Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes - Final

MR-42E Noise Barrier/Sound Wall

Technical Review Committee

Members: Paul Davis, Jennifer Lagerbohm, Charles Lam, Michael McGlynn, Doug Walther

Council Members: Greg Hooper, Nathan Klomp

Youth Representative: Trip Brennan

6:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Mike McGlynn called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m., Michigan

Time.

ROLL CALL

Greg Hooper, Nathan Klomp, Jennifer Lagerbohm, Charles Lam and Michael

McGlynn

Present

5 -

Others Present:

Trip Brennan, Rochester Hills Government Youth Council Representative

Rich Diem

Jim Masiak

Olaf Nitsche

INTRODUCTIONS

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

2009-0544

Approval of Meeting Minutes - November 30, 2009

113009 Minutes.pdf

Resolution.pdf

Attachments:

Rich Diem questioned whether draft minutes could be distributed to members

of the public prior to the meeting.

Member Greg Hooper stated that Leanne Scott, City Council Coordinator,

could be contacted to request a copy of the minutes, once approved.

Member Jennifer Lagerbohm requested changes be made to the

commenter's name on page five and page seven.

A motion was made by Hooper, seconded by Lam, that this matter be Approved

as Amended. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Walther, Hooper, Klomp, Lagerbohm, Lam and McGlynn

6 -

Absent

Davis

1 -

Resolved, that the Minutes of the MR-42E Noise Barrier/Sound Wall Technical Review

Committee meeting held on November 30, 2009 be approved as amended.

DISCUSSION ITEM

2009-0502

Discussion of handling of areas excluded by the MDOT study

Draft Combined Locations Ratings.pdf

MDOT - Committee - Order Compare.pdf

NB Elevation Analysis Table.pdf

All NB Locations.pdf

Chateau Avon East.pdf

Chateau Avon West.pdf

Homes within 500 feet 020910.pdf

Table 7 with MDOT updates.pdf

Wall ranking formula v 3 - 010910.pdf

Rating Form Draft 120809.pdf

Noise Barrier Rating Form - Draft.pdf

Masiak abstract.pdf

Decision Matrix Article 111009.pdf

McGlynn Category Criteria Draft 111009.pdf

Noise Impact Info 111009.pdf

Agenda 101309.pdf

Attachments:

Member Greg Hooper reported that City Council voted last evening to extend

the current citizen members' terms on the MR-42E Noise Barrier/Sound Wall

Technical Review Committee for one year to expire December 31 2010 and that

he and Council Member Nathan Klomp would serve as Council representatives

to the committee for the coming year.

Jim Masiak questioned whether there was a date that the Committee had to

complete its recommendations by for funding purposes.

Member Hooper responded that there was no funding for sound walls in the

2010 Budget. He noted that the budget process for 2011 would begin shortly

and the Proposed Budget will be presented by the Mayor at the first meeting in

August. He commented that the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) process is

completed by the first of June. He stated that May 1 would be a preferable

deadline for the Committee; however, he suggested that the Committee might

not need to take that long.

Chairperson Mike McGlynn summarized the Committee's efforts at the last

meeting and noted that he had the opportunity to talk with Paul Davis after that

meeting to discuss suggested formatting for the ranking. He presented a

revised draft Rating Form, and directed the Committee to discuss each item:

1. Predicted peak noise levels (per updated Michigan Department of

Transportation [MDOT] report).

Chairperson McGlynn stated that MDOT's Table 7, utilizing the "Range of

Future, Without Barrier, Noise Level" is the source for information for this rating

criteria. He noted that the higher end of the range would be taken from this

column.

Member Hooper questioned how the Committee would determine the noise

level for the trailer park west of Crooks, which is not a part of the MDOT study.

Member Jennifer Lagerbohm stated that she had Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) equations for calculating estimated noise levels and could

arrive at a rough model for that area. She noted that the model parameters use

traffic values, average daily traffic counts and annual increases in traffic and

commented that the Southeast Michigan Council of Government (SEMCOG)

data for traffic counts along most freeways could be used in the calculations.

She stated that she could develop a model for this area by the next Committee

meeting.

