Comp Plan 2040: Place Types
Phases
Survey Responses
What is your level of support for each of the proposed Place Types?: Conservation Areas [#245217]
What is your level of support for each of the proposed Place Types?: Countryside [#245218]
What is your level of support for each of the proposed Place Types?: Centers [#245219]
Respondents most frequently discussed the importance of preserving green spaces and natural areas, expressing concerns about overdevelopment and the loss of trees and wildlife habitats. Many emphasized the need for walkable neighborhoods, improved pedestrian and bike infrastructure, and better public transportation options. There was widespread support for mixed-use development, with several respondents noting the benefits of having shops, services, and housing in close proximity [e.g..
Affordable housing was a recurring theme, with calls for more diverse housing types to accommodate different income levels and family sizes. Some respondents highlighted the need to maintain the character of existing neighborhoods and avoid high-density development that could strain local resources or change the community feel.
Comments also included requests for more community gathering spaces, parks, and recreational facilities. Concerns about traffic congestion and parking were mentioned, with suggestions to prioritize alternative transportation and reduce reliance on cars. A few respondents stressed the importance of sustainability and climate resilience in future planning.
Overall, the main trends were a desire for balanced growth that protects natural assets, enhances mobility and accessibility, and supports a diverse, inclusive community.
What is your level of support for each of the proposed Place Types?: Corridors [#245220]
Respondents most frequently discussed the importance of preserving green spaces and natural areas, expressing concerns about overdevelopment and the loss of community character. Many emphasized the need for balanced growth that maintains existing neighborhoods while allowing for some new housing and mixed-use development, particularly near transit and commercial corridors. There was strong support for walkability, bike infrastructure, and improved public transportation, with several comments highlighting the desire for safer pedestrian routes and reduced car dependency.
Affordable housing was a recurring theme, with respondents urging the city to prioritize diverse housing options to accommodate different income levels and prevent displacement [e.g.. Some participants expressed concern about high-density development, preferring lower-density or “village-like” environments, while others supported increased density if it meant more affordable and accessible housing.
Several comments called for better integration of commercial and residential uses, suggesting that mixed-use developments could foster vibrant, walkable communities. Respondents also mentioned the need for more community gathering spaces, parks, and recreational facilities.
A few responses raised issues about traffic congestion and parking, urging planners to consider the impact of new development on local infrastructure. There were also requests for historic preservation and maintaining the unique identity of different neighborhoods.
Overall, the main trends were a desire for thoughtful, sustainable growth that protects green spaces, improves transportation options, supports affordable housing, and enhances community amenities.
What is your level of support for each of the proposed Place Types?: Communities & Neighborhoods [#245221]
Respondents most frequently discussed the importance of preserving green spaces and natural areas, expressing concerns about overdevelopment and the loss of open land. Many emphasized the need for balanced growth that maintains community character, with several advocating for mixed-use developments that integrate residential, commercial, and recreational spaces. There was strong support for walkability, bike infrastructure, and public transit improvements to reduce reliance on cars and enhance connectivity.
Affordable housing was a recurring theme, with calls for diverse housing options to accommodate different income levels and family types. Some respondents highlighted the need to protect historic neighborhoods and cultural landmarks from redevelopment pressures. Others stressed the importance of sustainable design, energy efficiency, and climate resilience in future planning.
A few responses mentioned the desire for more community gathering spaces, such as parks, plazas, and event venues, to foster social interaction. Concerns about traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and school capacity were also raised, especially in areas experiencing rapid growth. Several comments [e.g., called for greater public engagement and transparency in the planning process, urging decision-makers to consider resident input and long-term impacts.
What is your level of support for each of the proposed Place Types?: Districts [#245222]
Respondents frequently discussed the importance of preserving green spaces and natural areas, with many expressing concerns about overdevelopment and the loss of trees and wildlife habitats. There was strong support for maintaining neighborhood character and limiting high-density housing, especially in areas currently dominated by single-family homes. Traffic congestion and infrastructure strain were common worries, with several respondents urging careful planning to avoid exacerbating these issues.
Affordable housing was mentioned, but often with caveats about ensuring it fits within existing community aesthetics and does not lead to overcrowding. Some respondents advocated for mixed-use developments and walkable neighborhoods, highlighting the benefits of local businesses and reduced reliance on cars. Others stressed the need for improved public transportation and bike paths.
A few comments emphasized the importance of community input and transparency in the planning process, with requests for more opportunities to participate and clearer communication from city officials. Concerns about property values, school capacity, and safety were also raised, though less frequently.
Overall, the dominant themes were a desire to balance growth with preservation, protect environmental resources, and maintain the unique identity of existing neighborhoods.
