The Committee described the events that took place at the April 25, 2000, meeting and asked whether that meeting was intended to be a public hearing. The Committee discussed whether a public hearing on the Garden View Drive issue has officially been held. Committee Member Louis stated several people who wanted to speak at the meeting were not able to speak. The Committee also discussed the context of the April 25^th Valley Middle School meeting. The Committee discussed the fact that the developer had set-up the meeting. Mr. Pederson stated that the meeting was also an informal Apple Valley City Council meeting as set by the City Council at its April 13, 2000 meeting.

The Committee discussed the communication of the efforts by the Committee. Committee Member Shade stated that prior to the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee, no information was placed on the City's internet site. Mr. Pederson stated that the notice sent to residents regarding the April 25^th informal City Council Meeting at Valley Middle School was posted on the web site prior to the formation of the Committee. Committee Member Louis also expressed concerns regarding the letter to the parents of the students at the three schools located on Garden View Drive.

The Committee expressed concerns over the knowledge the general public has regarding the Committee process. The Committee discussed whether it was necessary to contact the press about the Committee meetings. Ms. Libby stated the Committee's ground rules placed Committee Member McKeag in charge of the Committee's communications, and any action could be discussed at the end of the meeting.

Committee Member Louis presented a detailed history of her personal involvement on the Garden View Drive issue since November 1998. Ms. Libby requested that Committee Member Louis provide the Committee with a petition of 300 signatures Committee Member Louis referenced in her history on the issue.

The Committee discussed the differences between public hearings and open houses. Ms. Libby stated that an open-house in this process would probably include general displays of the work the Committee had completed to that point and that Committee Members would have the opportunity to discuss its work with the public. Ms. Libby reminded the Committee that it had determined at its first meeting that a public hearing was not necessary at this time. Ms. Libby stated that the Committee decided to hold an open house once the Committee was near the completion of its process.

The Committee discussed whether a need exists for a public hearing. Ms. Libby asked the Committee if they thought that any more concerns then what the Committee listed at its June 1, 2000, meeting could be brought forward. Ms. Libby asked the Committee whether a public hearing would bring anything further forward. The Committee stated that all of the concerns were presented at the June 1, 2000, meeting, as indicated on page four of the June 1, 2000, Meeting minutes. Committee Member Hamann-Roland stated that all of the potential stakeholders were represented on the Committee. Commissioner Branning stated that a Public Hearing must be set by the City Council and either the City Council or the Committee can schedule an open house.

The Committee discussed who should be invited to a potential open house. The Committee discussed whether only Apple Valley residents should be allowed to attend the open house. Committee Member Nelson stated that the open house should be open to Apple Valley residents only, unless a resident from another community is directly impacted by the Committee's actions. Committee Member Loch stated that he felt that only Apple Valley residents should be allowed to attend the open-house, and also stated that the Committee should follow the plan and process as determined in the June 1, 2000, Committee meeting.

Mr. Van Wormer presented information of the number of trips generated in the four quadrants bounded by County Road 46, County Road 42, the Burnsville City Boundary, and Pennock Avenue (Attachment 8). Mr. Van Wormer stated that the total number of daily trips generated from the referenced Garden View Drive area totaled 16,010, and that many of the trips are with the origins or destinations outside the area.

Mr. Van Wormer presented traffic counts in certain locations in the Garden View Drive neighborhood from April 2000 (Attachment 9).

Mr. Van Wormer presented northbound and southbound traffic counts from April 5, 2000, on Garden View Drive south of 157^th Street (Attachment 10). Mr. Van Wormer explained the hourly compilation of numbers and explained some of the rationale behind the traffic counts. Mr. Van Wormer stated that during the morning, the employment commute and schools influence traffic, whereas in the evening, traffic counts are influenced by the employment commute, schools, and the commercial-retail traffic.

The Committee stated that there were only six hours where there was more northbound traffic than southbound traffic. Mr. Van Wormer stated that 48 percent of the total daily traffic was travelling northbound during this traffic count.

The Committee discussed the several and various uses of the three schools that potentially affect traffic on Garden View Drive. The Committee asked Mr. Van Wormer what these traffic counts tell the Committee. Mr. Van Wormer stated the numbers indicate that commuters are travelling both north and south, that the people who live farther south in the Garden View Drive area are more likely to travel south to County Road 46 to get to a destination using Interstate 35W, and that commercial traffic (shoppers) are using the streets during the evening.

Committee Member Shade requested more information on one-way streets. Committee Member Bergman asked the Committee whether they felt these numbers as presented by Mr. Van Wormer were accurate and acceptable to the Committee. The members of the Committee who live on Garden View Drive stated that these numbers were accurate and acceptable. The Committee accepted the April 5, 2000, traffic counts for Garden View Drive south of 157^th Street.

Mr. Van Wormer presented traffic counts from the weekend of June 10, 2000 for several locations in the Garden View Drive area including Highland Avenue, Garden View Drive at County Road 46, Harmony Way, Granada Avenue, 157^th Street and Cedar Avenue, 157^th Street west of Harmony Way, Garden View Drive south of 157^th Street, Garden View Drive south of Whitney Drive, Garden View Drive north of Whitney Drive, Garden View Drive south of County Road 42, and Garden View Drive north of County Road 42 (Attachment 11).

Mr. Van Wormer stated that the ADT (Average Daily Trip) map column corresponds with attachment 9 (Current Traffic Volumes). Mr. Van Wormer also stated that the 12 hours Friday column represents traffic counts on Friday, June 9, 2000, were taken from 12 p.m. and 12 a.m., and that the average Saturday-Sunday column is an average of both Saturday and Sunday's traffic counts. Mr. Van Wormer stated that several variables influence the counts and that one can speculate on the information but not draw definite conclusions from such information. Mr. Van Wormer requested that the Committee make two corrections to the information contained in attachment 11. First, Mr. Van Wormer requested that the Committee cross out the number 2799 in line 13, and add a ** next to 2270 in line 8 and that ** represents 12 p.m. to 12 a.m. The changes are reflected in the official meeting minute's attachment 11.

Committee Member McKeag stated that the traffic counts are very similar on weekends as to weekdays.

Mr. Van Wormer presented turning movement traffic counts at Garden View Drive and County Road 46; (a) total 3 hour volumes based on count made by Dakota County - 10/28/98 - 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. (Attachment 12) and (b) total 2 hour volumes based on count made by Dakota County - 10/28/98 - 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. (Attachment 13). Committee Member Louis asked why 127 cars would turn left onto Garden View Drive in attachment 12.

Mr. Van Wormer presented the April 15, 2000, turning movement traffic counts at Garden View Drive and Whitney Drive (Attachment 14).

Mr. Van Wormer presented the Committee with the requested State Aid Street rules (Department of Transportation State Aid for Local Transportation Division State Aid Operations Chapter 8820 Attachment 15). Mr. Van Wormer stated that the State Aid Street system is designed to maintain continuity. Committee Member Shade asked whether one-way streets are eligible for state aid. Mr. Van Wormer stated that one-way streets are allowable if another one-way street is heading in the other direction. Mr. Van Wormer stated that he would provide the Committee with the exact location of the rule on one-way streets in the rules.

The Committee also discussed what constitutes disconnection from the Municipal State Aid system. Mr. Van Wormer stated that he had discussed this issue via voice mail with the State and that the initial judgment call is that a pork chop island "is non permissible" for funding for the Apple Valley situation on the State Aid Street system, and that the assessments are made on a case by case basis. Mr. Van Wormer stated that pork chop islands have been placed on State Aid roads for safety concerns, but only at intersections on Principle Arterials. Mr. Van Wormer stated that he would take the specific example given by the Committee to the State, but that the initial indication is "that it probably wouldn't fly."

Mr. Van Wormer stated that he had brought along a copy of the text "Neighborhood Traffic Control," for the Committee if they would to look at specific examples. Mr. Pederson stated that the City of Apple Valley has a copy that could be borrowed to a Committee Member if they would like. Mr. Van Wormer stated that additional information is available on the internet at (http://www.ite.org).

Mr. Van Wormer discussed with the Committee his experiences with the various traffic calming measures presented at the last meeting. Mr. Van Wormer stated that speed humps have a continual impact; medians and traffic circles hold their effectiveness over time; markings and signs work well and then have a reduced effectiveness over time; road narrowing has mixed results, and that higher volume streets will result in an increased effectiveness in narrowing; traffic diverting has a mixed local acceptance; and pork chop islands divert traffic.

Mr. Van Wormer presented information on traffic capacities for Garden View Drive, Whitney Drive, and 157^th Street. Mr. Van Wormer presented a table on the Metropolitan Council's Functional Classification System Characteristics for the Twin Cities Region for the Committee (Attachment 16). Mr. Van Wormer stated that the streets are designated for classification purposes and for guidelines as established by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Van Wormer stated that there is a difference between design capacity and physical capacity. Mr. Van Wormer estimated that the physical capacity of Garden View Drive was 1900 vehicles per hour, but that the design capacity was much lower. Mr. Van Wormer cautioned the Committee on how much thought be placed in traffic capacity because the capacity designation in functional classification is done for planning purposes only. The Committee discussed the revised comprehensive plan traffic forecasts for Garden View Drive. The Committee requested information on where the 3,000 to 6,000 traffic volumes Community Development Director Kelley stated at the last meeting originated from.

Mr. Van Wormer stated that the report has been completed and that a final draft of the report would be provided to the Committee at some point further along in the process. Mr. Van Wormer stated that any signage would be able to be put in place by the time school begins in the fall.

Mr. Van Wormer presented information to the Committee on traffic forecasts through the year 2020. Mr. Van Wormer explained that traffic forecasts were generated through a gravity model, which is based on employment, destinations, etc. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the projected 2020 volumes for Highview Avenue at County Road 46 is 13,000 vehicles. Committee Member Louis stated she was informed the projection was for 13,700 vehicles. Mr. Van Wormer stated the April 2000 projection was for 13,000 vehicles but that variation could exist because this projection is 20 years into the future. Mr. Van Wormer stated that based on the gravity model, traffic volumes in 2020 would increase from 2,750 to 4,200 on Garden View Drive north of County Road 46, and from 5,300 to 6,700 on Garden View Drive at Whitney Drive in 2020 (Attachment 17).

The Committee discussed whether the Highview Avenue traffic would use Garden View Drive or Cedar Avenue. Committee Member Hamann-Roland requested that Dakota County Engineer Theisen respond. Mr. Theisen stated that the County expects people to use Highview Avenue for short distance trips and use other routes to travel throughout the County. Mr. Theisen stated that the County does not expect traffic to travel Highview Avenue through Garden View Drive as a preferred route because other alternatives will provide for faster trips. Committee Member Louis stated that Leslie Vermillion, Transportation Engineer, with the Dakota County Highway Department had told her that Garden View Drive would be an alternative to Cedar Avenue. Mr. Theisen stated that he felt Committee Member Louis misinterpreted Ms. Vermillion's comments.

Mr. Van Wormer stated that he has preliminarily examined the line of sight on the "S" curve near County Road 46 on Garden View Drive. Mr. Van Wormer stated a 20 mile per hour (mph) line of sight was adequate, and a 30 mph westbound line of sight was adequate but that eastbound was too close to call and would need further examination.

The Committee discussed issuing a press release. The Committee agreed that Committee Member McKeag would draft a press release for the Committee and e-mail it to the Committee list-serve who would then have until Friday, June 30 to respond.

Marlene Libby stated that the meeting time limit the Committee set had approached. Ms. Libby stated that at the next meeting, the Committee would begin to identify the challenges and concerns presented in the first meeting and place those challenges and concerns on a map of the Garden View Drive area.

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