Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the New Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design review for 624 North Broadway prompts split among board; more context, materials requested
Summary
Design Review Board praised improvements to a proposed four‑unit building at 624 North Broadway but was split over whether the new structure too closely mimics neighboring historic homes; members asked the applicant for contextual images and material samples before any decision.
The Design Review Board on June 3 heard a lengthy presentation and critique of a proposed four‑unit condominium at 624 North Broadway. The applicant’s architect, Sean Korp of Reveal Architecture, presented site plans showing four condominium units with four two‑car garages accessed off Burke Alley, a 10‑foot setback and material choices under consideration (LP SmartSide siding, thin granite veneer foundation, bluestone patios).
Korp said prior Preservation Foundation comments led the team to lower the side “shoulders” of the massing to emphasize a central volume. The board generally agreed the new design is a substantial improvement over earlier iterations but split on whether the building now approaches too closely the historic vocabulary of nearby houses. The chair expressed concern that a brand‑new building on a historic street should not mimic nearby historic homes so closely that it competes with them; several board members asked the team to present the proposed design in direct visual context with neighboring properties and to provide material samples.
Public commenters and the applicant pushed back against the notion that the design is inappropriate: the applicant said the intent was a “classic residential design” and that similar historic styles already exist on the block. Several board members indicated they would prefer to see the proposal returned with photographs and three‑dimensional context to better assess whether the massing and materials create an appropriate relationship to adjacent structures.
No motion or final vote was taken; the applicant agreed to provide additional contextual images and material choices and to return to the board for further review.
