Marlene Libby distributed the information that was prepared at the Committee's request at its June 1 meeting. Ms. Libby distributed a draft copy of the June 1 Meeting minutes as well as four memos from the City of Apple Valley staff, which include: (a) Independent School District (ISD) 196 Bus and Route Information on Garden View Drive; (b) Minnesota Valley transit Authority (MVTA) Bus and Route Information on Garden View Drive; (c) Garden View Drive Traffic Impacts on Lac Lavon; and (d) Area Businesses Impacted by Potential Modifications to Garden View Drive.

Marlene Libby requested that the Committee Members review the June 1, 2000, Meeting minutes and asked if they were any changes the Committee felt were necessary. The Committee made three additions to the Goals and Objectives section of the June 1 Meeting minutes. These changes include: (a) addition of the responsibilities of the Committee and its priorities as stated by Committee Member Hamann-Roland including safety, developing a model for future use in similar situations and issues, and preserving the community; (b) adding to the minutes that the focus of this Committee is Garden View Drive, but the Committee will also be examining other affected roads such as Whitney Drive and 157^th Street; and (c) not only examining short-term solutions, but also the long-term solutions. Andy Pederson stated that the requested changes would be reflected in the official Meeting minutes. Mr. Pederson also indicated that the Meeting minutes would be posted to the City of Apple Valley's web site once the requested revisions have been made.

MOTION: of Shade, seconded by Lawrence, approving the June 1, 2000 Meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously

City Administrator Tom Lawell presented a memo (attachment 1) from City Administrator Lawell and Administrative Assistant Andy Pederson discussing the amount of bus traffic generated from Valley Middle, Southview, Westview, and Apple Valley High Schools. City Administrator Lawell stated that the four schools combined result in 65 buses using Garden View Drive each morning as well as an additional 65 buses in the afternoons. City Administrator Lawell stated the these totals do not include any buses used for extracurricular activities.

The Committee discussed the student populations of the three schools located on Garden View Drive. Committee Member Louis stated the current populations total 2,700, and 600 of those students are without bus service.

Committee Member Berg distributed a handout displaying the school enrollment in comparison to the Garden View Drive traffic (attachment 2). The comparison illustrates the relationship between declining school enrollment at the three Garden View Drive schools and the traffic increase on Garden View Drive. The Committee briefly discussed this information. Committee Member McKeag stated that he would obtain information on the school bus boundaries for each school along Garden View Drive.

City Administrator Tom Lawell presented a memo (attachment 3) from City Administrator Lawell and Administrative Assistant Pederson discussing the amount of bus traffic generated from the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA). City Administrator Lawell stated that five MVTA routes utilize Garden View Drive, with one route providing all-day service, and the four other routes providing peak period service. City Administrator Lawell displayed a map of the discussed routes as well as schedule information provided by the MVTA (attachment 4).

Committee Members discussed individual observations pertaining to MVTA buses including speeding, tailgating, and empty buses. Committee Member Louis stated the Garden View Drive and Whitney Drive bus stop creates safety concerns and requested the stop be removed, or at minimum buses not be allowed to make a stop at this location between 2:30 P.M. and 3:30 P.M. while schools are being dismissed. The Committee further discussed and identified the following issues: (a) how the buses are being driven; (b) where the Garden View Drive bus stop is located; (c) the numbers of riders on each bus; and (d) the size of the buses being used on Garden View Drive. Committee Member Grendahl indicated she currently sits on the MVTA Board and would obtain further information on bus routes and ridership with regard to the Garden View Drive area.

City Administrator Tom Lawell presented a memo (attachment 5) from the City of Apple Valley Natural Resources Coordinator Jo Colleran discussing Garden View Drive traffic impacts on Lac Lavon. City Administrator Lawell stated that based on Ms. Colleran's experience and knowledge, the impacts to the water quality of Lac Lavon would be nominal and similar to what currently exists. City Administrator Lawell stated that the potential for noticeable impacts ultimately rests with the Lac Lavon neighborhood, including the property owners and park users.

Committee Members discussed the lake's water quality and whether a covenant to keep Lac Lavon at the high quality water standards that currently exists among homeowners. Committee Member Shade stated that he is a member of the Black Dog Watershed Management Organization, and one of the Organization's top priorities is to protect the Lac Lavon water body.

