Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council February 28, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 19 <br />of those streets on a continual basis. He stated these are large trucks, and with this proposal, <br />• these trucks would have to come up Pleasant View Drive, make a left turn, then go back on the <br />frontage road. <br />Mr. Develak stated the proposed design also presents a problem for the people on Pleasant View <br />Drive because the loop onto the frontage road would have the right-of--way. He explained that <br />vehicles taking a right turn to travel down the frontage road would have the right-of--way, as <br />opposed to the residents who are stopped at the intersection attempting to get out on the light. <br />He pointed out that there would also be a problem with regard to vehicles making U-turns on the <br />frontage road, in that they would also have the right-of--way, leaving vehicles stuck at the <br />stoplight and unable to get out. He stated that in this sense, this was a very poor design. <br />Mr. Develak stated he did not understand why the Westwood Drive intersection must be <br />eliminated. He indicated that would be a major problem, in that it would take all of traffic that <br />goes to Spring Lake Park, which includes two or three streets comprised of heavy industrial <br />businesses, and route that through Pleasant View Drive, because it would have no place else to <br />go. He added that there would be all the people turning, in that there were two to three <br />residential streets in Spring Lake Park that come out behind the strip mall, and all of this traffic <br />would be making a U-turn down the frontage road. He explained that this would greatly increase <br />the traffic, and the residents would be taking their lives in their hands by simply attempting to get <br />out onto that road. He stated the proposed design was disastrous for Pleasant View Drive. <br />• Janelle Anderson, 2341 Laport Drive stated her comment was with regard to the billboards that <br />were proposed along the golf course. She stated she attended the Planning Commission meeting, <br />and had inquired that if the new Highway 10 was so busy that it requires advertisement, why they <br />have no soundboard in front of their homes to block the traffic noise. She inquired if the Council <br />had plans to investigate this. <br />Mayor Coughlin stated he has brought this forward in the past, and Council Member Quick has <br />been an advocate of this for a number of years. He requested Director of Public Works Ulrich <br />provide an overview of the status of this issue. <br />Director of Public Works Ulrich stated a request was submitted to MnDOT for additional <br />soundboards in this location, and the City received a very detailed report in response to that <br />request. He indicated the report was comprised of the history of the 110 design, the City Council <br />approval, and the public hearings that were held in regard to those issues. He explained that <br />MnDOT has conducted at least three noise level studies at this location, however, none of these <br />surveys indicate that the noise levels exceed MnDOT's current noise standards, which are <br />approximately 67 decibels. <br />Mrs. Anderson indicated that her son was unable to hear her call him for dinner, while standing <br />in the driveway of their home. <br />• Director of Public Works Ulrich stated he understood this. He advised that MnDOT has <br />indicated they would conduct another survey this year, because the traffic levels have obviously <br />escalated since Highway 118 has opened, however, at this time, there was no funding available to <br />extend sound barriers. He explained that if the traffic levels exceed their current standards, it is <br />