UV120 January 30th, 2014

Charrette Findings

UV120Purpose and Summary of the

January 30th Meeting

• The purpose of the January 30th public meeting and design

charrette was to gather feedback from El Paso community

stakeholders, including residents, land development

professionals, realtors and other interested parties, on a new 120

acre development in the Upper Valley located at the southeast

corner of Artcraft Road and Westside Drive.

• This meeting offered a unique opportunity for the community to

play an important role in shaping the future of the Upper Valley

and more generally, the quality of life in El Paso by providing input

on various design elements and land development ideas.

• To this end, meeting attendees were asked to participate in three

activities:

1. Visual Preference Survey;

2. Master Plan Element Preference and Comment;

3. General comments about what participants would like or not

like to see in this new development.

• Approximately 40 members of the public attended the meeting to

provide their input and insight through participation in the above

activities.

• The following report details meeting attendees’ opinions and

preferences; it is these opinions and preferences that will serve as

the foundation for future design and development of the land.

METHODOLOGY: VISUAL

PREFERENCE SURVEY

• This activity was intended to obtain feedback on physical design alternatives for sevencategories including:

• Using stickers, participants were asked to choose their three favorite images within eachcategory.

• Additionally, comment sheets and pens were left on the tables to provide participants theopportunity to comment more specifically on what elements of the various pictures they likedor didn’t like.

• This report provides the results of this survey.

1. Housing 5. Civic Buildings

2. Thoroughfares 6. Amenities

3. Commercial 7. Canalscapes

4. Parks & Open Space

METHODOLOGY: MASTER PLAN

ELEMENT PREFERENCE AND

COMMENT

• This activity was intended to obtain feedback on design elements, includingdevelopment patterns and various amenities using six Master Plans created forother communities across the U.S.

• Participants were asked to walk around and consider each of the six MasterPlans.

• Each meeting attendee was given six small orange stickers on the element(s) ofeach plan that they liked best.

• Additionally, comment sheets and pens were left on the tables that provided theopportunity for participants to comment more specifically on what elements ofthe various master plans they liked or didn’t like.

• This report provides the results of this activity.

UV120 Visual Preference

Survey Findings

HOUSING Preference Board

HOUSING

1%

3%

3%

3%

3%

4%

4%

5%

9%

14%

15%

35%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

6

1

2

5

12

7

11

8

3

10

4

9

Picture ID

n=117

Top Choices

Bottom Choices

HOUSING Top Choices

Bottom Choices

• A clear preference for Option 9 was established, with more than

one-third (or 35 percent) of the “Housing” stickers placed on this

image. When comparing differences between Option 9 and the

bottom choices, it appears that a preference for lower density

residential options and architectural design style may have played

a role in this image being the preferred choice.

• Options 4 and 10, similar in that they are alley loaded homes with

front doors opening to a shared green space, ranked second and

third; together these two images received nearly one-third (or 29

percent) of the votes (i.e. “Housing” stickers).

• Noticeable similarities among the top three choices is a neutral

color palette and ample green landscaping.

• Bottom choices tended to share in common a higher density

character and architectural design styles not typical of El Paso.

• Despite its similar layout to Options 4 and 10 (both top choices),

Option 6 received the fewest stickers. Factors influencing this

variation may include a non-preference for attached housing

and/or architectural style and character, such as color palette.

• Option 3, which depicts a higher density, primarily residential

neighborhood, came in a distant 4th place (receiving one in ten

votes). Although clearly not a choice preferred by most, its rank

relative to other options suggests that density of this level may be

appropriate in some places, such as a long a main street as

depicted in this picture. Interestingly, a like for main streets was

repeated in several other categories as the following pages of this

report will show.

THOROUGHFARES Preference Board

THOROUGHFARES

n=120

Top Choices

Bottom Choices

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

5%

8%

8%

11%

15%

18%

23%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

2

11

4

10

6

9

8

12

7

3

1

5

Picture ID

THOROUGHFARES Top Choices

Bottom Choices

• A notable distinguishing factor between top and bottom selections

is the presence of trees in images receiving the highest votes.

This trend suggests that thoroughfares, whether rural or suburban

in nature should include tree-lined streets.

• Receiving nearly one-fourth (or 23 percent) of votes, the top

choice was Option 5, which depicts a rural two-lane road with soft

shoulders and mature trees creating an arched canopy. The

preference shown for this image suggests tree types that will take

this shape over time and create a sense of enclosure should be

planted along the new community’s thoroughfares.

• A preference for main streets is again evidenced by the selection

of Option 1 as the second choice (receiving 18 percent of votes);

this image depicts a more urban thoroughfare with on-street

parking that abuts a storefront-lined block.

