draft survey results - city of university heights€¢draft results report ... survey to supplement...

2015 Community Survey ResultsCity of University HeightsAugust 25, 2016

• Background• Methodology + Process• Draft Results Report• Implications for the Master Plan

Background

• The City of University Heights was selected through competitive application process for professional planning services by County Planning to update the Master Plan.

• City Council agreed to fund a community survey to supplement the Master Plan.

• Conducting the survey after the initial phases of the plan allowed a unique opportunity to gather feedback on identified issues, policies, and actions.

• Anticipated that survey responses would prove valuable in prioritizing identified issues, policies and actions

• Survey data would also help guide City actions on proposed development, government communications, and funding applications

Survey Methodology + Process

QuestionsFormulated

SurveysMailed

-----Responses Collected

ResultsTabulated

ReportProduced

• The City preferred to deliver the surveys by mail to 4,872 households so that all residents would have the opportunity to respond.

• The project budget did not allow for return postage for all 4,872 surveys.

• County Planning worked with the budget to provide return postage for a random sample of 1,193 surveys.

• The surveys with return postage were tracked separately.

University Heights Survey

Total Households 4,872 Households



Mailed Surveys 4,872 Surveys




Return Postage Provided (Sample)

1,193 Surveys




Return Postage Provided 1,193 Surveys

Returned Surveys (Drop Off) 646 Surveys

Returned Surveys (Return Postage) 253 Surveys

Total Returned Surveys (Universe) 899 Surveys




Return Postage Provided 1,193 Surveys

Response Rate (Drop Off) 17.6%

Response Rate (Return Postage) 21.2%

Response Rate (Universe) 18.5%



Returned Surveys (Universe) 899 Surveys

Returned Surveys (Sample) 253 Surveys

Confidence Level 95%

Statistical Error Rate (Universe) +/- 2.95

Statistical Error Rate (Sample) +/- 5.47

Respondent Demographics: Age of Respondents

15.7%

15.2%

14.9%

22.0%

19.4%

12.9%

25.6%

19.1%

17.0%

15.7%

11.6%

11.0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

17 to 34

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64

65 to 74

75+ years

Respondent Demographics: Ages of People in Households

23.8%

6.4%

13.9%

11.0%

10.2%

15.0%

11.8%

8.0%

23.1%

19.3%

14.7%

12.3%

9.5%

9.9%

6.5%

4.8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

0 to 17

18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64

65 to 74

75+ years

Respondent Demographics: Tenure

8.6%

14.6%

12.4%

19.1%

17.7%

27.6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Under 2 years

2-5 years

6-10 years

11-20 years

21-30 years

More than 30 years

15.6%

34.3%

28.5%

13.9%

5.2%

2.5%

50.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Under 2 years

2-5 years

6-10 years

11-20 years

21-30 years

More than 30 years

I do not intend to move out of the City of University Heights

Years lived in City?

Years planning to live in City?

Respondent Demographics: Renter / Owner

90.8%

9.2%

Universe

Draft Results Report

Survey Topics

• City Qualities• Land Use• Parks, Recreation and Community Events• Transportation• Housing• City Services

City Qualities

Reasons for Residing in University Heights31.8%

30.5%

30.4%

30.0%

29.5%

27.9%

26.9%

25.1%

23.7%

23.6%

22.5%

14.8%

12.9%

9.6%

8.0%

3.8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Close to my family/friends

Offers type of housing I want

Feel safe in the City/my neighborhood

Housing costs fit my budget

Close to my work

Neighborhood is well maintained

Easy access to Downtown Cleveland

Enjoy the suburban environment

Close to cultural amenities

Close to shopping

Close to religious amenities

City provides a high quality of municipal services

Easy access to University Circle

Property is a good investment

Close to John Carroll University

Quality of the school system

Reasons for Residing in University Heights by Age

Considerations for Moving from University Heights9.9%

66.7%

35.5%

14.9%

14.3%

14.2%

12.5%

12.3%

11.7%

11.1%

10.1%

9.5%

8.6%

8.6%

8.5%

7.2%

5.6%

5.5%

5.5%

4.4%

1.3%

0.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

I would not consider moving out ofUniversity Heights

For lower taxes

For a better school district

For a different climate

For a larger house

For a retirement friendly community

For a safer community

For a newer house

For a smaller house

To be closer to family/friends

For better community facilities

For more home for my money

for attached condos/clustered homes

For higher quality of municipal services

To be closer to work/job related

For a more rural environment

To be able to walk places

For a rental unit

To have better access to highways

For less traffic congestion

To be closer to Downtown Cleveland

For better access to shopping

Considerations for Moving from University Heights9.9%

66.7%

35.5%

14.9%

14.3%

14.2%

12.5%

12.3%

11.7%

11.1%

10.1%

9.5%

8.6%

8.6%

8.5%

7.2%

5.6%

5.5%

5.5%

4.4%

1.3%

0.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

I would not consider moving out of UniversityHeights

For lower taxes

For a better school district

For a different climate

For a larger house

For a retirement friendly community

For a safer community

For a newer house

For a smaller house

To be closer to family/friends

For better community facilities

For more home for my money

for attached condos/clustered homes

For higher quality of municipal services

To be closer to work/job related

For a more rural environment

To be able to walk places

For a rental unit

To have better access to highways

For less traffic congestion

To be closer to Downtown Cleveland

For better access to shopping

Land Use

Land Use

31.7%

30.6%

18.9%

20.6%

26.6%

19.5%

7.9%

12.0%

13.4%

13.7%

5.2%

44.9%

42.9%

52.1%

48.1%

39.0%

44.6%

43.9%

33.4%

30.0%

27.7%

11.5%

16.6%

17.8%

12.8%

23.4%

25.2%

27.8%

31.1%

28.6%

36.1%

40.4%

25.1%

4.8%

7.2%

13.9%

6.2%

6.9%

6.8%

14.9%

19.0%

16.4%

13.9%

35.8%

6.9%

22.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Environmentally friendly development is important

Focus on maintaining/attracting different types of commercial business

The majority of my necessary shopping needs can be met by local retailers

Focus on mixed-use development within walking distance to amenities

Promote more greenspace

Promote economic development to attract employment

City has a sense of place that distinguishes it from other cities

Allow more townhouses/condos in appropriate locations

Major streets should have decorative elements

Explore expanding alternative transportation options

Allow more multi-family residential development in appropriate locations

Parks, Recreation & Community Events

Parks & Recreation

10.8%

45.0%

36.6%

6.3% 1.3% 2.8%

42.8%

44.1%

8.9%

1.4%

Ease of access to recreation and cultural programs and activities:

Overall quality of parks and recreational facilities:

Would you like to see additional community events?

44.0%Yes

18.1%No

37.9%Not Sure

Transportation

Transportation Improvements

23.2%

23.2%

21.2%

22.0%

21.5%

21.1%

34.8%

32.1%

32.3%

29.4%

28.4%

21.5%

23.9%

26.8%

29.4%

31.0%

20.5%

22.4%

11.3%

11.7%

12.0%

10.9%

15.6%

17.4%

6.8%

6.1%

5.1%

6.6%

14.0%

17.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Multi-modal street intersection improvements on Cedar Road

Multi-modal street intersection improvements on Warrensville CenterRoad

Traffic and Safety enhancements at Commercial Development entrancesand exits along Cedar and Warrensville Center

Streetscape improvements along major corridors

Additional marked bike routes throughout the city

Bike lanes along Cedar and Warrensville Center Roads

Housing

Housing Priorities

56.0%

50.3%

23.0%

16.7%

16.6%

18.2%

15.0%

9.4%

4.6%

34.6%

32.0%

31.4%

35.8%

35.3%

32.2%

24.2%

17.9%

12.0%

8.3%

12.6%

27.2%

32.4%

31.0%

31.6%

29.9%

30.4%

28.7%

12.0%

10.7%

11.2%

11.1%

17.7%

22.7%

28.3%

6.4%

5.9%

6.8%

13.2%

19.6%

26.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Maintaining existing housing andneighborhoods

