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, January 12, 2010

CALL TO ORDER

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

Time.

ROLL CALL

Greg Hooper, Nathan Klomp, Jennifer Lagerbohm and Michael McGlynn

Present

4 -

Charles Lam

Absent

1 -

Others Present:

Rich Diem

Olaf Nitsche

INTRODUCTIONS

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Member Paul Davis reported that he contacted the Michigan Department of

Transportation (MDOT) regarding previous noise study information for the

areas along M-59 west of Crooks Road that might exist and noted that MDOT's

responded that it would take approximately two weeks to search the archives.

Rich Diem questioned whether any data found would be applicable, as noise

measurement techniques have changed substantially.

Member Davis responded that any prior noise studies would most likely be

from the Adams Interchange Project and noted that design for the project was

completed some time before the actual construction of the interchange.

Member Nathan Klomp reported that the December 14, 2009 Council Meeting

included discussion regarding tree removal activities along M-59 and whether

the Tree Fund could be used to replant along this area.

Member Davis stated that the landscape plan along M-59 notes some

replanting of trees, but not to the extent of what was removed.

(Charles Lam entered at 6:08 p.m.)

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

McGlynn

Present

5 -

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

2009-0569

Approval of Meeting Minutes - December 8, 2009

120809 Meeting Minutes - Draft.pdf

Resolution.pdf

Attachments:

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

Meeting of December 8, 2009 be Approved as Presented. The motion CARRIED by

the following vote:

Aye

Davis, Walther, Hooper, Klomp, Lagerbohm, Lam and McGlynn

7 -

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

Committee meeting held on December 8, 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 commented that two items recently distributed by

e-mail to Committee members included a ranking form he developed (dated

January 9, 2009) based on the last meeting's discussion and additional

information prepared by Jim Masiak, who could not attend this evening.

Chairperson McGlynn noted that his modified ranking form added the words

"without barrier" to ranking item number one. He inquired whether Member

Lagerbohm had the opportunity to develop any models for the area west of

Crooks near Adams Road.

Member Jennifer Lagerbohm reported that she worked through the Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) rating approach in comparison to the Michigan

Department of Transportation (MDOT) approach, and commented that the two

methods would not yield similar comparisons. She explained that when HUD

looks at funding projects along freeways, their approach is to arrive at an LEQ

over a 24-hour period which takes lower nighttime traffic counts into account;

while the MDOT approach uses an LEQ for one hour during the peak levels.

She noted that the scenarios she ran utilizing the HUD approach projected 2035

numbers at 69 to 70 decibels over a 24-hour period and commented that this

did not compare to a one-hour worst-case scenario. She stated that one

approach would be to add one or two decibels to the numbers, however, this

would not take into account other factors that the MDOT model considers, such

as differences in elevations. She noted that the data yielded by this method

might not be considered as relevant.

Member Greg Hooper noted that if MDOT cannot locate any prior sound study

data, the Committee's only choice might be to make some engineering

assumptions utilizing the HUD model.

Member Paul Davis noted that one to two decibels would be within calibration

levels for MDOT.

Chairperson McGlynn noted that the Committee would revisit this at the next

meeting after MDOT had an opportunity to search its archives. He questioned

whether anyone had any additional comments on the January 9th draft ranking

form.

Member Hooper recalled that the Committee decided to add the words "first

floor" to the ranking Criteria Number Two, referencing the number of attenuated

units (per the MDOT updated report). He questioned whether the Committee

decided to leave Criteria Number Four, referencing Elevation, at intervals of six

or nine feet.

Member Davis stated that he used six feet as an interval after a review of some

of the contour elevations from M-59, noting that it was his opinion that nine feet

was close to the height of the wall and might be too much.

Member Lagerbohm questioned whether the highest ranking weight would be

given to elevations higher or lower than the freeway.

Chairperson McGlynn noted that sound travels upward and stated that lower

areas would receive lower ranking.

The Committee then discussed whether to utilize the 500-foot setback range to

determine the number of homes affected by elevation and how the ranking

would be determined if the elevations differed along each wall area. It was

determined by the Committee that this ranking should read "Elevation difference

between first homes and M-59 (Plurality)" and that the 500-foot setback range

would be kept.

Member Davis noted that the City has contour elevations available and that this

data can be interpolated for each home to determine the ground elevation. He

commented that measurements would go perpendicular to M-59.

After discussion, it was determined that Member Davis would run scenarios with

both six-foot and nine-foot elevation differences based on a 500-foot offset from

the nearest lane of M-59, and would then review how the data would fall.

Chairperson McGlynn then questioned whether the Committee wished to

discuss the total points available, noting that his January 9th draft rating form

arrived at a total maximum point value of 145 for all criteria. He questioned

whether the Committee wished to add any additional ranking criteria at this point.

Member Hooper questioned whether the Committee wished to discuss

incorporating a criteria for the number of backyards that abut M-59 at this point.

Chairperson McGlynn noted that last meeting's discussion along this line

included aesthetics and safety issues. He stated that the Committee opted to

remove aesthetics from ranking consideration after the last meeting and he had

not given any weight to Category Number Nine on his January 9th draft ranking

form.

Rich Diem questioned whether any homes abut the freeway without any

fencing.

Olaf Nitsche commented that at a minimum, a fence from MDOT separates

lots.

Member Davis noted that MDOT typically installs a permanent wire fence and

commented that all fencing along M-59 will be replaced as a part of this project.

He stated that although MDOT is not obligated to install fencing, it does so to

delineate their right-of-way boundary.

Chairperson McGlynn noted that elevation is important for safety

considerations as well, noting that if something crashes through the boundary

going upward, it most likely would not be as much of a safety issue as if it fell

downward.

Mr. Nitsche commented that a boat that recently ran through the freeway

fencing might have gone even further into the adjoining properties had the

highway in that area been at a higher elevation.

Upon further discussion, the committee agreed to drop Ranking Category Nine

on the January 9, 2009 draft ranking form, Other Considerations.

Chairperson McGlynn noted that one additional change to be made to the

Draft Ranking Form, Ranking Criteria Number Five, was to add reference to

"number of home sites" as the Committee had discussed that there were

several sites in areas that do not have homes on them yet.

Member Hooper suggested that the wording be "first floor home sites".

The Committee then concurred that if any portion of the site fell within the

500-foot range, it would be counted; and further determined that the words "that

will in some way be impacted/influenced" be removed from that ranking criteria.

Chairperson McGlynn asked for any final comments on the ranking criteria

and then directed the discussion to the rating and ranking numbers. He

explained that his draft computed the highest possible ranking values within

each category and arrived at a total maximum point value for all criteria of 145.

He then determined for each criteria, what the total percentage of points

available would be. He discussed the various rankings and percentages that he

could arrive at for each ranking criteria and noted that the Committee would now

decide which criteria would be considered ranked with a higher percentage and

which criteria would be ranked lower. He commented that he had entered

arbitrary weighting numbers on the draft form for discussion purposes and

asked for Committee input on how to weight the different criteria categories.

Member Lagerbohm noted that she would like to have the criteria regarding

public areas be given a higher ranking and suggested it be given a weight of four

instead of three, raising the total maximum points to 150.

The Committee agreed. Discussion followed whether to score a daycare or

school higher than a tennis court or other subdivision or public feature. It was

suggested to raise School or Daycare to a score of two, while leaving the other

public facility/features at a score of one. A question was raised whether to

include a registered or licensed home daycare as well. It was noted that

information on the number of licensed or registered daycares would be readily

available at the County.

Member Davis noted that if information on home daycare facilities was readily

available, it should be included.

After further discussion, the Committee opted to combine Pool and Clubhouse

to one item, noting that it would read "Clubhouse or Swimming Pool". Additional

discussion included whether to count private backyard pools as well as public

pools. The Committee determined that private backyard pools would not be

included.

Once the final eight ranking categories had been determined and agreed upon

by the Committee, Chairperson McGlynn requested that the Committee

members take a moment and rank each of the criteria from highest priority to

low, and noted that Member Davis would then tally the results to determine the

order of priority for each criteria.

Member Davis compiled the ranking numbers as each Committee member

read off their ranking of the eight criteria.

Chairperson McGlynn then summarized the order of ranking criteria, from

highest weight to lowest weight:

1. Predicted peak noise levels without barrier (per updated MDOT report).

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

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

4. Number of first floor home sites within 500 feet.

5. Public areas within 500 feet of M-59 (multi-count possible, max 5 items)

6. Elevation difference between first homes and M-59 (plurality).

7. Is a berm or other alternative feasible?

8. Maintenance access rating for the proposed wall location.

The Committee then determined that 1, 2 and 3 should each be weighted as

five. The next two criteria, 4 and 5, would each be weighted as four. Elevation

(6) would be given a weight of three; and the last two criteria (berm or alternative,

and maintenance access) would be given weights of two each.

Further discussion ensued regarding the score range for elevations, and it was

mentioned that noise models show that sound reflects from the street upward.

The Committee determined that M-59 being lower than the home ground

elevations would garner a score of five, within six feet of ground elevations a

score of three, and higher than home ground elevations a score of one.

Once the ranking order, score and weight was determined, it was decided that

Member Davis would perform the ranking calculations to bring back to the

Committee by the next meeting. After additional discussion whether to use

six-feet or nine-feet for elevation differences and how that might affect the

spread within that ranking category, the Committee consensus was for Member

Davis to first use six-feet in his elevation computations.

Chairperson McGlynn announced that the next meeting would be February 9,

2009 at 6:00 p.m.

Discussed.

NEXT MEETING AGENDA

REVIEW TIMELINE

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

None.

NEXT MEETING DATE

Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - 6:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m., Michigan time.

Minutes were approved as amended to strike-out non-voting members at the

February 9, 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