Laserfiche WebLink
MINUT>/S <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 2G, 2004 <br />a~-e not acceptable, MN DOT can go through an appeal process for this <br />project. Paflco felt that negotiations with the City were close to complete, <br />and indicated that they would work with City staff to resolve the <br />outstanding issues over the next few weeks. <br />Mayor Fahey asked if there was anyone from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on this matter. <br />Mark Weavers reported That he lives on Lake Gervais and the properties <br />on the lake are very sensitive to the impact that storm water run-off has on <br />lake levels. Weavers reported that there are wide swings in lake levels, <br />and asked the impact that the doubling of freeway hard surfaoe will have <br />on Gervais. Weavers asked if the net amount of water into Gervais would <br />remain the same, but if the ponding areas would slow down the flow rate <br />into the lake. <br />Pafl<o reported that the net amount of water into the lake will remain the <br />same, but agreed that the rate of flow will be slower. The ponds will <br />collect run-off and release it more slowly over time. The bounce in lake <br />levels will not increase as a result of the project. <br />Blesener asked the impact that noise walls will have a decibel levels. John <br />Crawford, MN DOT, reported that areas immediately adjacent to the <br />freeway experience decibel levels at 65 to 70. Doubling traffic volumes <br />on the freeway would cause noise levels to increase by approximately 3 <br />decibels. The installation of noise walls will result in a decrease of 5 to 10 <br />decibels for the properties immediately adjacent to the freeway. A <br />decrease of 5 to 10 decibels means that the noise sounds about half as <br />loud. Crawford reported that for homes about three rows back from the <br />freeway, the noise levels will be essentially the same with or without noise <br />walls. <br />Fahey pointed out that Little Canada will beat- the brunt of the traffic <br />problems for the three years that the project is under construction. Fahey <br />asked what consideration Little Canada will get for this pointing out the <br />reconstruction of County Road E and Highway 61 as the designated detour <br />route. Pafl<o reported that the reconstruction of this intersection was <br />merely pushed up in the schedule as it is pact of the designated detour <br />route for Unweave the Weave. Pafko reported that MN DOT is <br />constitutionally restricted as to how they can spend their money. While <br />MN DOT can pay for road improvements at County Road D and Edgerton <br />Street necessitated because of raising the Edgerton bridge, it cannot pay <br />for improvements to other Little Canada streets. Pafko pointed out that <br />MN DOT will not intentionally reroute any traffic onto local streets, but <br />only onto the designated detour of County Road E, Highway 61, and 694. <br />4 <br />