Agenda - Council - 04/24/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I '1 I I I '1 I I I I i I i ! I I Peter R. Raatikka page 3 - Apr. 9, 1984 In those future instances where residential develoi~ment proposals include sewer extensions or other treatment provisions which require a State Disposal System permit and which exceed threshold values for mandatory EAW preparation pursuant to 6 MCAR §3.038Q.1 or Q.2, the MPCA must be contacted. In such case, the inclusion of the above listed information in the EAW is mandatory, and a draft copy of the EAW should be made available to the MPCA prior to its distri- bution so that it may be determined whether the document will serve in lieu of an EAW prepared by the agency. Noise impacts of ne~hborln~ roadways on residences The staff is concerned that noise due to Minnesota Highway 47 and County Road 116 located along the eastern and southern bo%~ndaries of the site may ex~ ceed state noise standards (a daytime L10 level of 65 dBA and a nighttime L10 level of 55 dBA for land use category NAC-1) at the proposed residences. State noise standards may also be exceeded at the proposed c~ercial areas (a daytime and nighttime L10 of 70 dBA for land use category NAC-2). The staff reco~,ut, ends that noise impacts be further evaluated to determine if the state noise standards will be exceeded at the closest proposed residences and the co~mercial sites. The total average daily traffic (~DT) deri~ea from existing traffic and traffic from the proposed development should be considered in this .evaluation. Also, noise from both car and truck traffic should be considered. If the state noise standards are to be exceeded due to t~affic on the ~oadway or railway~ the city should ensure that the proposer implements noise control measures to come into compliance with the state standards. Possible noise control measures include: 1) req~irin~ the construction of noise barriers, e.g., earth berms, wood or concrete walls~ 2) adjusting the distance of. the.r.esidences from the roa~way,'~nd/~ '3) the planting of ~egeta- tion. This last option, however, is not a ~ery effective noise control measure compared to options 1 or 2. Air ~uality and noise impacts during construction The staff is also concerned about the impact that construction~related noise and fugitive dust emissions will have on nearby sensitive land ~ses. The city should ensure that the proposer implements control measures to ~itigate these impacts. The effect of construction noise should be mitigated by ~equiring the use of properly muffled equipment, the routing of truck traffic to avoid an ad~ verse effect on residents, as well as by requiring the implementation of a con- struction curfew, as proposed in the EAW. Agency rule APC-6 requires that airborne particulate fugitive dust emissions be kept to a minimum, where possible. Fugitive dust emissions from c~nstruction activities can be minimized by measures such as the watering of areas undergoing grading or earth moving, planned selecti~e .grading and staged development~ timely job site cleanup and haul road maintenance, covering o~ otherwise preventing escape of materials from truck loads,