City of El Paso's Planning Division under the direction of City Development in conjunction with Parks & Recreation report back on the findings from Charrette #1 discussing the development of the Palisades trailhead, the central gateway to the Franklin Mountains State Park in El Paso.
2. 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
4. 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:
Entryway
Furniture & Fixtures
Path
Details
Gathering Places
Signs
Along Trails
Parking
• 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.
5. 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.
7. Gathering Places Design Alternatives
• A total of 10 design images were provided as Gathering Place alternatives.
• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.
9. Furniture & Fixtures Design Alternatives
• A total of 15 design images were provided as Furniture & Fixture alternatives.
• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.
11. Signs Design Alternatives
• A total of 6 design images were provided as Signs alternatives.
• Each alternative was assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.
13. Path Design Alternatives
• A total of 6 design images were provided as Path/Trail alternatives.
• Each alternative was assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.
15. Along Trails Design Alternatives
• A total of 12 design images were provided as Along Trails alternatives.
• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.
17. Details Design Alternatives
• A total of 14 design images were provided as Details alternatives.
• Each alternative has been assigned a unique ID tag as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.
19. Parking Design Alternatives
• A total of 5 design images were provided as Parking alternatives.
• Each alternative was assigned a unique ID tag, as shown below.
• The following slide summarizes public feedback and ranks these alternatives.
21. 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.
23. 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.
25. • Scenarios A, B and C
Scenario Comparison
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.
Scenario A
(100 comments)
21
Scenario B
(100 comments)
79
23
77
• Relative to the other
scenarios, Scenario C
received the largest share
of comments related to
plan elements
respondents would keep.
Scenario C
(115 comments)
38
0%
20%
77
40%
What Would You Keep?
60%
80%
What Would You Change?
100%
26. • The largest proportion of responses
regarding elements respondents
would change about each of the
plans were associated with parking
location/layout.
What would you change?
Traffic Circle
10
0
0
• 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.
Too Intrusive
Security
3
0
5
2
Restrooms
6
6
0
Plaza/Kiosk
8
2
23
Parking
Materials
7
• 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
6
6
37
38
16
8
12
12
13
Other
0
5
10
Scenario A
15
20
Frequency
Scenario B
25
30
35
Scenario C
40
27. • When asked about which
What would you keep?
elements to keep, Scenario C
received the largest share of
comments.
• Scenario A appeared to be the
most polarizing with over onefourth of Scenario A comments
indicating that the respondent
would keep nothing about the
plan.
6
Traffic Circle
0
0
2
Parking
5
9
• 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.
6
Nothing
2
4
0
Minimal Intrusion
4
10
3
Generally Positive
0
5
• 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.
0
0
Culvert/Trail Crossing
3
2
Amenities
8
2
• 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.
2
Other
4
5
0
2
Scenario A
4
6
Scenario B
8
10
Scenario C
12
28. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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 Charrette
with 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.