Agenda Number: HDC 16-39
Meeting Date: August 25, 2016
REPORT TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 208 Washington St. – Request a Certificate of
Appropriateness for Fencing
1.
EXHIBITS
Cover Letter & Description of Materials
(8/9/16)
Site Plan (8/9/16)
Image of Existing Fence on Property
Image with Proposed Design (8/9/16)
Images of Subject Property (8/9/16)
INTRODUCTION:
Property owner Scott Tucker is
requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (CofA) 2.
for an ornamental metal fence matching the existing fence 3.
located above a retaining wall towards the southeast corner of 4.
the property (see Exhibit 2). The property is located on the 5.
northwest corner of Washington Street and Mount Pleasant
Road within the local Historic Overlay in the Natchez Place
Subdivision.
It is zoned TN: Traditional Neighborhood and is adjacent to a single
family residential dwelling zoned GC: General Commercial to the
south, a single-family dwelling under construction zoned TN to the
north and a recently-built single-family dwelling to the west that are
also part of the Natchez Place Subdivision, and vacant land zoned R-1
to the east.
The home, on a corner lot, is oriented towards Washington Street with
a secondary front yard facing Mt. Pleasant Road. The fence will be
located in the secondary front yard facing Mt. Pleasant Road.
The home on the property was approved by the HDC on October 15,
2015, and just recently constructed. It is not eligible for the National
Register at this time.
KEY QUESTIONS: The Historic District Commission (HDC) may find the following questions helpful in
determining whether the proposed fence is consistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines.
1. Since the front yard fence is over 42 inches tall, is the proposed fencing appropriate? Yes. The
applicant is seeking approval to extend the existing ornamental metal fence above the retaining wall further
north to provide an enclosed area to the east side of the house, along the property’s Mt. Pleasant Road
frontage. The proposed fence would match the existing fence in materials, height, and design. The
ornamental metal “pickets” would be 42 inches tall, but the finials attached to the pickets would add an
additional 2.5 inches in height for an overall height of 44.5 inches. The applicant is estimating the overall
height to be 48 inches from top of fence to grade. The recently amended Fence Ordinance calls for fence
heights to measured using the body of the fence (44.5 inches in this case) and allows up to six (6) inches of
ground clearance at the bottom of the fence to not be included in the height calculation for drainage purposes
(Section 151.006 (C)(3)(a)). The Historic District Guidelines call for front yard fence heights no greater than
42 inches (3.5 ft.):
1
“The height of the fence or wall should not exceed the average height of other fences and
walls of surrounding properties and in no case shall exceed 3.5 feet in the front or 6 feet
in the side and rear. Front yard fences should generally be avoided.” (II.B.7.e)
As a matter of policy, the Town has allowed decorative features (primarily posts or columns) to exceed the
fence height restriction provided the design is proportional (this applies both inside and outside the Historic
District). The existing fence on the subject property with matching dimensions (Exhibit 3) was approved by
the HDC in October 2015. Prior to that, a mix of 42 inch-tall picket and 72-inch privacy fencing was
approved for the Stratton House Bed & Breakfast at the northwest corner of Mt. Pleasant Road and Natchez
Street. Similar to the subject property, the Stratton House’s “side street” is Mt. Pleasant Road. Both the
picket and privacy fences are located in the secondary front yard of the Stratton House property (between the
house and Mt. Pleasant Road). The fence ordinance also requires fences to not make abrupt transitions in
height. By providing a fence that is 44.5 inches tall (and not 42 inches), the new fence will match the
existing fence atop a retaining wall. Given that the Design Guidelines are flexible, the HDC has the
discretion to grant the slightly taller fence height in a front yard.
2. Does the proposed fence meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements for fencing? Yes. The proposed
44.5-inch fence will feature an ornamental design (see Exhibit 4). The Zoning Ordinance allows for nonopaque front-yard fences up to 48 inches (4 feet) in height. All materials being used, height, and location are
acceptable per the Zoning Ordinance.
DISCUSSION: The proposed location of the fence (see Exhibit 2) is within the secondary front yard of the
existing home for the subject property. The proposed fence will match the existing fence at the southeast corner
of the property.
Design Details (see Table 1): The Historic District Design Guidelines (Chapter II, Section B.7.) note that “there
is a great variety of fences and low retaining walls in the district, particularly in some of the residential
areas…most rear yards and some side yards have some combination of fencing, low retaining walls or
landscaped screening low retaining walls or landscaped screening, but the use of such features in the front yard,
especially fencing, varies.” The Guidelines recommend “matching old fencing in material, height, and detail. If
this is not possible, use a simplified design of similar materials and height.” The Guidelines also state that
“(f)ront yard fences should generally be avoided” (II.B.7.e).
The applicant is seeking approval to
extend the existing ornamental
metal fence above the retaining wall
approximately 39 feet further north
(to the north of the side porch,
where the brick siding transitions to
lap siding) to provide an enclosed
area to the east side of the house,
along the property’s Mt. Pleasant
Road frontage. At the north end of
the wrap-around porch, a small
segment of ornamental fencing would
the south end.
Table 1: Fence Specifications
Address
Subdivision /Lot
Fence Height
Location
Fence Type
Materials
Color
Location of rails
Associated
Landscaping
208 Washington St.
Natchez Place, Lot #7
44.5” (approximately 48” from grade to top of fence)
Secondary Front Yard
Ornamental
Metal
Black
On-center
Existing. No additional landscaping is proposed.
run between the existing fence and the house to provide an enclosure on
The proposed fencing would provide sufficient clearance from the bottom of the fence to the ground so drainage
will flow freely and not negatively impact any adjacent properties.
2
EXAMPLE MOTION: To approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fencing (Exhibits 2 and
4) on 208 Washington Street subject to the following conditions:
1. Any deviations from the approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall require the approval of the HDC
and/or staff prior to beginning work.
2. A fence permit, with exhibits consistent with the HDC’s Certificate of Appropriates, must be obtained
before construction of the fencing begins.
3. The proposed fence’s horizontal rails shall align with the existing fence’s rails to the maximum extent
possible; however, at no point shall the fence height exceed 48 inches as defined by Section 151.006
(C)(3)(a) of the Town Code.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Owner/ Applicant
Phone:
208 Washington St.
Collierville, TN 38017
848-0560
Project Planner
Sean Isham, AICP (Primary)
Jaime Groce, AICP
Planning Division
500 Poplar View Parkway
Collierville, TN 38017
457-2360
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Contact:
Scott Tucker
Organization:
Address:
3