• Option 3, a top choice, and Options 2, 4 and 11, all bottom

choices, depict similar single-family residential streetscapes.

Option 3 may have been singled out as a preference because of

its more narrow pavement width and the prominent presence of

sidewalks and trees.

• A strong preference for tree-lined streets is repeated by the

drastic difference in preference for Option 5 (receiving 23 percent

of votes) and Option 11 (receiving 4 percent of votes). This

difference serves to illustrate the importance of tree cover, as the

two thoroughfares are otherwise essentially the same rural

design.

COMMERCIAL Preference Board

COMMERCIAL

n=115

Top Choices

Bottom Choices

1%

3%

3%

3%

3%

6%

8%

9%

10%

15%

19%

21%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

7

4

10

8

11

2

9

12

3

5

1

6

Picture ID

COMMERCIAL Top Choices

Bottom Choices

• The preference for the inclusion of a main street is highlighted by

the selection of Options 3, 5 and 6 as top choices, earning nearly

half (or 46 percent) of all votes combined.

• When comparing main streets depicted in the top choices, each of

the three options presents a different kind of main street

experience with varying levels of density and formality. The top

choice, Option 6 (with 21 percent of votes) represents a mid-point

between the high density formal nature of Option 5 and the low

density small-town feel of Option 3.

• Option 1 was the 2nd most selected (with 19 percent of votes),

suggesting that a shopping area that can double as open space is

preferable. A liking for gathering spaces that include outdoor

seating is a theme repeated throughout other categories of this

survey.

• Option 5 was the 3rd most selected (with 15 percent of votes)

despite its higher density character, echoing results from the

housing category that higher density may be acceptable, but only

along main streets.

• The two least selected options, 4 and 7 with three and one

percent of votes respectively, are dominated by pavement,

suggesting that commercial space should focus on the experience

for the individual, not the street or parking lot.

• Again, concern regarding architectural style and character was

repeated in open ended comments, suggesting that options 10

and 8 may have ranked poorly because the style of buildings

depicted in these images is not consistent with the Upper Valley.

PARKS & OPEN SPACE Preference Board

PARKS & OPEN SPACE

n=116

Top Choices

Bottom Choices

3%

3%

4%

4%

5%

6%

7%

11%

11%

12%

16%

17%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

10

8

4

9

7

12

2

1

3

11

6

5

Picture ID

PARKS & OPEN SPACE Top Choices

Bottom Choices

• Of the seven categories, preferences within the Parks & Open

Space group were least clearly defined, suggesting a lack of

consensus regarding appropriate open spaces for a new

community.

• Option 5 emerged as the top preference, while the similar Option 8

fell within the bottom four. Both images show public plazas,

characteristic of many towns in the Southwest and Mexico.

However, whereas Option 8 is hardscaped, Option 5 features green

landscaping and mature trees, suggesting that not only is a central

meeting area that reflects the character of the region important,

but that it is equally important that this space be green.

• Options 6 and 9 depict farmland located in proximity to residential

uses. The preference shown for Option 6 may suggest that any

farm or agricultural use should be well integrated into a

neighborhood. Participants may have seen Option 9 as the

meshing of incompatible uses, or a poor execution of integration.

• A third dichotomy exists between Options 3 and 4, both of which

depict settings more typical of an urban park. Where they differ is

that Option 3 illustrates an outdoor space well-defined by public

art, a trail and landscaping, while Option 4 lacks a sense of

enclosure and definition.

• The idea of creating gathering areas appropriate for all, including

children and families, is given preference in the selection of Option

11, which depicts a playground.

• Option 10 was the least selected option. The low rank of this image

may be attributable to a feeling that desert landscaping and the

Upper Valley are not compatible. Additionally, Option 10, much like

Option 4, lacks a sense of enclosure and definition.

CIVIC BUILDINGS Preference Board

CIVIC BUILDINGS

n=101

Top Choices

Bottom Choices

1%

2%

2%

3%

5%

10%

11%

12%

16%

19%

20%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

6

3

5

1

8

9

10

11

2

4

7

Picture ID

CIVIC BUILDINGS Top Choices

Bottom Choices

• Civic Buildings may include any number of buildings open for public

use. Typical examples of civic buildings include town halls, schools

and religious or government buildings.

• Over half (or 55 percent) of the total Civic Building selections

identified Options 2, 4 or 7. Each of these images depicts a civic

building that relates well to its surroundings and serves as a

community focal point.

• When comparing top and bottom choices, it is clear that

participants prefer civic buildings that are integrated into

neighborhoods, rather than those that serve as stand-alone

destinations.

