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

1

Preliminary Survey Results Regarding 5th 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

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 5th 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

Methods

Top Priorities for 5th Avenue Land Use Options

• Ample/Additional Parking (all segments, not just commuters)

 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

• Office space

 Roughly half are interested

3

Key Findings

Most I nterest Some I nterest

T

• p Preferred Land Uses for 5th Ave. Development

3% 2% 6% 4% 20% 29% 29% 17% 32% 38% 42% 56% 74% Nothing - Leave As I s Office Space Shopping Services Businesses Housing Parking Greenspace

Engaged (n= 300)

4

4% 0% 3% 1% 7% 61% 14% 12% 30% 35% 27% 81% 62%

Commuters (n= 406) Among Top 3 Choices # 1 Choice

1% 0% 5% 1% 14% 51% 19% 13% 31% 41% 37% 73% 63%

Crossover (n= 91)

T

• p Preferred Land Uses for 5th Ave. Development (cont’d)

5% 4% 13% 1% 17% 27% 27% 10% 40% 40% 39% 61% 71% Nothing - Leave As I s Office Space Shopping Service Businesses Housing Parking Greenspace

Community (n= 84)

5

5% 2% 11% 5% 15% 25% 32% 14% 42% 36% 38% 56% 72%

Web Opt-I n (n= 646) Among Top 3 Choices # 1 Choice

Should Parking Be Part of 5th Ave. Development?

6

No, 41% 18% 30% 28% 35% Yes, 59% 82% 70% 72% 65% Engaged (n= 276) Commuter (n= 391) Crossover (n= 83) Community (n= 78) Web Opt-I n (n= 605)

78% 44% 57% 24% 81% 74% 25% 40% 76% 65% 38% 38% 71% 48% 45% 28% 77% 51% 52% 33%

Structured Parking (multi- level deck) Surface Lots Offsite Parking with Shuttles to Train Station Street Parking Engaged (n= 241-281) Commuter (n= 325-389) Crossover (n= 74-87) Community (n= 58-80) Web Opt-I n (n= 448-598)

% Support Types of Parking (top 2 box on 5-point scale)

7

Should Greenspace Be Part of 5th Ave. Development?

8

No, 7% 18% 11% 8% 8% Yes, 93% 82% 89% 92% 92% Engaged (n= 299) Commuter (n= 397) Crossover (n= 90) Community (n= 84) Web Opt-I n (n= 636)

93% 86% 86% 83% 78% 77% 90% 83% 86% 92% 93% 86% 88% 84% 85%

Public Greenspace (grass area, gardens, etc.) Walking/ Bike Paths Hardscape Features (benches, plazas, art, fountains, etc.)

% Support Types of Greenspace (top 2 box on 5-point scale)

9 53% 47% 41% 35% 45% 43% 42% 51% 55% 57%

Neighborhood Amenities (outdoor ice rink, fitness, bocce, etc.) Children's Amenities (splash pad, playground, etc.) Engaged (n= 243-278) Commuter (n= 312-349) Crossover (n= 73-80) Community (n= 67-75) Web Opt-I n (n= 507-581)

84% 60% 36% 27% 80% 58% 29% 17% 82% 61% 27% 15% 84% 64% 37% 21% 86% 66% 34% 31%

Farmers Market Cultural (festival, fair, concert, etc.) Outdoor Meeting/ Workspace (with WiFi) Outdoor Fitness (yoga, Tai chi) Engaged (n= 300) Commuter (n= 406) Crossover (n= 91) Community (n= 84) Web Opt-I n (n= 646)

% Support Other Types of Greenspace Amenities/ Activities (top 2 box on 5-point scale)

10

Should Housing Be Part of 5th Ave. Development?

11

No, 25% 50% 31% 36% 39% Yes, 75% 50% 69% 64% 61% Engaged (n= 274) Commuter (n= 368) Crossover (n= 84) Community (n= 76) Web Opt-I n (n= 594)

12 67% 57% 47% 30% 64% 52% 33% 33% 78% 62% 42% 38% 66% 58% 35% 30% 55% 54% 42% 27%

Condos (owned) Townhomes Single Family Apartments (rentals) Engaged (n= 245-273) Commuter (n= 330-350) Crossover (n= 78-82) Community (n= 66-73) Web Opt-I n (n= 502-544)

% Support Types of Housing at 5th Ave. Development (top 2 box % on 5-point scale)

% Support Types of Housing Markets at 5th Ave. Development (top 2 box % on 5-point scale)

13

77% 55% 58% 23%

71% 48% 42% 22% 77% 65% 56% 30% 65% 53% 53% 17% 69% 49% 43% 19%

Market-Priced Housing Attainable/ Cost- Effective Housing I ndependent Senior Living Affordable/ Workforce Housing Engaged (n= 235-247) Commuter (n= 304-317) Crossover (n= 66-74) Community (n= 63-77) Web Opt-I n (n= 478-510)

Should Shopping/ Service-Oriented Businesses Be Part of 5th Ave. Development?

14

No, 16% 20% 11% 11% 11% Yes, 84% 80% 89% 89% 89% Engaged (n= 257) Commuter (n= 360) Crossover (n= 79) Community (n= 75) Web Opt-I n (n= 549)

86% 79% 65% 66% 89% 81% 60% 60% 91% 83% 68% 67% 82% 83% 69% 55% 87% 82% 70% 63%

Coffee Shop Restaurant/ Bar Small Boutique Grocer Consumer Services (salon, dry cleaner, etc.)

% Support Types of Shopping/ Service Businesses (top 2 box on 5-point scale)

15 54% 43% 43% 42% 52% 48% 55% 50% 60% 57%

Boutique Retail (housewares, clothing, floral, wine shop, etc.) Performing Arts/ Entertainment Space Engaged (n= 249-272) Commuter (n= 315-355) Crossover (n= 68-81) Community (n= 63-77) Web Opt-I n (n= 487-580)

16 54% 50% 40% 38% 51% 51% 48% 29% 58% 50% 47% 34% 35% 52% 41% 34% 53% 48% 46% 35%

Fitness/ Health Club Daycare Facility Pharmacy Medical/ Dental Office Engaged (n= 216-239) Commuter (n= 272-301) Crossover (n= 64-72) Community (n= 58-64) Web Opt-I n (n= 434-479)

% Support Types of Community-Oriented Businesses at 5th Ave. Development (top 2 box % on 5-point scale)

17

62% 52% 62% 41% 57% Office Space (corporate, boutique office and/ or co-working space) Engaged (n= 255) Commuter (n= 311) Crossover (n= 77) Community (n= 70) Web Opt-I n (n= 496)

% Support Office Space at 5th Ave. Development (top 2 box % on 5-point scale)

Maximum Acceptable Height Questions: Key Objectives

• To generally inform the discussion and the process at this early stage, as
• ther critical elements are being discussed/evaluated (land use, market feasibility
• ptions, infrastructure needs, traffic and safety, etc.).
• Question focused on “maximum acceptable height” for key lots in the 5th

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

81% 82% 75% 74% 80%

87% 83% 84% 72% 68% 85% 86% 74% 76% 70% 92% 81% 77% 74% 81% 87% 78% 72% 78% 77%

Ensure Development is Financially Feasible Provide Scale Transitions (e.g., taller to buffer railroad noise) Accommodate Above Ground Structured Parking Accommodate Rooftop Amenity/ Greenspace at Various Levels Respect Existing Building Hts. (2-story residences, 4-story commercial buildings)

% Support for Accommodating Higher/ Lower Building Heights (top 2 box % on 5-point scale)

19 50% 45%

40% 60% 49% 56% 52% 58% 47% 57%

Support Housing Choices Be Uniform/ Consistent Across Entire Planning Area Engaged (n= 214-255) Commuter (n= 273-313) Crossover (n= 63-76) Community (n= 65-75) Web Opt-I n (n= 424-510)

Maximum Acceptable Building Heights: Summary

• Across the properties shown, most respondents accept up to 4-story buildings in 5th 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

Acceptable Building Heights: Lower Levels for Lots 1 & 3 (majorities at 2-4 stories)

60% 39% 44% 65% 47% 27% 33% 35% 21% 33% 13% 28% 21% 15% 20%

Engaged (n= 295) Commuter (n= 394) Crossover (n= 89) Community (n= 82) Web Opt-I n (n= 618)

Lot 1: Kroehler Lot

Up to 6* Up to 4 Up to 2

21

47% 36% 35% 49% 40% 32% 33% 39% 34% 36% 21% 31% 26% 17% 24%

Engaged (n= 290) Commuter (n= 391) Crossover (n= 87) Community (n= 82) Web Opt-I n (n= 613)

Lot 3: Boecker Lot

Up to 6* Up to 4 Up to 2

* Includes “Up to 6 stories” and “6+ stories”

Acceptable Building Height I ncreases With Proximity to BNSF Tracks

22

Key Findings

Acceptable Max. Building Heights: Roughly 2 to at most 4 stories

Acceptable Building Heights: Roughly 4 Stories for Lots 5 & 6

32% 33% 31% 38% 37% 39% 32% 35% 46% 36% 29% 35% 34% 16% 27%

Engaged (n= 293) Commuter (n= 389) Crossover (n= 88) Community (n= 82) Web Opt-I n (n= 617)

Lot 5: Parkview

Up to 6* Up to 4 Up to 2

23

29% 28% 24% 32% 35% 42% 35% 40% 46% 37% 29% 37% 36% 22% 28%

Engaged (n= 292) Commuter (n= 390) Crossover (n= 88) Community (n= 82) Web Opt-I n (n= 620)

Lot 6: Children’s Museum

Up to 6* Up to 4 Up to 2

* Includes “Up to 6 stories” and “6+ stories”

Acceptable Building Height I ncreases With Proximity to BNSF Tracks

24

Key Findings

Roughly 4 stories Acceptable Max. Building Heights: Roughly 2 to at most 4 stories

Acceptable Building Heights: Roughly 4 Stories for Lots 2 & 4, With Some Amenability Up to 6 Stories

24% 25% 20% 35% 27% 44% 37% 39% 36% 42% 32% 38% 41% 29% 31%

Engaged (n= 289) Commuter (n= 390) Crossover (n= 87) Community (n= 83) Web Opt-I n (n= 614)

Lot 2: Water Tower Lot

Up to 6* Up to 4 Up to 2

25

23% 28% 19% 37% 31% 44% 34% 41% 38% 37% 33% 38% 40% 25% 32%

Engaged (n= 293) Commuter (n= 392) Crossover (n= 88) Community (n= 82) Web Opt-I n (n= 615)

Lot 4: Burlington Lot

Up to 6* Up to 4 Up to 2

* Includes “Up to 6 stories” and “6+ stories”

Acceptable Building Height I ncreases With Proximity to BNSF Tracks

26

Key Findings

Roughly 4 stories 4 stories (with many accepting up to 6 on these two sites) Acceptable Max. Building Heights: Roughly 2 to at most 4 stories

Other I nsights and Next Steps

• Regardless of preferred land use options, many volunteered the need to ensure

smooth traffic flow (reduced congestion) and pedestrian safety in the area.  Roughly 3% to 5% want the area to remain as-is (no development).

• Data processing and analysis, along with final reporting, is underway.

 Includes meaningful demographic differences (e.g., by neighborhood, age, gender, etc.) within Engaged and Commuter segments;  Final report will include detailed findings and executive summary, with in- person presentation.

• First draft of final report expected in third week of June.

27

Key Findings