CC_Minutes_2010_0208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 08, 2010 Page 19 Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included various perspectives; pur- pose of the wall to reduce noise for neighboring properties; distance of 100' from the first home at 387 Capitol View to the wall, based on it being set back farther than most homes and the closest being 2254 Marion at an estimated 100'. Mayor Klausing advised that he had no preference for the wall one way or the other, but questioned from the cross sections provided how the wall height would impact nearby residents given its distance from them and limited height. Mr. Schwartz noted that Mark Guess, a representative of MnDOT, was present at tonight's meeting, and could provide information to the City Council on potential implications if the original decision was rescinded, the wall not constructed, and future project and/or noise wall construction implications. Marc Goess - MnDOT Representative Mr. Goess advised that the City could decide to not have a portion of the wall constructed, with an exemption sought from the MPCA as the regulatory agency administering noise wall construction. Mr. Goess further advised that, once that exemption was in place, if at sometime in the future the neighborhood changed their mind(s) and requested a noise wall, that would not happen and one would not be built, since it was eligible for this project and not constructed. Mr. Goess advised that the only exception was if and when another major project was con- structed at the intersection of Rice Street and the ramps; and advised that the only project of such magnitude of which he was aware was a possible third lane on eastbound Highway 36 within the next ten years, at which time a brand new noise analysis would be done based on the homes not mitigated. Mr. Goess sought to clarify that future analysis may not indicate that a noise wall was needed to miti- gate noise. Discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Goess included the possibility that the MPCA would deny the exemption, with them not having done so for any past practices, since the entire noise mitigation process was approved by MPCA; the infrequency of neighbors not wanting a noise wall due to excessive noise; and li- mited impacts to noise reduction for potential alternatives to a noise wall such as trees, which represent more of psychological impact, but little decibel noise re- duction due to space and cost prohibitions. Public Comment Ms. Dwyer-French Ms. Dwyer-French expressed puzzlement in the additional information presented at tonight's meeting, and whether it was in response to the citizen petition previ- ously filed. Ms. Dwyer-French advised that she was very upset with the addi- tional information being presented; suggested that the original meeting held in June of 2009 was poorly handled by the City Council and its purpose misunder- stood by the neighborhood; and addressed her perspectives on recent survey work