This week, the Historic Landmark Fee revisited a case from March through which owners at 2406 Harris Blvd. had requested a certificates of appropriateness to place a pool of their entrance yard.

The problem raised issues amongst commissioners as a result of the property is house to the historic Jackson-Novy-Kelly-Hoey Home. On the time, the commissioners appeared to have the same opinion with Chair Terri Myers {that a} front-yard pool would set a “dangerous precedent.”

At this assembly, although, the owners, Robert and Michelle Kinney, had a change in fortune. Voting 6-3, the fee reluctantly voted to permit a front-yard swimming pool to be constructed on the historic property.

The approval is probably going the results of the owners’ endurance and willingness to work with the landmark fee.

Robert Kinney stated the result is the “end result of a nine-month course of throughout which we listened to and executed on important suggestions from the committee.” The largest change to the proposal was geared toward addressing the fee’s major problem – that the presence of a swimming pool would distract from the historic nature of the house.

Because the fee final heard the request, the plans have been altered and the pool will not be seen from the road.

To strengthen their case additional, the owners compiled an inventory of different historic houses within the space which have had swimming pools put in in recent times.

One of many examples highlighted in the course of the assembly was the Davis-Sibley Home at 2210 Windsor Highway. The property, which was constructed in 1932, didn’t have a pool put in till the Nineteen Sixties. Regardless of the decades-long hole between the preliminary development and the set up of a pool, the Davis-Sibley Home is still a historic landmark.

One other, much less contentious bottleneck within the software course of was the proposal for a fence that may go across the perimeter of the property.

To make their case, the owners took an analogous method as they did to justify the pool set up by gathering examples of historic houses that had fences put in after their designation.

One instance cited within the software proposal is the Steck Home at 305 E. thirty fourth St., the place an ornate metallic fence was accepted by the fee. The broad conclusion in that case was that open fencing didn’t have a lot of an affect on the historic character of the house.

The owners discovered an advocate in Elizabeth Brummett with the Historic Preservation Workplace, who advised the commissioners that, “at this level, now we have an applicant who has been working in good religion to attempt to arrive at a design that the fee will approve and so I wish to attempt to meet them midway when it comes to the fence.”

This time round, the Kinney proposal obtained an outpouring of group assist. Earlier than the assembly, the Historic Landmark Fee obtained almost 40 written feedback from owners and residents supporting the undertaking.

In a single remark, Tommy Craddick Jr. stated, “2406 Harris is in wonderful form and I totally assist the modifications they’ve requested. The modifications are an superior addition to the neighborhood.”

When it got here time to debate the findings and the case, the commissioners didn’t have a lot pushback in regards to the set up of the fence. Nonetheless, they had been nonetheless very a lot divided on the pool.

Commissioner Kelly Little advised the fee, “I do assume on this case that development of the pool within the entrance yard of this home, the place it’s not eradicating any historic options … and won’t be seen from the road, I believe that doesn’t meet the factors for having an impact on historic property.”

Commissioner Carl Larosche stated his problem with the proposal was that “there’s not sufficient context come what may to know this pool. There’s no doc put forth that reveals the pool, the geometry, the configuration. Is there a diving board? Is there not?”

Ultimately, there was no clear decision among the many commissioners. When it got here time to vote, commissioners Beth Valenzuela, Caroline Wright and Larosche all voted in opposition to.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made attainable by donations from the group. Although our reporting covers donors every now and then, we’re cautious to maintain enterprise and editorial efforts separate whereas sustaining transparency. An entire record of donors is on the market here, and our code of ethics is defined here.

‹ Return to Today’s Headlines

  Read latest Whispers ›





Source link