Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />Regular City Counal M eeting <br />M onday, June 29, 2009 <br />Excerpt from M eeting M inutes <br />Attachment B <br />j ake bre�aki ng as they sl owed for the Ri ce Stree� i nterchange. M r. M cDonal d <br />opi ned that when the road was f i rst resurfaced, there was I ittl e ti re noi se; <br />however, as the roadway became worn, the ti re noi se had i ncr�, parti cul arly <br />during the nights, when it seerned eaccessive. Mr. McDonald was generally <br />supportive of the wall; but questioned if graffiti would become a problem, even <br />though the wal I woul d be a benef i t to the nei ghborhood. <br />M r. Gess advi sed that M nDOT woul d be responsi bl e for mai ntenance of the wal I, <br />and appl i ed a graff i ti preventi on coati ng on the wal I that made graff i ti removal , i f <br />necessary, and �asi er process. <br />Bee H anlon, 333 Capital V iew M s. Hanl on spoke i n support of the wal I; but <br />questioned how far south of the frec�vay fence, on the western edge, the wall <br />woul d be I ocated, based on the sl ope of the I and i n that are�a. <br />M r. Benson responded that di stance between the wal I and fence woul d depend on <br />the speci f i c I ocati on; and cl ari f i ed that i n some are�as the f ence woul d be removed, <br />dependi ng on ri ghts�of-way I ocati ons, topography. <br />M r. Gess advi sed that M nDOT prefers I ocati ng the noi se wal I as cl ose to the <br />right-of-way line as possible, while allowing for a ten foot buffer, with that <br />property available to the property owner for additional use; with maintenance of <br />that property usually up to the property owner, given the low priority given <br />beyond annual mai ntenance by M nDOT due to budg� and staff constrai nts. <br />Karen Regal, 271 Capital View <br />Ms. Regal was basically supportive of the wall for noise reduction, with some <br />ambivalence based on aesth�ics and no longer having a vie�v; and sought <br />cl ari f i cati on as to wh�her the berm hi I I woul d be I evel ed, noti ng that sound <br />currentl y came through i n several areas surroundi ng the berm. <br />M r. Gess advi sed that the berm woul d most I i kel y be I evel ed some to al I ow the <br />contractor to establ i sh a worki ng pl atform. <br />Franane Bloecker, 2244 M arion Street <br />M s. B I oecker spoke i n support of the wal I, and thanked M nDOT and other <br />agenci es for i ts i nstal I ati on; opi ni ng that the noi se conti nued to g� worse al I the <br />ti me, and wi th tree.s b�ween her and Cal i bre Ri dge behi nd her, she sti I I coul dn' t <br />have her wi ndows open due to the noi se. <br />YvonneGreilin, 357 Capital View <br />M s. Grei I i n spoke i n opposi ti on to the wal I, aski ng that she not be f enced i n. M s. <br />Grei I i n opi ned that she had to keep her wi ndows cl osed al I the ti me; but she di dn' t <br />want to I ook at a f ence; and no I onger be abl e to have a" Capi tal V i e�v" any <br />I onger. <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />