Architectural Review Board (ARB)

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA May 7, 2024 3:00 p.m. Pre-meeting to begin at 2:00 p.m. #1 Consent Agenda A. Jonathan & Sarah Yen – 2215 Drury Lane Generator #2 Gabe & Megan Egli Whole home remodel / Outdoor kitchen and covered porch 2810 W 68th Street Continued from 3-26-24 ARB Meeting #3 Neil Atha Enclosing existing screened porch / Outdoor fireplace 3716 W 65th Street #4 Abigail & Bryce Davis Rear addition 5406 State Line Road #5 Brooke & Lucas Pitts* Patios / Walkways / Landscape retaining walls / 7010 Overhill Road Putting green #6 Jane & Bryce Jones† New home / Swimming pool / Generator 3516 W 64th Street Continued from 4-23-24 ARB Meeting *Variance required from the Board of Zoning Appeals. † Substantial Construction The Mission Hills Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) provides that the BZA shall determine whether or not an ARB decision was reasonable based upon the evidence presented to the ARB and the record of the ARB proceedings. Testimony at the BZA hearing will be limited to a discussion of the evidence presented to the ARB. No new evidence will be considered. #1 Consent Agenda A. Jonathan & Sarah Yen 2215 Drury Lane The Yens are proposing a new generator behind their exiting detached accessory building. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: Intersection Green Summary of Project: The proposed generator will be located adjacent to the existing pool equipment at the back of an existing detached accessory building. It will be screened with existing landscaping. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. May 7, 2024 #2 Gabe & Megan Egli 2810 W 68th Street The Eglis are returning to the ARB to present a project previously withdrawn. At the February 13, 2024 meeting, the ARB requested that the project be reviewed by the City’s Professional Review Panel before returning to the ARB on March 26, 2024. The project was continued to this meeting from the March 26th ARB meeting. The Eglis are proposing a whole house remodel that includes additions to the rear and front of the home. The roof structure will be changed to a lower pitch allowing for a more prominent second floor. A new covered porch and outdoor kitchen are proposed as part of the project. This project was continued at the September 27, 2022 meeting, where the ARB requested a streetscape, roof plan, alternative front elevation, and a sample of the proposed siding. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review: Existing House: 2,056 sf Additions: 178 sf Covered porches: 324 sf Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 sf Total Lot Coverage: 2,558 sf Summary of Project: At the front of the house, an existing mansard roof is being changed to a full gable with large windows. The roof of the adjacent side wing is being removed, and the eave lines are proposed to be raised to the second- floor plate line. The new roof will have a significantly lower pitch to align with the main ridge of the new gable roof. A new flat awning roof is proposed over the front door. The existing brick siding will be maintained, and all new walls and the gable will be sided with lap siding. At the rear of the house, a new two-story addition is proposed near the center of the house. A new covered porch extends from the rear of the house, within which the proposed outdoor kitchen is located. The kitchen consists of a concrete base cabinet with a grill and sink. All of the home’s windows will be replaced with new clear-view units, in keeping with the contemporary design intent. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review: Lot area: 18,293 sf House Footprint: 2,558 sf Driveway and Front Walkway: 2,110 sf Patios and walkways: 543 sf Remaining Greenspace: 13,082 sf (71.5%) May 7, 2024 Design Guideline Review: Section 2.6.2 on page 79 provides recommendations for adjustments for narrow lots. This section recommends that floor elevations and plate heights are in scale with the neighboring homes. With the change and roof pitch and dramatic increase in eave height, the proposed house may no longer be in scale with the adjacent ranch homes. Discussion is recommended. Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-1 and 2 properties have greenspace no less than 60% of the lot area. This recommendation has been met. Professional Review Panel Recommendation: The PRP recommended that the ARB approve the project with the following changes: • Elevations that show which windows are existing, which are being removed, and which are new. • Add existing home outline in red on elevation drawings. • Change the front walkway to no more than 5 feet wide. • Decrease the eave depth as well as fascia height. • Keep brick height at the height of the bottom of the windows on the front wing of the home. • Provide alternatives to the east elevation (windows, fenestration, or detailing). • Eliminate one of the roof pitches. Update 4/30/2024 Updated drawings were provided that addressed all of the PRP concerns. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-2 Lot Area: 18,293 sf Lot Width: 130’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 46.8’ (Existing) Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 17.9’ (Existing) Minimum Combined Side Yards: 25% = 32.5’ 64.7’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 26.6’ 48.1’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 20’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 35.9’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,037 sf 2,558 sf Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 10,976 sf 13,082 sf = 71.5% Drainage Study Required if any answer below is “Yes” Yes/No Is the project adding 1,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface? No Will the project cause the greenspace to be less than recommended by the Design Guidelines? No EXCEPT NO STUDY REQUIRED IF: 1) replacing existing impervious surface in approximately same footprint, and 2) project will not decrease existing greenspace on site Is there a documented drainage issue for this property? Yes *See the Mission Hills website for drainage study requirements – www.missionhillsks.gov *The Architectural Review Board may require the drainage study be submitted before they act on the proposed project May 7, 2024 #3 Neil Atha 3716 W 65th Street The Athas are proposing to enclose an existing screened porch, put a solid roof on an existing pergola, and add an outdoor fireplace. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: The screened porch is located at the southwest corner of the house. The existing screens sit on a partial- height stone wall. The Athas are proposing to replace the screens with large casement windows that match the existing house. At the rear of the house, the Athas are proposing to add a flat roof over an existing pergola structure. The proposed roof is a low-slope copper roof. To the side of the pergola, they are proposing a new outdoor fireplace. The fireplace is all stone to match the existing stonework on the house. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 40,865 House Footprint: -5,460 Existing Hardscape: -8,819 Proposed Fireplace -22 Remaining Greenspace: 26,564 Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends LS-3, 4 and 5 properties have a greenspace no less than 65% of the lot area. This recommendation has been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(30)/LS-5 Lot Area: 40,865 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 26,562 sf 26,564 sf = 65.0% May 7, 2024 #4 Bryce & Abigail Davis 5406 State Line Road The Davises are proposing a new addition at the rear of their home. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review SF Existing House: 2,433 Proposed Addition: 974 Total Lot Coverage: 3,407 Summary of Revisions: At the lowest level, the addition consists of a large walk-out basement addition with a new patio, including a new hot tub. The main floor of the addition is primarily an outdoor terrace with a small, screened porch. The terrace features an outdoor kitchen that is incorporated into the terrace guardrail/wall. The addition is sided with a combination of brick and stucco to match the house. A wood stair connects the terrace and lower-level patio. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 17,414 House Footprint: -2,433 New Addition: -974 Driveway & Walkway: -2,751 Patios & Walkways: -507 Rear Retaining wall: -240 Mechanical Equipment Pads: -56 Remaining Greenspace: 10,453 Design Guideline Review: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Design Guidelines. Drainage Study Required if any answer below is “Yes” Yes/No Is the project adding 1,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface? No Will the project cause the greenspace to be less than recommended by the Design Guidelines? No EXCEPT NO STUDY REQUIRED IF: 1) replacing existing impervious surface in approximately same footprint, and 2) project will not decrease existing greenspace on site Is there a documented drainage issue for this property? Yes May 7, 2024  Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-2 Lot Area: 17,414 sf Lot Width: 100’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ No Change Minimum Side Yard (Left): 10’ 17’ (existing) Minimum Side Yard (Right): 10’ 17.84’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: 25% = 25’ 34.84’ Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 20% = 33.2’ 46.38’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 20’ Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 46.38’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 4,691 sf 3,407 sf Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 10,448 sf 10,454 sf = 60% May 7, 2024 #5 Lucas & Brooke Pitts * 7010 Overhill Road The Pitts are proposing multiple site improvements including patios, walkways, landscape retaining walls, and a putting green. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Suburban • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Summary of Project: At the front of the house, the Pitts are proposing multiple 16-inch-tall planting bed walls. The walls are a combination of Rochester Kodah and Black Hills edging. These are both faux stone block systems. Also, in the front yard, they are proposing to fill in the center of an existing round walkway with brick pavers. Since the walkway is not located in the front yard, a variance is not required. At the side of the house, a new paver stone walkway has been proposed along with more stone landscape edging. At the southwest corner of the house, a new patio is proposed; the material for this patio has not been indicated. In the northwest corner of the rear yard, a new 265-square-foot putting green is proposed. Lastly, all of the downspouts will be connected to underground pipes. Ordinance Compliance: The project is in violation of City Code Section 5-120.C which forbids accessory structures within 10 feet of the side property line. Two of the downspout pipes daylight within ten feet of the south property line. Variances of 2.3’ and 1.9’ are required. The project may be in violation of City Code Section 5-121.C which requires accessory structures be a minimum of 10 feet from the rear or side property line. The plans include two different locations for the putting green. One shows the putting green 9.7 feet from the rear property line. A variance of 0.3 feet is required. The project is in violation of City Code Section 5-121.D which requires patios to be located a minimum of 20 feet from the side or rear property line. A variance of 1.9 feet is required. The project is in violation of City Code Section 5-132.B.8.(b) which limits artificial turf to 250 square feet. A variance of 15 square feet is required. Design Guideline Review: Section 2.7.3 E on page 111 provides specific recommendations for Patios and Outdoor Recreational Facilities. This section recommends that these elements follow the zoning regulations to help mitigate water runoff and minimize noise from entertainment areas. This recommendation has not been met. Lot Information Zoning: R-1(16)/LS-2 Lot Area: 19,077 sf Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 18.1’ Minimum Greenspace: 60% = 11,446 sf Unknown * Multiple variances are required from the Board of Zoning Appeals. May 7, 2024 #6 Bryce and Jane Jones† 3516 W 64th Street The owners are proposing a new 2-story home with a 5,425 sq. ft. footprint. The footprint consists of 3,912 sq. ft. of first floor living space, a 906 sq. ft. 3-car garage, and 607 sq. ft. of covered porches. The project includes a large patio, a swimming pool, and a generator. Summary of Property: • Character Area: Neighborhood Estates • Location of Common Green Space: Front • Any Special Frontages: None Lot Coverage Review SF Main Floor Living Area: 3,831 Main Floor Garage Area: 938 Covered Porches: 595 Detached Accessory Buildings: 0 Total Lot Coverage: 5,364 Summary of Project: The house does not follow a clear architectural style. The central vertical massing, symmetrical nature, and Romanesque detailing give it the impression of a Colonial Revival home. The plan is a classic central hall layout. Two prominent front wings flank the main mass, creating a front courtyard. The front symmetry is somewhat compromised by a shed projection on the west front wing. This projection is very close to the front elevation and takes away from the aesthetic of the front wing. This shed is further complicated by the fact that the design indicated on the elevations does not match the renderings. Clarification is required. The home is sided with a combination of stone and stucco, with stone detailing around windows. The fenestration layout is formal at all elevations. Each portion of the house maintains its symmetrical layout and attempts to coordinate across the central axis of the house. Two rear wings create a central patio area at the rear of the house. The proposed pool is incorporated into this patio. The HVAC and generator have been omitted from renderings and elevations; however, these elements will be noticeable on the right side of the house. Similarly, the pool equipment is not shown on any plan. No landscape screening or fencing is proposed to screen these elements from view. A perimeter fence or other protection will be required due to the proposed pool. Ordinance Compliance: There are no conflicts between the proposed project and the City of Mission Hills Code of Ordinances. Greenspace Review SF Lot Area: 33,629 House Footprint: -5,362 Driveway: -4,768 Courtyard Walls: -40 Patios & Walkways: -1,270 Window Wells: -144 Equipment Pads: -80 Remaining Greenspace: 21,929 May 7, 2024 Design Guideline Review: Section 2.3 on pages 64 through 67 of the Design Guidelines provides specific recommendations for the Neighborhood Estates character area. Subsection A recommends that the main mass of the house should be no more than 50% of the lot width (63.15’) or 70 ft. whichever is greater. At 53.7’, this recommendation has been met. This section goes on to recommend that the depth of the main mass should not exceed 40 ft. At 42.5 feet deep, this recommendation has not been met. The main mass height should be no more than 2 ½ stories and 35 ft. At 34.9 feet this recommendation has been met. The main mass should be located entirely within the Primary Building Area. This recommendation has been met. Please note, to meet the height requirement, the center of the main mass features a large flat roof area. Also, “With few exceptions, the main mass should be the tallest, widest and most highly visible massing element of the home. A minimum of 50% of the front facade should be visible from the street. Front projections such as porches, stoops, bay windows and chimneys that are 6 ft. deep or less are considered part of the visible main mass front facade. Front porches deeper than 6 ft. that are 75% open on the street- facing side are considered part of the visible main mass front facade.” These recommendations have been met. Subsection B recommends that the total width of all front wings not exceed 50% of the main mass width. The sum of the two front wings is 44 feet. This recommendation has not been met. The depth of front wings should not be greater than the width. This recommendation has been met. The height is limited to 2 stories and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. This recommendation has been met. The location should be near the front building line. There should be no more than two. If a forecourt is formed between two wings, the forecourt width should be at least 20 ft. These recommendations have been met. Subsection C recommends that the width of each side wing should be limited to about 20% of the lot width; the combined widths of Side Wings on both sides should be no more than 30% of the lot width. If the front/side wings are interpreted as side wings, each should be limited to 20% of the lot width (25.2’) and the sum should not exceed 30% of the lot width (37.9’). Under this interpretation the width of the individual wings is acceptable, but the sum width does not meet the recommendations. Interpretation of the Design Guidelines is required. Side wings should be inset a minimum of 3 ft. from the front and rear facades of the main mass. The height should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Side wings that extend in front of or behind the main mass should extend at least 3 ft. past the main mass façade. They should have a depth and height clearly less than the main mass. Side wings located in the Secondary Building Area are limited to 2-stories and 30 feet in height, and at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. These recommendations have been met. Side wings located in the Conditional Building Area are allowed if they meet the special conditions in Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). If allowed, the height is limited to 1 ½ stories or 24 feet and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. This section is moot, the LS-5 lot size increases the side setbacks and eliminates the conditional building area. Side wings should contain no second floor or dormer windows that overlook the neighbors. The left side wing includes one small window that overlooks the neighbor's sunroom. This recommendation has not been met. Subsection D recommends that rear wings located in the Primary or Secondary Building Areas be no more than 2 stories and 30 ft. tall and should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. This recommendation has been met. May 7, 2024 Rear wings should have a width clearly less than the main mass and should not exceed 50% of the main mass width (26.8’). The rear wings meet this recommendation. No more than 2 rear wings are recommended in the Rear Secondary Building Area. Spacing between wings should be no less than the eave height of the taller wing or half the length of the longer wing. The rear of the