HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/2005 �
f � •
Traffic Safety Advisory Committee
City of Apple Valley
March 9, 2005
7:00 p.m. Municipal Center
Minutes
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.by Chair Linda Dolan.
Members Present: Linda Dolan,Harald Eriksen(arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Charles
Grawe,Neal Heuer, Arthur Zimmerman
Members Absent: Craig Anglin,Dick Asleson,
Consultants/Alternates Present: Tom Sohrweide
Others Present: Meriam Forrest,Terry Forest,Marlowe House,Barbara
Largent, Steve Olson,Patrice Siefert, Greg Yung
2. A��proval of A en�da
Ms. Dolan requested that the item regarding traffic concerns on Pennock Avenue be discussed
following the audience items.
MOTION: Mr.Zimmerman moved, second by Mr. Heuer,to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion passed 4 to 0.
3. A�proval of Januarv 12,2005 Minutes
Mr. Heuer said that under item 8b, the words "light park"should be replaced with the words "light
bar".
MOTION: Mr.Heuer moved, second by Zimmerman,to approve the minutes of January 12,2005
as amended. Motion passed 4 to 0.
4. Audience Items
There were no audience items.
5. Traffic Concerns on Pennock Avenue between 140�'Street and 138'1i Street
Mr.Heuer said that traffic safety consultant Glen Van Wormer submitted a summary of possible
r
• •
r
traffic calming measures and their potential impacts if applied on Pennock Avenue. This summary
was mailed to those residents who attended the November 2004 meeting of the Committee. Mr.
Heuer noted that many of the possible measures described in the report will not function well on
Pennock Avenue due to the sharp curves and steep grades of the roadway. He recommended
reviewing the existing signage to emphasize the curves and requesting increased Police
enforcement in the area.
Mr.Heuer introduced Tom Sohrweide as the City's new primary traffic safety consultant to answer
questions about the summary. A resident asked how channelization of a one-way segment would
function. Mr. Sohrweide explained that a portion of Pennock Avenue immediately north of 140`�
Street could be made into a one-way segment. This would allow either northbound only or
southbound only traffic on that segment. A resident asked how that would differ from a full one-
way road design. Mr. Sohrweide said that the one-way segment allows the remainder of the street
to function as a two-way design,thus allowing more flexibility for drivers. A resident asked if
right turns from 138`�'Street onto Pennock Avenue could be prohibited or if all southbound traffic
from 138t''Street could be prohibited. Mr.Heuer noted that in similar situations,there have been
frequent violations. A resident asked if the speed limit could be lowered. Mr. Heuer said that
reducing the speed limit to 25 miles per hour would not likely have a signi�cant impact as most of
the vehicles are currently traveling under 35 miles per hour. He said it would be difficult to have
the courts uphold tickets written for a few miles per hour over the speed limit.
Mr. Sohrweide said that his review showed that two-thirds of the vehicles were not from the
immediate neighborhood. He suggested one solution would be for the residents in the lower
Pennock neighborhood to work with their neighbors to the north. He showed the placement and
type of existing signage on Pennock Avenue and the placement and type of proposed signage that
more accurately symbolizes the actual road condition. He noted that symbol signs are often better
recognized by drivers than word signs. He also proposed eliminating the existing 30 miles per
hour speed sign at the south end of Pennock Avenue near 140`�Street.
Ms.Dolan asked about the use of street striping and rumble strips. Mr. Heuer responded that the
center line and disabled vehicle lanes are striped. He said that rumble strips could be considered,
but would likely create noise issues for the residents living next to the areas with rumble strips.
A resident asked if signage would have an impact on driver's driving habits. Mr.Heuer said he
expects a short-term improvement when new signs are installed,but said the long-term impacts
would need to be studied. He noted that most drivers will drive at a speed at which they are
comfortable for the conditions.
A resident expressed concern that much of the traffic from outside the neighborhood is generated
by points south of 140�' Street. Several residents expressed the opinion that drivers perceive
Pennock Avenue as a short-cut alternative to Cedar Avenue when it is not. They said that traffic
on Cedar during the evening rush hour backs up,preventing access to the right turn lanes onto
140`i'Street. Mr. Grawe asked if the timing of the signal at Pennock Avenue and 140�'Street could
be adjusted to discourage driver's using Pennock Avenue as a southbound alternative to Cedar
Avenue. Mr.Heuer said that an adjustment might be possible,but it would have an impact on the
other signals.
A resident asked why a one-way segment was not a recommended solution. Mr.Heuer explained
that he would expect frequent violations. Some residents questioned the negative impacts of
violations. Mr. Grawe said that his experience with violations occurring with prohibited turning
movements on County Road 42 near Diamond Path is that the potential dangers posed by the
.
• �
violations are great.
Ms. Dolan asked what solutions Mr. Heuer planned to explore. Mr. Heuer said he would like to
examine signal timing around the whole City,not just at 140"'Street and Pennock Avenue to see if
the conditions have changed to a degree that warrants an appropriate change in the timing. Mr.
Heuer said he would also like to work with the County to determine the cause af the delays on
Cedar Avenue that provide drivers with an incentive to travel southbound on Pennock Avenue.
Several residents expressed concerns about traffic volumes on Cedar Avenue north of 140`�Street
and the difficulty in accessing the right turn lane onto 140`�Street when traffic is backed up north
of the intersection. Some residents reported following cars that exited off Cedar Avenue onto 138"'
Street and then Pennock Avenue so that they could ultimately turn east on 140`"Street to reach
destinations east of Cedar Avenue. The residents speculated that this behavior was in response to
long lines at the left turn signal at Cedar Avenue and 140�'Street.
A resident asked for more information about the possible use of sporadic rumble strips down the
center line of Pennock Avenue. Mr.Heuer said that due to the noise created by rumble strips,he
would request that the nearby homeowners agree to the measure before it was installed. There was
a brief discussion about the process of installing rumble strips. Ms.Dolan expressed agreement
that the neighborhood would need to demonstrate support prior to the installation of rumble strips.
Mr. Heuer said he would recommend that staff continue to study possible changes to the advisory
signs, evaluate,the signal timing at the intersection of 140`t'Street and Pennock Avenue,work with
Dakota County to address traffic volumes and stacking on Cedar Avenue north of 140`i' Street, and
evaluate the potential for adding rumble strips on the Pennock Avenue center line. Mr.Heuer said
he also expects the connection of Gossamer Way to 138`}'Street to help reduce some volumes on
Pennock Avenue.
MOTION: Mr. Eriksen moved, second by Mr. Grawe,to request staff to evaluate the signal timing
at the intersection of 140`�Street and Pennock Avenue,to contact the County about traffic volumes
and stacking on Cedar Avenue north of 140th and study how that intersection is operating,to
continue with the study of possible sign changes,to evaluate the potential for adding rumble strips
on the Pennock Avenue center line, and to contact the Police Department for additional
enforcement concepts. Motion passed 5 to 0.
Mr.Heuer asked the residents in attendance if they had an opportunity to read the traffic safety
article in the City's newsletter. None had read the article at this time.
6. Election of Officers
Ms.Dolan nominated Mr.Zimmerman as Chair of the Committee and.Mr.Eriksen as Vice-Chair.
There were no other nominations.
MOTION: Ms. Dolan moved, second by Mr. Grawe,that the Committee elect Mr. Zimmerman as
Chair and Mr. Eriksen as Vice-Chair. Motion passed 5 to 0.
7. Approve Annual Report
MOTION: Mr. Eriksen moved, second by Mr.Heuer,to approve the 2004 Annual Report and
.
� •
forward it to the City Council. Motion passed 5 to 0.
8. Other Traffic Concerns Communicated to the Citv
a) Police Concerns. No concerns were reported to the Comrriittee.
b) Public Works Concerns. Mr.Heuer reviewed several concerns that he received. One concern
involved advisory signs for a blind child living in the area of 126�'Street and Eveleth Path.
Mr. Heuer said three advisory signs were ordered for that area. A second concern involved
vehicles leaving their lanes of travel on Flagstaff Avenue. This issue has been reviewed. The
third concern involved a request for a signal on 157�'Street and Galaxie Avenue. Mr.Heuer
said that this intersection does not meet the warrants for a signal,but noted that other
improvements on Galaxie Avenue just north of that intersection could have positive impacts on
the traffic flow at 157�'Street.
c) Other Concerns. No additional concerns were reported to the Committee.
9. Other Items
Mr. Heuer asked for reaction from the Committee members to the driver informational sign
installed on Garden View Drive. Mr.Zimmerman indicated that some neighbors said they thought
the speed indicator sign was too close to County Road 42. Mr. Zimmerman said he originally had
the same concern,until observing vehicles exceeding the speed limit. He said he now believes that
the location of the speed indicator is appropriate. Mr. Sohrweide said he thought the placement
� was also appropriate as a positive reinforcement for drivers who are not speeding as opposed to
only a warning to those that are speeding.
Mr. Grawe said he would like the Committee to send a letter to Mr. Van Wormer thanking him for
his service.
MOTION: Mr. Grawe moved, second by Ms.Dolan,to send a letter of thanks to Mr.Van
Wormer. Motion passed 5 to 0.
10. Adj ourn
MOTION: Mr. Grawe moved, second by Ms. Dolan,to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 5 to
0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.