Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. The Existing and Forecast Year 2011 noise levels were estimated based on PM peak hour traffic <br />volumes on Fairview Avenue, Lincoln Drive and Snelling A venue. The forecast noise levels <br />are intended to represent the noisiest daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) traffic hours. The <br />majority of the proposed land uses for the Twin Lakes Development will operate during normal <br />office hours (8:00 AM to 5 :00 PM) and will generate little or no traffic during nighttime (10:00 <br />PM to 7 :00 AM) hours. Therefore, no analysis of nighttime noise levels was conducted. <br /> <br />. The Existing and Forecast Year 2011 noise estimates assumed a vehicle mix of 97.8 percent <br />automobiles, 1.4 percent medium trucks and 0.8 percent heavy trucks. The percentage of <br />vehicles was based on the Noise Impact Assessment Report which was included as part of the <br />Centre Pointe Business Park EA W. <br /> <br />. The Existing and Forecast Year 2011 noise estimates assumed a speed limit of 30 mph on <br />Fairview Avenue south of County Road C, 35 mph on Fairview Avenue north of County Road <br />C, and 45 mph on Snelling Avenue. <br /> <br />. The Existing and F orecast Year 2011 noise estimates assumed an acoustically soft ground cover <br />between the roadway and receivers with no intervening barriers or structures. <br /> <br />Table 4 details the results of the noise modeling analysis and indicates that the noise levels for the <br />Forecast Year 2011 modeled conditions with and without the project traffic are predicted not to exceed <br />the state daytime residential standard of 65 dBA. Project generated traffic is forecast to add 1 dBA or <br />less to noise levels in the Twin Lakes Development. A change in traffic noise levels of less than 3 <br />dBA is generally considered to be imperceptible. Therefore, the forecast change in noise associated <br />with project generated traffic is not considered to be a significant impact. <br /> <br />26. Are Any of the Following Resources on or in Proximity to the Site? <br /> <br />a. archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? _ Yes ...x... No <br /> <br />b. prime or unique farmlands? _ Yes ...x... No <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? ...x... Yes <br /> <br />No <br /> <br />d. <br /> <br />scenic views and vistas? <br /> <br />Yes ...x... No <br /> <br />e. other unique resources? _ Yes ...x... No <br /> <br />If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to <br />the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. <br /> <br />a. Response: The present configuration of the study area is one of light industrial development. <br />The nature of the enterprise has severely compromised the original terrain of the study area and <br />thus the potential for archaeological or historic resources. <br /> <br />Archival research consisting of a records search at the Minnesota State Historic Preservation <br />Office showed that there are no known cultural resources in or next to the study area. A <br />windshield survey, conducted on March 19, 1997, confirms that the potential for any in-tact <br />cultural resources in this area is very low. <br /> <br />#24397 <br /> <br />24 <br />