COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Lloyd Lawrence, Neil Evers, John Bergman, Mark Nelson, Gary Shade, Mary Hamann-Roland, Dave McKeag (Arrived at 9:50 p.m.), Ruth Grendahl, Denise Louis, Arthur Zimmerman, Peg Smith, Richard Berg , Nathan Koering, Jeff Loch,

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Heieren

OTHERS PRESENT: Integrated Process Management Facilitator, Marlene Libby, Dakota County Physical Development Director Susan Hoyt, SEH Traffic Engineering Consultant Glen Van Wormer, City Administrator Tom Lawell, Community Development Director Rick Kelley, Acting Public Works Director Neal Heuer, Police Department Captain Merle Lohse, Administrative Assistant to the City Administrator Andy Pederson,

Meeting Facilitator Libby called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

Ms. Libby distributed information to the Committee including: (a) an article from the Apple Valley This Week Newspaper entitled "Apple Valley makes first resolution in Garden View Drive debate," (Attachment 1); (b) an illustration of the County Road 46 and Garden View Drive preliminary design acceptable to Dakota County dated July 20, 2000, as presented by Don Theisen, Dakota County engineer, at the July 24, 2000, meeting (Attachment 2); and (c) a revised summarized list of concept priorities as prepared by Glen Van Wormer. (Attachment 3). Committee Member Berg stated that Committee Member Heieren would be unable to attend the meeting, and distributed a letter dated July 31, 2000, from Committee Member Heieren (Attachment 4).

Andy Pederson stated the requested changes to the July 24, 2000, Meeting minutes that were received via e-mail have been made, and they include:

• Add on page six the statement "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."
• Revise the sentence on page six to state "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."
• Clarify the statements made by Mr. Theisen on page six by adding the following: " 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."

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 24, 2000 Meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously.

The Committee viewed a commercial produced by Budget Rental Car entitled "Jet Propulsion." The Committee also viewed a news story produced by WCCO Television, which aired on April 13, 2000, entitled "Speeders on 50^th Street."

The Committee discussed the ground rules of how they would come to a consensus and agreement on final resolution to the Garden View Drive issue. Ms. Libby stated that consensus as defined in the June 1, 2000, meeting ground rules is something that everybody can live with and that everybody is able to buy into. Ms. Libby stated that final resolution would come as a result of consensus by the Committee.

The Committee discussed its role and responsibilities. Committee Member Louis stated that she was informed by a neighbor who had heard from someone that they had seen a plan to make Garden View Drive a four-lane road. Committee Member Louis submitted to the City a letter requesting any information pertaining to plans for Garden View Drive to become a Garden View Drive (Attachment 5). Community Development Director Kelley stated that no plans or concepts regarding Garden View Drive becoming a four-lane street, official or unofficial, exist. Acting Public Works Director Heuer also stated that no plans or concepts regarding Garden View Drive becoming a four-lane street, official or unofficial, exist.

Committee Member Hamann-Roland stated that the City Council created this Committee in good faith and that the City Council truly wants this to be an effective way to come up with solutions for our community. Committee Member Hamann-Roland stated that she truly wants each Committee Member to believe that the City has not received any plan, concept, or even had discussions regarding Garden View Drive becoming a four-lane street. Committee Member Hamann-Roland stated that whatever words one would like to use, no such plan exists.

Committee Member Berg stated that he believes that the Committee should stick with the facts, that indeed the City has not seen any such plans, and that Committee should focus on the concept solutions and move forward. Committee Member Grendahl re-emphasized the point that no plans, concepts, or discussions exist or have taken place regarding the development of Garden View Drive into a four-lane street. Committee Member Grendahl stated that this Committee, City staff, and the others involved in this Committee are committed to developing an effective solution.

Mr. Van Wormer stated that he had the opportunity to meet with four state aid representatives this past week. Mr. Van Wormer stated that "after reviewing the concept plan developed by Dakota County, State Aid Representatives said their inclination was not to approve the channelized island concept and if installed, not to keep Garden View Drive at County Road 46 on the state aid system. It (the Concept) does not meet the criteria of continuity of system for Municipal State Aid (MSA) and instead represents a segmentation of system. The MSA system represents a network of streets consistent between communities and the whole system needs to be considered for traffic."

Mr. Van Wormer stated that MSA would probably revert back to 157^th Street. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the chances of changing the above inclination of MSA representatives were slim, but that the Committee could attempt to make a persuasive case for the channelizing island.

Mr. Van Wormer displayed a map indicating where each of the stoplights are located on Cedar Avenue in Apple Valley. Mr. Van Wormer presented this information so that the Committee would be able to examine the larger picture as it examines potential solutions.

Mr. Van Wormer presented a map illustrating routes for cut through traffic to the commercial area.

Mr. Van Wormer presented a map illustrating the amount of traffic generated from the abutting neighborhoods.

Mr. Van Wormer presented a map illustrating a commuter flow of traffic from Apple Valley south on Garden View Drive, then west on County Road 46, and then north on Interstate 35.

Mr. Van Wormer presented a map illustrating the alternate routes, such as Harwell Avenue, Hyland Pointe, Harmony Way, and 157^th Street, that vehicles may potentially use if restrictions are placed on Garden View Drive at County road 46.

Mr. Van Wormer presented a map illustrating how restrictions at Garden View Drive and County Road 46 would make two cities (Lakeville and Apple Valley) develop unique routes throughout their respective cities.

Mr. Van Wormer presented a map illustrating viable alternatives such as Lac Lavon Drive and Cedar Avenue.

Mr. Van Wormer presented illustrative examples of potential concept solutions including:

• Connection of Garden View Drive, Highview Avenue, and County Road 46 as regular intersection;
• Creation of a park located at Garden View Drive and County Road 46 thus closing Garden View Drive;
• Cul-de-sac located on Garden View Drive at County Road 46;
• Cul-de-sac located at Garden View Drive on Hyland Pointe Court;
• Channelizing island developed by Dakota County;
• Channelizing island developed by SEH, Inc.;
• Right-turn only at Garden View Drive and County Road 46.

Committee Member Evers stated that the area he represents would prefer to maintain their access to County Road 46 versus Garden View Drive. Committee Member Evers expressed concern over how residents would access their neighborhoods from the south if restrictions were placed on County Road 46 at Garden View Drive and County Road 46 at Hyland Avenue.

Committee Member Lawrence stated that the Committee should consider the phased implementation of potential solutions. Committee Member Lawrence discussed the potential of narrowing Garden View Drive, and the ability to slow and block traffic along the street, and if the City would change the affected street from a neighborhood collector to a neighborhood street. Committee Member Nelson discussed the potential to choke the intersection of Garden View Drive and Whitney Drive. The Committee had a general discussion on geometric changes.

Meeting break at 8:20 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m.

The Committee discussed who should be involved in coming to a consensus, and whether the Planning Commission and City Council representatives on the Committee should be involved in this process. Ms. Libby stated that all members should contribute their knowledge and input to the process. The Committee discussed the amount of relevant information and contribution the members of the City Council and Planning Commission had inputted thus far in the process. The Committee discussed the fact that each member represents a different interest, and these perspectives are valuable and crucial to the process. The Committee also stated that it is helpful to know what would and would not be acceptable to the City Council as the Committee proceeds. Committee Member Grendahl stated that she would also like to see what potential implications any such solution may have before they are determined. The Committee determined that all Committee Members will continue to actively participate in the process.

The Committee reviewed the summarized list of concept priorities and made determination whether to continue to examine the potential solution (Attachment 3). The solutions the Committee determined to continue are as follows, and Mr. Van Wormer will incorporate all other potential solutions into a concept sketch.

1. Geometric Changes

• *Channelizing right turn lane (pork chop)
• Restrict access to Hyland
• Narrow road
• Breakup straight aways
• Fix pavement at Whitney: Acting Public Works Director stated the pavement on Whitney Drive would be fixed next summer.
• * Define left turn lanes: Committee discussed the definition of turn lanes on Garden View Drive at Whitney Drive, County Road 42, and 140^th Street.
• * One lane at County Road 42 (chokers)
• * One lane per direction at Whitney
• * Turn lanes at 140th, County Road 42
• * Move sidewalk and crossing of frontage road at County Road 42

2. Traffic Calming

• Partial diverter
• Chokers
• Chokers on side streets
• Median islands
• Speed humps
• Speed humps on Harwell

2. Traffic Operations

• Review sight distance on 90-degree turns on Whitney
• Stop traffic before frontage roads at County Road 42
• Control high school traffic at 143^rd to use Hayes
• Reduce driveway conflicts at commercial driveways at County Road 42
• * School speed zone (Being done)
• * School zone signs (speed limits) (Being done)
• * Lower speed limit
• * Reduce speeds
• * Speed limit reduction
• Neighborhood speed watch
• The Committee discussed the analysis completed by MnDOT regarding the speed limits on Garden View Drive. MnDOT stated that they could decrease speed 5 mph from 45 mph to 40 mph north of 144^th Street; however, they would require a 10 mph increase from 30 mph to 40 mph south of 144^th Street to Walnut Lane which is across from Westview Elementary School crossing area. The Committee recommended that, when presented with two options, the speed limits remain the same as they are now. The option the Committee rejected was a proposal by MnDOT to decrease and increase speed limits in different areas along Garden View Drive. The Committee felt the MnDOT proposal endangered the many children walking to Westview Elementary School.

2. Traffic Controls, Signs, Markings

• Crosswalks Marked
• Different colors
• More pedestrian crossings
• Raised crosswalks
• County Road 46 crosswalk islands
• Markings Advance warning for crosswalks
• Stop lines at crosswalks
• White edge lines
• Painted converging chevrons
• Paint corner curbs
• 30 mph markings
• Signs Advance signs for crosswalks
• New crosswalk sign for center of street
• Signs for park entrances
• Directional signs
• "Local Traffic Only" signs on Garden View
• "Local Traffic Only" signs on Hyland
• Reduce number of signs
• "No Right Turn on Red Light" at some locations
• Stop signs at Baldwin
• "Neighborhood" signing
• "No jake braking" signs (noise), Noise ordinance enforcement for County Road 46.
• Locally installed signs – "Please respect our neighborhood"
• Signals Traffic signal at Whitney and Garden View
• Pedestrian activated signal
• Pedestrian traffic signal
• Left turn arrows for Garden View at County Road 42
• Signal at Pennock and 153^rd
• Pedestrian flasher with time clock
• Parking Parking restrictions
• Parking in ped areas (Whitney)
• On-street parking

2. ** Transit, Buses

• Reroute empty MVTA buses
• Reroute school buses
• Change bus schedules (school) to avoid school peds
• School access and circulation patterns
• Limit access to school at certain times

2. ** Ped Routes

• Sidewalks
• Ped trail connection
• Pedestrian routes
• Pedestrian education
• Pedestrian bridge - County Road 42
• Adult patrols
• Mechanical guards

2. ** Neighborhood

• Develop sense of community
• Landscaping – create neighborhood area
• Landscape (roadway)
• Landscaping and street lights for neighborhood
• Neighborhood gateway
• Tree grant for landscaping
• Street lights
• Neighborhood awareness
• Art along the street
• Residential street designation
• Encourage pedestrian traffic
• Stress access vs. mobility
• Minneapolis parkway rules
• Neighborhood empowerment fund
• Public service announcements in newspaper
• Public service announcements on cable TV
• Enforcement
• Enforcement of laws

2. ** General

• Decrease volumes
• Reduce volumes
• Divert traffic
• Shift traffic
• Shift traffic to Lac Lavon
• Encourage traffic to Cedar Avenue or I-35
• Restrict traffic types
• Restrict traffic type and composition
• Local traffic only
• Reduce cut-through traffic
• Reduce commercial traffic
• Weight restrictions
• Improve County Road 11 from I-35E to County Road 46
• Improve signal timing on Cedar Avenue, Add more lanes/possible removal/reduction of lights to make Cedar Avenue more convenient than Garden View Drive
• Seek Lakeville cooperation in moving traffic
• Decrease vehicle noise

** Based on the fact that the time limit for the meeting had expired, the Committee briefly examined items four though eight and requested that Mr. Van Wormer develop a plan that he would recommend and that the Committee use that as a guide to reject and accept the alternatives they feel are worthy of continuing to explore. Mr. Van Wormer stated that he would develop a plan for the entire street that would incorporate the accepted concept solution and bring this proposal back to the Committee at its next meeting.

The Committee discussed its meeting schedule. Mr. Van Wormer stated that he would need a couple weeks to develop a plan and prepare any necessary displays to illustrate what potential solutions might work to meet the objectives of the Committee. The Committee discussed the potential of holding its next meeting on August 14^th. Due to the fact that several Committee Members would not be able to attend a August 14^th meeting, the Committee determined that its next meeting date would be August 21^st.

Mr. Van Wormer stated that he would work to develop a illustrative concept plan that he would then present to the Committee at its next meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.