7010 Haverford Rd. 2,040 sq. ft.
7115 Haverford Rd. 2,264 sq. ft.
7125 Haverford Rd. 2,100 sq. ft.
7129 Haverford Rd. 2,016 sq. ft.
7205 Haverford Rd. 2,031 sq. ft.
7319 Haverford Rd. 2,175 sq. ft.
These are just the examples on my street. I'm sure if you go to dallascad.org and search the property records for the homes on your street, you can find just as many like examples. In fact, there were a lot more than this between 1,750 and 2,000 sq. ft. that would yield a structure at least 3,500 sq. ft. at two storeys, and if you look at the property records for the new homes on Santa Barbara, many of them are in that range; 3,500 to 4,000 sq. ft.
There is NO guarantee that if you place a NSO in our neighborhood that new construction won't happen and that you can control the square footage.
ReplyDeleteNo one is trying to prohibit new construction, Dijea. In fact, the point of this FACT #2 is to illustrate exactly that. What I'm saying is that there are several single storey homes in UT that exceed 2,000 sq ft, indicating that a 4,000 sq ft 2 storey home could easily be built in it's place and still leave room for the type of back yards that we have now.
ReplyDeleteYou see, it was your AGAINST flyer that erroneously stated that the NSO would:
1. inhibit new construction and cause us to lose property value because the builders wouldn't want to work under the constraints of the NSO.
2. force people who remodel their homes to use up their back yards to add on to get the square footage they needed for their growing families. To quote from that flyer, you all said, "But the reality is that many of our foundations can’t support cost-effective vertical growth and first-floor extensions would consume the little backyards that our families and children presently enjoy." Which is an odd thing to say considering that we have many homes here in UT that have added both first floor and vertical additions.
In fact, all of these FACTS are meant to rebut erroneous information in that flyer. But thank you for helping me rebut that part of your flyer with your comment. We can use all the help we can get, neighbor.
So you want to make everything single story only - I thought you wanted to preserve the value of the homes in the neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteThat flyer you quote I didn't write. I just passed it out but I do agree with it. Just for your information - my home can't support the cost effective vertical growth. The foundation is not strong enough even with reinforcement to hold a second story. And I can't go back without taking up my lawn because the developer put my garage in back. So if I did expand I would have the dreaded zero-lot.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWrong again. I never said anybody wants to make this a single storey neighborhood. You're skimming, not reading. And I thought you loved the written word! You're commenting out of anger and you really ought to calm down, take a few deep breaths and think before you post. You're doing my work for me here.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry about your house. Have you had a structural engineer look at it and give you a report stating that? Did you not think of that when you bought the house? I wonder, since you can't build up, would you actually incur the expense of removing all your side walls and changing your roof line so that you can build wider, or would you just add on in the back? The course of action you claim the NSO would inhibit - which isn't proven, either - is a course of action that would be prohibited more by expense than any Overlay.
Yes, I've had a structural engineer look at it and they said it could be reinforced but that I would have foundation problems until it fell down. Poor concrete around the base of the house which is not uncommon in the 40's and 50's causes additional problems.
ReplyDeleteMy home is not alone in this so before you condemn our neighborhood to an NSO - maybe everyone should get a structural update.
Poor concrete? Do you mean cracked slab? That is real common here in Dallas with that black gumbo soil we have. It contracts during droughts and falls away from the foundation, then expands like a sponge when the rains come back, heaves up under the foundation and causes lots of problems.
ReplyDeleteLucky for us so most of the homes here in UT are pier and beam and not susceptible to that issue.
You know, all of the new homes they're building over on Santa Barbara and Vanderbilt and Sondra and Lake Circle are all slab homes, just like yours. At the price point they're selling them at, they can't afford to do pier and beam, like they do in University Park and Highland Park and Preston Hollow where their price point allows them to do more lasting redevelopment. But you're a realtor. You probably already knew that.
No I have a pier & beam foundations. And yes they susceptible to that issue. There is buckling concrete below the brick surrounding my home. It is not fixable without removing the brick from the home as the brick sits on it.
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn't you have to remove lots of bricks to build your home wider so that you don't have to use up your back yard adding on? While you're tearing out all those side walls to build to the side limits of your lot, you'll have to fix that anyway. Right?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I had to reject a couple of your comments. Just a bit too "tense". It's clear by reading the posts at the Against blog that you folks aren't much on standards. But we have them over here. You don't have an automatic right to being published just because you send comments. As I said elsewhere, your comments are the only anonymous comments we've allowed, a courtesy I've extended because you appear to run the Against blog.
Besides, everybody involved in the NSO knows who you are. I just thought I'd extend an opportunity for you to identify yourself to those who may not know you.