Infill or redevelopment of old or obsoletehousing or vacant land

Increased housing options for seniorslooking to remain in the City

increased housing options within walkingdistance to amenities

Increased housing types for young families

More well-designed single-family, detachedhomes

new -well-designed townhouses/condos

New well-designed apartments/mixed-usedevelopment

More campus oriented housing

City Services

Quality of City Services:51.7%

44.2%

38.7%

29.8%

20.4%

11.5%

17.3%

17.2%

15.3%

11.0%

8.0%

6.5%

3.4%

7.7%

4.4%

41.3%

46.0%

36.3%

44.4%

48.4%

52.9%

39.6%

37.5%

37.2%

41.1%

39.1%

36.9%

38.5%

33.5%

27.6%

6.5%

8.6%

13.3%

17.7%

24.3%

31.1%

27.5%

25.4%

26.5%

34.4%

36.3%

40.8%

45.6%

33.9%

37.3%

6.8%

5.8%

5.3%

3.5%

10.4%

12.2%

13.8%

7.2%

11.2%

12.8%

9.1%

17.2%

20.2%

5.2%

7.7%

7.3%

6.4%

5.4%

7.7%

10.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fire protection/EMS

Police protection

Trash removal and recycling

Leaf collection

Traffic enforcements

Park maintenance

Tree lawn planting program

Street snow removal

Sidewalk snow removal

City email notifications/Reverse 911

Building department

Recreational Programs

City of University Heights website

Property maintenance enforcement

Street maintenance/repair

Importance of City Services:90.2%

89.6%

69.5%

76.3%

65.6%

43.4%

42.0%

38.8%

38.9%

23.4%

25.7%

20.7%

21.3%

16.0%

7.2%

8.7%

9.0%

28.7%

21.6%

31.3%

44.8%

39.1%

41.6%

40.7%

53.8%

48.2%

43.3%

39.7%

33.3%

29.0%

10.4%

13.9%

17.3%

17.3%

20.0%

23.4%

28.2%

30.9%

33.7%

43.8%

5.0%

7.8%

8.1%

17.0%

19.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Police protection

Fire protection/EMS

Street maintenance/repair

Snow removal

Trash removal and recycling

Leaf collection

Sidewalk snow removal

Traffic enforcement

Property maintenance enforcement

Park maintenance

Building department

Recreational programs

Tree lawn planting program

City email notifications/Reverse 911

City of University Heights website

Matrix on Importance and Quality of Services

Above 50% quality, above 50% importance


Above 50% quality, below 50% importance


Below 50% quality, above 50% importance


Below 50% quality, below 50% importance

Importance and Quality of Services By Age

Overall Services

Implications for the Master Plan

Master Plan Issues40.5%

27.6%

28.0%

28.3%

26.3%

21.8%

23.0%

29.7%

22.7%

18.8%

20.3%

10.9%

39.8%

47.6%

44.6%

43.3%

43.6%

44.8%

43.1%

35.7%

41.3%

38.1%

35.9%

34.5%

15.4%

21.4%

21.8%

23.1%

27.5%

26.1%

29.8%

23.9%

29.1%

34.3%

34.9%

42.3%

4.3%

3.4%

5.5%

5.3%

2.5%

7.3%

4.1%

10.8%

6.9%

8.8%

8.8%

12.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Planning for the future of the WileySchool property

Redevelopment of commercial areas asmixed-use

Improving City image/sense of place

Creating commercial developmentdistricts with design guidelines

Improvement of major intersections

Attracting new office jobs

Improving traffic flow and managament

Consolidation of services withneighboring cities

Increased housing options for residentsof all ages and stage of life

Increased recreational and culturaloffereings

Redevelopment around John CarrollUniversity and Fairmount Circle

Increasing City Hall's on-line presenceand accessibility

Priority Corridors for Mixed Use Redevelopment

41.5%

28.6%

21.9%

25.9%

21.1%

22.7%

13.5%

27.1%

32.3%

33.8%

29.0%

31.5%

28.3%

24.7%

16.8%

24.2%

27.1%

26.0%

32.5%

33.0%

35.3%

6.5%

9.7%

10.0%

12.3%

9.6%

11.5%

16.9%

8.1%

5.2%

7.3%

6.8%

5.3%

4.4%

9.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ceder-Warrensville

Cedar-Taylor

Cedar-Green

Fairmount Circle

Cedar Road Corridor

Warrensville Center Road Corridor

Green Road Corridor

• Basic infrastructure and services• Future use & redevelopment potential of the

Wiley School property• Connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians• Implementation of the Warrensville Center Road

TLCI Plan• Increased focus on economic development,

especially mixed-use development and new jobs.

Major Themes

• John Carroll University is an important partner, as it fosters:

• Volunteer support from students and staff• Cultural and recreational opportunities and

events• Institutional awareness and support of local

initiatives • Local job creation and support for local

businesses• Development of unique and connected spaces

for JCU and the City

Major Themes

• Management and control of rental properties• Not limited to impact of JCU students• Desire to hold rental property owners accountable

• Tax Rates• Taxes remain the prime reason cited by residents who

would consider moving from University Heights

Major Concerns

• Housing variety and choice will be important for keeping seniors and attracting young people

Major Concerns

• Maintaining neighborhoods is important to all age groups

• Increased code enforcement

• Nuisance abatement programs

• Home maintenance loans and assistance programs

• Strengthen Rental property registration and enforcement

• Infrastructure repair and upgrades (streets, sidewalks, street trees, stormwater, etc.)

Major Concerns

• Most residents (78.6%) are pleased with the overall quality of life in University Heights

14.3%

64.3%

19.2%

2.0%

Thank you!Questions?

draft survey results - city of university heights€¢draft results report ... survey to supplement...

Documents