Mr. Van Wormer stated that the recommended spacing between speed humps is every 400 feet, and that to increase their effectiveness, three speed humps should be placed in a group, meaning three speed humps spaced over 800 feet.

Mr. Van Wormer stated that he met with the Metro District State Aid Engineer and two Assistant Engineers and they stated that State Aid streets are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Van Wormer stated that their initial judgment call of the sketched proposal is that it "is not consistent with the State Aid requirement for continuity." Mr. Van Wormer stated that if the Committee determined that a channelizing island was a potential solution and plans were prepared, the State Aid Engineer would have to evaluate the specific proposal and make a determination at that time.

Mr. Van Wormer stated that he would provide the City with the School Zone Sign Report which would then be distributed at the next meeting.

Mr. Van Wormer distributed the Function Classification System Characteristics page for the Twin Cities Region which he had presented at the June 26, 2000, meeting.

Mr. Van Wormer presented information on the State Aid program which discusses one-way streets and stated that in order for one-way street to qualify as a State Aid street, another one-way State Aid street must be designated to maintain continuity in the system.

Mr. Van Wormer presented basic facts on one-way streets, including the fact that speeds on one-way street are generally higher, but safer for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic because of less conflicts and the fact that vehicles are traveling only one direction. Mr. Van Wormer stated the community response to one-way streets in general is heavily mixed.

Mr. Van Wormer presented information from Tom Sohrweide's text "Neighborhood Traffic Control" on full traffic diverters (Attachment 4). Mr. Van Wormer stated that full diverters make sure traffic does not allow traffic to go straight through on a street. Mr. Van Wormer stated that full diverters effectively reduce traffic volume and increases safety. Mr. Van Wormer stated that full diverters reduce traffic speeds at the diverter, but speeds are generally back to normal after the diverter. Committee Member Lawrence stated the full diverters make drivers concentrate on the road more. Mr. Van Wormer stated that full diverters probably work best in a grid pattern and also work well if another street exists where the traffic can be diverted. Mr. Van Wormer stated that access must be preserved for emergency vehicles when full diverters are implemented.

Mr. Van Wormer presented information from Tom Sohrweide's text "Neighborhood Traffic Control" on partial traffic diverters (Attachment 5). Mr. Van Wormer stated that the impact on traffic volumes is drastic, and that traffic volumes on alternate routes increases. Mr. Van Wormer stated that adequate room is needed to install partial diverters, and that they only work when there is enough traffic volume on the street to dissuade individuals from entering the street.

Mr. Van Wormer presented various scales to demonstrate the importance of factoring turning radius into the development of channelizing islands. Mr. Van Wormer discussed the radius of turns for various vehicles. The Committee requested copies of the MNDOT drawings from Mr. Van Wormer's presentation on channelizing islands. Mr. Van Wormer stated that channelizing islands must be designed for turning radiuses of emergency vehicles, snow plows, commercial delivery vehicles, and passenger automobiles. Mr. Van Wormer stated that channelizing islands are difficult to control with traffic signals. Mr. Van Wormer stated that four concerns must be taken into consideration with regard to channelizing islands:

The Committee discussed these four considerations in relation to the County Road 46 and Garden View Drive intersection.

Andy Pederson presented pictures taken from the various channelizing islands within the City of Apple Valley (Attachment 6). Mr. Pederson presented pictures taken by both Committee Member Bergman and City staff at the channelizing island at the north end of the Cub Foods parking lot. The Committee discussed the misuse and illegal left turns at the channelizing island at the Cub Foods parking lot location.

Mr. Pederson presented pictures taken by both Committee Member Bergman and City staff at the channelizing island located at Haven Drive and Guthrie Avenue behind the Wal Mart store. The Committee discussed the effectiveness of these channelizing islands. Committee Member Bergman stated that the channelizing islands are commonly misused and illegal left turns are frequently made at the two channelizing islands. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the initial estimate of compliance with the Guthrie Avenue southbound left turn at the channelizing island was 75 percent. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the volume southbound on Guthrie Avenue has decreased by 50 percent after the channelizing islands were installed.

Mr. Pederson presented pictures taken by both Committee Member Bergman and City staff at the channelizing island at the south end of Fischer Marketplace along County Road 42. The Committee discussed the various turning movements at these channelizing island locations.

Mr. Pederson presented pictures taken by both Committee Member Bergman and City staff at the channelizing island in the Prairie Crossing Development along County Road 42 in eastern Apple Valley. The Committee discussed the effectiveness as well as the misuse of the channelizing island in this location. Community Development Director Kelley stated that he witnesses the misuse and illegal left turns against traffic every day.

Don Theisen, Dakota County Engineer, stated that the example previously presented by Committee Member Louis and prepared by the City of Lakeville Traffic Consultant Denny Eihler does not conform to the standards Mr. Van Wormer had previously presented. Mr. Theisen stated that the sketched proposal by Mr. Eihler avoids the purchase of additional right-of-way. Mr. Theisen stated that the sketched proposal includes an acceleration lane which would be problematic based on the proximity of Hyland Avenue. The Committee discussed how the traffic signals would be structured if a channelizing island was installed at County Road 46 and Garden View Drive. Mr. Theisen stated that the intersection would be three legged and that the right turn traffic from Garden View Drive would not be signalized.

Committee Member Bergman asked Mr. Theisen whether he could devise a plan and draw a schematic that would work. Mr. Theisen indicated that anything could be engineered, but additional right-of-way would need to be purchased. Susan Hoyt, Dakota County Physical Development Director, stated that the County would work with Mr. Van Wormer and the City of Apple Valley to design a channelizing island that meets both County and City standards once the specific goal of the improvement is defined. Committee Members Shade, Louis, Smith, and Zimmerman all expressed interest in the County developing a plan for a channelizing island at Garden View Drive and County Road 46. Susan Hoyt, Dakota County Physical Development Director, stated that the County would like more information on the specific problems that the Committee is trying to solve. Committee Member Zimmerman stated that he would like to know what is acceptable for the County before the Committee makes a recommendation that would be unacceptable for the County.

The Committee discussed several items with relation to channelizing islands. Committee Member Shade asked Mr. Theisen what would geometrically work at the corner of County Road 46 and Garden View Drive. Committee Member Louis read to the Committee various definitions of street classifications.

Committee Member Bergman asked Mr. Theisen whether the Committee should explore restricting access to County Road 42. Mr. Theisen stated that the County would fully support the removal of access at County Road 42 and Garden View Drive as well as the installation of a center median on County Road 42 to restrict access and allow a more open traffic flow along County Road 42. Mr. Theisen stated that the cities are usually opposed to restricting access at intersections such as Garden View Drive and County Road 42.

Committee Member Heieren discussed the potential of full traffic diversions at 157^th Street and Garden View Drive, as well as County Road 42 and Garden View Drive, and County Road 46 and Garden View Drive.

Mr. Theisen stated the City should discuss its position on a channelizing island. City Administrator Lawell stated that the City Council formed the present Committee to solve the problems not only of Garden View Drive, but of the other potentially affected roads in the Garden View Drive area. City Administrator Lawell stated that the City Council does not want to remedy the problem on Garden View Drive by creating a new problem on local streets that could potentially be affected by any decision made and implemented on Garden View Drive.

Acting Public Works Director Neal Heuer stated that a resident on Harwell Avenue who expressed concerns about traffic speeds on Harwell Avenue had contacted him. Mr. Heuer stated that the resident indicated that four day cares are located on Harwell Avenue.

Committee Member Heieren stated that he did not want to see all the traffic diverted to nearby streets, but that he felt some of this traffic could be diverted. Committee Member Berg cautioned the Committee that Garden View Drive and the Hyland Pointe Court area are interconnected. Committee Member Shade stated that a channelizing island could also be placed on Hyland Avenue at County Road 46. Committee Member Evers expressed concern about how residents coming from the south would access their homes if both Garden View Drive and Hyland Avenue were not available.

Facilitator Libby requested that the Committee agree on a number for traffic volume as a basis to measure its solutions to determine the impact and results of the solutions the Committee decides upon.

Committee Member Berg presented information on traffic volume for County Road 46 at Highview Avenue and Garden View Drive Traffic Study (Attachment 7). Committee Member Berg stated that the statistics show that currently 500 cars per day are a result of Highview Avenue (north-bound Highview and south-bound Garden View Drive). Committee Member Berg indicated that the traffic patterns will change as the alignment and the conveniences associated with re-alignment of Garden View Drive and Highview Avenue occur. Don Theisen, Dakota County Engineer, stated that the numbers in the Dakota County study cannot be used to project what the alignment counts will be or extrapolate information other than for what the study was intended. The Committee discussed the information presented by Committee Member Berg

Committee Member Lawrence asked what is an acceptable level of capacity based on the factors that Garden View Drive, 157^th Street, and Whitney Drive present. Committee Member Heieren stated that the SEH statistics show that there are 1,663 cars (4.6 cars per minute or one car every 13 seconds) between the hours of 2:00 and 7:00 pm. on Garden View Drive at 157^th Street. Committee Member Heieren stated that this level of traffic is unacceptable.

Committee Member Nelson stated that the Committee should use the highest traffic capacity number possible so that false expectations are not created. Committee Member Louis discussed the roadway levels of service (A-F). Mr. Van Wormer stated that the traffic volumes in part are affected by the traffic generation information previously presented to the Committee and the factors that affect the traffic generation.

The Committee debated whether an acceptable traffic volume and capacity number is necessary. City Administrator Lawell stated that a variation in traffic volumes over time will exist, and an agreed upon acceptable level of traffic could be used as a benchmark to define the effectiveness of the solution the Committee recommends.

Mr. Van Wormer stated the Committee should not only look at the traffic volumes, but that the Committee should also keep in mind the control and actions of the drivers.

The Committee stated that the current traffic volumes as presented in previous meeting minute attachments were unacceptable volumes of traffic on Garden View Drive and the surrounding neighborhoods and requested that Mr. Van Wormer present one map with all pertinent traffic count information. The Committee did not reach a consensus on the acceptable volume of traffic on Garden View Drive and the surrounding neighborhood, but did agree that current traffic volumes were unacceptable.

Marlene Libby stated that the meeting time limit the Committee set had approached. Ms. Libby stated that at the next meeting, the Committee would map the challenges and concerns presented in the first meeting and place those challenges and concerns on a map of the Garden View Drive area. Ms. Libby distributed a map of the area and requested the Committee Members identify where the challenges and concerns identified in the June 1, 2000, meeting are most prevalent and place those concerns on the map. Mr. Pederson distributed a copy of the challenges and concerns from the June 1, 2000, Meeting minutes.

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