Historic Zoning Commission
Regular MeetingMurfreesboro, TN · December 17, 2019
Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes of the
Historic Zoning Commission
December 17, 2019
MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT:
Jim Thompson Jennifer Garland
Gib Backlund Linda Anderson
David Becker Deborah Belcher
Bill Jakes
Marimae White
STAFF PRESENT:
Amelia Kerr, Planner
Matthew Blomeley, Acting Planning Director
Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant
Katie Drive, Staff Attorney
Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
Mr. Becker made a motion to approve the November 19, 2019 minutes. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Jakes and carried unanimously in favor.
Chairman Thompson announced Ms. Anderson and Ms. Belcher are not present today due to
illness and sent well wishes to both for a speedy recovery.
New Business:
H-19-015 – 2255 Middle Tennessee Boulevard, Fletcher Holland – Requesting final review
for construction of a new two-story detached garage with a guest house and additional fencing on
property located at 2255 Middle Tennessee Boulevard.
Ms. Kerr reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the HZC agenda
package. She also showed elevations of the property. Both the applicant and homeowner were
present.
Mr. Becker asked the make-up of the never-rot material.
Mr. Holland said the never-rot is a composite material made to withstand years and years of
weather versus a typical painted wood window.
HZC Minutes
December 17, 2019
Mr. Becker asked what the composite is made of.
Mr. Holland said it is a composite of PVC and glues similar to trek board type material wood-
style system made to look like wood.
Mr. Becker asked the purpose of the fence in the front yard.
Mr. Jeff Davis, the homeowner, said it is added security because they get a lot of foot traffic. He
said his neighbor recently nailed a “No Trespassing” sign to a tree in her front yard. He said they
live on campus and their steps seem to be convenient seats.
Mr. Jakes verified the front fence has an iron look.
Mr. Davis said the fence will be the same as located across the courtyard. He said the fence
would be at the top of their second step which is the walkway leading up to the front door. Mr.
Davis said their will be a 4-foot strip between the fence and the sidewalk where they plan to do
some type of low-maintenance landscaping.
Chairman Thompson said two additional fence sections are proposed to be added to the garage.
The agenda packet shows two types of fence, one has spikes or arrowheads on top and the other
does not. He asked what the fence will look like.
Mr. Holland said the proposed fencing will match the back half with a solid bar across the top.
Chairman Thompson verified this fence will be painted black aluminum.
Mr. Holland said yes.
Mr. Davis said this fence will also match his neighbor’s fence in the back as well.
Chairman Thompson complimented the design of the building and particularly liked the front.
He thanked Mr. Davis for changing the Chip n Dale stating the proposal today is a much more
complementary design to the structure and the existing house. Chairman Thompson said the
Commission can only review the elevations they can see from the right-of-way. He said, as you
look at the plan, the site toward the tree is pretty much hidden and if you try to get into the
garage, it will be completely windowless. Chairman Thompson suggested between the two
doors that come from the porch, they might put a window to the left. He feels it would be a
benefit to have light going into the garage.
Chairman Thompson noticed the first door is fiberglass and we don’t normally allow fiberglass
in the Historic District. He mentioned the windows that were brought up before are PVC, so
those are plastic, in common terms. We typically only do wood windows. He said we have done
2
HZC Minutes
December 17, 2019
metal-clad on a detached garage once before but typically it is wood. Chairman Thompson said
the windows that we cannot see, we can’t review. He worries about the fatigue of the windows
over time. He did not know about PVC performance but knows that vinyl tends to droop over
fiberglass. Chairman Thompson said the fiber-cement board has also been approved in the
Historic District.
Chairman Thompson asked if the shingles on the new garage will match the existing shingles on
the house.
Mr. Holland said yes, as close as possible.
Chairman Thompson asked if all the new fencing would be 5-feet in height.
Mr. Holland said yes.
Chairman Thompson asked where the spiked fencing will be placed.
Mr. Holland said the front yard.
Chairman Thompson asked for the Commission’s thoughts and possible motion on the garage,
separate from the front yard fence.
Mr. Becker said he had Fiber-X composite-type windows approved at his prior house located on
Main Street. He wanted to remind the Commission that approval has been given for some
composite-type materials other than wood.
Chairman Thompson said the Fiber-X composite-type material was ground up PVC and wood,
so it had a large content of wood. He said it wasn’t just plastic but contained a large quantity of
wood and that is why it was approved. The cut-sheet for this application shows the window
itself is all PVC except the wood material back-up in the jam so a very small percentage is wood.
Chairman Thompson said the Commission allowed a metal-clad wood window at a house on
Main Street.
Mr. Holland said they will research windows and pull the Fiber-X and Bella with Anderson’s.
Mr. Becker said they used Pella wood windows in the house and Fiber-X in the enclosed porch
area.
Mr. Jakes asked if the windows in question were located on the front eastern elevation that faces
the road.
3
HZC Minutes
December 17, 2019
Chairman Thompson said yes, stating those are the windows that can be seen from the right-of-
way, so the Commission can review and comment. The other windows cannot be seen from the
right-of-way.
Mr. Jakes said, other than the window material selection, the elevations look great and he
complimented the house. He thinks it will be a great addition.
Chairman Thompson asked if there were any concerns over the fiberglass door. He said it is set-
back on the eastern elevation so it may not be visible from the right-of-way.
Mr. Holland said they will make the door the same as the windows for the front elevation.
Chairman Thompson said if a wood door is installed, it wouldn’t be affected by the elements
since it will be covered.
Mr. Jakes made a motion to approve the final review for the construction of a new two-
story detached garage with the proposed fencing connecting to the garage with exception to
the windows and doors on the front elevation. Staff was authorized to approve the
windows and doors when an acceptable wood-type material is determined. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Becker and carried unanimously in favor.
Chairman Thompson referred to the fence along the front of the property. He verified there was
a previous meeting on the fence in the front yard, but no decision was made. The applicants
were asked to bring back more information at the appropriate time.
Mr. Davis said the previous meeting on the front yard fence was two years ago.
Mr. Jakes asked why the applicants were requesting a 5-foot fence in the front yard.
Mr. Davis said they are not planning to remove the 5-foot fence located in front of the courtyard
and he can’t visualize going from a 5-foot fence to a 4-foot fence. He said they have dogs and
the fence would act as an added barrier. Mr. Davis referred to another property on East Main
Street in the Historic District that looks good. He doesn’t think it looks inappropriate, adding it
is wrought-iron and original.
Chairman Thompson said it is the style of the house and it has always been there that makes it
look appropriate. He wasn’t sure if the fence was built the same time as the house.
Mr. Davis also referred to another location on the corner of Maney and Lytle that has a fence in
their front yard, even though it is not in the Historic District. He likes the look.
4
HZC Minutes
December 17, 2019
Mr. Jakes said the elevation from the street is lower and the applicant’s yard rises. He would
hate for the 5-foot fence to obscure the view of the applicant’s beautiful house. He understands
about wanting to step it down, but it will probably add the same amount of security.
Chairman Thompson asked if the fence is to serve as a deterrent for people to not walk through
his yard rather than a safety or security factor.
Mr. Davis said he likes the fact that every now and then some of the foot traffic ceases with his
dogs out front. He agreed the fence would be more of a deterrent.
Chairman Thompson said Mr. Davis is not proposing a set of gates across the driveway to secure
the back yard. He said people could still walk into the back yard and then they are captured by
the fence being all the way around.
Mr. Davis said the fence between their property and the university has landscape gaps. He said it
is a 10-foot shadowbox wood fence. He said gates would not serve a purpose for them and be a
lot of trouble.
Ms. White said Middle Tennessee Boulevard is such a busy street. She can see why the fence is
needed as the Davis’ have dogs that are part of their security as well. She indicated a 5-foot
fence might be tall enough to keep the dogs from getting out into traffic.
Mr. Becker asked for clarification on where the fence would be installed.
Mr. Davis said there are two steps that go up to the walkway that goes to the front door. He said
they are proposing the place the fence at the top of the second step where the walkway to the
front door levels out. He said it will leave about a 4-foot knoll and they have been having
trouble getting grass to grow there anyway.
Chairman Thompson referred to a light on a post asking if the fence would be located close to
that.
Mr. Davis said yes, that is the location of where the fence will be located.
Chairman Thompson asked if the fence would be behind the pole or in front of the light pole.
Mr. Davis said the light pole will probably be taken down.
Chairman Thompson said the light pole just lets the Commission know where 20-feet setback is.
He asked if the 20-feet was from the curb or the back side of the sidewalk.
5
HZC Minutes
December 17, 2019
Mr. Davis said the ordinance calls for the fence to be 20-feet from the curb and the top of the
noll is 20-feet. He also reminded the Commission their driveway is right-in and right-out and
they can’t turn left because of the median.
Chairman Thompson said if you have a gate in that fence at the top step of the sidewalk, a
landing will be needed that allows you to get out the gate and not trip going down the steps. If
you are standing on the steps to open the gate, that is a safety issue. He said if you put this fence
up and add landscaping in front of it hoping it will grow into the fence creating a vegetation look
partition, you won’t be able to see safely to get out of the driveway.
Mr. Davis reminded Chairman Thompson they are right-in and right-out of the driveway, so they
won’t be looking left. He asked Staff if that wasn’t the purpose of the sight-distance triangle and
the required 20-foot setback for the fence.
Mr. Blomeley said the Landscape Ordinance has a sight-distance triangle requirement and we
apply it to fences stating it is 20 feet off the edge of the travel lane. He considered the bike lane
to be a part of the travel lane.
Mr. Davis said that would put the fence back 22-23 feet back if the bike lane were included.
Chairman Thompson recommended setting the gates back to allow a landing at the top of the
uppermost step.
Mr. Davis agreed that was a good idea.
Mr. Backlund said looking back at the minutes from the previous meeting, it references the HZC
Guidelines and it says fences are generally not present in the District but may be added if similar
material to other fences and structures in the vicinity and if they are constructed to not disrupt the
visual harmony. He said, as far as he knows, there are only two lots in the District that have
fences in the front yards, one being the one mentioned which was grandfathered and the other
one is also on Main Street and it is about a 3-foot high fence. Aside from those fences, he didn’t
know of any other.
Ms. White said there is a front fence on the Weatherford’s property adding it is very high and
does not obstruct anything.
Mr. Davis also pointed out two picket fences located on Lytle Street.
Mr. Jakes said the Critchler house has an iron fence.
Mr. Backlund verified the Critchler house was located on Lytle Street.
6
HZC Minutes
December 17, 2019
Mr. Jakes said yes.
Mr. Backlund asked if the Critchler house is located in the District.
Mr. Jakes said it is located across the street from the District.
Mr. Backlund said most of Lytle Street is not in the Historic District.
Ms. White said the Weatherford’s house is a good example of it not disrupting the view.
Chairman Thompson mentioned it does not have any landscaping around it.
Ms. White said no, adding she can see not putting landscaping in front of the applicant’s fence
because it might get messy. She said going by the property as fast as people go and walking it is
not going to impede the impression of their home.
Chairman Thompson said the Commission is a little sensitive to approving the fence in the front
yard because of the precedent it would set.
Mr. Davis asked if the Commission’s reluctance is visual.
Chairman Thompson said it is common now for people to create a secure compound by putting
fences all over the back yards and side yards and now front. The houses were probably built
with hardly any fences before and now we are getting to fence everything. He said the concern
is the visual effect to the neighborhood.
Mr. Davis said he feels it would be safe for the Commission to set this precedent as he is the only
house in the Historic District joined on two sides by M.T.S.U. He said to keep in mind they are
located on a 25,000-student campus.
Ms. White asked how often it comes up to place a fence in the front yard of the Historic District.
She said it hasn’t come up within the past two years, since Mr. Davis came before the
Commission previously regarding this issue.
Chairman Thompson agreed but said the other people on East Main Street might start putting up
fences. He said when you start setting precedents like plastic windows, the Commission has
always been dead set against it, and this is just another thing. He said they must be very careful
with approvals because it opens the door for anybody.
Mr. Backlund said his interpretation of the phrase “visual harmony” is that it harmonizes with
the neighboring properties so that a fence and no fence do not harmonize. He thinks of a fence
as being something different from its neighbor. He was also hesitant to agree with the fence
7
HZC Minutes
December 17, 2019
because of precedence as well. He said landscaping can provide an excellent barrier both
visually and psychologically.
Chairman Thompson said landscaping just won’t keep the dogs in the yard.
Ms. White said another thing to think about is the Commission does not have jurisdiction over
landscaping. She said they could go back 20 feet and block it off with huge plants like
hydrangeas or magnolias affecting the visual effect of the house.
Mr. Backlund said a fence is more permanent.
Ms. White feels a fence is less obstructive than so many other things that you could put there if
you just wanted to keep people out. She said their house is so pretty they don’t want to hide it
and they are going to a lot of expense for the additions so they can stay there to enjoy it with
their extended families.
Mr. Davis said he would like the Commission to consider the fence adding he understands the
precedence but as he said they are the only house in the Historic District that is adjoined on two
sides by M.T.S.U.
