Palisades Charrette #1 Findings

THE PALISADESSummary Design Charrette Findings

The Palisades Design Charrette

• On November 18th, 2013 the City of El Paso’s City

Development and Parks and Recreation Departments

held a public meeting and charrette to obtain public

feedback about various design aspects of the Palisades

trailhead and access improvements project.

• The following slides summarize the results of this

charrette, to include findings from the:

1. Visual Preference Survey

2. Comments on the Three Conceptual Plans

VISUAL PREFERENCE

SURVEYSummary of Findings

Purpose and Methodology

• Purpose• The purpose of the Visual Preference Survey was to obtain public feedback on

physical and aesthetic design alternatives for various elements of the Palisades

trailhead and access improvements project.

• Elements included the following:

• Methodology• Images of design alternatives for each element were posted for consideration by

meeting attendees.

• Meeting attendees were provided 12 dots and instructed to place their dots on the

images they liked best.

• The following slides summarize the top and bottom images identified within each

element.

• Top images represent the images receiving the largest number of dots, while bottom images represent those receiving the fewest number of dots.

� Entryway � Gathering Places� Furniture & Fixtures � Signs� Path � Along Trails� Details � Parking

Entry Way Design Alternatives• A total of 15 design images were provided as Entry Way alternatives.

• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag as shown below.

• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.

Top Choices

Bottom Choices

0%

0%

0%

2%

2%

3%

3%

5%

5%

6%

8%

11%

12%

14%

31%

0% 4% 7% 11% 14% 18% 21% 25% 28% 32% 35%

2

3

10

4

14

6

7

1

12

13

5

11

8

9

15

Picture Identification Tag

Entry Way

n=65

• A total of 10 design images were provided as Gathering Place alternatives.

• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.


Gathering Places Design Alternatives

1%

1%

3%

3%

4%

4%

16%

16%

20%

31%

0% 4% 7% 11% 14% 18% 21% 25% 28% 32% 35%

3

5

7

10

8

9

1

4

2

6


Gathering PlacesTop Choices

Bottom Choices

n=70

Furniture & Fixtures Design Alternatives

• A total of 15 design images were provided as Furniture & Fixture alternatives.



Top Choices

Bottom Choices

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

3%

3%

4%

5%

5%

5%

7%

13%

16%

34%

0% 4% 7% 11% 14% 18% 21% 25% 28% 32% 35%

3

4

6

13

7

5

15

10

1

12

14

8

9

11

2


Furniture & Fixtures

n=91

• A total of 6 design images were provided as Signs alternatives.

• Each alternative was assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.


Signs Design Alternatives

Top Choices

Bottom Choices

2%

2%

5%

12%

23%

56%

0% 6% 12% 18% 24% 30% 36% 42% 48% 54% 60%

1

2

4

3

5

6


Signs

n=43

• A total of 6 design images were provided as Path/Trail alternatives.



Path Design Alternatives

Top Choice

Bottom Choice

2%

6%

8%

16%

16%

53%

0% 6% 12% 18% 24% 30% 36% 42% 48% 54% 60%

6

2

5

1

3

4


Path

n=51

• A total of 12 design images were provided as Along Trails alternatives.

• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.


Along Trails Design Alternatives

0%

0%

1%

1%

4%

6%

8%

10%

14%

15%

18%

23%

0% 3% 5% 8% 10% 13% 15% 18% 20% 23% 25%

8

11

1

5

10

2

9

7

3

12

4

6


Along TrailsTop Choices

Bottom Choices

n=79

Details Design Alternatives

• A total of 14 design images were provided as Details alternatives.



Top Choices

Bottom Choices

0%

0%

0%

1%

3%

3%

4%

5%

5%

14%

15%

15%

16%

19%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

6

12

13

10

4

14

11

1

9

7

3

5

2

8


Details

n=79

• A total of 5 design images were provided as Parking alternatives.



Parking Design Alternatives

Top Choices

Bottom Choices

0%

0%

5%

40%

55%

0% 6% 12% 18% 24% 30% 36% 42% 48% 54% 60%

2

4

3

1

5


Parking

n=20

Summary of Survey Findings• Clear preference for a minimalist approach.

• Integrate natural features and materials original to the site into design of amenities, trails and trailhead.

• Trails and entryway should maximize scenic views.

• Design for minimum impact.

• Details, signage, etc. should blend into the scenery.

COMMENTS ON THREE

CONCEPTUAL PLANSSummary of Findings

Purpose and Methodology

• Purpose

• The purpose of the opportunity to comment on each of the three conceptual plans

was to obtain public feedback on the various design options and their elements,

including parking location/layout, amenities, etc. This feedback is intended to serve

as a foundation for the final project design.

• Methodology

• The three conceptual plans were placed on tables and meeting attendees were

asked to answer two questions about each of the plans.

• The two questions asked were as follows:

1. What would you change about this plan?

2. What would you keep about this plan?

• Comments received were then compiled and organized by general theme/category.

Some these general themes include “Parking”, “Amenities”, “Security”, etc.

• The following slides summarize findings from this exercise.

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

• Scenarios A, B and C received a similar total amount of comments at 100, 100 and 115 total comments, respectively.

• The large majority of comments received for each of the three scenarios related to items the respondents would change about the plan.

• Relative to the other scenarios, Scenario C received the largest share of comments related to plan elements respondents would keep.

38

23

21

77

77

79

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scenario C(115 comments)

Scenario B(100 comments)

Scenario A(100 comments)

Scenario Comparison

What Would You Keep? What Would You Change?

• The largest proportion of responses regarding elements respondents would change about each of the plans were associated with parking location/layout.

• Scenario B and C garnered similar responses across categories.

• Nearly half of Scenario B and C comments indicated that the respondent would somehow change the respective scenario’s parking location/layout.

• Over one-fourth of Scenario A comments indicated the respondent would somehow change the plan’s parking location/layout.

• The second and third most often cited elements of Scenario A included concern regarding the materials used to pave the parking lot and driveway, as well as a concern regarding intrusion into the natural setting.

• Although Scenarios A and C show limited parking along the Billy Rogers Arroyo Nature Preserve, nearly half of the negative parking comments received in each of these cases referred specifically to a concern for parking intrusion into the Arroyo.

13

7

38

2

6

5

6

0

12

8

37

8

6

0

6

0

12

16

23

0

2

3

13

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Other

Materials

Parking

Plaza/Kiosk

Restrooms

Security

Too Intrusive

Traffic Circle

Frequency

What would you change?


• When asked about which elements to keep, Scenario C received the largest share of comments.

• Scenario A appeared to be the most polarizing with over one-fourth of Scenario A comments indicating that the respondent would keep nothing about the plan.

• For Scenario B, various plan amenities, such as the gathering space and kiosk, were most often cited as elements to keep, although, as shown in the previous slide, a similar number of comments were received suggesting that these amenities should be somehow changed.

• Relative to the other scenarios, Scenario C was most often cited as the least intrusive. Specifically, minimal pavement and development into the arroyo and the Palisades itself were indicated as elements to keep.

• Likely related, the location/layout of Scenario C parking was relatively more often cited as a positive element to keep when compared to the other two scenarios.

5

2

3

5

10

4

9

0

4

8

0

0

4

2

5

0

2

2

0

3

0

6

2

6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Other

Amenities

Culvert/Trail Crossing

Generally Positive

Minimal Intrusion

Nothing

Parking

Traffic Circle

What would you keep?


Summary of Conceptual Plan Comments

• The majority of comments received referred to elements about each of the conceptual plans meeting attendees would change.

• Of the three scenarios, Scenario C received the largest share of positive comments, although like its counterparts, a clear concern regarding parking layout and location was communicated.

• Putting together both positive and negative comments received, the following bullets summarize elements that should be considered and incorporated in the final design:

• A plan that limits the impact and level of intrusion into the Palisades and negates any impact to the Billy Rogers Arroyo Park is a priority.

• As a means of reducing the impact to the natural environment, a plan that reduces on-site parking and employs alternative parking options should be considered.

• The use of pervious materials natural to the site, rather than concrete and asphalt, for parking surfaces and gathering spaces should be used.

• Amenities such as an educational kiosk and gathering space at the entry may be considered, but these amenities must blend well with the surrounding natural environment and have a minimal impact on that environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions• Both the Visual Preference Survey and the comments provided for each

of the three conceptual plans clearly demonstrate that minimal impact to the natural environment is a priority.

• Trailhead elements and other access improvements ought to use materials natural to the site and enhance its natural beauty such as its scenic views.

• Parking location/layout is a key community concern in the design of the Palisades access improvements.

• There is a clear trend that suggests any parking or other encroachment into the Billy Rogers Arroyo Nature Preserve is unacceptable.

• However, additional information is needed to confirm whether one of the parking locations/layouts presented is preferred.

• Alternatively, given comments provided, other parking options, such as reducing the number of on-site spaces need to be considered before final design is completed.

• Finally, there is evidence to suggest materials used (i.e. soft vs. hard) may influence parking location/layout preference; the community should be given an opportunity to comment on such options.

Next Steps

• Hold a second public meeting on Monday, February 17th, 2014.

• The purpose of this meeting is two-fold:

1. Share the results of the November 18th, 2013 Palisades Design Charrettewith the community.

2. Provide the community with a second opportunity to comment on several alternative design options that incorporate the findings summarized in this report.

• The second community meeting is intended to wrap-up the public input process. Goals of this event should include:

• Finalizing parking location, layout and design materials.

• Entryway and other signage design and materials.

• Inclusion of other amenities as desired, if permitted by the budget.

QUESTIONS?Contact:

Elizabeth Gibson, [email protected]

Laura Kissack, [email protected]

Palisades Charrette #1 Findings

News & Politics