COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Lloyd Lawrence, John Bergman, Denise Louis, Jeff Loch, Mark Heieren, Arthur Zimmerman, Peg Smith, Neil Evers, Mary Hamann-Roland, Richard Berg

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave McKeag, Ruth Grendahl, Mark Nelson

OTHER PRESENT: Integrated Process Management Facilitator Marlene Libby, SEH Traffic Engineer Glen Van Wormer, Police Captain Merle Lohse, City Administrator Tom Lawell, City Public Works Director Neil Heuer

Meeting Facilitator Libby called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. Committee discussed the format of the meeting that was to be held at 7:00 p.m. with residents from the Harwell Avenue area and Harmony Drive area. Format would be to introduce the members, ask the residents if they had questions on the recommendations, ask them to state their individual concerns, and then ask them for their ideas for solutions or suggestions. This concept was agreed to and the Committee set up the room to accommodate the residents’ participation.

The Committee then discussed the previous Hyland Pointe area resident meeting. The majority of the Hyland Avenue residents did not want the diverter on Garden View Drive at 160th Street. If the diverter were to be installed, there were significant differences of opinion as to what should be done. A proposal for a dead-end on Hyland Pointe Court could lead to both maintenance and emergency service problems if a cul-de-sac was not installed. There is not physical room for a cul-de-sac. Richard Berg questioned whether the Hyland residents had enough information on additional traffic volumes that would result from some of their ideas.

The meeting was temporary adjourned pending the arrival of the Harwell Avenue residents.

At 7:00 p.m., Marlene Libby called the meeting back to order. Members of the Committee introduced themselves followed by members of the City staff. Marlene indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to listen to the concerns and issues to be brought forth by the residents. She asked who had been at the open house and only one resident indicated they had attended. There were 14 residents in attendance, including 1 child. Marlene indicated that the Committee is listening to opinions of other residents and that is why the Committee setup the meeting with the Harwell Avenue residents. Marlene also summarized the results of the open house held last year. She indicated that tonight, each resident would be given the opportunity to speak on specific concerns that they had.

Residents asked that the plan be explained prior to giving their concepts. Glen Van Wormer provided an overall summary of the concepts in the entire corridor including potential traffic calming on adjacent streets.

A resident asked how traffic projections were developed. Glen explained that traffic counts, license plate checks, traffic projections from Lakeville, and other elements were used to develop projections for specific streets. Other comments, based on questions, included commercial development in Lakeville has been taken into account, little additional school related traffic from south of 160th Street is anticipated even with budget cuts, impact of completion of Ipava Avenue was considered, and alternate routes to commercial areas in Apple Valley were described.

Each of the residents was then given an opportunity to state their concerns with the Garden View Avenue Committee’s recommendations. A summarized list of their concerns follows:

• · Volumes projected for Harwell with "pork chop". "Pork chops" on all intersections on County Road 46 suggested.
• · U-turns on hill at Harwell on 160th Street.
• · Agree with Garden View and Whitney calming, but will traffic speed down Harwell?
• · Wait and see before installed "pork chop."
• · Sidewalks are good in area.
• · Kids get into street even with sidewalks.
• · High speed on Harwell now.
• · Divert traffic to Cedar, not to Harwell.
• · Curve and hill on Harwell create traffic problems.
• · Harwell has narrower street from curb to curb and parking interferes with traffic.
• · Visibility on top of hill on County Road 46 is obscured by snow banks, weeds and grass.
• · Increased traffic creates problems for southbound Harwell Avenue.
• · Harwell is not designed for volumes anticipated with "pork chop".
• · Safety with four daycares on Harwell is concern.
• · Property values will go down.
• · New drivers going onto 160th will have problem.
• · Extra volumes on Harwell can not be handled.
• · Snow/ice on hill with more traffic will be bigger problem.
• · Lack of enforcement is problem now.
• · Being taxed for Garden View improvements is not fair to other residents.
• · Emergency services, etc. from Lakeville origin are a concern. Lots of potential sites for emergencies (parks, lakes, etc.) in the area.
• · In favor of all calming measures on any street. Speed is major concern.
• · Reuse the speed trailer on Harwell.
• · Traffic on Garden View north of Whitney is same with or without the "pork chop".
• · Diverted traffic will drive faster.
• · Speed comes with volumes.
• · Garden View set up different than Harwell for handling traffic.
• · Number of houses on each route is different and increased distances for more houses is a concern.
• · Potential litigation from Hyland Pointe Association.
• · Ped bridge should be built.
• · Steep hill on Harwell will make traffic calming not effective.

Following the concerns, residents were asked for comments, solutions, ideas, suggestions, etc. They are summarized as follows:

Ideas and Recommendations

The Harwell residents then asked for comments from the Committee members. Denise Louis commented on her views on the existing condition of traffic on Harwell Avenue. John Bergman indicated that he lives on a street with an existing "pork chop". He indicated there are some indirect routes and some violations based on the specific design at his location. Peg Smith indicated the amount of effort that the Committee had put into the recommendations and that safety was the key goal.

The residents from Harwell indicated that they need some type of a report so they know the Committee is following through on their (Harwell) comments and suggestions. It was indicated that the minutes would be produced quickly, reviewed via the email system, and then posted on the web site.

A short recess was taken while the Garden View residents left and to allow some individual discussions. At 8:45 p.m., Marlene called the meeting back together. Jeff Loch indicated that he wants something to happen, but that a vocal minority may push to beat the "pork chop". He suggested that the "pork chop" might be included in the last phase.

Mark Heieren indicated that the Committee has not heard specifically from the Garden View residents. There was concern that the Committee may be doing a disservice to residents on Garden View by inviting specific residents from Harwell and from Hyland Pointe. Discussion ensued regarding the open house, the fact that the Committee meetings were open, and that the Committee agreed to not use "noise and numbers" as a means to influence any decisions. Lloyd Lawrence indicated that Whitney Drive residents also had items at stake with the installation or removal of the "pork chop" from the recommendations.

Discussion then ensued over the potential installation of a "pork chop" after the traffic signals have been installed. Glen indicated that it would change the County’s perspective from deciding on the basis of forecasted problems to measurable concerns and problems, and therefore, might get a better reaction from the County. However, there would also be the costs that would probably fall completely on the City and the approval process that would change a standard intersection with a traffic signal into something unique in the County.

Several members then spoke relative to the specific project and to the "pork chop". John Bergman expressed concern that there would be a major amount of discussion and a "free for all" at the Council meeting. He also indicated the Committee has always known the Council could make the final decision, and the Committee was only making a recommendation. Marlene indicated the Committee’s role was to make a recommendation and their work was then done. They would not have to forever defend the recommendation. Several options suggested by the Hyland Pointe Court residents were then rediscussed. Traffic calming on alternate routes was also discussed. Potential to continue with the 160th and Garden View diverter and dropping the other diverters or restrictions at Hyland were discussed. The Committee expressed concern for traffic in both neighborhoods and looked for ways to make changes in the neighborhoods with the "pork chop" inplace.

Discussion was also held relative to phasing in the plan and to subtitle the phases. Reaction was mixed, and it elicited more discussion. It was suggested that a volume level on Garden View Drive be used to trigger when the "pork chop" would go in if it is not included initially.

The Committee then used several key words and sentences to structure a final recommendation. The final recommendation is as follows:

• · Install a channelized island on Garden View Drive at County Road 46 as recommended previously. This is the only sure method to reduce future traffic in the corridor. It is understood that there are inconveniences and the diversion of traffic has impacts.
• · Traffic calming should be added to Harwell Avenue, Harmony Drive, and Hyland Pointe Road involving the residents in the decisions on types and locations of calming. Traffic is already a concern on Harwell.
• · If the Council elects to modify the recommendations, such as deleting the "pork chop", the following requests are made:

• The remainder of the recommendations continues forward.
• The "pork chop" not be dropped, but only deleted from the approved recommendations.
• The design for the traffic signals be compatible with the potential installation of the "pork chop", as designed by the County.

• · The Committee feels there is too much traffic now. Traffic growth in the Garden View corridor is expected in the future as Lakeville grows and as it has a direct link to Garden View Drive, Whitney Drive, and other corridor streets. The Committee believes that traffic calming could divert traffic and will to some degree control traffic. But if traffic in the corridor still grows, and traffic counts and speed checks show is not controlled well, the Council should bring the diverter discussion back as a means of resolving the problem.

The Committee then discussed methods to provide a presentation at the Council meeting. It was agreed that Arthur Zimmerman would make the presentation. An outline will be prepared as a basis, and Arthur and a few other members will meet on Wednesday, February 28, to further prepare the presentation.

The Committee will make a presentation at the March 8 City Council meeting. Unless the City Council provides some additional direction, this will be the last meeting of the Committee.

Meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m.