaping on the front.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: Called for a roll call vote on the motion for the amendment.  The motion for the amendment failed with the following roll call votes:  Commissioner Starck, No; Commissioner Alexander, No; Vice-Chair Cagle, No; Chair Rumpler, No; Commissioner Harris, No; Commissioner Stephenson, No.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: I do have an amendment that is focused on architecture but I can add in the contingency that Commissioner Alexander is looking for, but I would like to call a five minute recess to give everyone a break because it has been two hours.  We will reconvene at 8:10.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: I know we are talking about landscaping and I have an amendment to add a contingency, but it also includes architectural elevation on the front side of the retail.  I can include the landscaping in my total amendment, but if we can switch gears for a minute to talk about that.  I know I brought up Fountain View, and I think what stands out about these buildings is that when we approved what is going in directly across from this, the storefronts had more variation in the looks of them.  The roof lines were different for each, there was variation in colors and some of them looked more \"bumped out\".  This looks very flat to me, and I do understand that some modifications were made based on our January meeting, but I'm not seeing them.  I know it was a big sticking point for me on the elevations of this when we had our Joint Session, because it does read just a very \"vanilla\" strip mall feel to it.  I think because, with the reduction in buffer, I would like to see something that has a little more of the Town feel to it.  Maybe some different roof lines, different colors for each of them, but even going back to what we approved in Tollgate that is already up and operational, each of those looked like individual buildings and not so much just a flat front with some hardy board or board and batten and brick with awnings going down.  Vice-Chair Cagle: Architecturally I think first off largely, the flex space in the back, good job changing that and it seems to be everything we asked for and we appreciate it.  It is much more palatable, even though it's rarely seen from the road.  However, when I look at this, it looks like every other retail I've ever seen.  Technically by the book, you've copied the LDO requirements and technically it fits, but for this, for all the Modifications of Standards and the proffers, I want to see something different, because this looks like it could be in Franklin, Spring Hill, Murfreesboro.  It doesn't matter, and to me it's too \"cookie cutter\", and there's no true variation in it.  It's the same materials staggered in and out, and I don't think that's what this Town is looking for.  Sorry to be so blunt about it, but to the letter of the standard you've probably got it, but to what this Town is actually looking for, you don't have it.  I think that's something that we are looking to change in the future but in this specific instance given all the other Modifications of Standards, it's something I think we are going to ask for; an architectural redesign with more character that best fits this Town, and something that this Town wants to see, and I don't think that rendering, these designs do that.   Chair Rumpler: I'm not asking that you pull up Fountain View and copy exactly what's there, but I think we have to look at what's going directly across the street, and try to marry with that.  We are very proud of our Town and the character that the homes are that are built here, and the retail spaces that are coming.  I would not compare this to Sagefield, but we had a lot of comments for them with their architectural renderings and they were great, but we still asked to see some more diverse things.  So, I think that because of the reduction in the buffer, and this does relate to that from my perspective, I would want to see something that we can be proud of, that the residents of Thompson's Station will go to and know that it is a part of our Town, and it does marry with the look that we have been going for over the last several years.  I do have a pretty in depth amendment, contingency for this, and it does include the parking.  Is it possible to have a reduction in parking spots along the frontage of Columbia Pike to allow for more screening?  Asner: Yes.  During the recess we were looking at how we could create a better landscape screen there in real time.  We have to meet some parking minimums even with the reduction, but we do have the ability to take some of this area back here and push it up on the front.  So, we would like to proffer adding a 10 to 15 foot area here in front of these retail buildings where we will be outside of that utility easement concern, and can plant screening there.  Chair Rumpler: So, then we wouldn't have to reduce the parking along Columbia Pike?  The parking spots up there would not be reduced, but the whole thing shifts back, and this area can still meet the lawn requirement of the road there and just cut out here.  We've got 20, 21 feet.  We will have to do a retaining wall here, but we are willing to do that to make that happen.   So this strip of green is reduced and it's put in front of this and it shifts back.  Commissioner Stephenson: How far are you shifting it back?  Asner: 10 to 15 feet.  I couldn't do the CAD work in real time but I could but I could do the line work.  Commissioner Stephenson: So we go from 40 to 50-55 feet.  Asner: That's the development buffer and where we're proffering is adding landscaping in front of the buildings and shifting the buildings back.  Vice-Chair Cagle: So, it's a \"both, and\"?   It's a shift the buildings back and still provide more screening in that space, because that now allows it?  Asner: In that space, but the development buffer is still 40 feet.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler: So, for Staff, I'm typing my amendment.  So, what would be the term for what's in the back area?  Is that a buffer between their internal road and their parking?  Staff: Rather than considering it a buffer since the buffer was removed for that MOS, I would consider that the western landscape strip between the parking of Lot 6 and 7 to the north\/south connection road.  Commissioner Starck: Are you proposing to move that connection road back, or does it stay in place?  Asner: The road, I believe it stays; the road stays.  Chair Rumpler: Yes, because of the retention.  Commissioner Starck: So you are just reducing the distance from the parking in the back to the curb?  Asner: That is correct; to the sidewalk.  Vice-Chair Cagle: That is a fair trade.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Town Attorney Mills: If I may for clarity, because I don't want us to be confused down the road, we are talking about the two main sites.  Are we talking about any changes to any of the other pads in the front because y'all have discussed that and I want to be sure we're clear.  I don't want this body thinking that the entire site is moving back 10 to 15 feet, because I don't think that's what the applicant is offering.  It's these two main pads that are going back 10 to 15 feet and I don't know what the plan is for the ones that are further south.  Chair Rumpler: Lot 4?  Asner: We start to \"skinny up\" to this stream buffer, outside buffer here, so we would not be able to do that on these lots.  Asner: I will say that when these come in for Site Plans, they will have to go before this Board and you will have oversight there.  What we have to do here from the developer's seat is put in what is the biggest possible building that this could be.  It's unlikely that we will max out our square footage for these.  It's likely that we will naturally have room there.  I would ask that we maybe craft the amendment to speak to these b", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 50, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-08-17 21:14:14" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1312, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4886, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "LDO Text Amendment: Ordinance 2026-018", "Description": "

Recommendation of Ordinance 2026-018: An Ordinance of the Town of Thompson’s Station, Tennessee to Amend Certain Provisions of the Land Development Ordinance Related to Standards for On-Site Wastewater Systems.<\/p>\n

Staff stated this Amendment is offered to ensure alignment of the LDO with the Town's adopted On-Site Wastewater Policy & Procedure effective September 9, 2025.  The proposed amendments address things such as minimum treatment plant capacity, land dedication, open space set asides, minimum distances from residential lots or structures, bonds, review and approval process, an applicability.<\/p>\n

Town Attorney Mills stated that there have been a few elements in play with this and obviously the Town's wastewater provisions have been changing over the years, and adapting to what we're seeing.  This is codifying most of the policy that was adopted by the Utility Board and the Board of Mayor and Alderman by Resolution.  That does not translate over into Development Standards so we wanted to put this in the LDO, and as Staff stated, due to recent concerns to make sure that the plant is further away from actual dwelling units and various things such as that.  There are going to be a couple of elements that will be discussed further but as this is really a wastewater development standard and since it is going to be in the LDO, you have to see it first, but it will make it's way to the BOMA to ultimately review.  This again takes most of the policy that is already adopted and takes it forward to them.  For example, the minimum was 30,000 gallons per day, and that's being shifted up and that will be up for discussion.  Everything else in the Subsection B that you see in here really is designed to create higher development standards for when there is an on-site system.  The last one I'll point out is that there was a change in State law that went into effect July 1st that allows, it's still being reviewed on exactly how it is going to work, but it allows developers to bypass the Town and go directly to TDEC for on-site systems, and we wanted to make sure that those on-site systems still have to comply with this section, and may not have to get full Town \"buy in\" to what that is, but it at least allows what y'all see in terms of whatever it is, most likely a plat, that it is complying with this.  So this starts off that process and will have two readings and a public hearing at the Board of Mayor & Alderman, so assuming it goes as tracked, it wouldn't go into effect until some time in September.  I'm happy to answer any questions.<\/p>\n

Commissioner Harris: Are we looking for a favorable or unfavorable recommendation?  Town Attorney Mills: That's correct.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Commissioner Harris made a motion to provide a favorable recommendation to BOMA in regards to Ordinance 2026-018; Commissioner Stephenson seconded the motion.  Commissioner Starck asked for clarification that the new State law takes the ability away from the Town to say that we don't want an on-site system.  Town Attorney Mills: Yes, the Town is not involved directly in the process.  They would know what's going on, but the developer goes directly to TDEC to approve the system.  Commissioner Starck: But ultimately we end up owning and maintaining the facility?  Town Attorney Mills: Maybe. It's not a guarantee.  The statute allows the on-site system to be offered to the Town, and if the Town does not accept it, it would be controlled by a third party operator.  Vice-Chair Cagle: How does this amendment change, bypass that law?  Town Attorney Mills: It's not bypassing.  Vice-Chair Cagle: Sorry, bypass is the wrong word; protect the Town from the outcomes of that law?  Town Attorney Mills:  That law can be used, and that's still being vetted on exactly how it's going to be used and whether any changes to it are upcoming.  In this period in which July 1st has hit, it is now law and we are addressing it, and we wanted to make sure that there wasn't a question about whether or not on-site systems that are allowed per this State law fall under this section of the LDO.  It is my opinion that it already did, but I didn't want a debate about it, so let's make sure that we're saying that.  So, the distance from nearest residential lot would apply to any type of on-site system, whether you go through this State law, TDEC, the Utility Board, and the BOMA.  However, whichever direction you take, you are going to be under this section of our Land Development Ordinance because you are developing in the Town.  That was the intent behind it, just to make sure there is no question, and it did add some additional heightened development standards to all on-sites.  Again, this was not only for State law changes, this was for things that have been seen with on-site systems in the past few years within the Town.  What can we do better?  Well, it was adopted by policy and we need it in the LDO if we are going to be able to enforce it for plats.  Commissioner Starck: So this 200 foot minimum is strictly from residential, not commercial or any other zoning?  Town Attorney Mills: Or occupied structure, so it would apply, and that's why we added that caveat.  It's designed, you're not going to typically have on-site systems for a commercial site, but it is for residential lot and\/or occupied structure.  Staff: That would also be community centers or other formal open space amenities,  If it's a pool, that is considered occupiable; a pool house, club house, those are protected as well so you don't have a hot spot for summer right beside any of the facilities for wastewater.  Town Engineer Owen: Commissioner Cagle, the mechanics of that a developer may go to TDEC and get approval for your system, and then they come to you for approval for a plat for a subdivision and it doesn't meet these setbacks, then you would deny the subdivision plat, not the on-site system.  You're not dictated to them that they have to change their system design that TDEC's already approved, which is the State law.  You're dictating to them that the way you have laid out the lots around the system don't meet our LDO so we're not going to approve and you're going to have to change how you have everything laid out.<\/strong><\/p>\n

With no further discussion, Chair Rumpler called for a roll call vote on the motion to make a favorable recommendation to BOMA in regard to Ordinance 2026-018.  The motion was adopted by the following roll call votes: Vice-Chair Cagle, Yes; Commissioner Stephenson, Yes; Chair Rumpler, Yes; Commissioner Alexander, Yes; Commissioner Harris, Yes; Commissioner Starck, Yes.<\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 60, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-08-17 20:22:00" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1313, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4865, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Bond Agenda Items:", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 70, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-30 18:45:08" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1314, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4866, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "BOND ACTION AGENDA:", "Description": "

Staff stated that all bond reduction requests listed in the Bond Action Agenda have been reviewed by Staff and the Town Engineer.  Staff stated that all bonds can be included in one motion and vote, or can be separated.  Staff recommends approval of all bond reduction requests.<\/p>\n

Chair Rumpler called for a motion to approve all bond reduction requests; Commissioner Harris made a motion to approve the Town's recommendations to reduce all bonds listed in the Bond Action Agenda; Commissioner Starck seconded the motion.  The motion was adopted with the following roll call votes: Commissioner Harris, Yes; Commissioner Alexander, Yes; Commissioner Starck, Yes; Vice-Chair Cagle, Yes; Chair Rumpler, Yes; Commissioner Stephenson, Yes.<\/strong><\/p>", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 80, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-08-17 20:27:26" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1315, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4867, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3A, RDEC, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 90, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-30 18:45:14" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1316, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4868, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3A, Sewer, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 100, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-30 18:45:14" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1317, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4869, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3B, RDEC, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 110, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-30 18:45:15" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1318, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4870, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3B, Sewer, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 120, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-30 18:45:19" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1319, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4871, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3C, RDEC, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 130, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-30 18:45:20" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1320, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4872, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Tollgate Town Center, Section 3C, Sewer, Performance Bond Reduction", "Description": "", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 140, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-07-30 18:45:21" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1321, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 2, "ContainerID": 4857, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "Adjourn:", "Description": "

Commissioner Harris made a motion to adjourn the meeting; Commissioner Stephenson seconded the motion; the motion was adopted by all present and the meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m.<\/strong><\/p>", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 150, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-08-17 20:28:08" }, { "Attachments": [], "CustomerMinuteID": 1514, "LegislativeItemID": "", "CustomerEventID": 381, "ContainerTypeID": 1, "ContainerID": 0, "JurisdictionUUID": "", "Title": "", "Description": "

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

________________________                                           ___________________________<\/p>\n

    Tara Rumpler, Chair                                                            Micah Sullivan, Secretary<\/p>", "OrderParentID": 0, "OrderOrdinal": 160, "StatusMask": 0, "ExternalID": "", "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-08-17 21:50:28" } ], "Attachments": [ { "CustomerMediaID": 5096, "CopyOfCustomerMediaID": 0, "CustomerEventID": 381, "MediaClassID": 3, "MediaTargetID": 0, "MediaTypeID": 1, "MediaFeatureMask": 0, "MediaFileName": "19ffdf9b5f6a4e2cd83b9f309f777d270de10de4.pdf", "MediaFileLocation": "2026-09", "MediaNickName": "July 2026 PC Meeting Minutes - EXECUTED.pdf", "OrderOrdinal": 0, "LastModifyDateTimeUTC": "2026-09-23 19:18:06", "SizeBytes": 13680542, "LengthSeconds": -1, "MediaInfo": "" } ] }, "MediaInfo": { "MediaType": "VOD", "MediaID": 4576, "MediaPath": "\/2026-07\/b29db84e470c6a198238c95fde18d67eb9ba1dda.mp4", "VOD2": "\/VOD\/event\/ThompsonsStationTN\/381\/1790191086000\/5_z0mhokmH9mX49SnUUhGg\/master.m3u8", "Captions": [], "AudioDescriptions": [] }, "ServicesAndMachineInfo": { "4": { "CustomerServiceID": 1, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN OD", "ServicePlaybackMask": 0, "ServiceTypeID": 4, "URLBase": "rtmp:\/\/144.168.37.20\/ThompsonsStationTNOD\/_definst_", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%?PLAY" }, "256": { "CustomerServiceID": 1, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN OD", "ServicePlaybackMask": 0, "ServiceTypeID": 256, "URLBase": "https:\/\/securestream7.champds.com\/ThompsonsStationTNOD\/_definst_", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%\/medialist.smil?PLAY" }, "0": [ { "CustomerServiceID": 1, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN OD", "ServicePlaybackMask": 0, "ServiceTypeID": 0, "URLBase": "https:\/\/securestream7.champds.com\/ThompsonsStationTNOD\/_definst_", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%\/playlist.m3u8?PLAY" }, { "CustomerServiceID": 2, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN ATT", "ServicePlaybackMask": 0, "ServiceTypeID": 0, "URLBase": "https:\/\/securestream7.champds.com\/ThompsonsStationTNATT\/_definst_", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%\/playlist.m3u8?PLAY" }, { "CustomerServiceID": 3, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN WEBMEDIA", "ServicePlaybackMask": 0, "ServiceTypeID": 0, "URLBase": "https:\/\/securestream7.champds.com\/ThompsonsStationTNWEBMEDIA\/_definst_", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%\/playlist.m3u8?PLAY" }, { "CustomerServiceID": 4, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN DLOD", "ServicePlaybackMask": 0, "ServiceTypeID": 0, "URLBase": "https:\/\/securestream7.champds.com\/ThompsonsStationTNDOWNLOADOD\/_definst_", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%\/playlist.m3u8?PLAY" }, { "CustomerServiceID": 5, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN LIVE", "ServicePlaybackMask": 14, "ServiceTypeID": 0, "URLBase": "https:\/\/securestream7.champds.com\/ThompsonsStationTNLIVE\/_definst_", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%\/playlist.m3u8?PLAY" } ], "8": { "CustomerServiceID": 1, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN OD", "ServicePlaybackMask": 0, "ServiceTypeID": 8, "URLBase": "https:\/\/securestream10.champds.com", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%" }, "16": { "CustomerServiceID": 2, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN ATT", "ServicePlaybackMask": 0, "ServiceTypeID": 16, "URLBase": "https:\/\/http:\/\/qcplayapi.champds.com\/webmedia\/att\/ThompsonsStationTNATT", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%" }, "32": { "CustomerServiceID": 3, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN WEBMEDIA", "ServicePlaybackMask": 0, "ServiceTypeID": 32, "URLBase": "http:\/\/http:\/\/qcplayapi.champds.com\/ThompsonsStationTNWEBMEDIA", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%?PLAY" }, "512": { "CustomerServiceID": 4, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN DLOD", "ServicePlaybackMask": 0, "ServiceTypeID": 512, "URLBase": "https:\/\/securestream2.champds.com\/DOWNLOAD\/%CUSTOMER_ACCESS_ID%", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%?PLAY" }, "1": { "CustomerServiceID": 5, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN LIVE", "ServicePlaybackMask": 14, "ServiceTypeID": 1, "URLBase": "rtmp:\/\/144.168.37.20\/ThompsonsStationTNLIVE\/_definst_", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%?PLAY" }, "2": { "CustomerServiceID": 5, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN LIVE", "ServicePlaybackMask": 14, "ServiceTypeID": 2, "URLBase": "http:\/\/144.168.37.20\/ThompsonsStationTNLIVE\/_definst_", "URLFilename": "%MEDIA_PATH%\/playlist.m3u8?PLAY" }, "64": { "CustomerServiceID": 5, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN LIVE", "ServicePlaybackMask": 14, "ServiceTypeID": 64, "URLBase": "http:\/\/144.168.37.20\/ThompsonsStationTNLIVE\/_definst_", "URLFilename": "amlst:streams.smil\/medialist.smil?PLAY" }, "128": { "CustomerServiceID": 5, "ServiceNickName": "ThompsonsStationTN LIVE", "ServicePlaybackMask": 14, "ServiceTypeID": 128, "URLBase": "https:\/\/securestream9.champds.com\/LIVE\/ThompsonsStationTNLIVE", "URLFilename": "%CUSTOMER_SERVICE_NAME%.m3u8?PLAY&v=new" } } }