10/14/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2002 • She questioned why have they improved from the previous report (the original report)? What difference in calculation or way of looking at this was used? • Mr. Mike Monhahan, SRF Consultants, stated the reason for the change is the initial analysis only had two-way stops at the freeway off -ramps and the final has a four-way stop. That is what made the change. Councilmember Carlson stated if that were the case, then she did not believe that the report illustrated the results with traffic control officers that was shown on the first report and she wished to point this out. Councilmember Carlson stated regarding construction noise, the heron rookery is a concern is because the construction will be going on in the spring of 2003. She pointed out this would be the first opportunity to see if the herons are going to return or not. She questioned what type of noise will this generate? In relation to the herons, she pointed out there had been noise studies. City Planner Smyser stated at this point what the City needs to do is let the DNR submit formalized comments on that very question. He stated the purpose of this document is to put information out there and get comments. They were communications with the DNR on this so they got the information about the herons and in the information from the DNR:that is; in the appendix, they don't raise any red flags because it is over a half mile away from the rookery. However, as part of the public comment period, if the DNR has a problem with it they will Certainly make that known. Councilmember Carlson stated this was correct and that the no -wake zone was much smaller, but the reason she raised it was that in addition to hurnan'diturbance, one of the possible discussions we had was if the reconstruction, let's say 35W, had an effect on the herons leaving. Councilmember Carlson referenced ,.age 30, at thejtop, regarding noise modeling and monitoring and modeling results. She stated this exceeds the state standards in many areas and questioned whether there was anything that can be done to reduce this? City Planner Smyser stated he believed that we should be able to get a good answer for that when we get comments from MPCA, MnDOT and possibly Anoka County Highway. Councilmember Carlson wished to bring up another consideration. Regarding nearby resources, archeological, she was referring to the Indian Artifacts, the church and the parking lot, on page 31, second paragraph from the bottom. The church and the parking lot will be located on the northeastern portion of the propery well away from the mound group. This is why the potential of other development is a concern, because with other development it would not be possible to tow the line on the western edge of the church property. This was a question on the bottom page 33, she stated she was surprised, as this related to the Comprehensive Plan because as someone who had spent a lot of time on the Comprehensive Plan, she did not realize this. Since the project does not comprise residential development and it does not rely on City utilities, growth areas are not relevant. She questioned where did the Council approve that in the Comprehensive Plan, or how that comes about, because this not only refers to this project but also to other possible ones. 18