2007-11-14 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SBP Noise Impact Analysis SBP Associates, Inc. (SBP) conducted a traffic noise monitoring and modeling analysis for the proposed downtown redevelopment; the report is provided in Attachment 3. The modeling analysis used the MNDOT Minnoise computer model and traffic predictions prepared by Bonestroo. Additionally, SBP conducted noise monitoring at two locations near the project site. Predicted Daytime Noise Level Discussion The results indicate that the modeled residential building receptor locations are predicted to have noise levels within the State standard for the year 2012. Locations R3 and R6 (shown on Figure 1 of the noise analysis in Attachment 3) are at or above the standards with 2030 traffic volumes. This indicates that there would be some speech interference from the traffic noise for persons outside on the street side of these buildings during 2030 peak traffic periods. The predicted noise level changes between the existing and year 2012 result from additional traffic generated by the development and by other area growth. The noise level increase for this period is predicted to be 3 dBA or less at all modeled receptor locations. The MPCA considers changes of 3 dBA or less to be imperceptible. Predicted Nighttime Noise Level Discussion Table 2 of the noise analysis (provided in Attachment 3) indicates that all modeled residential receptor locations, except location R7, would have nighttime traffic noise levels above the Minnesota standard for modeled years 2012 and 2030. This standard is based on sleep interference for people sleeping in bedrooms with partially open windows. Residences in these areas should have year-round climate control and should be constmcted to achieve an outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction of 30 dBA. 25.Nearby resources Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? _X_Yes _No Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? _X_Yes No Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? _X_Yes No Scenic views and vistas? Yes _X_No Other unique resources? _Yes _X_No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. a) Archaeol02ical, Historical, or Architectural resources The Minnesota Historical Society State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the presence of documented cultural resource sites within the project area. According to the response received (see Attachment 4) numerous sites were 22