Laserfiche WebLink
-160- <br /> <br />Mr. S~eve J'ankowski <br />N~. Brian Olson <br /> <br />April 29, 2002 <br /> Page 4 <br /> <br />Discussion and Recommendations <br /> <br />While a noise barrier would provide a noticeable reduction in noise levels at ~vo homes in the <br />2nd Addition development, the short' length of a potential hamer and the gap necessary for <br />156th Lane limit a potential bamer's effectiveness to these two homes. Noise levels in the 3rd <br />Addition will be below stare daytime standards and would not be perceptibly decreased by a <br />noise hamer. Based on the limited effectiveness of potential noise barriers ar rte 2nd and 3rd <br />Additions of the Wildlife Sanctuary development, noise mitigation, is not considered reasonable <br />and is not recommended. <br /> <br />This letter should be submitted to the MPCA ~br concurrence on tl~e conclusion that noise <br />mitigation is not reasonable at this development. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />SR~ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. <br /> <br />Thomas G. Hillsrrom <br />Associate <br /> <br />TGH/smf <br /> <br />Attachment <br /> <br /> I <br /> 1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I; <br />i <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />