Preliminary Survey Results Regarding 5 th Avenue Development Land - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Preliminary Survey Results Regarding 5 th Avenue Development Land Use and Building Height Options Surveys with Engaged Residents, Commuters, Community-Wide Residents, and Opt-I n Respondents Ju June 19, 2 2018 aQit y Research h & I ns nsight ht s Evanston, IL 1

Methods Surveys and Respondent I nformation  Findings are based on responses across four surveys. Final sample sizes include:  n= 300 Engaged Residents (from City’s and/or Ryan’s de-duped databases; 24.8% response rate);  n= 406 Commuters (from City’s Commuter database; 10.4% response rate);  n= 84 Naperville-Wide Residents (randomly sampled from all Naperville households; 2.0% response rate); n= 646 Opt-I n Web Survey Respondents (via web survey link on 5 th Ave.  Development website; multiple survey input possible).  Initial results reported for these four groups, plus a Crossover segment of n= 91 who appear on both the Engaged and Commuter contact lists (15% response).  Dates of data collection: March 13 to May 12, 2018. 2

Key Findings Top Priorities for 5 th Avenue Land Use Options Most  Ample/Additional Parking (all segments, not just commuters) I nterest  Strongest support multi-level parking; less support for street parking  Public Greenspace (grassy areas, gardens, benches/plaza)  Walking/Biking paths (pedestrian safety, connectivity)  Allow for community events (farmers markets, fairs/festivals)  Housing (especially condos and townhomes, then single residency)  Mostly market-priced housing  Some support for senior and/or attainable housing  Retail/Shopping  Dining/beverage establishments, small grocery, services  Less support for boutique shopping, performance theatre Some  Office space I nterest  Roughly half are interested 3

op Preferred Land Uses for 5 th Ave. Development T Crossover (n= 91) Commuters (n= 406) Engaged (n= 300) 62% 74% 63% Greenspace 29% 14% 19% 56% 81% 73% Parking 29% 61% 51% 42% 27% 37% Housing 7% 20% 14% 38% 35% 41% Services Businesses 4% 1% 1% 32% 30% 31% Shopping 6% 3% 5% 12% 17% 13% Office Space 2% 0% 0% Nothing - Leave As I s 3% 4% 1% Among Top 3 Choices # 1 Choice 4

op Preferred Land Uses for 5 th Ave. Development (cont’d) T Web Opt-I n (n= 646) Community (n= 84) 72% 71% Greenspace 27% 32% 61% 56% Parking 27% 25% 39% 38% Housing 15% 17% 40% 36% Service Businesses 1% 5% 40% 42% Shopping 13% 11% 14% 10% Office Space 4% 2% Nothing - Leave As I s 5% 5% Among Top 3 Choices # 1 Choice 5

Should Parking Be Part of 5 th Ave. Development? Yes, 59% 65% 70% 72% 82% No, 41% 35% 30% 28% 18% Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 276) (n= 391) (n= 83) (n= 78) (n= 605) 6

% Support Types of Parking (top 2 box on 5-point scale) 81% 78% 77% 76% 74% 71% 65% 57% 52% 51% 48% 45% 44% 40% 38% 38% 33% 28% 25% 24% Structured Parking (multi- Surface Lots Offsite Parking with Street Parking level deck) Shuttles to Train Station Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 241-281) (n= 325-389) (n= 74-87) (n= 58-80) (n= 448-598) 7

Should Greenspace Be Part of 5 th Ave. Development? 82% Yes, 89% 92% 92% 93% 18% 11% 8% 8% No, 7% Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 299) (n= 397) (n= 90) (n= 84) (n= 636) 8

% Support Types of Greenspace (top 2 box on 5-point scale) 93% 93% 92% 90% 88% 86% 86% 86% 86% 85% 84% 83% 83% 78% 77% Public Greenspace (grass area, Walking/ Bike Paths Hardscape Features (benches, gardens, etc.) plazas, art, fountains, etc.) 57% 55% 53% 51% 47% 45% 43% 42% 41% 35% Neighborhood Amenities Children's Amenities (outdoor ice rink, fitness, (splash pad, playground, etc.) bocce, etc.) Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 243-278) (n= 312-349) (n= 73-80) (n= 67-75) (n= 507-581) 9

% Support Other Types of Greenspace Amenities/ Activities (top 2 box on 5-point scale) 86% 84% 84% 82% 80% 66% 64% 61% 60% 58% 37% 36% 34% 31% 29% 27% 27% 21% 17% 15% Farmers Market Cultural (festival, fair, Outdoor Meeting/ Outdoor Fitness concert, etc.) Workspace (with WiFi) (yoga, Tai chi) Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 300) (n= 406) (n= 91) (n= 84) (n= 646) 10

Should Housing Be Part of 5 th Ave. Development? 50% 61% 64% Yes, 69% 75% 50% 39% 36% 31% No, 25% Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 274) (n= 368) (n= 84) (n= 76) (n= 594) 11

% Support Types of Housing at 5 th Ave. Development (top 2 box % on 5-point scale) 78% 67% 66% 64% 62% 58% 57% 55% 54% 52% 47% 42% 42% 38% 35% 33% 33% 30% 30% 27% Condos (owned) Townhomes Single Family Apartments (rentals) Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 245-273) (n= 330-350) (n= 78-82) (n= 66-73) (n= 502-544) 12

% Support Types of Housing Markets at 5 th Ave. Development (top 2 box % on 5-point scale) 77% 77% 71% 69% 65% 65% 58% 56% 55% 53% 53% 49% 48% 43% 42% 30% 23% 22% 19% 17% Market-Priced Attainable/ Cost- I ndependent Senior Affordable/ Workforce Housing Effective Housing Living Housing Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 235-247) (n= 304-317) (n= 66-74) (n= 63-77) (n= 478-510) 13

Should Shopping/ Service-Oriented Businesses Be Part of 5 th Ave. Development? Yes, 80% 89% 89% 89% 84% 20% No, 11% 11% 11% 16% Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 257) (n= 360) (n= 79) (n= 75) (n= 549) 14

% Support Types of Shopping/ Service Businesses (top 2 box on 5-point scale) 91% 89% 87% 86% 83% 83% 82% 82% 81% 79% 70% 69% 68% 67% 66% 65% 63% 60% 60% 55% Coffee Shop Restaurant/ Bar Small Boutique Grocer Consumer Services (salon, dry cleaner, etc.) 60% 57% 55% 54% 52% 50% 48% 43% 43% 42% Boutique Retail Performing Arts/ (housewares, clothing, Entertainment Space floral, wine shop, etc.) Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 249-272) (n= 315-355) (n= 68-81) (n= 63-77) (n= 487-580) 15

% Support Types of Community-Oriented Businesses at 5 th Ave. Development (top 2 box % on 5-point scale) 58% 54% 53% 52% 51% 51% 50% 50% 48% 48% 47% 46% 41% 40% 38% 35% 35% 34% 34% 29% Fitness/ Health Club Daycare Facility Pharmacy Medical/ Dental Office Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 216-239) (n= 272-301) (n= 64-72) (n= 58-64) (n= 434-479) 16

% Support Office Space at 5 th Ave. Development (top 2 box % on 5-point scale) 62% 62% 57% 52% 41% Office Space (corporate, boutique office and/ or co-working space) Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 255) (n= 311) (n= 77) (n= 70) (n= 496) 17

Maximum Acceptable Height Questions: Key Objectives  To generally inform the discussion and the process at this early stage, as other critical elements are being discussed/evaluated (land use, market feasibility options, infrastructure needs, traffic and safety, etc.).  Question focused on “ maximum acceptable height ” for key lots in the 5 th Avenue development.  Asking “What building heights would you like to see” is a different question.  If a financially feasible project (which is important to 81% + ) requires taller buildings, need to know in general terms “how tall” and “where” such structures are most/least acceptable.  This approach recognizes and incorporates both views:  Those opposing anything taller than 2 stories could respond accordingly;  Likewise, those preferring limits at 2 stories but willing to accept something taller in some locations could respond. 18

% Support for Accommodating Higher/ Lower Building Heights (top 2 box % on 5-point scale) 92% 87% 87% 86% 85% 84% 83% 82% 81% 81% 81% 80% 78% 78% 77% 77% 76% 75% 74% 74% 74% 72% 72% 70% 68% Ensure Provide Scale Accommodate Accommodate Rooftop Respect Existing Development is Transitions (e.g., Above Ground Amenity/ Greenspace Building Hts. (2-story Financially Feasible taller to buffer Structured Parking at Various Levels residences, 4-story railroad noise) commercial buildings) 60% 58% 57% 56% 52% 50% 49% 47% 45% 40% Support Housing Choices Be Uniform/ Consistent Across Entire Planning Area Engaged Commuter Crossover Community Web Opt-I n (n= 214-255) (n= 273-313) (n= 63-76) (n= 65-75) (n= 424-510) 19

Maximum Acceptable Building Heights: Summary Across the properties shown, most respondents accept up to 4-story buildings in 5 th Ave. area.   Lower heights are favored at the Kroehler (# 1 – up to 2 stories) and Boecker (# 3) lots.  While a plurality support 4-stories at Water Tower (# 2) and Burlington (# 4) sites, there is a fair amount of support for 4- to 6-story structures at these locations (more so than under 2-stories). 20