DATE: February 19, 2020
TO: Franklin Municipal Planning Commission
FROM: Amy Diaz-Barriga, Current Planning Supervisor
Emily Hunter, Director of Planning and Sustainability
Subject
title
Consideration Of Resolution 2020-07: A Resolution Amending The Aspen Grove PUD Subdivision, Section O, Lot 4, Site Plan To Extend The Vested Rights, For The Property Located At The Intersection Of Cool Springs Boulevard And Windcross Court.
body
Project Information
Applicant: Steve Akers, Integrous Architecture, LLC
Owner: P&K, LLC, rep: Eric Powers
Background/Staff Comments
The applicant is requesting an extension the vesting period for the site plan associated with the Aspen Grove PUD Subdivision, Section O, Lot 4. The Site Plan is not a part of a development plan, and was originally approved on the March 2017 Administrative Agenda. In terms of vesting, the site plan is considered the preliminary development document, as it was not associated with an overall development plan. Therefore, it has been vested for three years, or until March 2020. In order to retain it’s vesting, the development must also record a final plat and commence site preparation and construction.
The applicant has not yet recorded a final plat, nor begun site preparation, and therefore is requesting an extension of three years to complete these two outstanding requirements. They are not requesting an extension to their overall 10-year vesting period. The project will still maintain a maximum vesting period of 10 years from its original approval date.
This site is particularly challenging due to the access easement required across this property, extending to the west. This site plan identified the appropriate location for the cross-access easement, as agreed upon by both the property owner and the adjacent property owner. Maintaining this agreed upon location is considered important to staff to ensure that cross connectivity to the traffic light at Windcross Court can be maintained for the properties on the north side of Cool Springs Boulevard.
Under the Zoning Ordinance in which this site plan is vested under, the request for site plan extension for this type of vested plan (a site plan approved after 1/1/2015 that is not associated with a PUD) falls to the Planning Commission for review and approval, not the Board of Mayor and Alderman.
Project Considerations
Project Considerations are not conditions of this approval, but are intended to highlight issues that should be considered in the overall site design or may be required when more detailed plans are submitted for review. These items are not meant to be exhaustive and all City requirements and ordinances must be met with each plan submittal.
The site plan can generally meet the requirements of the current Zoning Ordinance, though it cannot meet all of the requirements. The small amount of parking in front of the building today would need to be parallel spaces along the drive aisle. The amount of glazing would have to be analyzed to determine whether it meets the minimums and maximums of the Commercial/Mixed-Use Building Type.
Recommendation
recommendation
Approval.
end