• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

Corner lot: which is the front?

Gedunker

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
14,412
Points
62
Yeah, yeah, I know. And, normally, our Code is helpful with this question: the narrowest street frontage is the front, regardless of anything else. But, here's the trickier part.

The lot is square with the exact same frontage on both streets. Both streets are classified as residential streets (so no hierarchy exists). Dwellings are located on each adjoining lot facing each street.

The proposal is to move a historic structure and place it at an angle to the corner. Where are the setbacks, side yards, and rear yard?:wall:

State your rationale and be prepared to defend you answers.:D
 
In our ordinance, they're both fronts. Our code does not distinguish or make accommodations for corner lots. Wherever there is frontage, it's considered a front yard.
 
I use the street from which the property is addressed. THAT is the front.

Typically there are setbacks listed for corner properties that are different than normal properties. I haven't run into any problems.
 
We would just let the owner chose the front (because it really makes no difference anyhow). That would then establish the rear, interior side, and exterior side.

Or make the address street frontage the front, because functionally (mailman, UPS, pizza delivery, etc) it makes it easier if the "front" of the house faces the street frontage it is addressed from.
 
NHPlanner said:
In our ordinance, they're both fronts. Our code does not distinguish or make accommodations for corner lots. Wherever there is frontage, it's considered a front yard.
Click to expand...

Making the lot comply with front yard requirements for both street frontages basically renders it useless. (It's a very small lot.)

zmanPLAN said:
I use the street from which the property is addressed. THAT is the front.
Click to expand...

Corner lots have two addresses here, though obviously only use one. But, our code requires we apply setback requirements based on the narrowest frontage. Which doesn't exist.

mendelman said:
We would just let the owner chose the front (because it really makes no difference anyhow). That would then establish the rear, interior side, and exterior side.
Click to expand...

Damn libertarians.;)

mendelman said:
Or make the address street frontage the front, because functionally (mailman, UPS, pizza delivery, etc) it makes it easier if the "front" of the house faces the street frontage it is addressed from.
Click to expand...

The proposed angled placement on the lot means the front would align with the intersection of the two streets. Half one street and half the other.
 
Gedunker said:
The proposed angled placement on the lot means the front would align with the intersection of the two streets. Half one street and half the other.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no they can't do that.

"Stay with the rigid order of house placement or get lost." ;)
 
Last edited:
Gedunker said:
Making the lot comply with front yard requirements for both street frontages basically renders it useless. (It's a very small lot.)
Click to expand...

Well, as you've seen first hand, that's not a problem we have given the size of our lots. ;)

I wish you luck, you've described a real interesting situation!
 
Maister said:
Sounds like variance time.
Click to expand...

Nice, I might have to break that out at the front counter...

Applicant: blah, blah, blah when i bought the lot i was told that blah,blah
Me: Well that too bad because guess what time it is?
Applicant: Uh.. two-thirty?
Me: No, it's variance time baby!

:-D
 
Take a step back from the letter of the code. The real issue with corner lots is how to "line up" with established frontages along the rest of the block.
 
mendelman said:
We would just let the owner chose the front (because it really makes no difference anyhow). .....
Click to expand...

I agree. Our code is silent on the issue so I've made the executive decision to let the owner decide which is the front. None of that "where's the front door" or "where's it addressed" nonsense.

mike gurnee said:
..... The real issue with corner lots is how to "line up" with established frontages along the rest of the block.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Avoid the monotony.
 
As with NH there are usually 2 fronts. No exceptions. You get what you buy for a lot. On the plus side, you get 2 sides.
 
Our ordinance let's us pick based on where the front door is (won't help in this case) or where the curb cut for the driveway is. Hope it's not a pull-through running behind the house.
 
mendelman said:
Sorry, no they can't do that.

"Stay with the ridge order of house placement or get lost." ;)
Click to expand...

I second Mendelman's recommendation. You would not be able to change the predominant fabric of the neighborhood by turning a house on a corner lot. If they want a "corner look" then have them put on a wrap around porch.

In our town, the front is always the addressed side and the Village chooses (in coordination with our post office) which side with be addressed, not the property owner.

Do you have an aerial photo that we could use to help you choose which street? What's up with the square lot? Who platted that?
 
southsideamy said:
I second Mendelman's recommendation. You would not be able to change the predominant fabric of the neighborhood by turning a house on a corner lot. If they want a "corner look" then have them put on a wrap around porch.
Click to expand...

