Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corner Lot Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses developers to treat corner lots as distinct homes, not mirror copies
Summary
Board members urged developers to give corner lots more engaging facades—wraparound porches, bay windows, different roof forms or raised slabs—so corner homes read differently from adjacent infill models rather than relying on paint and trim alone.
Board members repeatedly told the development team that corner lots must present a distinct, street-engaging face rather than appearing as the same model mirrored on the corner. Chair Peter Marks said he wanted the corner property to be “recognizable as a different home” and asked why a corner could not have a massing or treatment that addressed both streets.
City staff and board members suggested nonstructural changes that would not require interior rework but would alter the public face of corner homes: adding porches or bay windows, changing window proportions or locations, introducing dormers or different roof forms, elevating the first-floor slab so steps vary, and adding masonry bases or trim. Patrick Rogan Myers summarized the takeaway: “So the 1st comment I heard earlier on was...there's some blank sides to the homes, adding some windows, adding something here. So we're not looking at a a just a side wall.”
Developers acknowledged those points and said side elevations shown in the packet were preliminary; they agreed to add windows on exposed sides and to explore porch or detached-garage responses that would make a corner elevation read as intentional. The board asked that when the team returns it show color elevations and corner-specific treatments so the board can evaluate how those designs will reinforce the street and neighborhood context.