house could be interpreted as a compound wing. A large central wing is located within the primary building area at the center of the main mass. The subsequent rear wings are subordinate to that primary wing. The design guidelines do not have a recommendation for this specific condition. Interpretation is required. Rear wings located in the Conditional Building Area are allowed if they meet the special conditions in Section 2.6.4 (pg. 88). If allowed, no more than one shall encroach into the Conditional Building Area. Rear wings allowed in the Conditional Building Area are limited to 1 1/2 stories and 24 ft. in height with eaves no taller than 12 ft. They should be at least 3 ft. shorter than the main mass. Both rear wings are inside the rear primary building area. These recommendations have been met. Subsection F recommends that dormers located on wings or accessory buildings located in the Secondary or Conditional Building Areas should not be oriented toward any neighboring lots. Dormers should be scaled as modest accessories to the roof they adorn and windows to the room they serve, not as entire rooms with their own roofs or “wings” sitting on the roof. The home has no dormers in the secondary or conditional building areas. These recommendations have been met. Subsection G recommends that driveways occupy as little of the Primary Landscape Area as possible. On lots wider than 140 ft., the driveway should be located off the side property line a distance no less than 8% of the lot width. Circle driveways should have an interior green with a width no less than 80 feet wide, measured at the front property line, and depth of 40 feet measured from the curb. These recommendations have been met. Subsection H allows for compound wings where a secondary wing is attached to a primary wing. The primary wing should follow all the requirements stated above and the secondary wing should be clearly subordinate to the primary wing. The west side wing includes two large shed-roofed areas that are clearly secondary to the wing but are too large to be considered projecting elements. Their use allows for the front wings to appear more symmetrical than they are. The projections come within feet of the front and rear wings. The primary side wing extends out further allowing a place for the projections to terminate. Since these do not meet the strict definition of a compound wing, interpretation is required. New Subsection I for roofs: Maximum height: 1.5 times that of the height of the façade below the eave, except for one-story homes which can be 2 times that of the façade height below the eave. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.6.2 on page 79 provides specific recommendations for adjustments to narrow lots (less than 130 ft. wide) OR Houses less than 30 ft. apart. The existing site is less than 130 feet wide, but the proposed home is more than 30 feet from either side neighbor. The proposed separation would allow ground to second floor height to be up to 3 feet taller than the neighbor’s home as described in the section. The proposed eave heights are roughly equal to the neighboring homes, so no adjustment is necessary. Section 2.6.4 on page 89 of the Design Guidelines provides recommendations for lot coverage. The section recommends that lot coverage be limited and should not exceed an increase of 50% over the average percentage maximum lot coverage that is being used by the neighboring properties. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.6.4.A on page 89 discourages overbuilding by recommending that homes avoid reaching more than 2 minimum/maximum setbacks or limits. The proposed home is within inches of both side setbacks, within 1% of the greenspace requirement and only meets the height requirement by clipping the roof with large flat roof areas. This recommendation has not been met. May 7, 2024 Section 2.7.1 B on page 94 recommends that the number of different roof pitches should be limited to two. The house employees three different pitches, not including the flat roofs. The majority of the house uses a 12/12 pitch, others are 12.5/12 and 4.5/12. This recommendation has not been met. Section 2.7.1.C on page 95 provides specific recommendations for projecting elements. This section suggests that bay windows should be at least 50% transparent. This recommendation has been met. This section goes on to suggest that all mechanical equipment be completely screened from view. Extensive landscaping is proposed around mechanical equipment. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.1 D on page 96 recommends that all window muntins on the home be the same pattern and proportion, with few exceptions. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.1 F on page 99 provided specific recommendations about massing aberrations. One massing aberration is use of complex massing where complicated projections are used are added in an attempt to disguise a large volume by having it constructed of a collection of incohesive parts that attempt to break up the mass. The proposed west wing uses shed projections to create larger volumes while attempting to hide their true size. Discussion is recommended. Section 2.7.2 A on page 101 recommends garages be set behind the façade of the main house mass. The proposed garages are located in the west side front wing. This recommendation has not been met. Section 2.7.2.B on page 102 recommends drives to be no more than 12 feet wide at the front property line. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.3.A on page 106 recommends that LS-3, 4 and 5 properties have a greenspace no less than 65% of the lot area. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.3 D on page 110 provides specific recommendations about altering grade and topography. This recommendation has been met. Section 2.7.3 E on page 111 provides specific recommendations for courtyards. Courtyards should engage the main mass of the principal building and provide access to the main entry. They should be oriented toward the street. Their depth should be between 8 and 16 feet and the width should be greater than the depth but less than the width of the home’s main mass. The walls should be between 16 and 36 inches. Entry posts should be limited to 4 feet tall. These recommendations have been met. Section 2.7.3 E on page 111 provides specific recommendations for Patios and Outdoor Recreational Facilities. This section recommends that these elements follow the zoning regulations to help mitigate water runoff and minimize noise from entertainment areas. This recommendation has been met. PRP Recommendation – April 17, 2024: The PRP reviewed the revised drawings. Regarding the Design Guideline violation for total width of front wings, the PRP believes the intent of the recommendation is met as the front of the main mass is clearly visible with the front wings acting as side wings. Regarding the second-floor dormer window overlooking the neighbor, the PRP believes the intent of the recommendation is met as it is a small window in a stairwell. May 7, 2024 The PRP recommends approval with the following changes: • Increase headers to 12”, sides increased to 8”, and sills to 4”. Second-story headers on small windows can remain at 6” x 4”. • Align front wing ridges with the main mass side wall. • Change thin stone veneer to trim. • Adjust the main ridge to eliminate the tiny flat roof. • Option for any proposed copper roofs to be a composite roof to match. • Rework the side porch roof – more swoop and change to the composite roof to match dormers on the opposite side of the home. • Gutters to be 4” in diameter. • Renderings should match elevation drawings. • Area calculations on the proposed site plan should match calculations on the lower floor plan. Lot Information Zoning/Lot Size: R-1(30)/LS-5 Lot Area: 33,629 sf Lot Width: 126.3’ Ordinance/Design Guideline Allowable/Required Provided Maximum Height: 35’ 34’10” Minimum Side Yard (Left): 15% = 18.95’ 19’ Minimum Side Yard (Right): 15% = 18.95’ 19.75’ Minimum Combined Side Yards: n/a n/a Minimum Rear Yard: (At closest point) 30% = 79.8’ 100’ Patio Minimum Side Yard: 20’ 36’10” Patio Minimum Rear Yard: 20’ 98’ Maximum Lot Coverage: 5,927 sf 5,425 sf Minimum Greenspace: 65% = 21,859 sf 21,929 = 65.2% Neighbor Comparison Neighbor to Left Proposed Neighbor to Right Primary Eave Height Above 931.2 928.66 924.3 Finished Grade: First Floor Elevation: 913.5 910.18 (exist-909.25) 906.4’ Top of Foundation Elevation: 909.0’ (exist-907.98) Second Floor Plate Height 17.7’ 19.5’ 17.9’ Eave Height Ridge Height: 951.6 942.5 / 34’10” 940.1 Site Elements Driveway width at Property Line: 12’ May 7, 2024  Existing Lot Address Lot Area LC by Ordinance % max used Coverage 3516 W 64th St 33,629 3,391 7,412 45.75% 3601 W 63rd St 27,055 2,944 6,372 46.20% 3519 W 63rd St 26,532 3,495 6,286 55.60% 3515 W 63rd St 25,970 1,886 6,193 30.45% 3700 W 64th St 43,467 5,854 8,859 66.08% 3616 W 64t St 33,164 6,686 7,340 91.09% 3608 W 64th St 24,473 2,760 5,943 46.44% 3600 W 64th St 32,642 4,788 7,260 65.95% 3508 W 64th St 32,838 4,043 7,290 55.46% 3418 W 64th St 31,971 3,134 7,156 43.80% 3414 W 64th St 32,190 2,802 7,190 38.97% 3601 W 64th St 42,496 3,046 8,721 34.93% 3517 W 64th St 40,810 5,166 8,479 60.93% 3515 W 64th St 35,979 5,027 7,768 64.72% Average 53.31% 50% Increase 79.97% 3516 W 64th St 33,629 Proposed: 5,425 7,412 73.19% Recommended Lot Coverage as reduced by 150% Rule: 5,927 91.5% May 7, 2024