final_whw community mtg 1 presentation

8/12/2019 FINAL_WHW Community Mtg 1 Presentation

1/50

PAGE | 1

June 14, 2014

City of West Hollywood

West Hollywood West

Overlay Zone &Design Guidelines

Community Meeting #1


2/50

PAGE | 2

Community Meeting #1

Draft Mission

Statement &Key Issues

Project Outreach

Strategy

Context Analysis Current Zoning

Analysis

Proposed

MassingStudies

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Presentation Outline


3/50

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 constructionin 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)


4/50

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 WestNeighborhood;

Protect desirable qualitiesand characteristics of the

neighborhood valued by current residents and propertyowners;

Allow flexibilityfor creative design solutions; and

Provide clear rules and guidelinesfor owners, builders, and

design professionals to facilitate an efficient process whenpreparing applications for new single-family/multi-family

dwellings and additions.


5/50

PAGE | 5

Key Issues

1. MassingProviding variation in form and volume

2. ScaleBalanced relationships between a buildingand its surroundings

3. PrivacySensitivity towards views into neighboring

properties

4. Quality of Materials and DesignEnduring and sustainable materials,

clear design concepts

5. Variation of Materials and DesignContinuing an eclectic neighborhood character


6/50

PAGE | 6

Project OutreachStrategy

2.


7/50

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.


8/50

PAGE | 8


Working Group

Eight (8) members selected to represent a

variety of viewpoints, including 4 residents.

Collaborates with the consultants to work out

more specific 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.


9/50

PAGE | 9


Community Meeting

Objectives for Each Community Meeting

#1 June 14 Consensus on

Mission Statement

Agreement on key

issues

Receive feedback on

preliminary zoningcode options:

Massing

Scale

Privacy

Recap & Next Steps

#2 July 22 Recap

Present & build

consensus for

proposed zoning

code modifications

based on June 14thdiscussion

Discuss Design

Guidelines

for furtherdevelopment

#3 September 6 Present Draft code

revisions and

design guidelines


10/50

PAGE | 10


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


11/50

PAGE | 11


Mind Mixer Social Media Website


12/50


13/50

PAGE | 13

Neighborhood Context

~630 parcels, ~725 dwelling units


14/50

PAGE | 14

R1B Overlay Zone


15/50

PAGE | 15

Commercial Zones


16/50

PAGE | 16

Primary Streets


17/50

PAGE | 17

Street Orientation


18/50

PAGE | 18

Lot Size and Width


19/50

PAGE | 19

Existing Conditions

Ashcroft Ave

Rangely Ave

Ashcroft Ave

Rangely Ave


20/50

PAGE | 20

Existing Development Pattern

VarietyTexture

Scale


21/50

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 : 0.37built ca.1925

+/- 1,410 s.f.

FAR : 0.35built 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 flat roofportion

Majority have street facingentry

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


22/50

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


23/50


24/50

PAGE | 24

Existing Types

Additions

Type 6 - 1-story second unit addition

behind original house

Type 7 - Gabled, second floor addition

to match original house style

Type 10 - Corner Lot with addition above 3-cargarage

Type 8 - Second floor addition with

street facing patio

Type 9 - Second floor addition with

street facing patio


25/50

PAGE | 25

Existing Types

1960s-1990s: Pre-0.5 FAR Requirement


built ca.1965

FAR : .72


built ca.1975

FAR : .62

+/- 2,655 s.f.

built ca.1990

FAR : .51

Corner Lot+/- 2,390 square feet

built ca.1995FAR : .72

+/- 2,255 square feet and+/- 2,210 square feet

built ca.1990FAR : .86

Type 11 - 2-Story Dingbat withParking in Front, Engry to Side

Type 12 - 2-Story Duplex with Street-FacingEntries and Parking to Rear

Type 13 - 2-Story Home w/Detached Garageto Rear

Type 14 - 2-Story Duplex with Street-Facing

Entries and Parking Below

Type 15 - 2-Story Home with Street-FacingEntry and Garage

Typically 2 stories

Variety of parkinglocations

FARs above 0.5 (pre-2002 zoning 0.5 FARrequirement)

Variety of roof forms

CONCLUSIONS


26/50

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 withStreet-Facing Entry and Garage

Type 13 - 1990s single-family

residence with detached garage


27/50

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 : .5built 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 18 - Cantilevered Second

Floor and Submerged 2-car Garage

Type 19 - Front Balcony and Garage in Rear

CONCLUSIONS


28/50

PAGE | 28





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


29/50

PAGE | 29

Current Zoning Analysis

4.


30/50

PAGE | 30

R1B Current Zoning Requirements

Parking:

2 parking spaces

required (enclosedor covered)

Height Limit:25-0,

2 stories

Street Elevation

Second Floor

Step Back:Additional 6 from

first floor setback

25

max

Floor Area Ratio(FAR):

0.5 maximum

Number of Units:

Maximum 2 unitsper lot less than

8,499 square feet

Front setback:Average front set-

back of 2 adjacentparcels,15 minimum

15

min

Minumum Lot Size:5,000 square feet

Rear Setback:

20% of average

lot depth,10 minimum

10

min

1. 5.

6.

7.

8.

2.

3.

4.


31/50

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


32/50

PAGE | 32

5.Proposed Massing Studies


33/50


34/50

PAGE | 34

ConsiderationsParking

Does the parking requirement contribute tobuildings that look the same?

What If...

We Changed the Parking Requirements?

Would this help foster a more articulated building?

Question:


35/50

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?


36/50

PAGE | 36

Considerations

Parking

2. What if parking were only allowed in

the rear of the property?


37/50

PAGE | 37

Considerations

Parking

3. What if parking was on the side of

the building?


38/50

PAGE | 38

Considerations

Parking

4. What if covered parking was not

required at all?


39/50

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.


40/50

PAGE | 40

Considerations

2nd Floor Massing

How can the problem with 2 story sidewallsbe resolved?

What If...

The zoning code requires some level of 2nd floor

stepback as a percentage of the groundfloor

footprint? Would this generate a more appropriate

massing configuration?

Question:


41/50

PAGE | 41

Considerations

2nd Floor Massing

1. Would a more flexible stepback

requirement lead to more variation

and floorplan creativity?


42/50

PAGE | 42

Considerations

2nd Floor Massing





43/50

PAGE | 43

Considerations

2nd Floor Massing





44/50

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.


45/50

PAGE | 45

Considerations


Does not allow for rear accessory structures exceptgarages 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:


46/50

PAGE | 46

Considerations


1. What if a smaller rear setback

allowed for a habitable accessory

building?


47/50

PAGE | 47

Considerations


2. What if the code allowed a habitable

building as an addition to a detached

garage?


48/50

PAGE | 48

Considerations


3. What if a habitable building was

allowed atop a garage within

setbacks?


49/50

PAGE | 49

Considerations


4. What if a habitable building was

allowed within the entire rear

setback?


50/50

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

final_whw community mtg 1 presentation

Documents