October 2, 2000, Garden View Drive Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Traffic Meeting Minutes

MINUTES OF GARDEN VIEW DRIVE TRAFFIC AD HOC COMMITTEE

October 2, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.

Apple Valley City Hall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Lloyd Lawrence, John Bergman, Mark Nelson, Gary Shade, Denise Louis, Jeff Loch, Mark Heieren, Arthur Zimmerman, Peg Smith, Neil Evers, Mary Hamann-Roland, Nathan Koering, Dave McKeag, Ruth Grendahl

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Hamann-Roland, Richard Berg

OTHERS PRESENT: Integrated Process Management Facilitator Marlene Libby, SEH Traffic Engineer Glen Van Wormer, Police Department Captain Merle Lohse, Administrative Assistant to the City Administrator Andy Pederson, Ron Olsen, Dave Steadman

Meeting Facilitator Libby called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Meeting Facilitator Libby introduced Judy Berg, spouse of Committee Member Berg, who read a letter dated September 29, 2000, from Committee Member Berg (Attachment 1 and 2).

Committee Member Shade presented the City of Lakeville weekly Messages flyer (Attachment 3). Committee Member Shade also presented a letter dated May 16, 2000, from Mayor Mary Hamann-Roland to Donna Steadman regarding the planting of additional trees near the Steadman's home along Garden View Drive (Attachment 4). Committee Member Shade requested that Public Works Director Heuer provide an additional response to the Steadman's regarding the inability to plant additional trees in the referenced area due to line-of-sight issues discussed at the September 25 meeting. Also distributed was traffic information prepared by Committee Member Heieren (Attachment 5).

MOTION: of the Committee to approve the July 31, 2000 Meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Assistant Pederson indicated that the Meeting minutes would be posted to the City of Apple Valley's web site.

OPEN-HOUSE DISPLAY BOARDS

Mr. Van Wormer presented each of the display boards and reviewed the concepts incorporated into each. The Committee discussed each of the display boards and discussed whether consensus could be achieved on the respective display board.

Figure 1

Figure 1 provides concept solutions on Garden View Drive north of 140^th Street. The Committee reached consensus on this display board.

Figure C

Figure C provides concept solutions at and near the Garden View Drive and 140^th Street intersection. The concept solutions include defined turn lanes at the intersection and center median channelization approaching the intersection. The Committee reached consensus on this display board and authorized Mr. Van Wormer to incorporate the Garden View Drive and 140^th Street intersection into the forthcoming 140^th Street report.

Figures 2 and 3

Figures 2 and 3 provide concept solutions on Garden View Drive from Rimrock to near the County Road 42 intersection. The Committee reached consensus on these display boards.

Figure B

Figure B provides concept solutions at the intersection of Garden View Drive and County Road 42. The Committee discussed the removal of the crosswalk on Garden View Drive at Oriole Drive and kept the channelization in the same area. The Committee reached consensus on this display board with the removal of the crosswalk on Garden View Drive at Oriole Drive.

Figure 4

Figure 4 provides concept solutions such as traffic calming on Garden View Drive at Baldwin Drive, provides for a crosswalk at Baldwin Drive, and eliminates parking on the east side of Garden View Drive during the school year across from Southview and Valley Middle School. The Committee reached consensus on this display board.

Figure A

Figures A provides concept solutions at the intersection of Garden View Drive and Whitney Drive. The Committee reached consensus on this display board.

Figure 5

Figure 5 provides concept solutions on Garden View Drive south of Whitney Drive to Hayes Trail. The Committee discussed the potential for moving the choker concept north of the property adjacent to Lac Lavon Park to allow for parking on the west side of Garden View Drive. The Committee reached consensus on this display board.

Figures D1, D2, D3, and D4

Figures D1, D2, D3, and D4 provide concept solutions on Garden View Drive at County Road 46 as well as in the Hyland Pointe Court neighborhood.

Figure D4:

Figure D4 is an alternative which would provide for traffic signals at the intersection of Garden View Drive and County Road 46 without restriction at this intersection or at Hyland Avenue. The Committee discussed the fact that a petition with 208 signatures was received in favor of this alternative. The Committee also discussed the fact that other petitions in opposition to this alternative have been submitted. The Committee did not reach consensus and rejected this alternative.

Figure D2:

Figure D2 is an alternative which provides for a channelizing island a the intersection of Garden View Drive and County Road 46 as well as a channelizing island at Garden View Drive and Hyland Pointe Court. The Committee did not reach consensus and rejected this alternative.

Figures D3 and D1:

The Committee requested that figures D3 and D1 be considered as one alternative. Figure D1 is an alternative which would provide for a channelizing island at the intersection of Garden View Drive and County Road 46. Figure D3 is an alternative which would provide for a right turn only channelization at the intersection of County Road 46 and Hyland Avenue, allowing only a southbound right turn from Hyland Avenue to westbound County Road 46..

The Committee determined that the sidewalk along the north side of Hyland Pointe Court should be removed under this scenario. The Committees initial discussion and vote did not reach consensus on this alternative.

The Committee discussed several issues regarding this alternative, including (a) "what is defined as local traffic?" (b) implementation and phasing of such a plan and the fact that one City Council cannot bind another City Council, (c) comments made by Bill Moorish, of the University of Minnesota, at the September 28, 2000, informal City Council meeting, with regard to the fact that "you don't want to push all traffic to six arterial roads in the County," (d) closing off the southern border of Apple Valley with a series of restrictions, (e) access to neighborhoods in west Apple Valley when driving on County Road 46 from the west to the east, (f) whether the 140^th Street concerns will take precedent over improvements made to Garden View Drive, (g) the ability to gain approval from the City Council on two channelizing islands, or even one, and (h) whether the costs associated with the channelizing islands should remain a consideration when considering the proposed alternative.

The Committee also discussed the potential for installing temporary measures at the intersections. Mr. Van Wormer stated that due to the fact that right-of-way would need to be acquired and utilities be relocated, the installation of temporary measures was not an alternative.

Meeting Facilitator Libby stated that the Committee would have one and one-half to two hours to educate and sell the City Council their recommendations.

After discussing the various issues, the Committee reached consensus on alternatives D1 and D3. Committee Member Grendahl abstained from voting.

The Committee discussed the various additional streets that will potentially need traffic calming as indicated on the maps presented at the open house. The Committee reached consensus that the general locations, but not the solutions, should be recommended to the City Council. The Committee also reached consensus on the fact that each of affected neighborhoods and/or residents on the streets should determine their traffic calming alternative of choice for their specific neighborhood. The Committee discussed the potential for communicating with specific street residents on the recommendation which will be presented to the City Council. The Committee discussed targeting specific streets. Administrative Assistant Pederson emphasized that any such communications should be universal and include any and all potentially affected streets. The Committee determined and authorized Committee Member McKeag to prepare a press release to communicate such information.

The Committee also reached consensus on the display board entitled "other elements to recommendation."

Mr. Van Wormer presented the Committee with forecast traffic volumes (Attachment 6). Mr. Van Wormer requested that the Committee disregard the attachment sent to the Committee via e-mail dated 9/28/00 due to a few minor errors and replace it with the attachment dated 10/2/00.

PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL

Mr. Van Wormer presented a draft presentation outline for the committee to review (Attachment 7). The Committee reviewed this document and accepted its format. Committee Member Lawrence requested that a detailed follow-up be placed in the summary and implementation section of the presentation.

Meeting Facilitator Libby requested any committee members wishing to be spokespersons for the Committee at the City Council volunteer to do so. Committee Members Shade, Loch, McKeag, Zimmerman, and Smith volunteered to present the Committee's recommendations to the City Council at its October 26 meeting. It was determined that:

Committee Member Smith would provide the introduction, background, and formation of general goals;

Committee Member McKeag would provide the process information;

Committee Member Zimmerman would provide the final document and recommendation information;

Committee Member Shade would provide the details of the recommendation;

Committee Member Loch would provide the public involvement process information and summary and implementation of the recommendation.

OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The Committee preliminarily discussed potential funding sources including Municipal State Aid (MSA) and Dakota County. The Committee also discussed the potential for losing MSA funds if a restriction were placed on Garden View Drive at County Road 46. The Committee directed Committee Member Shade to discuss potential funding sources with City Administrator Lawell and report back to the Committee on October 16.

Meeting Facilitator Libby stated that once these issues were discussed, the Committee would then consider the phasing and implementation plan.

The Committee discussed when possible construction would occur. Meeting Facilitator Libby stated unless it involved painting and signage, nothing would occur until at the earliest, next summer. Meeting Facilitator Libby stated this would be contingent upon construction, budget, and City Council approval considerations.

ACTION ITEMS

The next meeting date of Monday, October 16, 2000, was established.

The Committee determined and authorized Committee Member McKeag to prepare a press release to communicate such information.

Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.