Agenda - Council - 01/25/2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CC Regular Session Date: 01/25/2011 By: Tim Himmer Engineering/Public Works Item #: 7. 7. Information Title: Consider installation of noise walls in conjunction with City project #11-20; the reconstructio of Bunker Lake Boulevard from Basalt Street NW to Germanium Street NW Background: Anoka County, in conjunction with the City's of Ramsey and Anoka, has initiated a project to expand CSAH 116 (Bunker Lake Blvd) to a four -lane divided roadway between Germanium and Basalt Streets to accommodate current and future traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Sound generated from traffic currently on the corridor, and expected in the future, has the potential to create noise that could impact properties along CSAH 116 and CSAH 57 (Sunfish Lake Blvd). As a condition of using federal funding for the proposed project, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires the County to analyze environmental issues related to the proposed roadway expansion. One of the issues that the County must analyze is traffic noise. To better understand existing and future noise conditions in the project area, the County hired a consultant to complete the required noise analysis. Results of the analysis indicate that there are three areas in the project area where noise walls are cost-effective and adequately reduce noise. The three areas include: • Area 1: East side of Sunfish Lake Blvd, north of CSAH 116. The proposed barrier is 500 feet long and nine feet tall. • Area 2: North side of CSAH 116, west of Wolfram. The proposed barrier is 140 feet long and nine feet tall. • Area 3: North side of CSAH 116, west of Tungsten. The proposed barrier is 637 feet long and 10 feet tall. Once it was determined that these three barriers were feasible and reasonable, property owners directly impacted by the proposed barriers were notified. In early October the County sent out informational packets about the proposed barrier to property owners impacted by a potential barrier. The packet provided information about the proposed barriers and invited property owners to attend a meeting on October 20, 2010 to find out more details. Also included in the packet was a letter for the property owner to vote whether or not they wanted a noise barrier. Property owners were to submit their vote by November 8th. The vote letter indicated that if a property owner failed to vote on a proposed barrier, it would count as a "no" vote. Attendance at the October 20th meeting was poor, with only two property owners in attendance. The resulting vote on the barrier was poor, with only one or two votes per barrier received being. The FHWA was concerned about the poor response and directed the County to contact by telephone property owners to determine whether or not they wanted a barrier. The County attempted to track down telephone numbers for those that did not respond via letter. A number of the property owners did not have a land line — they used cell phones, so those numbers were not easily obtainable. A few additional votes were gathered as part of this process. The results were presented to the FHWA and they directed the County to send a second letter via certified mail to the property owners asking for a "yes" or "no" vote by December 17, 2010. Failure to respond would not count as a vote either way — it was neutral. Observations: