| 
February 5, 2000 University Avenue/Rice
Lane Neighborhood Workshop
On February 5, 2000 over a dozen people participated in a design guidelines
workshop for the University Avenue/Rice Lane neighborhood in the Community
Chambers. The workshop objectives included:
- Defining Character Areas
- Identifying neighborhood design features the community values
- Establishing a preliminary set of design principles
Workshop Summary
Character Mapping: University Avenue/Rice Lane is a lively neighborhood
The workshop participants prepared maps that illustrated various areas
of distinctive character. The maps reflected two general observations.
First, the University Avenue/Rice Lane area is a traditional single family
neighborhood evolving into a mixed-use district. The neighborhood has hotels,
apartments, commercial buildings and institutional uses. Secondly, the
interior streets and alleys have maintained their original scale and patterns.
Question #1: What are the three most important streetscape features
that should be conserved in your neighborhood?
Street trees, planting strips, "garden pathway" alleys, and
garages pushed back from the street are streetscape features participants
felt were important defining characteristics for the neighborhood.
Question #2: What are the predominate lot and site patterns in your
neighborhood that should be conserved?
Workshop participants identified the small narrow deep lots, the separation
between buildings, back yards, and cottage-type houses as predominate patterns
for conservation.
Question #3: What are the desirable architectural design features
in the neighborhood that should be conserved?
In terms of architectural features, participants said the neighborhood's
gable and hip roofs, porches, smaller alley houses and structures, and
wood siding were important characteristics.
Question #4: What types of changes or threats do you see to desirable
design features in your neighborhood?
Overall, new development in the University Avenue/Rice Lane neighborhood
has been eroding, and could continue to erode, the characteristics that
make the neighborhood walkable and charming. Newer projects are overbuilding
the lots; are under-parked or have parking that has a blighting effect
on alleys and yards; and transition poorly between uses in terms of scale
and architectural design elements. Besides parking, other conflicts mentioned
included added noise and glare from poorly planned lighting.
Planning Teams Summary
The workshop participants worked as members of two planning teams. Individual
team summaries follow:
Team 1
Question #1: Streetscape
- Narrow tree-lined streets
- Alleys as garden path (vs parking lots)
- Vital vibrant street life
Question #2: Patterns
- Repeated cottage-type houses
- Small scale residential
- Balance of uses maintaining residential character
Question #3: Architecture
- Sloped roofs
- Porches
- Wood siding
Question #4: Conservation Issues
- Large buildings Anything that threatens pedestrian life-style
- Cement yards
- Noise
- Cutting trees
Team 2
Question #1: Streetscape
- Landscaped setbacks
- Street trees/tree canopy/parkways/narrow sidewalks
- Narrow/minimized curb cuts
- Garages minimized
Question #2: Patterns
- Small (narrow deep lots)
- Maintain building separation with landscape
- Yards in back, no residential buildings with all parking lot in back
Question #3: Architecture
- Gable/hipped roofs
- 1 and 1-1/2 stories (2 stories sensitively done)
- Alley structures (garage/studio) secondary to main structure (1/3 size)
Question #4: Conservation Issues
- Conversion to office
- Lot mergers
- Over-building lots
- Parking pressure (inadequate)
- Privacy
- Low fences and landscape
- No parking variances
- Transition between
- Maintain residential character
- Glare from lighting
Return to Guidelines Home Page
|