It's a historic building being relocated to the site that never had a porch, so the porch option is a no go. Also, the adjacent building to the west is a gable-end dwelling while the one to the north is a flat roof behind a parapet wall. Since it is in a local historic district, the Preservation Commission will chime in this evening. That ought to be fun, like a root canal is fun.:h:

southsideamy said:
In our town, the front is always the addressed side and the Village chooses (in coordination with our post office) which side with be addressed, not the property owner.
Click to expand...

The address isn't an issue, the building that burned down had an address and it will be reused for this site. The former building provides no help as far as precedent: it was an inverted "L"-shaped building.

southsideamy said:
What's up with the square lot? Who platted that?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, the parcel has been in this configuration since at least 1826 or a decade after the city was founded. It is, therefore, a legal, non-conforming parcel. Apparently, county recorders back then would record anything that came through their doors, much as they do today.:not:
 
Gedunker said:
The proposed angled placement on the lot means the front would align with the intersection of the two streets. Half one street and half the other.
Click to expand...
Upon further thought, it will still have an address as you mention, so maybe just say the street with the address is the front and be done with it. The orientation of the building facade(s) is immaterial.

If the historic commission spends too much time on this issue (where is the front?) then you've got a bunch of time wasters on your hands.
 
I was thinking that most of our square lot situations came from people splitting corner lots into two. Sounds like it's been that way forever. Darn. I always like to find someone to blame.

Definitely not an easy answer here. But as a former historic preservation commissioner, I would be adovcating for a contextual placement of the building. If your town had a lot of corner lot houses that were turned at a 45 degree angle, then this might be an appropriate location for the house. However, if your town was a more typical straight frontage type of town, then it might not be a good idea to turn the building.

As far as setbacks, it all depends on your ordinance. If I were to apply my community's ordinance, you would have two front yards, one side yard and a rear yard.
 
Yeah, I think I'm stuck with applying the two fronts/two sides as the Code is otherwise silent. It will make real hardships possible for development standards variances. I do know that the building is so small that placement at the back of the lot is not going to be acceptable: as soon as they realize the need for an addition, I want there to be room for an addition.

There are rumors that the project might have some serious detractors within the preservation community. Could be interesting.
 
Breaking news: preservation folks said no, so the proposal is dead in the water. A withdrawal from the BZA is expected. Bummer, I was looking forward to trying to work this one out.

Thanks for everyone's input. If ever the site comes back I'll bump the thread for further discussion.:h:
 
Two fronts and two sides

NHPlanner said:
In our ordinance, they're both fronts. Our code does not distinguish or make accommodations for corner lots. Wherever there is frontage, it's considered a front yard.
Click to expand...

The Clearwater, FLA Code also looks at such sites as having two front and two sides:

Section 3-903. Required setbacks.
A. Except for fences, walls, outdoor lighting, signs, minimum door landing required by the Florida Building Code, walkways leading to building entrances, driveway access to garages, and/or vehicular cross access (driveways), shared parking, and trash staging areas, no building or structure shall be permitted in a setback required by the applicable zoning district. Sidewalks shall be no greater than 42 inches feet in width, nor greater in width than that required by the Florida Building Code.
B. Irregularly shaped lots (i.e. those lots having property lines not generally parallel with or perpendicular to adjoining street rights-of-way or street right-of-way easements) shall have side and rear setbacks established by the community development coordinator generally consistent with the side or rear setback requirements for the applicable zoning districts and the orientation of the lots to adjoining properties and structures.
C. A double frontage lot located within a plat of record which has a deed or plat restriction prohibiting access to the nonfrontage, i.e. the street with no address, may use the required rear setback for the "nonfrontage" portion of the lot.
D. Corner lots shall have two front setbacks and two side setbacks.
 
NHPlanner said:
In our ordinance, they're both fronts. Our code does not distinguish or make accommodations for corner lots. Wherever there is frontage, it's considered a front yard.
Click to expand...

Our code is the same way, any side the fronts a street is a required front yard and subject to a setback of 1/2 the ROW. The extra front yard comes at the expense of a side yard, which makes things difficult at times, since the rear yards are quite a bit bigger than side yards. After reading these postings, I may suggest to my department that we consider looking at corners needing 2 fronts and 2 sides.
 
Gedunker said:
Yeah, yeah, I know. And, normally, our Code is helpful with this question: the narrowest street frontage is the front, regardless of anything else. But, here's the trickier part.

The lot is square with the exact same frontage on both streets. Both streets are classified as residential streets (so no hierarchy exists). Dwellings are located on each adjoining lot facing each street.

The proposal is to move a historic structure and place it at an angle to the corner. Where are the setbacks, side yards, and rear yard?:wall:

State your rationale and be prepared to defend you answers.:D
Click to expand...

When Calgary re-wrote it's Land Use Bylaw (1P2007); it moved away from the idea of front and side setbacks and dealt more with the issue of "setbacks from a street". So in our case, a corner lot (in some cases) has the same setback requirement on each street side.

That being said, we still have a definition to define "front" on irregular shaped lots; it's often the property line that is the shortest, given the historical pattern of subdivision.

The Calgary LUB can be viewed at www.calgary.ca/landusebylaw if you want to see the defintions.
 
Prying open an old one...

I've been directed to amend our corner lot definition to give owners more flexability. Here's what I'm taking to hearing.

LOT, CORNER: A lot abutting two (2) or more intersecting streets. (Also see, Lot Line, Front.)

LOT LINE, FRONT: The property line fronting a roadway right-of-way which provides the principle access; and used by the U.S. Postal Service for the delivery of mail to the structure located on the property. In the case of a Corner Lot, the owner may select which lot line abutting a street is the Front Lot Line.
Click to expand...

The new language is underlined. Any thoughts?
 
My concern, Richmond Jake, is the possibility of a future owner using that language to decide to change what she/he considers the front after a former owner chose the other street frontage possibly resulting in lots of non-compliance with various setbacks.

Update on the O.P.: the preservationists killed it, wisely, making the problem go away at least until someone else wants to develop the property.:h:
 
Gedunker said:
My concern, Richmond Jake, is the possibility of a future owner using that language to decide to change what she/he considers the front after a former owner chose the other street frontage possibly resulting in lots of non-compliance with various setbacks......
Click to expand...

That's a great point and we've thought about that. What we'll do is place a note on the electronic parcel record sheet identifying the front yard.

I may adjust the language to say it's a one time choice that lasts in perpetuity.
 
The shorter of the two frontages is always the front yard. That is a concrete way to assure that in the future no landowner will change their mind. Options are bad when it comes to lot lines, setback, etc. in my experience.
 
Hink said:
The shorter of the two frontages is always the front yard. That is a concrete way to assure that in the future no landowner will change their mind. Options are bad when it comes to lot lines, setback, etc. in my experience.
Click to expand...
Dittos on this. This has been my experience as the best way to objectively and perpetually deal with this issue.
 
From my fair community's ZC -


“Front yard” .... On a corner lot, the front lot line is the shorter of any two adjacent lot lines having frontage on a street.

If a lot is bounded on two opposite sides by streets, minimum front yard setbacks shall be maintained on both front yards. Accessory buildings or structures may not be located in either front yard setback. The Area Plan Commission may make exceptions to this requirement through the subdivision approval process
Click to expand...
 
Nitpik: why is "Corner Lot" capitalized?
 
They both are! If one side doesn't have the front setback then it could be close to the street than the lot next to it!
 
Hink said:
The shorter of the two frontages is always the front yard. That is a concrete way to assure that in the future no landowner will change their mind. Options are bad when it comes to lot lines, setback, etc. in my experience.
Click to expand...

mendelman said:
Dittos on this. This has been my experience as the best way to objectively and perpetually deal with this issue.
Click to expand...

JNA said:
From my fair community's ZC -
Click to expand...

What legitimate public or government interest is advanced by telling a corner lot owner what the front property line is?

(That sounds so curmudgeon-like.)

Dan said:
Nitpik: why is "Corner Lot" capitalized?
Click to expand...

I really don't know.

luckless pedestrian said:
They both are! If one side doesn't have the front setback then it could be close to the street than the lot next to it!
Click to expand...

That's a reverse corner lot. Nothing wrong with that in my view.
 
Richmond Jake said:
What legitimate public or government interest is advanced by telling a corner lot owner what the front property line is?

(That sounds so curmudgeon-like.)
Click to expand...

Same as setting standards for any setback I suppose...ensure adequate light/ventilation, emergency access, neighborhood character, etc.
 
Both of the cities I work for use a dual frontage rule. If a side of a building faces a street, you will use the front setback, which means a corner lot has two front setbacks.
 
From our code...

LOT, FRONT, REAR AND DEPTH: The front of a lot is that boundary line which borders on a street other than an alley. In case of a corner lot, the side which has the front entrance shall be considered the front of such lot.
 
Maister said:
Same as setting standards for any setback I suppose...ensure adequate light/ventilation, emergency access, neighborhood character, etc.
Click to expand...
Again with the dittos.

It is the most straightforward way to deal with the situation....and since most/many lots subdivided after the Land Ordinance of 1785 and Public Land Survey System are rectilinear-ish (corners approximately 90 degree) and many front/rear setbacks are larger than side setbacks, the practical application of such setbacks when constructing a building require that the smaller setback be applied to the narrower width and the larger setbacks be applied to larger depth. This allows for the construction of buildings (houses mostly) that fit best with cultural normal in the US.
 
Last edited:
Maister said:
Same as setting standards for any setback I suppose...ensure adequate light/ventilation, emergency access, neighborhood character, etc.
Click to expand...

That's just the party line, comrade. You're grasping at straws.

btrage said:
..... In case of a corner lot, the side which has the front entrance shall be considered the front of such lot.
Click to expand...

I like that one. It gives a corner lot owner the option, no?
 
Reviving an oldie, but...

imt0m0.jpg


This is on a corner lot. All setbacks are met: 25 front and rear, 12 corner side, 6 interior side. The front yard setback is actually the right side of this picture (large "front yard" setback). There's a floodway that runs through the lot and the builder was limited to pretty much this small portion of the lot. He asked for a variance for more buildable area, and was denied (see Spite House).

Everything is legal on this house, but the issue as you can see here is, "the front of the house doesn't face the front yard". Do any of your Codes require a door facing the front yard setback? Ever experiment with build-to lines on corner lots?
 
I love this house. Definitely a spite house, simply a waste of materials and energy, but a matter of principle.

We don't have a requirement that the front door face the front lot line and I would not want to create that level of requirement. The front door faces a street, which is the important part. What would be the public purpose to require the front door face the front lot line?

Also, changing the code to deal with one outlier person/situation will have negative unintended consequences/extensive nonconformity throughout the built out areas of the muni. I would guess there are hundreds (at a minimum) of situations in your muni where normal houses on normal lots are built with front doors facing a corner side lot line. Now what do you do?
 
I've never had a code to say which way the front door faces. I just try to establish the best buildable area on corner lots and let the people go.
 
Ha

That place would go for $3million and change in San Francisco.
Also a "floodway" on the property??? Mapped? Really? How could that "house" not be in the floodway, that lot is flat as a pancake. If it is in the 1% floodplain, it seems to be a nice little barrier to flow.
 
I prefer that the front door (front of structure) face the addressed street. That is not necessarily the same as the front lot line. On corner lots, I ask which way the house will face when assigning street numbers.
 
Hmmmm

So a home on a corner lot with a collector/arterial street on one side and local street on the other side can "choose" to have a driveway out on the busy 4 lane collector road as well has an address on that side??? NOT
 
The One said:
So a home on a corner lot with a collector/arterial street on one side and local street on the other side can "choose" to have a driveway out on the busy 4 lane collector road as well has an address on that side??? NOT
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm doing rural county stuff so a corner is just a corner. It's rare that I have a collector/local street. It's all "arterial" if I can even call it that. If there is a collector, I would address and call that the front typically, but for me that means I actually have a plat which is rare enough.
 
The One said:
That place would go for $3million and change in San Francisco.
Also a "floodway" on the property??? Mapped? Really? How could that "house" not be in the floodway, that lot is flat as a pancake. If it is in the 1% floodplain, it seems to be a nice little barrier to flow.
Click to expand...

I should clarify. There's a floodway easement per the master drainage study (not on the FIRM). The thing is that the side yard is for all intents and purposes the front yard. I'd prefer not to get into architectural controls because a) its Texas, and b) its not the problem. One purpose of the front yard setback is to have consistency in neighborhood development. If this was downtown, it'd be fine as it looks like it could be a rowhouse or something weird. We have chapter exceptions for minimum front yard setbacks, the 40% rule establishing the minimum setback (think historic areas). But that allows for flexibility to go to the minimum setback, not require it. It doesn't establish it as a maximum setback, which I think it should if we're talking about protecting established neighborhoods.
 
We like to have the front door and driveway face the address street for emergency services, but we don't have regulations to require that.

I would love to hear what the neighbors think of this.

BTW, is it ok to steal this picture and the information? I would like to use it for a training that I have coming up.
 
Back
Top