Ms. White said look at the building M.T.S.U. put up shown in the picture with the Davis house,
referring to the staircase. She said what the Davis’ are doing is perfectly tasteful.
Ms. White made a motion to approve the 5-foot fence as shown in the application.
Mr. Becker asked if we are going to add that it is back far enough to have a landing.
Ms. White added the fence must be placed far enough off the street to have a landing.
Mr. Davis said the fence will be L-shaped, 3-feet in and have a recessed the gate back from the
top step. He said that would make a landing as he doesn’t want to move the whole fence back.
He wants to take full advantage of the 20-foot setback.
Chairman Thompson said when you dog-leg it back toward the house, and say the sidewalk is 3-
feet, are you going to make the dog-leg 3-feet wide just for the gate or would you make it 5-feet
wide to have some landscaping there? He thinks tight to the fence is going to feel awkward
when you walk thru that dog-leg. He has also seen where they angle it.
Mr. Davis said he has seen the angling a lot and will probably do that on the neighbor’s corner to
make sure she has full view to the left. He said if they build at the top of the knoll, less the 20-
feet required, that won’t be necessary.
8
HZC Minutes
December 17, 2019
Mr. Blomeley suggested that any motion, considering Middle Tennessee Boulevard is a street
that carries a lot of traffic and sometimes it goes faster than it should, be conditioned on the
fence location be subject to the review and approval of our Engineering and Transportation
Departments just to make sure that the sight-distance lines are adequately provided.
Chairman Thompson requested a final review by this Commission for any changes because you
are now talking about a 45-degree angle and a dog-leg. He thinks what they are hearing is that
we have a motion to approve a fence and he is suggesting that the final details of it come before
the Commission and through Ms. Kerr e-mailing it to all the Commission Members to sign-off
that yes, they are fine with it.
Mr. Davis said he would rather not have the dog-leg but he was addressing the Commission’s
concerns about the landing and the safety of it.
Chairman Thompson said he understands Mr. Davis wants to keep the fence as close to the road
as possible but you have got to have a landing there by Code, like a door and a stair.
Ms. White asked if the landing is required to be 3-feet.
Chairman Thompson said interior is 3-feet. He suggested Mr. Davis do 3-5 feet but wouldn’t
suggest you make that fence close to the sidewalk because it will feel really tight.
Mr. Blomeley suggested putting Mr. Davis in contact with our Codes Department to make sure
the adequate landing is provided before we send it by e-mail to the Commission Members.
Chairman Thompson agreed and said this can be handled very quickly.
Ms. White asked if her motion still stands.
Chairman Thompson said yes with the proposed revisions.
Ms. Kerr said Mr. Davis talked about possibly doing a 45-degree angle at the neighbors’ asking
if he is going to put that into the drawing.
Mr. Davis said he was addressing a concern that Mr. Blomeley had about Engineering review
and said if the neighbors wanted more than the 20-feet, which is Code, then they would angle it.
Mr. Blomeley said he doesn’t know if the neighbors would want more but considering the
location to make sure that they are on-board with the location.
9
HZC Minutes
December 17, 2019
Chairman Thompson said it could be a very quick sketch on a site plan to show what you want to
the neighbors and they will approve it or make other suggestions. Once it is finalized, you can
take it to Ms. Kerr to pass along to the Commission members for approval.
Ms. White amended her motion to approve a 5-foot black wrought-iron fence in the front
yard with the following conditions:
1) The fence location be subject to the review and approval of the Engineering and
Transportation Departments for traffic sight distance.
2) The Codes Department verifies that an adequate landing is provided at the gate
area.
3) Final sketch drawing is provided to Ms. Kerr to send out to the Commission
Members for approval.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Becker and carried in favor by a vote of 4-1 (Mr.
Backlund voted no).
Staff Reports and Other Business
None
Mr. Becker made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jakes and carried
unanimously in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
CHAIRMAN SECRETARY
10
Agenda
CITY OF MURFREESBORO
HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting December 17, 2019
3:30 PM, Council Chambers, City Hall
I. Call to Order and determination of a quorum
II. Approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting on November 19, 2019
III. New Business
a. 19-H-015 2255 Middle Tennessee Boulevard, Fletcher Holland-
Requesting final review for construction of a new two-story detached garage
with a guest house and additional fencing on property located at 2255 Middle
Tennessee Boulevard.
IV. Staff Reports and other Business
V. Adjourn
Regular Meeting Minutes of the
Historic Zoning Commission
November 19, 2019
MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT:
Jim Thompson Jennifer Garland
Linda Anderson Rick Cantrell
David Becker Gib Backlund
Bill Jakes
Marimae White
Deborah Belcher
STAFF PRESENT:
Amelia Kerr, Planner
Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant
David Ives, Assistant City Attorney
Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
Mr. Becker made a motion to approve the October 15, 2019 minutes. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Anderson and carried unanimously in favor.
New Business:
H-19-014 – 2255 Middle Tennessee Boulevard, Fletcher Holland requested initial review
for construction of a new two-story detached garage.
Ms. Kerr reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the HZC agenda
package. She also showed pictures of the proposed structures and surrounding area. Both the
applicant and homeowner were present.
Mr. Fletcher Holland, the applicant for 2255 Middle Tennessee Boulevard and Mr. Jeff Davis,
the homeowner for 2255 Middle Tennessee Boulevard came to the podium to answer questions.
Ms. Anderson asked if the height of the proposed garage structure would be in range with the
existing house.
Mr. Holland said yes, adding the garage will be 1 ½ stories pointing out the second level will be
comparable to the roofline of the existing house.
HZC Minutes
November 19, 2019
Chairman Thompson asked if the second level of the garage would be any taller than the existing
house.
Mr. Holland said he did not have the exact measurements since the plans are still in the concept
phase but will compare within the next week or so.
Mr. Becker asked what the area was to the left of the garage that jetted out.
Mr. Holland said that is a stoop, opening to a door that enters the space. He said it is “air space”
to a door that sets back into the structure.
Mr. Becker asked if it would be open all the way to the back of the garage.
Mr. Holland said no, it goes back about 5 ½ feet to a door that enters the garage.
Chairman Thompson asked when you enter that stoop is the door to the right or in front of you.
Mr. Holland said the door is directly in front of you.
Chairman Thompson asked to see the elevation of the door in the final plans.
Mr. Holland agreed.
Ms. Anderson noticed two windows shown in the elevation on the main floor. She pointed out
an area and asked if those were the garage doors.
Chairman Thompson said that is the recess for the entry door, the man door and garage doors.
Mr. Holland agreed.
Chairman Thompson verified the garage doors have glass above them.
Mr. Holland said yes.
Chairman Thompson asked if the doors were solid or sections that go up.
Mr. Holland said these are currently solid doors, but they anticipate section doors as the plans
develop.
Ms. Anderson complimented the garage doors.
Mr. Jakes asked if the roof pitch is about the same as the house.
2
HZC Minutes
November 19, 2019
Mr. Holland said yes adding it is a 14 over 12 which is common to the house.
Chairman Thompson asked if asphalt shingles to match the house would be used on the roof of
the garage.
Mr. Holland said yes.
Chairman Thompson asked if the gable end would be stucco or faux stucco.
Mr. Fletcher said they are anticipating a hardy-type cement fiber board stack frame material.
Chairman Thompson said the design looks great but was concerned with the Chinese chip n dale
railing on the porch to the left shown on this elevation. He said it is highly unusual to see
Chinese chip n dale on a Tutor-style house. He said the lights look good, the shed dormer looks
great and he was very pleased with this concept plan.
Mr. Jakes asked what type of material they planned to use on the garage doors.
Mr. Fletcher said they haven’t made a final decision but looking at a wood composite material or
something of that higher quality nature.
Chairman Thompson asked about the brick.
Mr. Fletcher said the brick will match as close as they can get.
Chairman Thompson said even though the HZC does not have to review this, he asked if the
second floor would be habitable space.
Mr. Fletcher said it will be a guest home so it will have two bedrooms, a break-out space and a
bathroom.
Chairman Thompson said this site plan shows only part of the house. He said the Commission
will need to see a site plan of the full house. They need to see where the fences are now and
where they will be moved to. Also, the site plan needs to show any modifications to the
driveway or pad where you back out or turn around. Chairman Thompson said this will help the
Commission understand the full scope of the site itself. He referred to the Chinese chip n dale
again and said it may not be seen from the right-of-way. The Commission needs to review any
elevations that can be seen from the right-of-way.
Mr. Fletcher said agreed.
3
HZC Minutes
November 19, 2019
Mr. Becker asked if the lot coverage has been reviewed with the proposed changes to the
property.
Chairman Thompson said the Planning Commission will check the lot coverage of the property
before final application of changes can be made to the Historic Zoning Commission.
Ms. Kerr said currently there has not been a submittal to the Planning Commission to look at this
lot, but there is already a structure in this location so they would have a vested right to build
back.
Ms. Anderson asked if the plans for building in the Historic Zoning District are going to be
planned.
Ms. Kerr said yes, stating the City Core Overlay (CCO) is in the process of being approved. In
the CCO the lot coverage is proposed to increase.
Chairman Thompson asked with the CCO would be approved.
Mr. Ives said it is in the works and will go before the Planning Commission the first week in
December and then go to City Council for two readings.
Chairman Thompson suggested the applicant follow this in case they are over on lot coverage.
Mr. Fletcher informed the Commission that the tree will be staying.
Chairman Thompson was happy to hear the tree would stay.
Ms. Belcher made a motion to approve the initial review for construction of a new two-
story detached garage with a little work on the Chinese Chip n Dale area on property
located at 2255 Middle Tennessee Boulevard. The motion was seconded by Ms. Anderson
and approved unanimously.
Chairman Thompson informed the applicant this is an approval for the concept plan only and
they need to come back before the Commission the submit formally when the final plans are
complete. Samples of the brick, shingles, elevations, lighting, etc. will need to be brought to the
Commission for final approval.
4
HZC Minutes
November 19, 2019
Staff Reports and Other Business:
Ms. Kerr announced City Council voted on a Resolution to increase some fees and included in
this for the first time was a fee for the Historic Zoning Commission meetings. She handed out a
copy of the Resolution prior to the meeting. The submission for the Historic Zoning
Commission meeting application will be $150.00 per application that is submitted. She said
some people come in numerous times to get input from the Commission and will need to pay
each time they come before the Commission.
Chairman Thompson said as an example, today the applicants would need to pay $150.00 and
then when they come back for the formal application, another $150.00 would be charged.
Ms. Kerr agreed.
Chairman Thompson asked what the charge previously was.
Ms. Kerr said there was no fee previously.
Ms. Kerr said if something was brought to Staff that didn’t need to go before the Commission
(Administratively Approved) will be charged a $75.00 fee.
Mr. Becker pointed out the Commission has been encouraging residents that live in the Historic
District come before them and obtain information. He was sorry to see we will be charging the
residents now.
Mr. Becker made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Ms. Belcher and
carried unanimously in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
CHAIRMAN SECRETARY
5
City of Murfreesboro
Historic Zoning Commission
Staff Comments
Regular meeting December 17, 2019
New Business:
19-H-015 2255 Middle Tennessee Boulevard, Fletcher Holland- Requesting final
review for construction of a new two-story detached garage with a guest house and
additional fencing on property located at 2255 Middle Tennessee Boulevard.
This property is located at 2255 Middle Tennessee Boulevard and the adjacent property
to the north is the MTSU Alumni House. The property is zoned as Single-family Residential
(RS-10) District within the East Main Street Historic Zoning District.
At the October 15, 2019 regular meeting the Historic Zoning Commission (HZC) voted to
approve the request to demolish the carport/shed and tree removal to make way for
future construction on the property. At the November 19, 2019 the applicant appeared
before the Commission to present a preliminary design of the proposed front elevation
of the new construction, consisting of a two-story detached garage, in order to receive
input from the Commission before proceeding with the total architectural design. At that
meeting it was determined that the proposed two-story detached garage architecture
and materials would replicate the existing dwelling unit.
The applicant is requesting final approval for the two-story detached garage with a guest
room, deck and additional fencing in the rear and the front of the property. The final
elevation drawings with floor plans, building material specifications, including lighting
fixtures, doors, windows, and roofing are included in the agenda materials. Also included
in the agenda materials is a concept plan for fencing additions and specifications.
At the July 2017 HZC meeting, the property owner, Jeff Davis, proposed a fence along the
front of this property to the Commission and that request was deferred at that time until
the completion of the Middle Tennessee Boulevard expansion project in order to
appropriately locate the fence from the road. The discussion at that time was for fencing
in front of the house to be located 20’ from the edge of the road and be 4’ tall with
landscaping in front. This application is requesting a 5’ fence. The minutes from the July
18, 2017 meeting have been included with the agenda materials.
The applicant will attend the meeting in order to answer any questions the Commission
may have regarding the request.
Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission
Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
City of Murfreesboro Revised: _______________________________
Planning Department Telephone: (615) 893-6441
P.O. Box 1139 Fax: (615) 849-2606
111 West Vine Street Email: jornelas@murfreesborotn.gov
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37130 Date ___________________________________
Property Address 2255 Middle Tennessee Blvd
______________________________________________________________________________
Fletcher Holland
Applicant__________________________________ Contact 615.580.2908
Phone(s)_____________________________
bockandsons@gmail.com
E-Mail Address_____________________________
Mailing PO Box 12391
Address________________________________________________________________________
Murfreesboro TN
City__________________________ State_________ 37129
Zip Code ________________________________
Property Owner (If different than above Jeff & Anne Davis 615.347.3420
)_________________________Contact Phone_____________________
2255 Middle Tennessee Blvd
Mailing Address _______________________________________________________________________
Murfreesboro
City__________________________ TN
State_________ 37130
Zip Code _________________________________
“Only exterior projects visible from a public right-of-way (R-O-W) are reviewed”
TYPE OF WORK: X
_____ New Const. _____ Demolition _____ Alterations _____ Other
_____ Exterior Repairs/Maintenance, no appearance changes (Administrative)
NEW CONSTRUCTION (Additions are considered new construction)
1. Site plans must show entire lot with setbacks noted and site improvements (e.g. sidewalks, lighting)
2. Elevation drawings must show each façade with dimensions and material specifications
3. Front elevations must include adjacent principal structures (to compare size and scale)
4. Applications should include photographs, samples, product literature, manufacturer’s illustrations, etc.
DEMOLITION
1. Application must include written description of structure’s condition and reason for demolition.
2. Photographs must include structure’s current condition showing all elevations and the interior of structure.
3. Provide a description of the proposed reuse of the site to include plans of the new structure.
**ALL DRAWINGS, ELEVATIONS & SITE PLANS MUST BE DRAWN TO SCALE** 1
ALTERATIONS (Check each item of work to be done. If not listed please fully explain in space provided below)
__awning or canopy __light fixtures __porch flooring __shutters
__cleaning __landscaping __railings __siding
__curb cut __masonry work __retaining wall __signs
__deck __mechanical system __roofing __skylights
__door __ornamentation __satellite dish __steps
X
__fence __painting __security doors __storm doors
__general repair __paving __security windows __storm windows
__gutters __porch columns __sidewalks __windows
Description of all work to be performed (You may use additional pages if needed)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Construction pack of new 1 1/2 story detached garage. This new garage will consist of similar building
_________________________________________________________________________________________
as current with the existing home. These materials product sheets are attached.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Fence adjustments will be needed at the new garage and will match existing. A new front yard fence of same
_________________________________________________________________________________________
style and height is requesting review. The fence adjustments and new layout are indicated on the site plan.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Any change in the description of work shown on the application requires further review and approval from the
Commission prior to beginning the work. When necessary, accurate scale elevations, drawings, photographs, brochures,
samples of materials and site plans are needed for review. The Commission retains all materials or copies submitted for
approval.
Any action required by another body such as the Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning Commission or City
Council must be approved prior to submittal to the Commission. Someone must be present at the meeting to
answer any questions. The representative must have the authority to commit the owner to any changes that may
be suggested or required by the Commission.
NOTE: There will be at least one inspection prior to completion of the project. Please call the Planning
Department at 893-6441 to schedule the inspection.
Please complete and return application to the Planning Department at least ten (10) working days before the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission. (Please refer to calendar)
“All applications must include documentation that clearly illustrates
the proposed exterior appearance of the project”
TBD
Estimated cost of work ___________________________________________________________________
Signature (owner)_______________________________________________________________________
Signature (applicant) ____________________________________________________________________
**ALL DRAWINGS, ELEVATIONS & SITE PLANS MUST BE DRAWN TO SCALE** 2
X
R Y
X Adjust existing fence
IN A
ARD
IM
X
DEMO OF EXISTING BUILDING
AND SLAB - NEW SLAB FFE 620
X
E L
X
DEMO OF
PR
ESSEE BOULEV
X
EXISTING DRIVE
X 34' AND REPLACE
6' AUX. STRUCTURE X
X X X X
X X
SET BACK X 6'
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X
8' AUX. STRUCTURE X
8'
SET BACK
619.4
DSFASDFASFD
619.6 619.5
619.7
X
619.9 619.8
32'
X
X
NEW GARAGE FFE 620 X
X
MIDDLE TENN
X
X
X
X
X
X
Adjust OF
DEMO existing fence
EXISTING FENCE
X
SILT FENCE ON CONTOUR X
X
X
X
X
X
EXTENTS OF
PROJECT X
9'
Existing fence
New front perimeter fence.
to match existing 5' AL fence
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
AS NOTED
X
X Adjust existing fence
ESSEE BOULEV
X
DEMO OF EXISTING BUILDING
X
AND SLAB - NEW SLAB FFE 620
X
DEMO OF
X
EXISTING DRIVE
X 34' AND REPLACE
6' AUX. STRUCTURE
ARD
X X X X
X X X
SET BACK X 6'
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X
8' AUX. STRUCTURE X
8'
SET BACK
619.4
DSFASDFASFD
619.6 619.5
619.7
X
619.9 619.8
32'
X
X
NEW GARAGE FFE 620 X
X
MIDDLE TENN
X
X
X
X
X
X
Adjust OF
DEMO existing fence
EXISTING FENCE
X
SILT FENCE ON CONTOUR X
X
X
X
X
X
EXTENTS OF
PROJECT X
9'
Existing fence
New front perimeter fence.
to match existing 5' AL fence
Unconditioned Storage
Garage
simple flat panel steel or fiber glass doors
Door Notes
7889 7889 0
11 11
04 3 04 3
31 63 31 63
3 64 63 !"### 3 64 63 !"###
$1 % & $1 % &
3'( 1)16 3 1 3'( 1)16 3 1
3'&*1 3 154 + 3'&*1 3 154 +
334$4,043' 334$4,043'
-4'41.14 1 -1 -4'41.14 1 -1
/3 3 /3 3
!3 31 !3 31
Barrister, paint grade
Camber top, smooth
Vistagrande, smooth, 2/5
true french
All Windows - Central woodworks
3 over 2, double hung, 1 1/4 SDL to match existing house
:;<<=>?@A>BCCDEF;>GHCI;J:G<C@AFCKLMN
*O0P$QRSOTR'U
0 1231456
7896 186
efghijkV
lmnnopqrsptuvsswxqnmopuryzr{nyw
|olynq}m~~uwssn
>V
)0.#% &&W# ,"- /X!/"-Y!3# ! %#Z[\[]!2-
U*. !& 7&# T%#3O(#2
^!&# 3#_Q \`*+\TTWPa' `+QT\]b
+#.! ! _*
!"#$"#% "! &' %( % "! )*&&+!,-" +# #%.#/)
01%2 "!1!,(% ,% 3 4(% /12"!3(% .#3# "3 5# (#2!4!2 "! 6/# !, /(% /12"/#" !& 178#2"" 2- ,#9!"- 1" "!2#) Y "#_c\\
O#2"! dddd)d)d
Choosing the right NEVEROT™ windows for your home is easy. Standard sized openings (shown below) provide a quick and economical option
that still allows you to choose your SDL profile as well as the profile of the window case. For unique openings and applications, custom
sizes are also available.
= MEETS EGRESS
1832 2032 2432 2832 3032 3432 18310 20310 24310 28310 30310 34310
1846 2046 2446 2846 3046 3446 1852 2052 2452 2852 3052 3452
1856 2056 2456 2856 3056 3456 1862 2062 2462 2862 3062 3462
6052
4040 4046 5046 6046 4052 5052 6052 4062 5062
1866 2066 2466 2866 3066 3466
7/8”
1-1/4”
TO LEARN MORE, CALL 888.333.1250 OR VISIT CENWOOD.COM
NEVEROT™ TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY
FRAME Central Woodwork, Inc. warrants the NEVEROT cellular PVC window
All of the components of our window frames that are exposed to the manufactured after May 1, 2006 to be free from defects in workmanship
and materials that, under normal condition, impair the operation or
elements are constructed of cellular PVC to resist rot and decay. The
prevent proper usage of the window for a period of 2 years from the
standard jamb width is 4-9/16” and constructed of LVL (laminated veneer date of the original installation to the original purchaser/homeowner.
lumber) to maintain strength and rigidity. NEVEROT™ WM-180 2” brick
mould exterior casing is standard. Inside wood stops are applied. SPECIFIC COMPONENTS OF THE NEVEROT
WINDOW ARE WARRANTED AS FOLLOWS:
SASH 10 YEARS ON INSULATED GLASS
Made of 1-3/8” thick. NEVEROT™ cellular PVC. Insulated glass available We warrant the insulated glass in the NEVEROT window against obstruction
in both clear IG and low-e. Double-hung sashes have finger grooves in top of vision due to failure of the seal other than through glass breakage for a
and bottom sash for easy operation. Windows include tilt-in removable period of 10 years from the date of manufacture to the original purchaser/
homeowner. In the event glass is replaced according to the terms of this
sashes for easy cleaning and are available with 7/8” or 1-1/4” wide SDL
limited warranty the replacement glass is warranted only for the remainder
(simulated divided lites), GBG (grille between glass) or single lite designs. of the warranty period applicable to the original glass.
BALANCE 20 YEARS ON CELLULAR PVC COMPONENTS
White vinyl jambliner with user-friendly, silenced spring balance designed We warrant to the original purchaser/homeowner the PVC components
to make installation and removal of sash easy and less prone to damage to remain free from rot, warp, blister, or corrosion under normal
conditions for 20 years from the date of manufacture.
than traditional balances.
This Limited Warranty for the NEVEROT window will become void
WEATHERSTRIP when any of the following conditions are found:
Bulb type at top, bottom and check rail.
»» Damage from accident, abuse or lack of care and/or maintenance.
»» Failure to paint the exterior and interior of the product with standard
LOCK
oil/latex paint.
White cam lever sash lock included on all units. Units 2/4 and wider have »» Improper installation.
two locks each. »» Improper use in a way other than that for which it was intended.
»» Alteration of the unit from its original manufactured condition.
PAINTING INSTRUCTIONS »» Installation in a non-vertical position.
»» Installation in a high moisture environment such as a sauna or enclosed
Paint the exterior of window with a high quality oil, latex or polyurethane
swimming pool.
coating after cleaning with denatured alcohol. Window does not require
»» Condensation is present or damage as a result of condensation.
priming, although it is recommended you follow the paint manufacturer’s »» Application of film or decals such as window tints to the glass.
instructions as a bonding primer may be needed. Reference the limited »» Application of any finish (paint, varnish, etc.) to vinyl jambliners
product warranty for more information. »» Any unit having over thirty-five (35) square feet of continuous insulated
glass surface area.
NFRC MATERIAL RATINGS WARRANTY CAUTION: Painting this product with darker colors
LOW-E CLEAR IG will VOID all warranties. Darker colors absorb heat that may cause
instability to the product and are defined as those falling within
IG Thickness 3/4” 3/4” medium-to-dark LRV (Light Reflective Value) of 56 – 0. For more
information on the LRV spectrum, consult with your paint store.
U-Value 0.31 0.44
Solar Heat Gain
Central Woodwork, Inc. must be immediately notified of any defects
0.28 0.57 or any other concerns about the product. Central Woodwork, Inc. will
Coeffient
not be responsible for any cost incurred in replacing or removing units
Visual Transparency 0.51 0.58 covered under this warranty nor will they be responsible for painting,
refinishing or any other activity involved in the replacement and
installation of any unit or any damages arising from the same.
EGRESS INFORMATION
There are no implied warranties that extend beyond the foregoing.
MINIMUM SIZE MEETING EGRESS: 2-8 X 5-2 OR 3-0 X 4-6
Central Woodwork, Inc. shall not be liable for consequential, indirect
Local codes may differ from IRC requirements; always refer to the or incidental damage or for any amount in excess of the original invoice
codes in your area for complete requirements and check with local price for the product involved, whether the claim is for breach of
officials to ensure compliance before installation. warranty or negligence.
TO LEARN MORE, CALL 888.333.1250 OR VISIT CENWOOD.COM
012341 52614
7889 7889 0
11 11
04 3 04 3
31 63 31 63
3 64 63 !"### 3 64 63 !"###
$1 % & $1 % &
3'( 1)16 3 1 3'( 1)16 3 1
3'&*1 3 154 + 3'&*1 3 154 +
334$4,043' 334$4,043'
-4'41.14 1 -1 -4'41.14 1 -1
/3 3 /3 3
!3 31 !3 31
1234567689:;7<9=7296>729?5@673=57A365?79;7>857?99=7:B?>873;?785B48>765@5C>5?D71234567<9=7E23==7F3==B3457F9G=>729?5@673=57HI79=7JKI
:B?57AL7MI7>3@@7N7?56B4;7O3>>5=;6723L7P3=L79;79>85=7:B?>8673;?785B48>6D
Q99=7C9@9=73;?74@3667>=3;6O3=5;CL723L7P3=L7<=9273C>G3@6R7STUVWXYZV[\S]\ZV^XZVTS_`]\TVa\^XZ\VXZ[\Zbcde
12345618899326
!" # $
%&' !
