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 Member: Greg Hooper

Youth Representative: Trip Brennan

6:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Monday, November 30, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Mike McGlynn called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Greg Hooper, Jennifer Lagerbohm, Charles Lam and Michael McGlynn

Present

4 -

Others Present:

Trip Brennan, Rochester Hills Government Youth Council Representative

Rich Diem

Elona Murphy

Olaf Nitsche (entered at 6:20 p.m.)

Noelle O'Neill (entered at 6:40 p.m.)

Dave Simonetti

INTRODUCTIONS

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

2009-0534

Approval of Meeting Minutes - November 10, 2009

111009 Minutes.pdf

Resolution.pdf

Attachments:

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

Meeting of November 10, 2009 be Approved as Presented. The motion CARRIED

by the following vote:

Aye

Davis, Walther, Hooper, Lagerbohm, Lam and McGlynn

6 -

Resolved, that the Minutes of the MR42-E Noise Barrier/Sound Wall Technical Review

Committee meeting held on November 10, 2009 be approved as presented.

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 recapped the discussion from the November 10,

2009 meeting, summarizing the criteria considered by the Committee.

Noise level-based criteria

Predicted peak noise levels per the MDOT report:

The Committee indicated that they would keep this criteria.

Largest reduction in sound levels if the sound wall is built:

The Committee will not use this criteria.

Reflection of approved noise barrier on the opposite side of the road:

It was discussed that an opposing noise barrier would not have more than a

three decibel impact on sound level.

Number of affected homes within 500 feet:

It was determined that this criteria will be used.

Number of benefitting dwelling units within 500 feet:

It was determined that this criteria will not be used.

Number of adjacent residents within 500 feet of M-59:

It was determined that this criteria will not be used.

Number of homes within 200 feet of nearest M-59 through lane:

It was determined that this criteria will not be used.

Elevation differences between first homes and M-59:

This criteria would be kept for consideration, and was discussed further.

Member Jennifer Lagerbohm stated that elevation should be a consideration

in comparison to the roadway as the wall should be ranked higher in those areas

where elevation makes the biggest impact.

Member Greg Hooper stated that consideration should be given to the

elevation of any property lines or ditches, noting that areas lower than the road

might not achieve any perceivable benefit by the construction of a wall.

Member Paul Davis, City Engineer, stated that the City has a Geographic

Information System (GIS) that includes aerial photographs supplemented by

elevations at two-foot contours and noted that this could allow estimates of

ground levels for each home within 500 feet of M-59. He pointed out that a

determination could also be made whether a second story of a home might fall

within the shadow factor and might benefit. He noted that the Michigan

Department of Transportation (MDOT) noise study did not take upper levels into

account. He stated that including second story elevation information would take

additional work, but noted that concerns have been raised about sleeping areas.

Chairperson McGlynn stated that this criteria could be kept in, if it could be

turned into a measureable criteria.

Member Charles Lam questioned whether this measurement would include a

calculation of the height of the wall or if one standard height would be used

throughout.

Member Hooper commented that there could be multiple scenarios to consider

for elevation, noting that if the wall could be constructed right next to the roadway

it would be of great benefit to a unit whether it was high, low or at the same

elevation. He mentioned the mobile home park, noting that the freeway was

much higher than the mobile homes and questioning how they would be ranked

using this criteria if a wall could be installed right next to the roadway. He stated

that if the wall could shield a unit from the noise it would be of benefit irrespective

of elevation.

Typical height of adjacent homes:

Chairperson McGlynn indicated that this was discussed in conjunction with

elevation.

Public uses available within 500 feet of the wall:

Chairperson McGlynn indicated that the Committee discussed including this

criteria, with some sort of modification in the ranking scale for uses that were

purely public, public to the community and not public.

Member Davis questioned how the ranking system should consider a

subdivision with multiple items that fit this criteria and questioned whether the

number of points assigned for ranking public uses would be capped.

Committee members discussed whether the category should be ranked as a

"yes or no", or given a point for each use with a capped possible total. It was

decided that once the number of criteria was determined, points could be

assigned for criteria deemed more relevant.

Member Hooper clarified that the Committee would include only the first floor of

multi-unit stacked condominiums and apartments in the count of affected units.

Financially-based criteria

Taxable value of homes within 500 feet:

SEV of homes within 500 feet:

Taxable value of benefitting homes within 500 feet:

SEV of benefitting homes within 500 feet:

Average assessed value of homes within 500 feet of M-59:

Estimated taxable value reduction for homes within 500 feet (without barrier):

Chairperson McGlynn noted that the first four items were all similar and tied

either to Taxable Value or State Equalized Value (SEV) and considered either

the total number of homes or only the benefitting homes per the MDOT report.

Member Lagerbohm stated that she would be in favor of including a percent

reduction in taxable value without a barrier as a metric, as suggested in an

e-mail forwarded to the Committee from Jim Masiak.

Member Doug Walther, Deputy Director of Assessing, commented that this

would be difficult to measure, noting that the impact on future value cannot be

accurately predicted and pointing out that other communities in Oakland County

do not have data that could be used here for comparison. He stated that he has

had conversations with a few appraisers that do work for the State of Michigan

and it would be difficult to know whether the impact would be any different

percentage-wise on a higher-value home versus a lesser-value home.

Member Lagerbohm noted that if the percentage of reduction would be equal

across all home values, including this criteria would be meaningless.

Rich Diem noted that Wayne County encountered the same problems in

determining value impact after I-275 had been grooved, creating additional noise

in the Farmington/Farmington Hills area.

Member Walther noted that the impact on the standard of living and

environment should be given greater consideration than property values.

Chairperson McGlynn noted that a small subdivision with a few expensive

homes could end up with the same total taxable value rating as a community

with a large number of less expensive homes.

Committee members noted that while there would be a way to arrive at a taxable

value for each wall segment, it would be difficult to establish a fair way to rank

the values.

Elona Murphy questioned whether homes in place before M-59 was built or

those whose owners pre-date the freeway should be given a higher ranking.

Member Davis stated that age of adjacent homes could be easily determined,

however length of ownership would be more difficult.

Member Walther questioned whether including this could put an arbitrary value

on homes that have been there the longest.

Chairperson McGlynn noted that including financial data diverts the ranking

process away from looking at noise levels and residents' ability to enjoy their

community regardless of property values.

Member Hooper requested that Member Walther assemble data for

discussion on how many homes included in these areas were built before M-59.

Wall cost-based criteria:

Cost of wall per affected resident:

Cost of wall per benefitting dwelling unit:

Cost per benefitting parcel (MDOT "reasonable" criteria)

Subdivision cost share:

Length of proposed wall construction:

Does the wall location provide suitable maintenance access?

Proposed noise barrier construction type:

Chairperson McGlynn noted that the first three criteria suggested were similar

and were tied to MDOT's Table 7 cost criteria of $38,060 per benefitting unit.

Member Davis noted that this figure is MDOT's and the Federal Highway

Administration's (FHA) attempt to establish criteria on how to spend money

wisely on wall construction. He noted that it does not make sense to continue

spending money to construct sound walls if the walls will not serve a reasonable

number of people. He noted MDOT's category for "public use" was

narrowly-defined as a feature that was truly open to the public like a

community-wide park or a library. He questioned whether the Committee

wished to include consideration for the type of residential unit and number of

individuals that might live there, noting that there could be a distinction in the

number living in a single family residence versus an apartment or manufactured

home.

The Committee determined that this ranking criteria should include benefitting

potential dwelling units, including buildable lots but excluding public parks,

swimming pools and clubhouses in the cost-based category as these public

uses would be covered in a different ranking category. Further discussion

ensued as to whether to include those units receiving less than a five decibel

reduction within the targeted area or strictly follow MDOT's version for a five

decibel reduction, and whether to follow a 500 foot distance to determine

affected units and arrive at a cost per benefitting unit.

Member Davis further noted that criteria would need to be established for the

trailer park as MDOT study information did not exist for that area.

Chairperson McGlynn stated that costs per unit needed to be included in

some manner as Council could be deciding on funding a wall that affects few

residents versus a wall affecting 1,000 residents, each having the same total

cost.

Member Davis noted that a 500 foot distance was MDOT's typical rule of

thumb used for estimating benefit without doing an elaborate study and that

MDOT's cost per benefitting unit was computed by determining the actual units

that would receive the five decibel noise reduction. He pointed out that other

factors determined how total wall cost varies including length and height.

Olaf Nitsche stated that those areas with more expensive homes and larger

lots would not have the same density and would yield higher costs per unit.

Member Lagerbohm stated that it is not fair to include a weight for the taxable

value of the homes.

Member Hooper commented that the Committee needed to arrive at an

agreeable definition for benefitting unit and questioned whether the 500-foot

distance should include a structure on a property or should merely encompass

a portion of the property falling within the 500-foot distance.

Member Davis noted that the MDOT study included a unit if any portion of the

property fell within the benefitting shadow. He commented that MDOT has the

best information available, and noted that the data was consistent with

measurements taken with the same equipment using the same criteria

throughout the study area. He noted that engineering assumptions could be

made for the areas where the information did not exist.

Additional discussion ensued as to whether to use the MDOT report to

determine benefitting units and setbacks, whether to set a straight cost per units

within 500 feet, and how to include vacant lots.

Member Davis noted that MDOT included vacant lots for Noise Barrier-10, and

commented that this was one of the only areas that had vacant lots for

development. He stated that most of the other areas were already built out.

Member Walther concurred, pointing out a few other areas that had vacant lots

but noting that most of the vacant lots remaining in the other areas are not

buildable.

Member Hooper recapped that a wall cost-based criteria selected for inclusion

would be the cost per residential benefitting unit per MDOT's formula.

The Committee discussed whether to include criteria that 50 percent of the lot

should be included within benefitting area to be counted.

Member Walther commented that it would be difficult to calculate lot

percentage as the program used cannot calculate angles. He suggested that

his preference is to either incorporate a unit if the structure fell within the

distance or if the lot touched the qualifying area. He commented that the latter

is the method MDOT used.

The Committee concurred with using MDOT's maps to determine qualifying

units.

Chairperson McGlynn directed the Committee to discuss whether to include

ranking criteria for subdivision cost sharing. He commented that this criteria

would be difficult for the Committee to evaluate as it would be difficult initially to

determine which subdivisions would be willing to contribute to fund a sound wall.

Member Davis commented that a subdivision could step forward after the

ranking process and approach Council with a proposal.

Noelle O'Neill questioned whether an informational packet could be compiled to

distribute to residents in a threshold area that could spur funding options within

subdivision organizations.

Member Davis noted that once rankings are established and released,

subdivisions who want to lift their wall over others in the consideration process

could come forward with funding proposals.

Member Trip Brennan commented that this should be used if two walls are

very close in ranking, and should not be used to lift a low-ranking wall above

much higher-ranked walls to a position of being constructed.

Mr. Diem concurred, stating that a "bidding war" should be avoided where the

most affluent subdivision automatically moves to the top of the list.

Member Davis commented that grant programs often see communities offer

additional cost-sharing to receive priority and noted that this could be a way of

making the money go further.

Member Hooper noted that he is personally opposed to Special Assessment

Districts (SADs) as it creates a community of haves and have-nots. He

commented that Farmington Hills does not have a road maintenance program

and relies on assessments and stated that the subdivisions with streets in good

conditions are the ones who can afford to pay. He noted that while he felt SADs

could split the community, he could not say that SADs would not be an option

considered.

Discussion ensued regarding SADs for improvements such as wall

construction versus maintenance and who would be included in an SAD for wall

construction.

Member Hooper responded that there most likely would be a difference in

perception of an SAD for maintenance. He commented that including only

affected properties in the SAD rather than entire subdivisions could lead to

owners attempting to opt out of an SAD by pointing out that only a portion of their

property touched the affected area or they did not receive enough benefit to be

included. It was discussed how to include common areas such as pools that

would fall within SADs.

Chairperson McGlynn questioned whether wall length should be used as a

criteria.

Member Hooper commented that surface area would be more appropriate and

wall heights and lengths were available in the MDOT study.

Member Davis pointed out that MDOT uses both length and height in their cost

computations, commenting that MDOT includes $25.50 per square foot and

$250 per lineal foot to obtain a total cost of a wall.

After discussion, the Committee determined that using wall length or square

footage as a cost-based criteria was not necessary as the cost per benefitting

unit criteria already took wall cost into account.

Chairperson McGlynn questioned whether the committee wanted to include

criteria regarding suitable access for wall maintenance.

Member Davis stated that MDOT does not pay much attention to this criteria in

wall ranking as the walls are typically turned over to the communities for

maintenance after construction. He commented that there would be some

benefit to taking maintenance into consideration as there would be future costs

to the City and noting that one wall might be easier to maintain than another. He

pointed out that access roads and easements could be reviewed. He

commented that he would suggest that this be given consideration, although it

would not need to be given a great deal of points in the ranking process.

Member Brennan questioned what maintenance activities would be included.

Member Davis responded that maintenance could include erosion, vehicle

damage, falling trees or graffiti removal.

Ms. Noelle O'Neill questioned whether the City's insurance could cover

damage.

Member Hooper commented that the City has a high deductible for property

damage such as this.

Member Davis indicated that maintenance criteria could have a subjective

rating, but could be based on a review of aerials and elevations of proposed wall

placement. He noted that the M-59 project is creating some areas of detention

that do not currently exist which could limit access to some wall areas.

The Committee agreed to include wall maintenance in the ranking criteria.

Chairperson McGlynn questioned whether the Committee wished to consider

alternative wall types in the ranking process.

Member Davis responded that MDOT only considers concrete walls.

Member Lagerbohm stated that she would encourage discussion of the

aesthetic value of a wall.

Ms. O'Neill commented that of all the residents she has spoken to in the

Nawakwa area, none stated that they would prefer to hear traffic noise rather

than look at a wall.

Member Brennan commented that aesthetics could be subjective and difficult

to put a ranking to.

The Committee discussed various options other communities used for concrete

walls with different construction patterns and colors. Discussion ensued

regarding what would happen once the ranking was determined as to which walls

would ultimately be constructed with available funds.

Member Davis noted that if a $3 million wall was ranked highest, but lesser

funding was available, Council might opt for a lower-ranked wall that could be

constructed with the available funds.

Member Hooper questioned whether there would be any chance that the walls

could be done with alternative construction methods, such as berms.

Member Davis responded that there could be some areas where berms could

work and noted that a wall area could include sections of concrete or berm. He

noted that walls slated for construction in MDOT's right-of-way would most likely

be concrete; however, a wall that might be constructed within a subdivision

common area could include a berm. He commented that he would review the

aerials and measure out the requirements for space needed for berms, noting

that for each foot in height a three or four foot horizontal footprint would be

needed to create a berm that could be maintained. He commented that if

alternative construction methods were included for ranking, MDOT's cost

analysis would have to be adjusted in the ranking process.

Ms. O'Neill suggested that in areas where a section of concrete wall could be

cut out and replaced with berm, that cost savings could be deducted from the

total cost estimate for that wall.

Member Davis commented that additional factors had to be taken into account

for alternative methods, such as the placement of utilities in a wall area.

Member Hooper suggested that this criteria could be labeled as "cost

reduction for a wall segment". A wall would receive a higher score if it could be

done with an alternative method to a concrete wall.

Discussion ensued regarding the recent vegetation removal by MDOT and the

question was raised whether there would be additional clearing.

Member Davis noted that although vegetation removal was noted on MDOT's

construction plans, the extent of clearing was not. He commented that MDOT

does not have progress meetings with the City for this project and his guess

was that there would most likely be some additional clearing in other areas.

Ms. O'Neill questioned whether anyone could attend a construction progress

meeting.

Member Davis responded that he would request that MDOT provide additional

regular updates to the City.

Chairperson McGlynn commented that the Committee would review the

ranking categories at the next meeting and suggested that the Committee

members begin to formulate a rating system that could be discussed.

Member Davis questioned whether Council could consider extending the

Committee's appointment into January, noting that he did not believe that a

finalized presentation would be ready for Council before the mid-December

deadline.

Member Hooper stated that he would have Council discuss extending the

Committee into 2010 and would also consider whether to retain two Council

members on the Committee or reduce the Council membership to one and

include one additional Citizen appointment.

Chairperson McGlynn stated that the next meeting would focus on reviewing

the seven criteria selected and determine a weighting or ranking for these

criteria that could then be applied to each wall section.

Member Davis commented that the Committee should also discuss how the

ranking system would translate to the trailer park area at the next meeting.

Discussed.

NEXT MEETING AGENDA

REVIEW TIMELINE

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

NEXT MEETING DATE

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 - 6:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.

Minutes were approved as amended at the December 8, 2009 MR-42E Noise

Barrier/Sound Wall Technical Review Committee Meeting.

_____________________________________

MIKE McGLYNN, Chairperson

Prepared by Mary Jo Whitbey

Administrative Secretary, City Clerk's Office