My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-22-2026 Council Packet
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2026
>
06-22-2026 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2026 9:32:35 AM
Creation date
6/23/2026 9:32:06 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Preferences For Commercial Property Types <br />The survey asked for feedback on commercial development types and showed generic images of <br />what was meant, including: <br /> <br />1. Offices/Places to do Business <br />2. Places to build (light production/warehousing) <br />3. Places to shop <br />4. Places to dine <br />5. Places to gather (market halls) <br /> <br />• When considering new commercial options, respondents would most like to see: <br />1. Places to Dine (71.43% support presence on site) <br />2. Retail options (59% support presence on site) <br />3. Community meeting spaces (59% support presence on site) <br />4. Office (49% support presence on site) <br />5. Production (30% support presence on site) <br /> <br />Preferences For Residential Property Types <br />The survey asked for feedback on residential development types and showed generic images of <br />what was meant including: <br />1. Townhomes <br />2. Small-scale multi-family <br />3. Medium-scale multi-family <br />4. Large-scale multi-family <br /> <br />• None of the categories had more than 50% in support. When considering new housing <br />options, residents would prefer: <br />1. No housing at all <br />2. Townhomes (44%) <br /> <br />• The survey did not take opinions on the development of single-family homes, though a <br />few respondents expressed interest in that housing type in open-ended responses. <br /> <br />Open-Ended Comments / Other Notes <br />• Respondents emphasized desires to preserve some of the study area for public uses, <br />including trail connections and a community garden. <br /> <br />• As reflected in the Public Benefit question, respondents are keen to keep and expand <br />plantings on the site, both for the aesthetic and for highway/noise screening purposes. <br /> <br />• A small contingent of respondents strongly opposed any development or modification to <br />the property. A similarly sized contingent of respondents expressed interest in high- <br />intensity tax-producing development. <br /> <br />Strategic Priority: <br />• Creating Supportive Networks <br />1. Action Item: Initiate discussion with developers for city-owned property (example: <br />Condit and old Pawn Shop property) <br /> Subitem: Have a discussion with council members and staff regarding city- <br />owned property <br /> Staff Recommendations: <br />Staff recommends that the EDA review the summary of survey results and discuss the findings.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.