Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infill Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission sends 2706 Linway Street new‑build back for redesign, finds proposed house incompatible
Summary
A new‑construction application for 2706 Linway Street in Queen City was denied without prejudice; the commission cited massing, porch/gable composition, and window placement as incompatible and advised the applicant to revise plans.
The Dallas Landmark Commission on Feb. 3 denied without prejudice a predesignation certificate of appropriateness for a proposed new main residential building at 2706 Linway Street in Queen City, finding that key roof and compositional elements made the current design incompatible with the proposed historic district.
Staff recommended approval with several conditions (paired windows separated by a 4‑inch mullion/trim, a freeze board above the front porch columns, centering of paired front windows between porch columns, installation of a rectangular louvered vent at the front gable, and brushed‑finish concrete for driveways and steps). The task force recommended additional changes, including completing a large gable and removing a small secondary gable, adding windows above a brick rowlock in a carport, and adopting a historic paint palette; the applicant revised plans to respond to some task force suggestions.
Noel Livingston, representing the applicant, said the project team had met frequently with staff over several months, revised the plan several times and was willing to accept conditions. Commissioners praised the effort to infill vacant lots but expressed concern the current design combined elements from multiple periods and styles (for example, a bungalow/craftsman porch with a forward‑facing under‑building carport and half‑brick facade). Several commissioners recommended reconsidering whether the design should follow a bungalow/craftsman vocabulary for the block or instead take a midcentury/ranch approach that would accommodate a forward carport.
Commissioner Anderson moved to deny without prejudice, stating the structure as designed (including the carport) was not compatible with the proposed historic district; the motion carried with the finding that the house was too wide for the lot and should have a rear driveway and garage/carport placement or be redesigned to reflect a clearly consistent style.
Commissioners encouraged the applicant to return with revised drawings that follow one of the historically appropriate styles for the area, to work closely with staff on parking placement options, and to consider narrower plans or rear access so that a detached rear garage or carport would be feasible.
Votes at a glance: D3 (CA245-227RAD) — Denied without prejudice; motion carried with named concerns about carport placement, half‑brick treatment and lot width compatibility.