( !
)&' * # !(
* +
!
,&' #
#!( * #
#!
-&( . /!
012345647892:;<=
>/? # !@ >/
!A >/ !" # # *
!
" >/ # # !B >/%C >/D
? !>/%C >/D !( >/%C EF
EF >/D EGF!@ # >/? !
(H # # # H !I ( H # + J
!K #* * ##!
L M % )GGN O( @ A(PO(@A(& NGF
Q@R >/
O(@A(" O@ P"O@&S%C,!
T2:U;:23<V478W2:;<64XYZ4[\2ZZ4VYYZ46<U35Y]642Z<45]42UUYZV2]U<4^5314_[`a[4b_`8cde42]V4f26<V4Y]42U3;2:45]V<g<]V<]343<635]h4g<Z
[`ba4icjk
> #O(@A("O@/%C,P$ll ! ! lmOIlm#l" O@ lR > l"%C,!&
nL o( )GGDp)G%N!(/%/DGG/EG,/OKK>P,CCq&
m rs t Pl #l u &vIQss@'"L
P$ll ! #*! l & P$ll ! # ! l &
P$ll !JJ! ll %NE%l / /& P$ll! l l& Pl#&
@
P$ll !! l#* *!w
Fiber Cement
Collection AlluraUSA.com
SIDE WITH THE BEST.
Combining the appearance and
workability of wood with the
durability of specially formulated
fiber cement, Allura Lap Siding
not only looks great but lasts
considerably longer than traditional
exterior wall cladding or vinyl siding.
DESIGNER’S CORNER
AVAILABLE TEXTURES *
Our Traditional Cedar texture features a deep, realistic, wood grain
appearance for an unbeatable classic style, while the Smooth texture
creates a cleaner, modern aesthetic. You can even customize your
design utilizing our extensive range of widths. No matter the style,
Allura Lap Siding has got yours covered.
Thickness Width Length Exposure
Traditional Cedar
5/16" 5 ¼" 12' 4"
5/16" 6 ¼" 12' 5"
5/16" 7 ¼" 12' 6"
5/16" 8 ¼" 12' 7"
5/16" 9 ¼" 12' 8"
5/16" 12" 12' 10 ¾"
* 1¼" min. overlap with all Lap Siding. Check market availability as products may vary.
Smooth
AlluraUSA.com
AVAILABLE TEXTURES *
Traditional Cedar
OUR PANEL SIDING HAS GOT YOU COVERED.
Designed for everything from sidewalls to overhead accents,
Allura Panel Siding adds beautifully versatile –
and exceedingly durable – distinction to your next project.
8” OC Groove
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Thickness Width Length
5/16" 4' 8'
5/16" 4' 9'
5/16" 4' 10'
Smooth
* Check market availability as products may vary.
Stucco
AlluraUSA.com
1232456829 4 3 ! "" #$ % #$! $ & $
%$ #$' & % () "$ & %$%##% $ (*& #$ % $""&&
$" $ ' #% %(
+,5 29
-"% $ .&
55
.$$ &6#
/ $.0. & 1 6#
724 56
. %%$
.$$ &
;4<
/ $.0. 8 $$$!
1 89::$$!
2"3/$
4% $
=39,29>??@ABCDEFGH?@DIJFEKFB?ILMEKNDOFPEAFBQNERSAERIF?QEOSTEHSBOILMEUIOVEVIMVEW@B?IONXEBHAN?IHE?BOFGETBILOESAEDOBILDYEZBHOSANE
TAFRILIDVILMEBJBI?B[?FEUIOVETBILOESAEDOBILYE>??@ABEZI[FAE\FPFLOEKIQILMEP@DOE[FEB??SUFQEOSE[AFBOVF]EOVFAFRSAFXEIOEP@DOELFJFAE[FE
TAIPFQXETBILOFQESAEDOBILFQESLEOVFE[BH^EDIQFYE
E
+_4`5 2a5 2439KPSSOVXbABQIOISLB?\FQBABLQc@DOIH\FQBAMABILDXHFQBAdOFGO@AFQMABILXDO@HHSOFGO@AFXJFAOIHB?MABILYE
E
+e29+,5 29 ;4<
93f8ghifj:kjlminopqr n3f8jhk9mr
fjhig9hknlpifjfmr p3f8jhkfglr
fohig9hkgloifjfmr q3f8ghkf9pr
E55 +s3t udvwxyEz{|}PP~XE
ff3f8ghkj9orifj:knopqr &
p3f8ghkfnnr E zxwxyEOVIH^EEvvPP~E
o3f8ghkfpmr
q3f8ghkf9pr jhkpmr
q3f8jhkfmfr nhkqor
93f8ghkjlmr ghkfljr
m3f8ghjnpr ohkfpnr
fjhknlprifj:knopqr & 9hkjlnr
E flhkjpgr
724 56 fjhknlprifj:knopqr &
g:i9:kfjfmijgn9r E
g:im:kfjfmijqgnr z}wxyEOVIH^EEvvPP~E
xCEGEvCEzv{vuPPEGE|xPP~E nhkqor
ghkfljr
phkfjqr
ohkfpnr
9hkjlnr
flhkjpgr
fjhknlpifj:knopqr &
;, 3299}wvyEzPP~ESLEDVBTFDXE?BTBLQJFAOIHB?DIQILMYE
E
< 9 3bVFTASQ@HODBAFPBL@RBHO@AFQE@DILMEBEP@?OIdDOFTEVIMVdTAFDD@AFTASHFDDHSP[ILILMESAO?BLQEHFPFLOXEUSSQE
RI[FAEBLQEDTFHIB?ONEBQQIOIJFDYESSQEMABILDEBLQESOVFAEBAHVIOFHO@AB?ERFBO@AFDEBAFETAFDDFQEILOSEOVFED@ARBHFYE
E
;2 ,3 56855>??@ABEZI[FAE\FPFLODSRRIOEUBDEOFDOFQEILEBHHSAQBLHFEUIOVEOVFE>PFAIHBLEKSHIFONERSAEbFDOILMEEBOFAIB?DE
E
l98f9f$"j
0123566789 1 1 905 1
01235667 9 8 1 2 9095 1 !" 1 1 !5
0123#$ 9 %&'()*+,'-./+01'-+2.314+4&5.67'1845&0.9),8(,'-.%&'4+0)*+,&'.
