04-14-08-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - April 14, 2008 12 Mr. Chromy stated that both current and future noise levels were looked at in the Highway 10 noise study using the MINNOISE model. Mr. Dale Maul, Environmental Planner from Bolton & Menk, provided information and examples of noise levels and what they mean. He also presented State and Federal noise abatement criteria and the study procedures and finding to the Council. He explained that the noise analysis was prepared to evaluate whether noise barriers are warranted, feasible, and reasonable or cost effective and that minimum levels had to be reached for each criteria in order to proceed to the next level to determine if the noise barrier will be paid for with federal funding. Mr. Chromy stated that there were four areas that were evaluated for noise barriers. These are Round Lake noise barrier I which is 870' long and protects 5 homes, Round Lake noise barrier 2 which is 2000' long and protects I 1 homes, Round Lake noise barrier 2 extension which is 3400' long and protects 21 homes, and noise barrier east of Highway 10 which protects 4 homes. He stated that even though the first three areas would benefit from noise barriers, the noise analysis conclusion was that it was not cost effective or reasonable for use of Federal funding. Ifthe City chose to have these barriers constructed then they would have to obtain funding through other means. Councilmember McClung requested that Staff provide the noise analysis documentation from the 694 Project. He asked how it was determined that only four homes were impacted by the noise along the east side and how was the Federal Activity Category selected. Mr. Maul stated that the land use was reviewed and it was determined that under FHW A Noise Abatement Criteria the Federal Activity Category B most closely fit the land use types for the area. The number of homes was determined because they went a given distance from the road for the decibel level and then they picked these four homes for receptor areas. Councilmember McClung stated that by only having four homes or receptors, there were other homes that were impacted that were being omitted. He then asked if these homes were included if it would make the project more cost effective and qualifying it for TH I 0 funding. Mr. Chromy stated that the homes north of Briarknoll had not made it into the cost effective analysis because there was not enough attenuation provided at any of the receptors to make the barrier acoustically effective. Councilmember McClung stated that page 10 of the SEH report discusses the noise barriers east of Highway 10. Mr. Chromy stated that as you add more houses more receptors are added and more decibels to monitor and the further from the highway the lower the decibel readings would be. These factors would not decrease the cost amount per decibel per house but rather increase this amount. Receptors are identified as the most affected residences.