PAGE | 1

June 14, 2014

City of West Hollywood
West Hollywood West
Overlay Zone &
Design Guidelines
Community Meeting #1
PAGE | 2
Community Meeting #1
Draft Mission
Statement &
Key Issues
Project Outreach
Strategy
Context Analysis Current Zoning
Analysis
Proposed
Massing
Studies
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Presentation Outline
PAGE | 3
Draft Mission Statement
The West Hollywood West neighborhood presents
an eclectic mix of homes lending to a distinct
neighborhood character. In response to increased
interest in new single family residential construction
in the neighborhood the Overlay Zone and Design
Guidelines will clearly convey to homeowners,
builders, and architects the Citys zoning and design
expectations to maintain the character of the
neighborhood.
(Continued on Next Slide)
PAGE | 4
Draft Mission Statement
Through a collaboration between members of the
community, urban design professionals and City
staff, the Overlay Zone and Design Guidelines will
be developed to achieve the following objectives:
Manage change within the West Hollywood West
Neighborhood;
Protect desirable qualities and characteristics of the
neighborhood valued by current residents and property
owners;
Allow fexibility for creative design solutions; and
Provide clear rules and guidelines for owners, builders, and
design professionals to facilitate an effcient process when
preparing applications for new single-family/multi-family
dwellings and additions.
PAGE | 5
Key Issues
1. Massing
Providing variation in form and volume

2. Scale
Balanced relationships between a building
and its surroundings
3. Privacy
Sensitivity towards views into neighboring
properties
4. Quality of Materials and Design
Enduring and sustainable materials,
clear design concepts
5. Variation of Materials and Design
Continuing an eclectic neighborhood character
PAGE | 6
Project Outreach
Strategy
2.
PAGE | 7
Project Outreach Strategy
Approach
Three (3) community-wide meetings and a social
media website to present ideas and progress,
and gather community input.
The website and meetings will be aligned to
achieve the same objectives, and feedback will
be integrated.
Eight (8) Working Group meetings will support
community outreach objectives.
PAGE | 8
Project Outreach Strategy
Working Group
Eight (8) members selected to represent a
variety of viewpoints, including 4 residents.
Collaborates with the consultants to work out
more specifc solutions based on what we hear
at the Community Meetings.
Working Group meetings are publicly posted
and listed on the City website.
Members of the public are welcome to attend
and provide comments.
PAGE | 9
Project Outreach Strategy
Community Meeting
Objectives for Each Community Meeting
#1 June 14
Consensus on
Mission Statement
Agreement on key
issues
Receive feedback on
preliminary zoning
code options:
Massing
Scale
Privacy
Recap & Next Steps
#2 July 22
Recap
Present & build
consensus for
proposed zoning
code modifcations
based on June 14th
discussion
Discuss Design
Guidelines
for further
development
#3 September 6
Present Draft code
revisions and
design guidelines
PAGE | 10
Project Outreach Strategy
Community Meeting
Objectives for Todays Meeting
#1 June 14:
Consensus on Mission
Statement
Agreement on key issues
Receive feedback on
preliminary zoning code
options:
Massing
Scale
Privacy
Recap & Next Steps
PAGE | 11
Project Outreach Strategy
Mind Mixer Social Media Website
PAGE | 12
Context Analysis
3.
PAGE | 13
Neighborhood Context
~630 parcels, ~725 dwelling units
PAGE | 14
R1B Overlay Zone
PAGE | 15
Commercial Zones
PAGE | 16
Primary Streets
PAGE | 17
Street Orientation
PAGE | 18
Lot Size and Width
PAGE | 19
Existing Conditions
Ashcroft Ave
Rangely Ave
Ashcroft Ave
Rangely Ave
PAGE | 20
Existing Development Pattern
Variety
Texture
Scale
PAGE | 21
Existing Types
First Generation: 1920s
Type 1 - Gabled Extensions
+/- 965 s.f.
FAR : 0.19
built ca. 1925
+/- 1,100 sf
FAR : 0.27
built ca. 1925
+/- 1,760 square feet
FAR : 0.35
built ca. 1925
+/- 1,475 s.f.
FAR : 0.37
built ca.1925
+/- 1,410 s.f.
FAR : 0.35
built ca.1925
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
range 0.19-0.4
Detached Rear Garage/
Accessory Structure
Articulated Front Facades
One Side driveway -
small setback, other side
forming street rhythm
15% Multi-Family
Majority have fat roof
portion
Majority have street facing
entry
Type 2 - Gabled Front with Flat Roof Rear Type 3 - Unarticulated Duplex
Type 4 - Flat Front with Full Porch Type 5 - Varied Front with Flat Roof Rear
CONCLUSIONS
PAGE | 22
Existing Types
First Generation: 1920s
Type 1 - Gabled Extensions Type 2 - Gabled Front with
Flat Roof Rear
Type 3 - Unarticulated Duplex
Type 4 - Flat Front with Full Porch Type 5 - Varied Front with
Flat Roof Rear
PAGE | 23
Existing Types
Additions
+/- 995 s.f.
built ca.1925
2nd unit built +/-
760 s.f. ca. 1940
FAR : .30

Second Unit
Addition
Second Unit
Addition
Addition
Second Unit
+/-1,635 s.f.
built ca.1925
2nd unit 580 s.f.
FAR : .44

+/-1,850 s.f.
built ca.1925
w/ 2nd fr addition
FAR : .37

+/-2,470 s.f.
built ca.1925
2nd unit +/- 510 s.f.
built ca.1955
FAR : .75

+/-825 s.f.
built ca.1923
2nd unit +/-680 s.f.
built ca. 1940
FAR : .30
Type 6 - Minimal Articulation with
Second Unit Behind
Type 7 - Sloped Roof 2nd Story Addition with
Second Unit Behind
Type 8 - Varied Front with Flat Roof and Pop-Up
2nd Story Addition
Additional space/unit
typically added toward
rear of property
2nd story additions
typically visible from
street.
Hump-back additions
frequently have
unadorned, unarticulated
side walls
CONCLUSIONS
Type 9 - Minimal Articulation with
Hump-back 2nd Story Addition
Type 10 - Sloped Roof with 2nd Unit Over Garage
PAGE | 24
Existing Types
Additions
Type 6 - 1-story second unit addition
behind original house
Type 7 - Gabled, second foor addition
to match original house style
Type 10 - Corner Lot with addition above 3-car
garage
Type 8 - Second foor addition with
street facing patio
Type 9 - Second foor addition with
street facing patio
PAGE | 25
Existing Types
1960s-1990s: Pre-0.5 FAR Requirement
+/- 4,345 square feet
built ca.1965
FAR : .72
+/- 2,980 square feet
built ca.1975
FAR : .62
+/- 2,655 s.f.
built ca.1990
FAR : .51
Corner Lot
+/- 2,390 square feet
built ca.1995
FAR : .72
+/- 2,255 square feet and
+/- 2,210 square feet
built ca.1990
FAR : .86
Type 11 - 2-Story Dingbat with
Parking in Front, Engry to Side
Type 12 - 2-Story Duplex with Street-Facing
Entries and Parking to Rear
Type 13 - 2-Story Home w/Detached Garage
to Rear
Type 14 - 2-Story Duplex with Street-Facing
Entries and Parking Below
Type 15 - 2-Story Home with Street-Facing
Entry and Garage
Typically 2 stories
Variety of parking
locations
FARs above 0.5 (pre-
2002 zoning 0.5 FAR
requirement)
Variety of roof forms
CONCLUSIONS
PAGE | 26
Existing Types
1960s-1990s: Pre-0.5 FAR Requirement
Type 11 - 1960s ding-bat with
ground level covered parking
Type 12 - 1970s duplex with detached
garage
Type 14 - 1990s duplex with below-
ground parking
Type 15 - 1990s 2-Story Home with
Street-Facing Entry and Garage
Type 13 - 1990s single-family
residence with detached garage
PAGE | 27
Existing Types
Post-2002: 0.5 FAR Requirement
Type 16 - Flat Roof with Front
Balconies and Covered Parking
2,386 s.f.
FAR : .5
built 2008
2,579 square feet
FAR : .5
built 2008
2,754 s.f.
FAR : .5
built 2008
2,940 s.f.
FAR : .5
built 2012
Variety of parking
solutions
Variety of roof forms
All two stories
Unarticulated sidewalls
Variety of balconies at
front and rear
Type 17 - Flat Roof with Front
Balconies and Covered Parking
Type 18 - Cantilevered Second
Floor and Submerged 2-car Garage
Type 19 - Front Balcony and Garage in Rear
CONCLUSIONS
PAGE | 28
Type 16 - Flat Roof with Front
Balconies and Covered Parking
Type 17 - Flat Roof with Front
Balconies and Covered Parking
Type 18 - Cantilevered Second Floor
and Submerged 2-car Garage
Type 19 - Front Balcony and Garage
in Rear
Existing Types
Post-2002: 0.5 FAR Requirement
PAGE | 29
Current Zoning Analysis
4.
PAGE | 30
R1B Current Zoning Requirements
Parking:
2 parking spaces
required (enclosed
or covered)
Height Limit:
25-0,
2 stories
Street Elevation
Second Floor
Step Back:
Additional 6 from
frst foor setback
2
5

m
a
x
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR):
0.5 maximum
Number of Units:
Maximum 2 units
per lot less than
8,499 square feet
Front setback:
Average front set-
back of 2 adjacent
parcels,
15 minimum
1
5

m
i
n
Minumum Lot Size:
5,000 square feet
Rear Setback:
20% of average
lot depth,
10 minimum
1
0

m
i
n
1. 5.
6.
7.
8.
2.
3.
4.
PAGE | 31
Current Zoning Analysis
1. 40 Lot Width / 4,000 sf Lot / 2,000 sf Unit
FAR = 0.5
2. 50 Lot Width / 5,000 sf Lot / 2,500 sf Unit
A. One Floor
C. One Floor
B. 2nd Floor Stepback
D. 2nd Floor Stepback
PAGE | 32
5.
Proposed Massing Studies
PAGE | 33
Considerations
Parking
Current Zoning Code:
Two (2) Covered Parking
Spaces per Dwelling Unit
A. Front One Car Garage,
One Porte-cochre
B. 40 Lot, Two Car
Garage, Tandem
C. One Car Garage in Rear,
One Porte-cochre
PAGE | 34
Considerations
Parking
Does the parking requirement contribute to
buildings that look the same?
What If...
We Changed the Parking Requirements?
Would this help foster a more articulated building?
Question:
PAGE | 35
Considerations
Parking
1. What if the parking code only
required ONE covered space, while
the other car is left open to the sky?
What would this do?
PAGE | 36
Considerations
Parking
2. What if parking were only allowed in
the rear of the property?
PAGE | 37
Considerations
Parking
3. What if parking was on the side of
the building?
PAGE | 38
Considerations
Parking
4. What if covered parking was not
required at all?
PAGE | 39
Considerations
2nd Floor Massing
Current Zoning Code:
Side setback is 10%
of the lot width and a
minimum of 3.
No requirement for 2nd
Floor side setback.
PAGE | 40
Considerations
2nd Floor Massing
How can the problem with 2 story sidewalls
be resolved?
What If...
The zoning code requires some level of 2nd foor
stepback as a percentage of the groundfoor
footprint? Would this generate a more appropriate
massing confguration?
Question:
PAGE | 41
Considerations
2nd Floor Massing
1. Would a more fexible stepback
requirement lead to more variation
and foorplan creativity?
PAGE | 42
Considerations
2nd Floor Massing
2. Would a more fexible stepback
requirement lead to more variation
and foorplan creativity?
PAGE | 43
Considerations
2nd Floor Massing
3. Would a more fexible stepback
requirement lead to more variation
and foorplan creativity?
PAGE | 44
Considerations
Rear Accessory Buildings
Current Zoning Code:
Rear setback is 20% of
the lot depth, though
garages and some
accessory structures can
be on the lot line.
PAGE | 45
Considerations
Rear Accessory Buildings
Does not allow for rear accessory structures except
garages to be on the property line, although there
are some conversions in the neighborhood.
What If...
An accessory building with habitable living space
were allowed on the property line?
Note: Fire code does not allow openings on or
within 3 of the property line.
Current Code:
PAGE | 46
Considerations
Rear Accessory Buildings
1. What if a smaller rear setback
allowed for a habitable accessory
building?
PAGE | 47
Considerations
Rear Accessory Buildings
2. What if the code allowed a habitable
building as an addition to a detached
garage?
PAGE | 48
Considerations
Rear Accessory Buildings
3. What if a habitable building was
allowed atop a garage within
setbacks?
PAGE | 49
Considerations
Rear Accessory Buildings
4. What if a habitable building was
allowed within the entire rear
setback?
PAGE | 50
Considerations
Public Feedback
Visit with us at each of the posters
Express your opinions through dot voting and
questionnaires
We will listen to what you have to say, but are not
formally recording spoken comments
Now we would like to hear from you