0123#7: 1;<; 5 <; 3
0123#66 9 2<; 5;3
0123#6=8 95 ;
0123#== 9 8 1;;> #?@A!5; @ !BCD 1 0>;B
0123E 89 F G 9#?;0 ;HI902CJ@ @ ;@ #?; 3
.
H0123J A K
LMMNOPQRSTUV%%.W/XYZ[[\.
31]74.^1_+.̀&5.V'4)07'*1.60&()*+.Wa78)7+,&'.W%YZ[.
.
bcQdecNUQfgUhdecNUiOfSjgcNQdjOfSTU>; kl AC C C m
n ;oHDpJCCmn ;A9 m>;
AA A 0; ;q; m
rjNcUscSjSdQftcUieQNQtdcNjSdjtSTU0;5 ; o50H6J 1 " 9!1 u
o9 !0123#7:!95 ; A 0123#6=8m
vfSdQRRQdjOfTU
wNcMQNQdONxUbONyUzU0;5 ;; uo A m{
; 0; m5 Co A
C; ;:|H86 JmmA m@ C A
;! ;;A 9o ! o ! ;m0o ! C
6 H $m lH> }} J! ;; A A ~; 01{"0#
; m5;~; m
OdcTU0;5 ; A ?; ?; ;m
cdeOgSUzU%&_81+1.,'4+7887+,&'.01*&1'(7+,&'4.701.7a7,8781.50&.+21.7')57*+)010.̀6'1)7+,*.'7,8,'-.,4.01*&Y.
A mD; 9 ok mB
; m ; ; Amp>
91 ; C; mD ; ; 67| ? ;
;umA;u ;; ;mD o m
wNctQdjOfSUzU0o ; C !; !A mDA ~; o;
C q31B1 ;;m00; A ; l m
0 ;A 8 m
jRgjfUiOgcSUzU%)001'+.(7+7.&'.),8(,'-.*&(1.01),011'+47'(._0&()*+.*&_8,7'*1.7.1.&+7,'1(.50&.
0;mn ; CA ~; ! ;m
bQNNQfdxTU0;5 9C ;A C;
; A ? ;3; ?m3; ? ;
= 9C ;A Cm0 C!0;53 ? ;6 9
C A Cm
0;A ;;C 0GGD"0
; ;KHJA ;C u!HJA!HJA
9 ;!HJA ;; Au m1
A m
ctefjtQRUcNPjtcSTU0; o ; A ~;
0; ;m5 6H7::J:0GGD"0 A ~;m
68*1./.
= 8@mE"
{;!2? $$ 8$
ZY\YY\.
\Z\.88)07..&5.. ¡¢
wxyz{|}~z}~}
©ª«¬®¯°±²³«ª¯´µ¯°ª±²°±®¯¶¬µ·®¯«´·®µ¸®´¹¶º¬²´»°±®¯¬¬ YItLMIcI[8Y``[
®¼°±²¬´®½´¯¸«°±²¯¼´¾¯¬®¿°½´¯°À´Á¾¬²´Â´®°®¯±µ´¿°À°̄´¹Ã««±¯ºÄ
wÅÆÇÈÆÉÊ~ËËÊÌÅÌÉÍÊÎ~wÅÏÈÊÍÈÊÐ~ËËÊÌÑÎ~~
Ò°±±µ¬´ÓÒ«°®¯°±´«µ¼°̄´µ¯¸«¬®¼°±²¬´®³«ªÔ°¹´®¯¸±±°±²µª¬ª«¯¼¯¬®¯®Ä
* -,
"#9g &9
- hh, & 2 0IJKLMN8OPQ8R8STUUVW8XX 1^_`abcIN8UQ8R8S]PVO8XX
" -" g YZ[LMN8SOQ8R8\]]VU8XX 6MZJKdIa8;Ic8ebJ[dIN8SWfPT
¡¢
" ,-, -C
01234516 263: 40
89 +
1D? 2D!4
$ .2
"# 1!2 8(.
+G?2H#-. 3!2 4$ .
!"#$ %" $ &'' + !?2)&# 567168297856:;0<29516
(8)8*+, % +G2 (2) !"# =8>?
%8"% -$"
'8& . + >G328= ,-, 8@A8B83CDB=!
( E, 8##9 F(%G!D
%-"%" $ &'' /!?2 8(. = "B+ ,& ,8##9
8 ,*/
62013ij863652k182978l2970<9k8
Y259<9kN.m ## ,Cn 9 #, -& , g##m
#C="o-pC -" , -" ###gC
<:;6532938;515243<696N8q,-C -"g , r C ##
# h- 9"9 -##& C
( -&2 , s2Ldta5``uZJKVv`XRc``ufaMZJKdIaRa[a
<96320023<69829786;15<0<523<6968
(g & , s2Ldta5``uZJKVv`XRc``ufaMZJKdIaR_ZJJtvdIf_cZaLZJI8
( "#B##m s2Ldta5``uZJKVv`XRc``ufaMZJKdIaRa_IvZuZvtLZ̀Ja
;15065:2951V81915ki8100<5<195iV862Õ<9k6V
* / &*m CE ,
,-,2&q"-,Ö&Fgh#-2
# g C
8.m #£8)%8¤g &,2 g- # ,2# ,--"&" ,-, -" &¥
#-" -&, , "," ,h- -## g &# C
' ¦, -&-8%-"8 .%" $ & hh, &,B 2 ",, 8 B,*4#§.
-, 8 B,*4 m4#§. -, g8 -, C
''.-8.m %" $ &- 9 ¦,"C
.- 8 ,*%" $ &- &"9 ¦,"C
2, # = 2 " h-=C
¨#& 3!?28.m #8)%B?>?3B!!GA? 2Ldta;c`LIvLa8882Ldta5``uZJKVv`X
34915246
.#/0,#"*12(,)$$%34$
61 55 6342 6
1525 1634 6141
0123425689 0123425663614
01234256 6 143456 01234256 6 461
01234256 2 1 012342563461
0123425606461 012342562655
!"#$$%& 01234256 5 012342566 4616
012342561665 0123425606 19
'()&%#"*+,-),
012342565364 012342566 4616
5%6%/)-*,)7%34#"*#8#%"#9%"%/:;*<")#$)*&34/#&/*:30,*"3&#"*$0(("%),;
Proposed Front Yard Fencing - Matches left side, existing
Rear yard fencing material for adjustments.
Existing classic fence
Existing Classic Fence
Original submittal from 7.18.17 - purpose to show new proposal over last submitted.
Original submittal lines
New proposed 5' AL, fence
Get email alerts for Murfreesboro
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.