BZA approves 80‑foot front setback and a limited non‑parallel façade for planned recreation center at 880 Oak Meadow Drive

The Franklin Board of Zoning Appeals voted Nov. 6 to approve two related variances for a proposed commercial recreation facility at 880 Oak Meadow Drive.

Planning staff told the board the 13.3‑acre site in the RC‑6 district has steep slopes, overhead power easements (Middle Tennessee Electric) that extend up to 50 feet into the property, and other constraints that make strict compliance with the updated form‑based code impractical. Staff recommended approval of a variance to allow a maximum front yard setback of 80 feet from Riverside Drive (the RC‑6 maximum is 30 feet) and recommended denial of a separate request to allow the building's front facade to be oriented non‑parallel to the frontage.

Applicant Scotty Bernick, a landscape architect with Reagan Smith, explained that the change to the zoning code (moving to a form‑based approach) created tighter frontage expectations that the property cannot meet without a variance because of the existing easement and steep topography. He said the project team coordinated with the fire department on access and that stormwater requirements and public utilities further constrain building placement. Bernick asked for a limited non‑parallel allowance (no greater than 5 degrees) to keep the building as close to the right of way as possible while accommodating the easement and topography.

After discussion, the board first voted to approve the 80‑foot front setback variance. Board member Scales moved that approval, and Board member Smith seconded; the motion passed on roll call. The board then considered the non‑parallel façade request, with the applicant proposing a maximum 5‑degree skew. The board voted to approve that limited non‑parallel variance as well, with members citing the site's unusual topography, the presence of the utility easement and the limited visual impact on a high‑speed corridor adjacent to I‑65.

Staff noted the building as shown will be largely unseen from the roadway and that the design attempts to meet the intent of the code (activating frontage and avoiding parking‑dominated views) while accommodating unavoidable site constraints. Both approvals were unanimous by roll call.