Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-11-WS EN HILLS Approved: May 9, 2011 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING APRIL 11, 2011 8:19 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the City Council Work Session meeting at 8:19 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Council Members Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Nick Tamble, and Ed Werner. Absent: None Also present: City Administrator, Patrick Klaers; Public Works Director, Terry Maurer; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; and Chris Chromy, Bolton&Menk. L. AGENDA ITEMS A. I-694 Noise Analysis Review Public Works Director Maurer presented the City Council with information on the I-694 noise wall analysis. Mark Lindeberg with MnDOT explained that in 1972 the U.S. Congress passed legislation regarding highway noise in that State's must provide mitigation where reasonable and feasible. Noise is to be reduced by five decibels through the mitigation. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) defines the limits within these State statutes. Mr. Lindeberg indicated the Federal mandate is set at 70 decibels. The MPCA standards have 65 decibels during the daytime hours and 55 decibels for night. He further reviewed the differences between the standards. Mr. Lindeberg stated the current Minnesota noise standards along I-694 are being exceeded for night time conditions. At this time, MnDOT was looking at reasonable and feasible options for a noise wall. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—APRIL 11, 2011 2 1-4 1-694 Noise Analysis Review (continued) Councilmember Holden questioned how many receptors were used to measure the noise levels along I-694. Mr. Lindberg indicated separate readings were taken along I-694 in 2007, 2008 and again in 2010. Noise evaluations were set given the predicted elevation and placement of the new roadways. He noted the receptors were placed along the roadway to capture the sound along the roadway and then the numbers are built into the model with the new conditions. The expected noise levels are then computed by MnDOT based on the existing noise levels. Councilmember Holmes asked if the noise was louder along Highway 10 or 1-694. Mr. Lindeberg indicated this would be difficult to determine between the roadways as the noise was captured along the entire corridor and not separately. Councilmember Holden inquired why there were differing noise levels between MnDOT equipment and handheld devices. Mr. Lindeberg explained that a handheld noise meter measures noise instantaneously. MnDOT has to use an L-10 model receptor which measures noise every six minutes. This creates an average over an hour. Mayor Grant questioned if the MnDOT noise model took into account the proposed changes for County Road 96/Highway 10. Mr. Lindeberg noted this was placed into the model along with any other anticipated changes between now and 2030. Councilmember Holden asked how predictions or assumptions were made regarding the TCAAP property. Mr. Lindeberg stated MnDOT referred to the City's 30 year Comprehensive Plan to assist with these predictions. Mr. Lindeberg further reviewed the noise standard analysis with the Council. MnDOT has reviewed the decibel levels and the standard approved cost effective analysis per residence is $3,250 per decibel reduced versus $20.00 per square foot for the noise wall. City Attorney Filla questioned how MnDOT defined"per residence". Mr. Lindeberg noted the original location of the receptors calculates the sound given the number of homes assigned to the site. Only the first row of homes was calculated through the original calculations. However,the Briarknoll area did include the second row of homes. City Attorney Filla asked if the noise protection from a sound wall was verified after construction. Mr. Lindeberg noted that once the noise wall was erected, the noise analysis would cease. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—APRIL 11, 2011 3 I.A I-694 Noise Analysis Review (continued) City Administrator Klaers indicated the cost per decibel was in the $5,000 range and the City was to assume funding one-third of the expense for the noise wall. Mr. Lindeberg stated this was the case. Councilmember Holmes questioned which homes in the Briarknoll area would be receiving the most noise mitigation. Mr. Lindeberg felt it was safe to say the first row of homes would receive the most noticeable benefit with a 3 decibel reduction in noise. He noted there were 30 homes that abut highway right-of-way near Hamline Avenue and only half would benefit from a noise wall. The noise wall was not effective in all areas of the City given changes in elevation. Councilmember Holmes asked if the pavement would be concrete and if this was louder than blacktop. Mr. Lindeberg indicated that all of I-694 would be concrete, which would be louder to begin with but quieter over time. He noted the concrete would be tined for drainage in a noise efficient manner. City Attorney Filla questioned when the sound wall would be constructed, before, after or during construction. Mr. Lindeberg indicated this would be determined by the contractor. Councilmember Tamble asked how far the sound wall would be built from the roadway. Mr. Lindeberg stated this would vary throughout the corridor. The noise wall would have to be at least 10 feet from the property line. City Attorney Filla inquired what the current noise levels were. Mr. Lindeberg stated the current numbers were around 68 decibels. He then reviewed how the noise wall would affect the area both now and into the future. A seven decibel reduction was predicted if a wall were constructed. However, only a two decibel increase was predicted if a wall were not constructed in 2030. Mayor Grant questioned the benefit of a noise wall given the expense that would have to be assumed by the City. Chris Chromy, Bolton & Menk, did not feel the $500,000 expense was wise as it would benefit only about 15 homeowners. This would be a tough decision, many trees would be removed and there may not be a noticeable difference. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—APRIL 11, 2011 4 LA I-694 Noise Analysis Review (continued) Councilmember Holden stated the homes along Highway 10 could benefit from a noise wall as well. Mr. Lindeberg noted this area was modeled but was not being considered at this time. Mayor Grant questioned if MnDOT would monitor the corridor if a noise wall were not built. Mr. Lindeberg stated MnDOT would study the area and if it becomes cost effective a wall could be built. He indicated the level of cars would have to double to increase the decibel level by five. Councilmembcr Holden asked if the speed of traffic affected the decibel level. Mr. Lindeberg noted consistent speed was lower than accelerating or changing speeds. Discussion ensued regarding the speed limit on Highway 10. Councilmember Holmes questioned if the State could be forced to pay the full price of the sound wall. Mr. Lindeberg indicated this would not happen as it would set precedence and every future sound wall would have to be funded by the State. He noted MnDOT understands that noise is an issue which led to the 2007 and 2010 analysis. MnDOT has been in communication with the Council, City Staff and residents. He reiterated that the analysis presented by the City's consultant were similar to MnDOT's findings. At this time, MnDOT did not feel a noise wall was a cost effective option. Councilmember Holden requested that a link be created on the City's website for the noise analysis results. Wayne Norris, from MnDOT, thanked the Council for working with MnDOT to resolve the 14 conditions. He looked forward to continuing to work with the Council and its Staff. B. 1-694 Municipal Consent—Appeal Board Presentation City Attorney Filla presented the City Council with information on the noise wall assessment process. He explained sound barriers were considered public improvements and could be assessed to the benefitted residents. Only a special benefit amount could be assessed to properties. Staff presented the Council with a handout with further information on the process and how the City of Edina handled this situation. City Attorney Filla felt the noise wall would be a difficult project to assess. Discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of the noise wall for surrounding properties. City Attorney Filla indicated the Council could go before the Appeal Board if the Council felt the noise wall was necessary. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—APRIL 11, 2011 5 LB I-694 Municipal Consent—Appeal Board Presentation (continued) MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to extend the meeting by 30 minutes. The motion carried unanimously Councilmember Holden questioned what Staff needed from the Council on this issue this evening. Public Works Director Maurer stated he would be making a one hour presentation to the Appeal Board after MnDOT's presentation. The best avenue for the City to take was that MnDOT has not taken the City's requests seriously. The Lexington Avenue Bridge was only included after a meeting called by Senator Goodwin and Representative Knuth. He noted the one large remaining issue was a pedestrian walkway over I-694 at Highway 51. Councilmember Holmes noted the City was going to have a loss of access, and expansion of capacity which allowed the City an opportunity to appeal MnDOT's plans. Mayor Grant suggested the City draft a letter to MnDOT on the items in contention and that all other items not be readdressed. The noise wall and the pedestrian bridge were the two main issues at this time. He questioned how the Council would like to proceed if MnDOT would not support the noise wall and pedestrian bridge. Councilmcmber Werner expressed concern with how the City would assess the noise wall Councilmember Holden was in favor of requesting full payment for the noise wall from MnDOT. Councilmember Holmes asked if the Council was going to pursue berming on I-694. Public Works Director Maurer noted the berming would be minimal given the space available to create the berm. He suggested the Council request that MnDOT go along with the recommendation in Scott McBride's letter of MnDOT doing a berming analysis and presenting it to the City. The Council was in favor of this recommendation. Public Works Director Maurer questioned what argument the City had to demand full payment for the noise wall. Councilmember Holmes indicated this should be paid in full by MnDOT because the City and its residents were losing local access. She requested that Staff highlight Conditions 2, 3 and 11. Mayor Grant added that MnDOT has not fixed any of the problems through this interchange. Instead capacity has been added to this area. Public Works Director Maurer asked if the Council would like any residents to speak on behalf of the City at the Appeal Board or if additional background information should be given. Councilmember Holmes felt Dave McClung and Pat Haik could speak for the local residents. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—APRIL 11, 2011 6 1.A 1-694 Noise Analysis Review (continued) Councilmember Holden disagreed with this suggestion. Mayor Grant noted he would be in attendance at the meeting. He agreed with having Pat Haik or Al Hilgers speak at the Appeal Board meeting for five minutes on behalf of the neighborhood. He requested the message be controlled. Councilmember Holden was in favor of having Al Hilgers speak at the meeting. She noted she was not planning on attending the meeting. Councilmember Holmes encouraged the members in favor of the noise wall to attend the meeting. She indicated she was planning to attend the meeting. Public Works Director Maurer explained he would put together a PowerPoint presentation for the Appeal Board meeting. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS None. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council Work Session meeting at 10:35 p.m. Patrick Klaers David Grant City Administrator Mayor