HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK - March 27, 20181685 CROSSTOWN
C I -T Y O F
ND OVE
BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
City Council Workshop
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Conference Rooms A & B
Call to Order — 6:00 p.m.
. (763) 755-5100
2. Comprehensive Plan Update Discussion with Planning & Zoning Commission —
Engineering/Planning
3. Code Amendment Discussion/Accessory Structures — Planning
4. City Campus Master Plan Update Discussion (Verbal)—AdministrationlEngineering
Discuss 2019 Budget Development Guidelines - Administration
6. 2018 Budget Progress Reports -Administration
7. 2018 City Investments Review -Administration
Other Business
9. Adjournment
U C I Th OF (D
ND11 VEA
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Mayor and Council Members
CC: Jim Dickinson, City
FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of�bliq Works / City Engineer
SUBJECT: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Updates
DATE: March 27, 2018
ACTION REQUESTED
Receive a verbal update from Staff on progress being made on the various component of the
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update and provide input on the direction of the plan updates.
The Planning & Zoning Commission will be present to receive the progress updates as well.
DISCUSSION
Updates will be provided to the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission on the
following components of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan:
a) Rural Reserve Update —
Due to a recent study of flood plain impacts to the Rural Reserve the perceived
development area has been reduced significantly. Several unknowns continue within the
area and some flood plain impacts could occur through storm water/flood plain
improvements within the area. The Rural Reserve Area will need to remain as per
Met Council requirements; however, development may occur with additional study.
b) Transportation Plan Update — Draft Andover Transportation Plan is attached for your
review
Draft Transportation has been completed and is attached for review. The plan was
updated with the most current traffic data utilizing Anoka County and City transportation
information. The format for the plan is the same as past plans and all sections have been
updated with current data and mapping.
c) Wastewater and Sewer Plan Update
The City's Sanitary Sewer Plan is a fluid document that continues to have ongoing
updates based on development.
Mayor and Council Members
March 27, 2018
Page 2 of 2
d) Water Resources Management Plan Update
The Water Resource Management Plan was last updated in May 2015 and is a 10 year
document or must be revised within 2 years of the CCWD and/or LRRWMO update.
e) Water Supply Plan Update
There are 2 plans related to this. One plan is approved through MNDNR and the other is
an internal Comprehensive Water System Plan that staff is currently working with a
consultant to update.
The DNR plan was submitted in December of 2016. The DNR had some preliminary
comments which were addressed and then we have been waiting for the final review and
approval. DNR said they hope to have it approved in the next 30 days.
We have a consultant line up to complete the internal Water System Comprehensive Plan.
This plan is anticipated to be completed June/July of 2018.
f) Parks and Open Space Plan Update
Draft language for the Comprehensive Plan has been prepared by staff and reviewed and
approved by the Park & Recreation Commission. The park dedication study which was
approved by the City Council will be included as an attachment to the Parks Chapter.
Respectfully Submitted,
David D. Berkowitz, P.E.
Attach: Draft Andover Transportation Plan March 2018
ANDOVER
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
March 2018
/b"I MF
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this report, drawing, or
specification was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
David D. Berkowitz, P.E.
Date:
LIST OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS:
City of Andover Staff and Plan Preparation Team
David Berkowitz — City Engineer
Todd Haas - Assistant Public Works Director
Joe Janish - Community Development Director
Stephanie Hanson - City Planner
Technical Consultant Advisors
Bryant Ficek — Spack Consulting
Jonah Finkelstein — Spack Consulting
Reg. No. 26757
- i - 2040 Transportation Plan
<<r AFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION......................................................................................... i
I. INTRODUCTION
1
II. TRANSPORTATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ................................... 2
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 5
A.
Roadway Jurisdiction......................................................................................................
5
B.
Roadway Functional Classification................................................................................
5
C.
Existing Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................
5
D.
Trails...............................................................................................................................5
E.
Transit Service................................................................................................................5
30
F.
Rail System....................................................................................................................
11
G.
Crash Data....................................................................................................................
11
H.
Air Service.....................................................................................................................
11
I.
Intersection "Hot Spots"..............................................................................................12
38
J.
Traffic/Transportation Issues........................................................................................
14
IV. STUDY ELEMENTS ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATIONS........................................15
A.
Roadway Jurisdiction/MSA Routes...............................................................................
15
B.
Roadway Functional Classification System..................................................................
18
C.
Projected Traffic Volumes............................................................................................22
D.
Intersection "Hot Spots"..............................................................................................29
E.
Study Corridors.............................................................................................................
30
F.
Transit Planning...........................................................................................................30
G.
Trails Planning.............................................................................................................
33
H.
Rail Crossing Safety......................................................................................................
37
I.
Air.................................................................................................................................
38
J.
Access Management......................................................................................................
38
K.
Traffic Calming.............................................................................................................
40
V. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES........................................................
48
VI. ROADWAY SYSTEMS PLAN.........................................................................................
55
A.
Transportation Funding................................................................................................
55
B.
Short-term/Long-term Planning....................................................................................
61
VI. MANAGING FREIGHT MOVEMENT...........................................................................
62
VII.
PUBLIC INPUT PROCES.............................................................................................
62
VIII.
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS
63
- ii - 2040 Transportation Plan
�`'ll aaI
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Andover presents this Transportation Plan as a guideline to be used for the
implementation of various elements of the City's transportation system. The studies and analyses
presented in the plan address each of the following:
• Roadway System
• Transit
• Access Management
• Rail Crossing Safety
• Air Service
• Trails System
• Roadway Funding Potentials
• Freight Movement
Within the transportation plan, analyses have been completed that involve the projection of
traffic volumes, analysis of various potentially problematic intersections, as well as other
identified traffic/transportation issues.
The plan, which follows, provides the recommendations regarding the various transportation
elements within the City of Andover. As with any plan, it is intended to be dynamic in that it will
require review and revision as conditions in the City evolve and change.
- 1 - 2040 Transportation Plan
lr� AFF
II. TRANSPORTATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Goal:
Provide a safe and efficient transportation system that is cost effective
and serves the existing and future access and mobility needs of the
City
Objective:
Ensure adequate internal and external transportation access and links for
efficient movement ofpeople and goods
Objective:
Provide a transportation system that enhances quality economic
development within the City
Objective:
Provide a transportation system that meets the varied needs of Andover
residents with a focus on Context Sensitive Designs
Objective:
Consider the mobility needs of all persons in the planning and
development of the transportation system
Policies:
• Provide for early and continuing citizen involvement in transportation planning and
implementation of projects
• Provide public education through the City website, public meetings, and other mediums
to help inform residents of new transportation elements and changes that are occurring
within the community
• Provide a roadway system within a functional hierarchy that accommodates existing and
future travel demands by providing the necessary design features to satisfy the roadway's
intended use and functional classification
• Provide sufficient roadway capacity through the construction of transportation system
improvements that accommodate existing and future demand
• Require construction of transportation system improvements in conjunction with new
developments when the need is created by the new development
• Require payment for future transportation improvements as a part of development
approval proportionate to the demand created by new developments
• Ensure that all components of the transportation system are maintained and developed to
the highest standards to ensure against detrimental impact upon community growth
• Utilize the Capital Improvement Plan to schedule projects that increase public safety by
minimizing hazards and improving intersections and access points in need of safety
improvements
Goal: Provide a coordinated transportation system that is compatible with
adjacent municipality, Anoka County, Metropolitan Council and
State of Minnesota transportation plans
Objective: Coordinate transportation planning and transportation system
improvements with other government agencies to increase efficiencies
Objective: Increase opportunities for funding of local transportation system
improvements from county, state, and federal funding sources
b]>r+j t - 2- 2040 Transportation Plan
Policies:
• Coordinate grant applications and other funding requests, when appropriate, with
neighboring municipalities, as well as state and county agencies
• Coordinate participation of Anoka County and adjacent cities, where appropriate, in the
provision of Transportation Plan elements
Goal: Provide multi -modal transportation options, enhancing accessibility
and providing an interconnected multi -use trail system, whenever and
wherever feasible and advantageous
Objective:
Periodically evaluate potential ridership and feasibility of joining the
Metropolitan Transit Taxing District to provide additional transit options
for Andover residents
Objective:
Decrease the vehicle load on the transportation network while adding
flexibility in mobility options
Objective:
Provide an accessible trail system that links residential neighborhoods,
commercial developments, and park areas
Objective:
Utilize multiple funding sources to complete the regional and local trail
systems
Objective:
Coordinate trail construction with street improvement projects, new
development, expansion and redevelopment projects
Objective:
Create ADA compliant facilities providing accessibility to all residents
Policies:
• Identify locations for park and ride facilities and preserve the ability to implement these
facilities in the future
• Promote ridesharing and increased vehicle occupancies throughout the City
• Maintain a map of existing and future local and regional trails and coordinate trail
planning, construction, and maintenance of the Capital Improvement Plan
• Fund regional trail system improvements adjacent to residential properties with trail fees
collected from new residential developments, state aid funds and federal funds where
eligible for such funding
• Pursue Safe Routes to School funding options through the possibility of mini -grants or
local, private, or federal funding
• Require regional trail construction adjacent to commercial and industrial properties,
where shown on the trails plan, in conjunction with development, expansion and
redevelopment projects
• Require local trail construction adjacent to residential, commercial and industrial
properties, where shown on the trails plan, in conjunction with development, expansion
and redevelopment projects
• Develop trails in accordance with the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards
• Coordinate trail and sidewalk improvements, where appropriate, with Anoka County and
neighboring cities
W9WX*
- 3- 2040 Transportation Plan
ZRAFF
• Upgrade pedestrian facilities to current ADA standards whenever adjacent roadway
projects are undertaken and/or wherever high pedestrian use facilities necessitate stand-
alone projects
Goal: Minimize impacts of the transportation system on the natural
environment
Objective: Ensure environmentally sensitive implementation of the transportation
system through the planning, design, and construction of improvements
Objective: Consider the impacts of improvements to the existing transportation
system on land use, environmental, social, historical, and cultural
resources
Policies:
• Adhere to best management practices and all components of the Implementation Plan
during the planning, construction, and maintenance of the transportation system
• Separate non -motorized traffic from arterial and collector roadways when feasible
• Pursue land use efficiency through the grouping of complementary land uses
• Encourage joint parking facilities to conserve land
Goal: Create "attractive" roadways through routine maintenance and
customized community involved transportation elements
Objective: Ensure roadway elements are maintained and kept clean, so they do not
become an eyesore for Andover residents
Objective: Convert standard roadway elements into consistent pieces specific to
Andover, Minnesota
Objective: Create a sense of community pride through public involvement in roadway
beautification projects
Policies:
• Consider the addition of landscaping to streets and parks to increase aesthetics and visual
appeal of existing and proposed projects
• Upkeep paint on roadway elements such as traffic signals, fire hydrants, and signal
cabinets
• Pursue the options of community involvement in roadway beautification projects, such as
Adopt -A -Street, to help enhance the visual appeal of traffic elements such as fire
hydrants and controller cabinets
• Consider unique hardscaping elements to help provide aesthetic pleasure to sidewalks,
medians, and crosswalks
- 4 - 2040 Transportation Plan
iQFT
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The development of a Transportation Plan begins with the collection and review of various data,
which can be denoted as existing conditions. These existing conditions, or characteristics,
provide the base upon which the system plan is then built. This chapter provides information on
certain existing conditions that have been reviewed during the preparation of the Transportation
Plan.
A. Roadway Jurisdiction
The Andover roadway system consists of County roads, County State -Aid Highways
(CSAH), Municipal State Aid (MSA) facilities and local City streets. No State of
Minnesota highways are in the City of Andover. A map indicating the roadway
jurisdiction is contained in Figure 1.
B. Roadway Functional Classification
The functional classification of roadways in the City of Andover consists of the following
types:
• `A' Minor Arterials
• `B' Minor Arterials
• Major Collectors
• Minor Collectors
• Local (which includes Minimum Maintenance Roads)
The functional classification system will be reviewed and discussed as part of the
Transportation Plan. The existing functional classification system is illustrated in
Figure 2.
C. Existing Traffic Volumes
The most recent daily traffic volume information for the primary roadways in Andover was
obtained from various sources including State and County traffic flow models and maps
and the City of Andover. The most recent (2014 or newer) daily traffic volume information
is provided in Figure 3.
D. Trails
There are a number of existing trails, both on- and off-road, in Andover. In addition to
these existing trails, the City has a Trail Plan designed to expand the existing network of
trails for use by the public. The existing Trails Plan is shown in Figure 4.
E. Transit Service
Andover lies outside the former Metropolitan Transit Taxing District and does not have
fixed route transit services. The routes closest to the city travel through Coon Rapids and
Anoka, but never enter the City of Andover. These are routes 805, 850 and 852.
Paratransit services, once provided by the Anoka County Traveler, are no longer
available. However, Anoka County Transit Link does provide service within Andover to
anyone needing transit services. Services are available Monday through Friday from
ihi�
5- 2040 Transportation Plan
D
6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Reservations can be made Monday through Friday between the
hours of 7:00 AM and 3:30 PM, up to five days in advance of the trip. Same day rides
must be booked at least two hours before the desired pickup time. Cancellations of
service must be completed at least one hour before the scheduled pick-up time. Fares are
dependent on the mileage of the trip and are as follows as of October 1, 2017:
• Rush hour trips less than 15 miles - $4.50 each way
• Rush hour trips greater than 15 miles - $5.25 each way
• Non -rush hour trips less than 15 miles - $3.50 each way
• Non -rush hour trips greater than 15 miles - $4.25 each way
There are no park-and-ride or transit centers in Andover, although according to Metro
Transit's 2014 Metro Transit Rider Survey, Andover MN is one of the top ten (10) zip
code origins of Metro Transit ridership, based on percentage. Current regional Park -and -
Ride lots near Andover include:
• Anoka
—Anoka Station — 4u Avenue & Johnson Street
• Blaine —
Northtown Transit Center — 85th Avenue & Jefferson
• Blaine —Paul
Parkway —Paul Parkway & Ulysses Street NE
• Blaine —
95`h Avenue Park & Ride — 95`h Avenue NE & 1-35W
• Coon Rapids — MTC Park & Ride - Foley Blvd — Between Coon Rapids Blvd and
East River Road near Hwy 610
• Coon Rapids — Coon Rapids -Riverdale Station — 121" Lane & Northdale Blvd.
• Coon Rapids — Foley Boulevard — 9425 Foley Boulevard
• East Bethel — Hwy 65 at County Road 24 (no bus service)
• East Bethel — East Bethel Theatre — 18635 Ulysses Street NE
• East Bethel — East Bethel Ice Arena — Hwy 65 between 205th Avenue & 209a'
Avenue
• Elk River — Elk River Station — 171" Lane & Tyler Street NW
• Elk River - Hwy 169 & School Street NW (no bus service)
• Fridley — Fridley Station — 61st Avenue & Maine Street NE
• Fridley — Church of St. William — 6120 5'h Street NE
• Ham Lake — Family of Christ Lutheran Church — 16345 Polk Street NE
• Ramsey — Ramsey Station — 7550 Sunwood Drive
In the event transit services are expanded into Andover, the City has discussed possible
locations in the past. Major north -south commuting routes, such as Hanson Boulevard
NW and Round Lake Boulevard NW, and east -west routes, such as Bunker Lake
Boulevard NW, should be examined for potential Park -and -Ride locations.
- 6 - 2040 Transportation Plan
Nowthen Oak Grove
Eastc
BethelANDOVER^
t T Y o F
LLj
� 181ST AVE 1BtBTAVE
TRANSPORTATION
�waKE
PLAN
(
L E G E N D
Roadway Jurisdiction
County State Aid Highway
)IJ
Ham
�J Municipal State Aid
Lake
\_ County Road
City Road
Ramsey,,
' ROUND
Existing Roadway
LAKE %
Jurisdiction
0
Anoka
Figure 1
N 1 inch equals 3,500 feet
0 2,000 8,000 '
4,000
^ Feet
Revised February 2018
Coon Rapids
Blaine
Nowthen Oak Grove
-- - --
Eastc,
Bethel
T v O F
NDOVE
1919TAVE 18t5i qVE
r
,
TRANSPORTATION
w 1,
PLAN
LAKE
LEGEND
Functional Classification
A Minor Arterial
B Minor Arterial
S�
Harpy
Major Collector
L Lake
Minor Collector
Local
Ramsey
Railroad Parks
Water ; City Limits
Long Range Rail/Street
- -
— '
Grade Separation
gym..
Existing Functional
- - -
Classification System
Anoka '• �
'
Figure 2 (O
N 1 inch equals 3,500 feet " '°• �'
;
��o
n
11 0 2,000 4,000 8,000 - - -- -I-
Feet
- - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Revised February 2018
Coon Rapids
Blaine
Nowthen Oak Grove
East
Bethel I AN
b6W
Ham
Lake
Blaine
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
L E G E N D
MnDOT Traffic -Studied Road
• Major Node -All Roads Split
Minor Node - One Road Split
Other City Roads
City Limits
2015/2016
Daily Traffic Volumes
U
Figure 3
L1
Revised February 2016 t"'j�IIIJJJI
Data Source - MN Dept. of Transp&'At[an
Nowthen
Oak Grove
East
Bethel AN66WA
Ham
Lake
Blaine
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
L E G E N D
Existing Trails
Other
AV Schools
'—\� Existing Roads
'-\_. Railroad
Parks
Water
Existing
Trails Plan o
Figure 4
Revised February 2070
04F
F. Rail System
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad operates on a rail track situated in a
north/south direction in the eastern part of the City. According to data collected by the
MnDOT Office of Freight, Railroads, and Waterways, an average of 14 trains per day
operate on this rail line at a maximum train speed of 50 miles per hour. A study
completed by Spack Consulting in 2017 found over a 48-hour period a total of 18 trains,
nine (9) per day, pass through the City of Andover based on video collected at the Bunker
Lake Boulevard rail crossing.
There are six (6) railroad grade crossings with public streets in Andover. There are also
four (4) private crossings in the City. The public street at -grade crossings are on the
following roadways:
• Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (Quiet Zone 2007)
• Andover Boulevard NW (Wayside Horn 2008)
• Crosstown Boulevard NW (Wayside Hom 2008)
• 16151 Avenue NW (Quiet Zone 2008)
• Ward Lake Drive NW
• 1815` Avenue NW
Flashers, gates, and bells presently control all crossings. Wayside horns were installed at
Andover Boulevard NW and Crosstown Boulevard in 2008 to help reduce train noise for
adjacent households. A median was constructed in 2007 to meet the Railroad Quiet Zone
requirements at Bunker Lake Boulevard NW and in 2008 at 1615 Avenue. The data
provided by MnDOT indicates there have been no rail crossing accidents in the last five
years in Andover. MnDOT establishes the type of crossing protection on the public
streets and has a process that involves variables such as train and vehicular volumes,
speeds, sight distance, and number of tracks in order to determine the crossing types. The
controls appear to be correct for those crossings in Andover. MnDOT works with cities if
a request for crossing review or improvement is presented by the City. Existing Quiet
Zones require recertification every two and a half to three years if based on Alternative
Safety Measure (ASM) standards or every four and a half to five years when based on
Supplemental Safety Measures (SSM).
G. Crash Data
Data regarding reported crashes in Andover can be obtained from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation's Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT)
and/or through the Anoka County Sheriff's Department as crash data changes very
rapidly. If crash information is necessary to evaluate a particular location, the City will
obtain the necessary information from MnDOT and/or the Anoka County Sheriffs
Department.
H. Air Service
There are no airports within the City of Andover. The closest airport, the Anoka County -
Blaine Airport, is not within proximity to cause an effect with regard to airport runway
clearances and land use designation.
9w&&*
- 11 - 2040 Transportation Plan
I. Intersection "Hot Spots"
One element of the study includes an ongoing study of twenty (20) intersection "hot
spots." These locations were chosen originally by the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), in a previous plan update, following a review of the volumes and crash data as
well as the receipt of input from City staff and the public. These intersections were
selected based on the history of each location and not on anticipated issues in the future.
The intersections selected for traffic operation analysis are:
• Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 116) and Crooked Lake Boulevard NW
• Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 116) and Marigold Street NW
• Crosstown Boulevard NW (CSAH 18)/Crosstown Drive NW and 1391h Avenue
NW
• Crosstown Boulevard NW (CSAH 18) and South Coon Creek Drive NW
• South Coon Creek Drive NW and Round Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 9)
• Crosstown Boulevard NW (CSAH 18) and Nightingale Street NW
• Crosstown Boulevard NW and Prairie Road NW
• Crosstown Boulevard NW (CSAH 18) and 161st Avenue NW (CSAH
20)/Constance Boulevard NW (CR 60)
• 159th Avenue NWNalley Drive and 7th Avenue (CSAH 7)
• 7th Avenue (CSAH 7) and 165th Avenue NW (East) (CR 158)
• 161St Avenue NW (CSAH 20) and Verdin Street NW (CR 59)
• Andover Boulevard NW (CR 16) and Prairie Road NW
• Roanoke Street NW (CSAH 7) and 165th Avenue NW (West)
o Hanson Boulevard NW (CSAH 78) and 161" Avenue NW (CSAH 20)
• Nightingale Street NW and 161St Avenue NW (CSAH 20)
• Round Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 9) and 173`d Lane NW
o Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 116) and 381h Avenue
o Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 116) and 7th Avenue NW (CSAH 7)
o Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 116) and Round Lake Boulevard NW
(CSAH 9)
o Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 116) and Crosstown Boulevard NW (CR 18)
o Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 116) and Hanson Boulevard (CSAH 78)
o Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 116) and Prairie Road NW
The existing conditions operations analysis is presented in the following chapter. The
locations of the 22 "hot spot' intersections are shown in Figure S.
Locations noted with o have been upgraded with traffic signals to improve conditions.
-12- 2040 Transportation Plan
kC I T N' 0 F
NDOVE
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
• intersections
�� • �•
_
Right
RailroadN.
Parks
Water
Intersection.®Hot
Spots
Figure 5Revised
=� - - I��T•��Iu'71
l�
March 2018
J 1�1 F
J. Traffic/Transportation Issues
The following are various transportation issues that should be addressed:
• Traffic is backed up 4-5 times per day by trains crossing Bunker Lake Boulevard
NW. All streets in Andover with rail crossings are delayed by trains.
• Nightingale Street NW intersects Crosstown Boulevard NW at an odd angle and
there is more foot traffic from the school. Traffic needs to travel slower.
Preliminary planning has begun on roundabout designs for this intersection.
• There is a need for a completed trail along Andover Boulevard NW between Vale
Street NW and Prairie Road NW.
• The trail on Crosstown Boulevard NW should be continued east from its current
terminus at the intersection with Xeon Street NW to the Miller Woods
neighborhood at 159`x' Avenue NW near Andover Fire Station No. 3.
• Pedestrian crossings of Crosstown Boulevard, particularly at the intersections
with Yellow Pine Street NW and Xeon Street NW, need to be reviewed for
potential safety improvements.
• Round Lake Boulevard NW does not provide consistency through the corridor,
transitioning from four lanes down to two lanes and then back up to four lanes.
Having a consistent corridor would eliminate unnecessary merging and remove a
bottleneck in the City.
• Crosstown Boulevard NW to the east of the Hanson Boulevard NW intersection
does not provide turn lanes, shoulders, and/or by-pass lanes. The Crosstown
Boulevard NW intersections with Yellow Pine Street NW and Bluebird Street
NW are of particular concern due to increasing traffic and development activity.
These elements would improve both safety and capacity of the corridor.
Currently, right turn lanes and by-pass lanes are proposed for construction at
Crosstown Boulevard NW intersections with Yellow Pine Street NW and Avocet
Street NW in 2018.
• The intersection approach on Crosstown Boulevard NW to Crosstown Drive
NW/1390' Avenue NW is a potential concern for sight distance with difficult
viewing angles for turning traffic and the close proximity to emergency
operations related to the adjacent fire station.
9k6u*
- 14- 2040 Transportation Plan
IV. STUDY ELEMENTS ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents results and recommendations for the transportation elements that have been
analyzed during the preparation of this Transportation Plan.
A. Roadway Jurisdiction/MSA Routes
The State of Minnesota, through the gas tax, license fees, and motor vehicle sales tax,
collects funds to be used to construct and maintain the State's transportation system.
Most of the funds collected are distributed for use on the State's Trunk Highway (TH)
system, the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) system and the Municipal State Aid
Street (MSAS) system. The available funds are distributed 62% TH, 29% CSAH and 9%
MSAS. When a city's population goes above 5,000, they become eligible to receive a
portion of the MSAS funding. When this happens, the city develops a State Aid Street
system. The MSAS system can include existing roadways as well as future roadways.
In order to develop the City's State Aid system, the total mileage of all roadways within
the City is computed. The mileage the City can designate for their State Aid system is no
more than 20% of the total roadway mileage. As development occurs and new roadways
are constructed, the total mileage increases, and therefore, the total State Aid mileage will
also increase. Knowing that the mileage will increase in the future, it is wise to plan
where that mileage will be applied.
The City of Andover has an MSAS system in place and has been using State Aid funds
for roadway maintenance and construction. As part of this Transportation Plan, an
updated City collector system has been identified. Generally, the collector roadways are
the routes designated as State Aid Streets. The following section of this plan will look at
the City's existing MSAS system and make recommendations regarding system
revisions. This review will include removing some existing routes, designating new
routes and planning for future designations as the City's State Aid mileage increases.
The following recommendations are based on developing a State Aid system that
provides continuity of all routes through the City. The emphasis is placed on developing
north/south and east/west routes at uniform spacing throughout the City. These routes can
include trunk highways and County Roads, which may not be part of the City's system,
but provide continuity for the traveling public. The proposed and existing State Aid Road
designations are discussed below and are illustrated in Figure 6.
- 15- 2040 Transportation Plan
Nowthen Oak Grove
East
Bethel C I T Y o r
ND OVE
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
L E G E N D
Roadway Jurisdiction
. County State Aid Highway
' \ Municipal State Aid
Designated MSA
Hain Non -Existing Roadway
Lake County Road
City Road
Proposed Turnback to
^� Local Communities
^� Future Turn -Up
to County Roads
�_- Railroad Water
Existing and Propose
Municipal State Aid
Street Designations
Figure 6
* based on Figure "Fig 7-6 and
Tables" from 2030 County Plan
Blaine Revised February 2018
Turnbacks from Anoka County
There are seven County State Aid Highways and County Roads located within the City
that have been discussed as potential tumback routes. Anoka County would release these
roadways into the jurisdiction of the City. When this happens, the City will be allowed to
add these routes to their State Aid system. These routes will be added to the City's
existing state aid mileage, increasing the overall city system. Each year the City will
calculate the total mileage of roadways, take 20% of those miles and then add on the
turnback miles. This process allows a City to take a roadway from a county and receive
additional state aid funding to maintain it. The seven roadways identified by the County
as turnbacks but not acknowledged by the City are:
• County Road 18 (Crosstown Boulevard) (approximately 2.07 miles)
o From Crosstown Drive (County Road 18 extension) to Hanson Boulevard
(CSAH 78)
• County Road 58 (Old Valley Drive/Tulip Street NW) (approximately 3.15 miles)
o From 7`h Avenue (CSAH 7) to 18151 Avenue (County Road 58)
• County Road 58 (181'` Avenue) (approximately 0.49 miles)
o From Tulip Street NW (County Road 58) to Round Lake Boulevard (CSAH 9)
• County Road 158 (1651 Avenue) (approximately 0.66 miles)
o From 7`Avenue (CSAH 7) to Valley Drive (County Road 58)
• CSAH 20 (161" Avenue) (approximately 1.00 miles)
o From Round Lake Boulevard (CSAH 9) to Verdin Street (County Road 59)
• CSAH 18 (Crosstown Boulevard) (approximately 1.71 miles)
o From 161" Avenue (CSAH 20) to Andover -Ham Lake City Line
• County Road 16 (Andover Boulevard) (approximately 1.99 miles)
o From Hanson Boulevard (CSAH 78) to Andover -Ham Lake City Line
These additions would add approximately 11 miles to the City's current MSAS system.
Existing MSA Routes to be Revised
With the existing layout of developments and land usages in Andover, the existing State
Aid routes improve the overall north/south and east/west continuity of the entire roadway
system and provide additional relief to the surrounding arterial roadway system.
However, with the addition of other future collector streets, additional mileage will be
needed to apply to those routes to provide the desired continuity. Routes to be removed
will be analyzed on a year by year basis.
At this point, no routes are proposed to be revised. If routes are to be revised in the
future, there are factors that need to be considered. Prior to removing a route from the
system, the City must determine if State Aid construction funds have been used on that
route over the past 20 years. If so, the City will have to pay back a prorated amount of the
construction funds to remove it from the system. Determining where and when those
funds were spent will be necessary to justify the removal of the MSA designation.
A&6b* - 17- 2040 Transportation Plan
0§2QF
Note: Although the City may plan to designate a future roadway to the State Aid system
as outlined within this plan, this designation does not have to occur immediately. The
City may not have enough mileage to provide for the designation. As the City grows and
road mileage increases, the City will gain additional mileage for the future dedication.
Upon receiving enough mileage, the City can designate a future roadway to the
Municipal State Aid Street system.
Future Municipal State Aid Street Designations
The function of the State Aid street system within the City is to provide for the movement
of vehicles along the heavier volume collector type system to the arterial roadway system
as well as connecting towns, communities, shipping points, parks, recreational areas, and
points of major traffic interest. It also can provide for the movement of vehicles along
non -arterial corridors within the City helping to distribute volumes and provide some
relief to the more heavily used arterial system. It is desirable to designate roadways in a
grid -like pattern to allow for the north/south and east/west movement through the City.
New routes will be analyzed on a year by year basis.
B. Roadway Functional Classification System
The intent of a functional classification system is the creation of a roadway hierarchy that
collects and distributes traffic from local roadways and collectors to arterials in a safe and
efficient manner. Such classification aids in determining appropriate roadway widths,
speed limits, intersection control, design features, accessibility and maintenance
priorities. Functional classification also helps to ensure that non -transportation factors
such as land use and development, are considered in planning and design of the roadway
system.
A balanced system is desired, yet not always attainable due to existing conditions and
characteristics. The criteria of the functional classification system are intended to be
guidelines and are to be applied when plans are developed for the construction or
reconstruction of a given classified route. However, the guidelines may not be strictly
adhered to if the factors involved in a particular situation warrant an alternative approach.
Some roadways, for a short segment, may carry higher volumes than a roadway with a
higher classification. Spacing guidelines may not follow recommendations for a variety
of reasons such as topography, land use type and density, and environmental concerns.
The two major considerations in the classification of roadway networks are access and
mobility. Mobility is of primary importance on arterials. Thus limitation of access is a
necessity. The primary function of a local roadway, however, is the provision of access,
which in turn limits mobility. The extent and degree of access control is a very important
factor in the function of a roadway facility. The functional classification types utilized are
dependent upon one another in order to provide a complete system of streets and
highways.
-18- 2040 Transportation Plan
IT�DgFT
A complete functional design system provides a series of distinct travel movements. Most
trips exhibit six recognizable stages. These stages are as follows:
• Main movement
• Transition
• Distribution
• Collection
• Access
• Termination
As an example, Figure 7 depicts this hierarchy of movement by illustrating a hypothetical
trip using a freeway, which comprises the main movement. When the vehicle leaves the
freeway, the transition is the use of the freeway ramp at a reduced speed. The vehicle
then enters the moderate speed arterial, the distribution function, to travel toward a
neighborhood. From the arterial, the vehicle enters a collection road.
Then a local access road that provides direct approach to the residence or termination
point. Each of the six stages of the trip is handled by a facility designed specifically for
that function. Speeds and volumes normally decrease as one travels through the six stages
of movement.
It must be recognized that all intermediate facilities are not always needed for various trip
types. The character of movement or service that is provided has a function, and these
functions do not act independently. Thus, the number of movements in the travel
categories become consistent with function and the classification of that function.
Principal Arterials
Principal Arterial roadways serve major activity centers, higher traffic volumes, longer
trips and carry a higher proportion of total urbanized travel on a minimum of mileage.
Along these facilities, access needs to be limited in order to preserve the ability of the
roadway to accommodate the volumes and to maximize safety. Spacing varies from 2-3
miles for a fully developed area, 2-6 miles for a developing area, and 6-12 miles in rural
areas. The management criteria require that a 40 mph average speed be achieved during
peak traffic periods. Also, little or no direct land access should be allowed within an
urban area. Grade separated intersections are required for freeways and highly desired for
other principal arterial roadways. Currently, there are no principal arterials within the
City of Andover. Regionally, TH 10, TH 169, County Road 14 (between TH 10 and TH
65) and TH 65 are principal arterials.
-19- 2040 Transportation Plan
DD 04A F
CONSULTING
.SNEERING TRAFFIC FORWARI':
Minor Arterials
Minor Arterial roadways connect the urban service area to cities and towns inside and
outside the region and generally service medium to short trips. Minor Arterials may also
provide an alternate route for congested Principal Arterial roadways. Minor Arterials
connect principal arterials, minor arterials, and connectors. The spacing ranges from Y4 to
5/4 of a mile in metro centers to 1 to 2 miles in a developing area. The desired minimum
average speed during peak traffic periods is 20 mph in fully developed areas and 30 mph
in developing areas.
The emphasis for Minor Arterial roadways is on mobility rather than on land access. hi
urban areas, direct land access is generally restricted to concentrations of
commercial/industrial land uses. Minor Arterials can be broken down further into `A'
Minor and `B' Minor Arterials. `A' Minor Arterials have less emphasis on land access
than `B' Minor Arterials. This allows `A' Minor Arterials to become eligible to compete
for Federal funding. There are currently six `A' Minor Arterial roadways within the City
of Andover:
• Hanson Boulevard NW
• Round Lake Boulevard NW
• Bunker Lake Boulevard NW
• portions of Crosstown Boulevard NW
• portions of 161" Avenue NW.
• Roanoke Street/7t11 Avenue
These `A' Minor Arterial Roadways provide critical connections to the Principal Arterial
and Interregional Corridor systems, which include TH 10, TH 65, TH 169 and County
Road 14 (between TH 10 and TH 65).
Currently, there are two `B' Minor Arterial roadways within the City of Andover:
• 157th Avenue NW (CSAH 20) between County Road 7 and Round Lake
Boulevard NW
• 1615` Avenue NW (CSAH 20) between Round Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 9)
and Hanson Boulevard NW.
These `B' Minor Arterial roadways provide connections to the surrounding cities of Ham
Lake, Oak Grove, Coon Rapids and Ramsey.
Collector Streets
Collector Streets provide more land access than arterials and connections to arterials,
although not in all cases. As is the case with any roadway system, there will always be
exceptions to the planning guidelines that are used to classify a roadway system.
Collectors serve a dual function of accommodating traffic and provision of more access
to adjacent properties. Mobility and land access are equally important and direct land
access should predominately be to development concentrations. For collector streets that
have 2,499 ADT or less, the street would be considered a minor collector street and direct
land access would be allowed. For collector streets that would have ADT's equal to or
larger than 2,500, the street would be considered a major collector and direct land access
AliwA* - 21- 2040 Transportation Plan
DRAFT
would be restricted. Collectors generally connect to minor arterials and serve short trips.
Spacing for collectors ranges from 1/8 to %2 miles in a metro center to '/2 to 1 mile in a
developing area.
In order to provide a network consistent with the spacing guidelines for a developing
area; several local streets throughout the City will need to be reclassified as collectors and
some new collector roadways will need to be constructed. This reclassification could
require the reconstruction of the Local Streets to meet the recommended roadway widths
and design features of a Collector Street. Such reconstruction, when warranted due to
street conditions, may or may not provide a wider street section.
Local Streets
The lowest classification of roadways is the local roadway where access is provided with
much less concern for control, but land service is paramount. Spacing for local streets is
as needed to access land uses. Local roadways generally have lower speed limits in urban
areas and normally serve short trips. Local streets will connect with some minor arterials
but generally connect to collectors and other local streets. The development of local
streets will be guided by the location of the existing and proposed minor arterials and
collectors as well as by development and the expansion of local utilities.
Recommendations
Anoka County and the City of Andover made changes to the functional classification
system since the original transportation plan was approved in 2003. A majority of the
changes have occurred due to the construction of new roads; however, some
modifications have occurred due to turn ups to the county and turn downs to the city. The
proposed functional classification system, which includes proposed, non -existing
roadways, is shown in Figure 8.
C. Projected Traffic Volumes
Two sets of traffic volumes have been prepared, which illustrate 2015/2016 and projected
year 2040 volumes for the City of Andover and are shown in Figure 9.
-22- 2040 Transportation Plan
Nowthen Oak Grove
East
AN
I T1' O FBethelDOVE
Hain
Lake
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
L E G E N D
Existing Roadway
A Minor Arterial e -\i
B Minor Arterial '—\�
Major Collector '-N�
Minor Collector
Proposed Major ,
Collector '
Proposed Minor
Collector
Local
Railroad i Parks
Water '` limits
Long Range Rail/Street
Grade Separation
Proposed Functional
Classication Systems
Figure 8
Revised February 2018 Lam.
Nowthen Oak Grove
Eastc
�66W Bethel N
Ham
Lake
Blaine
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
L E G E N D
Average Daily Volumes
2040 Average Daily Volumes
— MnDOT Traffic -Studied Road
• Major Node - All Roads Split
Minor Node - One Road Split
Other City Roads
City Limits
2015 and Projected 2040
Average Daily Volumes
Figure 9
Revised February 2018
Data Source - MN Dept. of Trans
DAF
Land Use Scenarios
The 2015/2016 Existing volumes are taken directly from counts by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT). MnDOT gathers the raw traffic volumes from
the City and uses minor adjustments, determined by when the count was taken, such as
month and day, to present an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume.
The 2040 projections add 25 years of general traffic growth. Historically, traffic on most
roadways increases over time, with or without specific development on that roadway. The
exception to this is when new roadways or accesses to roadways are constructed. These
new roads draw traffic from surrounding existing roadways and can result in an overall
decrease in daily traffic along some adjacent roads. To account for this general increase
in volume, various factors, such as the State -Aid 20 -year growth factor, historic growth
over the past ten years, roadway location, and importance were examined for the roads in
Andover. The existing and year 2040 projected volumes are shown in Figure 9.
The projected traffic volume information is used to test the ability of the proposed
roadway and land use plan to accommodate the future volumes. For purposes of this
planning analysis, the daily capacity volumes used in the metro areas are as follows:
Two -Lane Roadway with Exclusive Left Tum Lane
- 30 MPH: 10,700 veh/day to 16,100 veh/day
- 45 MPH: 14,300 veh/day to 16,500 veh/day
Four -Lane Roadway with Exclusive Left Turn Lane
- 30 MPH: 22,300 veh/day to 32,200 veh/day
- 45 MPH: 30,200 veh/day to 33,100 veh/day
The planning capacities utilized, put forth by the Highway Capacity Manual 6"' Edition,
will vary due to actual operations along any roadway. Many factors influence the
capacity of a roadway such as number and locations of signals, number of access drives,
roadway alignment, the percentage of trucks on the facility, and other factors. There are
four -lane divided roadways that accommodate 40,000 vehicles per day and two-lane
roadways that have been able to accommodate up to 20,000 vehicles per day. The
capacities used in this analysis are appropriate for planning level reviews.
Most of the roadways in the City should be able to function acceptably as two-lane
facilities as long as good access management is practiced along these arterials and
collector streets.
In most cases, the roadway systems adjacent to the Rural Reserve Area would not need to
be upgraded as long as right and left turn lane improvements are provided to serve the
vehicular demand generated by the increased density considered in the volume
projections. The exception to this is Round Lake Boulevard NW which will need to be a
four -lane roadway under the proposed 2040 volumes. All other roadways in the
immediate area will function acceptably as two-lane roadways including the proposed
east -west and north -south collectors in this area. Tum lane improvements will be needed
to access the Rural Reserve once entrance/egress locations have been identified.
25- 2040 Transportation Plan
DfiQF
Review of the volume projections indicates the expansion of existing transportation
routes to provide four -lane roadways would be appropriate for the following facilities in
Andover:
• Hanson Boulevard NW from 139th Avenue NW/Jay Street NW to Crosstown
Boulevard (Divided) (Proposed for reconstruction in 2019)
• Hanson Boulevard NW from Crosstown Boulevard to 16151 Avenue NW
(Undivided)
• Round Lake Boulevard NW from 152nd Lane NW to 168h Lane NW (Divided)
• Round Lake Boulevard NW from 168`h Lane NW to north City Boundary
(Undivided)
• 7`h Avenue NW from South City Boundary to 157`h Avenue NW (Divided)
• 7`h Avenue NW from 157`h Avenue NW to North City Boundary (Undivided)
Transportation Analysis Zones
The following tables provide existing and projected Population and Employment
Densities by Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) in Andover. Table 1 shows the TAZ based on
the City's zone. This information was prepared using the growth projections of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The most significant population growth by the year 2040 is projected in the eastern side
of the city between Crosstown Boulevard and Andover Boulevard (TAZs 94 and 95). A
significant amount of vacant land is available in this area for residential development
fueling this growth. The most commercial growth will be concentrated in the south-
central portions of the City (TAZs 104 and 99) as well as the Rural Reserve Area (TAZ
84). Figure 10 illustrates the Cities TAZ boundaries.
The interrelationship between land use and transit cannot be overemphasized. Transit
supportive land use patterns, which include directed planning of integrated roadway
systems, careful development for concentrations of rider origins and destinations while
preserving open space and community character, and developing a mix of activities and
uses, is essential to the long-term viability of providing transit as a mobility option for the
residents of Andover.
-26- 2040 Transportation Plan
DRAFT
TAZ
POPULATION
2014
HOUSEHOLDS
2014
EMPLOYMENT
2014
POPULATION
2040
HOUSEHOLDS
2040
EMPLOYMENT
2040
100
2147
719
73
2500
920
190
103
1252
409
67
1280
470
120
104
3
1
969
0
0
1560
105
1662
583
499
1640
590
540
106
1580
480
25
1430
490
30
107
2396
743
292
2190
750
290
108
1552
487
14
1440
490
40
109
0
0
287
0
0
290
74
401
142
0
370
150
60
75
573
192
17
690
270
20
76
456
140
32
350
140
40
77
270
100
19
260
110
30
78
664
223
65
610
240
60
79
569
190
15
530
220
20
80
563
204
12
580
230
10
81
374
106
40
290
120
40
82
2597
856
110
3050
1090
170
83
2856
1034
567
5580
2140
670
84
3135
944
549
5330
2040
710
85
440
140
137
450
160
140
86
670
237
75
760
270
100
87
655
210
240
670
240
240
88
199
70
0
260
90
0
89
412
125
35
350
130
40
90
310
104
0
330
120
0
91
166
52
41
180
60
40
92
338
112
2
560
200
10
93
2826
775
514
3740
1330
540
94
467
151
4
2060
730
10
95
1752
556
40
3960
1400
40
96
690
217
90
660
240
210
99
2611
1025
668
2680
1050
870
TOTALS
34586
11327
5498
44780
16480
7130
Table 1: 2014 and 2040 TAZ Population and Employment CONSULTING
Andover Transportation Plan ENGINEERING TRAFFIC FORWARD
41
--
7$
�
79
86
88
90
76
-
— J�
87
} 77
,�
85;
89 91
81�'.
-L—.—
�L75-1 1
80
—
Andover
92
52 +
93
84
z
54 53
94
82
L 74,
96
106
83
105
107 108
72 97
73
104
103
109
71
A� oka--
98
99_
_100--
—
LEGEND
## - TAZ Number
/N/ - TAZ Boundary
Figure 10: TAZ Boundaries
• . CONSULTING
Andover Transportation Plan
b;NEERING TRAFFIC FORWARD
[jD_ RA, FF
D. Intersection "Hot Spots"
There are 20 intersections considered potential "hot spot" intersections. These
intersections are listed in Chapter III — Existing Conditions section of this report. The
City of Andover recognizes that the traffic conditions at these and other intersections
change over time and, as such, intersection review and analysis needs to occur
approximately every two years.
The intersections controlled by traffic signals include:
• Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 116) and 38`h Avenue
• Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAR 116) and 7`h Avenue NW (CSAH 7)
• Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH It 6) and Round Lake Boulevard NW
(CSAH 9)
• Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH 116) and Crosstown Boulevard NW (CR 18)
• Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (CSAH It 6) and Hanson Boulevard (CSAH 78)
Two intersections, Andover Boulevard NW with Prairie Road NW and Crosstown
Boulevard NW with Prairie Road NW are under all -way stop control. The other
intersections are controlled by stop signs on the minor street(s) approaches.
To determine if improvements need to be made at these intersections, the levels of
service (LOS) will need to be calculated. Level of Service is a measure of how well an
intersection is operating. Normally, for intersections within the greater metropolitan area,
LOS D or better is considered a passing grade. The hierarchy of LOS is defined as
follows:
• Level of Service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually
unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an
unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately
10 seconds or less.
• Level of Service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with
some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a
signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An
misignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for
this level.
• Level of Service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with
significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes.
The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level.
The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15
to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level.
• Level of Service D corresponds to a high-density flow in which speed and
freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable,
reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this
level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an
unsignalized intersection. For most agencies in the Twin Cities area, Level Of
Service D represents the minimum acceptable Level Of Service for regular daily
operations.
AaWA* - 29- 2040 Transportation Plan
IVQF
Level of Service E represents the unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of
the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges
from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for
an unsignalized intersection at this level.
Level of Service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic
approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served.
Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop -and -go waves, poor
travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure.
Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an
unsignalized intersection correspond to this Level of Service.
E. Study Corridors
Additional attention and analysis should be completed on roadway corridors on top of the
earlier mentioned intersection analysis. The corridor analysis should focus on the more
heavily used roadways, discussed in the earlier "Land Use Scenarios section, and result in
consistent and efficient roadways which safely distribute traffic throughout the city while
being able to accommodate the projected traffic volumes and contain an access plan that
will serve future development. Close coordination with the county should be pursued to
ensure consistency of roadways within the City of Andover no matter the ownership of
the corridor.
F. Transit Planning
Transportation Plan Objective number three states that the plan will "Provide multi-
modal transportation options ... whenever and wherever feasible and advantageous."
Different types of transit service—fixed route, deviating fixed route, circulator, dial -a -
ride, vanpooling, and others—are appropriate in different markets. Transit Redesign, a
1996 planning report by the Metropolitan Council, identified five different market areas
based on population and employment densities, concentrations of transit -dependent
individuals, and major travel destinations. Transit Redesign also correlated different types
of transit service with each of these five market areas and established performance
standards for evaluating these services. Transit Redesign focused on the geographic areas
within the Transit Taxing District (TTD). A more recent look at these transit areas was
conducted for the 2040 Transportation Policy Pan update. Shifts in transit funding
sources—from its historic property tax base to a dedicated percentage of revenues from
the statewide Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET)—created an opportunity to explore
transit service outside of the TTD boundary. These opportunities are discussed later in
this plan. It should be noted that the City consistently works with developers to include
transit options into their developments where feasible.
The Transit Market Index is used to determine what the transit needs are for an area
based on a multitude of factors. According to the Transit Market Areas map
approximately the southern 1/2 of Andover falls within "Market Area 4" with the upper
half falling into the "Market Area 5" category. There is also a small section of Andover,
the southeast corner of Bunker Lake Boulevard and Round Lake Boulevard, which is
defined as "Market Area 3". Table 2 provides a description of these areas and the types of
service appropriate to each.
AM%—ft*
- 30- 2040 Transportation Plan
Varies. Potential for local
Freestanding TMI at least Varies. Typically matches community circulator as demand
Town Center 64.0 surrounding Market Area. warrants. Some peak period
commuter express service may
be appropriate
Source: Metropolitan Council; 2040 Transportation Policy Plan
Table 2: Transit Markets and Service Options
ffm
CONSULTING
ENGINEERING TRAFFIC FORWARD
Andover Transportation Plan
Dense network of local routes
with highest levels of service
Market Area I TMI greater
Highest potential for
accommodating a wide variety
than 256.0
transit ridership
of trip purposes. Limited stop
service supplements local routes
where appropriate.
Similar network structure to
TMI between
Approximately 1/2
Market Area I with reduced
Market Area II 128.0 and
ridership potential of
level of service as demand
256.0
Market Area I
warrants. Limited stop services
are appropriate to connect major
destinations.
Primary emphasis is on commuter
Approximately 1/2
express bus service. Suburban
Market Area III TMI between
ridership potential of
local routes providing basic
64.0 and 128
Market Area II
coverage. General public dial -a -
ride complements fixed route in
some cases.
Approximately 1/2
Peak period express service is
TMI between
Market Area IV
ridership potential of
appropriate as local demand
32.0 and 64.0
Market Area III
warrants. General public dial -a -
ride services are appropriate.
Not well-suited for fixed -route
Market Area V TMI less than
Lowest potential for
service. Primary emphasis is
32.0
transit ridership
on general public dial -a -ride
services.
Emerging
Market Varies.
Varies. Typically matches
Varies. Typically matches
Overlay
surrounding Market Area.
surrounding Market Area.
Varies. Potential for local
Freestanding TMI at least Varies. Typically matches community circulator as demand
Town Center 64.0 surrounding Market Area. warrants. Some peak period
commuter express service may
be appropriate
Source: Metropolitan Council; 2040 Transportation Policy Plan
Table 2: Transit Markets and Service Options
ffm
CONSULTING
ENGINEERING TRAFFIC FORWARD
Andover Transportation Plan
DD, F
System Deficiencies
Previous studies have identified the following deficiencies, among others.
• Lack of fixed route services
• Lack of Park -and -Ride facilities
• Lack of Reverse Commute services
Other possible issues, such as the difficulty of access to bus stops or ADA accessibility of
bus stops are not applicable to Andover because of the lack of existing fixed route
service.
Transit Service Improvements
The Metropolitan Council completed a planning document called the "Study of Transit
Service Expansion beyond the Historic Transit Taxing District" (TTD). Eleven
geographic areas comprised of 35 cities and townships were studied outside of the TTD,
one of which was an area combining the cities of Andover and Ramsey. The
Andover/Ramsey study area ranked number one in estimated daily trips with 980 trips
projected to the Minneapolis Central Business District (CBD). However, revising the
geography of the study area to include the cities of Andover, Ham Lake, East Bethel, Oak
Grove, and part of St. Francis, cities feeding into the Highway 10 and Highway 65 travel
shed, would change this number. This revised travel shed should be studied further for its
transit potential.
The type of service proposed is fixed route, morning and afternoon peak, express bus
service into downtown Minneapolis without intermediate stops. This is supported by a
majority of Andover being classified as Market Area 4 in the 2040 TPP update.
While this service would be oriented around Park -and -Ride facilities as its major
ridership generator, it could originate as fixed route feeder -type service with walk-up
boarding at defined stops in higher density residential areas within the City. This would
allow the extension of fixed route services further north into Andover, for example, along
Hanson or Round Lake Boulevards. Whether, and to what distance, these feeder services
are extended into Andover will depend upon the results of more detailed service planning
to establish service frequency and running times to and from downtown Minneapolis.
The viability of these feeder services can be improved by considering the needs of transit
in the overall community development patterns along the corridors and by providing bus
pullouts/stops and trail system connections as part of future roadway improvement
projects.
Due to the cost to the City of Andover for opting into the regional transit system, the City
has elected not to participate.
Transit Facility Improvements
To accommodate the new riders served by the potential express bus services, new Park -
and -Ride lots should be constructed in Andover. Given Andover's location within the
travel shed, and if no new Park -and -Ride facilities are constructed along Highway 10
south of the City, it is likely that at least half of these new riders would need to be
9Wb&R*
- 32- 2040 Transportation Plan
okk4AlFF
accommodated in Park -and -Ride lots within Andover. These riders could be served by
two or three Park -and -Ride locations with 200-300 vehicles per location.
Historically, park and pool activities also increase when dedicated parking facilities are
provided. Therefore, it is likely that the number of vehicles using the Park -and -Ride sites
will be higher than the number of park -and -riders alone. Further, the City could develop
these facilities as park and pool locations now, and add transit service to them in the
future as planning and funding components for transit services are put into place.
Coordination between the City and transit service providers will help to determine
suitable transit facilities and services. As an initial step in reducing single occupant
vehicles and developing transit demand, the City could also promote vanpool programs,
such as those available through Metro Commuter Services.
Park -and -Ride facilities should be located along major commuter routes, such as Round
Lake Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard, in the southern third of the City. If the Bethel
Corridor is developed, or if transit improvements such as bus -only shoulder lanes are
introduced on Highway 65, it may also be advisable to construct a Park -and -Ride along
Bunker Lake Boulevard or Andover Boulevard near the eastern edge of the City. Bus
routing from the Park -and -Ride should offer as many travel time advantages as possible
and should be express service, without intermediate stops, for as much of its length as
possible.
Approximately 3-5 acres of land is desirable at each 200-300 car Park -and -Ride location.
This amount of land area eliminates the need for structured parking, which has
significantly higher costs. For comparison purposes, a surface parking facility with a
transit center building would cost roughly $2 million and $3 million to develop, whereas
a structure parking facility would cost between $5 million and $7.5 million. Setting aside
sufficient land for future Park -and -Rides is clearly desirable from a development cost
standpoint.
The following locations have been discussed as potential Park -and -Ride sites:
At the Andover Station North Ball Field Facility parking lot.
• The church on the corner of Round Lake and Bunker Lake Boulevards NW.
• Wild Iris Park along Bunker Lake Boulevard NW west of Round Lake Boulevard
NW.
G. Trails Planning
The City of Andover has identified the following goals for a comprehensive city-wide
trail system:
• Non -motorized traffic is separated from motor vehicles on collector and arterial
roadways.
• Links are provided between residential, commercial and park areas.
• Parks are accessible.
• Trails are developed in coordination with all surrounding municipalities as well as
Anoka County.
ANN- 33- 2040 Transportation Plan
• The trails shall be developed according to American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards and/or the MnDOT
Bikeway Facility Design Manual.
Where feasible, it is preferable to develop off-road trails, which provide facilities for both
bicyclists and pedestrians. Trails along rivers and through parks and natural areas are
always highly desirable routes if and when they can be attained, as they provide a more
scenic experience for the user. An off-road trail is one that is physically separated from
motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier either within the roadway right of
way or within an independent right of way. According to MnDOT's Bike Facility Design
Manual, the standard width of a shared -use trail that provides for two-way bicycle traffic
and allows for pedestrian use is ten (10) feet. Where traffic volumes are higher, a more
desirable width for a bike path is 12 feet. The City of Andover has slightly lower
pedestrian trail standard widths of eight (8) feet being typical with ten (10) feet being
preferred where possible.
Adequate room is not always available within the existing road right of way for an off-
road trail. Where it is necessary to develop continuous trail segments, the City is
recommended to work with residential developers and owners of commercial
developments to obtain easements in areas where the roadway right of way is not
adequate for a ten (10) or 12 -foot off-road trail, or in areas where the topography does not
allow the trail to be constructed within the existing right of way. It should be noted that
commercial and industrial developments within the City of Andover are required to
construct or pay for any regional trails located adjacent to their property as identified on
the regional trail plan (Figure 11).
In cases where funding or right of way is limited, an on -road bicycle trail can present a
more economical solution. The provision of an on -road bicycle trail can be accomplished
through the restriping of existing roadways or with extra consideration during the design
of a new roadway. Similar to the functional classification of roadways, bikeway facilities
also have a hierarchy of structure. The following classification helps to define the
different facilities available for on -road bicycle trails:
1. Bicycle lanes — One-way bicycle facilities, which travel in the same direction
as adjacent vehicle traffic. Two-way bicycle lanes located together on the
same side of the roadway tend to promote bike travel against the flow of
vehicle traffic. This type of bicycle lane should only be used for short
connections when necessary.
2. Shared Bus/Bicycle Lanes — The grouping together of bicycles and buses may
be considered if the average speed and traffic volumes are low. Currently,
there are no bus routes or lanes in Andover.
AM&b* - 34- 2040 Transportation Plan
•.
ANDOVER^ •
wr
,ice
wTRANSPORTATION
PLAN,
Proposed - • •Trails
--.
_
City
County
•'.Existing
Trails
11:
Roads
:Existin•:.Roadway
•
;•
Existing adway
��.
. Arterial
Major Collector
Minor
Local
Proposed Regional
NTrails
•
Plan
mggmi•"w
�--�
Figure 11equalsi0
0 2,000 4,000 8,000
Feet
Revised February 2018
Dfi?41F
3. Shared Lanes — Shared lanes consist of roadways with no special provisions
for bicyclists. Shared lanes generally require vehicles to cross the center lane
in order to pass bicyclists. These types of lanes are usually not signed and can
be used in residential areas that have low traffic volumes and speeds of less
than 30 -mph.
4. Widened curb, wide outside lanes or shoulders — Located adjacent to the
outermost through traffic lane, experienced bicyclists who are not intimidated
by high traffic volumes and speeds generally use this type of facility.
Shoulders may be utilized by average experience cyclists depending upon the
speed and amount of traffic on the adjacent roadway.
5. Local roadways — Typical urban local or collectors can be used as routes for
bicyclists and pedestrians. Traffic calming can be implemented to reduce the
speed of motor vehicles. However, given the City's stated goals, non -
motorized traffic should be separated from motorized traffic along collectors.
The City trail system includes county regional trails, City multi -use trails, and school -
walk routes. A distinction can also be made between pedestrian/commuter trails and
recreational trails. Pedestrian/commuter trails generally connect residential areas to
commercial, retail or school facilities. Pedestrian/commuter trails tend to follow collector
and arterial roadways, used by motor vehicle commuters, since the users of these trails
seek out the most direct path to their destination. An example of a pedestrian/commuter
trail is the existing trail along the arterial roadway, Bunker Lake Boulevard NW, which
connects several local streets to schools, parks, and businesses.
Conversely, recreational trails tend to be off-road trails, which connect residential areas
to parks, natural areas or greenway corridors. Recreational trails can provide a connection
between parks and neighborhoods, and can meander within parks. Recreational trails
often do not travel a direct route and are often located along rivers and streams or
contained within parks and greenway corridors. The existing trail system along Coon
Creek is a good example of a recreational trail, as it is entirely off-road and follows
scenic Sand and Coon Creek through wooded areas of the City and adjacent cities.
Dividing the trails into these two categories can help to determine from where the
appropriate funding should be derived.
A main goal of the trail plan is to link together the major pedestrian generators in the City
such as schools, parks and commercial development. Additionally, trails can be a vital
link to transit facilities. Some municipal trails are proposed for development. Additional
trails, which should be considered, include municipal trails along existing and proposed
collectors providing east/west and north/south connections throughout the City. The
current lack of east/west trails in the northern half of the City is related to the availability,
or lack thereof, of roadways. Based on the recommended Functional Classification of the
roadways in that section of the City, however, a network of east/west-traveling roadways
will be developed in the future as Andover's population and roadway system grow. The
construction of trails as part of these roadway projects should be considered as the area
develops further and should be discussed with developers utilizing the land. Trails should
also be developed along a number of sub -collector roadways to provide links between the
Asiwb* - 36- 2040 Transportation Plan
overall trail system and City parks. Again, Figure II illustrates the proposed regional
trails network throughout the City.
Trail crossing locations along collectors and arterials should be carefully considered to
maximize trail user safety. Some trails within the City that switch from one side of the
roadway to the other. Examples include trails along Bunker Lake and Hanson Boulevards
NW. Appropriate solutions, be they signed crosswalks, signals, or grade separated
crossings, should be developed for each crossing location. It is worth noting that when a
trail or pedestrian crossing is being considered or requested at any location within the
City, a traffic engineering study at the direction of the City Council may be required to
determine if criteria and warrants are met. Trail or pedestrian crossings should be
concentrated to controlled intersections (traffic signal or stop sign controlled). Trail or
pedestrian crossing located at unexpected entries (such as mid -block crossings) will not
be encouraged or recommended especially on higher speed routes.
School walking routes have been developed in cooperation with the Anoka -Hennepin
school district to handle safety concerns. These concerns have increased due to the
discontinuation of bus service to students living within 2 miles of a school. Many of these
walking routes follow existing trails or sidewalks. Several of the school walking routes
follow the sidewalks or trails along existing arterial and collector roadways. The City
should provide a continuous connection along the arterial and collector roadways to
support walking routes.
The method of funding the City's Regional Trail System includes the City's Trail Fund,
Municipal State Aid Funds, as well as some available grants, which will be discussed
later. Trails not identified on the proposed Regional Trail Plan are considered internal
trails to specific developments. These trails are to be funded by the developer and
included as part of the platting and infrastructure improvements.
H. Rail Crossing Safety
The issue with rail crossings over public streets in Andover is one of delay caused to
vehicular traffic when trains are at the crossings. Flashers and gates currently control all
of the existing crossings.
The delays, whether excessive or not, can be caused by the length of trains, train speeds,
and the number of trains per day. The presence of a switching operation will also add to
the incurred delay. Since rail traffic and length of trains has increased during the past few
years, the problem of vehicular delay to motorists is one experienced in many cities. The
only short-term action that would be advisable is to continue dialogue with the
owners/operators of the rail system to ensure that all is being done to minimize the length
of time crossings are blocked. A long-term solution is the provision of grade -separated
crossings for the present rail/roadway at -grade crossings. Such crossings are, obviously,
solutions that take a long time to implement. However, the approvals process needs to
begin to have a hope of realizing such improvements. Another option is to request that
the railroad move the switching operation to a less populated area.
AWMR*
- 37- 2040 Transportation Plan
For purposes of the transportation plan, future grade -separated crossings are being
recommended for the Bunker Lake Boulevard NW rail crossing. Bunker Lake Boulevard
NW has year 2040 volume projections up to 27,700 in some sections. Bunker Lake
Boulevard NW is under the jurisdiction of Anoka County so the City should work with
the County for this beneficial improvement.
I. Air
Andover is not directly affected by any of the area's airports. Therefore, no
recommendations are deemed to be necessary with regard to the Transportation Plan.
I Access Management
The management of access along roadway systems, particularly arterial and collector
roadways is a very important component of maximizing the capacity of a roadway and
decreasing the accident potential along those facilities. Arterial roadways have a function
of accommodating larger volumes of traffic and often at higher speeds. Therefore, access
to such facilities must be limited in order to protect the integrity of the arterial function.
Collector roadways provide a link from local streets to arterial roadways and are designed
to provide more access to local land uses since the volumes and speeds are often less than
arterial roadways.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) reports that studies have shown
that as the density of accesses increase, whether public or private, the traffic carrying
capacity of the roadway decreases and the vehicular crash rate increases. Businesses
suffer financially on roadways with poorly designed access. Well-designed access to
commercial properties supports long-term economic vitality.
As with many transportation -related decisions, land use activity and planning are integral
parts of the creation of a safe and efficient roadway system. Land use decisions have a
major impact on the access conditions along the roadway system. Every land use plan
amendment, subdivision, rezoning, conditional use permit, or site plan involves access
and creates a potential impact to the efficiency of the transportation system. Properties
have access rights, and good design will minimize the negative effect on the roadway
system. Access management is a combination of good land use planning and effective
design of access to the property.
The granting of access in the City of Andover is shared by the City and by Anoka
County, with each having the permitting process responsibility for roadways under their
jurisdiction. The City, working with the County, produces access spacing quality to
balance the benefits to the traveling public and developments. To strengthen the goal of
good access management, a set of access spacing guidelines has been prepared which is
intended for use in the access permitting process.
I "Toward An Access Classification System and Spacing Guidelines," Technical Study No. 4, MnDOT, February 1999.
9k6b*- 38- 2040 Transportation Plan
%2IA4�Tr
The guidelines are presented for functionally classified arterial and collector roadways
without reference to the jurisdiction over these roadways. The basic references for the
spacing guidelines are the Anoka County Highway Department Access Spacing
Guidelines which closely references the MnDOT Access Management Manual. However,
additional restrictions have been implemented by the city since the last plan. One addition
to the access spacing guidelines is the allowance of direct driveway access onto City -
owned minor collectors while not onto major collectors. Major collectors, defined as
having daily traffic volumes of 2,500 vehicles or higher, will then hold more of a focus
on mobility, while minor collectors, which carry 2,499 vehicles a day or less, focus more
toward access.
The access guidelines are presented in Table 5, which follows. The stated values are
meant to be "minimum" values. It is also recognized that some existing connections, both
public and private, may not meet these guidelines. Due to various circumstances, access
may need to be granted that cannot adhere to these guidelines. The following table does
not provide guidelines regarding access along Principal Arterials because there are no
roadways functionally classified as Principal Arterials in the City of Andover.
TABLE 5
ACCESS SPACING GUIDELINES
CITY OF ANDOVER
Functional
Class
Median
Treatment
Existing &
Proposed
Land Use
Typical
Posted
Speed
MPH
Full
Median
Opening
Spacing
Miles
Minimum
Signal
Spacing
Miles
Spacing
Between
Connections
Feet 1
Minor
Divided
Rural
55
1/2
1/2
1320
Urban > 40 1/4 1/4
660
Urban Core <40 1/8 1/4
300-660
Arterial
Undivided
Rural
55
NA
1/2
1320
Urban >40 NA 1/4
660
Urban Core < 40 NA 1/4
300-660
Collector
Divided
Rural
55
1/2
1/2
1320
Urban >40 1/8 1/4
330-660
Urban Core <40 1/8 1/8
330-660
Undivided
Rural
55
NA
1/2
1320
Urban > 40 NA 1/4
330
Urban Core <40 NA 1/8
330
NA — Not Applicable
(1) Distances are based upon the spacing between connections (major roads, local
public streets, and private driveways).
(1) Distances are minimum, and greater spacing is beneficial.
(1) Minor Arterials and Major collectors should not provide direct access to driveway
-39- 2040 Transportation Plan
K. Traffic Calming
Traffic calming is a popular way of addressing various traffic aspects on residential
streets. It allows interested citizens to voice their opinions on what they don't like, and to
suggest improvements. Traffic calming can be a viable approach to decreasing volume
and speed problems on residential streets. Residential traffic calming and traditional
neighborhood designs are tools that can be used to help address the complex demands for
more livable communities. The goal of moving traffic efficiently and safely and, at the
same time, providing more "comfort" in our communities is bringing together the many
various elements used when analyzing roadways. This concept of bringing together
various transportation planning and design features is called harmonization.
Available Traffic Calming Techniques
Many residential street traffic -calming techniques being used throughout the United
States to varying degrees of success. This segment of the Transportation Plan will discuss
available techniques and their levels of success.
A wide range of traffic calming techniques have been used over the years. They range
from physical changes to the roadway system to traffic control techniques using signage
and/or pavement markings. A list of the various "traffic calming" techniques is listed
below. A brief description of each technique follows. Graphic illustrations of some of
these techniques are contained with the description.
Physical changes to the street include:
•
Street narrowing
•
Curvilinear street
•
Choker
•
Chicane
•
Traffic circle
•
Protected parking bays
•
Street closure
• Diagonal diverter
• Semi-diverter
• Trumpet island
• Streetscape material or landscape plantings
Traffic control techniques include:
• Police enforcement (Placement of speed trailer)
• Marked crosswalks
• Tum restrictions
• Speed watch program
• One-way streets
• Variable -speed display board
• Vehicle restrictions
-40- 2040 Transportation Plan
Street Changes
Street Narrowing — A street can be narrowed one of two ways — The street width can be
reduced by removing some of the pavement surface, or a psychological narrowing can be
accomplished by using a white pavement edge line that indicates narrower travel lanes.
Street narrowing may minimize or eliminate street parking, compromise bicycle safety,
and affect emergency vehicle response times. On the plus side, street beautification can
accompany street narrowing projects. Pavement markings can play a dual role by also
identifying bike lanes.
Choker — A choker narrows the width of the traveled
lanes. A choker can be constructed at an intersection
or mid -block locations.
Curvilinear Street — The construction or
reconstruction of an existing street can be done in a
curvilinear fashion that, in theory, slows traffic. This
can be done with a curved centerline alignment and a
uniform roadway width or through the use of chokers
and alternative side barriers.
Chicane — Like the choker, the chicane narrows the
street, mid -block, by construction curb bulbs that are
staggered, thus creating a serpentine effect along the
traveled lanes.
Traffic Circle — A traffic circle is a raised island
placed in the intersection of local streets. The island,
approximately 20 feet in diameter, deflects the path of
through traffic around the island, slowing traffic
speeds. These traffic circles must be carefully
designed, so the desired objective of slowing traffic is
achieved without compromising safety.
Choker
1ne trattic circle is ditterent than a tratnc roundabout. Chicane
Roundabouts, popular in Europe, and becoming
increasingly more popular in the United States are
normally used on higher volume roadways and involve different design elements.
-41- 2040 Transportation Plan
Median Island — A median island, or barrier, is a
method of eliminating through traffic and left turns
to/from one street of an intersection. Routes for traffic
that would be diverted must be carefully analyzed so
the problem being solved isn't merely shifted to another
location. Emergency vehicle access must be carefully
analyzed when considering this geometric technique.
Protected Parking Bays — Narrowing a street to provide
protected parking bays can slow traffic. The extent to
which traffic is slowed depends on the width of the
lanes that remain for moving traffic.
Median Island
/ )%D 1,FF
Street Closure — One effective way to reduce traffic volumes on a local street is closing
that street at an intersection, normally with a cul-de-sac. A detailed analysis of where
diverted traffic will go needs to be completed to avoid introducing new and possibly
unwanted traffic on an adjacent street. The effect of such a closure must also be analyzed
from an emergency vehicle access standpoint. While a street study and/or closure can be
accomplished as a single action, it is normally part of a
larger scale, areawide analysis, and control project.
Diagonal Diverter — The diagonal diverter, placed at
the intersection of two local streets, prohibits through
and left -turn traffic. This diverter is normally a raised
barrier that can be landscaped. The diverter can be
successful in reducing "cut -through" traffic in
neighborhoods. As with previous devices, an areawide
treatment is normally the best practice. Care has to be
exercised so emergency vehicle response times are not
significantly affected.
Semi-Diverter — This partial diverter narrows a two-
way street at an intersection so that only one direction of
travel is allowed. The semi-diverter can be designed to
eliminate either entering or exiting traffic.
Trumpet Island (right turn diverter) — This raised island,
placed on any leg of an intersection, allows for right
turns in/out for a particular roadway. A trumpet island is
normally used in situations where left turns and through
traffic are safety concerns. Traffic volumes are usually
reduced with this device.
Semi-uiuerter
X
Trumpet Island
Streetscape Material or Landscape Plantings — This is
another beautification option that could affect traffic speed. The design concept/type
provides the illusion that the street is narrower, causing drivers to slow down.
\�(,42- 2040 Transportation Plan
Traffic Control Techniques
Police Enforcement — Increasing the use of radar to curb speeding can be an effective
control tool — if it is administered consistently. However, radar can be costly, and
assigning officers to this lower -priority task is often difficult. Though productive for the
short-term, sporadic enforcement, or removing enforcement after a period of time, will
result in speeds creeping back up over time.
One -Way Streets — Converting a pair or series of streets to one-way operations has safety
benefits and causes a shift in traffic volumes. One-way pairs, alternating one -ways, or
divergent/convergent one -ways create benefits, but can be a problem for certain local
users as they can cause increased driving distances to arrive at their residences. Detailed
analyses should be conducted before this concept is implemented.
Stop Signs — Stop signs should only be installed where warranted and as the result of an
engineering analysis. Stop signs are not recommended for use as a speed control device.
Removing stop signs, when warranted as part of an engineering study, can be as sensitive
as installing one.
Marked Crosswalks — Painted crosswalks direct pedestrians to a crossing location that is
judged safe for them and, equally important, visible to vehicular traffic. Crosswalks only
need to be painted where pedestrian traffic is high, such as near parks and schools.
Variable Speed Disnlay Board — The speed display unit, or trailer, uses radar to record
and display a motorist's speed, along with the posted limit. Motorists do respond to this
technique, but results may be short-term with speeds creeping back up over time. This
use of the speed display unit should be repeated periodically to gain maximum
effectiveness. Tum Restrictions — Tum Restrictions (no left turn, no right turn) along
major streets at residential street intersections can be an effective technique for reducing
neighborhood "cut -through" traffic. Such turn restrictions are usually posted for the peak
traffic hours. Since this is not a physical deterrent, there are usually some, albeit minimal,
violations.
Vehicle Restrictions — Restricting vehicles, namely trucks, from certain streets is often
the result of citizen complaints. Trucks are important to the economic viability of the
area. The City has designated streets upon which trucks are allowed daily travel.
Explaining the impetus behind the truck route layout may satisfy a citizen's concerns
when complaints are lodged.
Sneed Alert/Watch Programs — This program allows residents to become a part of the
solution. Under this program, citizens are trained to operate radar units by law
enforcement personnel. One person runs the radar unit while another records speed and
vehicle information. Speeders are then sent letters by the police department pointing out
their recorded speed and asking them to slow down. In many cases, the speeders are area
residents.
9wwj*
- 43- 2040 Transportation Plan
Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Techniques
Traffic calming techniques are being used on residential streets throughout Minnesota
and the United States with varying success. In some cases, projects that had been
installed have been subsequently removed, often at the request of the same people who
requested the calming technique in the first place. Much research is still needed to
determine the expected effects of these various control and geometric elements. Most
research on the effects of these residential street -calming efforts has been project specific.
Data and research on this topic are still in its infancy.
Some of the benefits anticipated for a specific project are based on engineering judgment,
but need to be verified. This will occur as more research is undertaken. However, some
case studies have identified benefits to certain projects, often reported as an
"enhancement to the street environment." These statements can be interpreted to mean
residents are experiencing a feeling of improved safety, street "livability," and an overall
improvement in their perceived quality of life.
There have been efforts, in research and project reporting studies, to indicate the types of
improvements that can be expected when certain traffic calming techniques are used.
These expectations are based on first-hand experience and subjective analysis.
In 1996 — 1997, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Minnesota Local
Road Research Board sponsored a research study' that examined the extent of traffic
calming activity in Minnesota and the degree of actual and perceived success of such
projects. Effectiveness was rated as:
• Highly Effective
• Effective
• Slightly Effective
• Uncertain of Effectiveness
• Not Effective
The study rated the effect of the project type on four different elements:
• Vehicle Speeds
• Traffic Volumes
• Street Safety
• Enhancing Perceived Street Environment
Table 6, which follows, present the results of these ratings.
' Traffic Calming Activity in Minnesota, LRRB, SRF Consulting Group, December 1997.
Awab*
- 44- 2040 Transportation Plan
TABLE 6
Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures on Vehicle Speeds, Traffic Volumes, Street
Safetv, and Enhancement to the Perceived Street Environment
Traffic Calming Measures
Highly
Effective
Effective
Slightly
Effective
Uncertain of
Effectiveness
Not
Effective
Street Width Adjustments:
Street Narrowing 0 0— • - °
Choker 0 0 • - °
Median Island 0 0 - • -13
On -Street Angled Parkin 0 - 0 • - °
Protected Parking Bas o - ° - 0 •
Traditional Traffic Control Techniques:
Vehicle Restrictions • - ° - 0 0
Turn Restrictions • 0 ° o
One -Way Streets • 0 - ° - 0
Variable -Speed Display Board 0 ° • - 0
Trumpet Island • - ° 0 - 0
Marked Crosswalks 0 0 - ° •
Stop Signs ° 0-0-0
Vertical or Horizontal Realignments:
Speed hump or bum o - •
0 °
Traffic Circle o - 0
• °
Chicane
0-0-m-0
Route Modifications:
Street Closure cul-de-sac • ° - 0
0
Dia onal Diverter • o - 0
°
Semi-Diverter • 0
° o
Perceptual Enhancements:
Change in Road Surface,
Materials, or Color
0
•
o
°
Streetscape Materials or
Landscape Plant in s
0
0 - • - °
Legend:
o — Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures on Vehicle Speeds
• — Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures on Traffic Volumes
° - Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures to Improve Street Safety
0 — Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures for Enhancing Perceived Street
Environment
9wws*
- 45-
2040 Transportation Plan
nnnn'n
A document prepared in 1994 by the North Central Section of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (NCITE) contained an evaluation of the effects of various
traffic engineering and traffic calming techniques. The units of measure were weighed
against a variety of elements and rated for their effect — low, mid or high. The
engineering/calming techniques were called a "tool box." Table 7 on the following page
presents the ratings from the report.
'Neighborhood Traffic Control, North Central Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, January 1994
AWMR*
- 46- 2040 Transportation Plan
r— -
TABLE 7
North Central Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Ratings Evaluation
Engineering/
Calming Technique>
a+
9
Cn �
�
0 a+
o:
v
V) U
N
W >
N
4. q0
O
"-1
q
U >
U
Truck Restrictions
o
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
o
Increased
Enforcement
0
•
0
0
0
0
o
n/a
•
o
Speed Watch
o
•
0
0
0
0
o
n/a
•
o
Variable Speed
Display
0
•
0
0
0
0
o
n/a
•
0
Watch for Children
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
n/a
•
0
Pavement Markings
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
n/a
•
o
Street Narrowing
o
o
a
0
0
0
o
n/a
o
a
Turn Restrictions
•
o
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
Private Streets
o
0
0
•
o
•
o
n/a
o
•
Basket Weave Stop
Signs
o
o
•
0
0
0
0
0
•
o
Yield Signs
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
p
•
0
Do Not Enter
o
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
Speed Limit
Changes
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
o
Parking Restrictions
o
o
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
All Way Stop
0
c
o
0
0
0
0
0
•
o
One Way Streets
c
o
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Sign Removal
0
0
0
•
0
0
o
n/a
•
o
Chokers
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
n/a
•
•
Partial Diverters
o
0
0
0
•
•
0
0
0
•
Street Closure
o
•
o
•
•
•
•
n/a
o
•
Full Diverters
o
0
0
0
•
•
•
n/a
o
•
Traffic Circles
o
o
c
o
o
•
a
n/a
o
•
Median Barriers
•
0
•
0
•
•
o
n/a
o
0
Speed
Bumps/Humps
o
•
0
0
0
•
n
n/a
o
0
Curvilinear
Reconstruction
n
o
0
0
0
0
o
n/a
o
•
o Low, Unlikely, No
o Mid, Moderate, Possible
• High, Likely, Yes
0 Shift
SOURCE: Neighborhood Trak Control. NCITE, January 1994
47- 2040 Transportation Plan
u
V. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES
Northstar Corridor and Bethel Corridor, Commuter Rail
Overpasses and underpasses for rail lines
The Northstar Corridor is a 40 -mile transportation corridor, which runs along Hwy 10
and Hwy 47 from Minneapolis to Big Lake. The Northstar Corridor was identified by
MnDOT and is included in the Metropolitan Council's Master Regional Transit Plan as a
transit investment around the region. Northstar Commuter Rail Stations in the Northeast
suburbs include Elk River (east of TH 169 and north of TH 10), Anoka (north of TH 10
between TH 47 and TH 288) and Coon Rapids (at the Foley Park -and -Ride and along
Northdale Boulevard south of Riverdale Commons). In 2016, the Northstar provided
more than 711,000 rides at rates ranging from six (6) dollars in Big Lake to three (3)
dollars in Fridley during the week and $5.25 in Big Lake to $2.50 in Fridley on the
weekend.
Commuter
System
High Spood
Service to
Milwaukoo
Chicago
Detrolt
Cleveland
Cincinnati
St Louis
and more.
-48- 2040 Transportation Plan
Click on nR
Station location
for Anal View
with Slallon Plan
Oplab
k-, i / l:rr i l01
lY / �•
rn.roa.i cwYcv.� y
YM aMWtYO ..
Legend
' SuGontocala.
Npllntu ital
� .'N.•f I1J 1N.
Northstar Corridor
t41dq N+tlaA
oe.a�•s c.
I,
s
The Bethel corridor is a tentative commuter rail corridor, which runs north/south from the
City of Bethel to Coon Rapids where it ties into the Northstar corridor. A study
performed by MnDOT on the feasibility of commuter rail corridors in the Twin Cities
found the Bethel Corridor to be feasible as a tier two corridor, which means that it could
support potential commuter rail service. It is anticipated that tier two corridors will be
implemented after 2020. The City of Andover is recommended consider the potential for
this rail line as the City continues to develop. This may include selecting locations with
urban housing, community centers, etc. near the existing rail line. If the existing rail line
becomes the location for the future commuter rail corridor, the infrastructure should
complement the use of that facility. At this point, the most appropriate location for a rail
station appears to be near the BNSF railway and Bunker Lake Boulevard NW
intersection in the southwest quadrant, which is currently owned by Anoka County.
The Northstar Corridor and the proposed Bethel Corridor are part of a commuter rail
system that will be integrated with other forms of transportation such as LRT, bus transit,
bicycles, and pedestrians. Due to the construction of these commuter rail lines, the City
of Andover may experience an increase in bus transit, which may require the construction
of new Park -and -Rides within the City. Also, increased demand for pedestrian and
9Wj*
-49- 2040 Transportation Plan
Fg'r1 I -I
bicycle transit may occur, requiring the construction of more trails, walkways, and
pedestrian provisions through the City.
With the Northstar Commuter Rail Corridor constructed, Anoka County is providing free
shuttle services between the Fridley Northstar Commuter Rail station and large
employers within two miles of the station.
Regional Trails
Existing regional trails through the City of Andover include the Bunker Hills Regional
Trail, which travels through Bunker Hills Regional Park in the SE corner of Andover and
the Central Anoka County Regional Trail, which travels east/west through the southern
section of the City of Andover. The Rum River Regional Trail is also proposed by Anoka
County to travel north/south along County Road 7 through the City. The Coon Creek
Trail travels cast/west along Coon Creek and connects to the Bunker Hills Regional Trail.
Additions to both of these regional trails are currently proposed by Anoka County. With
the construction of regional trails comes Andover's opportunity to connect existing
municipal trails to the larger system.
Mississippi River Crossing
MnDOT is currently studying the existing Mississippi River Crossings and has
determined that both the Hwy 101 and the Hwy 169 crossings are congested. Various
locations are being investigated for an additional river crossing. MnDOT's goal is to have
the additional river crossing constructed sometime after 2018. One location being
considered includes a crossing from the City of Ramsey to the City of Dayton. Due to the
construction of this new river crossing, the City of Andover could expect to see more
commuters heading west to cross the river and then south into Minneapolis and St. Paul.
MnDOT is currently looking to preserve the right-of-way for this project.
As part of this project, it is anticipated that MnDOT will need to address how this
crossing connects to the transportation system to the north. The crossing could potentially
connect to TH 169 or TH 47 to the north. This may provide a TH 169 "bypass" around
Elk River or a realignment of TH 47 away from Anoka. Anoka County will also be
reviewing the function of CSAH 22 and how it relates to the new river crossing as well as
its function as an east/west connection for the northern Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro Area.
TH 47 (Preservation Route)
A preservation route is a section of Trunk Highway (TH) that has been categorized as
MnDOT's highest investment priority. This category involves the repair and replacement
of pavement and bridges, and repair of miscellaneous infrastructure. Funding is provided
to preserve the existing infrastructure and not for other improvements even though they
may be warranted. MnDOT has categorized TH 47 as a preservation route. TH 47 was
recently reconstructed through the City or Ramsey as late as 2016. MnDOT recognizes
the deficiencies on TH 47 within the City of Anoka. However, there are no plans for any
major improvements in the near future. MnDOT and Anoka County will review the
needed improvements and future alignment of TH 47 as discussions continue concerning
the potential turn back of the roadway to Anoka County.
AMWA* - 50- 2040 Transportation Plan
/o�It L1AFT
CSAH 14 (Management Route)
A Management Route is MnDOT's second highest investment priority category. This
type of route involves preservation strategies, transportation system management, access
management, jurisdictional reassignment and corridor preservation. As the first step in
developing an Access Management Plan, Anoka County prepared an Access
Management Study for CSAH 14 between TH 10 and I -35W. It was determined that
CSAH 14 is the best east/west corridor through southern Anoka County. However, most
trips on CSAH 14 were short as travelers used the corridor to access north/south
roadways. It was also discovered that the number of access points along this corridor of
CSAH 14 is more than double the MnDOT guideline for an urban principal arterial
facility.
Safety issues were identified as well as problems with congestion. Results of the study
indicated that widening the corridor and making intersection improvements would
minimize future traffic delays and congestion. To accomplish this goal, it was
recommended this segment of CSAH 14 be reconstructed as a four -lane divided urban
facility with left and right turn lanes. This would restrict access points and thereby reduce
the number of conflicts.
Since MnDOT considers CSAH 14 a management corridor, improvements such as turn
lanes, frontage roads, signal timing and access changes may receive state and regional
funding. The mentioned upgrades were completed Fall 2016, and CSAH 14 has returned
to being fully operational.
TH 65 (Management Route)
TH 65 is a MnDOT Management Route and may receive state and regional funding for
improvements such as tum lanes, signal timing, and access closures or modifications.
MnDOT will be providing signal system upgrades at Hwy 65 at 105`h Avenue in Blaine.
MnDOT, Anoka County, and Blaine will continue to discuss the future of TH 65. These
discussions include defining potential funding sources for future improvements.
Currently, TH 65 is proposed to be a 6 -lane divided highway from north of TH 10 to
either CSAH 14 or Ham Lake.
MnDOT completed a Traffic Operations Study in 2000 for TH 65 from 53rd Avenue to
245th Avenue within Anoka County. Computer modeling was completed for
intersections along this segment of TH 65. It was found that 22 intersections along the
study corridor would be operating at unacceptable levels in 2020 if only the programmed
improvements were performed on TH 65. The recommendations in the traffic operations
study include access eliminations to increase intersection spacing, dedicated turn lanes to
increase the cross street capacity, and additional through lanes in some areas to increase
the intersection capacity. Some of these improvements are proposed for construction with
the reduction of conflict intersections from Bunker Lake Boulevard to 245`h Avenue by
lengthening left turn lanes at intersections between 85`h Avenue, Blaine Road, and Sims
Road. This work is projected to begin in 2018.
AM&*- 51- 2040 Transportation Plan
CSAH 116 (Management Route)
CSAH 116 received Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding in 2011. These
resources were used to widen and reconstruct the roadway between Crane Street and
Jefferson Street, roughly 2.3 miles of total roadway. Additional roadway upgrades
included in this project were:
• Intersection upgrades including tum lane additions and shoulder upgrades.
• Pedestrian facility upgrades through trail construction.
• Bus/truck pull-out lanes at the BNSF railroad crossing.
The above-mentioned construction was started in April 2017 and substantially completed
November 2017.
TH 10 (Interregional Corridor)
An Interregional Corridor (IRC) is described as a route that connects regional trade
centers within Minnesota. These corridors are only two percent of all roadway miles in
the state. However they account for one-third of all vehicle miles traveled. These
corridors receive priority for management investment funds as well as improvement and
expansion funding. TH 10 is categorized as a management investment, but is also part of
the Interregional Corridor System and is eligible for IRC funds.
In August 2014, MnDOT completed an Access Planning Study for TH 10 from the
Anoka/Sherbume County line to the Rum River. The studies goals were to:
• Identify high -benefit, lower-cost improvements along Highway 10.
• Recommend improvements at a scale that can be funded and maintained.
• Prioritize investment recommendations for incremental implementation.
From these goals, 20 smaller projects were determined grouped into current, immediate,
short-term, mid-term, and opportunity -driven priorities. The current priority was the
reconstruction of the Highway 10 and Armstrong Boulevard intersection, which has been
completed. Immediate priorities focused on increasing safety and mobility, such as the
removal of the Fairoak Avenue traffic signal, removal of nearly 40 access points, and
greater utilization of existing grade separation of Highway 10. The short-term priorities
are more expensive projects which require more time to mature. The mid-term priorities
would remove the Ramsey Boulevard and Sunfish Lake Boulevard traffic signals.
Finally, the opportunity -driven priorities are projects that do not have an immediate need
for construction but would provide additional grade separation and access closures
increasing mobility along Highway 10.
In May 2002, MnDOT completed a Management Study/Plan for TH 10 from TH 24 in
Clear Lake to I -35W in Mounds View and Arden Hills. Geometric and capacity
deficiencies were studied along the length of the corridor. Segments through Anoka and
Ramsey were among the segments with the greatest number of deficiencies. Congestion
during peak hours was determined to stretch from Coon Rapids to Elk River. A major
concern is the number of existing and potential signalized intersections along the
corridor. Identified alternatives including increasing the number of through lanes along
TH 10 or increasing the efficiency of the existing through lanes by converting from an
AaNR* - 52- 2040 Transportation Plan
r
expressway to a freeway design. A freeway design would require the elimination of local
road intersections and access points and the conversion of at -grade signalized
intersections to grade -separated interchanges.
The study included the following alternatives for the Anoka County area:
Elk River: Convert the existing 4 -lane arterial to a 6 -lane arterial or a 4 or 6 -lane
freeway or construct a 4 -lane freeway bypass north of the City.
Ramsev: Convert the existing 4 -lane expressway to either a 6 -lane expressway or a 4
or 6 -lane freeway.
Anoka: Convert the existing 4 -lane expressway to a 4 or 6 -lane freeway.
Coon Rapids: Widen the present 4 -lane freeway to a 6 or 8 -lane freeway.
This list of alternatives was evaluated, and a list of potential projects was developed.
Portions relevant to the Andover/Anoka County area include a project in Ramsey
converting TH 10 from TH 169 to Sunfish Lake Boulevard to a 6 -lane freeway, and a
project in Anoka converting TH 10 from Sunfish Lake Boulevard to Round Lake
Boulevard to a 6 -lane freeway. It was also recommended that TH 10 from Round Lake
Boulevard south to I -35W be converted to an 8 -lane freeway as part of two different
projects. Improvements to this corridor need to consider the Northstar Commuter Rail
and related bus transit activities and facilities.
Some intersection/interchange improvements have been started and are in various stages
of completion. The interchange at Round Lake Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard has
been completed.
TH 169 (Interregional Corridor)
TH 169 has been classified by MnDOT as an interregional corridor. This corridor is
eligible to receive priority for management investment funds as well as improvement and
expansion funding. MnDOT has also identified this corridor as an at -risk, high-priority
interregional corridor. As of October 2017, the following work has been completed:
• Replacing the Highway 169 bridge over Nine Mile Creek.
• Reconstruction of more than six (6) miles of pavement between Highway 55 and
Highway 62.
• Construction of acceleration and deceleration lanes.
• Removal of access to and from southbound Highway 169 at 16111 Street.
• Repairing noise walls and concrete barriers.
• Improving pedestrian accessibility.
MnDOT intends to preserve Right -of -Way for the widening of TH 169 between I-94 and
109th Avenue after developing a preliminary design map. According to the Transit 2020
Master Plan, bus -only shoulders are proposed for this corridor and should be incorporated
into any new designs for TH 169. MnDOT will continue to analyze the project capacity
deficiencies.
-53- 2040 Transportation Plan
Roadway Turnbacks
Two potential regional roadway tumbacks are being discussed by MnDOT and Anoka
County:
• TH 47 from MnDOT to Anoka County
• East/West CSAH 22 from Anoka County to MnDOT
A change in "ownership" of a roadway can affect funding and project priority. A
roadway that may not have been a high priority to MnDOT may be more important to
Anoka County and could receive more attention under the jurisdiction of the County.
Also, the funding that can be provided for maintenance and construction will change
along with the jurisdictional change.
The Anoka County 2040 Transportation plan shows proposed changes to the County
Highway System. The roadways that may be turned back to the City of Andover in the
future are:
• County Road 18 (Crosstown Boulevard) (approximately 2.07 miles)
o From Crosstown Drive (County Road 18 extension) to Hanson Boulevard
(CSAR 78)
• County Road 58 (Old Valley Drive/Tulip Street NW) (approximately 3.15 miles)
o From 7th Avenue (CSAH 7) to 1815' Avenue (County Road 58)
• County Road 58 (181" Avenue) (approximately 0.49 miles)
o From Tulip Street NW (County Road 58) to Round Lake Boulevard (CSAH 9)
• County Road 158 (165th Avenue) (approximately 0.66 miles)
o From 7th Avenue (CSAH 7) to Valley Drive (County Road 58)
• CSAH 20 (161st Avenue) (approximately 1.00 miles)
o From Round Lake Boulevard (CSAH 9) to Verdin Street (County Road 59)
• CSAH 18 (Crosstown Boulevard) (approximately 1.71 miles)
o From 161'` Avenue (CSAH 20) to Andover -Ham Lake City Line
• County Road 16 (Andover Boulevard) (approximately 1.99 miles)
o From Hanson Boulevard (CSAH 78) to Andover -Ham Lake City Line
-54- 2040 Transportation Plan
Vl. ROADWAY SYSTEMS PLAN
A. Transportation Funding
There are several funding alternatives available to Andover for improvements to the
transportation system. Below is a list of funding sources that can be utilized for various
types of improvements:
• Federal Aid funding
o Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG)
o Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
o Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
o National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)
• Federal Demonstration Funding for High Priority Projects (HPP)
• Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TRLF)
• County State Aid Highway (CSAH) funding
• Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) funding
• State and Federal Bridge funding
• Minnesota Railroad -Highway Grade Crossing Safety Improvement Program
• State DNR Grants
o Federal Recreational Trail Grant Program
o Regional Trail Grant Program
o Outdoor Recreational Grant Program
o Local Trail Connections Grant Program
• Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR)
• Turnback funding
• County funding
• City funding
Each of these funding sources has a unique set of requirements and criteria that must be
met to receive funding; in some cases, this includes successfully competing for limited
funding. There are also rules that apply to the use of the funding and for what the funding
can be used. Below is a more detailed description of the funding sources, how to receive
the funds and how the funds can be used.
Federal Aid Funding
States receive federal funding for highways through the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act) of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Federal Highway
Trust Fund revenue is generated from the federal gas tax, taxes on truck sales, use and
tires, and from the General Trust Fund. Currently, each state receives a minimum amount
of federal aid equal to 90% of the amount it contributes in taxes.
-55- 2040 Transportation Plan
The Federal Aid or FAST Act funds are administered through the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MnDOT) with guidance provided through formulas determined by the
federal government as well as the Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan
Council of the Twin Cities. Municipalities can compete for a portion of the federal
funding that is available to the state. The federal funding usually covers 80% of the
construction costs of a project. The other 20% must come from other funding sources.
These sources could include other funds listed in this plan. The federal categories and an
explanation are provided below:
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG)
The FAST Act converted the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding to
the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). The funding is
available for roadway construction and reconstruction, capacity projects, safety
projects, bikeway or walkway components of projects, transit projects, Park -and -
Ride facilities, and traffic management projects. With the transfer to the FAST
Act, funds may now also be used to create and operate State offices to help
design, implement, and oversee public-private partnerships. STBG funding is the
most flexible program with respect to eligibilities among all Federal -aid highway
programs.
Congestion Mitigation and Air OualitEImprovement Program (CMAQ)
CMAQ provides flexible funding to state and local governments for transportation
projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act of
1990. In general, eligible projects provide some type of reduction in toxic
emissions. These include alternative fuel vehicles purchases, traffic flow
improvements, transit projects, rideshare activities and telecommuting. In the
FAST Act, additional expansion of fund uses includes eligibility for the
technology of non -road vehicles used in port -related freight operations and
vehicle to infrastructure communication equipment. CMAQ funding can be used
in various fashions to defer the costs of implementing these strategies. In
Minnesota, the funds are administered by the Transportation Advisory Board.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
HSIP provides funding for safety projects consistent with the States strategic
highway safety plan with the purpose of significantly reducing fatalities and
serious injuries on public roadways. Eligible projects include correction and
improvements of hazardous roads, highway safety improvements, installation of
the vehicle to infrastructure communication equipment, pedestrian hybrid
beacons, and roadway projects providing pedestrian and motorist separation.
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)
The National Highway Performance Program provides funding for the
improvement and upkeep of the National Highway System (NHS) as well as
construction of new facilities on the NHS. The goal of the NHPP is to ensure
federal funds are invested in highway construction that supports the progress
towards performance targets outlined in the State's asset management plan for the
9WAA*
- 56- 2040 Transportation Plan
/rr,
NHS. Eligible activities include installation of vehicle -to -infrastructure
communication equipment, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preservation of a
non -NHS bridge (when NHS bridge conditions are already satisfied), and projects
reducing the risk of failure of critical NHS infrastructure.
Federal Demonstration Funding for High Priority Projects (HPP)
While Federal funding is available through the FAST Act, other federal funding may be
available for specific high priority projects. In order to obtain this special funding, a
project must have technical merit, as well as political backing. A coalition may be formed
from supporting agencies and elected officials to organize an effort to bring funding to a
project. A special Bill passed by Congress may contain funding directly applied to a
specific project. By forming a coalition and working with your congressman and other
elected officials, the City may be able to bring substantial transportation funding to a
regionally significant transportation project.
Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TRLF)
The federal government established a State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program in 1995
through the National Highway System Designation Act. A SIB is a state or multi -state
fund that can be used by eligible borrowers to finance eligible transportation projects.
Minnesota's SIB, known as the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TRLF), was
established in 1997. The TRLF operates much like a commercial bank providing low-
interest loans to cities, counties, and other governmental entities for eligible
transportation projects. When the loans are repaid, the funds are returned to the TRLF
and used to finance additional transportation projects.
The TRLF is an innovative finance tool that can be used to finance transportation projects
that may not get financed through traditional transportation funding methods. The
TRLF's benefits include:
• Faster project completion, resulting in cost -savings and improved transportation
systems.
• A variety of low-cost financing options.
• The ability to fund additional projects as loans are repaid.
• The attraction of new types of dollars for transportation use.
• The generation of additional dollars for transportation purposes through
leveraging.
Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, pre -design studies; acquisition of right-
of-way; road and bridge maintenance, repair, improvement, or construction; enhancement
items; rail safety projects; transit capital purchases and leases; and drainage structures,
signs guardrails, and protective structures used in connection with these projects.
An eligible borrower's possible sources of TRLF loan repayment include, but are not
limited to, special assessments, property tax levies, tax increment financing, local
government option sales taxes, future federal funds, future state funds, and customer fees
from revenue -generating projects such as parking ramps and intermodal terminals.
-57- 2040 Transportation Plan
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) funding
Anoka County receives a State Aid funding allocation each year for maintenance and
construction of the County's State Aid Highway (CSAR) system. In 2017 Anoka County
is forecasted to receive approximately $19.5 million in State Aid funding. Approximately
$7.8 million is allocated for maintenance of the CSAH system, and $11.7 million is
allocated for construction funding. The County's State Aid funding can only be used for
improvements made to the CSAH system. The State Aid funds can be used for
construction, engineering, and right of way costs. The County can also borrow from its
future State Aid allocation interest-free.
Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) funding
The City of Andover receives a State Aid funding allocation each year for maintenance
and construction of the City's Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) System. In 2017
Andover is forecast to receive $1.49 million in State Aid funding. The City may
appropriate 25% to 35% of this funding to general maintenance with the remaining
allotment being used for construction. The City's State Aid funds can be used for
construction improvements to a Municipal State Aid Street (which include trails along the
route), County State Aid Highway or State Trunk Highway. The State Aid funds can also
be used for engineering costs and right of way costs.
The City can also borrow from its future State Aid allocation interest-free. The City can
borrow up to five times the municipalities' last construction allotment or $4 million,
whichever is less. The State Aid for Local Transportation Office is continuously
accepting loan applications.
State and Federal Bridge funding
Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) funds,
Town Bridge funds and Minnesota State Transportation Funds (bond funds) are available
to fund bridge replacement projects. These funds are available to municipalities for
bridge projects and include removal of abandoned bridges to the reconstruction of
deficient structures. For bridges on the state aide system, 50 percent of the costs can be
paid from the State Transportation Fund. Higher participation shares may be approved if
there is a financial need.
Minnesota Railroad -Highway Grade Crossing Safety Improvement Program
The mission of the Minnesota Railroad -Highway Grade Crossing Safety Improvement
Program is to save lives in locations with at -grade crossings. Under this program, active
warning devices have been installed at more than 1,500 of the Minnesota grade crossings.
Federal funds for railroad -highway grade crossing safety projects are available under the
Fast Act with the Railway -Highway Crossing Program. MnDOT, local road authorities,
railroads, and local planning agencies work together to identify railroad -highway grade
crossing safety projects. The eight ATPS integrate projects into area -wide plans.
MnDOT's Office of Freight, Railroads and Waterways helps the ATPS to assess grade
crossing safety investment needs.
-58- 2040 Transportation Plan
Types of projects eligible under the Minnesota Railroad -Highway Grade Crossing Safety
Program include signal and signal upgrade, signs and pavement markings, lighting,
crossing closures and roadway relocations, sight condition improvements, crossing
alignments, grade improvements, and grade separations.
State DNR Grants
The DNR has several grants available through their general, trail and water recreation
programs. These grants may provide a local match to federal funding or a contribution to
a project with other funding sources. The following programs are available to the City of
Andover for City or County trails:
Federal Recreational Trail Grant Program
This program is available for the development, reconstruction or
maintenance/restoration of either motorized or non -motorized trails. A unit of
government must sponsor the project. The minimum grant request is $1,000, and
the maximum grant award is $150,000. Purchases of above $75,000 require a
50% match while those below $75,000 require a 25% match. Federal funds can be
used as a match in some circumstances. The application for this program is due
annually on February 28th.
Regional Trail Grant Program
This program is intended to support the development of regionally significant
trails. Demonstration of local support and a 20 -year commitment from the trail
developer are requirements of this trail program. Cities, counties, and townships
are eligible to apply for the funding. Grants are reimbursement based up to 75%
of the eligible cost. The minimum grant request is $5,000 with a maximum grant
reward of $250,000. This match cannot include any other state funds. The
application for this program is due annually on March 31.
Outdoor Recreational Grant Program
This program is intended to increase and enhance outdoor recreation facilities.
Eligible projects include park acquisition and/or developmem/redevelopment; this
includes among others, picnic shelters, playgrounds, athletic facilities, trails, boat
accesses, fishing piers, swimming beaches, and campgrounds. Cities, counties,
and townships are eligible to apply for the funding. Grants are reimbursed up to
50% of the total eligible cost with a maximum grant award of $150,000. The
application for this program is due annually on March 31 st.
Local Trail Connections Grant Program
This program is intended to promote relatively short trail connections between
where people live and desirable locations, not to develop significant new trails.
Demonstration of local support and a 20 -year commitment from the trail
developer are requirements of this trail program. Cities, counties, and townships
are eligible to apply for the funding. Priority is given to projects with residential
connections to state and regional facilities. The minimum grant request is $5,000
with a maximum grant amount of $150,000. Grants are reimbursement up to 75%
of the total eligible costs with the remaining 25% provided by a non -state cash
match. The application for this program is due annually on March 315'
AW&Wkk -59- 2040 Transportation Plan
Legislative Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR)
The LCCMR makes funding recommendations to the Minnesota Legislature each year
for special natural resource projects. These projects help maintain and enhance
Minnesota's natural resources. These projects include recreational parks, trails and
history; fish and wildlife habitat; water resources; and environmental education. The
LCCMR process is open to all provided there is a demonstrated public benefit. Recipients
include state agencies, private non -profits, academic institutions, local government units,
the federal government, tribal governments and private corporations.
Proposals are due around May of each year. The LCCMR processes these proposals for
presentation to the Legislature the following January. If selected, funding becomes
available the following July and is available for a two-year period.
Turnback Funding
When a jurisdictional transfer occurs, the agency releasing the roadway usually provides
funding for necessary upgrades prior to releasing the roadway. These funds may include
State Aid funds or special tumback funding designated by that agency for tumback
purposes.
County Funding
Anoka County funding is provided by the County to maintain and construct the County
Road system. These funds are utilized for roadways not on the CSAH system as well as
some improvements made to County State Aid Highways.
City Funding
The City of Andover allocates City funding for maintenance and construction of its
roadways. This funding, along with the MSAS funds received from the State provide the
City with its yearly allocation for roadway maintenance and construction. Also, there are
certain intersection improvements on City streets and County roads that may be the
responsibility of the property owners and/or developers/subdividers. These requirements
are as follows:
1. The subdivider shall be required to pay a proportionate share of all costs
associated with required intersection improvements along County roads and City
streets when new developments trigger the need for upgrades (i.e., right and left
turn lanes, bypass lanes and deceleration lanes).
2. The subdivider shall make the required improvements as a part of the street
improvements for the new development as identified in the preliminary plat
approval.
3. The City Council may elect to construct such improvements as an assessment
project in which the subdivider shall accept an assessment for a proportionate
share of the improvements as identified in the preliminary plat approval.
-60- 2040 Transportation Plan
1 o /
B. Short-term/Long-term Planning
This Transportation Plan provides the City with a guide for future improvements to the
overall City transportation system. Specific recommendations have been made regarding
various aspects of the system. Many factors outside of this Transportation Plan will affect
what those short-range projects will be. In fact, the primary factor is the development or
redevelopment that will occur within the City.
As development occurs, the City will require certain elements of the Transportation
system to be provided as part of that development. It is at this time that many projects
recommended within the Transportation Plan will be implemented. By implementing this
plan, the City establishes the requirements of transportation projects whenever they occur
in the future. As the City updates its Capital Improvement Plan, this plan can be used as
one tool to prioritize transportation improvements. However, many other factors will
contribute to the CIP as well, including maintenance needs, etc.
This plan will also assist the City with projects outside of their jurisdiction. By providing
recommendations for Hanson Boulevard and Crosstown Boulevard the City is able to let
the County know what the desire and expectations are for future improvements. The
County can use this when programming funding for future improvements along the
county roads. It is anticipated that Anoka County will use this plan as a guide when
developing its short and long-range transportation improvement plan.
-61 - 2040 Transportation Plan
VI. MANAGING FREIGHT MOVEMENT
The safe and efficient movement of goods is an integral part of the health and livability of
a community for both businesses and homeowners. With a majority of the goods being
delivered throughout the city and to various land uses through truck traffic, it is important
to ensure the infrastructure of Andover can support these larger freight vehicles and their
corresponding movement without causing undue burden to passenger vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists. The city will work to accommodate freight infrastructure
without negatively impacting surrounding land uses. The first step in creating this
efficient freight movement is through defined and dedicated freight routes through the
city. These dedicated routes prevent heavy truck traffic from impacting local roadways
and allows for focused improvements on these freight routes to improve safety and
infrastructure needed to accommodate these heavy vehicles.
The City should work with potential developments, which expect heavier volumes of
truck traffic for freight movements, to ensure proper planning has been put forth with
respect for these vehicles. This may include but is not limited to:
• Site plans, which propose separated and internal accesses and/or truck routes to
loading dock areas.
• Storage, sufficient to accommodate freight vehicles without impacting pedestrians
and roadway traffic and infrastructure.
• Limiting freight deliveries and pick-ups outside of the roadway's peak periods.
• Upgrading pavement depths to accommodate the heavier truck traffic.
The existing railroad line provides additional freight movement options and can be used
to help relieve freight traffic from the local roadways for regional freight movements.
VII. PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS
To complete and implement a City-wide transportation plan, it is critical that the various
agencies, business owners, citizens and other affected parties participate in planning
activities. The City will continue to work with these entities to improve the City
Transportation System.
-62- 2040 Transportation Plan
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION RELATED
RECOMMENDATIONS
The previous chapters discussed a variety of transportation system elements. During the
development of the plan, certain recommendations were brought forth that should be
adopted by the City of Andover to help ensure continuing development of an up-to-date
plan and evaluation of various traffic and land use related conditions.
• The Transportation Plan should be reviewed and updated every five (5) to no
more than ten (10) years in order to better plan for changing conditions.
• The City should, on a five (5) year time frame, conduct a review of the safety and
traffic operations conditions of a list of "hot spot" intersections. That list will
probably change as the City continues to grow.
The City should require a traffic impact analysis of proposed new development be
conducted as part of the plan review process. The size and type of land use
development requiring such traffic analysis should be left to the discretion of the
City Engineer. No traffic impact analysis is required for residential land uses
unless an access request has been blocked by the county. The primary benefit of
these traffic analyses will be to determine:
o Access needs.
o Intersection and roadway improvements adjacent to and within the general
area of the proposed project.
o Traffic control needs.
• The City should ensure all city -owned traffic signals are retimed every 3 to five
years to fulfill MnDOT requirements.
• The City should pursue flashing yellow arrow operation upgrades on city -owned
signals. This operation will provide additional roadway efficiency during lower
volume periods of the day at signals that currently operate protected or protected -
permissive throughout the day. The County is currently completing a flashing
yellow arrow review.
The City should provide additional flexibility concerning access spacing. The re-
classification of Major/Minor Collectors is a good step in the process, but
additional focus and re-evaluation of 3/4 -accesses as conditional accesses
dependent on city review should be pursued with future developments.
-63- 2040 Transportation Plan
C I T Y O F
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrato
FROM: Joe Janish, Community Developme D ector
SUBJECT: Discussion: City Code Amendment Discussion: Accessory Structures
DATE: March 27, 2018
BACKGROUND
After two variances had been granted recently by the Council, staff was provided direction on
looking at increasing the square footage of allowable accessory structures. On November 21,
2017 the City Council reviewed an agenda item that would have potentially increased the size
allowed for accessory structures, after review and discussion the Council decided to direct this
item to a Council Work Session, for a more detailed review.
On January 23, 2018 Council directed staff to look at cleaning up the language within the
ordinance to make it easier to read and comprehend. Planning Staff has worked with Building to
clean up the language and a draft version is included within the packet this evening. Council
also asked staff to review the language and provide some proposed language that would allow
for "pole sheds" on larger lots within the community, but also require them to be "dressed" up a
bit.
HISTORY
During a review of past ordinance modifications, the City of Andover had reduced the allowable
square footage of accessory storage structures. The two most recent amendments addressed
allowable accessory structure size limits:
July 16, 2002 — Accessory Structure size limits changed from: "seventy-five (75%) percent of
the total square footage of land cover of the foundation of the principal structure" to "accessory
buildings on a residential parcel in the R-4 zoning district shall not exceed 1,200 square feet
total, and in no case shall the detached accessory building be greater than fifty percent (50%) of
the total square footage of the foundation of the principal structure."
October 4, 2005 (a.ka Revision 34)— Accessory Structure size limits language was modified to
include the following language "or any property less than one acre."
If Council members or the general public would like the detailed information provided at the last
meeting (January 23, 2018) please contact me and I can forward an electronic version of the
information that includes:
July 16, 2002, City Council Agenda Item
July 16, 2002, City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt
1
July 5, 2005 City Council Cover Agenda Item Excerpt
July 5, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt
October 4, 2005 City Council Agenda Item Excerpt
October 4, 2005 City Council Meeting Minute Excerpt
November 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Item
November 21, 2017 City Council Agenda Item
DISCUSSION
After our past meetings staff has reviewed the draft ordinance which changes very little within
the original ordinance, however it does make it much easier to read and comprehend the code
requirements.
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council in the following areas:
• Would the Council still desire to see larger accessory structures on 2.5 acres or
greater?
• Would this size increase apply to specific zoning district only (i.e R-1 vs. R-4)?
• Staff will present several photos related to architectural character at the meeting and
will be looking for feedback from the City Council in order to develop the language
related to architectural character for "pole" buildings.
Since our last City Council meeting discussion in January staff also made a few modifications to
the ordinance to "simplify" the language.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends the City Council review and discuss if increasing the size of allowable
accessory structures is appropriate, and if so should the size increase be based on lot size, and
zoning classification, and allow for steel "pole" bams if they have additional architectural
characteristics.
R7mifc Su
fed,
Joe Jamsh c
Community Development Director
Attachments Page
November 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Excerpt .4
November 21, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt. .5
January 23, 2018 City Council Work Session Minutes Excerpt .7
Current Ordinance .10
Proposed Draft Ordinance Amendments .15
Community Comparison Chart .20
Samples of Accessory Structures .21
2
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes—November 14, 2017
Page 3
1 e applicant was noted as the only person in attendance in the audience.
2
3 Dennis K ' came to the podium. Commissioner Sims noted that the applicant has
4 sold dirt in the p and wondered what was different about this request. Mr. Kuiken
5 explained that the fie be dug up is a sod field. The area mined will become a pond,
6 like the one that is already e. He stated that he owns his own street sweeper.
7
8 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Hudso o close the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Motion
9 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent (Cleven Nemeth) vote.
10
11 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Sims to approve the 'th additional item number
12 12. An escrow amount of $2,500 shall be submitted to the Ci for to work beginning.
13 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent (Cleven and Nemeth) tQ.
14
15 This matter will be heard at the Tuesday, November 21, 2017 Council meeting a :0\
16 pm.
17
18
19 PUBLICHEARING. City CodeAmendments —Tide 9 Building Regulations and Title
20 12 Zoning Regulations
21
22 Mr. Janish stated that the staff hoped to have additional amendments for the evening's
23 meeting, but staff were only prepared to submit two items to the Commission.
24
25 Accessory Structures
26
27 At the last variance request, the City Council suggested staff review the ordinance and
28 survey surrounding communities regarding the size of accessory structures. Staff
29 recommends adjusting the current code to allow for accessory sizes to be determined on
30 lot size, regardless of zoning classification within the residential districts. Lots one acre
31 or smaller, will be allowed under this new code, to have an accessory structure of 2,400
32 square feet or smaller.
33
34 Mr. Janish showed a comparison chart of the City of Andover in comparison with
35 neighborhood surrounding communities. He referred to the table as presented in the
36 agenda materials.
37
38 Movable Storage Containers
39
40 Commissioner Koehler asked about removable storage containers and how the changes
41 may or may not relate to roll -offs and trash. Mr. Janish indicated that removable storage
42 containers are used to store material goods. Other parts of the ordinance cover
43 construction materials. There was further discussion surrounding the issue and how staff
44 came to their recommendation as to where the "pods" can be located and the length of
45 time they should be able to be used/permitted.
3
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes—November 14, 2017
Page 4
1 Commissioner Sims asked if the proposed City Code changes would have been able to
2 accommodate the 2 most recent variance requests. Mr. Janish explained that one would
3 have passed and the other would not have passed. Staff remarked that the length of time .
4 in place is monitored. Mr. Janish commented that a home owner can rent a pod and store
5 it or move it to a facility.
7 Commissioner Koehler inquired about the height of an accessory structure. Mr. Janish
8 stated that the City Code will keep the height the same as it is today.
9
to Motion by Koehler, seconded by Hudson, to open the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Motion
I1 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent (Cleven and Nemeth) vote.
12
13 There were no people to come to the podium and make comment.
14
15 Motion by Hudson, seconded by Koehler to close the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Motion
16 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent (Cleven and Nemeth) vote.
17
18 Commissioner Sims asked about distinguishing between a moving pod and a 6 -month
19 construction project pod. Mr. Janish indicated that residents need to get a building permit
20 if they remodel.
21
22 Motion by Koebler, seconded by Loehlein to approve the City Code amendments as
23 presented. Iviotion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent (Cleven and Nemeth) vote.
24
25 This matter will be heard at the Tuesday, November 21, 2017 Council meeting at 7:00
26 pm.
27
28 HER BUSINESS
29
30 Staff is wo 'ng on plats. The Twin Cities Dental project is starting.
31 Commissioner hler wished staff and residents a happy Thanksgiving holiday.
32 Chairperson Daninge 'rected residents to review advertisements for Commission
33 positions.
34 Ms. Hanson pointed out that Cc ssioner Nemeth and Loehlein are both finishing their
35 terms this year.
36
37 ADJOURNMENT
38
39 Motion by Sims, seconded by Hudson, to adjourn the meet t 7:55 p.m. Motion
40 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent (Cleven and Nemeth) vote.
41
42 Respectfully Submitted,
43
44 Marlene White, Recording Secretary
45 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes —November 21, 2017
Page 3
Reconstruction (See Resolution R093-17)
Item Approve 2018 TimeSaver Secretarial Service Contract
Item 6 prove LMCIT Liability Coverage
Motion by Noodrich, Seconded by Bukkila, approval of the Consent Agenda as read. Motion
carried unanim usly.
ANOKA COUNTY`WIRIEF'S OFFICE MONTHL Y REPOR T
Commander Brian Pod from the Anoka County Sheriff's Office highlighted a scam which
targets dayeares in the area. He also expressed appreciation for tips received from the public in
solving a recent investigation urr6unding the death of a 17 -year-old in highly publicized
circumstances. He also reporte pcoming volunteering opportunities being done by members
of the department.
Mayor Trude thanked the Sheriff's OfN and congratulated Commander Podany on being
promoted to Police Chief of the City of B- ' e.
Councilmember Knight joined Mayor Trude in anking Commander Podany.
Councilmember Bukkila thanked the Commander fo willing to "get down in the dirt" and take
care of the community.
Councilmember Goodrich stated he appreciated the additio 1 information the department has
given the Council and community.
Commander Podany thanked the Council for the opport unity to se the community for the last
20 years.
Mr. Dickinson also wished Commander Podany well.
Commander Podany introduced Lieutenant Paul Lenzmeier. Lieutenant Lenzme' r responded he
had "big shoes to fill." He has had a long career with the Sheriff's Office and he is cited for
this opportunity.
Mayor Trude confirmed the City Council is looking forward to working with him. \
CONSIDER CITY CODE AMENDMENTS — TITLE 12 ,ZONING REGULATIONS,
CHAPTER b, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND
ORDINANCE SUMMARYPUBLICATION
® Mr. Janish presented information regarding City Code amendments addressing accessory
structures and movable storage containers.
5
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes—November 21, 2017
Page 4
Mayor Trude asked if all of a resident's garages together could be bigger than their house with this
new proposal. Mr. Janish replied, "not necessarily." Mayor Trude then asked if the garage plus
all accessory buildings could be larger than the square footage of a home, to which Mr. Janish
replied, "potentially yes." He pointed out that 30% coverage of the lot size would still continue to
apply.
Mayor Trude asked if this would almost doubling what people can do now. Mr. Janish confirmed
that was true, however, the setbacks will still have to be met.
Mr. Janish reminded the Council that earlier in the year the City had a request for a variance and
the Council requested that staff look into it. Mr. Janish showed what surrounding cities have in
their Code on these matters.
Onthe topic of portable storage units, known as PODS, the City is trying to make it easier for
people moving to the community. The staff is proposing adding to the City Code that PODS can
remain for a 30 -day timeframe and for PODS to be parked on a lot. The POD hasto be on a paved
surface, preserve sight -lines, and be limited to 30 days. According to the industry, they are
typically on site for 1-2 weeks. If it is longer than that, it is typically stored off site. Families still
have other options such as having a POD moved or renting a storage unit.
Mr. Janish reported the Planning and Zoning Commission voted in favor of the changes to the City
Code. Councilmember Holthus asked if this matter would be one or two motions. Mr. Janish
replied it could be one motion. Mr. Danish reminded the Council any new structure built has to be
in character with what has already been constructed in the neighborhood.
Councilmember Bukkila asked if the topic could be moved to a workshop meeting of the Council.
Mayor Trade indicated she wanted to see different scenarios.
Councilmember Bukkila felt more information was needed to make a fair review.
Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Holthus, to table the matter to an upcoming City Council
Workshop. Motion carried 4 ayes, 1 nay (Goodrich).
Mr. Janish will put some material together for the January City Council workshop meeting. Mayor
Trade asked Councilmembers to forward him any questions, so he could be prepared.
Mr. Dickinson encouraged concluding this by the end of February or March so residents can plan
their spring projects. Mayor suggested public comments could go to City Council or Staff.
AVS
TOR'SREPORT
City Staff updated the Council on thea d city department activities, legislative
updates, updates on development/CIP projects, and meeting rem ersl€ommunity events.
0
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes—January 23, 2018
Page 3
May ude asked if Mr: Baumgartner felt the City should get something on the hooks and
work on chan ater. Mr. Baumgartner felt if they do not have an ordinance then the City falls
under the laws of the n tatute and under their purview, as to what is appropriate under the
Statute. He felt it was better forCity to control their own destiny than to leave it up to the
Statute. He agreed with Mr. Berkowitz it into place now and he thought there maybe
changes coming. This big push started because Zorth Super Bowl coming into town and a lot of
the cell phone carriers expect to need more coverage dowfftvgand is now moving a little
further out of downtown. He thought that after the Super Bowl is gg hings will die down.
The Council thought this should move forward. Mr. Berkowitz stated they wi ft up
an ordinance and bring it forward to the Council along with the suggested changes an
place on the consent agenda.
b. Accessory Structures/Portable Storage Units
Mr. Janish stated after two variances had been granted recently by the Council, staff was
provided direction on looking at increasing the square footage of allowable accessory
structures. After the approved variance requests, staff was under the understanding, it
was the City Council's desire to increase the square footage of allowed accessory
structures within the City of Andover.
Mr. Janish stated staff recommends the City Council review and discuss if increasing the
size of allowable accessory structures is appropriate, and if so should the size increase be
based on lot size, and zoning classifications.
Mayor Trude reviewed some of the history of this item with the Council. The Council
discussed an accessory structure going up in the City.
Mr. Dickinson stated if they have a significant number of variance requests that usually
triggers looking at a code amendment. Over the course of ten years there have been only
five variance requests related to accessory structures. Mr. Janish stated in 2011 there
were two variances related to height and setbacks and not related to the actual size of the
structure. Both of those variances were denied. He reviewed other variances throughout
the years.
The Council discussed if the ordinance should be changed since there have not been a lot
of variance requests.
Councilmember Goodrich leaned towards allowing people to do what they want to do
with their property. He is leaning towards changing this because it is private property
and he felt the owner should be able to do what they want on their property.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she understood what Councilmember Goodrich was
saying and felt the larger properties would have the room to do this but she felt the
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes —danuary 23, 2018
Page 4
smaller properties would not have the room. In terms of profile and how it looks, some
lots are the entire house and would not be able to have an accessory structure on it. She
did not know if this change would cure any issues that are out there.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she would like to have a review of their accessory
structures and the design they require. She has gotten complaints about why the
requirements are so strict and if there are alternatives to the building materials that could
make it cheaper for landowners particularly on larger lots. She thought if they were
going to open up accessory structrues they could look at the materials requirements as
well.
Staff reviewed with the Council the different areas in the City where large accessory
structures are permitted.
Councilmember Bukkila wondered if what they were doing made sense or were they
being so restrictive that in order to afford anything they need to be on a high-end salary.
She wondered if someone has the land with a $200,000 split level home why are they
restricted.
Mr. Patch asked if the concern was with the exterior looks because he thought newer
materials that were not costly looked good. Councilmember Bukkila stated she did not
know if there was something that would satisfy their curb appeal concern but not be so
expensive.
Mr. Patch stated in terms of how the current ordinance works now the ordinance Andover
has right now works well. It seems that the Council's primary concern is should they
allow lots that are larger in all districts to have accessory structures. He thought that one
of the things that should be done is a rewrite of the structure ordinance. He stated they
need to straighten out the ordinance, so it makes sense and they can also look at what
those material standards should be. Mr. Dickinson stated in that instance they would
need to go by zoning district regulations because they would want different districts to
allow different materials. Councilmember Goodrich thought that sounded logical.
Councilmember Bukkila asked if the City is trying to dictate the footprint of the structure
and the type. Mayor Trude stated after the 2002 City bus tour there was a feeling of
proportionality. There should be proportionality within a development. Councilmember
Bukkila agreed but thought they already differed by the lot size requirements. She stated
over the years the houses have gotten bigger on the same size lots and the scale is
different than what it was years ago. She wondered if it mattered what the building is as
long it does not exceed the twelve hundred requirement.
Councilmember Knight stated everyone has their own perspective on what looks nice.
Councilmember Goodrich asked who gets to decide what looks good. He thought it
should be up to the landowner to decide that to a certain extent. Mayor Trude thought
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — danuary 23, 2018
Page 5
this started because of a perceived problem. She did not think they wanted to spend more
time on this until staff can bring forward more information.
The majority of the City Council did not see a problem with the ordinance and did not
think the ordinance should be rewritten.
Mayor Trude thought the architectural design part of the ordinance can be reviewed for
possible changes. She did not hear support for changing the sizes within the districts in
the City.
Mr. Patch thought the ordinance needed reorganization but keep the same standards and
look at some alternative materials that could be used. Mr. Dickinson stated this would be
brought back in February for further review.
Ultimate Fighting
Janish stated Tony Denucci with the American Wrestling Federation (AWF)
ap ached city staff and expressed interest in setting up an event within the City of
AndoVg either at an institution/public or commercial venue. Due to the current Ultimate
Fighting dinance prohibiting "Ultimate Fighting" regardless of how named or
described anefines "Ultimate Fighting" as any form of entertainment, where the
primary practice ' volves individuals engaged in physical contact by striking an opponent
with hands, feet or body, the event cannot occur within the City of Andover.
Mr. Janish stated staff reco mends the City Council discuss the possibility of allowing
this type of event to occur andesired, staff will move forward with a potential code
amendment through the regular c e adoption process.
Mr. Janish stated if there is interest by t Council then staff will need to go back and try
to determine what modifications need to be ade and how they can distinguish between
them.
Mayor Trude stated they all agreed that they did not t Ultimate Fighting in Andover,
so she wondered if the Council wanted to see a rewrite donke for this item.
Councilmember Knight stated he did not. Councilmember Holt s stated she might, if it
can be used as a fundraiser. She did not want to say no to professio 1 wrestling, but she
did want to say no to ultimate fighting. Mayor Trude indicated she is n sure she wanted
to see this in Andover. Councilmember Bukkila stated she did not have a oblem with
what would happen in the ring, she is more concerned with what was going to appen in
the parking lot.
City Attorney Baumgartner asked how this can be written into an ordinance to make
sense that professional wrestling is ok but ultimate fighting is not. He stated this will
i
CHAPTER 6 CUj
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
SECTION:
12-6-1:
Definition
12-6-2:
Construction Prior To Principal Building
12-6-3:
Building Height
12-6-4:
Size And Construction Requirements
12-6-5:
Location And Setback Requirements
12-6-6:
Temporary Structures
12-6-1: DEFINITION: For the purpose of this chapter, "accessory building"
shall mean garages and sheds. (Ord. 8NNNNNN, 7-16-2002)
12-6-2: CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING: No
accessory building or use shall be constructed or developed on a lot prior to the
time of construction of the principal building except by Conditional Use Permit.
(Ord. 8NNNNNN, 7-16-2002)
12-6-3: BUILDING HEIGHT:
A. Residential District: No accessory building in a residential area shall
exceed the height of the principal structure except subject to Subsection
12-3-5B2 of this title; and shall not exceed fifteen feet (1 T) in height in the
R-4 zoning district.
B. Business Or Industrial District: No accessory building in a commercial
or industrial district shall exceed the height of the principal building
except by conditional use permit. (Ord. 8NNNNNN, 7-16-2002)
12-6-4: SIZE AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS:
A. Accessory buildings on a residential parcel of five (5) acres or less shall
be as stated below. However, in the case where the accessory building
serves to satisfy the minimum garage requirements as specified in
Section 12-3-5 of this title, the garage will not be calculated in the
accessory building square footage requirement.
B. The accessory buildings on a residential parcel with a lot area of five
10
GJtZ
(5) acres or less, but more than one acre, shall not exceed the total
square footage of land covered by the foundation of the principal
structure.
C. The attached garage and detached accessory buildings on a residential
parcel in the R-4 zoning district or any property less than one acre shall
not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet total, and in
no case shall the detached accessory building be greater than fifty
percent (50%) of the total square footage of the foundation of the
principal structure. (amd. Ord. 314, 10-4-2005)
D. All principal structures constructed within the single-family urban
residential (R-4) district after the effective date hereof shall have an
attached garage with a minimum size of four hundred forty (440)
square feet.
E. All detached accessory buildings within the single-family urban
residential (R-4) zoning district shall have a minimum 4:12 roof pitch.
F. All detached accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar in
design and exterior finish material so as to be compatible to the
principal structure, except as stated in Subsection G of this section.
G. Exterior Finishes: No per sheet metal, painted or unpainted
accessory building, except small garden sheds not.exceeding one
hundred twenty (120) square feet, shall be allowed on parcels of three (3)
acres or less in all residential districts and within the metropolitan urban
service area (MUSA) boundary. The foregoing shall not apply to painted
and finished metal siding normally used on residential structures. (Ord.
8NNNNNN, 7-16-2002)
12-6-5: LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
A: Private Garages Facing Public Ways: When a private garage is oriented
so as to face onto a public right-of-way, it shall not have less than the
minimum required setback for the principal structure as measured from
the lot line.
B. In Residential Districts:
1. Accessory buildings and structures located in residentially zoned
districts shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5') from side and
rear lot lines unless an easement exists that is more restrictive.
(Amended Ord. 314,10-4-2005)
2. Accessory buildings and structures located in a yard adjacent to a
11
County road shall have a minimum setback fifty (50) feet from the
property line in all residential zoning districts except for the R-4 district,
where the setback shall be forty (40) feet. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-
05)
3. Accessory buildings and structures located in a yard adjacent to a City
street shall have a minimum setback forty (40) feet from the property
line in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts and thirty-five (35) feet in R-3 and
R-4 zoning districts. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-05)
4. Accessory structures located in the side or rear yard of corner lots that
are adjacent to a lot that fronts on a cul-de-sac shall be no closer to
the property line than the outside wall of the house. (Amended Ord.
325A, 4-18-06)
Where less than 120 feet of right-of-way exists for county roads or
arterial streets, setbacks for all structures shall be measured assuming
a sixty -foot right-of-way on each side of the existing right-of-way
centerline. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-05)
6. Where less than the minimum roadway right-of-way required by City
Code 11-3-3 exists, setbacks for all structures shall be measured
assuming right-of-way required by City Code 11-3-3. (Amended Ord.
3.14, 10-4-05)
C. In Business And Industrial Districts: Accessory buildings in the
business and industrial districts shall not be closer than ten feet
(10') from side and rear tot lines subject to provisions for the
abutting residential zone provided herein.
D. Location In Rear Yard Setback Areas Generally: An accessory building
may be located within the rear yard setback, provided said accessory
building does not occupy more than twenty five percent (25%) of a
required rear yard.
E. Prohibited In Drainage And Utility. Easements: All accessory buildings
and structures shall not be constructed or placed in a drainage or utility
easement.
F. Front Yard Setback Requirements: No detached garages or other
accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front lot line than the
principal structure except as follows:
1. On residential parcels with a lot area of one acre or more, a detached
garage or accessory building may be constructed closer to the front lot
line than the principal structure; however, the minimum distance it may
12
be from the front lot line is sixty feet (60') subject to City Code 12-6-5.
(Amended Ord. 314,10-4-2005)
2. All detached garages or accessory buildings constructed nearer the
front lot line than the principal structure shall be similar in design and
exterior finish material so as:to be compatible.with the principal
structures. (Ord. 8NNNNNN, 7-16-2002)
G. Animals: Any building in which farm animals, pleasure/recreational
animals or poultry.are kept shall be a distance of one hundred feet (100')
or more from any other occupied residence, and any open or roofed
enclosure in which such animals are kept shall be a distance of fifty feet
(50') or more from any occupied residential lot. The City Council may order
the owner of any such animals to apply fora Conditional Use Permit if it is
deemed to be in the interest of the public health, safety, or general
welfare. (Amended Ord. 8,10-21-1970; amd. 2003 Code; Amd Ord. 314
10-4-2005; Amd. 4/18/06, Ord. 325A)
12-6-6: TEMPORARY STRUCTURES: Temporary structures shall be.
required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, as otherwise provided by this title.
The Conditional Use Permit for a temporary structure shall be reviewed subject
to the following regulations:
A. Temporary structures governed by this chapter shall be allowed by
Conditional Use Permit in all zoning districts.
B: There shall be a time limit established for temporary structures to remain
on a site as,a part of the Conditional Use Permit review during the
construction process. Temporary structures allowed by administrative
approval, other than construction trailers, shall be limited to six
(6) months in duration. The City Council may extend the six (6) month time
limit, if special circumstances exist.
C. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a site plan review must also be
approved.
D. Security measures such as lighting and including connections to the
main building shall be reviewed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit.
E. Parking shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12-14-10 of this title.
F. . Signage shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12-14-9 of this title.
G. The Conditional Use Permit will address the date the temporary
structure shall be removed from the property. The applicant will provide
a written long-term plan for its removal.
13
H. Temporary structures shall follow the required building setbacks. The
temporary structure is to be located to the side or rear of the site and will
be reviewed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit.
All applicable requirements of the International Residential Code,
International Building Code, International Fire Code, and State Building
Code shall be met.
Provisions for water and sewer servicing a temporary structure shall be
subject to the review and approval of the building official.
K. Construction trailers shall be allowed administratively through the
commercial site plan review process through the construction process. No
trailers shall be allowed to be used as temporary sales offices.
L: Tents for promotional sales events shall be allowed up to ten (10)
calendar days .per year. A permit must be approved for tents by the city
Fire Department to assure they will conform to the International Fire
Code. Fees for -tents shall be set as stated in Subsection 1-7-3A of this
code. No Conditional Use Permit is needed for this type of temporary
structure.
M. Upon sale or transfer of ownership of the property, the Conditional Use
Permit shall be brought up for renewal or the temporary structure shall
be removed. (Ord. 294, 7-6-2004)
14
CHAPTER
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, USES AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
SECTION:
12-6-1:
Definition
12-6-2:
Construction Prior To Principal Structure
12-6-3:
Accessory Structure Height
12-6-4:
Size And Construction Requirements
12-6-5:
Location And Setback Requirements
12-6-6:
Temporary Structures
12-6-1: DEFINITION: For the purpose of this chapter, "accessory structure"
shall mean garages, sheds, utility buildings and structures, and similar uses accessory
to principal structures and uses.
12-6-2: CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: No accessory
structure shall be permitted on any lot prior to the principal structure except by
Conditional Use Permit.
12-6-3: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT: For the purpose of this section,
building height shall be the vertical distance from the average grade (the average
finished ground level adjoining the exterior of the building) to the average height of the
highest roof surface.
A. Residential Districts: Maximum accessory structure building height shall be
fifteen (15) feet or equal to the building height of the principal structure, except
subject to Section 12-3-5.
B. Business or Industrial Districts: Maximum accessory structure height in a
commercial or industrial district shall be equal to the building height of the
principal structure, except by conditional use permit or except subject to
Section 12-3-5.
12-6-4: SIZE AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS:
A. Residential Districts:
Accessory Structure Area: If an accessory structure or portion thereof serves
to satisfy the minimum garage size requirements of Section 12-3-5, then that
area, whether attached or detached, will not be deducted from the maximum
allowable area of accessory structures. The maximum allowable area of
residential accessory structures must not exceed the area specified below:
15
a. Lots Less Than 1 Acre -- In the R-4 district and on lots of less than one (1)
acre, the maximum allowable area of accessory structures shall not exceed
fifty percent (50%) of the principal structure foundation area (excluding
attached garage); and the total combined area of attached garage and
accessory structures shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200)
square feet, whichever is less.
Lots 1 Acre To Less Than 5 Acres -- On lots of at least one (1) acre but less
than five (5) acres, the maximum allowable area of accessory structures
shall not exceed the principal structure foundation area (excluding attached
garage).
c. Lots 5 Acres And Larger -- In all residential districts, on lots of five (5) acres
and larger, the maximum allowable area of accessory structures shall be
limited only by the setbacks and maximum impervious land coverage
requirements of this code.
2. Construction Requirements: For aesthetic compatibility to the principal
structure, accessory structures shall be constructed to be similar in design and
exterior finish material to the principal structure; except in all residential
districts:
a. Exterior wall finishes of galvanized, painted or unpainted sheet metal are
not allowed on accessory structures located:
i. closer than the principal structure to a property line fronting on a public
right -of- way, or
ii. within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area [MUSA Boundary), or
iii on any lot of less than three (3) acres.
Horizontal lap metal siding normally used on residential structures shall be
allowed.
b. Roof Pitch and Soffits -- In the R-4 district, all accessory structures shall
have a minimum 4:12 roof pitch and soffits compatible to the principal
structure.
B. All Districts: Accessory structures shall not occupy more than twenty five
percent (25%) of any required rear yard.
12-6-5: LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
A. Setbacks:
1. Front Yard Setbacks:
a. In all districts accessory structures shall not be located nearer the front lot
16
line than the principal structure; except on residential lots with a lot area of
one (1) acre or more, then the minimum front yard setback is sixty feet (60').
b. In all districts, front yard setbacks for accessory structures are the same as
for principal structures (See Section 12-3-5); except as specified below:
Accessory structures located on a corner lot adjacent to a lot that fronts
on a cul-de-sac, shall be setback at least as far as the principal structure
on the adjacent cul-de-sac lot.
ii. Where less than the minimum right-of-way required by City Code
Section 11-3-3 exists, accessory structure setbacks shall be measured
assuming the right-of-way width required by City Code 11-3-3.
iii. Accessory structures located in a yard adjacent to a county road shall
have a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet from the property line; except
in the R-4 district, where the setback shall be forty (40) feet.
iv. For lots abutting county roads or arterial streets, where less than 120
feet of right-of-way exists, the setback for accessory structures shall be
measured assuming a sixty -foot (60') right-of-way on each side of the
existing right-of-way centerline.
2. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setbacks
a. Residential Districts: In all residential districts, accessory structures shall be
setback at least five (5) feet from side and rear lot lines.
b. Business and Industrial Districts: In business and industrial districts,
accessory structures shall be setback at least ten feet (10') from side and
rear lot lines, subject to provisions for the abutting residential zone provided
herein.
B. Drainage and Utility Easements: Accessory structures shall not be located or
constructed in drainage or utility easements.
C. Farm Animals/Live Stock: No enclosed accessory structure (barn or shed) in
which farm animals, pleasure/recreational animals or poultry are kept may be
located within one hundred (100) feet of a residential dwelling. No stationaryor
moveable open animal shelter may be located within fifty (50) feet of an adjacent
residential lot unless the owner of the adjacent lot is the same party. The City
Council may order the owner of any farm animals to apply for and obtain a
Conditional Use Permit if it is deemed to be in the interest of the public health,
safety, or general welfare.
17
12-6-6: TEMPORARY STRUCTURES: Temporary structures shall be allowed by
either administrative approval or by Conditional Use Permit as otherwise provided by this
title.
A. Administrative Approval: Temporary structures allowed by administrative review and
approval by the city administrator include construction trailers, shipping and storage
containers and tents. Temporary structures allowed by administrative approval,
other than construction trailers, shall be limited to six (6) months in duration. The
City Council may extend the six (6) month time limit, if special circumstances exist.
Construction Trailers -- Construction trailers shall be allowed administratively
through the commercial site plan review process and building permits. No
trailers shall be allowed to be used as temporary sales offices.
2. Tents -- Tents for private parties and promotional sales events shall be allowed
up to ten (10) calendar days per year. A tent permit must be applied for by the
property owner or their agent. The Fire Department will review and approve or
deny the application based on conformance with the Minnesota State Fire
Code.
4. Shipping and Storage Containers -- In all zoning districts, moveable shipping
and storage containers shall only be allowed subject to the following limitations:
Containers, with or without contents, must not be on a lot for more than
thirty (30) continuous days.
ii. In no case may a moveable container be used as a permanent or temporary
structure or accessory structure.
iii. Containers must be placed at least fifteen (15) feet back of curb or
pavement edge, only within the allowed driveway and shall not interfere with
traffic sight lines.
5. Permits And Fees --- No permit fees are required for construction trailers.
Permit fees for tents shall be set as stated in Subsection 1-7-3A of this code.
B. Conditional Use Permit: Temporary structures allowed by Conditional Use Permit
shall be reviewed subject to the following regulations:
There shall be a time limit established for temporary structures to remain on a
site as a part of the Conditional Use Permit review during the construction
process.
2. Prior to issuance of a temporary structure permit, a site plan review must also be
approved.
3. Security measures such as lighting and including connections to the main
structure shall be reviewed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit.
HU
4. Parking shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12-14-10 of this title.
5. Signage shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12-14-9 of this title'
6. The Conditional Use Permit will address the date the temporary structure shall be
removed from the property. The applicant will provide a written long-term plan for
its removal.
7. Temporary structures shall follow the required structure setbacks. The temporary
structure is to be located to the side or rear of the site and will be reviewed as a
part of the Conditional Use Permit.
8. All applicable requirements of and the Minnesota State Building Code and
Minnesota State Fire Code shall be met.
9. Provisions for water and sewer servicing a temporary structure shall be subject to
the review and approval of the building official.
10. Upon sale or transfer of ownership of the property, the Conditional Use Permit
shall be brought up for renewal or the temporary structure shall be removed.
19
Accessory Building Sizes (Existing Requirements)
Andover
Ham take
Oak Grove
Coon Rapids
Rurz,,A
Anoka
Blaine
Less than Sacn
Ib 2S xru
25 WS.
5W10ama
1Macres
Shall not eaceed foundation site of Windpal
Shall not exceed foundation slxe of
structure
principal structure
(RA) Shall not exceed 1,300 or 50% of
(R�) She 11 not exceed 1,200 or 5Mof
foundati0n size of principal structure
foundation size of principal structure
Shall not exceed height of principal structure. In R-0 max height of 15'. Ag district can go higher for certain ag Woe buildings.
Front Yard 5,000 units.
Front yard 676
Front Yard 720
Front Yard 800
Front Yard 1,200
approved by City Council
Side or Rear Yard 5,000 unless
Side or Rear Yard 1,000
Slde or Rear Yard 1.500
Side or Rest yard 2,400
Side or Rear Yard 3,000
approved by City Council
1.49 ease or less
IS to 2.49 aces
2She339
4W 5S9 acres
6.OU W 90M xru
ecru
1a am,
1200
1,800
2,400
3,600
5000
9,000
Less than 1 acre
1a acres
1,600
2,000
is 1.99
2.5 to 3.49
35[04,49
45WSA9
SS W 6.49
65 ti
9
73 to ,111
W49
BS 9.
9510999
10 to 19.99
20 to 3999
OWSam
SWlam
Ib 1.49 ama
2W249 arses
aced,
acres
avas
ares
ams
aces
.cns
ams
ams
ares
xeda
Within MUSH
WithinMUSH
Within MUSA
Within MUSA
Within MUSH
Wlthln MUSA
Within MUSA
Wlthln MUSH
Within MUSH
Within MUSA
Within MUSA
Wlthln MUM
Wlthln MUSH
Within MUSA
IIN of lot, or
1,000
2,200
3,400
2,4CD
2,700
3,000
3300
3,900
4,300
4,700
5,100
5,500
6,000
atm
1,500 sq. fl.
whlcheverism
smaller
Outside MUSA
Outside MUSA
Outside MUSA
Outside
Outside MUSA
Outside MUM
Outside MUSA
Outside MUSA
Outslda MUSA
Outside MUSA
Outside MUSA
Outside MUSA
Outside MUSA
Outside MUSA
1,800
2,300
3,400
MUSA 3,400
2,700
3,000
3,500
39C0
4,300
4,700
5,100
5,500
6,000
8.000
Basedon Zonln and: mr,elfroml,05liquarefeel200 norshall the total area of an strucuees e.oaed 30 .at of she lot are.
Bazetlon 2sining and within ar0uulde MUSA Range from 1.00013902,0003000' NR could allow more square fo0tae
Ramsey considers sled based an acre... of lot and If within or outsWe of MUSA; 0 of buildings increases outside the MUSA
4O Iii
Within MUSA
II,000
Outside MUSA
12,000
n
1601M1 Ave'`: fA �
Lt. I
ALII e
k t
-49
fes_
K
1
r
r.
Rear View of 15260 Nightingale St. —Variance to size and height.
23
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Discuss 2019 Budget Development Guidelines
DATE: March 27, 2018
INTRODUCTION
(763) 755-5100
0
City Administration and Finance are starting to focus on the 2019 Annual Operating Budget
Development process and is looking to the City Council to establish the Council's guidelines for
the preparation of the 2019 Annual Operating Budget.
DISCUSSION
The following are some suggested 2019 Budget Development guidelines for your consideration
and could be impacted by the Councils discussion:
1) A commitment to a City Tax Capacity Rate to meet the needs of the organization and
positioning the City for long-term competitiveness using sustainable revenue sources and
operational efficiencies.
2) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund balance for working capital at
no less than 45% of planned 2019 General Fund expenditures and the preservation of
emergency fund balances (snow emergency, public safety, facility management & information
technology) through targeting revenue enhancements or expenditure limitations in the 2018
adopted General Fund budget.
3) A commitment to limit the 2019 debt levy to no more than 25% of the gross tax levy and a
commitment to a detailed city debt analysis to take advantage of alternative financing
consistent with the City's adopted Debt Policy.
4) A comprehensive review of the condition of capital equipment to ensure that the most cost-
effective replacement schedule is followed. Equipment will be replaced based on a cost benefit
analysis rather than a year -based replacement schedule.
5) The use of long-term financial models that identify anticipated trends in community growth
and financial resources that will help designate appropriate capital resources for future City
needs. The financial models will be used in the budget planning process to ensure that key
short-term fiscal targets are in line with long-term fiscal projections.
6) Continued commitment to strategic planning targeted toward meeting immediate and long-
term operational, staffing, infrastructure and facility needs.
7) A management philosophy that actively supports the funding and implementation of Council
policies and goals, and a commitment to being responsive to changing community conditions,
concerns, and demands, and to do so in a cost-effective manner.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is requested to review the proposed Budget Development guidelines, discuss whether
they are appropriate for developing the 2019 Annual Operating Budget. Administration would
like to have the guidelines adopted at the April 3rd City Council meeting
tted,
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. a ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: February 2018 General Fund Budget Progress Report
DATE: March 27, 2018
INTRODUCTION
The City of Andover 2018 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of $11,085,238 and total
expenditures of $11,319,815; a decrease in fund balance is planned.
Monthly reporting of the City Budget progress to the Governing body is a recommended financial
practice and often viewed positively by rating agencies.
DISCUSSION
Attached is the General Fund Revenue & Expenditure Budget Summary - Budget Year 2018,
reflecting year to date actual through January 2018. The attachment provided is to assist
discussion in reviewing 2018 progress; other documents may be distributed at the meeting.
The following represents Administration's directives and departmental expectations in place for
2018:
1. Expenditure budgets while approved, expenses are to meet with the spirit that needs are
fulfilled first, expansions of service and special requests are to be reviewed with City
Administration before proceeding.
2. Departments are to be committed to search for the best possible prices when purchasing goods
and services.
3. Departments are to be committed to continually searching out new efficiencies and to
challenge the status quo of how the City provides services.
4. Departments are to be committed to searching out collaborative opportunities to facilitate
efficient and cost-effective utilization of governmental assets and personnel.
5. Departments are to be committed to developing effective, consistent and ongoing
communications with City residents, businesses and other stakeholders.
6. Departments are to be cognizant that services provided are subject to available revenues and
should not commit to services that are not sustainable.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is requested to receive a presentation from staff.
ted,
CITY OF ANDOVER
General Fund Budget Summary Totals
Budget Year 2018
2017 2018
REVENUES Budget Feb YTD % Bud Final Budget Feb YTD %Bud
General Property Tax
S 8,420,354
$ -
0%
$ 8,332,634
$ 8,721,256
$ -
0%
Licenses and Permits
367,705
59,519
16%
544,568
377,900
39,935
11%
Intergovernmental
766,150
190,093
25%
793,931
766,274
202,513
26%
Charges for Services
773,950
77,123
10%
787,042
746,700
48,673
7%
Fines
100,750
6,006
6%
75,287
90,250
5,271
6%
Investment Income
75,000
-
0%
64,751
75,000
(27,033)
-36%
Miscellaneous
124,300
41,680
34%
179,789
129,300
14,605
11%
Transfers In
196,930
196,930
100%
196,930
178,558
178,558
100%
Total Revenues
$ 10,825,139
$ 571,351
5%
S 10,974,932
$ 11,085,238
S 462,522
4%
2017 12018
EXPENDITURES Budget Feb YTD %Bud Final Budget Feb YTD %Bud
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
$
11,735,219
$
1,904,493
16% S
11,039,975
$
Mayor and Council
$ 89,991
$ 36,897
41%
$ 84,136
$ 91,298
$ 36,635
40%
Administration
199,541
31,259
16%
187,514
203,833
31,771
16%
Newsletter
26,000
3,701
14%
25,287
26,000
225
1%
Human Resources
27,913
6,161
22%
15,520
28,431
6,951
24%
Attorney
191,360
15,641
8%
188,644
191,360
15,641
8%
City Clerk
148,599
25,590
17%
147,450
155,608
25,775
17%
Elections
63,881
1,817
3%
17,852
59,781
1,957
3%
Finance
268,129
62,158
23%
258,883
278,660
57,752
21%
Assessing
150,000
-
0%
147,914
154,000
-
0%
Information Services
180,722
27,881
15%
149,513
180,597
28,345
16%
Planning & Zoning
462,212
61,062
13%
398,780
438,827
65,483
15%
Engineering
535,715
84,323
16%
511,183
553,765
87,553
16%
Facility Management
651,733
66,558
10%
509,547
678,519
60,715
9%
Total General Gov
2,995,796
423,048
14%
2,642,223
3,040,679
418,803
14
PUBLICSAFETY
$
11,735,219
$
1,904,493
16% S
11,039,975
$
Police Protection
2,962,551
740,638
25%
2,962,551
3,053,526
763,382
25%
Fire Protection
1,422,522
175,874
12%
1,353209
1,423,914
181,580
13%
Protective Inspection
446,688
67,596
15%
443,712
462,164
66,324
14%
Civil Defense
24,847
4,474
18%
16,320
32,502
4,657
14%
Animal Control
5,950
196
3%
2,544
5,950
2,757
0%
Total Public Safety
4862,558
988,778
20%
4,778,336
4,978,056
1,015,943
20%
PUBLIC WORKS
$
11,735,219
$
1,904,493
16% S
11,039,975
$
Streets and Highways
614,668
85,272
14%
597,964
659,943
82,926
13%
Snow and lee Removal
547,777
163,866
30%
449,881
562,706
201,420
36%
Street Signs
215,244
35,086
16%
214,540
219,418
27,658
13%
Traffic Signals
37,000
1,798
5%
36,152
37,000
1,822
5%
Street Lighting
38,400
2,337
6%
27,735
40,400
2,757
7%
Street Lights - Billed
217,500
11,418
5%
144,451
220,500
9,767
4%
Park & Recreation
1,254,530
162,054
13%
1,207,359
1,318,395
154,286
12%
Natural Resource Preservation
9,197
243
0%
6,503
15,074
261
2%
Recycling
122,221
27,593
16%
169,956
157,216
21,984
14%
Total Public Works
3,056,537
489,667
16%
2,854,541
3,230,652
502,881
16%
OTHER
Miscellaneous 781,728 3,000 0% 764,875 31,828 - 0%
Youth Services 38,600 0% 38,600 0%
Total Other 820,328 3,000 0% 764,875 70,428 0%
Total Expenditures
$
11,735,219
$
1,904,493
16% S
11,039,975
$
11,319,815
$
19937,627 17%
NET INCREASE (DECREASE)
$
(910,080)
$
(1,333,142)
$
(65,043)
$
(234,577)
$
(1,475,105)
C I T Y O F
1VDOVE '
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and Councilmembers
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
February 2018 City Investment Reports
March 27, 2018
INTRODUCTION
Summary reporting of the City Investment portfolio to the Governing body is a recommended
financial practice and often viewed positively by rating agencies.
Furthermore, the City of Andover Investment Policy recommends the Finance Director presents
to the City Council at least quarterly the type of investments held by the City.
DISCUSSION
Attached is the Investment Maturities Summary for February 2018 the February 2018
Investment Detail Report, and the February 2018 Money Market Funds ReportThese
attachments are intended to provide a status report on the February 2018 investments.
ACTION REQUESTED
Informational, for Council review. Staff will provide a brief presentation and answer questions.
ed,
Investment Maturities - February 2018
Investment Maturities (in Years)
CreditFair
Less Than
More Than
Investment Type
Rating
Value
1
1 - 5
6-10
10
Money market funds
N/A
$ 2,112,483
$ 2,112,483
MN Municipal Money
_
Market Fund (4M)
N/A
1,013,284
1,013,284
Premier Banks Money
Market Fund
N/A
275,701
275,701
Certificates of deposit
FDIC
12,137,731
8,079,316
4,058,415
Local governments
A/All/A2
466,683
- 101,666
263,506
101,511
-
AAI/AA2/AA3
6,255,895
1,575,972
3,281,214_
1,294,303
104,407
AAA
3,559,818
484,918
2,493,471
_
581,429
State governments
A/AI/A2 203,154 - 203,154
_ _
AAI/AA2/AA3
1,349,501
487,115
862,386__
-
-
___
AAA
588,945
125,699
463,246
--
—
U.S. agencies
AAA
8,564,495
—
2,789,613
5,620,383
37,049
117,450
FNMA REMIC
N/A
478
478
U.S. agencies
N/A
744,531
744,531
Total investments
$ 37,272,699
$ 17,790,776
$ 17,245,774
$ 2,014,292
$ 221,857
Deposits _
730,914
Total cash and investments
$ 38,003,613
February 2018 Investment Detail
Description
Cusip
Number
Credit
RatinglF
DIC #
Type Purchase Price
Maturity Interest
Carrying Cost Amount Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity/
Due Date
Home Savings & Loan Co
43731LCF4
28114
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 0.900%
244,975.50
maturity
03/10/17
none
03/09/18
Mabrey Bk Bixby OK
554133BP2
10667
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.200%
244,990.20
maturity
07/14/17
none
03/14/18
Old National Bank
680061 GY8
3832
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 0.950%
244,963.25
maturity
03/15/17
none
03/15/18
S & T Bank
783861CJ4
11124
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.000%
244,968.15
maturity
03/15/17
none
03/15/18
Synovus Bank
87164DHW3
873
CD 244,999.78
244,999.78 245,000.00 1.000%
244,936.30
semi-annual
12/05/16
none
04/13118
IberiaBank
45083AGW6
28100
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.350%1
244,985.30
maturity
07/19/17
none
04/19/18
First Financial Bank
32021SDT0
6600
CO 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.400%
244,997.55
maturity
07/21/17
none
04/23/18
Morgan Stanley Bank NA
61747MXH9
32992
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.450%
245,009.80
maturity
07/27/17
none
04/27118
Morgan Stanley Pvt Bank
61760ACH0
34221
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.450%
245,009.80
maturity
07/27/17
none
04127/18
Community Bk Chesapeake MD
20350ACU3
30903
CO 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.350%
244,938.75
maturity
08/18/17
none
05/11/18
Compass Bk Birmingham AL
20451 PSG2
19048
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.400%
244,963.25
maturity
08/11/17
none
05/11118
PlainsCapital Bank
72663QC98
17491
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.350_%
244,828.50
maturity
06/21/17
none
06/21/18
Capital One Bank (USA)
140420ZQ6
33954
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 0.900%
244,443.85
semi-annual
07/13/16
01/13/17
07113/18
Key Bank National Association
49306SWO5
17534
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 0.850%
244,490.40
semi-annual
07/13/16
01/13/17
07113/18
Bank of China NY
06426WNJ7
33653
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.500%
244,894.65
maturity
07/20/17
none
07/20/18
First National Bank of Omaha
332135HA3
5452
CO 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.450%
244,828.50
maturity
07/28/17
none
07/27/18
Israel Discount Bank of NY
465076J1.12
19977
CO 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.450%
244,796.65
maturity
08/09/17
none
08/09/18
Pacific Western Bank
69506YFT1
24045
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.450%
244,796.65
maturity
08109117
none
08/09/18
BMO Hands Bk
05581WST3
16571
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.400%
244,713.35
maturity
10120/17
none
08/20118
Cathay Bank
149159LR4
18503
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.500%
244,789.30
maturity
12/07/17
none
09/07/18
ZB NA _ _
Beal Bk _
98878BLC0
2270
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.500%
244,485.50
maturity
12/07/17
none
09/07/18
09/12/18
07370W5B8
_
57833
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.500%
244,774.60
maturity
12/13/17
none
BNY Mellon
05584CBA3
7946
CO 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.550%
244,840.75
maturity
12/12/17
none
09/12/18
Bank India New York
06279H4M2
33648
CO 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.450%
244,588.40
maturity
10/19/17
none
10/17/18
CD F & M Bank
30246AFM5
9963
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.350%
244,426.70
maturity
10120/17
none
10/19/18
New York Community Bank
649447RD3
16022
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.600%
244,816.25
maturity
12/22/17
none
10/22/18
Amex Centurion Bk
02587DU63
27471
CO 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.550%
244,693.75
maturity
08/03/17
02/08/18
11/08/18
1Year GO -Premier Bank
1091003210
21714
CO 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.500%
245,000.00
maturity
12/16/17
none
12116/18
1 Year CD- Premier Bank Rochester
2055214401
33202
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.500%
245,000.00
maturity
12/16/17
none
12/16/18
1 Year CD - Premier Bank MN
3041574901
33204
CO 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.500%
245,000.00
maturity
12/16/17
none
12/16/18
BMW Bank of North America
05580ADR2
35141
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.600%
244,424.25
semi-annual
01/22/16
07/22116
01/22/19
Safra National Bk _
78658Q2Q5
26876
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.950%
245,036.75
maturity
02/28/18
none
02/27/19
TCF National Bank
872278X76
28330
CD 245,000.00
245,000.00 245,000.00 1.900%
244,909.35
maturity
02/28118
none
02/28/19
Junction City Kansas
481502F72
A2
local 101,558.00
101,558.00 100,000.00 5.500%
101,666.00
semi-annual
05/28/08
03/01/09
09/01/18
Farmington MN
311297W84
AA
local 102,787.00
102,787.00 100,000.00 2.000%
100,524.00
semi-annual
07/06/16
none
02/01/19
Rice Cnty MN
762698GK8
AA
local 45,466.80
45,466.80 40,000.00 4.400%
40,642.80
semi-annual
03/07/12
none
02/01119
Racine WI
7500216D4
AA-
local 101,792.00
101,792.00 100,000.00 2.100%
100,052.00
semi-annual
01124/12
06/01/12
06/01/18
Indiana St Bond Bank
454624840
AA+
local 146,123.60
146,123.60 140,000.00 4.302%
141,283.60
semi-annual
12/30/16
none
08/01/18
Minneapolis MN
60374YF93
AA1
local 220,938.00
220,938.00 200,000.00 4.000%
200,000.00
semi-annual
03/04/14
none
03/01/18
New York City NY Transitional
64971 QTU7
AA1
local 100,440.00
100,440.00 100,000.00 1.600%
99,919.00
semi-annual
01/27/17
none
05/01/18
Scott County IA
809486EZ2
AA1
local 112,617.00
112,617.00 100,000.00 4.400%
100,473.00
semi-annual
10/31/12
12/01/12
06/01118
Minneapolis MN
60374YS73
AA1
local 111,898.00
111,898.00 100,000.00 3.250%1
100,807.00
semi-annual
06/05/12
12101/11
12/01/18
8,079,316.00 CD
Description
Cusip
Number
Credit
Rating/F
DIC #
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity
Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity/
Due Date
Orange Beach ALA
68406PHF1
AA2
local
241,689.60
241,689.60
240,000.00
4.400%
242,270.40
semi-annual
08/05/10
02/01/11
02/01/19
Chippewa Falls WI
169772VS6
AA3
local
255,321.30
255,321.30
255,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
1.550%
254,877.60
semi-annual
07/31/17
none
04/01/18
12101/18
08/15/18
Kane McHenry Cook & De Kalb Zero Cpn
484080MB9
AA3
local
157,328.00
157,328.00
195,122.00
maturity
07/16/12
none
Brownsville TX ISD Zero Coupon
116421E46
AAA
local
229,640.00
229.640.00
247,112.50
maturity
06/26/13
none
_
King Cnty WA
49474EX5
AAA
local
224,634.00
224,634.00
200,000.00
3.980%
202,734.00
semi-annual
03/27/12
none
12/01/18
Minnetonka MN ISD #276
604195RA7
AAA
local
37,433.20
37,433.20
35,000.00
3.100%
35,071.40
semi-annual
12/22/11
01/24/12
none
02/01/19
Washington State
New Hampshire St Hsg
Kansas St Dev Fin Aulh
939758DL9
AA
state
205,804.00
205,804.00
200,000.00
4.500%
202,294.00
Semi-annual
04/01/12
10/01/18
64469DWV9
AA2
state
105,625.80
105,625.80
105,000.00
1.939%
104,786.85
semi-annual
12/09115
07/01/16
07/01/18
485429X90
AA3
stale
182,743.20
182,743.20
180,000.00
1.877%
180,034.20
semi-annual
07/12/16
none
04/15/18
Georgia State
373384RQ1
AAA
state
26,742.50
26,742.50
25,000.00
2.970%
25,131.25
semi-annual
02/08112
none
10/01/18
Texas State
AAA
state
103,089.00
103,089.00
100,000.00
2.894%
100,568.00
semi-annual
08/10/11
04101/12
10/01/18
Fed Farm Credit Bank
_882722,151
3133EFJMO
AAA
US
249,750.00
249,750.00
250,000.00
0.930%
249,732.50
semi-annual
05/25/16
04113/16
04/13/18
Fed Home Ln Bank
313379DT3
AAA
US
250,010.74
250,010.74
250,000.00
1.250%1
249,637.50
semi-annual
07/07/17
12/08/12
06/08/18
Fed Farts Credit Bank
3133EHDQ3
AAA
US
200,042.00
200,042.00
200,000.00
1.180%
199,668.00
seml-annual
03/30/17
06/27/17
06/27/18
Fed Nab Mtg Assn
3135GOE33
AAA
US
249,677.50
249,677.50
250,000.00
1.125%
249,367.50
semi-annual
07/07/17
07120/15
07120/18
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Tem/ Note
3134G3ZK9
AAA
US
200,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
100,000.00
1.200%
5.050%
199,496.00
semi-annual
07/30/12
01130/13
67/30/18
Fed Farm Credit Bank
31331Y4S6
AAA
US
114,000.00
114,000.00
101,302.00
semi-annual
09/11/13
none
08101/18
_
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133EGK87
AAA
US
199.462.00
199,462.00
200,000.00
1.020%
199,042.00
semi-annual
03/30/17
none
09124/18
Fed Home Ln Bank
3130ACR89
AAA
US
249,862.50
249,862.50
250,000.00
1.375%
248,935.00
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
11/03/17
08/21/17
07/07/17
06/16117
10/30112
05/02118
none
01/07/18
07/17117
01/30/13
11102/18
11/14118
01/07/19
01117119
Govt Nag Mlg Assn
Fed Farts Credit Bank
Fed Farts Credit Bank
3136G1LU1
AAA_
US
448,245.00
448,245.00
450,000.00
1.060%
446,971.50
3133EHQF3
AAA
US
249,870.00
249,870.00
250,000.00
1.350%
248,595.00
_3133EG3X1
3136GOY70
AAA
US
199,711.60
199,711.60
200,000.00
1.250%
1.080%
4.500%
198,692.00
198,174.00
_
Fed Nall Mtg Assn
AAA
US
US
199,300.00
204,187.50
199,300.00
487.27
529,947.00
200,000.00
477.28
01/30119
_
Fed Nag Mtg Assn Remic
31393FAL3
478.38
547,965.00
monthly
maturity
monthly
07/30/03
none
08/25/18
FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon
31771FAA9
US
529,947.00
550,000.00
4.500%
06/09114
none
05/11/18
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp
31393VMQ1
US
153,656.25
226.82
221.43
221.81
06I30I03
06/15/18
FICO Strip Cpn13 Zero Coupon
31771 C2G9
US
93,140.00
93,140.00
100,000.00
98,314.00
maturity
12/29/14
none
12127/18
FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon
31358BAA6
US
94,480.00
94,480.00
100,000.00
98,030.00
maturity
04/17/15
none
02/01/19
_
14,389,307.99
Customers Bank
23204HFA1
34444
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
2.000%
244,892.20
semi-annual
02/21/18
08/21/18
05/21/19
_
Banner Bank
06652XFP5
28489
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.850%
244,585.95
semi-annual
02/23/18
08/23/18
05/23/19
First Foundation Bk
32026UFS0
58647
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
2.000%
244,865.25
semi-annual
02/28/18
08/28/18
05/28119
Ally Bank Midvale Utah
02006LF32
57803
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.200%
242,069.80
semi-annual
06/30/16
12/30/16
07/01/19
Barclays Bank
06740KHB6
57203
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.050%
246,706.07
semi-annual
07/03/14
01/02/15
07/02/19
Synchrony Bank
87164WBT4
27314
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.050%
246,631.97
semi-annual
07/11/14
01/11/15
07/11/19
JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
48125Y5L4
628
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.100%
241,795.40
quarterly
07/15/16
10/15/16
07/15/19
PnvateBank & Trust Cc
74267GUQB
33306
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.000%
246,577.63
semi-annual
07/21/14
01121115
07/22/19
Goldman Sachs Bank USA
38147JU59
33124
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247.000.00
2.050%
246,436.84
semi-annual
0723/14
01/23115
07/23/19
Sallie Mae Bank
795450B95
58177
CD
245,000.00
245,000.00
245,000.00
1.700%
243,483.45
semi-annual
08/09/17
02/09118
08/09/19
First Federal Svgs Bk
32021YCH4
29690
CD
249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
1.500%
248,489.55
monthly
0121/16
0221/16
0821/19
Victory Bank
92644LAB8
58615
CD
247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.000%
246,234.30
semi-annual
0924/14
03/24/15
0924119
Third Federal Sav & Loan
88413QAW8
30012
CD
128,000.00
128,000.00
128,000.00
2.000%
127,610.88
seml-annual
1124/14
05/24/15
11/25/19
2,162,555.50 local
612,814.30 state
3,534,622.19 US
Less Than 1 Year
Description
Cusip
Number
Credit RatinglF
DIC#
Type Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity
Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid,
Date
Acquired
Coupon Maturity l
Date Due Date
Celtic Bank
Steams Bank NA
15118RJM0
57056
CD 247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
2.050%
246.738.18
246,088.57
semi-annual
semi-annual
12/20/13
06/20/14 12/20/19
06/26/15 12/26/19
857894PB9
10988
CD 247,000.00
247,000.00
247,000.00
1.000%
12/26/14
Citizens Alliance Bank
17318LAP9
1402
CD 249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
2.000%
248,066.25
monthly
06/27/14
07/27114 06/26/20
Enerbank USA
29266NA31
57293
CD 249,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
2.100%
247,142.46
monthly
07/18/14
08/18/14 07/20/20
Elbow Lake MN
284281KC5
A
local 170,045.70
170,045.70
165,000.00
2.750%
164,105.70
semi-annual
12/08/14
none 12/01/19
Oneida County NY
6824543R2
Al
local 45,755.20
45,755.20
40,000.00
6.250%
3.000%
40,955.60
58,444.80
semi-annual
semi-annual
08116/10
06128/16.
none 04/15/19
Kaufman TX
486206KR5
A3
local 61,821.00
61,821.00
60,000.00
02115/17 02/16/23
Ramsey MN
751813PB6
AA+
local 158,677.85
158,677.85
145,000.00
4.500%
145,252.30
semi-annual
02/16112
04/01/16 04/01/19
Rothsay MN ISD #850
778731AZ2
AA+
local 208,640.25
208,640.25
195,000.00
3.000%
200,011.50
78,642.40
semi-annual
07/06/16
none 02/01120
Saint Paul MN Port Auth
793067CCI
AA+
local 79,756.80
79,756.80
80,000.00
2.000%
semi-annual
01/10117
09101/17 03101/20
Steams Cc MN
857896MH4
AA+
local 276,875.00
276,875.00
250,000.00
4.500%
250,430.00
semi-annual
04/17/13
none 06/01/20
Greenway MN ISD #31
39678LDF6
AA+
local 27,593.50
27,593.50
25,000.00
5.000%
25,486.75
semi-annual
07/09113
none 03/15/21
_
Cedar Rapids IA
150528RM1
W
local 217,672.00
217,672.00
200,000.00
3.000%
201,422.00
semi-annual
06/11113
12/01/13 06/01/19
Multnomah Cnty OR Sch Dist IJ
625517JMO
AA1
local 250,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
1.450%
247,555.00
semi-annual
08/10/17
12115/17 06115119
Minneapolis MN
60374YS81
W
local 278,632.50
278,632.50
250,000.00
3.600%
254,545.00
semi-annual
0226113
none 12/01/19
Hampton VA
4095582JI
W
local 100,836.00
local 106,979.00
100,836.00
106,979.00
100,000.00
2.209%
91
semiannual
0120/16
none 04/0120
Middleton WI
596782RX2
AAi
100,000.00
3.750%
100,731.00
semi-annual
0224/15
none 09/0120
Des Moines IA Area Cmnty Col
2500971-121
AA1
50,606.00
50,606.00
50,000.00
2.450%
49,437.00
semi-annual
11/10/14
12/01114 06/0121
Sioux City IA
829458FC7
AA2
_local
local 156,100.50
156,100.50
155,000.00
2.000%
154,454.40
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
semi-annual
1222/16
06127/13
08/16/11
07/17/13
08/21/15
03/10/17
01/21115
none 06/01/19
12/01/13 06/01/19
04/01/12 10/01/19
02/01/14 02/01/20
none 05/01/20
Waterloo IA
941647PAl
AA2
local 50,559.50
50,559.50
50,000.00
2.000%
3.150%
49,787.50
101,200.00
Western Lake Superior MN
958522WU4
AA2
local 100,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
Portsmouth VA
Brunswick Cnty
Fon Du Lac Cnty WI _
Alexandria MN ISD #206 _
Moorhead MN
73723RSL8
AA2
AA2
AA2 _
AA2
local 286,268.00
local 108,967.10
local 259,715.00
local 279,760.50
286,268.00
108,967.10
259,715.00
279,760.50
108,820.00
295,000.00
2.400%
1.740%
3.250%
295,504.45
107,188.40
252.320.00
117061 VH1
344442KK3
015131LQ6
110,000.00
250,000.00
none 03/0121
270,000.00
3.000%
3.800%
268,876.80
none 02101123
6161412R7
AA3
local 108,820.00
100,000.00
102,286.00
11/14111
none 02101120
Whitewater Wis
966204KA6
AA3
local 109,541.00
109,541.00
100,000.00
4.850%
105,865.00
semi-annual
06/09/11
none 12/0120
West Bend WI
951428BNO
AA3
local 97,805.00
97,805.00
100,000.00
1.900%
96,265.00
semi-annual
01/11/18
none 04/01/22
W Palm Beach FL
955116BE7
AA3
local 101,245.00
101,245.00
100,000.00
2.264%
94,529.00
semi-annual
07105/16
10/01116 10/0122
Palm Beach Cnty FLA
696497TR7
AAA
local 174,889.50
174,889.50
150,000.00
5.898%
152,514.00
semi-annual
07/06/11
none 06/01/19
Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn
88059EWZ3
AAA
local 262,890.00
262,890.00
300,000.00
290,970.00
maturity
1227/13
none 06/15/19
Norwalk Conn
668844DS9
AAA
local 122,464.80
122,464.80
120,000.00
4.050%
120,856.80
semi-annual
08/04/10
08/01/11 08/01/19
Greensboro NC
395460V21
_
AAA
local 366,832.80
366,832.80
360,000.00
3.263%
365,454.00
semi-annual
07/15/11
none 10/01/19
Saint Paul MN Port Auth
_
793028WS6
AAA
local 201,806.00
201,806.00
200,000.00
2.000%
197,928.00
semi-annual
12/22/16
08/01/17 02101120
Woodbury MN
97913PCO7
AAA
local 123,037.35
123,037.35
115,000.00
3.250%
116.025.80
semi-annual
1222111
none 02/0120
Dallas TX Indpt Sch Dist
235308QK2
_
AAA
local 116,900.00
116,900.00
100,000.00
4.450%
103,626.00
semi-annual
04/16112
08/15111 02/1520
Tenn Valley Auth Zero Cpn
88059EHD9
AAA
_
local 263,970.00
263,970.00
300,000.00
264,376.00
maturity
03/11/13
none 05/0120
Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn
88059EMX9
AAA
local 88,133.00
88,133.00
100,000.00
94,154.00
maturity
03/18/13
none 07/1520
McAllen TX Dev Corp
579086AW9
AAA
local 175,000.00
175,000.00
175,000.00
1.400%
169,531.25
semi-annual
0726/16
02/15/17 08/1520
Indianapolis Ind
45528UGF2
AAA
local 251,507.50
251,507.50
250,000.00
2.219%
246,215.00
semi-annual
07/11/17
07/15/13 01/15/21
Baltimore Cnty, MD
05914FME7
AAA
local 51,290.00
51,290.00
50,000.00
2.097%
48,661.00
semi-annual
08/31/16
none 08/0121
New York St Mtge Agy
64988RHGO
AAA
local 100,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
2.375%
97,579.00
semi-annual
1027/15
04/01/16 10/0121
Columbus OH
199492CS6
AAA
local 39,956.40
39,956.40
40,000.00
2.133%
39,338.80
semi-annual
0220/15
none 12/01/21
4,058,414.75 CD
Description
Cusip
Number
Credit
Rating/F
DIC #
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity
Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity)
Due Date
OulagamieCntyWl
Connecticut Stale
68990OB98
AAA
local
170,000.00
170,000.00
170,000.00
200,000.00
2.350%
3.517%
166,241.30 semi-annual
203,154.00 semi-annual
11/07/17
05101118
11/01/22
20772JQN5
Al
state
214,954.00
214,954.00
05/27/16
02115114
08/15/21
Massachusetts State
57582P2T6
AA1
state
199,744.00
199,744.00
200,000.00
2.090%
197,956.00 semi-annual
12/17/14
11/01114
05101/20
Colorado St Hsg&Fin Auth
196479A82
AA2
state
84,864.00
84,864.00
85,000.00
1.875%
83,985.10 semi-annual
01/26/18
none
05101/19
Florida St Hurricane
34074GDH4
AA3
state
279,439.80
279,439.80
270,000.00
2.995%
272,481.30 semi-annual
11/10/15
07/01113
07101/20
Minnesota St Colleges & Univ
60414FPJ3
AA3
state
100,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
2.000%
98,448.00 semi-annual
02/26115
10/01115
10101120
Florida St Dept Environmental
34160WUAO
AQ
state
217,800.00
217,800.00
200,000.00
6.206%
209,516.00 semi-annual
08/30110
07/01/10
07101/22
Tennessee State
880541 QQ3
AAA
state
48,218.85
48,218.85
45,000.00
3.178%
45,785.25 semi-annual
08130116
02/01/12
08/01/20
Virginia State
928109XD4
AAA
slate
22,126.00
22,126.00
20,000.00
4.100%
20,438.40 semi-annual
02/07112
none
06/01/21
Kentucky St Hsg Corp
49130TSHO
AAA
state
203,458.00
203,458.00
200,000.00
2.780%
198,674.00 semi-annual
03129/17
none
07/01/21
Georgia State
373384208
AAA
204,444.00
204,444.00
200,000.00
2.780%
198,348.00 semi-annual
12113/16
none
02/01/23
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133EC5NO
AAA
_slate
US
99,587.00
99,587.00
100,000.00
1.250%
99,037.00 seml-annual
01107113
03/04/13
03/04/19
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133EDTU6
AAA
US
251.285.00
251,285.00
250,000.00
1.700%
248,990.00 semi-annual
07/07/17
03/04/15
03/04/19
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133EHLZ4
AAA
US
199,654.80
199,654.80
200,000.00
1.270%
198,312.00 semi-annual
06116/17
09/06/17
03/06/19
Fed Home Ln Bank
3133782M2
AAA
US
250,470.00
250,470.00
250,000.00
1.500%
248,410.00 semi-annual
07/07/17
09/06/12
03108/19
Fed Nall Mtg Assn
3136G1FYO
AAA
US
200,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
1.375%
198,428.00 semi-annual
296,607.00 semi-annual
06/22/17
none
03/13/19
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp
3137EADZ9
AAA
US
297,417.00
297,417.00
300,000.00
1.125%
12/14/17
10/15/16
04/15/19
Fed Natl Mtg Assn
3135GOK28
AAA
US
299,700.00
299,700.00
300,000.00
1.250%
296,910.00 semi-annual
07119/17
10126116
04/26/19
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp
3137EADK2
AAA
US
249,035.00
249,035.00
250,000.00
1.250%
246,747.50 semi-annual
07/07/17
02101113
08101119
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Term _Note
Fed Home Ln Bank
Fed Farm Credit Bank_ _ _
Fed Farm Credit Bank
RFCSP Ship Principal Zero Coupon _ _
Fed Nag Mtg Assn
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3134G96U6
AAA
US
200.000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
1.050%
_
196,576.00 quarterly
298,059.00 semi-annual
294,648.00 semi-annual
247,097.50 semi-annual
192,730.00 maturity
08/23/16
12/07/17
12/08/17
01/04118
11/23/16
08123/19
313383VN8
_
AAA
US
301,065.00
301,065.00
300,000.00
2.000%
none
none
04/11/18
none
09/13/19
09/26/19
10111/19
10115119
10/28119
11/25/19
3133EGVJ1
AAA
US
297,300.00
297,300.00
248,227.50
185,568.00
98,570.00
300,000.00
1.160%
3130ACLS1
76116FAA5
3135GOJ95
AAA
AAA
_ AAA
AAA
AAA
US
US
US
248,227.50
185,568.00
98,570.00
250,000.00
200,000.00
100.000.00
1.550%
1.350%
07/22/15
96,331.00 semiannual
02/09/18
10/28/16
3133EGBK0
US
199,600.00
199,600.00
200,000.00
1.300%
196,530.00 semiannual
05/25116
11/25/16
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Zero Cpn
31340OBV4
US
950,527.00
950,527.00
1,000,000.00
959,670.00 maturity
11102115
none
11/29/19
Fed Farm Credit Bank
3133EGFR1
AAA
US
223,031.25
223,031.25
225,000.00
1.330%
221,220.00 semi-annual
11/03117
none
12/16/19
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp
3137EAEE5
AAA
US
297,912.00
297,912.00
300,000.00
1.500%
295,761.00 semi-annual
12107/17
07/17/17
01/17/20
Fed Home Ln Bank
313OA3XL3
AAA
US
99,500.00
99,500.00
100,000.00
1.500%
98,392.00 semi-annual
07122115
08/10/15
02/10/20
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Term Note
3134GBS78
AAA
US
200,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
1.500%
197,574.00 semi-annual
10/27/17
04/27/18
10/27/20
Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp
3137EAEK1
AAA
US
299,193.00
299,193.00
300,000.00
1.875%
295,407.00 semi-annual
12/07/17
05/17118
11117/20
Fed Natl Mtg Assn
3136G4JM6
AAA
US
200,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
1.850%
194,944.00 semi-annual
12/28/16
06128/17
12128/20
17,245,774.35
Itasca County Minn
465452GP9
A
local
105,024.00
105,024.00
100,000.00
5.550%
4.000%
101,511.00 semi-annual
07/12111
none
02/01/28
Chaska MN
1616636S3
AA
local
94,191.30
94,191.30
90,000.00
91,764.00 semiannual
09/08114
none
02/01/24
Mitchell SD Sch Dist #17-2
606687EHO
AA
local
116,702.00
116,702.00
100,000.00
6.000%
104,457.00 semi-annual
12/20111
06/15/19
06/15/24
Lake City Minn ISD #813
508084DW7
AA+
local
103,933.00
103,933.00
100,000.00
5.000%
102,779.00 semi-annual
05111111
none
02/01/25
Milaca Minn ISD #912
598699NT9
AA+
local
106,941.00
106,941.00
100,000.00
5.650%
102,272.00 semi-annual_
07122/11
none
02/01/27
Minneapolis MN
60374YG68
AA1
local
110,419.00
110,419.00
100,000.00
4.700%
102,025.00 semi-annual
10/31/11
none
03/01/23
Minneapolis MN
60374YG76
AA1
local
72,201.35
72,201.35
65,000.00
4.800%
66,344.20 semi-annual
12/09114
none
03/01/24
Ann Arbor Ml
035438CF5
AA1
local
262,025.00
262,025.00
250,000.00
5.750%
258,320.00 semi-annual
12/27/17
05/01119
05/01/27
6,038,190.55 local
1,528,786.05 state
5,620,383.00 US
1- 5 Years
Description
Cusip
Number
Credit
RatinglF
DIC #
Type
Purchase Price
Carrying Cost
Maturity
Amount
Interest
Rate
Current Market
Value
Interest Paid
Date
Acquired
Coupon
Date
Maturity)
Due Date
Duluth MN
264438ZL9
AA2
local
29,767.20
29,767.20
30,000.00
2.625%
28,551.00
senii-annual
maturity
12/05/12
08/01/13
02/0125
Will County IL Cmnty Zero Coupon
969078QM9
AA2
local
159,000.00
159,000.00
500,000.00
336,035.00
0825/09
none
11/01/27
Hawkins Cnty TN
420218PL7
AA
local
111,480.00
111,480.00
100,000.00
4.800%
101,756.00
semi-annual
03/13/12
none
05/01/24
Savage Minn
80465PAN4
AAA
local
198,018.00
198,018.00
200,000.00
4.800%
205,372.00
semi-annual
06/17/10
02/01/11
02/01/24
Tennessee Valley Auth Ser E
880591CJ9
AAA
local
121,500.00
121,500.00
100,000.00
6.750%
126,057.00
semi-annual
03/19/09
none
11/01/25
Ice Deposit -National Sports Center
none _
3130A8W33
_ _
AAA
local
250,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
maturity
02/06/08
none
01/01/26
Fed Home Ln Bank
US
39,000.00
39,000.00
40,000.00
2.100%
37,048.80
semi-annual
07/27/17
08/22/17
08/22125
2,014,292.00
Van Buren Mich Public Schools
920729HD5
AA1
local
102,750.00
102,750.00
100,000.00
6.430%
104,407.00
semi-annual
07/17/09
11/01/09
05101/29
Fed Farm Credit Bank
31331VLC8
AAA
US
106,030.45
106,030.45
100,000.00
5.250%
117,450.00
221,857.00
semi-annual
02/26/10
none
04/21/28
33,871,231.34
1,977,243.20 local
37,048.80 US
6 - 10 Years
104,407.00 local
117,450.00 US
10+ Years
INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - Money Market Funds
February 28, 2018
Description
Current Market
Value
YTD Interest
Wells Faro
I Wells Fargo Government Money Market Fund
2,112,482.931
6,188.48
4M
I 14M
1 1,006,336.521
1,738.69
4M PLUS
1 14M Plus
1 6,947.261
13.22
Premier Bank
I lPremier Bank Money Market
1 275,700.851
111.38
Grand Total Money Market Funds 1 $3,401,467.56 1$8,051.77
Updated. 3/13/2018