HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-2024 Agenda Packet
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
June 24, 2024 - 6:00 PM
Lakeville City Hall, Marion Conference Room
Members of the public can participate in person at the Lakeville City Hall, Marion Conference Room, 20195 Holyoke Avenue.
Members of the public may join the meeting via Teams Meeting, Meeting ID: 280 091 545 848 or by calling Toll Number 1-323-
433-2142; Conference ID: 678 432 13#. The mayor will allow for public comments and questions at the appropriate time.
The City Council is provided background information for agenda items in advance by staff and appointed commissions,
committees, and boards. Decisions are based on this information, as well as City policy, practices, input from constituents, and a
council member’s personal judgment.
1. Call to order, moment of silence and flag pledge
2. Citizen Comments
3. Discussion Items
6:05 p.m. a. Applewood Orchard Introduction Tina Goodroad
6:25 p.m. b. Pedestrian Crossing Policy Zach Johnson, Paul
Oehme
6:50 p.m. c. Street Light Policy and Charges Zach Johnson
7:15 p.m. d. Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) with Dakota
County Community Development Agency (CDA)
Tina Goodroad
4. Items for Future Discussion
5. Committee/ City Administrator Updates
6. Adjourn
Page 1 of 58
Date: 6/24/2024
Applewood Orchard Introduction
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: No formal action required. For
discussion only.
Overview
The Applewood Orchard, located at 22702 Hamburg Avenue, is for sale and a group known as
Endurance Farm Partners is working with the existing owner to purchase the property. This
group includes experienced farmers and agritourism pioneers that intend to preserve it as an
orchard and expand on its many amenities and experiences.
William Rueter, with Endurance Farm Partners, has requested an opportunity to share plans for
the orchard with the council and introduce the consideration of annexation in the future. Part of
the desire for annexation is to solidify the uses through zoning. They desire a broader
“agritourism” use be considered in Lakeville’s zoning, as a definition and use, either in an
agricultural zoning or within an industrial zoning district, as the use is a production use.
During the meeting, a presentation will be made that will provide much more detail as to what
Endurance Farm Partners has proposed for Applewood Orchard. Their plan honors the past
traditions of the orchard and builds upon this unique business and amenity.
Supporting Information
1. Applewood Orchard Presentation
Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Diversified Economic Development
Report Completed by: Tina Goodroad, Community Development Director
Page 2 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 1
Applewood Orchard
1Page 3 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 2
Applewood Orchard
•“Applewood” began when Kathryn & Mark Parranto bought the 60-acre farm in
1995 which they opened to the public in 1999 with 20+ acres of u-pick apple trees
•Over the past 25 years, Applewood became a seasonal destination for families
drawn to the wholesome outdoor experience of picking apples, the opportunity to
learn about farming, and the experience of tasting fresh food & drinks made at the
farm
•The farm was listed for sale in October 2023. In April 2024, our group of
experienced farmers and agritourism pioneers was selected as the buyer. It is our
desire to preserve the Parranto family’s legacy and enhance Applewood to serve as
a gateway to learning and enjoying a true Minnesotan farm
Page 4 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 3
Applewood Aerial
Applewood
Airport
Airport
Airport
Temple Garden center
Lafrance
Page 5 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners
Who We Are
Experienced team dedicated to preserving farmland and sharing educational,
wholesome, delicious, agrarian experiences with visitors
4
Farmer and agritourism expert.
Owner of Bishop’s Pumpkin farm
in Wheatland California,
welcoming over 200k visitors per
year –8k in field trip visitors alone
Wayne Bishop
Jeff Manley
Farmer and agritourism expert.
Former manager of the The Rock
Ranch in The Rock, GA. Speaker
on agritourism across the country
Real estate entrepreneur.
Experience with construction,
planning, and development
across five states –future
resident
Billy Rueter
Chris Fuller
Small business investor. A career
supporting talented entrepreneurs
to acquire and grow small
businesses across the country
Wayne Bishop
Jeff Manley
Billy Rueter
Chris Fuller
Page 6 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 5
Agritourism –Focus on Families
Creating traditions in Lakeville
Page 7 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners
What is Agritourism
•Agritourism is a form of commercial agriculture with visitors to a farm participating in recreation,
entertainment, consumption, or education related to farming and / or a rural setting
•Agritourism is a defined term by more than 25 states
•In the state of Minnesota: “ “Agritourism activity” means any activity carried out on a farm or ranch
that allows organizations or members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, charitable,
or educational purposes, to view, enjoy, or participate in rural activities, including, but not limited to:
farming; viticulture; winemaking; ranching; and historical, cultural, farm stay, gleaning, harvest-your-
own, or natural activities and attractions. An activity is an agritourism activity whether or not the
participant pays to participate in the activity.”
•Minnesota’s definition alludes to additional infrastructure and food and beverage inclusions
6Page 8 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners
Our proposed definition (building on MN)
(A) "Agritourism activity" means activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows organizations or
members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, charitable, or educational purposes, to
view, enjoy, or participate in rural activities, including, but not limited to: farming; viticulture; winemaking;
ranching; local and farm related retail; freshly made and packaged food and beverage; and historical,
cultural, farm stay, gleaning, harvest-your-own, or natural activities and attractions.An activity is an
agritourism activity whether or not the participant pays to participate in the activity.
(B) “Agritourism Infrastructure” including not limited to utility services, parking, buildings, kitchens, fixtures,
signage, bathrooms, storage, tents, seating areas, canopies, landscaping, workshops, fencing,
hardscape, and offices in service to an agritourism offering
7Page 9 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 8
Applewood -A Destination for families
Build on Applewood’s longstanding activities
Audience: Goal to attract family visitors from our
local communities of Eureka and Lakeville
Continue Applewood Tradition:
•U-pick: Apples, pumpkins, flowers, berries
•Petting zoo: Farm animal education
•Activity yard: Safe, farm play area for kids
•Hayride: Access to entire orchard
•Corn maze: Fun way to explore
•Baked goods: Cider donuts & apple baked-
good
•Apple cider: Fresh cider pressed on site
•Fresh food: Snacks, quick service, seated meals
•Farm market: local and farm themed foods,
packaged goods, souvenirs, and apparel
Local vendors:Focus on stocking Applewood’s
main barn with local produce, and site and
agritourism related products and retail assortments
Community-led and locally run: Operated by a
manager at Applewood or in the community
Page 10 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners
Example offerings
Activities
-Upick, educational programming, hay pyramid, corn maze, corn
box, petting zoo, animal and rural activities exhibition space,
observation platform, education barn, craft area, slides, play
equipment (swings, climbing stumps, ropes, wood structures),
games, kids barnyard village, fire pits, sitting patios, wagon
rides, tractor rides, pony rides, miniature train, craft workshops,
music
Food and beverage:
-Baked goods: donuts, pies, breads, turnovers
-Meals: sandwiches, BBQ, soups, fried chicken, pig roasts
-Snacks and treats: toasts, pretzels, candy apple, kettle corn,
roast corn, yogurt, ice cream, cheese, fried vegetables, candy or
sweets of independent producers
-Beverages: cider, coffee, tea, hot chocolate slushies, juices and
lemonades, MN produced alcohol
-Onsite winery / cidery / brewery
Retail
-Produce, crafts, and packaged foods
-Rural, farm, township, city, or state related souvenirs, toys &
games, books, or home goods
-Convenience items for a farm visit (chapstick, sunblock,
umbrella, etc.)
-Related apparel
9Page 11 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 10
Education –A Keystone of our plans
Entertain and educate local students
Audience: Students from local schools, after-school
programs, and camps, including work-study
opportunity
Programming:
•How to grow apples and maintain an orchard
•“What’s in a wetland?” vs. “What’s in a stream?”
•Maintenance and agritourism job programming
Interactive Learning:
•Apple lifecycle: planting, germination, fruit
development, ripening and harvesting
•How organisms symbiotically support different
ecosystems
Minnesota Produce:Focus on how Applewood’s soil
supports specific apples including the Honeycrisp
Farming: Show how Minnesota farmers work to
produce hearty, fresh fruit
Page 12 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 11
Existing Agritourism Farms
Benchmark Applewood Fireside Abelman’s /
Apple Creek
Crazy
Legs
Brand
Farms
Afton Apple
Orchard
Waldoch
Farm
Montgomery
Orchard
Location Eureka Northfield Faribault Farmington Farmington Hastings Lino Lakes Montgomery
Distance to
Applewood N/A 19 min / 15
miles
34 min / 32
miles
15 min / 9
miles
16 min / 9
miles
40 min / 35
miles
50 min / 50
miles
80 min / 60
miles
U-Pick
Apples
(Pumpkins,
Flowers)
Apples Apples Pumpkins,
Flowers Apples, Eggs Apples,
Pumpkins Veggies Apples, Xmas
Tree
Corn maze Historically Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Activity Yard Yes Small Small Moderate Moderate Large Large Small
Farm Store Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Food &
Beverage
Donuts, hot dogs,
pies, caramel
apples, cider
Baked goods,
sandwiches,
soup, pies, cider
etc.
Pulled pork,
pizza, donuts,
nachos, kettle
corn, candy etc.
Unknown Baked goods,
Eggs
Baked goods,
ice cream, pies,
etc.
Chicken, hot dogs,
kettle corn, cheese
curds, fried dough
Cider & Wine,
candy, caramel
apples
Page 13 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners
Parcel Data Is Current As Of:45392
Parcel ID '130040075020
Status ACTIVE
Owner MARK S & KATHRYN M PARRANTO
Joint Owner
Owner Address 22702 HAMBURG AVE
Owner Address2
City/State/Zip LAKEVILLE MN 55044-7529
Common Name
Site Address 22702 HAMBURG AVE
Municipality EUREKA TWP
Primary Use AG-GREEN ACRES
Use 2
Use 3
Use 4
Homestead FULL HOMESTEAD
Year Built 1997
Building Type S.FAM.RES
Building Style 1-3/4 STRY
Foundation Sq Ft 2280
Above Grade Finished Sq Ft 2739
Finished Sq Ft 2739
Frame WOOD
Bedrooms 3
Bathrooms 3
Garage Sq Ft 676
Other Garage
Estimated Land Value 637500
Estimated Building Value 652200
Total Estimated Value 1289700
Special Assessments 0
Total Property Tax 7288
Date of Sale - Improved
Sale Value - Improved 0
Date of Sale - Vacant
Sale Value - Vacant
Total Acres 61.64
Total Lot Sq. Ft.2684867
RW Sq. Ft.108885
Water Sq. Ft.
School District 192
Watershed District VERMILLION RIVER
Plat Name SECTION 4 TWN 113 RANGE 20
Tax Description N 1/2 OF SE 1/4 EX N 295.16 FT OF W 295.16 FT OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 & EX COM NW COR NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 E ON N LINE 295.16 FT TO BEG S 295.16FT SE'LY TO PT ON E LINE 900 FT S OF NE COR N TO NE COR W TO BEG & EX BEG SE COR NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 N 80.00 FT W 62.19 FT N 77D38M56S W 509.68 FT S 76D 49M25S W 464.53 FT S 51D48M 39S W 137.83 FT TO S LINE NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 E ON S LINE 1120.00 FT TO BEG
Lot and Block 4 113 20
Last Division 38846
12
Farm Market,
Restaurant, Bar
12
Proposed Site
Orchard
Activity
Yard
Pumpkins
F&B
Maze
Parking
Orchard
F&B
Retail
Family
Area
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Flowers
Page 14 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 13
Why you might support Applewood
Reason Explanation
Family Tradition Continue Parranto Family’s 30-year legacy at Applewood and create new, farm-based traditions for guests
Support Farmers Help farmers thrive by supporting agritourism which allows them to create direct-to-consumer experiences
Agricultural Land Preserve farming and natural resources by diversifying and strengthening income sources for farms
Education/Field Trips Introduce children to farms via field trips, planting days, interactive learning experiences
Local Employment Applewood plans to employ 15 to 20 people across diverse skillsets, experience levels, and time availabilities
Local Businesses Chance to sell local produce and goods on site to members of the community
Tax Revenue Plan to work with the city on ways to share and benefits of a successful farm welcoming guests
Thoughtful Zoning Introduce zoning and professional standards that other farms and cities could follow
Demarcate City Enhance an attractive, financially vibrant farm at the border of Lakeville
Adjacent Parcels No adjacent residences. North is airport, East is airport, South is temple farmland, West is open farmland
Page 15 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 14
Why you might not support Applewood
Concern Description Mitigant
Traffic •Worried about road traffic •Applewood is on the outskirts of the City & on roadway already
doing between 11,000 and 23,000 cars per day
Precedent •Other farms would want to follow suit •Working together to be the agrarian destination for families is good
for everyone
Page 16 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners
Zoning Discussion
We would like to receive some combination of agricultural and industrial zoning, with allowances for
agritourism, and would like to speak with you about the most sensible way to achieve that and fit into the
city’s plans. Some ideas below:
•(1) Agricultural zoning with a right to convert to industrial zoning
•(2) Industrial zoning with an agricultural / agritourism use or overlay
•(3) Dual zoning as agricultural and industrial
15Page 17 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 16Confidential
Appendix
16Page 18 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 17
Traffic Volumes
17
11,000 to 23,000
per day car volume
Page 19 of 58
Endurance Farm Partners 18
Road Infrastructure
Farm Market,
Restaurant, Bar
18Page 20 of 58
Date: 6/24/2024
Pedestrian Crossing Policy
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: No action required. Discussion only.
Overview
Pedestrian and bicyclist travel is a key element of the City’s multimodal transportation system
and important to the health and quality of life of its citizens. Safe crossing locations provide
connectivity to neighborhoods, trail/sidewalk corridors and popular destinations, and are
essential to the City’s trail/sidewalk network. Developing and maintaining a successful
pedestrian and bicyclist crosswalk policy improves conditions and better serves the mobility and
access needs of the public to travel easily and safely.
The current adopted Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crosswalk Policy was adopted by the City Council
on December 21, 2020. The City continues to proactively develop and improve a policy that
focuses on education and enforcement efforts, with an emphasis on changing behavior and
awareness and achieving high rates of yielding compliance. With the guidance of the recently
completed Dakota County Pedestrian Crossing Safety Assessment, the City partnered with SRF
Consulting to collect and review data, facilitate community engagement and analyze and
evaluate pedestrian crossings with the goal of updating the Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crosswalk
Policy to ensure all users in the City benefit from an improved multimodal infrastructure system.
The proposed revised policy establishes guidelines and an evaluation process that provides a
consistent, uniform approach for improving pedestrian/bicyclist safety at uncontrolled crossing
locations using the best management practices. The policy is designed to provide a clear,
understandable/relatable process in support of maintaining a consistent application of crossing
enhancements that produces a safer environment for all pedestrians and bicyclists. At the work
session, staff will summarize the changes incorporated in this new plan.
Supporting Information
1. 2024.04 Lakeville Crosswalk Policy
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Safety Throughout the Community
Report Completed by: Zach Johnson, City Engineer
Page 21 of 58
CITY OF
LAKEVILLE
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK POLICY
April 2024
Page 22 of 58
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Minnesota State Statute ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Jurisdictional Authority .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Crossing Guidance ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Field Review and Preliminary Data Collection .......................................................................................... 4
2. Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Crossing Identification ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Roadway Characteristics ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Multimodal Data ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Evaluate Candidate Locations ........................................................................................................................ 7
Crossing Types ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Crossing Considerations ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Criteria Definitions ................................................................................................................................................. 11
4. Engineering Review ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Step 1: Traffic Volume Review ........................................................................................................................... 12
Step 2: Roadway Geometric Treatment Assessment ................................................................................ 14
Step 3: Evaluate Crossing Infrastructure Enhancements .......................................................................... 16
Step 4: Further Analysis of Major Enhancements ....................................................................................... 16
Crossing Infrastructure Treatments ................................................................................................................. 18
Removal of Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 22
Page 23 of 58
1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Lakeville encourages multimodal transportation to access destinations in daily life and
recreate via the community’s many parks and trails. Lakeville strives to provide safe, accessible, and
efficient travel for all modes of transportation, while prioritizing the transportation network’s most
vulnerable users: people walking, rolling, and biking. As the City strives Toward Zero Deaths within
the city’s transportation network, a consistent application of pedestrian crossing enhancements is
critical to best serve all users. Dakota County began using a pedestrian crossing guidance process
developed as a part of the County’s Pedestrian Crossing Safety Assessment in July 2022. As a
partner jurisdiction in Dakota County, the City of Lakeville has adopted Dakota County’s guidance
to maintain a consistent application of crossing enhancements along all city and county roadways.
The purpose of this policy is to leverage the County’s process to guide the City in evaluating and
implementing a pedestrian crossing program that provides people walking, rolling, and biking a
safe place to cross while providing motorists reasonable and consistent expectations for where and
what that may look like. This consistent process and application are important for the safety of all
as it sets reliable expectations while traveling throughout the transportation network. The intent is
to ensure a mutual understanding between the City Council, Staff, and residents of Lakeville when
presented as part of a public improvement project, or by a citizen or City staff request.
MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE
Minnesota State Statute Chapter 169 defines a crosswalk and pedestrians, as well as the rights of
pedestrians and motorists regarding when and where to yield right-of-way. The definitions and
legal language detailed in this section provide a foundation for how pedestrian crossings are
viewed in Minnesota and considered by this assessment.
169.011 Definitions
Subdivision 20. Crosswalk.
"Crosswalk" means (1) that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the prolongation or
connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway distinctly
indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.
Subdivision 20. Pedestrian.
"Pedestrian" means any person afoot or in a wheelchair.
169.21 Pedestrian
Subdivision 2. Rights in absence of signal.
(a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to
yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an
intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has
Page 24 of 58
2
passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other
place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for
the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this
subdivision.
(b) When any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked
crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching
from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
(c) It is unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle through a column of school children
crossing a street or highway or past a member of a school safety patrol or adult crossing guard,
while the member of the school safety patrol or adult crossing guard is directing the movement of
children across a street or highway and while the school safety patrol member or adult crossing
guard is holding an official signal in the stop position. A peace officer may arrest the driver of a
motor vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has operated the
vehicle in violation of this paragraph within the past four hours.
(d) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who violates this
subdivision a second or subsequent time within one year of a previous conviction under this
subdivision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Subdivision 3. Crossing between intersections.
(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an
intersection with no marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian
crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall
not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.
(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise
due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an
audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any
obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.
JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY
This policy applies to streets owned and maintained by the City of Lakeville, though Dakota County
will perform the same assessment for their county facilities. The City and County will coordinate
when applicable on projects to ensure proper application of crossing enhancements.
Page 25 of 58
3
CROSSING GUIDANCE
This section provides an evaluation process and guidance for when to consider enhancing a
crossing at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block crossing locations. Enhanced crossing
infrastructure is a key method of improving the safety and comfort of people walking, rolling, and
bicycling (herein referred to as “multimodal users”) traveling throughout the transportation
network, with research on the safety effects of appropriately enhanced crosswalks expanding in
recent years.
An uncontrolled crossing refers to a location where no traffic control (i.e., yield or stop sign, traffic
signal) exists at the point in which people walking, rolling, or bicycling may cross. Uncontrolled
crossings require additional review during planning and design because drivers are not consistently
required to stop. Instead, a driver must recognize the presence of a person crossing and stop
accordingly as required by Minnesota state law. This lack of consistency can create safety
challenges acutely connected to these crossing locations. The FHWA states, “By focusing on
uncontrolled crossing locations, local and state agencies can address a significant national safety
problem and improve quality of life for pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”1 Uncontrolled crossing
locations can be barriers for any multimodal user, notably children, older, and disabled
populations, and require special attention to create a safe environment. Higher speed and traffic
volume environments with multiple lanes are especially challenging and are locations where simply
marking a crosswalk is insufficient.
The objective of this section is to document a process for evaluation and design of crossing
locations and ensure that anyone who wishes to be informed may understand how, where, and
why crossing enhancements are recommended at certain locations based upon a variety of factors
and contexts.
INTRODUCTION
The safety of multimodal users requires a holistic approach that focuses on engineering
(implementing infrastructure improvements), education (for all roadway users), evaluation
(continually collecting key data metrics to better inform decision-making), and encouragement (of
following state laws). Engineering is the first step of this process to ensure the roadway and
associated crossing design can effectively accommodate all users as safely and effectively as
possible. It is important to focus upon the most vulnerable users of the transportation network
throughout the process. Crashes are unacceptable and preventable, and though humans will make
mistakes, Safe System of roadway design must always be considered to ensure a person’s mistake
does not lead to serious injury or death.
1 Federal Highway Administration. (2018). Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, page ii.
Page 26 of 58
4
Determining the appropriateness of enhanced crossing infrastructure requires a thorough review of
the crossing location. The following steps are guidance for using or reviewing this process. Each
crossing location requires staff review and engineering judgement beyond the basic guidelines
included in this chapter and must include context-specific solutions beyond the scope of this
document. Ideally this process is completed during the roadway design process, however, in many
cases review occurs after the roadway is built or a new facility is added. This process is intended to
help guide the reviewer through a methodical and data driven process such that engineering
judgment can be effectively applied.
1. Performing field review and preliminary data collection to understand existing conditions
and potential issues. Preliminary data collection includes existing, easily accessible data that
is expected to take the reviewer less than 30 minutes and will determine if the crossing is
acceptable for additional review performed by steps 2, 3, and 4.
2. Collect data to complete the review using recommended data points included in the Data
Collection Form. The process includes the following steps:
a. Identify crossing location.
b. Collect roadway geometric and configuration data.
c. Collect traffic and operational data.
d. Collect multimodal data.
3. Evaluate the point of crossing using the flowchart and perform a high-level review to
understand if a location is appropriate for consideration of an enhanced crossing.
4. If the flowchart leads to the conclusion that the consideration of an enhanced crossing is appropriate, continue to engineering review which includes the following steps:
a. Review traffic volumes to determine proper roadway configuration/number of lanes.
b. Determine if roadway geometric treatments are appropriate.
c. Evaluate crossing infrastructure enhancements.
d. Conduct specific warrant analyses or review of grade separation feasibility if applicable.
1. FIELD REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY DATA COLLECTION
Upon identification of a crossing location by preemptive review (e.g., future development, etc.) or
reactive evaluation (e.g., community input, recent crash, etc.), initial field review should be
completed. This first step will aid in determining if an issue(s) is/are present, if other mitigation
measures can be performed external to the process defined by this assessment, or if no additional
follow up is necessary. Staff time and capacity is understood to be limited, and this will ensure that
only crossings with the highest estimated need are provided the level of review described in the
following sections.
Page 27 of 58
5
2. DATA COLLECTION
Data collection is a key component of this analysis. The Data Collection Form should be used for
each study to collect all required data inputs. It is critical that all data points identified below are
collected and properly organized to ensure the crossing location is successfully reviewed for
potential improvements. Sometimes the planner or engineer is very familiar with the location and
may have a good understanding of operations which may allow some of the data to be
“approximated”, though it is important that all data inputs are completed to maintain the integrity
of the process.
Crossing Identification
Major Street: Name of the street crossed by the location under review.
Minor Street or Crossing Location: The connecting street of an intersection or specific
location identified for the mid-block crossing.
Multimodal Generating Land Uses, Destinations, or Activity Centers: Within 660 feet of the
crossing, are there land uses, destinations, or activity centers that could generate trips by
walking, rolling, or bicycling and list those that are pertinent. These could be existing
locations or those planned in the near-term (less than five years).
Roadway Characteristics
Cross-section Type: Urban (curb and gutter) or rural (shoulder and ditch) cross-section.
Roadway Configuration: Configuration of the roadway at the point of crossing which
includes the total number of lanes and if it is divided or undivided.
Total Number of Lanes to Cross: The total number of lanes present at the point of crossing.
Number of Left-turn Lanes: The total number of left-turn lanes present at the point of
crossing.
Number of Right-turn Lanes: The total number of right-turn lanes present at the point of
crossing.
Stopping Sight Distance: The stopping sight distance in both directions from the point of crossing based upon guidance found in the AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
Obstruction: Sight distance obstruction present such as a tree, pole, sign, etc. that directly affects the crossing under review.
Traffic Data
Traffic Control: If a crossing under review is at an intersection, identify the traffic control present (side-street stop control, all-way stop, or traffic signal).
Posted Speed Limit: Posted speed limit at the point of crossing.
Page 28 of 58
6
85th Percentile Speed: The 85th percentile speed recorded at the point of crossing.
Existing AADT: The most recent average annual daily traffic available at the point of
crossing.
Future AADT: The future average annual daily traffic identified at the point of crossing if available.
Existing V/C: The vehicle-to-capacity based upon the number of lanes and existing AADT at the point of crossing
Future V/C: The vehicle-to-capacity based upon the number of lanes and future AADT at the point of crossing
Total Crashes: The total number of crashes (all modes) that are recorded at the point of
crossing in the last five years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes if present.
Multimodal Data
Sidewalk: Identify if a sidewalk directly connects to the crossing under review.
Shared-use Path: Identify if a shared-use path, sidepath, or multiuse trail directly connects
to the crossing under review.
Crosswalk Lighting: Identify if lighting is present that would illuminate the crossing and
specifically note if that lighting is pedestrian-scale.
Transit Stop: Identify if a bus or transit stop is within 300 feet of the crossing under review.
Multimodal User Volume: Record the three peak hour totals for multimodal users and
specifically identify pedestrians versus bicyclists. User types are further defined under the
“Criteria Definitions” section. A best practice is collecting data between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m.
during warmer months (i.e., April-June or September-October) and when school is in
session. Collecting both a weekday and weekend count is also recommended. Previously
collected count data within two years of this assessment can be applied if location
conditions have not changed significantly.
Multimodal User Volume – Vulnerable Population: Record the three peak hour totals for
multimodal users that would identify as vulnerable (i.e., young, older, and/or disabled). User
types are further defined under the “Criteria Definitions” section.
Pedestrian Crashes: The total number of pedestrian-involved crashes that are recorded at
the point of crossing in the last ten years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes and
remove preventable crashes (e.g., driver impaired, etc.) if present.
Bicycle Crashes: The total number of bicycle-involved crashes that are recorded at the point of crossing in the last ten years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes and remove preventable crashes (e.g., driver impaired, etc.) if present.
Distance to Next Marked Crosswalk: The distance (in feet) between the closest marked crosswalk and the crossing under review.
Page 29 of 58
7
Distance to Next Controlled Crossing: The distance (in feet) between the closest controlled
crossing (i.e., traffic/pedestrian signal, all-way stop, PHB, or RRFB) and the crossing under
review.
Two-stage Crossing Distance: Total distance to cross (in feet) on either side of the pedestrian refuge island.
Total Crossing Distance: The total crossing distance (in feet) to complete the roadway crossing from curb ramp to curb ramp or curb face to curb face if curb ramps are not present.
3. EVALUATE CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
Once data collection is complete, the candidate crossing location should be evaluated using the
flowchart. Starting at the top, proceed through each criteria box following the path of whether the
data meets that criterion. Progress through the flowchart until reaching one of three boxes at the
bottom which include:
No Action Recommended: The crossing location does not meet one or more criteria and is
not recommended. Directing users to the nearest marked crosswalk should be considered
to reduce risk taking behavior. The nearest marked crosswalk should be consistent with the
guidelines defined in this evaluation process or approved following staff review and
engineering judgement.
Consider an Unmarked Crossing: An “unmarked crossing” is any treatment that improves a
person’s ability to cross a roadway, short of a marked crosswalk with signage or other
enhancements detailed in Step 3 at the crossing location. Installation of this type of
crossing is subject to staff review and engineering judgement and must include ADA-
compliant curb ramps, appropriate pedestrian warning signage in advance of the crossing, and roadway geometric improvements if applicable (list of options found below in step 3, the engineering review process). No markings or additional signage beyond pedestrian warning signage are provided to attract or recommend that nonmotorized users cross at the location. The crossing is intended to operate as an improvement for a low volume pedestrian crossing where nonmotorized users are already crossing and will continue to cross at this location or to provide consistency where enhancements are not warranted.
Consideration of a Crossing Enhancement is Appropriate: The crossing location is
appropriate for consideration of infrastructure enhancements. Proceed to the engineering
review process to complete context-specific analysis, staff review, and engineering
judgement.
Page 30 of 58
8
Crossing Types
A pedestrian crossing is the section of the road at an intersection that acts as the prolongation, or
extension, of the sidewalk for people walking, rolling, or bicycling to cross from one side of the
road to the other and at all legs of any intersection. When no sidewalks exist, the crossing is the
portion of the roadway within ten feet of the intersection unless modified by crosswalk markings,
signage, or other infrastructure at a different location such as mid-block (i.e., between two
intersections).
Unmarked crosswalk: A legal crosswalk that does not feature any crosswalk striping or
markings.
Marked crosswalk: A legal crosswalk that features crosswalk striping or markings.
Uncontrolled crossing: A legal crossing of a roadway intersection approach or mid-block
crossing of a roadway between two intersections not controlled by a stop sign, traffic
signal, pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), or pedestrian signal.
Controlled crossing: A legal crossing of a roadway intersection approach or mid-block
crossing of a roadway between two intersections controlled by a stop sign, traffic signal,
pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), or pedestrian signal.
Typical crosswalk marking implementation and designs are highlighted in the Minnesota Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) and can include a variety of materials. To improve
motorist vision of a crossing, high visibility markings are recommended (e.g., thermoplastic) when
applicable and notably for higher volume crossings.
Source: Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (left); National Association of City Transportation Officials (right)
Crosswalks that are appropriately marked and enhanced provide pedestrians with convenient
opportunities to cross the street, while maintaining safety. Marked crosswalks are valuable as they
direct pedestrians to a designated place to cross, alert drivers to the potential presence of
pedestrians, and legally establish the crosswalk at non-intersection locations.
Page 31 of 58
9
The MN MUTCD states that a marked crosswalk should not be installed alone without other
measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, and/or provide active
warning of pedestrian presence if the posted speed limit exceeds 40 mph and:
1. Four or more lanes present with no pedestrian refuge island and >12,000 AADT, or
2. Four or more lanes present with a pedestrian refuge island and >15,000 AADT
Crossing Considerations
External to crossing infrastructure, other considerations are important to review prior to potentially
implementing infrastructure enhancements.
Distance Between Crossings
Crosswalk spacing criteria should be determined according to the pedestrian network, built
environment, and observed desire lines. NACTO identifies that if it takes a person more than a
three-minute walk to a crossing, wait to cross the street, and then resume their journey, they may
decide to cross along a more direct, but unsafe or unprotected, route based upon perceived time
savings. While this behavior depends heavily on the speed and volume of motorists, it is imperative
to understand crossing behaviors from a pedestrian’s perspective (i.e., slower travel via a reduced
travelshed). Of note, no state or national guidance exists identifying specific measured distances
between crosswalks or enhanced crossings. Crossing placement is heavily dependent upon the
surrounding context, land use and destinations, network connectivity, block length, and other
factors. A high-level analysis of agency best practices in the United States showed typical marked
crossing spacing from 200 to 600 feet when warranted. A minimum spacing of 300 feet between
signalized crossings is identified in the MN MUTCD (page 4D-1). This spacing could fluctuate based
upon engineering judgement and applicability given the roadway design, configuration, and
intersection placement.
Delay to Cross a Roadway
The multimodal network should be designed in such a way where users are not unreasonably
forced to wait for a gap in traffic or walk out of their way to access a crossing. The Highway
Capacity Manual 6th Edition states that when a pedestrian is forced to wait 30 seconds or more,
they are highly likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. NACTO also has guidance regarding delay at
signalized and unsignalized crossings. Delays exceeding 40 seconds at signalized crosswalks and
20 seconds at unsignalized, or yield-controlled crosswalks, may cause the pedestrian to exhibit risk-
taking behavior. These are important considerations as another metric to proactively determine
how a crossing could be made safer.
Page 32 of 58
10
Page 33 of 58
11
Criteria Definitions
Additional detail regarding how to navigate each criterion is included by the corresponding
number in the flowchart and footnotes.
Meets minimum multimodal volume threshold: The multimodal user crossing demand
during a 24-hour period meets one or more of the following criteria. This is the total after
the 1.33 volume conversion factor is applied for vulnerable population (i.e., children/young
adults (ages 0-17), older adults (60+), and persons with disabilities).
o 1 hour (any hour): 20 crossings per hour
o 2 hours (any two hours): 15 crossings per hour
o 3 hours (any three hours): 10 crossings per hour
Of note, the two- or three-hour counts do not need to be consecutive. Multimodal users
include a person walking, rolling (e.g., skateboard, scooter, or other nonmotorized or
motorized riding device), bicycling (pedal-powered or e-bike), or using a wheelchair,
mobility aid, or other battery power-driven mobility device.
Pedestrian or bicycle involved crash in the last ten years: ≥1 crash involving a multimodal user at the existing point crossing under review over the last ten years. A crash not addressable by engineering design (e.g., impaired driver, etc.) does not count.
Location meets the sight distance requirement: The required sight distance for a vehicle to come to a complete stop at the point of crossing per AASHTO’s stopping sight distance outputs using the roadway’s design speed.
Location directly serves a key destination or active transportation facility: Subject to staff review and engineering judgement, examine the surrounding land uses to determine if the proposed crossing directly serves, or is within close proximity, to a key destination or active
transportation facility.
Key destinations for consideration could include, but are not limited to: school, hospital,
senior center, recreation or community center, library, park, bus stop or transit station, or a
key activity center, destination, and/or land use subject to staff review.
Active transportation facilities may include a multiuse trail, shared use path, sidepath, or
greenway adopted by a City of Lakeville plan, or other local planning document subject to
staff review and approval.
Location from the nearest marked crossing: The NACTO defines an approximate three
minute out-of-direction walk as the threshold in which risk-taking behavior by a multimodal
user may then occur. Pedestrians naturally desire to travel along the quickest and most
direct pathway of travel. Utilizing the MN MUTCD’s 3.5 feet per second calculation for
pedestrian travel, that equates to 600 feet total, or 300 feet in either direction from the
crosswalk. These distances could vary and are dependent upon the surrounding context
(i.e., urban, suburban, or rural) and characteristics of the roadway. The minimum distance
allowable is 300 feet between crossings per the MN MUTCD (page 4D-1).
Page 34 of 58
12
Exceptions to Criteria
In some cases, it may be reasonable to allow exceptions to the criteria previously described. Any
exception may require review, consideration, and discussion from city staff and must be clearly
documented including the reason why the criteria exception was required. Examples could include
a location that is identified for consideration of a crossing enhancement but does not meet the
criteria outlined in this document though has other factors where crossing enhancements may be
applicable. The city may choose not to construct crossings that have a high cost, are not justified
by the project’s benefits, or have constraints present that require significant design. Developers
should coordinate planning, design, and implementation of all crossings with the City of Lakeville’s
Public Works Department.
4. ENGINEERING REVIEW
If a location is identified as appropriate for consideration of crossing enhancements in the
flowchart, then the following process should be completed to determine if additional crossing
infrastructure enhancements could be implemented. This is a methodical process that potentially
highlights items not previously considered.
Step 1: Traffic Volume Review
The first step of this process is important as the Potential Crossing Enhancement Matrix relies upon
the number of lanes as one of three key inputs. This step ensures that the number of lanes (travel
and turn lanes) at the point of crossing is adequate for the traffic volumes. Right sizing the crossing
distance is critical to all modes of travel, but particularly important to non-motorized users, as the
goal is to minimize their time in the hazard zone.
1. Analyze existing (and future traffic volumes subject to site-specific engineering judgement)
using the Dakota County capacity thresholds to determine if the roadway design is
appropriate (see Table 1).
Table 1. Dakota County Roadway Capacities
Roadway Design Capacity Range 110% of Capacity
2-lanes 10,000 11,000
3-lanes 18,000 19,800
4+ lanes 35,000 38,500
Source: Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan
Page 35 of 58
13
Four-to-Three Conversion: Often referred to as a “road diet” it reduces the number of
travel lanes from four through lanes to two through lanes with a two-way left-turn lane
in the center of the roadway. This can both calm traffic, slow speeds, and provide additional roadway space for crossing enhancements such as a pedestrian refuge island. This is an option if the capacity is found to be appropriate for such a conversion based upon county guidance and engineering judgement.
Multilane Threat: Removing lanes can also improve visibility and remove the multilane
threat which is when two or more lanes in one direction approach a crossing. When
one car stops for a person crossing the roadway, the second car may not be visible to the person crossing nor is that person visible to the second driver.
2. Engineering review of right- and left-turn lanes if applicable at the point of crossing to
verify if they are necessary or if they can be removed.
3. If roadway design or turn lanes are appropriate, proceed to Step 2: Roadway Geometric
Treatment Options.
4. If roadway design or turn lanes are not appropriate, consider lane reductions or turn lane
removal before proceeding. If this is not a near-term option, proceed to Step 2: Geometric
Treatment Options.
Page 36 of 58
14
Step 2: Roadway Geometric Treatment Assessment
Marking a crosswalk is one of many tools that can be used to improve pedestrian conditions.
Before considering additional signage, markings/striping, signals, etc., staff should evaluate the
feasibility of roadway geometric improvements. Minimizing the time that multimodal users are
crossing in the travel lane(s) is important as it reduces crossing width/distance, as well as helps
manage vehicle speeds by narrowing the cross-section and tightening curb radii.
In some cases, moving a crossing away from an intersection to a mid-block location can
significantly reduce the number of conflict points between vehicles and multimodal users thereby
improving overall safety.
The following process reviews opportunities to slow speeds, reduce crossing distance, and improve
visibility of people crossing the roadway.
1. Narrow Travel Lanes: MnDOT identifies the following lane width best practices per the
Performance-Based Practical Design – Process and Design Guidance. These are superseded
by MnDOT’s own design standards though used as an example for consideration by the
City of Lakeville. Studies have credited tighter lane widths by neutrally or positively
impacting safety without affecting traffic operations.
Rural Roadways: 11- or 12-foot-wide lanes
Urban and Suburban Roadways: 10-foot-wide lanes (≤35 mph and turn lanes), 11-foot-
wide lanes (suitable for all other typologies), 12-foot-wide lanes (≥50 mph and/or non-
motorized traffic is absent).
2. Reduce Conflict Points: Consider moving the crossing to a location with the least number of
conflict points depending upon engineering judgement. This could include an intersection
leg with lower turning vehicles or overall traffic, as well as moving a crossing entirely out of
an intersection and to a mid-block location.
Page 37 of 58
15
3. Crossing Lighting: Ensure lighting is present that illuminates the entire crossing (curb ramp
to curb ramp) per state and federal guidance.
4. Reduce Posted Speed: In Minnesota, legislative authority to reduce speed limits is granted to local jurisdictions (i.e., cities or towns) and does not require a speed study to reduce the posted speed limit on any road under their jurisdiction. Always consider reducing the posted speed limit when able along the travel corridor. Speed is a critical factor toward lowering the risk of serious injury or death when someone is struck by a vehicle and correlates directly with a motorist’s stopping distance and vision.
Source: City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets (2020), National Association of City Transportation Officials
5. Traffic Calming: Context-specific traffic calming measures using geometric improvements should always be considered. Each item is further defined in the section below.
Curb Radius: Review the turning curb radius to understand if a reduced radius can be achieved based upon context-specific needs and design vehicles (i.e., if the roadway is a freight or bus route). Reducing the radius to as small as practical can create significant benefits via reduced crossing distance and vehicle turning speeds. Curb radius design
should be based upon roadway type, crossing activity, and turning vehicle needs.
Page 38 of 58
16
Curb Extension: An extension or bump out of the curb into the roadway and typically a
minimum of six-feet-wide though design is context specific. This could include removal
or narrowing of a roadway shoulder to reduce the crossing distance. Special attention should be given to existing on-street bicycle infrastructure (e.g., bike lane) to ensure it does not remove space at the intersection for that connection.
Pedestrian Refuge Island: A raised median that is a minimum of eight-feet-wide though ten-feet or greater is preferred to ensure it is wide enough to accommodate bikes.
Raised Crosswalk: A ramped speed table spanning the entire width of the roadway which provides pedestrians the opportunity to cross at-grade with the sidewalk.
Several more traffic calming infrastructure opportunities are identified in best practice
documents and guidance (e.g., NACTO, ITE, FHWA, etc.) and could be implemented
based upon staff review and engineering judgement.
Step 3: Evaluate Crossing Infrastructure Enhancements
Review the crossing enhancement evaluation matrix to determine potential infrastructure
improvements at the point of crossing. The improvement options are divided into four options
which are further described in the matrix table below.
Consider Lane Reduction: Review the existing and future roadway volumes to determine if
a lane reduction can be implemented prior to potential crossing improvements to
maximize crossing infrastructure and minimize cost.
Markings and Signage: The most basic treatment for a location that qualifies for enhanced
crossing. Two different scenarios for marking and signage (M&S 1 and M&S 2) specify
which signs and roadway markings are included.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon: Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) are
generally designed for locations with higher traffic volumes and pedestrian activity. Three
different scenarios for RRFBs (RRFB 1, RRFB 2, and RRFB 3) specify which combination of
markings and signs should be used in coordination with the RRFBs.
Further Analysis Required: An engineering assessment is required to determine if a
pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) or pedestrian signal are warranted per the MN MUTCD
(which both require higher pedestrian volumes), as well as pedestrian demand, roadway
conditions and context, and available gaps in traffic. The need for, and feasibility of, a
grade-separated pedestrian crossing requires a more detailed engineering review to
understand the feasibility and cost. They are most applicable for highly used trail or
greenway crossings, as well as high demand locations of high speed, multi-lane roadways,
expressways, and freeways.
Step 4: Further Analysis of Major Enhancements
This step considers warrants found in the MN MUTCD for pedestrian hybrid beacons or pedestrian
signals subject to engineering judgement and review of applicability. The feasibility of grade-
separation may also be studied and is dependent upon context-specific needs.
Page 39 of 58
17
Page 40 of 58
Crossing Infrastructure Treatments
The following section describes crossing infrastructure to illustrate the universe of opportunities to
mark/stripe, sign, and implement geometric improvements to upgrade locations for crossing a
roadway by walking, rolling, or bicycling. The list is not exhaustive and only highlights key
treatments beyond typical pedestrian crossing and warning signage, or in-street pedestrian signs.
Guidance of infrastructure treatments and best practices continues to grow nationally and should
be reviewed during some frequency to ensure the latest enhancements are understood (i.e., type,
impact, cost, etc.). Of note, construction estimates, and crash reduction percentages are from
MnDOT’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021) or the FHWA.
Lane Reduction
A road diet reconfigures the roadway by converting a
four-lane (or sometimes more), undivided roadway into
a three-lane roadway with two through lanes and a
two-way left-turn lane in the center of the roadway. The
three-lane configuration provides added space to
implement a pedestrian refuge island or landscaped
median, bike infrastructure, and other elements for
traffic calming. This is a candidate treatment for any
undivided road with wide travel lanes or multiple lanes
that can be narrowed or repurposed to improve
pedestrian crossing safety. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a
typical crash reduction of 19 to 47 percent. Typically, a roadway with 20,000 AADT or less is a good
candidate for a four- to three-lane conversion, though some examples in the United States have
shown successful conversions with traffic volumes as high as 26,000 AADT in addition to lower
turning volumes. Average cost of implementation is $25,000 to $40,000 per mile.
Curb Radii
Page 41 of 58
Tightened curb radii provide several benefits including shortened crossing distance, slowed turning
vehicle speeds, and a larger pedestrian-realm. An actual curb radius of five to ten feet should be
considered whenever possible, and not to exceed 30 feet.2 The effective curb radius should be
minimized whenever possible and increased to accommodate turning buses or large trucks when
absolutely required. In most conditions, the roadway has passenger vehicles or smaller trucks and,
in some cases, large vehicles overtaking a lane to complete their turn should be acceptable unless
specific issues are identified per staff review and engineering judgement. Creative designs can also
be employed such as staggered stop bars and/or truck aprons to accommodate larger vehicle
turning movements.
Curb Extension
A curb extension is an extension of the sidewalk and curb line into the roadway to reduce
pedestrian crossing distance and exposure to vehicles. They also provide visual cues to drivers and
improve vision of pedestrians crossing while reducing turning speeds. It is a proven safety strategy
for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 45 percent. Curb extensions
can double as a traffic calming device in mid-block locations as pinch points or chicanes. Average
cost is $2,000 to $3,500 per corner without storm sewer impacts and $10,000 to $20,000 per corner
if storm sewer is impacted.
2 Minnesota Department of Transportation. (January 2016). Infrastructure Reference Guide.
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/assets/downloads/MnDOT_SRTS_InfrastrctureReferenceGuide.pdf
Page 42 of 58
Pedestrian Refuge Island
A pedestrian refuge island (i.e., a median) are raised
areas that are constructed in the center of the roadway
and serve as a place of refuge for people who cross
mid-block or at an intersection and shorten the
crossing distance. They allow people crossing to
concentrate their attention on one direction of traffic at
a time and allow users to wait for motorists and find an
adequate gap in traffic before crossing the second half
of the street. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing
crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of
46 to 54 percent. Average total costs vary.
Raised Crosswalk
A raised crosswalk is a speed table that extends across
the full width of the roadway and raises the crossing to
sidewalk height. It is a proven safety strategy for
reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash
reduction of 45 percent. They are most applicable
along two-lane or three-lane roadways with a posted
speed limit of ≤30 mph, and traffic volumes of ≤9,000
AADT, however, this is highly dependent upon the
roadway’s context and most applicable in urban areas.
Average cost is $7,000 to $40,000 per crossing.
Crossing Lighting
Crosswalk lighting is a strategy that installs streetlights at, and in advance of, intersections and
crosswalks to improve visibility and safety of the person crossing. It is a proven safety strategy for
reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 42 percent. The lux (amount of
light in lumens per square meter) is recommended at 20 to 40 lux at five feet above the road
surface to provide adequate vertical illumination within a crosswalk. Lighting is particularly
important at mid-block crossings and should illuminate the entire crossing form curb ramp to curb
ramp as illustrated above. Average cost is $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection.
Source: Federal Highway Administration
Source: National Association of Transportation Officials (left), Federal Highway Administration (right)
Source: Federal Highway Administration
Page 43 of 58
Advanced Stop Bar and Signage
An advanced stop bar is typically striped 20 feet to
50 feet in advance of a marked crosswalk to
encourage drivers to stop further back from the
crossing which enhances the comfort for those
crossing. The stop bar and corresponding sign also
provides the key benefit for multilane roadways of
removing the multilane threat by improving the
visibility of a crossing pedestrian for motorists.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
A crossing enhancement that is activated by a
pedestrian and uses two rapid and alternate
flashing yellow rectangular beacons. RRFBs are
applicable on roadways with higher pedestrian
demand, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds. It is a
proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the
FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 47 percent.
Average cost is $15,000 to $50,000 per crossing or
$80,000 to $100,000 for an overhead system.
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
A pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), formerly known
as a HAWK, is a beacon installed to warn and
control traffic by having vehicles stop with a red
light. It consists of two red lenses and one yellow
lens and is dark until pedestrian activated. PHBs are
applicable on high speed, multilane roadways, with
higher traffic volumes and where RRFBs are no
longer a viable safety solution, such as when gaps
in traffic are not sufficient. If PHBs are not already
familiar to a community, agencies should conduct appropriate education and outreach as part of
implementation. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical
crash reduction of 55 percent. Average cost is $100,000 to $170,000 per crossing. Of note, if
pedestrian demand is higher, a pedestrian signal should be explored in lieu of a PHB. A pedestrian
signal is a traffic signal placed at a pedestrian crossing and does not refer to a signalized
intersection.
Source: National Association of Transportation Officials
Source: National Association of Transportation Officials
Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation
Page 44 of 58
Grade-separated Crossing
Vertical separation of a pedestrian crossing (over or under a roadway) are most applicable for high
volume and high speed roadways, railroads, and other topographically challenging locations or
physical barriers. The overpass or underpass should always try to be conveniently located to
reduce out-of-direction travel. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA
with a typical crash reduction of 87 percent. Cost can vary wildly and is dependent upon the
surrounding context.
Removal of Infrastructure
Conditions that contribute to the need for a crossing enhancement may change over time, or a
crossing may no longer be needed. When a roadway surface is to be impacted by reconstruction
or resurfacing, a review should be performed to determine their use and need. If a crosswalk or
crossing meets the criteria outlined in this assessment, it should be maintained. If it does not meet
the criteria, it should be brought to the City Engineer for consideration of removal. In lieu of a
removal, a crossing may also be reviewed for changes to align with the latest guidance or changing
conditions.
Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation
Page 45 of 58
Date: 6/24/2024
Street Light Policy and Charges
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: No action required. Discussion only.
Overview
The current City street light policy is based on a study adopted by the City Council in 1991.
Specifically, Title 7, Chapter 3, Section 5 of the Lakeville City Code states, “charges for street
lighting shall be made against all property benefited by the street lights”. The current applied
definition of benefited areas, “any area deemed to need street lighting for the welfare of the
community”, has been interpreted differently over the years. Quantifying or measuring benefits
in relation to properties and street light locations has led to inconsistencies in the application of
the street light charge, specifically in relation to residential units.
Street lights are installed with new developments and City/County public roadway and trail
improvement projects. Currently, residential properties (service addresses) are billed a uniform
rate per quarter. Commercial street lighting is billed differently and is not the focus of this
discussion.
The City’s current adopted philosophy is that residential street lighting promotes pedestrian and
traffic safety, and personal property security. It is a benefit to all properties (and cannot be
measured by individual use), and therefore should be divided equally among all affected lots.
Currently, there are several neighborhoods that do not have residential street lighting and do not
pay a streetlight fee. While these residents do not benefit from streetlights at their house, they do
travel across the community and benefit from street lighting when doing so.
Staff will have financial information regarding this change at the work session and will be
seeking clarity from the City Council on this policy.
Supporting Information
None
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Good Value for Public Service
Report Completed by: Zach Johnson, City Engineer
Page 46 of 58
Date: 6/24/2024
Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) with Dakota County Community Development
Agency (CDA)
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: No official action is required. This is an
update and brief presentation from Dakota County CDA staff regarding housing
programs.
Overview
Tony Schertler, Executive Director, and Lisa Alfson, Director of Community and Economic
Development with the Dakota County CDA will be making a presentation on the Local
Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) program, and will ask for Council feedback and comments,
and possible support to entering into a formal agreement with the City of Lakeville to help
administer some of these new LAHA funds.
The 2023 Legislature passed a housing bill with $1 billion in new funding for various housing
programs. The Legislature appropriated state funds for the programs and established a metro
wide sales tax for housing needs, including a portion of this tax as a local housing aid for
metropolitan cities. The new law establishes a 0.25% metropolitan regional sales tax, with a
portion of the proceeds allocated to metropolitan cities over 10,000 in population. Lakeville will
receive a distribution of aid under this legislation with an estimate of $385,117 in 2024. A
spreadsheet showing the estimated distribution of aid by city, for 2024-2027, is attached. It is
expected that the amount to increase over time, because collections for this tax began in October
of this year, which shortens the collection time frame for the first year.
Cities can use this aid for emergency rental assistance, financial support to nonprofit affordable
housing providers, and projects for the construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, demolition or
removal of existing structures, construction financing, permanent financing, interest rate
reduction, refinancing, and gap financing of housing. Cities will be able to use this aid only for
affordable housing assistance to households at 115 percent of the area median income (AMI) for
home ownership projects, and 80 percent AMI for rental housing projects. For a household
of four, 115% AMI is $142,850 and at 80% AMI is $97,800 (2024 income guidelines).
Cities must spend this aid by December 31st in the third year following the year after the aid was
received. Beginning in 2025, cities must submit an annual report with documentation on any
unspent funds, and documentation of qualifying projects completed or planned. This report will
be due by December 1st of each year (starting in 2025) to the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency.
Page 47 of 58
Uses of Funds
Dakota County cities have been working with the Dakota County CDA to identify methods to
pool LAHA funds countywide to maximize affordable housing production and preservation and
to minimize administrative costs. The CDA has identified three programs which build upon
existing CDA programs and which the CDA could efficiently administer on cities’ behalf:
Enhanced single-family home improvement loan program which would increase the number of
homes improved from 60-70 per year to 115-120 per year countywide. For program year 2023,
six projects were completed, totaling $193,894. There are currently 8 active projects in various
stages of completion and two on the waitlist.
Radon mitigation grant program which would provide funds for radon testing and mitigation in
at least 40 homes per year countywide.
Preservation and new construction gap financing for both rental and home ownership
preservation and new construction. On April 24, 2024, the CDA Board authorized the Executive
Director to partner with Dakota County cities to administer Local Affordable Housing Aid
(LAHA) dollars, and enter into formal agreements with cities, if requested.
On April 24, 2024, the CDA Board authorized the Executive Director to partner with Dakota
County cities to administer Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) dollars, and enter into
formal agreements with cities, if requested.
Policy Questions
1. Is the City Council supportive of partnering with the CDA to implement LAHA
funding?
2. Does the City Council support collaboration with the Dakota County CDA on all or one
of the following programs listed above?
Supporting Information
1. Enhanced Home Improvement Loan Program
2. Radon Mitigation Grant Program
3. Residential Preservation New Construction Gap Financing Program
Financial Impact: $385,117 LAHA will be distributed to the city in 2024 Budgeted:
No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: A Home for All Ages and Stages of Life
Report Completed by: Tina Goodroad, Community Development Director
Page 48 of 58
Project
Proposal: Enhanced Single-Family Home Improvement Loan Program
Project
Purpose:
Expand the existing CDA-administered Home Improvement Loan Program to
include additional Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) funding. Please see
the attached brochure for information about the Home Improvement Loan
Program.
Project
Objectives:
1) Continue to improve the housing stock of Dakota County.
2) Expand existing program with proven results to more income-eligible
residents of County.
3) Provide cities and county with a way to use LAHA for an existing countywide
housing program.
4) Diversify funding resources for existing CDA program.
Project
Outcomes:
1) Increase number of homes improved from 60-70 per year to 115-120 per
year after Year 2 of new program.
Project
Details:
•Provide deferred 0% loans of up to $35,000 for home improvement projects.
•Home improvement projects prioritize health, safety, and structural integrity
issues.
o Common improvements include new roofs, siding, HVAC systems,
windows, building foundation or other structural updates, accessibility
improvements, kitchens and bathrooms(accessibility).
o Other improvements would be considered if they address health and
safety issues or otherwise improve the value of the home. Common
improvements are repairs or replacement of detached garages, kitchens
and bathrooms (non-accessibility), driveway replacement/repair
•Homeowners must be income eligible and meet other CDA program
requirements, e.g. own and reside in home, meet credit standards, be
current on property taxes, properties must be at least 15 years old, etc.
o CDBG funds require 80% AMI cap
o LAHA requires 115% AMI cap
•Have one application for homeowners; eliminates any confusion for
homeowners.
•Eligible HO with incomes at or below 80% AMI could use either countywide
and city CDBG and LAHA.
•Eligible HO with incomes between 81-115% AMI would use only countywide
and city LAHA as they are available.
•Program income generated from LAHA would be used for future home
improvement loans, similar to the CDBG program. CDA would track program
income and deposit into individual city accounts.
See attachments for
current AMI limits
Page 49 of 58
Project
Funding:
•Current CDBG entitlement funding totals $1,193,635 for FY 2023, which
includes cities’ and Dakota County CDBG allocated to CDA’s HO Rehab
program.
•CDA spends approximately $1,725,800 to rehab 70 homes in a fiscal year,
on average.
o Current CDBG allocation will fund about 37 loans at $32,000/ea.
o Program income from previous CDBG loans supports another 15 more
per year.
o Takes about 18 months to fully expend a year’s worth of CDBG and
program income.
o Funds are replenished annually, provided Congress funds the CDBG
program.
•Future LAHA – CDA estimates it could successfully deploy an additional
approximately $1,400,000 to rehabilitate an additional 55 loans per year after
first full year of additional funds.
•Individual cities contributing to program would have separate subaccounts
that will be tracked by CDA staff.
Project
Staff:
•
o
o
o
o –
•
Project
Reporting:
o Community’s contribution to program that fiscal year
o
o
1.CDA Home Improvement Loan Brochure
Page 50 of 58
Page 51 of 58
Page 52 of 58
Proposed
Project: Dakota County Homeowner Radon Testing and Mitigation Grant Program
Project
Purpose:
The average radon level in Minnesota is more than three times higher than the
U.S. radon level. This is due to our geology and how our homes operate.
Minnesota homes are closed up or heated most of the year, which can result in
higher levels of radon. In Minnesota, more than two in five homes have radon
levels that pose a significant health risk. Exposure to radon over a prolonged
period can lead to lung cancer. Minnesota Department of Health website
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set the action level at 4 pCi/L
(picocuries of radon per liter of air). The Minnesota Department of Health
recommends installing a radon mitigation system when the radon level is at 4
pCi/L or higher. Between 2 and 4 pCi/L, a radon mitigation system should be
considered to lower the level as much as possible. The average indoor radon
level in Dakota County is 3.6 pCi/L as determined by radon test results from
AirChek, an at-home radon testing company. There is no safe level of radon in
a home.
The proposed Homeowner Radon Testing and Mitigation Grant program would
provide free testing services to income-eligible residents, and would provide
free mitigation services for those income-eligible residents whose homes have
radon levels greater than 2.6 pCi/L. A lower radon level was chosen as the
benchmark in order to reduce radon levels in existing homes as much as
possible.
Project
Objectives:
1) Continue to improve the housing stock of Dakota County.
2) Reduce potential future risk of lung cancers in Dakota County residents.
3) Provide cities and county with a way to use Local Affordable Housing Aid
(LAHA).
Project
Outcomes:
1) Test at least 40 homes in Dakota County for radon per year.
2) Install radon mitigation systems in all homes assessed for radon with levels
greater than 2.6 pCi/L per year, subject to available funding.
3) Reduce the number of homes with high radon levels. Mitigation systems
would be required to reduce radon to < 2.0 pCi/L.
Project
Details:
• Provide grants to assess for and mitigate radon when levels are 2.6 pCi/L or
greater.
• Homeowners must own and reside in home, be current on property taxes,
and be income eligible.
o CDBG funds require 80% AMI cap
o Sales tax funds require 115% AMI cap
See attachments for
current AMI limits
Page 53 of 58
•Homeowners who qualify for CDA Home Improvement Loan, MHFA RLP
Loan, Energy Assistance, Weatherization automatically will be eligible for the
Radon Grant Program.
o Homeowners would need to sign a grant agreement if they are recipients
of the above-listed program.
•Homeowners who do not qualify for the above-listed programs may apply for
the Radon Grant Program with a separate application.
o A separate application process will be developed if this program is
established.
o Homeowners would need to sign grant agreement.
•Homeowners will solicit bids from two licensed mitigators; CDA will evaluate
bids for cost reasonableness.
•CDA will pay mitigators upon completion of project and satisfactory
clearance test numbers (< 2.0
Project
Funding:
•Funding exclusively through LAHA funds.
•Estimate program would need $200,000 per year to assess for and install
radon mitigation systems in 40 homes.
•Individual cities contributing to the program would have separate
subaccounts that will be tracked by CDA staff.
Project
Staff:
•
Project
Reporting: o Community’s contribution to program that fiscal year
o
1.EPA Radon Zones Map
2.EPA Radon Risks Chart
Page 54 of 58
Radon Zones Map
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created this map to identify areas with the potential
for elevated indoor radon levels. The EPA Map of Radon Zones helps national, state, and local
organizations implement radon-resistant building codes. The map should not be used to determine if a
home in a given zone should be tested for radon. Homes with elevated levels of radon have been found
in all three zones. All homes should be tested for radon.
What do the colors mean?
Zone 1 (red zones) Highest potential; average indoor radon levels may be
greater than 4 pCi/L (picocuries per liter)
Zone 2 (orange zones) Moderate potential; average indoor radon levels may be
between 2 and 4 pCi/L
Zone 3 (yellow zones) Low potential; average indoor radon levels may be less than 2
pCi/L
Page 55 of 58
12 A Citizen’s Guide to Radon l THE GUIDE TO PROTECTING YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY FROM RADON
THE RISK OF LIVING WITH RADON continued
RADON RISK IF YOU SMOKE
It’s never too
late to reduce
your risk of lung
cancer. Don’t
wait to test and
fix a radon
problem. If you
are a smoker,
stop smoking.
Note: If you are a former smoker, your risk may be lower.
RADON RISK IF YOU’VE NEVER SMOKED
Note: If you are a former smoker, your risk may be higher.
*Lifetime risk of lung cancer deaths from EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes (EPA 402-R-03-003).
**Comparison data calculated using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 1999-2001 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Reports.
Radon
Level
If 1,000 people who
smoked were exposed
to this level over a
lifetime*. . .
The risk of cancer from
radon exposure compares to**. . .
WHAT TO DO:
Stop Smoking and. . .
20 pCi/L
10 pCi/L
8 pCi/L
4 pCi/L
2 pCi/L
1.3 pCi/L
0.4 pCi/L
About 260 people
could get lung cancer
About 150 people
could get lung cancer
About 120 people
could get lung cancer
About 62 people
could get lung cancer
About 32 people
could get lung cancer
About 20 people
could get lung cancer
250 times the risk
of drowning
200 times the risk of
dying in a home fire
30 times the risk of
dying in a fall
5 times the risk of dying
in a car crash
6 times the risk of dying
from poison
(Average indoor radon level)
(Average outdoor radon level)
Fix your home
Fix your home
Fix your home
Fix your home
Consider fixing
between 2 and 4 pCi/L
(Reducing
radon levels
below
2 pCi/L is
difficult)
Radon
Level
If 1,000 people who
never smoked were ex-
posed to this level
over a lifetime*. . .
The risk of cancer from
radon exposure compares to**. . .
WHAT TO DO:
20 pCi/L
10 pCi/L
8 pCi/L
4 pCi/L
2 pCi/L
1.3 pCi/L
0.4 pCi/L
About 36 people
could get lung cancer
About 18 people
could get lung cancer
About 15 people
could get lung cancer
About 7 people
could get lung cancer
About 4 people
could get lung cancer
About 2 people
could get lung cancer
35 times the risk
of drowning
20 times the risk of dying
in a home fire
4 times the risk of
dying in a fall
The risk of dying in a
car crash
The risk of dying
from poison
(Average indoor radon level)
(Average outdoor radon level)
Fix your home
Fix your home
Fix your home
Fix your home
Consider fixing
between 2 and 4 pCi/L
(Reducing
radon levels
below
2 pCi/L is
difficult)
Page 56 of 58
Project
Proposal: Residential Preservation and New Construction Gap Financing Program
Project
Purpose:
Expand the existing CDA-administered gap financing resources for residential
multi-family and single-family preservation and new construction to include
Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) funding. The CDA currently administers
other gap financing tools such as the Dakota County levy-funded HOPE
Program and federally-funded HOME Program.
Project
Objectives: 1) Continue to improve and add to the affordable housing stock of Dakota
County.
2) Provide cities and county with a way to use LAHA for an existing countywide
housing program.
3) Increase and diversify gap financing resources.
Project
Outcomes:
Currently the CDA is providing gap financing to an average of two - three new
construction multi-family projects and an average of three - four single-family
projects (both new construction and preservation).
Project
Details:
The CDA is fortunate to have a variety of affordable housing finance
resources including the annual Low-Income Housing Tax Credit allocation, an
annual tax-exempt bond allocation, and gap finances including the locally-
funded HOPE Program and the federally-funded HOME Program. With this
level of resources, the CDA is typically aware of any potential, significant
affordable housing developments that are looking to come into Dakota
County.
The CDA has staff who work regularly with developers from concept to fully-
financed and constructed affordable housing developments, both
preservation and new construction, throughout Dakota County. The CDA has
in-house knowledge and expertise on underwriting these projects.
Cities may allocate LAHA funds to increase the amount of gap financing
available in their communities for preservation and new construction. Cities
can rely on the CDA’s underwriting capabilities to structure these complex
financial deals on the behalf of their LAHA dollars.
The details on how the LAHA dollars will be structured in a preservation or
new construction affordable housing project will need to be determined, but
initial thoughts are the structure would mimic the primary gap funding source
(i.e. HOPE, HOME).
Page 57 of 58
Project
Funding:
• The CDA Board of Commissioners has traditionally allocated $1.5 million of
HOPE funds annually to provide gap financing to two multi -family projects.
• The CDA also administers the HOME Program that has approximately
$800,000 annually for gap financing to support preservation and new
construction residential projects.
• Future LAHA – The CDA will work with cities to identify multi-family and
single-family residential projects that need gap financing.
• Individual cities contributing to the program would have separate
subaccounts that will be tracked by CDA staff.
Project
Staff:
• Existing staff:
o Housing Finance Manager
o Community Development Coordinator
o Director of Comm & Econ Development
• Additional staff needed for LAHA funds: None.
• Cost to City Partners: Nominal admin fee.
Project
Reporting:
The CDA would provide annual reports to participating cities. The
annual report would include the following:
o Community’s contribution to program that fiscal year
o Number of projects that received LAHA gap financing
o Details of projects including: number of units, income limits of
units, details of loan terms, etc.
Page 58 of 58