|
No actual decisions -- much discussion |
Attendees
Bo McCarver
Caroline Beyer
Chris Perkins
Cynthia Leach
Dave Westenbarger
Diane Sullivan
Dorothy Wade
Fred Blood
Gordon Bennett
Isabelle Headrick
Lex Dale Owens
Mark Lind
Mell Lawrence
Melvin Walenta
Ruth C. Ellison
Scott Hounsel
Stephen Kreger
Steve Wilson
City of Austin Staff: Ricardo Soliz and Mark Walters—Neighborhood Planning, Pollyanne Melton—Urban Design
Meeting began at 6:40 PM.
The first item of discussion was approval of prior meeting decision record.
Decision: Approved decision record as written.
The next item for discussion was the status of the distribution of residential and non-resident/business surveys.
(Decision:) Almost all of the residential surveys have been distributed to all areas and hand delivery to businesses in the area (including churches and schools) is almost complete.
Bo McCarver gave a brief presentation on the history and activities of the Blackland Community Development Corporation.
The next item of business was a presentation of urban design and a dot voting exercise to gauge the planning team’s likes and dislikes of architectural elements from commercial, open/public space, and residential uses, as well as their opinions of development that they may like to see in their neighborhood in the future. After the dot voting exercise, Pollyanne Melton conducted a discussion of their votes on each of the different uses.
(pos) Commercial (neg)
| Mixed-Use Buildings: commercial on the bottom floor and
residential uses above. Well maintained buildings Use regional/local building materials Compatible with the neighborhood Zero setback from the street/sidewalk Human-scaled buildings Shaded walkways in front of buildings Traditional design of buildings Hog Wild (on North Loop) as a good example of neighborhood-scaled/human-scaled commercial building Funky Interesting signage (cohesive) Store fronts with large windows Street trees Residentially-scaled commercial uses Attractive landscaping Covered walkways in front of businesses with outside areas to sit and “hang out” Street facing orientation of buildings Building colors should be complementary of each other |
No shade/ lack of trees
Unattractive building materials Not safe Metal roofs Too much pavement Not a neighborhood use Large parking lot in front of buildings No landscaping, all hardscape No standard signs No windows Buildings with no sense of scale, size, shape, unidentifiable Warehouse looking Bad color combinations on buildings Unappealing to look at Gang color usage Not pedestrian-friendly design Road-side/highway architecture (poorly used color combinations designed to attract attention to building) “In your face” color combinations
|
(pos) Open/Public Space/Streetscape (neg)
| Places for kids to play
Trees Well maintained Well-built, safe, attractive playscapes Gravel alleys/quiet spaces Alleys should be safe Alleys can serve as shady respites from the streets Alleys should be well-defined and pedestrian-scaled Public transportation Utility lines are very visible Alternative parking days: Odd numbered—right side of street Even numbered—left side of street Building scale should be appropriate to the street it is located Safe sidewalks Sidewalk with planter strip Gateway signs |
Alleys are usually not well-maintained
Alleys usually not paved Alleys that have no vegetation/trees Alleys have fences Alleys appear not to be safe Roadways that have no shade and look like a highway Roadways that have no trees Airport Blvd is difficult to cross Narrow streets cause congestion if heavily traveled Too many cars on the street/on-street parking along Manor Rd On-street parking by people who do not live in the neighborhood The lack of a good transit system forces people to rely on single-use automobile Lack of alternative transportation to car—no bike lanes Lack of landscaping Uses too big for property Lack of shade |
(pos) Residential (neg)
| Xeriscaping
Big process The front yard should serve as a transition from the public space of the street to the private space of the home Flagstones and visually interesting architecture Diversity of architectural styles and landscaping Use of local or regional materials Use of stone or other native materials Porches Well-maintained property Porches Pervious paving stones, paving stones, and cement strips to serve as driveways Front yard fences should serve as transparent transitional devices that separate the street from the semi-private front yard and not as a "cage” or boxes that separate the house from the community |
Apartment scale is too large
Apartment buildings with no character Prairie-looking front laws with no character Porches used as storage areas Unattractive colors Commercial-looking residential uses, flatly pitched roof Yard is boring Two-car driveway and two-car garage in front of a house is inappropriate for the neighborhood—too suburban looking Housing that is not neighborhood friendly Fences that are too large—unfriendly Fencing is blocking the house from the street 1960s architecture—yard is too big/flat roof makes it look like a manufactured home Can’t see the front door
|
Future development we might see
(pos)
Commercial
(neg)
| Pedestrian-friendly scale
Mixed use with potential residential upstairs Plenty of trees and street trees along the road in common/public areas Wide sidewalks Articulation of upper floors Awnings Buffer between curb and sidewalk Neighborhood-scaled Pedestrian-oriented businesses Traditionally designed commercial buildings Regional design/architecture/building materials Big windows/interesting store fronts |
No blocky buildings
Lack of shade Two-story apartments/mixed-use are too plain; the façade looks like a blank wall
|
Future development we might see
(pos)
Residential
(neg)
| Row houses
Architectural detailing that individualizes similarly designed houses Equal setbacks along residential streets Variety of architectural details Duplexes that look like single family homes |
Row houses that look the same
Too many row houses in an area does not allow for a mix of income groups
|
Decision: The planning team extended the meeting to finish the discussion of the dot voting results.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM.