City Council Workshop

AGENDA City Council Workshop Workshop March 14, 2023 HADLEY CONFERENCE ROOM 5:00 PM 5:00 PM Council Member Interview 5:30 PM Glenbrook Avenue Realignment North of 7th Street Intersection 5:45 PM Cardinal Meadows Monument and Landscape Median at 15th Street North and Hydram Avenue North Survey Results 5:55 PM Bike and Pedestrian Plan Project Update 6:20 PM Glenbrook Small Area Plan Update – Draft Alternatives 6:50 PM Fire Inspection Surcharge Fees 6:55 PM Recess for Regular Meeting Continue after Regular Council Meeting Administrator Update Council Topics  COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Brian Bachmeier, Consulting City Engineer Date: March 14, 2023 Subject: Glenbrook Avenue Realignment North of 7th Street Intersection BACKGROUND As part of the City Project R2023-01 Street Reconstruction project, there is an opportunity to narrow the road eight (8) feet and remove the offset intersection of Glenbrook Avenue at 7th Street. Currently, the centerline of Glenbrook Avenue, north of 7th Street, is fifteen (15) feet west of the centerline of Glenbrook Avenue, south of 7th Street. This intersection is not in conformance with Chapter 21 Section 21-29 (A) (2) (f) which indicates: (f) Street jogs. Local street jogs with centerline offsets of less than one hundred fifty (150) feet shall be avoided. The new alignment would be as follows: Narrowing the road and relocation does lengthen the driveways on the west side of the roadway. The resulting driveways lengths are as follows: Glenbrook Ave Driveway Lengths Address Current Driveway Proposed Driveway Percent Increase 980 Glenbrook 40 44 10% 952 Glenbrook 58 62 7% 944 Glenbrook 87 91 5% 932 Glenbrook 66 70 6% 912 Glenbrook 50 54 8% 886 Glenbrook 66 70 6% 862 Glenbrook 80 84 5% 856 Glenbrook 112 116 4% 816 Glenbrook 120 124 3% 784 Glenbrook 110 114 4% 754 Glenbrook North 120 124 3% 754 Glenbrook South 113 117 4% 6244 7th Street 50 64 28% Average 82 87 6% 1 Most of the driveways are an additional four (4) feet longer due to the narrowing of the road. The one exception is the first driveway north of 7th Street that would be an additional fourteen (14) feet. This is 28% longer than the existing driveway, however still less than the 82’ average current driveway length along Glenbrook Avenue. COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on proceeding with completing the construction plans that will be brought to the City Council for approval on March 28, 2023. 2  COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Brian Bachmeier, Consulting City Engineer Date: March 14, 2023 Subject: Cardinal Meadows Monument and Landscape Median at 15th Street North and Hydram Avenue North Survey Results BACKGROUND As part of the City Project R2023-01 Street Reconstruction project, a survey was sent to the Cardinal Meadows neighbors on December 14, 2022 to determine if they support or oppose the removal of the sign/median. City Council decided to also send out a Value Statement questionnaire on February 23, 2023 to further determine the surrounding residents’ support or resistance to remove the monument. The results from the first survey (27 total) included 13 responses to keep the monument and 6 responses to remove the monument sign. The results from the Value Statement questionnaire indicate support for keeping the monument, with questionnaire’s being sent under separate cover. COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED Staff is looking for confirmation on keeping the monument sign from the City Council. Attachment Survey Results Other Received Questionnaires (To be provided under separate cover)  Cardinal Meadows Monument Questionnaire Results neither strongly agree nor strongly Value Statement disagree disagree disagree agree agree The sign/median provides an important identity for the neighborhood. 1 4 12 The City should consider removing the median if the removal costs could be recovered within seven years through plowing/ice control efficiencies. 9 4 1 2 The sign provides traffic calming for motorists entering the neighborhood. 1 1 15 Removal of the median would make it easier to make the turns onto 15th Street with less delay. 10 2 2 3 The sign beautifies the neighborhood with trees and landscaping. 2 5 10 The maintenance of the sign is not uniformly shared, so it's not fair that someone has to volunteer. 5 5 3 2 1 I would feel safer if the boulevard was wider between the sidewalk and street. 8 7 1 1 TOTAL 33 18 10 18 38  COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Shannon Reidlinger, Sr Community Development Specialist Date: March 14, 2023 Subject: Bike and Pedestrian Plan Project Update The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update on community engagement work completed for the updated Bike and Pedestrian Plan (the “Plan”), as well as solicit feedback from the City Council on the Plan’s draft network recommendations and an outline of draft actions. Toole Design Group – the consultant for the project – will present, and engage City Council in discussion of, the Plan’s draft network recommendations map. BACKGROUND Oakdale’s bike and pedestrian system provides an affordable transportation option with recreation and health benefits. To better connect people and where they live to the region’s growing multimodal transportation network, Oakdale’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for updating the 1995 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Chapter Three, Goal Four, Policy One). To date, the project team has completed the following: • Level of traffic stress analysis • Bus stop inventory • Gold Line transit station travel shed maps • Review of existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit policies and programs • Map of existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (including marked crosswalks and bus stops) • Community Engagement Plan activities described below (presented to City Council at the July 26, 2022 workshop) SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMPLETED TO DATE A summary of community engagement work completed to date was presented to City Council at the December 13, 2022 workshop. Completed community engagement work included: • Conducting a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis with Oakdale’s advisory bodies, including: o The Environmental Management Commission (August 15, 2022) o The Planning Commission (September 1, 2022) o The Economic Development Commission (September 7, 2022) o The Parks and Recreation Commission (September 20, 2022) • Hosting one open house on October 19, 2022 with 16 community participants • Hosting one pop-up workshop at the Farmers Market on September 28, 2022 with 50 community participants • Hosting one pop-up workshop at the Oakdale branch of the library on October 24, 2022 with 9 community participants • Conducting an online questionnaire and WikiMap (with results from the 2019 questionnaire/WikiMap and 2022 questionnaire/WikiMap jointly analyzed) In response to a stated desire by City Council to see additional public feedback gathered, the project team also completed the following community engagement activities: • Conducting in-person focus groups on December 9, 2022 with 42 students of diverse backgrounds in two businesses classes at Tartan High School • Conducting a virtual focus group on January 4, 2023 with eight members of the Oakdale Wellness 50+ group and past Community Walk participants • Promoting continued engagement with the project’s WikiMap by: o Sending a message to complete the WikiMap via City social media channels o Coordinating with District 622 administrators to email a targeted ask to students and teachers in Oakdale area schools to complete the WikiMap • Presenting the draft network recommendations map and draft goals, strategies, and actions outline on March 1, 2023 to Oakdale’s internal Development Review Committee The next community engagement action step is to provide a draft of the Plan to the community for review and feedback in the spring of 2023. The draft Plan will be emailed to residents who have provided their contact information during community engagement, and will be made available to the public on the project’s website. DRAFT NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS AND DRAFT GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS OUTLINE The results of community engagement activities inform the network recommendations and goals, strategies, and actions used to guide delivery of the Plan. The purpose of the network recommendations map is to identify a future bikeway and walkway system plan with locations and types of facilities (for example, paths and sidewalks). Facility types are informed by the needs of Oakdale’s residents and property owners, and also by regional and national best practices. The draft network recommendations map is attached. The purpose of defining goals, strategies, and actions is to provide recommendations around Plan elements like funding, budgeting, development, ordinances, programming, policies, and education. All goals, strategies, and actions will be prioritized and placed on a schedule for implementation. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED At the meeting, project consultant Shaun Murphy-Lopez from Toole Design Group will walk through the draft network recommendations map and receive feedback from City Council. Staff will also be available to address questions on the draft goals, strategies, and actions outline, and draft Community Engagement Report. Attachments Draft Goals, Strategies, and Actions Outline Draft Community Engagement Report Desired Walking or Bicycling Routes with Comment Numbers Draft Future Network Map 2 Draft Goals and Strategies Outline Based on community feedback, the following draft goals, strategies, and actions are recommended for the Oakdale Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan. Draft goals, actions, and strategies are not written in order of importance. This outline is refined based on input from City staff, the Environmental Management Commission, and the City Council. Goal: Expand the extent of the pedestrian and bicycle network Strategy 1: Build and improve linear facilities Action 1.1: Design shared use path and sidewalk projects that appeal to a wide cross section of residents. Shared use paths are designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized users (i.e. people on mobility devices, rollerblades, scooters, skateboards, etc.); sidewalks are designed to accommodate pedestrians Action 1.2: Coordinate walking and bicycling facility improvements with already-funded projects Action 1.3: Improve existing shared use paths to encourage sharing and safety Strategy 2: Build and improve crossings Action 2.1: Make it easier for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross busy streets Action 2.2: Use proven measures to improve safety Strategy 3: Prioritize projects that connect important travel destinations Action 3.1: Prioritize the highest needs of residents – according to public feedback, existing transit systems, and the demand analysis – so that linear facilities are connected Action 3.2: Connect residential neighborhoods with popular areas like the Oakdale Nature Preserve and Gateway State Trail Action 3.3: Prioritize projects that have a higher likelihood of funding in municipal, county, regional, and state budgets and grants Goal: Maintain the Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Strategy 4: Improve maintenance of crosswalk markings Action 4.1: Use longer-lasting crosswalk marking materials Action 4.2: Develop a crosswalk marking inventory management system Strategy 5: Improve winter maintenance of walking and bicycling facilities Action 5.1: Expand resources to provide more options for winter maintenance Action 5.2: Develop and/or expand performance measures and priorities for winter maintenance Action 5.3: Design facilities to make winter maintenance easier Action 5.4 Develop maintenance requirements for new developments  Strategy 6: Improve routine maintenance of path and sidewalk pavement Action 6.1: Expand the types of routine pavement maintenance to reduce long-term costs Action 6.2: Develop a path and sidewalk pavement preservation inspection program Goal: Encourage active travel and inform the community about walking and bicycling options Strategy 7: Expand destinations within easy walking and bicycling distance of residential areas Action 7.1: Promote the development of housing within close proximity to existing destinations Action 7.2: Plan for mixed use neighborhoods in undeveloped or redeveloping areas Strategy 8: Promote the existing walking and bicycling network Action 8.1: Develop a positive informational campaign about walking and bicycling Action 8.2: Establish a wayfinding signage network for major destinations and transit facilities that can be reached by walking and bicycling Action 8.3: Publish maps of walking and bicycling routes Strategy 9: Increase community awareness of safety issues Action 9.1: Describe the most common types of crashes between motorists and pedestrians/bicyclists, as well as non-motorist related injuries not involving motorists, and how they can be avoided Action 9.2: Carry out a campaign to increase motorist, pedestrian, and bicyclist compliance with traffic laws Action 9.3: Develop and circulate resource materials  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan DRAFT Community Engagement Report February 20, 2023 Key Findings, Engagement Strategies, and Detailed Results The trails in Oakdale Nature Preserve are a popular place for walking. Image Credit: City of Oakdale A-1 Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Strategies for Engaging Oakdale’s Residents ............................................................................................................... 4 Strategy A: Open House, Pop-up Workshops and Online Questionnaires ................................................... 5 Mapping ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Walking Frequency ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Walking Deterrants ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Rating Current Conditions................................................................................................................................... 18 Design Preferences for Walking Along Streets ............................................................................................... 19 Bicycling Frequency ................................................................................................................................................ 20 Bicycling Deterrants ............................................................................................................................................... 22 Rating Current Conditions................................................................................................................................... 23 Design Preferences for Bicycling Along Streets .............................................................................................. 24 Top Routes/Intersections For Improvement ................................................................................................... 25 Stories About Bicycling or Walking ................................................................................................................... 26 Additional Comments ........................................................................................................................................... 27 Visioning .................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Participant Demographics..................................................................................................................................... 29 Strategy B: City Commissions .................................................................................................................................. 32 Strategy C: Focus Groups ......................................................................................................................................... 33 High school students ............................................................................................................................................. 33 A-2 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this community engagement report is to summarize the approach to, and results of, engaging community members around the Oakdale Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan). The voices of residents identified key findings for the project team to further analyze and guide recommendations in the Plan. Community Engagement Report Plan Implementation Community Input Key Findings Recommendations Strategies Illustration of Plan development process: community input informs key findings which lead to recommendations and implementation strategies. In 2020 and 2022, there were approximately 370 participant interactions that resulted in recorded input. Winter maintenance was an issue raised during the public engagement process. A-3 KEY FINDINGS 1) Respondents want an expanded walking and bicycling network that can be used primarily for recreation. Oakdale’s existing sidewalk and path network is already frequently used by residents. Residents love the existing scenery, with the Gateway State Trail and paths within Oakdale Nature Preserve being the most popular facilities. The public walks more than it rides a bicycle, but predominantly does both activities for recreational purposes. The largest deterrent to more walking and bicycling is the limited extent of the existing path network, particularly along Oakdale’s busiest streets. Improved surface maintenance of trails would also encourage more bicycling. 2) Facilities should guide users to have safe interactions between various modes. Attitudes between people walking, bicycling, and driving are an area identified for improvement. On the trail system, users are confused about how pedestrians and bicyclists should interact. This confusion sometimes leads to conflicts between people bicycling and driving, since some bicyclists choose to then avoid the trail system and ride on streets. Negative feelings about people using other modes of transportation are related to a lack of clear direction about how to interact, and a general lack of awareness about traffic-related regulations. The public overwhelmingly prefers separation between modes. 3) Street crossings should be expanded in number and level of maintenance. The ease of crossing streets was the lowest rated condition cited by pedestrians, and the second lowest rated condition cited by bicyclists. Respondents – especially those walking – frequently expressed a desire for more crossings and improved safety. Crosswalk marking and winter maintenance on existing crossings were also cited as needing improvement. On the other hand, respondents were very satisfied with the frequency and placement of curb ramps at intersections. 4) More destinations will increase the frequency of walking and bicycling. The number of destinations within easy walking distance was identified as a high deterrent to more walking, and a moderate deterrent to more bicycling. The creation of mixed-use developments with additional businesses, coupled with an expanded sidewalk and path network, will encourage more people to walk and bicycle. Marketing of existing facilities and destinations will also encourage more walking and bicycling. STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGING OAKDALE’S RESIDENTS The Oakdale Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is intended to reflect the vision and goals of the community, not just those who explicitly identify as a “pedestrian” or “bicyclist.” By also uncovering the issues and ideas from community members with passive interest in walking or bicycling, the Plan recommendations will better reflect the community’s values and priorities. For example, while parents of children may not identify as a pedestrian or bicyclist, Approximately 16 community members were engaged at an open house, held at Oakdale Discovery Center on October 19, 2022. A-4 they may have a personal interest in a walking and bicycling trail that leads to local schools for the safety and well-being of children. Oftentimes communities have widespread interest in walking or bicycling, but limited time to devote to meetings and volunteer opportunities, making it difficult to gauge public opinion through conventional public meetings. Making engagement easy, tailored, and inviting helps reach people who may care, but are generally less vocal on a single issue like walking or bicycling. For these reasons, it was important for the project team to use a range of strategies to solicit feedback from community members. This section summarizes the strategies used to engage a range of community voices, why the strategies were selected, and the input that was received. Strategy A: Open House, Pop-up Workshops and Online Questionnaires On October 19th the project team solicited input at an open house with 16 participants. The open house was advertised on Oakdale’s Facebook page. Community members were also linked to the project website and online questionnaire. An online map was also linked on the project website. Two pop-up workshops were also held: one at the Farmers’ Market on September 28th with 50 participants reached and another at the Oakdale Library on October 24th with 9 participants reached. A Facebook event advertising the open house. The online questionnaire and online map were promoted to Oakdale community members between October 1st and 31st. The online map was then again promoted between December 20th, 2022 and January 6th, 2023 on the City’s Facebook page, and promoted to students at Tartan High School and Skyview Middle School in December and January. Excerpts from the questionnaire and map are provided on the following pages. The questionnaire and map mimicked the format that was used at the open house and pop-up workshop events. Approximately 68 people took the online questionnaire and 90 people completed the map. The results of the open house and questionnaire/map are combined in the following section to provide a composite snapshot. During an earlier phase of the project in 2020, which was put on hold due to COVID, a similar online questionnaire and map were distributed to the community. At that time, 129 people completed the A-5 online questionnaire and 21 people completed the online map. Results from 2020 were also combined in the following section. Approximately 50 community members were engaged at a pop-up workshop, held at the Oakdale Farmers’ Market on September 28, 2022. A student at Skyview Middle School completes an online version of the map in January 2023. Credit: ISD 622 A-6 A screen capture of the online questionnaire showing questions about bicycling and walking in Oakdale. A-7 A screen capture of the online map that asked for input on routes, destinations, and problems. MAPPING Oakdale residents, reached at both in-person events and online through an interactive mapping website, were invited to identify examples of current walking or bicycling routes, desired walking or bicycling routes, walking or bicycling destinations, walking or bicycling problems, and where they live. Residents submitted a total of: • 149 current walking or bicycling routes • 113 desired walking or bicycling routes • 86 walking or bicycling destinations • 100 walking or bicycling problems • 40 locations where respondents live A-8 Participants completed paper maps at the Oakdale Farmers’ Market on September 28, 2022. A-9 Current Walking or Bicycling Routes The map shown in Figure A-1 summarizes the 149 routes where respondents identified they currently walk or ride a bicycle. On the north side of Oakdale, the Gateway Trail and trails through Oakdale Nature Preserve were the most popular locations for walking or bicycling. On the south side of Oakdale, 15th Street between Granada Avenue and Helmo Avenue was the most popular route. Figure A-1. Participants were asked to trace routes where they currently walk or ride a bicycle. A-10 Desired Walking or Bicycling Routes The map shown in Figure A-2 summarizes the 113 routes where respondents identified they desired to walk or ride a bicycle. The most desired route for walking or bicycling was Century Avenue, particularly between Highway 36 and 7th Street. Figure A-2. Participants were asked to trace routes where they desire to walk or ride a bicycle. A-11 Walking or Bicycling Destinations The map shown in Figure A-3 summarizes the 86 destinations respondents identified for walking or riding a bicycle. The three largest concentrations of destinations were Beaver Lake Estates along Maryland Avenue in Maplewood, Oakdale Nature Preserve, and Richard Walton Park. Figure A-3. Participants were asked to place points at destinations where they walk or ride a bicycle. A-12 Walking or Bicycling Problems The map shown in Figure A-4 summarizes the 100 destinations respondents identified as problem spots for walking or riding a bicycle. The two largest problem spots were the intersections of Helmo Avenue/12th Street and Century Avenue/15th Street. The road with the largest number of problem spots was Century Avenue. Figure A-4. Participants were asked to place points at problem locations for walking or riding a bicycle. A-13 Where Respondents Live The map shown in Figure A-5 summarizes the 40 locations respondents identified as where they live. Most respondents identified living south of 34th Street. Figure A-5. Participants were asked to place points at locations where they live. A-14 WALKING FREQUENCY Most respondents (46 percent) reported walking for exercise/health/enjoyment a few times a week, 39 percent reported walking for those purposes at least once a day, 14 percent reported walking a few times a month or less, and one percent reported never walking for those reasons. Figure A-6. Frequency with which participants in the Oakdale public engagement activities reported walking for exercise/health/enjoyment (answered by 195 participants). A-15 Most respondents (41 percent) reported walking to destinations such as shops, work, recreation, and church a few times a month or less, 39 percent reported never walking for those purposes, 15 percent reported walking a few times week, and five percent reported walking for those reasons at least once a day. Figure A-7. Frequency with which participants in the Oakdale public engagement activities reported walking to destinations such as shops, work, recreation, and church (answered by 196 participants). A-16 WALKING DETERRANTS Residents were asked the following open-ended question about what deters them from walking: What prevents you from walking more than you do now? 167 people responded and identified a total of 192 unique deterrents (each respondent was allowed to mention up to 2 deterrents). Figure A-8 shows the most common walking deterrents. The three most common were: 1. Lack of paths/sidewalks (37/192, or 19%) 2. Lack of destinations (24/130, or 13%) 3. Lack of time (24/130, or 13%) Figure A-8. Bar chart showing walking deterrents. A-17 RATING CURRENT CONDITIONS Participants in the online questionnaire and community workshops were asked to rank a variety of current walking conditions in Oakdale on a five-point scale from ‘Excellent’ to ‘Bad.’ Figure A-9 displays the results of participants who voted for each condition as either ‘Excellent’ or ‘Good’. Approximately 190 people answered this question. The conditions with the most positive ratings were: 1. Terrain for walking (66%) 2. Frequency of curb ramps at intersections (64%) 3. Smoothness of sidewalks/shared use paths (58%) The conditions with the least positive ratings were: 9. Motorists’ attitudes towards pedestrians (32%) 10. Number of destinations within easy walking distance (29%) 11. Ease of crossing busy streets (29%) Figure A-9. Summary graph of percentage of respondents who rated each walking condition as 'Excellent' or 'Good'. A-18 DESIGN PREFERENCES FOR WALKING ALONG STREETS Community members were asked to rate their comfort level with walking along streets in various types of pedestrian environments. Participants viewed a photo of each pedestrian environment, and then rated each on a five-point scale from ‘Very Comfortable’ to ‘Very Uncomfortable’. Figure A-10 shows the percentage of respondents who ranked each category as either ‘Very Comfortable’ or ‘Comfortable’. Approximately 195 people answered this question. The three pedestrian environments that received the most responses for ‘Very Comfortable’ or ‘Comfortable’ were wide sidewalks (94%), residential sidewalks (89%), and shared use paths (55%). The complete results of the pedestrian environment rankings and images of each pedestrian facility are shown below. Figure A-10. Summary graph of percentage of respondents who rated each pedestrian environment as 'Very Comfortable' or 'Comfortable'. The images below were included in the questionnaire. Wide sidewalk (94%) Residential sidewalk (88%) Shared use path (56%) Narrow sidewalk (43%) Paved shoulder (12%) Residential road without Commercial road without sidewalk (13%) sidewalk (4%) A-19 BICYCLING FREQUENCY Seventy percent of respondents reported bicycling each month. The largest share of respondents (36 percent) reported bicycling for exercise/health/enjoyment a few times a month or less, 30 percent reported never bicycling for those purposes, 28 percent reported bicycling a few times a week, and six percent reported bicycling for those reasons at least once a day. Figure A-11. Frequency with which participants in the Oakdale public engagement activities reported bicycling for exercise/health/enjoyment (answered by 191 participants). A-20 51 percent of respondents reporting bicycling to a destination such as shops, work, recreation, and church at least once a month, while 49 percent of respondents reported never bicycling to those destinations. Of those who bicycled at least once a month, 40 percent reported bicycling for those purposes a few times a month or less, eight percent reported bicycling a few times week, and three percent reported bicycling for those reasons at least once a day. Figure A-12. Frequency with which participants in the Oakdale public engagement activities reported bicycling to destinations such as shops, work, recreation, and church (answered by 190 participants). A-21 BICYCLING DETERRANTS Residents were asked the following open-ended question about what deters them from bicycling: What prevents you from bicycling more than you do now? 134 people responded and identified a total of 149 unique deterrents (each respondent was allowed to mention up to 2 deterrents). Figure A-13 shows the most common bicycling deterrents. The three most common were: 1. Lack of facilities (e.g., paths, lanes) (36/149, or 24%) 2. Safety from motorists (19/149, or 13%) 3. Weather (18/149, or 12%) Figure A-13. Bar chart showing bicycling deterrents. A-22 RATING CURRENT CONDITIONS Participants in the online questionnaire and community workshops were asked to rank a variety of current bicycling conditions in Oakdale on a five-point scale from ‘Excellent’ to ‘Bad.’ Figure A-14 displays the results of participants who voted for each condition as either ‘Excellent’ or ‘Good’. Approximately 171 people answered this question. The conditions with the most positive ratings were: 1. Frequency of curb ramps at intersections (56%) 2. Scenery/interesting locations to see while biking (56%) 3. Location/placement of curb ramps at intersections (54%) The conditions with the least positive ratings were: 9. Motorists’ attitudes towards bicyclists (32%) 10. Ease of crossing busy streets (30%) 11. Extent of sidewalk/shared use path network (28%) Figure A-14. Summary graph of percentage of respondents who rated each bicycling condition as 'Excellent' or 'Good'. A-23 DESIGN PREFERENCES FOR BICYCLING ALONG STREETS Community members were asked to rate their comfort level with bicycling along streets in various types of bicycling environments. Participants viewed a photo of each bicycling environment, and then rated each on a five-point scale from ‘Very Comfortable’ to ‘Very Uncomfortable’. Figure A-15 shows the percentage of respondents who ranked each category as either ‘Very Comfortable’ or ‘Comfortable’. Approximately 195 people answered this question. The three bicycling environments that received the most responses for ‘Very Comfortable’ or ‘Comfortable’ were separated bicycle lanes at street level (71%), buffered bicycle lanes (56%), and shared use paths (49%). The complete results of the bicycling environment rankings and images of each bicycle facility are shown below. Figure A-15. Summary graph of percentage of respondents who rated each bicycling environment as 'Very Comfortable' or 'Comfortable'. The images below were included in the questionnaire. Separated bicycle lane at Buffered bicycle lane (55%) Shared use path (50%) Shared lane marking on a street level (71%) quiet street (48%) Standard bicycle lane Shared lane marking on a busy Highway shoulder (44%) street (16%) (16%) A-24 TOP ROUTES/INTERSECTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Respondents were asked the following question and then encouraged to answer with an open-ended written text response: Imagine you had a magic wand and could instantly change one route and one intersection in our community to improve them for bicycling and walking. Which ones would you select? 54 respondents submitted 58 ideas shown in Figure A-16 (ideas mentioned by only one respondent were not included in the chart). Highway 120/Century Avenue was the top priority in 12 out of 58 ideas (or 21%), while Hadley Avenue and Ideal Avenue were the top priorities in 6 out of 58 ideas (or 10% each). Figure A-16. Column chart showing the top route or intersection for instant change in Oakdale. A-25 STORIES ABOUT BICYCLING OR WALKING Community members were asked the following question and then encouraged to answer with an open- ended written text response: Tell us why you want Oakdale to be bike- or walk-friendly. Share about the people in your life who would benefit from more bicycling and walking routes. 49 people submitted stories with 69 themes, which are summarized in Figure A-17. Only themes mentioned by two or more respondents were included. The most popular themes were: 1. Safety (12/69, or 17%) 2. Kids (10/69, or 14%) 3. Health (9/69, or 13%) Figure A-17. Column chart showing the most popular themes in residents’ stories about why bicycling or walking is personally important. A-26 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 98 residents submitted additional comments to be considered for the Plan. The question prompt was the following: Is there anything else you would like to tell us regarding your experience walking or biking in Oakdale? Each comment was assigned general topics corresponding to their content. 107 topics were submitted. Only topics mentioned by two or more respondents were included in Figure A-18. The following five topics were the most mentioned in the additional comments: 1. Desire more bike/pedestrian facilities (19/107, or 18%) 2. Appreciate existing facilities (12/107, or 11%) 3. Safety from bicyclists (8/107, or 7%) 4. Supportive of bicycling/walking investments (7/107, or 7%) 5. Desire more bicycle regulation (6/107, or 6%) Figure A-18. Column chart of additional comments by topic. A-27 VISIONING Residents were asked to provide three words to describe what they hope biking and walking will look and feel like in Oakdale in the future. 51 people responded with 130 words. Figure A-19 shows the most common visionary words chosen by the individuals. Only words mentioned by two or more respondents were included in the chart. The community most said they wanted Oakdale to be: 1. Safe (28/130, or 22%) 2. Accessible (7/130, or 5%) 3. Connected (6/130, or 5%) Figure A-19. Column chart of visioning words. A-28 PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS The following section describes demographic characteristics of both in-person and online public engagement participants. 62% of participants were female and 38% were male, as shown in Figure A-20. In the 2010 census, 52% of Oakdale residents were female and 48% were male. 93% of participants were white, as shown in Figure A-15. In the 2010 census, 81% of Oakdale residents were White, 8% Asian, 6% Black, and 4% Hispanic. Figure A-20. Gender of participants in the Oakdale Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan public engagement activities. A-29 Figure A-21. Race of participants in the Oakdale Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The most participants (34%) were between the ages of 55 and 64 followed by the ages of 35 and 44, as shown in Figure A-16. In the 2010 Census, 24% of residents were under the age of 18, 9% between 18 and 24, 26% were A-30 from 25 to 44, 29% from 45 to 64, and 11% 65 years of age or older. 15% of respondents identified as having a disability, as shown in Figure A-23. Figure A-22. Age of participants in the Oakdale Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan public engagement activities. Figure A-23. Disability status of participants. A-31 Strategy B: City Commissions In the summer of 2022, several City commissions met to learn about and give input on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The commissions included: • Environmental Management Commission • Economic Development Commission • Parks Commission • Planning Commission Toole Design and City of Oakdale Community Development staff facilitated the meetings with a focus on four key pieces of information: strengths (what are you proud of?), weaknesses (what things drive you nuts?), opportunities (are there organizations doing work, or upcoming projects we should know about?), and threats (what are the external forces that will make it difficult to make Oakdale more friendly for bicycling and walking?). Commission members individually brainstormed ideas under each category, and then worked as a group to categorize them. Each person then voted on the top area in each category. Results included: Category Sub-categories (votes) Strengths Existing trails/paths (13), Trail maintenance (4), Wide streets/shoulders (2) Weaknesses Routes & lanes (6), Lack of sidewalks (3), Paths (3), Safety/crosswalks (2), Bike/road sharing (2), No rest stops (2), Lack of path amenities (2) Opportunities Development (7), Collaborations (5), Marketing (5), Street furniture (3), Lighting (3), Crosswalks (2) Threats Traffic (7), E-bike safety (4), Poorly planned multi-use scenarios (4), Political will (3) A-32 Strategy C: Focus Groups On December 9th, 2022 and January 17th, 2023, the project team met with 50 people in three focus groups. These input sessions focused on how people view walking and bicycling in Oakdale and what ideas people have for improving the walking and bicycling environment. The following sections summarize the participant groups and key topics from the conversation. HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS The project team met with students from Tartan High School in the business classes of Iker Belausteguigoitia. 42 students in two classes were engaged. Key topics from the conversation included: • Most students used a personal vehicle to get to school, either as a driver or passenger. • Most students do not currently have a driver’s license, but the majority have a driver’s license or permit. • Most students have walked or rode a bicycle around Oakdale, but closer to half of students view walking or bicycling as important on a personal basis. • Approximately half of students think the government should use taxes for walking or bicycling infrastructure. • Walking is more important to students than bicycling, since it’s a more accessible form of transportation. • Parks, schools, restaurants, and convenience stores are important destinations for walking or bicycling. • Walking or bicycling as forms of transportation tend to be more important for younger children, people with dogs, and those concerned about their overall mental and physical health. • Linear walk/bike facilities separated from motor vehicles, having streets with walk/bike facilities on both sides, safer street crossings, and nighttime lighting are needed improvements. 50+ WELLNESS GROUP The project team met with eight members of the Oakdale 50+ Wellness Group. Key topics from the conversation included: • Folks walk in the Oakdale Nature Center, along Hadley, Helmo, and Stillwater Avenues, around Tanner’s Lake, along the Gateway State Trail, and in their neighborhoods. Oakdale Nature Center is a treasured location. • Repaved paths in Oakdale Nature Center are appreciated, and there is more repaving needed. • Bridges in Oakdale Nature Center aren’t being cleared of snow in the winter. • People appreciate existing paths around Oakdale and that they are maintained so well in the winter. • Bicyclists go too fast around people walking and can be surprising. It’s difficult to mix the two modes on shared use paths without guidance about etiquette. • About half of participants also ride a bicycle. • Mixing the modes of pedestrians and bicyclists is easier on Hadley where the path is wider and visibility is greater, compared to paths within Oakdale Nature Preserve. • Wider shared use paths are preferable over narrow shared use paths. • Streets with shoulders are often used as an alternative for bicyclists where shared use paths are also available. This option is used to avoid conflicts with pedestrians. • There is interest in more sidewalks being located within neighborhoods. • It would be helpful to share more information about Oakdale’s walking and bicycling facilities with residents. A-33  Desired Walking or Bicycling Routes Comment Density Low High City Boundary Parks Waterbody  DRAFT Network Recommendations Map Existing and Recommended Facilities Future signed walking and bicycling route Future shared use path Sidewalk Future sidewalk See Willow Brooke development plan for future paths and sidewalks Shared Use Path Future Shared Use Path Future Sidewalk  COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Luke McClanahan, City Planner Date: March 14, 2023 Subject: Glenbrook Small Area Plan Update – Draft Alternatives BACKGROUND The Glenbrook Small Area Plan, a priority of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, began in fall 2022. The study area is located in the northern/northwestern area of Oakdale. Specifically, it is bounded to the west by Highway 120, to the southeast by Highway 36, and to the north by I-694. The main focus of the study area, however, is the neighborhood south of 54th Street North and Golfview Avenue North. The plan is intended to provide more long-term direction on the development and redevelopment of the area, which contains a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses that often results in conflicts. Other concerns for the area include poor automobile and pedestrian circulation, as well as limited open space/park access. Another consideration is the impacts that will occur from future improvements along Highways 36 and 120. There are four phases for this plan. Phases 1 (Background) and 2 (Goals) are now complete. As part of Phase 3, draft transportation and land use alternatives will be presented to the City Council for input and direction. It is important to understand that each alternative contains various advantages and disadvantages. For all proposed alternatives, any potential acquisition of land would be in cooperation with a willing seller (i.e., the use of eminent domain is not being recommended). The purpose of presenting the alternatives is to talk about the range of options and the tradeoffs with each, so that staff can obtain feedback on how best to meet the study goals. The most likely outcome of this exercise is a preferred alternative that combines elements of these initial alternatives. The City has been working with Stantec to prepare the Glenbrook Small Area Plan. Accompanying this memo is Stantec’s report on the proposed alternatives. Maps and written descriptions of each draft alternative are also attached. Phil Carlson, from Stantec, will walk through the draft alternatives at the Council workshop. COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED It is requested that the City Council review and provide feedback on the draft alternatives, as well as the next steps in the plan which includes additional community engagement. Attachments Memo from Stantec on the Glenbrook Small Area Plan Alternatives Draft Glenbrook Small Area Plan Alternatives Maps Draft Glenbrook Small Area Plan Alternatives Maps Descriptions 1  Memo To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Erin Perdu Members Project Manager City of Oakdale Project/File: Glenbrook Small Area Plan Date: 03/14/2023 Reference: Glenbrook Area Alternatives Introduction We are now entering Phase 3 of the Glenbrook Small Area Plan process, which entails generating alternatives to address the issues identified in Phase 2. The issues were identified by City Council, advisory committees, staff, neighborhood and business/property owners. Staff has provided initial input in the development of the alternatives. March 14, 2023 City Council Page 2 of 4 Reference: Glenbrook SAP - City Council Workshop Note that each alternative has its own pros and cons, and we recognize that some alternatives will have tradeoffs that are unacceptable to some. The purpose of presenting the alternatives is to talk about the range of options and the tradeoffs with each, so that we can get feedback on which are the most important. The most likely outcome of this exercise is a preferred alternative that combines elements of these initial alternatives. Note that the City would only consider property / ROW acquisition from willing property owners. Issues As a re-cap, below is a brief summary of the issues ascertained from Phase 1 of this process, as presented to Council at the previous January 24, 2023 workshop: Truck traffic through the neighborhood was the biggest issue sited by residents. • 51st street in particular • Businesses stated trucks should not be using 51st Most businesses are happy with their location and have no plans/desire to move. • Many pre-date residential in the area • Neighbors did not express complaints about any of the businesses other than truck traffic • Some interest in development of vacant commercial property Redevelopment. Neighbors and businesses are concerned about redevelopment. Goals The following project goals also informed the alternatives, which were also shared with you on January 24th: Goal 1. Improve the quality of life for residential uses in the neighborhood. Strategies: • Reroute traffic to keep commercial and industrial traffic from low density residential areas • Create buffers from industrial uses • Encourage or require non-conforming industrial and commercial properties to work toward compliance when expanding, changing or remodeling. Goal 2. Create safer pedestrian connections through the neighborhood and to other destinations (neighborhood businesses, nearby trails and parks, along and across Century Avenue) Strategies: • Explore sidewalk and trail connections within the neighborhood • Explore improved pedestrian and bike facilities on Century Avenue • Explore improved crossing points of Century Avenue and Highway 36 March 14, 2023 City Council Page 3 of 4 Reference: Glenbrook SAP - City Council Workshop Goal 3. Seek solutions to the access/traffic issues in the neighborhood that allow both the businesses and residential uses to remain. Strategies: • Pursue and implement for road improvements that separate truck traffic from residential areas • Reorganize access points for industry and businesses as appropriate. Goal 4. Ensure that City priorities are incorporated into the final design for the Century Avenue/Highway 36 interchange being planned by MnDOT. Strategies: • Document city preferences for access, roadways, and land use within the neighborhood within the adopted Glenbrook Small Area Plan. • Develop a process of communication with MnDOT and Washington County and other stakeholders on the design and timeline for the new interchange and associated roadways. Goal 5. Identify redevelopment opportunities in the neighborhood and establish guidelines for use and design on these sites. Strategies: • Work with property owners and businesses to identify development and redevelopment projects. • Understand the market for commercial, industrial, and residential development in the neighborhood. The Alternatives The proposed alternatives are included attached to this memorandum. Each contains a description of what is presented and the basic tradeoffs with each. The range of alternatives is meant to include a spectrum of land use and transportation/street options. The public will not be asked to “vote” on which alternative they like best, but rather provide feedback on specific elements of each (i.e. – how well they solve the problem of truck traffic mixing with residential areas, requiring land use changes on some parcels, impacts to land owners). Next Steps: After we receive feedback from City Council, Phase 3 includes three meetings with stakeholders including one virtual meeting which will include the public from the larger study area, key property owners, and other advisory boards. The Planning Commission will then review a summary of the alternatives and provide feedback to the City Council. A final City Council review of the recommended alternative will take place in late April. Key Questions for Consideration At the meeting, we would like to hear from you on the following questions: • Understanding that one alternative will not be the solution, have we shown all reasonable options for dealing with the issues that have been raised? • Are there other options/alternatives we have not considered? March 14, 2023 City Council Page 4 of 4 Reference: Glenbrook SAP - City Council Workshop • Is there anything shown that is completely unreasonable or not feasible? Respectfully, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Erin Perdu Senior Urban Planner Phone: (612) 712-2006 erin.perdu@stantec.com Attachment: Background maps and market information  54th St Golfview Ave DRAFT Geneva Ave / Century Ave / CR 120 Silver Lake Glenbrook Ave 52nd St Silver Gershwin Ave Lake 6240 Park Upper 51st St 6149 6138 6211 Key Neighborhood Issues & Existing Land Use 6138-A • Truck traffic on Upper 51st St impacts residential uses - safety, noise, and debris concerns 6138-B • Lack of safe pedestrian connections to nearby destinations (parks and trails) across Geneva Ave and Highway 36 6070 • Varied land uses (industrial between residential) co-existing in small area Legend 17th Ave 50th St Current truck traffic route 50th S t Lack of safe pedestrian connection ail Tr Existing Land Use ay t ew Ga Vacant Residential (1 unit) Commercial MnDOT-Proposed Future Interchange Residential (2-4 units) Industrial Residential (5+ units) Right-of-Way / Utility 0 250 Feet 500 ¯  DRAFT 54th St Golfview Ave Geneva Ave / Century Ave / CR 120 Silver Lake Glenbrook Ave 52nd St Silver Gershwin Ave Lake 6240 Park Upper 51st St 6149 6138 6211 Alternate A Utilize Existing Street Network; Land Use to Change 6138-A Impacts & Options: • Truck traffic impacts residential properties on Upper 51st St -- 6138-B Land use changes required to eliminate impacts 6070 • Change residential uses to commercial or mixed use • Educational component + signage: “Not a Truck Route” on Upper 51st St - truck traffic allowed only from Glenbrook Ave east to Hadley interchange 17th Ave 50th St 50th S t Legend Existing Land Use Truck Traffic Route Vacant ail Residential (1 unit) Tr Cul-de-sac w ay Residential (2-4 units) e Gat Residential (5+ units) Hwy 36 access closed/ Commercial MnDOT-Proposed proposed to close (MnDOT) Industrial Future Interchange Potential Land Use changes Right-of-Way / Utility 0 250 Feet 500 ¯  DRAFT 54th St Golfview Ave Geneva Ave / Century Ave / CR 120 Silver Lake Glenbrook Ave 52nd St Silver Gershwin Ave Lake 6240 Park Upper 51st St 6149 6138 6211 Alternate B New Frontage Road Connecting to 50th St; Minor Land Use Changes 6138-A Impacts & Options: 6138-B • New ROW needed – impacts Parcel 6211 off-street parking 6070 • ROW needed from 3 parcels: 6211, 6138, and 6138-B • Truck traffic impacts 1 residential property (Parcel 6240) on Upper 51st St 17th Ave 50th St 50th S t Legend Existing Land Use Truck Traffic Route Vacant ail Residential (1 unit) Tr New Road w ay Residential (2-4 units) e Gat Residential (5+ units) Hwy 36 access closed/ Commercial MnDOT-Proposed proposed to close (MnDOT) Industrial Future Interchange Potential Land Use changes Right-of-Way / Utility 0 250 Feet 500 ¯  DRAFT 54th St Golfview Ave Geneva Ave / Century Ave / CR 120 Silver Lake Glenbrook Ave 52nd St Silver Gershwin Ave Lake 6240 Park Upper 51st St 6149 6138 6211 Alternate C New Gershwin connection utilizing existing ROW between Upper 51st St to 50th St; Land Use Changes 6138-A Impacts & Options: 6138-B • ROW needed from 6070 50th St parcel 6070 • Truck traffic impacts 7 residential properties on Upper 51st St -- Land use changes required to eliminate impacts • Change residential uses on north side of Upper 51st between Gershwin Ave and Glenbrook Ave to industrial 17th Ave 50th St 50th S t Legend Existing Land Use Truck Traffic Route Vacant ail Residential (1 unit) Tr New Road w ay Residential (2-4 units) e Gat Residential (5+ units) Hwy 36 access closed/ Commercial MnDOT-Proposed proposed to close (MnDOT) Industrial Future Interchange Potential Land Use changes Right-of-Way / Utility 0 250 Feet 500 ¯ OAKDALE GLENBROOK SMALL AREA PLAN Draft - Truck Traffic/Land Use Alternatives Alternate A • No change to truck route. Land uses would change on some parcels to eliminate residential/industrial conflicts. o Impacts:  Residential uses on N side of Upper 51st St remain impacted by truck traffic.  OR residential uses on N side of Upper 51st St between Glenbrook Avenue and Gershwin Avenue change to Commercial zoning (to match development pattern to the north)  No additional ROW required  No impacts to industrial or commercial properties o Options:  Sign “No Trucks” on Upper 51st St – truck traffic allowed only from Glenbrook Ave east to Hadley interchange (trucks may continue to use this route anyway)  Work with businesses on an educational component for truck drivers (theirs and deliveries/customers). Alternate B • Connect Glenbrook Ave. to 50th St. to serve as truck route / frontage road. Connection possible along south side of 6211 and 6138 Upper 51st St. parcels 1. o Impacts:  Residential/truck traffic conflict resolved 2; residential uses on Upper 51st remain – truck traffic diverted to new frontage road  6211 Upper 51st St. parcel impacted by new frontage road – would require removal of 6 parking spaces adjacent to Hwy 36 for new ROW  6138 Upper 51st St. parcel impacted – new ROW needed along south edge o Options:  Work with property owner on west side of 6211 Upper 51st St. parcel to acquire property from 6138 Upper 51st St. parcel to replace parking lost to frontage road  Work with property owner to redevelop 6211 Upper 51st St. parcel if business cannot operate with reduced parking or a replacement parking plan cannot be established 1 Assumes frontage road adjacent to Hwy 36 – 36 ft wide, 30 ft from Hwy 36 travel lane 2 Except for corner parcel at Upper 51st St. and Glenbrook Ave., which would have truck traffic along the east side of their property. Alternate C • Connect truck route to 50th St. via a new N-S road utilizing vacant ROW. o Impacts:  Resolves truck traffic/residential conflict for properties on north side of 51st St. between Century Ave. and Gershwin.  Residential uses on N side of Upper 51st St between Glenbrook and Gershwin remain impacted by truck traffic.  OR residential uses on N side of Upper 51st St between Glenbrook and Gershwin change to Industrial Office zoning (to match development pattern to the north)  Parcels on the south side of Upper 51st. St. change to Mixed Use or Multi-Family zoning  No impact to commercial or industrial properties  COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chief Building Official, Gregory Brady Date: 3/14/2023 Subject: Fire Inspection Surcharge Fees The purpose of this memo is to add the Fire Inspection Surcharge Fees into the 2023 Fee Schedule. BACKGROUND The Fire Inspection Surcharge Fees were established on April 12th, 1994 under Ordinance No. 402. This surcharge was established to cover the rising cost of service incurred by the Fire Department. The fees, which are set by the City Council, are collected by the Building Department. The current fee amounts are collected on flat fee permits for both commercial and residential projects including all plumbing, electrical, and mechanical permits, and a percentage of the permit fee is collected for valuation-based work on building permits only. These fees are $18 for commercial, $6 for residential, and 15% for valuation-based work. When rolling out the OpenGov permit software in February 2023, it was noted that the origin of these current fees is unknown. Additionally, these fees have not been included in past fee schedules. This request is being brought forward to officially establish these fees in the current Fee Schedule by obtaining Council support. COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the City Council support the establishment of the Fire Inspection Surcharge Fees to be included in the 2023 Fee Schedule.