City Administrator Tom Lawell presented a memo (attachment 6) from City Administrator Lawell and Administrative Assistant Pederson discussing the businesses impacted by any potential modifications to Garden View Drive. City Administrator Lawell stated that businesses on or near Garden View Drive as well as businesses that might possibly be affected in the downtown area have not contacted the City.

Committee Member Berg asked whether there would be any impacts on existing or potential businesses in the downtown area. City Administrator Lawell stated that the City has not been contacted and speculated that many of the businesses in the downtown area are destination orientated and are large enough in nature to withstand a potential impact from a modification to Garden View Drive. Community Development Director Rick Kelley concurred stating that many of the downtown businesses are destination orientated and the impacts would be minimal.

Marlene Libby introduced Don Theisen, Dakota County Engineer and representative for Dakota County on the Garden View Drive Ad Hoc Committee on Traffic. Mr. Theisen stated that Dakota County and its Board of Commissioners are concerned with the Garden View Drive issue and impacts at the intersection of County Road 46, future Highview Avenue, and Garden View Drive. Mr. Theisen stated that he will report back to the Board of Commissioners providing updates on the work of the Committee. Mr. Theisen stated that as a representative from Dakota County, he was attending these meetings with open-ears and open to the process.

Mr. Theisen stated that Dakota County has yet to see any plans from the City of Lakeville on the alignment of Highview Avenue with Garden View Drive, and a permit would not be needed unless the City of Lakeville changes the curb-cut that already exists at the site of the future alignment of Highview Avenue with Garden View Drive or does other work on the County right-of-way. Mr. Theisen stated that construction of Highview Avenue could possibly begin in the fall of 2000.

Committee Member McKeag stated that the Committee had mailed a letter to Dakota County on Friday stating the Committee's concerns. Mr. Theisen indicated that he had not yet seen the letter.

The Committee discussed the potential for traffic signals at the County Road 46, Highview Avenue, and Garden View Drive intersection. Mr. Theisen stated that traffic signals would probably not be implemented until the summer of 2001, and an exact date has not been yet discussed.

The Committee asked Mr. Theisen how far the County right-of-way extends off County Road 46. Mr. Theisen stated that the County right-of-way extends approximately 75 feet each way from the centerline of County Road 46. Mr. Theisen indicated that any work done within the County right-of-way would need a permit. Acting Public Works Director Heuer stated that the City of Apple Valley recently staked the right-of-way line on County Road 46 and would have the right-of-way staked again to provide the Committee with a better understanding of where exactly the right-of way boundary is located.

Committee Member Bergman asked Mr. Theisen who is ultimately responsible for the decisions that are made and the solutions that are implemented. Marlene Libby stated that ultimately the Apple Valley City Council will make the final decision on matters that pertain to work on Garden View Drive. Committee Member Shade recommended that the Committee reconvene for a six-month and possible annual review to determine if the solutions the Committee determined necessary were achieving what the Committee had desired and intended to achieve. Committee Member Hamann-Roland stated that the short-term solutions may help build towards effective long-term solutions. Committee Member Evers stated his concerns with examining the impacts on not only Garden View Drive, but also the side roads that may be impacted by potential modification of Garden View Drive.

Committee Member Bergman asked Mr. Theisen what type of data Dakota County would be looking for in making a decision. Mr. Theisen stated that Dakota County looks at how the intersection of County Road 46 and Garden View Drive would function and also at the overall impact the change will have on the area County Road system. Mr. Theisen stated that any work completed on Garden View Drive outside the Dakota County right-of-way would be outside the jurisdiction of Dakota County. Mr. Theisen also stated that the Apple Valley City Council would need to examine the larger picture and who would be affected by any potential solution.

Committee Member Berg asked Mr. Theisen whether the Committee would need to hire a Proposal Writer to prepare a report for the County. Mr. Theisen stated that the County would require the same type of report that would be presented to the City Council and stated that City staff would be capable of producing such a report and thought the Committee would not need such a person to write a proposal.

The Committee asked Mr. Theisen whether a scientific traffic forecast model simulation would be available to assist the Committee with its recommendations and potential solutions. Mr. Theisen indicated that such a model at the local level does not exist.

Marlene Libby stated that Mr. Theisen would be leaving and requested that a Committee Member volunteer to keep Mr. Theisen informed. Committee Member Koering volunteered to keep Mr. Theisen up-to-date on the various Committee issues. Mr. Theisen left the meeting at 8:45 P.M.

The Committee requested clarification on the classification of Garden View Drive. The Committee discussed various classifications. Community Development Director Kelley clarified the road classification system. Mr. Kelley stated that Collector Roads can either be two or four lane roads, and Garden View Drive is classified as a two-lane collector road with parking lanes. The two lane Garden View Drive is considered a Neighborhood Collector with a capacity of 3,000 to 6,000 (+ or -) trips per day. Mr. Kelley indicated that he could not foresee Garden View Drive being anything more than a two-lane road with parking lanes.

Marlene Libby introduced SEH Traffic Engineering Consultant Glen Van Wormer to present available traffic information for Garden View Drive. Mr. Van Wormer stated that his purpose for the meeting was to (a) clarify the interpretation of existing information; (b) help quantify the information; and (c) assist in the determination of who is on the road and why they are on the road. Mr. Van Wormer stated that once these factors are determined, the information will help assist the committee in reaching an effective solution.

At the request of the Committee, Mr. Van Wormer clarified what a Municipal State Aid (MSA) street is and how a road is classified as such. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the MSA roads may be designated by communities over 5,000 in population and that funds from various sources are contributed to a Highway Trust Fund, which helps these communities with projects on streets that larger populations utilize. Mr. Van Wormer stated that there are certain design standards for MSA roads, with the overriding objective of the MSA program to move traffic safely and efficiently. Mr. Van Wormer also stated that the funding is distributed based on the needs of each communities MSA streets.

The Committee asked whether Garden View Drive MSA status could be removed. Mr. Van Wormer stated that once a road is designated for MSA, the funds received through MSA for road projects on that particular road would have to be proportionally paid back to the State. Mr. Van Wormer stated that if a MSA road is terminated or access is substantially reduced, the MSA designation would quite possibly be revoked and the City would be responsible for payback of any funds received through MSA. Mr. Van Wormer stated that a State engineer who handles MSA roads would have to examine any potential solutions to determine whether it would affect the Garden View Drive MSA status. City Administrator Lawell stated that the City would determine if and what amount of MSA funds have been expended on Garden View Drive. The Committee also requested that a timeline on when the various portions of Garden View Drive were designated with the MSA status. The Committee also requested that the MSA guidelines be made available at the next meeting.

Mr. Van Wormer explained the rationale behind how the average number of trips per household is determined. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the average single-family household in a suburb such as Apple Valley produces ten trips per day. Mr. Van Wormer presented information of the number of trips generated in the whole area as well as the four quadrants (attachment 9).

Mr. Van Wormer stated that the total number of daily trips generated from the referenced area totaled 16,010, and that many of the trips are with the origins or destinations outside the area.

The Committee discussed how developments within Apple Valley and its neighboring cities have affected traffic on Garden View Drive. Mr. Van Wormer also displayed how traffic movements have changed as development has occurred in the area.

Mr. Van Wormer presented traffic counts in certain locations (attachment 10).

In addition, Mr. Van Wormer provided information on average traffic travelling north and south on Garden View Drive. Mr. Van Wormer stated that south of the intersection of Garden View Drive and 157^th Street, between 7 A.M. and 8 A.M., 59% of the cars were travelling north and 41% were travelling south. At the same location between 3 P.M. and 4 P.M., 4 P.M. and 5 P.M., and 5 P.M. and 6 P.M., almost 50% of traffic was heading north and the 50% was heading south on Garden View Drive. Mr. Van Wormer presented another similar study, which examined the area of 141^st Street and Garden View Drive, which produced 68% of the cars were travelling north and 32% travelling south in the 7 A.M. to 8 A.M. period.

The Committee and Mr. Van Wormer also discussed various observations on traffic on Garden View Drive. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the summer time can produce similar traffic to the school year due to the variety of activities and different usage of the various community and school facilities in the area.

Mr. Van Wormer stated the traffic counters are mechanical and therefore reliable to a degree of (+ or -) five percent. Mr. Van Wormer also stated that area construction activities can influence the amount of traffic on a particular road during the course of a construction season.

Committee Member Louis presented a letter (attachment 7) dated October 2, 1998, from Apple Valley Mayor Gary Humphrey to City of Lakeville Mayor Duane Zaun referencing a traffic count of 6,000 average daily trips from the south. Mr. Van Wormer stated the number presented in the letter was probably two-way traffic. Committee Member McKeag recommended that the real issue is to find out who is using Garden View Drive from County Road 46 to County Road 38 as a short cut to either Cedar Avenue or the north-south expressways.

Mr. Van Wormer also presented traffic turning movement information collected at Garden View Drive and County Road 46. The information was collected between 6 A.M. and 8 A.M. in October 1998. Mr. Van Wormer stated that 166 southward vehicles turned right to go west on County Road 46, while 127 eastbound turned left on Garden View Drive. A similar afternoon study was conducted and produced the following results: 278 southbound vehicles cars turned right to go west on County Road 46, 124 southbound vehicles turned left heading east on County Road 46, and 177 westbound vehicles turned right onto Garden View Drive during this afternoon study.

The Committee also requested that capacity of Garden View Drive, Whitney Drive, and 157^th Street be made available to the Committee. Mr. Van Wormer emphasized that drivers use roads because of their convenience and indicated that they probably do not know the difference between road classifications. The Committee also requested information on the line-of-sight in the curve just north of County Road 46 for the speed limit as well as speeds of 35 and 40 miles per hour.

Mr. Van Wormer stated that traffic models at the local level are most difficult to forecast because of the variables involved. Mr. Van Wormer indicated that a normal traffic count consists of a 24-hour period, but particular attention is paid to the peak periods. In the morning school and work traffic is heavy and in the afternoon, school, work, and commercial traffic is heavy. The Committee requested that Mr. Van Wormer provide information on the peak traffic hours and 15 minute increments. The Committee questioned the capacity of Garden View Drive and requested information on agreed-upon acceptable volumes of traffic.

Mr. Van Wormer stated that a license plate study was conducted in three areas, Garden View Drive south of County Road 42, Garden View Drive north of County Road 46, and Whitney Drive at Pennock Avenue. The objective was to try to match license plates at two locations to identify "through trips." The study also used car registrations to help substantiate the destinations. Mr. Van Wormer stated that during a one-hour period, 50 matches, which is considered a through trip on Garden View Drive, occurred between Garden View Drive south County Road 42 and Garden View Drive just north of County Road 46.

Mr. Van Wormer discussed the possibilities, speculation, mis-use, and analysis of the license plate study. Mr. Van Wormer stated if the Committee wishes, he would present the license plate information at the next meeting in a more basic format than was originally presented. Mr. Van Wormer stated the information as it was previously presented was taken out of context, used in various manners that misrepresented the data, and has been the subject of much debate over the past couple months. Mr. Van Wormer stated that if the Committee wishes to review this information in an objective manner, he would be willing to present it the next meeting. The Committee requested that this information be made available in a presentation at the next meeting.

The Committee also discussed the number of traffic citations issued on Garden View Drive in the past. Police Department Captain Lohse presented the information. (Attachment 8). Captain Lohse stated that in 1998, 112 out of the 290 citations were Apple Valley residents; in 1999, 33 out of the 88 total were Apple Valley residents, and in 2000, 33 out of the 91 total were Apple Valley residents. Captain Lohse stated that the other citations by city of residence include Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, Lakeville, Rosemount, and others.

The Committee established that the meeting schedule would continue each Monday through July, excluding July 3, 2000. The meeting schedule, therefore, was set as June 19, June 26, July 10, July 17, July 24, and July 31. The Committee will meet on these respective days at 7 P.M. in the large conference room at Apple Valley City Hall. The Committee will determine whether additional meeting dates are needed.

Marlene Libby stated options for traffic calming and traffic restrictions and the pro and con rationale for these alternatives would be presented at the next meeting.

In addition, the committee for the next meeting requested the following action items: