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, February 9, 2010

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Mike McGlynn called the meeting to order at 6:25 p.m., Michigan

Time.

ROLL CALL

Greg Hooper, Nathan Klomp, Charles Lam and Michael McGlynn

Present

4 -

Jennifer Lagerbohm

Absent

1 -

Others Present:

Trip Brennan, Rochester Hills Government Youth Council Representative

Paul Davis, City Engineer

Mr. and Mrs. Milke

Olaf Nitsche

Noelle O'Neill

INTRODUCTIONS

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

2010-0032

Approval of Meeting Minutes - January 12, 2010

011210 Minutes.pdf

Resolution.pdf

Attachments:

A motion was made by Hooper, seconded by Klomp, that the Minutes of January

12, 2010 be Approved as Amended to strike non-voting members Paul Davis and

Doug Walther from the vote on Legislative File 2010-0032. The motion CARRIED

by the following vote:

Aye

Hooper, Klomp, Lam and McGlynn

4 -

Absent

Lagerbohm

1 -

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

Committee meeting held on January 12, 2010 be approved as amended to strike

non-voting members Paul Davis and Doug Walther from the vote on Legislative File

2010-0032.

(Enter Jennifer Lagerbohm - 6:55 p.m.)

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

McGlynn

Present

5 -

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:

Chairperson Mike McGlynn requested that Paul Davis, City Engineer and

Committee Member, review the process that City Staff used to develop the draft

sound wall rankings.

Member Paul Davis discussed the ranking process and distributed the

following chart:

Number of Homes (First Floor) within 500 Feet

Use the maps prepared by Doug Walther and counting the blue and red dots.

Judgments made for partial lots - more than fifty percent (50%) needed within

the 500-foot line (of the home).

NB-1 = 23 units

NB-2 = 0 units

NB-3 = 36 units

Assume four (4) two-story units per apartment building

NB-4 = 25 units

NB-5 = 34 units

NB-6A = 41 units

NB-8 = 112 units

214 units total in 25 Bldgs.; 7 bldgs have 10 units each

and 18 bldgs have 8 units. Count 4 big and 9 small

(4 x 10) + (9 x 8) = 112 units

NB-9 = 12 units

NB-10 = 45 units

NB-11 = 19 units

NB-12 = 0 units

NB-13 = 34 units

Chateau Avon = 108 units

Member Davis noted that individual drawings were also provided in the meeting

packet to denote the 500-foot line for each wall location. He stated that there

could be an adjustment to note the Committee's decision to include a unit if only

a corner of the parcel fell within the 500-foot line; however, he commented that

any adjustment to the number of units would not likely make any significant

difference as to how the walls ranked. He reviewed the resulting Committee

rankings in comparison to the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)

wall rankings and noted the differences in results between the two ranking

processes:

Noise MDOT Noise Barrier City Technical Review

Barrier Ranking based on Committee Noise Barrier

Designation Reasonable Cost Criteria Ranking per the Rating Formula

NB-1 10 9

NB-2 12 10

NB-3 7 5 or 6 (tie with NB-5)

NB-4 3 8

NB-5 4 5 or 6 (tie with NB-3)

NB-6A 2 3

NB-8 1 1

NB-9 11 13

NB-10 5 2

NB-11 9 12

NB-12 8 11

NB-13 6 7

Chateau Avon n/a 4

Member Davis noted that MDOT's ranking process did not include Chateau

Avon, as the areas west of Crooks Road were not considered in the current

Sound Study. He stated that the prior sound study MDOT staff located was

completed as a part of the Adams Road Interchange Project 17 or 18 years

ago, and he used this information to incorporate this area into the Committee's

rankings. He commented that MDOT's rankings were primarily based on cost

per benefitting unit to determine the reasonableness of each noise barrier. He

discussed how several of the Committee's wall rankings were very close to the

MDOT results, and a few of the walls moved up or down in the rankings. He

noted that NB-4, which was ranked third by MDOT, dropped to eighth in the

Committee's ranking.

Chairperson McGlynn commented that NB-4's lower ranking in the

Committee's process was due to the fact that it benefitted a lower number of

units. He noted that the Committee's ranking Criterias #2 (Number of First

Floor Attenuated Units per updated MDOT report) and #4 (Number of First Floor

Home Sites within 500 feet) had the greatest influence.

Member Davis pointed out that NB-8 was rated first in the MDOT ranking and

also rated first in the Committee's ranking process. He noted that NB-6A

dropped one ranking position in the Committee's process from its MDOT rank,

falling below NB-10. He explained that Chateau Avon ranked fairly well because

of its density, even though from a three-dimensional perspective, the

development sits quite a bit lower than M-59. He commented that he was

comfortable with utilizing a six-foot elevation difference for Criteria #6, and

questioned whether Committee members felt an adjustment should be made to

the thresholds for number of units in the ranking formula Criteria #4. He stated

that Criteria #7 and #8, considering the feasibility of berms and maintenance

access, were more subjective and were based upon his review of the locations.

He commented that he did not consider a berm feasible unless it appeared that

at least one-third of the noise barrier could be constructed as a berm.

Member Greg Hooper commented that he was impressed with the ranking

process and results. He questioned whether the Committee wished to see

more of a ranking spread for Criteria #1, Predicted Peak Noise Levels without

Barrier (per updated MDOT report).

Olaf Nitsche noted that the predicted peak noise levels were close together in

the MDOT report as well, with a standard deviation of plus-or-minus three

decibels.

Member Davis stated that utilizing a three-decibel range in the draft ranking

formula for Criteria #1 is appropriate as that is the level of noise difference that

is perceptible.

Chairperson McGlynn commented that this category was not expected to be a

separating factor, as all proposed wall locations have been determined to be

loud.

The Committee discussed whether to break the noise level rankings into

individual decibels to spread the score ranges out or to leave the ranking ranges

as they were. After discussion, it was determined that the score ranges for

Criteria #1 would not be changed.

Member Davis noted that two of the walls (NB-9 and NB-11) had zero units

attenuated, yet the ranking Criteria #2 still assigned NB-9 and NB-11 two

ranking points for this criteria.

The Committee discussed Criteria #2 and it was decided to change the

category "less than 11" to "1 to 11", and add a category for "zero" units

attenuated, with a value of zero. This change would adjust the ranking score for

NB-9 and NB-11.

Member Davis reviewed Criteria #3, Cost per Benefitting Unit, and noted that

he rated Chateau Avon to be in the "less than $45,000" category as that area

had a great density, the elevation was lower than M-59, and the wall height

necessary would not be expected to be that high.

Regarding Criteria #4, the Committee noted that there would be no significance

to adding any additional categories to account for the two wall locations with a

much higher number of first floor home sites within 500 feet. Therefore, the

Committee determined that this Criteria would not be changed.

Member Davis explained that he used aerial photographs to determine the

public areas counted in Criteria #5. He noted that the Clinton River Trail was

counted as a walking trail, as well as dedicated trails or pathways located within

subdivisions. He commented that he had found only one daycare to include

within the 500-foot range of one wall location.

Member Jennifer Lagerbohm noted that a private daycare also exists at 401

South Boulevard that is within the 500-foot range of wall 6A.

Member Davis stated that he would make that adjustment to the formula for 6A

to include this daycare. He noted that Criteria #6 appeared to work out

appropriately in the wall rankings and did not see a need for any adjustments.

He reiterated his prior comments that Criteria #7 and #8 were based on

subjective observations; however, he stated that he felt that the resulting

rankings were appropriate.

The Committee then agreed that pending the changes to the ranking formulas to

account for the two wall locations that had zero units within 500 feet, and the

correction to add one private daycare facility to NB-6A, the Committee's ranking

of the noise barriers was acceptable.

Chairperson McGlynn questioned whether the members felt that the ranking

process accomplished the Committee's goal. He noted the Committee's total

scores for each wall, and commented that he felt that they result in an

appropriate spread of scoring ranges.

The question was raised whether to include any criteria for neighborhood

contributions for cost-sharing.

Member Hooper commented that the possibilities of neighborhood cost

sharing would be a part of the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) process and

noted that a reference to the Committee's discussions regarding the

possibilities of cost-sharing could be included in its final report. He stated that

the Committee would be scheduled to present a report with the results of the

ranking process to Council for their acceptance and would then field any

questions from Council members. He noted that the information provided to

Council should include the individual rankings, maps and any other data

presented to the Committee that was used in the ranking process.

It was determined that Chairperson McGlynn will present the Committee's

report, and Member Davis would assemble the finalized rankings and

information and assist in the presentation. This report will be scheduled for

presentation at the March 15, 2010 Regular City Council Meeting.

Member Davis noted that the deadline for submission of projects for this year's

CIP is at the end of this week and questioned whether the Committee would

prefer the recommendations submitted as one total project, submitted as a

companion project, or whether the highest one or two unfunded walls should be

submitted separately.

After discussion, it was determined that Member Davis will prepare one

submission for the CIP consisting of all walls; however, he would include a

breakdown for each wall, its estimated value, and its rank as determined by the

Committee. He noted that he would make adjustments to the cost estimates

based on two comparative bids that were done in the past year, which could

lower each wall's cost from the original numbers which were based on Federal

project estimates provided by MDOT.

Discussed.

NEXT MEETING AGENDA

REVIEW TIMELINE

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

None.

NEXT MEETING DATE

- None scheduled. The MR-42E Noise Barrier/Sound Wall Technical Review

Committee will be presenting their final report to Council at the March 15, 2010

Regular City Council Meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m., Michigan time.

____________________________________

MIKE McGLYNN, Chairperson

Prepared by Mary Jo Whitbey

Administrative Secretary, City Clerk's Office