Mr. Masiak suggested that the SEMCOG traffic numbers could be compared

to the MDOT numbers for adjacent areas to ascertain how close the SEMCOG

numbers are to the MDOT model.

The Committee discussed whether the range as presented in the draft form was

acceptable, utilizing a difference of four decibels (dBA) between the ranges (73

to 77 dBA; 68 to 72 dBA; and less than 68 dBA). It was noted that utilizing these

ranges would not spread the walls that far apart in rankings.

Mr. Masiak suggested that a zero-to-ten-point scoring model could help expand

the range for this criteria and suggested that the total weightings need to add up

to some multiple of ten.

The Committee determined to add the words "without barrier" to this criteria for

clarification.

Mr. Masiak stated that either a larger range could be added within the scoring

ranges or weighting could be done to further emphasize specific criteria.

Chairperson McGlynn questioned whether there was a reason that the City

used a maximum value of five for ranking criteria.

Member Hooper stated that the Committee would be free to do as it chooses in

setting scoring and ranking ranges.

Mr. Masiak suggested that 100 be used as a total for scoring as this could

correspond to 100 percent. He further commented that incremental steps of

three to four decibels for ranking is consistent with the fact that the ear

perceives noise differences of three decibels.

Chairperson McGlynn noted the peak noise ranges were generally from 70 to

77 decibels and commented that the rankings would not be spread very far

apart for the different wall locations.

Member Charles Lam commented that according to the proposed draft rating

form, those peak noise values that fell close to the ranking separations, such as

72 decibels versus 73 decibels, could result in a wide difference in values once

the ranking and weighting was applied.

Olaf Nitsche commented that all wall segments were justified by MDOT on the

basis of noise and noted that the other ranking criteria would differentiate the

segments.

The committee discussed various ways to split the ranking for the noise levels

and how much weight to give this category in the overall scoring. It was

suggested that seven splits, one for each decibel difference, could be utilized

and then weighted.

Mr. Masiak suggested that discussion was needed to determine what

importance noise would have against the other ranking criteria to further

determine weighting for this criteria.

2. Number of attenuated units (per updated MDOT report)

Chairperson McGlynn requested Committee input on this criteria and noted

that the MDOT report counted how many units were above 67 decibels and

would receive benefit from the wall.

Member Hooper noted that this criteria should only consider first floor

attenuated units for condominiums and apartments and commented that MDOT

did not consider second floor units. He questioned how the Committee wished

to assign attenuated units for the manufactured home community.

Chairperson McGlynn questioned whether this could be done by computing a

unit's distance from the freeway.

Member Lagerbohm noted that units within a certain distance would be

counted for the manufactured home community.

Rich Diem questioned whether there would be a way to verify that the noise

values that the computations arrive at for the manufactured home community

would not be very different than MDOT numbers for similar distances.

Chairperson McGlynn responded that the resulting numbers would be

reviewed before they were accepted into the rankings.

Mr. Nitsche questioned how elevation will be taken into account in computing

noise levels for the manufactured home community.

Ms. Lagerbohm stated that she will be reviewing other models that include

elevations.

Member Hooper stated that the City's GIS information will provide elevation

data for inclusion in the model.

3. Public areas within 500 feet of M-59 (multi-count possible, maximum 15)

Chairperson McGlynn stated that notable public uses the Committee identified

within these areas included School or Daycare, Church, Clubhouse, Swimming

Pool, Common Area/Park/Pavilion/Event Center, Tennis Courts and

Walking/Bike Trails. He questioned whether the Committee wished to include

any additional uses.

Member Hooper commented that a distinction might be made between a public

tennis court versus a tennis court for private or subdivision use.

Chairperson McGlynn commented that the Committee agreed at the last

meeting that an evaluation would be made of the impact that a wall would have

within each community and noted that if individuals within each community

would be affected by using these areas, they should be included. He stated that

the Committee discussed the possibility of assigning reduced points or a lower

rating for areas restricted to private use.

Questions were raised as to whether including these private areas could

penalize areas that do not have these facilities available or potentially cause a

double-counting of units and amenities for areas that do.

Mr. Nitsche stated that if these communities did not have areas devoted to

these amenities, they might have additional units to be counted that would have

been developed where these facilities are located.

Ms. Lagerbohm agreed, however, she noted that she was concerned with the

idea of giving one point each for clubhouse, pools, tennis courts and walking

trails.

Member Lam noted that affluent subdivisions could be given more focus if

each amenity was given its own point.

Chairperson McGlynn commented that this category could be given less

weight than other categories to accommodate any discrepancies this ranking

could create.

Member Lagerbohm noted that assigning one point to each public area or

facility could result in a subdivision receiving more points than a daycare.

Member Nathan Klomp noted that while including amenities in the rankings

could favor affluent neighborhoods, these affluent neighborhoods also typically

feature larger lots and less density, which would decrease the number of units

and influence that ranking category. He commented that a perfect system

would most likely never be possible. He stated that he was disappointed that

MDOT did not include a weighting for the Clubhouse facility in Country Club

Village.

Member Hooper commented that public and private amenities should remain

in the ranking system and stated that the weighting for this category could be

discussed along with the other ranking categories.

Member Lagerbohm noted that it is not only affluent neighborhoods that have

pools, tennis courts and clubhouses; and commented that apartment

complexes and condominiums do as well.

Member Lam questioned whether all the amenities in a neighborhood should be

bundled into one category and given one ranking.

Mr. Masiak questioned whether a distinction should be made to those facilities

with outdoor activities versus indoor activities, commenting that a church's

activities are indoors, while a swimming pool's activities are outdoors.

Chairperson McGlynn noted that only one potential wall area contained a

church.

4. Elevation difference between first homes and M-59

A question was raised whether the elevation difference of six feet mentioned in

this criteria was of significance or whether other elevation differences should be

considered.

The Committee discussed the various heights of the proposed barriers, and

how sound travels over the barrier.

Member Lagerbohm noted that the Committee should rank the walls without

consideration of barrier height. She noted that barrier height required would be

factored in to the wall cost ranking.

The Committee agreed to leave this ranking category in and decided to have

Member Davis, not in attendance, weigh in on whether six feet or nine feet would

be a better number to use for elevation differences.

5. Number of homes within 500 feet of M-59

It was noted that Ranking Criteria #2 discussed earlier included reference to

noise levels based on the MDOT report, however, this ranking criteria

addressed the density within the communities. It was noted that only first floor

units of multi-level condominiums and apartments would be counted.

Member Doug Walther noted that the Committee decided at the last meeting

that the reference to "homes" should be changed to "home sites" and noted that

he would re-map the areas once more to arrive at more accurate numbers.

The Committee reviewed the various areas and the numbers contained in the

neighborhoods within each areas.

Member Hooper commented that this category was good to include to reflect

density.

Mr. Nitsche commented on the length of the sound walls, noting that the wall

has to be four times as long as the distance to the unit otherwise the noise will

come from the sides.

Member Lagerbohm questioned whether the Committee had decided to

include only units that had fifty percent or more of the lot within the 500 foot

range or whether to include these units if any portion of their property touched

the 500 foot line.

After discussion, Chairperson McGlynn summarized that it was the

Committee's decision to include the number of first floor home sites that will

have some influence within the 500 foot line.

6. Does the wall location provide suitable maintenance access

Member Hooper noted that Member Davis wanted this category included to

take into account the future cost to the City of maintaining the wall.

Chairperson McGlynn questioned whether this criteria belonged in this

evaluation or whether it should be included in the CIP rankings.

After discussion, the Committee opted to keep this criteria in the ranking

system.

7. Cost per benefitting unit (per updated MDOT study)

Discussion ensued as to how to include the manufactured home community in

this ranking item. It was noted that while the length and height required for that

wall segment could be determined, and average unit prices could be used to

determine wall costs, it would be difficult to determine the number of attenuated

units.

Member Lagerbohm noted that it will be difficult, without the MDOT computer

program, to determine attenuated units for this area.

The Committee discussed whether to count all units within the 500 foot range in

the trailer park as the density of units was so high. The possibility of renting a

sound meter to obtain some base measurements in this area was also

discussed.

Mr. Nitsche mentioned that any sound levels taken now could be inaccurate as

the traffic has slowed due to the construction activities.

8. Is a berm or other alternative feasible?

Member Hooper commented that including the feasibility of a berm or other

sound abatement alternative in the ranking criteria would give the Committee an

opportunity to review whether the there were any possibilities on a site for any

alternative sound abatement options. He noted that a berm is cheaper to

construct than a wall, and noted that a berm required a one-in-three slope. He

commented that Member Davis would be able to determine which areas could

accommodate a berm.

Mr. Masiak noted that the feasibility of installing a berm for sound abatement

rather than a wall would result in a higher number of ranking points.

9. Other considerations

Chairperson McGlynn reviewed the next potential ranking criterias that had

been discussed and noted that a few of the communities have existing berms or

partial berms already. He noted some consideration should be given in the

rankings to the berms in existence in these areas.

Mr. Masiak questioned whether any of the areas that have current berms were

above the 69 decibel level.

Mr. Diem noted that his area had a 77 decibel noise level.

Member Lagerbohm commented that since the Committee decided to break

down predicted peak noise levels into one-decibel increments for the first

ranking criteria, a consideration for a noise barrier on the opposing side of the

freeway should be taken into account as an increase in noise from an opposing

barrier could cause that wall to move up in the rankings.

Chairperson McGlynn commented that loss of existing obstructions through

construction should also be considered in the rankings. He noted that other

areas were being affected as the MDOT construction activities progressed.

Member Lagerbohm commented that while vegetation removal affected the

aesthetic quality of an area, it had nothing to do with attenuated units and

therefore should not be included in the rankings.

Member Hooper concurred, stating that it would be difficult to rate aesthetics.

Mr. Nitsche commented that his neighbors did not purchase their homes with

torn-down trees and an adjacent six-lane highway.

Member Lam commented that his subdivision has been affected by vegetation

removal as well; however, he noted that funding the replacement of vegetation

should be taken up as a separate topic for Council to consider.

10. Possible future category consideration - subdivision cost share

Chairperson McGlynn noted that information on community cost participation

would not be available when the rankings are developed, but could become a

future consideration. He questioned whether this should be left as a possible

ranking criteria or removed to become a part of the CIP process.

Member Hooper noted that this becomes political as subdivisions come

forward at the Council level to offer a cost share. He commented that it would

be difficult to include any reference to cost share in the ranking process.

Ranking Criteria Category Summary

Chairperson McGlynn summarized that categories one through eight would be

included and the ninth category would be dependent on how the ranking and

breakdown for Category Number One would be finally determined. He

questioned whether any Committee member wished to include any other

categories for consideration.

Member Lagerbohm commented that she would like to see aesthetics or

safety issues be considered.

Member Trip Brennan, Rochester Hills Government Youth Council

Representative, commented that aesthetics and safety could be considered

after the ranking process.

Discussion ensued as to whether to include the separation from backyards to

the MDOT right-of-way

Member Hooper commented that reference could be made in the ranking to

areas where backyards directly abut the MDOT right-of-way fence and noted

that Member Davis could arrive at a number of units that would be affected in

this category.

The Committee further discussed and concurred that a ranking criteria based

on assessed value reduction would not be included.

Mr. Masiak commented that as the Committee moves on to assign weighting to

the categories, it should focus on assigning weights that could expand the range

between projects. He noted that the most difficult part of developing the weights

for the different criteria is how to determine the importance of each criteria in the

ranking system.

Chairperson McGlynn noted that Committee Members would discuss the

individual categories under each ranking criteria at the next meeting.

After discussion, the Committee set the next meeting schedule as follows:

- Tuesday, January 12, 2009 - 6:00 p.m.

- Tuesday, February 9, 2009 - 6:00 p.m.

Discussed.

NEXT MEETING AGENDA

REVIEW TIMELINE

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

None.

NEXT MEETING DATE

- January 12, 2010, 6:00 p.m.; February 9, 2010, 6:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairperson McGlynn adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m., Michigan Time.

Minutes were approved as presented/amended at the January 12, 2010

MR-42E Noise Barrier/Sound Wall Technical Review Committee Meeting.

__________________________________________

MIKE McGLYNN, Chairperson

Prepared by Mary Jo Whitbey

Administrative Secretary, City Clerk's Office