COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Lloyd Lawrence, Mark Nelson, Gary Shade, Denise Louis, Jeff Loch, Mark Heieren, Richard Berg, Arthur Zimmerman, Peg Smith, Neil Evers, Nathan Koering,

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Ruth Grendahl, John Bergman, Dave McKeag, Mary Hamann-Roland,

OTHERS PRESENT: Integrated Process Management Facilitator Marlene Libby, SEH Traffic Engineer Glen Van Wormer, City Administrator Tom Lawell, Public works Director Neal Heuer, Police Department Captain Merle Lohse, Administrative Assistant to the City Administrator Andy Pederson, Diann Albers

Meeting Facilitator Libby called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.

Meeting Facilitator Libby welcomed the Committee, outlined the agenda for the meeting, and distributed a memo from Public Works Director Heuer on Garden View Drive Traffic Counts (Attachment 1), Garden View Drive / County Road 46 channelizing right turn only island matrix (Attachment 2), and a memo from Public Works Director Heuer and Administrative Assistant Pederson on the implementation of Garden View Drive traffic calming (Attachment 3).

The Committee discussed the traffic volume information as contained in Attachment 1. Meeting Facilitator Libby stated that information contained within was from before Highview Avenue was closed (April 7, 2000), while it was closed (October 12, 2000), and after the realigned Highview Avenue opened (January 25, 2001).

The Committee made a change to Attachment 2: Road Environment. The Committee determined that each of the streets listed in the attachment do indeed have sidewalks.

Committee Member shade stated he has videotape of a recent accident at the intersection of Highview Avenue and County Road 46 that committee members may view during the break. Committee Member Shade also stated that he has requested of the City an accounting of how and what funds were used in the construction of the new Municipal Center. Committee Member Shade stated that he thought he had made the request for the information to be available tonight (February 5) but was corrected by City staff and that the info had been requested for presentation at the City Council Meeting. The information requested would help answer Council Member Erickson's question regarding funding for the project which he asked at the January 26th informal work session.

Meeting Facilitator Libby asked the Committee where each of the members thought the process was currently.

Committee Member Berg stated that he was very dissatisfied with the last work session and that it was totally unproductive.

Committee Member Shade expressed the same concerns, and also stated that two groups have issues with the proposal: the Hyland Pointe neighborhood, and Harwell and Harmony neighborhoods. He stated the Committee should meet with both to discuss potential solutions. Committee Member Shade also stated that the work session meeting on January 26^th presented two questions from Council Member Erickson, who asked: "What is the biggest bang for the buck in the proposal?" and "How is the project to be paid for?"

Committee Member Nelson asked Meeting Facilitator Libby how the Committee should address large crowds. Meeting Facilitator Libby stated that the Committee should first listen to the concerns and issues that are raised, then summarize those comments, and finally seek solutions that address those concerns.

Committee Member Heiren stated that he was not previously aware that children living on Harwell Avenue and Harmony Way attended Cedar Ridge Elementary School and Valley Middle School.

Committee Member Loch commented that residents from Harwell Avenue and Harmony Way waited till the last minute to express their concerns. Committee Member Loch asked where those individuals were earlier in the process. Committee Member Loch also stated that certain ground rules would have to be set in order to conduct a purposeful meeting.

Committee Member Shade stated that the Hyland Pointe area residents are primarily concerned with access and inconvenience issues. Committee Member Shade also stated that the Committee must look at the measure that achieves the "biggest bang for the buck," which gave the greatest safety and reduced traffic volumes within the plan to satisfy one of the questions asked by Council Member Bob Erickson at the January 26^th work session"

Committee Member Loch stated that the Committee should explore phasing its plan but also examine first what the "biggest bang for the buck" is to answer the question raised by Council Member Erickson.

The Committee continued its discussion on ways to proceed, including examining which measure achieves the "biggest bang for the buck." Meeting Facilitator Libby cautioned the Committee that they should listen to the concerns expressed by the neighborhood groups that will be addressing the Committee.

Committee Member Louis stated that the City should be aware that the residents on Harwell Avenue and Harmony Way are angry because of their lack of involvement thus far in the process.

Meeting Facilitator Libby requested each Committee Member to express their opinions on ways to proceed.

Committee Members' Koering and Zimmerman stated that the Committee should listen to each of the groups and make adjustments to the recommendation if necessary.

Committee Members' Shade and Loch stated that the Committee should examine what achieves the "biggest bang for the buck."

Committee Member Louis stated that the Committee should listen to each of the groups.

Committee Member Smith stated that the Committee should also examine a phased approach.

Committee Member Heiren expressed concern with regard to "making noise in numbers" and that the Committee should proceed with addressing the concerns on Harwell Avenue and Harmony Way.

Committee Member Berg stated that he agrees with many of the comments already stated, and also stated that a phased approach would be most practical.

Committee Member Nelson stated that the Committee should consider the "safest thing for the money," and also include into its recommendations potential solutions from the Harwell Avenue and Harmony Way area.

Committee Member Evers stated that the Committee should be flexible in its approach and listen.

Committee Member Lawrence stated that the Committee should find out what measures the other streets want and include those in the recommendation. Committee Member Lawrence also stated the Committee should consider the biggest impact for the least amount of money and in the end, the Committee may consider a phased approach.

Meeting break at 7:05 p.m. Meeting resumed at 7:15 p.m.

Meeting Facilitator asked the Committee three questions. Which portion of the proposal has the biggest impact on safety? Which portion of the proposal has the biggest impact on decreasing traffic volume? What is the best way to approach the recommendation?

City Administrator Lawell stated that the Committee may wish to consider in its approach and recommendation the issue of what the City Council determines in this particular case establishes precedent for other future cases.

Committee Member Shade stated that the standing committee on traffic's obligation is to explore how future projects would be funded.

Meeting Facilitator Libby welcomed the residents of the Hyland Pointe Court, Hyland Drive, and Hyland Avenue area. (In total, some 35-40 residents were present). Garden View Drive Advisory Committee Members introduced themselves as well as the areas they represent. Meeting Facilitator Libby explained the process for the meeting and requested that each the resident's present express their primary concerns with the Committee recommendation.

All comments were summarized and recorded for future use by the Committee. A summary of the concerns and comments as expressed by the representatives of the neighborhood include the following. Several were mentioned more than once.

• Access to homes,
• Traffic in front of homes,
• Cost issues,
• Increased local traffic on Garden View Drive from Hyland Pointe area residents,
• Emergency vehicle access and service,
• Safety,
• Width of the various streets,
• Access from the east,
• Decreased property values,
• Homes are landlocked,
• Increased traffic,
• Extra driving, mileage, and associated costs (5.5 miles equals $642.00 per year)
• Cuts off customers from businesses,
• Precedent for other situations,
• Inconvenience,
• School traffic,
• Mail delivery,
• Garden View Drive concerns are over-stated,
• 20 miles per hour signs not adhered to,
• Traffic signal installation at intersection on County Road 46 is needed,
• Directions to homes,
• Delivery trucks added to Garden View Drive,
• Quality of life,
• Lack of flexibility by the Committee,
• Who will cover Association's Attorney expenses,
• Increased insurance premiums.

Comments included:

• According to traffic volumes, Garden View Drive is actually experiencing less traffic with Highview Avenue open,
• How can 22 homes on Garden View Drive dictate to 83 homes in the Hyland Pointe area?,
• Use real traffic volumes instead of estimated traffic volumes,
• Allow standing traffic committee to decide course of action,
• 7 out of 10 trips from Highview are turning left on County Road 46,
• We live in a metropolitan area, traffic everywhere is increasing,
• Add stop signs instead of spending millions of dollars,
• If traffic calming doesn't work, why use it?,
• Take a wait and see approach
• Start with traffic calming.

Several neighborhood representatives expressed the fact that these concerns are not mutually exclusive, but rather inter-related.

Meeting Facilitator Libby stated that the Committee analyzed in a comprehensive manner not just Garden View Drive, but also other potentially affected streets. Meeting Facilitator Libby stated the charter of the Committee and also stated the top two concerns as developed by the Committee, which included traffic volumes and safety.

Resident-Hyland Pointe Court asked the Committee whether current traffic volumes on Garden View Drive were excessive. The Committee responded in the affirmative.

Traffic Engineer Van Wormer discussed the distinctions between traffic calming and traffic diverting, and began to review the plans as presented to the City Council.

The neighborhood representatives asked the Committee whether they considered restricting access on Garden View Drive at other locations, such as County Road 42. The Committee responded that indeed they did examine closing the street at County Road 42 and that the County would probably favor more intersection closures along County Road 42. The Committee however stated that accesses such as this would have to remain open because residents need access to such streets. The Hyland Pointe neighborhood agreed that access is crucial.

The discussion reflected on a presentation made by the Hyland Pointe Homeowners Association Attorney, Rollie Crawford at a City Council meeting. The neighborhood representatives stated that the costs associated with Mr. Crawford's presentation at the City Council meeting were in excess of $1,000. The neighborhood representatives asked when they should consult and involve their attorney again. The neighborhood representatives also wanted to know why their attorney's comments were not reflected in a modified plan. Traffic Engineer Van Wormer stated that Mr. Crawford's presentation to the City Council may have mis-stated or misunderstood several facts and scenarios. Mr. Van Wormer stated that this was unlike Mr. Crawford and speculated that Mr. Crawford did not have adequate time to prepare for this issue.

The neighborhood representatives asked whether and where their concerns were incorporated into the overall recommendation. The Committee stated that the comments from the open house were analyzed, taken into consideration, and some were incorporated into the overall plan.

The neighborhood representatives asked whether the plan had changed since the presentation to the City Council. The Committee responded that it had not. Meeting Facilitator Libby stated that based on the comments that were heard at the last City Council meeting, the Committee recognized the need to discuss with the various neighborhoods ways in which a consensus and understanding could be reached.

The neighborhood representatives expressed concerns with regard to the fact that their concerns have been vocalized on several occasions and nothing has been done to this point to address those concerns. The neighborhood representatives also expressed concern with regard to the fact that this issue is dividing neighbors against neighbors.

The neighborhood representatives asked who was in favor of this recommendation. The Committee stated that based on the survey comments at the open house, the channelizing island issue was split with about half in favor and half against.

The neighborhood representatives asked the Committee why traffic calming measures cannot be installed in a phased approach, and as each traffic calming measure is installed, its effectiveness be analyzed. The neighborhood representatives asked the Committee why the channelizing islands weren't considered as a secondary measure. The Committee discussed various petitions that have been submitted.

The neighborhood representatives discussed various other potential traffic calming measures, including stop signs and speed bumps. The neighborhood representatives also questioned the Committee as to whether they would be part of the solution. Meeting Facilitator Libby stated that the Committee would consider each of these concerns as they proceed forward with their work.

Traffic Engineer Van Wormer reviewed the Committee process.

The neighborhood representatives requested that the minutes of this meeting as well as the responses to each of the listed concerns be posted on the City's web site. The neighborhood representatives also requested that Traffic Engineer Van Wormer respond to the earlier comments regarding the presentation of Rollie Crawford at the City Council meeting.

The neighborhood representatives asked the Committee how school buses, which bus students from Lakeville, would access the schools on Garden View Drive if a channelizing island were installed. The Committee responded that they did not have jurisdiction over this, and that the school district would adequately address these concerns when or if the time arose.

The neighborhood representatives questioned whether "doing nothing" was considered an alternative. The Committee stated that that alternative had been considered. The neighborhood representatives questioned whether law enforcement was considered as a solution. . The Committee stated that law enforcement is part of the recommendation. The neighborhood representatives also asked why they have not heard mention of any issues on Garden View Drive during non-peak hours. . The Committee stated that the recommendation reflects this. The neighborhood representatives asked whether it was requested of Lakeville to install a channelizing island on their side of County Road 46. . The Committee stated that Lakeville had suggested to Apple Valley that a method to prevent thru traffic was a channelizing island.

The Committee and neighborhood representatives discussed the future schedule. The Committee indicated that the issue would be discussed at the City Council meeting on Thursday, February 8. Meeting Facilitator Libby indicated that the recommendation would be discussed, that certain components and phases of the recommendation would be considered, but the County Road 46 and Garden View Drive channelizing island area would not be considered until after the Committee met with Harwell Avenue and Harmony Way neighborhoods. Meeting Facilitator Libby stated that the tentative schedule would be for the City Council to hear and act on the issue at its March 8, 2001, meeting.

The Committee discussed alternative channelizing island ideas including removing the channelizing island from Hyland Avenue at County Road 46 and placing one instead on Hyland Pointe Court and Garden View Drive. Traffic Engineer Van Wormer discussed the conflicts associated with such a proposal including restricted turning movements on County Road 46 at Hyland Avenue, restricted access to Hyland Pointe Court from Garden View Drive, and increased traffic on Hyland Pointe Court. Committee Member Loch stated that this proposal would essentially make the residents of the Hyland Pointe area part of Burnsville and not Apple Valley.

Committee Member Loch commented that the channelizing islands recommendation should be removed at County Road 46 and Garden View Drive as well as County Road 46 and Hyland Avenue. Committee Member Loch stated that whatever alternatives are considered, they will not be good enough for the residents in the Hyland Pointe area. Committee Member Loch stated that the Committee should focus on the traffic calming measures closest to the school. Committee Member Evers concurred.

The Committee discussed the potential of creating a cul-de-sac at Garden View Drive and Hyland Pointe Court. Traffic Engineer Van Wormer stated that this would require right-of-way from two property owners yards.

Police Captain Lohse discussed that the recent accident Committee Member Shade referenced earlier. Police Captain Lohse stated that ALF Ambulance was not able to respond to the call and the Burnsville paramedics responded. Police Captain Lohse cautioned that if such an accident happened in the Hyland Pointe area, the back-up Burnsville paramedics would have been affected by the channelizing islands.

Meeting Facilitator Libby requested that the Committee address each of the concerns stated earlier in the evening by the Hyland Pointe area residents. A summary of those concerns include:

• Safety,
• Cost,
• Access,
• Additional traffic,
• Emergency vehicle access,
• Lack of sidewalks,
• Property values,
• Cuts off customers from businesses,
• Overlooking simple fixes,
• Additional costs of driving,
• Precedent,
• Mail delivery,
• Garden View Drive concerns over-exaggerated,
• 20 miles per hour speed limit not adhered to,
• Directions to area,
• Quality of life,
• Lack of flexibility by Committee.

The Committee discussed various potential concept solutions to address the concerns. Due to the late hour, the Committee scheduled a future meeting to respond to each of the concerns.

Committee Member Shade recommended that the committee (and Council) consider removing all diverters from the Hyland Pointe neighborhood period - but retain the channelized island on Garden View Drive and County Road 46. Add traffic calming only (e.g. speed humps etc) to the Hyland Pointe Court area. This would satisfy all concerns heard from Hyland Pointe regarding access, to try traffic calming first in their own neighborhood), emergency access etc.

Committee Member Berg requested new numbers be brought to the work session on Thursday night by Traffic Enginner Van Wormer based on the above modifications.

The Committee discussed the potential of incorporating the traffic calming projects that may potentially coincide with the upcoming overlay projects into those projects.

The Committee set the following meeting schedule:

1. February 8, 6:00 p.m. - prior to the City Council meeting, to review data developed as part of the meeting.
2. February 8, 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. - City Council meetings.
3. February 26, 6:30 p.m. - as preparation for the Harwell Avenue and Harmony Way neighborhood meeting.
4. February 26, 7:00 p.m. - to meet with the Harwell Avenue and Harmony Way neighborhoods.
5. March 8, 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. - City Council meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.