July 24, 2000, Garden View Drive Ad Hoc Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

MINUTES OF GARDEN VIEW DRIVE TRAFFIC AD HOC COMMITTEE

July 24, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.

Apple Valley City Hall

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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Berg

OTHERS PRESENT: Integrated Process Management Facilitator, Marlene Libby, Dakota County Commissioner Willis Branning, Dakota County Engineer Don Theisen, Dakota County Physical Development Director Susan Hoyt, SEH Traffic Engineering Consultant Glen Van Wormer, City Administrator Tom Lawell, Community Development Director Rick Kelley, Police Department Captain Merle Lohse, Administrative Assistant to the City Administrator Andy Pederson, Ron Olsen

Meeting Facilitator Libby called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.

Ms. Libby distributed previously requested information by the Committee including: (a) an article from the City of Lakeville newsletter entitled "Speed limits are determined by the state." (Attachment 1); (b) existing City of Lakeville traffic volumes per the City of Lakeville Transportation Plan (Attachment 2); (c) preliminary plat of the proposed Vermillion Springs development in the City of Lakeville (Attachment 3); (d) map indicating traffic volumes at various locations on Garden View Drive from County Road 46 to County Road 38 (Attachment 4); (e) revised list of summarized concerns as discussed at the July 17, 2000, meeting (Attachment 5). Committee Member Heieren stated that Committee Member Berg would be unable to attend the meeting, and distributed a letter dated July 24, 2000, from Committee Member Berg (Attachment 6).

Andy Pederson stated the requested changes to the July 17, 2000, Meeting minutes that were received via e-mail have been made, and they include:

Add to the list of concerns: Pedestrian accidents on Garden View Drive in the sections entitled: 140th Street to Walnut Lane, Walnut Lane to Whitney Drive, and Whitney Drive to Hyland Point Court.
Page four: add to the list of concerns the following concerns: "The intersection of Garden View Drive and Whitney Drive is being utilized as a four lane road to avoid waiting for turning vehicles;" and "How much time school kids actually spend in the roadway while crossing the street."
Page five: add the sentence "That the Community Education schools at Grace Lutheran are going to continue at their present location for at least another year, and that MVTA bus service be maintained to the facility to help shuttle people to these schools each day."

Mr. 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 the Committee to approve the July 17, 2000 Meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously.

CONCEPT SOLUTIONS DISCUSSION

Glen Van Wormer presented the revised summarized list of concerns presented at the July 17, 2000, Meeting. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the next step in the process is to discuss potential concept solutions that would attempt to remedy the summarized list of concerns. Mr. Van Wormer presented five general areas of concern: (a) Community issues; (b) Traffic type and composition; (c) Pedestrians; (d) Traffic flow; and (e) Roadway and Adjacent Areas.

Potential Concept Solutions to resolve Pedestrian Issues

The Committee discussed the following potential concept solutions to resolve pedestrian issues:

Marked crosswalks;

New State Law sign for placement in middle of the road;

Decrease volume and vehicle noise;

Adult patrols;

Enforcement;

Reduce speeds;

Traffic signal at the intersection of Garden View Drive and Whitney Drive;

Pedestrian bridges;

Chokers;

Median islands;

Restrict traffic type and composition;

Crosswalk colors;

Partial diverters;

Advance warning markings;

Parking restrictions;

Parking restrictions in pedestrian areas;

Raised crosswalks;

Stop lines;

Advanced signage;

Pedestrian flasher with timeclock;

Reduce the number of signs;

Full diverter;

County Road 46 crosswalk/island;

Encourage pedestrian traffic;

Pedestrian activated signals;

Sidewalks;

Paint corners of curbs;

More pedestrian crossings;

Pedestrian routes;

Pedestrian education;

Close County Road 46 median from Lac Lavon Drive to Cedar Avenue;

Lower driveway volumes;

Move sidewalk/crossing at County Road 42 and Garden View Drive;

Timing of bus and pedestrian traffic from schools.

Potential Concept Solutions to resolve Traffic Flow Issues

The Committee discussed the following potential concept solutions to resolve traffic flow issues:

Close County Road 46 median from Lac Lavon Drive to Cedar Avenue;

Encourage flow of traffic to Cedar Avenue and Interstate 35;

Limit flow of traffic north from County Road 46;

Channelizing right turn island;

Lower speed limit;

Reduce volumes;

Chokers on Garden View Drive at Whitney Drive and Garden View Drive and 140^th Street;

Restrict access to the Hyland Avenue area;

Stop signs;

Landscaping;

Street lights;

Narrowing the road;

Turn lanes on Garden View Drive at Whitney Drive and 140^th Street;

Local traffic only signs;

Speed humps;

Full diverter in the Hyland Pointe area or south of 157^th Street on Garden View Drive;

Signal phasing on County Road 46;

Speed humps on Harwell Avenue;

No left turn signs;

Only one lane of traffic per direction at Whitney Drive;

White edge lines;

Converging chevrons at Garden View Drive and Whitney Drive;

Restrict traffic type and composition;

Control High School traffic at 143^rd Street;

Enforcement;

Break-up straight-aways;

Traffic islands at Hayes Trail and 157^th Street;

Signal at Pennock and 153^rd Street;

Restrict Highview Avenue;

Signals on County Road 46 at Harwell Avenue and Harmony Way;

No right turn on red at traffic signals;

Cul-de-sac the Hyland Avenue area at Garden View Drive and Garden View Drive at County Road 46;

Improve County Road 11;

Develop a park at Garden View Drive and County Road 46;

Directional signs.

Potential Concept Solutions to resolve Traffic Type Issues

The Committee discussed the following potential concept solutions to resolve traffic type issues:

Re-route empty MVTA buses;

Develop a park at Garden View Drive and County Road 46;

On-street parking;

Minneapolis parkway rules;

Reduce cut through traffic;

Weight restrictions;

School bus rerouting;

Shift traffic to neighboring streets;

Stress access versus mobility;

Chokers;

Narrowing the road;

Also examine side streets for similar alternatives;

Speed limit reduction;

Enforcement;

Neighborhood speed watch program.

Potential Concept Solutions to resolve Roadway and Adjacent Areas

The Committee discussed the following potential concept solutions to resolve roadway and adjacent area issues:

90 degreeturns at Whitney Drive;

Fix pavement at Whitney Drive;

School access and circulation at Valley Middle School;

Speed humps;

Geometrics of County Road 42 and Garden View Drive frontage roads;

Stop traffic before frontage road at County Road 42;

Pedestrian crossings at frontage road;

Chokers on Garden View Drive at County Road 42;

Left turn arrows on Garden View Drive at County Road 42;

Local traffic only;

Encourage traffic flow to Cedar Avenue and Interstate 35;

Define turn lanes;

Residential street designation;

Shift traffic to Lac Lavon Drive;

Landscaping;

30 mph pavement markings;

Develop a park at Garden View Drive and County Road 46;

School speed zones;

Limit access at school times;

Channelizing islands on Garden View Drive at County Road 46;

Cooperation with the City of Lakeville in moving traffic.

Potential Concept Solutions to resolve Community Issues

The Committee discussed the following potential concept solutions to Community issues:

Neighborhood awareness festival;

Develop sense of community;

Landscaping;

Street lights;

Divert traffic;

Locally installed signs;

Neighborhood gateway;

Neighborhood signing;

Signage for parks;

Public Service Announcements, Cable TV, and Newspaper;

Pedestrian trail connections;

Reduce volume;

Reduce noise;

Neighborhood Empowerment Fund;

Tree grant for landscaping.

Meeting break at 8:35 p.m. Committee reconvened at 8:45 p.m.

Mr. Van Wormer discussed how processes similar to the Garden View Drive Committee have evolved and presented examples of displays from the City of Golden Valley that could potentially be used at a future open-house. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the Golden Valley situation is currently going through the public process, and stated that the results were a "package of solutions" based on a similar committee process. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the implementation of the Golden Valley proposal could take approximately three to four years.

The Committee discussed potential funding sources such as grants for landscaping along Garden View Drive. The Committee requested that City staff research funding alternatives such as grants for landscaping.

The Committee discussed the potential benefits of a package of solutions and how the package would work over the course of the entire Garden View Drive corridor in Apple Valley.

The Committee discussed the potential timing of trip routes from the City of Lakeville. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the City of Apple Valley had already completed a study and the results indicate that travelling Cedar Avenue north from Lakeville is one to one and one-half minutes shorter in time than using Garden View Drive north.

DAKOTA COUNTY CHANNELIZING ISLAND PRESENTATION

Don Theisen, Dakota County Engineer presented four drawings illustrating a channelizing island at the intersection of Garden View Drive and County Road 46. Mr. Theisen presented three options that were problematic and unacceptable to the County for various reasons. Mr. Theisen presented alternative four (Attachment 7) which he indicated would be acceptable to Dakota County. Mr. Theisen estimated that the cost of such a channelizing island at the intersection of Garden View Drive and County Road 46 would be approximately $175,000 to $200,000. Mr. Theisen stated that approximately 6,000 square feet of right-of-way would need to be purchased in order to achieve the design presented and considered acceptable by Dakota County. Mr. Theisen stated that several concerns exist with regard to the channelizing island design. Mr. Theisen expressed concerns with regard to traffic diverted to the Hyland Avenue area, potential cut through traffic on other routes, snow removal operations, and the fact that traffic would find the next opening to gain access to the Garden View Drive area. Mr. Theisen stated that while the design as presented in alternative four would be acceptable for Dakota County, he would not recommend such a design.

Mr. Theisen stated the Garden View Drive, Highview Avenue, County Road 46 intersection would be signalized regardless of whether a channelizing island is placed at Garden View Drive and County Road 46. Mr. Theisen stated that Dakota County would take into account what this Committee recommends with regard to signal design at the intersection. Mr. Theisen stated that if a channelizing island was placed at the intersection, a signal would be placed at the intersection, with Dakota County paying two-thirds of the cost and the City of Lakeville paying the other one-third. Mr. Theisen stated that if a channelizing island is not placed at the intersection of Garden View Drive and County Road 46, Dakota County would pay one-half of the cost and the cities of Lakeville and Apple Valley would each pay one-fourth of the cost. Mr. Van Wormer estimated the total cost of the traffic signal would be $160,000. Community Development Director Kelley stated that the Apple Valley portion of the cost of a traffic signal at the intersection might be covered by the Municipal State Aid funds.

Mr. Thesien stated that Dakota County would not close the median on County Road 46 at Garden View Drive because the demand from Highview Avenue to access County Road 46 and Interstate 35 is too great.

The Committee discussed potential funding for the solutions recommended to the City Council by the Committee. The Committee discussed how it would be paid for as well as whether the residents in the neighborhoods in the area would be willing to pay for the recommended solutions. Committee Member Shade stated that if funding was an issue, his company would contribute $15,000 to the project if a channelizing island were placed on Garden View Drive at County Road 46. Committee Member Shade stated that the financial commitment would be subject to the approval of his company's board. Committee Member Louis asked whether it would be less expensive to create a right-turn only from Garden View Drive onto County Road 46. Mr. Theisen indicated that it would probably be somewhat cheaper but has not specially analyzed such an alternative.

Committee Member McKeag asked the Committee whether it has been decided that a physical restriction, such as a channelizing island will be recommended. Committee Member McKeag asked whether the Committee feels it is necessary to physically restrict traffic via channelizing islands or restrict traffic through a package of solutions.

The Committee asked Mr. Theisen his opinion on what he would recommend under the present circumstances. Mr. Theisen stated that he would not recommend what Dakota County deems as an acceptable channelizing island, but rather explore a smorgasbord of potential alternatives as were discussed at the meeting, and that an incremental phasing of these solutions would be advisable. Mr. Theisen stated that the physical restriction sets a precedent, and that if everyone who had a traffic problem used a physical restriction to restrict traffic, traffic would not be able flow throughout the County. Mr. Theisen stated that this Committee should also examine the greater collective good when examining potential solutions.

The Committee interpreted Mr. Theisen;'s comments to state that that he would not recommend a channelizing island at Garden View and County Road 46 as the first step in resolving issues on Garden View Drive; and that Mr. Theisen stated that traffic volume from the County Road 46 and Garden View Drive intersection would be best reduced by limiting physical access to Garden View Drive at County Road 46, although the committee should examine the greater good. In response to the Committee's interpretation of these comments, Mr. Theisen clarified his statements to the Committee by stating that the smorgasbord of solutions does include the channelizing island alternative, although he would not recommend it be the first solution put in place. With regard to reducing volume, Mr. Theisen stated that a channelizing island would be "a way" to reduce traffic volumes.

Committee Member Smith discussed the unique attributes of Garden View Drive and questioned whether there were similar situations to Garden View Drive in Dakota County. The Committee discussed various traffic and street situations in Dakota County.

ACTION ITEMS

Mr. Van Wormer stated that he would summarize and categorize the solutions presented at this meeting and mail each Committee Member a copy this week for their review. The Committee for the next meeting requested the following action items:

The Committee requested that City staff research funding alternatives such as grants for landscaping.

The Committee requested that Mr. Van Wormer meet with MnDOT State Aid Representatives to determine whether the channelizing island alternative that is acceptable to Dakota County would be permissible under MSA Guidelines.

Meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m.