PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,
MARCH 1, 2005
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
6:30
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mayor Shaver called the work session to order at 6:30 P.M., with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Wisniewski present. Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Jennifer Frommer, Lance Schultz, Frank Wiseman, McKenzie Fry, Kevin Grathwol and Lance Oldham from Stilson Consulting Group, Amy Toui, from ODOT District 5, and Elvin Pinckeny and Adam Alexander from ODOT Central Office, and others.
2. Presentation by Kevin Grathwol, Stilson Consulting Group, and Elvin Pinckeny and Adam Alexander, ODOT Central Office, regarding noise barriers.
Mr. Grathwol stated the purpose of this work session was to provide an overview and discuss the results of the noise analysis. He continued the process concerning noise abatement begins with a noise analysis, and that has been completed for the Diley Road project. He stated a determination is made whether abatement is warranted and, if so, would a noise barrier be effective. If it would be effective, would it be feasible to build it with respect to site conditions, etc. Further, would the barrier meet the cost reasonableness test. He stated the point we are at right now is to get input from the affected residents, and Council will come up with a plan on what will be presented to the public, solicit input from them on whether they desire walls and if so what the wall should look like. Mr. Grathwol stated due to space limitations walls become the preferred method of noise abatement. He stated the noise analysis was performed in accordance with federal regulations and ODOT policy and procedures and as a result of the analysis, noise barriers were determined to be reasonable and feasible at four locations, Cherry Hill subdivision, Georges Creek subdivision, Sheffield subdivision, and Manchester subdivision. Mr. Grathwol stated that noise barriers at all other locations along the project were found to be either infeasible because the need for property access would necessitate gaps in the barrier, rendering it ineffective; economically unreasonable because the estimated cost exceeded $25,000 per benefited residents; or both of these. Mr. Grathwol further clarified the top of the wall would be ten feet above existing ground in three of the four locations. He stated the other location would be eight feet high with mounding.
Mr. Grathwol stated with regard to the noise analysis of Diley Road, the feasibility of a noise wall was basically limited to the subdivisions. He stated you cannot have a noise wall where you have frontage property, because the driveway openings would prevent any noise reduction. Mr. Grathwol stated a copy of the noise analysis is in the City’s hands, and Ms Gilleland stated if anyone would like to look at the report just let her know.
Mr. Grathwol stated further he had provided Council with a copy of the questionnaire that would be provided to the residents for their input. He stated the input would be limited to the residents that are deemed to benefit from the noise wall, so it would not be sent to everyone on Diley Road, but to people who are located within 400 feet of the edge of pavement within these four subdivisions. Mr. Grathwol stated if he recalled, there was a total of 95 properties that would be included in the public meeting to solicit input. Mayor Shaver clarified for example, the entire Cherry Hill subdivision would not have a vote, but only the people who were within 400 feet of the wall. Mr. Hackworth clarified that each subdivision will be voting for what they want for the back side of the wall. Ms Gilleland stated the City will be making the decision on what the wall that faces the road looks like. Mr. Grathwol stated a deadline would be set for when the questionnaires need to be turned in following the public meeting.
Mr. Pinckeny stated ODOT does have some aesthetic criteria it must follow with all noise walls. He stated they must have a cap on the top that has a specific dimension, the posts are to be concrete, and in any place there is a parallel barrier situation the face must be an absorptive material. Mr. Pinckeny provided photos of the various noise walls that ODOT has installed.
Mr. Wisniewski clarified that the back side of the walls in all the subdivisions did not have to be the same, but would be whatever the residents in that subdivision wanted.
Mr. Grathwol stated the City should determine the color and texture of the wall that would be facing the roadway, and then a date should be set for the public meeting for the residents to provide input. Ms Gilleland stated she felt the City would make the decision on the roadway side of the wall within the next two weeks or so.
Mr. Wright stated his concern was there were some areas that have little to no housing now, that should have a wall but was overlooked because it is not built on now. Mr. Grathwol stated the four subdivisions he had listed were the ones that met both the reasonable and feasible criteria. He further stated the subdivisions that have been platted were considered in the analysis whether building has begun in them or not. Mr. Wright stated then, the noise analysis would show why subdivisions were not accepted even though the houses would be as close as Cherry Hill. Mr. Grathwol stated that was correct. He stated there were six subdivisions that met the feasible criteria, but not the reasonable criteria. Mr. Wright stated he felt then that there may be some areas that as a City we may need to address.
3. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further, Mayor Shaver closed the work session at 7:25 P.M., March 1, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
__________________________________
ATTEST:
___________________________________