• With regard to design, buildings showcasing modern architectural

details were selected less often than the more traditional

architectural types.

• Additionally, large expanses of paved area are not preferred, as

illustrated by the low scoring Options 1, 3 and 6. This finding

reinforces Commercial non-preferences where the two lowest

ranking commercial images were also dominated by pavement.

AMENITIES Preference Board

AMENITIES

n=126

Top Choices

Bottom Choices

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

4%

6%

12%

15%

22%

26%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

3

12

7

2

10

11

9

5

4

1

6

8

Picture ID

AMENITIES Top Choices

Bottom Choices

• With over one-fourth (or 26 percent) of selections, the outdoor

seating space for a café/restaurant depicted in Option 8 was

repeated as a high priority for participants. Notably, this selection

also indicates that unique features, such as the water shown in

this picture, ought to be used to augment the amenity.

• Option 6 scored closely behind top choice Option 8, receiving over

one-fifth (or 22 percent) of votes. The high rank of this option

suggests that a farmer’s market or some other activity that relates

to the heritage of the Upper Valley in a manner that is easily

accessible by a wide audience should be an important feature of

this new community.

• The preferred Options 1, 4 and 6 highlight spaces that provide

opportunities for a variety of activities accessible to the entire

community, whereas more open ended and specialized amenities,

such as those shown in Options 3 and 7 (stables and an orchard),

were less often identified as a preference. This trend is in line with

previous findings that amenities and gathering spaces should be

accessible to the entire community, rather than to typically smaller,

more specialized interest groups.

• Option 12, a recreational center, scored in the bottom two. Given

previous findings, this relatively poor rank may have partially been

influenced by the modern architectural design of the building

rather than due to the amenities it offers.

CANALSCAPES Preference Board

CANALSCAPES

n=137

Top Choices

Bottom Choices

1%

1%

4%

4%

4%

4%

7%

7%

8%

10%

19%

31%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

5

7

4

8

9

1

6

12

2

11

3

10

Picture ID

CANALSCAPES Top Choices

Bottom Choices

• Well over half (or 60 percent) of votes indicated a preference for

structured, urban canalscapes as illustrated by the top three

choices: Options 3, 10 and 11. This finding suggests that canals

should be a centerpiece of the development and serve as an

amenity available for community-wide use.

• The top choice, Option 10, received the largest share of votes,

representing nearly one-third (or 31 percent) of canalscape

stickers. The trees and sidewalk, in combination with outdoor

café/restaurant space and shallow building setbacks, create a

sense of enclosure reminiscent of an outdoor room. The strong

preference for this image augments previous findings suggesting

that engaging outdoor gathering spaces should be a priority as

design of the new community is considered.

• Bottom choices, Options 4 and 5 depict canalscapes improved for

use as trails. Although both images include people using the trails,

a reason for their low rank may be the sense of isolation they

communicate relative to the top three choices. For example, Option

5 separates the canal from the rest of the community with a wall,

while the presence of a surrounding community is missing from

Option 4.

• Interestingly, despite its structured urban nature Option 7 scored

very low, receiving about one percent of votes. One factor that may

have influenced the low score may have been an inability to relate

the canal to the surrounding environment.

• Finally, despite their similar unimproved feel, Option 2 with eight

percent of votes scored in the top four, while Option 8 with four

percent of votes scored in the bottom four. The small difference in

score may be related to a preference for more natural canalscapes

that retain vegetation and have not been channelized using hard

materials such as concrete.

COMMENTS ON VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY IMAGES

• A total of 51 comments were received regarding the various images shown during the visualpreference survey.

• The largest share of positive comments received referred to a like for the trails and gathering spacesdepicted in various images suggesting that the inclusion of such amenities should be a priority whendesigning the new community.

• The largest share of negative comments received referred to a dislike for the architectural style orcharacter of an image. Many of these comments communicated a concern that the building style wasnot in keeping with the integrity of the region.

• Additionally, a review of negative comments received suggests that a community that finds a balancebetween a rural and urban character is preferred.

• The Housing and Thoroughfares categories received the largest proportion of comments, while theAmenities and Canalscapes categories followed closely behind. This finding suggests that these fourcategories are considered important elements of a new community and as such, should be givenmuch attention in their design.

• The majority of comments received regarding Housing images were negative, suggesting that anobjective of future meetings should be to better understand residential preferences.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Images above represent top preferences in each category.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The “perfect” community has…

• …an architectural style that is consistent with the character and

history of the Upper Valley.

• …many and varied public gathering spaces – farmer’s markets,

parks and other active event spaces.

• …a main street where commercial and higher density uses are

focused.

• …canals that are available for use by the entire community –

whether as trails or outdoor cafés/gathering areas.

• …landscaped thoroughfares and open spaces, with an

emphasis on the importance of trees in creating a sense of

enclosure and well-defined space.

• …lower density residential neighborhoods that include some

kind of variety such as traditional single-family detached homes

and less traditional patio homes.

• …civic buildings that relate well to their surroundings and are

well integrated into the community rather than separated,

stand-alone buildings.

• …a range of development types – rural, single-family housing,

commercial areas and gathering spaces.

“Places to sit and gather.”

“I like that [this image] is not high

density.”

“Walkways close to the water.”

“Outdoor cafés are great…”

“Open Space for families and

neighborhoods to gather.”

“Looks most like El Paso…”

“Trees, trees and more trees!”

UV120 Master Plan Findings

PLAN A Holiday Neighborhood

Boulder, Colorado

PLAN BPalm Dreams

Karachi Golf City,

Pakistan

PLAN CSerenbe

Chattahoochee Hills,

Georgia

PLAN DRidgewood Village

Humboldt County,

California

PLAN E Agritopia

Gilbert, Arizona

PLAN F City Park

Houston, Texas

MASTER PLANS• Stickers were used as a tool to identify specific elements of the

master plans liked by charrette participants. As illustrated by

the graph to the left, the elements identified as preferences

could be catalogued into one of seven categories.

• Of the total 174 stickers placed, nearly two-fifths (or 38

percent) referenced a Parks and Open Space element,

suggesting that participants feel these public spaces are

important features of any community.

� The largest share of Parks and Open Space stickers were

placed on the multi-use Holiday Community Park pictured in

Plan A and the Multi-Use Trails linking the community to

Open Space pictured in Plan D.

• One in five (or 20 percent) of total stickers were placed on

Commercial elements of the master plans, suggesting that

participants are receptive to Commercial uses being included in

the new community.

� The Market pictured in Plan D and the Retail Center

pictured in Plan E, both large anchor retail spaces, were

most often selected within the Commercial category. This

trend suggests that there is an area need for a larger

commercial amenity such as a grocery store.

• Sixteen percent of all stickers cited some element of Housing

within the master plans.

� Preferences within this category were more evenly split

among many different types of primarily lower density

housing types, including: senior housing, multi-family

townhomes, cottage and single-family/classic homes.

• Plan C, a semi-rural cluster development, garnered a notable

share of votes, although the specific plan element referenced

by these votes was unclear; as a result, these votes have been

classified as a “General Like” (note that the entirety of this

category is comprised of votes for Plan C).

n=174

2%2%2%2%

4%4%4%4%

6%6%6%6%

14%14%14%14%

16%16%16%16%

20%20%20%20%

38%38%38%38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Civic Building

Parking

Agricultural

General Like

Housing

Commercial

Parks &Open Space

Total Stickers Placed (%)Total Stickers Placed (%)Total Stickers Placed (%)Total Stickers Placed (%)

Ca

teg

ory

Ca

teg

ory

Ca

teg

ory

Ca

teg

ory

Preference Summary by CategoryPreference Summary by CategoryPreference Summary by CategoryPreference Summary by Category

MASTER PLANS• A total of 174 stickers were placed on the six Master Plans

provided. The graph to the left illustrates the sticker spread

among plans.

• Elements of Plans D and E were most often selected as

preferred, with the plans receiving 30 and 29 percent of votes,

respectively.

� Plan D was cited most often for its Parks and Open Space,

Housing and Commercial elements. Specifically, its multi-

use trails and anchor retail market scored high, while

housing choices indicated a preference for a variety of

options appropriate for a wide range of age groups and

income levels.

� Plan E, on the other hand, was recognized most often for

its Commercial and Parks and Open Space elements;

other than the retail center, no single element stood out as

preferred over others, suggesting that a variety of

commercial and parks and open space types ought to be

included in the new community.

• Plan A and Plan C received 22 and 17 percent of selections,

respectively.

� Over two-thirds of selections for Plan A cited the Holiday

Community Park as a preference, while the overwhelming

majority of selections for Plan C cited a general like for the

plan rather than identifying specific elements of its layout.

• Plan B received only two percent of stickers, while Plan F

received none, suggesting that avant-garde and standard

conventional developments are not preferred design

alternatives.

n=174

0%0%0%0%

2%2%2%2%

17%17%17%17%

22%22%22%22%

29%29%29%29%

30%30%30%30%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Plan F

Plan B

Plan C

Plan A

Plan E

Plan D

Total Stickers Placed (%)Total Stickers Placed (%)Total Stickers Placed (%)Total Stickers Placed (%)

Ma

ste

r P

lan

Ma

ste

r P

lan

Ma

ste

r P

lan

Ma

ste

r P

lan

Preference Summary by Master PlanPreference Summary by Master PlanPreference Summary by Master PlanPreference Summary by Master Plan

COMMENTS ON MASTER PLANS

• A total of 30 comments were received providing additional insight into specific likes anddislikes regarding the six master plans.

• Two-thirds of the comments received were positive. Of these, some element of open space ormixed-use was most often cited as a positive asset to the community. Specifically, communitytrails and adequate landscaping were repeated likes, while neighborhood mixed-use was acommon theme.

• Plan C, a semi-rural cluster land development, received the largest share of comments relativeto the other plans, all of which were positive in nature. Comments regarding Plan C cited anumber of its elements, including its open spaces, mixed-use qualities and other features.

• With regard to negative comments, the density level depicted by several of the plans was ofconcern. This, in combination with a communicated like for neighborhood mixed-use, indicatesthat while there may be room for a range of uses including commercial, residential and officespace, those uses should respect the lower density nature of the surrounding Upper Valleyarea.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Repeated themes include…

• …parks and open space are important elements of any community.

• Specifically, multi-use spaces that serve as gathering spaces for the entire neighborhood are a high priority, as are multi-use trails

that serve as linkages throughout the community.

• …neighborhood mixed-use is an amenity.

• In addition to small restaurants and cafés, there is a communicated need for a larger anchor retail/market space; however, that

space should be integrated into the community, blending well with its surroundings.

• …a variety of housing options are needed.

• A need for housing types that fit all age groups and income levels was communicated, although such housing should respect the

lower density nature of the Upper Valley, including options like townhomes, cottage/patio homes, single-family detached homes and

the opportunity for senior housing.

• …the unique rural character of the Upper Valley should be maintained.

• Although traditional agricultural uses were not often cited as a preferences, comments and master plan selections consistently

communicated a fondness for semi-rural communities. Amenities accessible to a wider audience such as community gardens may

be explored as a way to preserve the character of the area.

UV120 Open-Ended

Comments

OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS

Repeated themes include…

• …the character of the community should stay

true to the rural heritage of the Upper Valley, as

well as the architectural design styles typical of

the region.

• …a mix of lower density housing options

appropriate for all age groups and life stages

should be provided.

• …neighborhood mixed use such as cafés and

restaurants are an amenity.

• …establish and augment the existing canal as a

community focal point.

• …ensure that amenities, both traditional and

non-traditional in nature be included in the

design and plan of the community.

n=14

“Maintain the unique farmland feel.”

“Senior Housing.”

“Restaurants and cafés.”

“Riverwalk – great idea.”

“Nice multi-family, townhomes,

duplexes.”

“Maintain rural atmosphere.”

“Make it unique, not a copy of another

city.”

UV120 Next Steps

CONCLUSIONSRepeated themes include…

• …the character of the community should stay true to the

rural heritage of the Upper Valley, as well as the

architectural design styles typical of the region.

• …a mix of lower density housing options appropriate for

all age groups and life stages should be provided.

• …important community buildings such as schools or

anchor retail spaces should be well-integrated into their

surroundings and add to the character of the

neighborhood.

• …parks and gathering spaces, both traditional and non-

traditional in nature are important features of any

neighborhood and should be designed in such a way as

to encourage use by the entire community.

• …neighborhood mixed use such as cafés and

restaurants are a desired amenity.

• …establish and augment the existing canal as a

community focal point.

• …green landscaping should be used as a way to define

outdoor spaces and create a sense of place whether

along thoroughfares, canals or in parks and other

gathering spaces.

Explore Further…

How to best preserve the agricultural

heritage of the Upper Valley through

community design?

Residential densities, styles and color

palettes.

Commercial and “Main Street” densities

and styles.

A range of thoroughfare types from rural

to main street urban.

NEXT STEPS

•Report the findings of the January 30th UV120 Public Meeting and Design Charrette to the community.

•Hold a second public meeting and design charrette to clarify remaining issues such as residential and commercial building styles and densities.

•Tentatively scheduled for Thursday, April 3rd, 2014.

•Compile results from both meetings and begin working with design professionals to develop a plan for the new community that uses public feedback as its foundation and guide.

•Present the plan to the community and provide the opportunity for public comment, suggestions, additions, deletions, etc.

•Refine the plan given community feedback, hold a fourth public meeting if necessary, and finally, begin the development process.

ELIZABETH GIBSONGIBSONEK@ELPASOTEXAS.GOV

HARRISON PLOURDEPLOURDEHT@ELPASOTEXAS.GOV

For Questions…