Laserfiche WebLink
City process that would include visual inspection of the land. She asked whose responsibility it <br /> would be to ensure the intent of the sound wall is provided. She stated that she is concerned that <br /> this will result in a way that makes them want to move from the cul-de-sac. <br /> Mr. Bailey stated that his email included a drawing showing the noise wall extension going further <br /> than it does extend. <br /> Chairperson Riley asked if the error was on the City or developer. He asked if the recourse against <br /> the developer has been lost. <br /> City Engineer Westby commented that he can see what was communicated with the residents and <br /> agreed that does not align with the plan. He stated that what was built did align with the approved <br /> plan. He stated that the last 18 months have been a difficult situation to operate in with numerous <br /> people working remotely, acknowledging that communication has lacked and there has been <br /> change in staff members that perhaps broke down the process. He stated that moving forward, <br /> staff needs to be clear with the residents and developers as to what a wall of this manner would be. <br /> He stated that it was never stated in resolution or agreement that the wall would be from the <br /> southwest corner of the plat to the northwest corner, that the wall would be six feet in height from <br /> the existing pavement, etc. He stated that in future cases, staff will ensure that language is clear, <br /> and those specifications are made. He did not think it was the fault of any one person or thing. He <br /> stated that the proposed grading was not on the noise wall plan, which only showed existing <br /> grading. He acknowledged that the existing and proposed grading are different. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff asked if the noise wall to the north is in the Highway right-of-way. <br /> City Engineer Westby commented that he believes that is on private property. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff commented that he feels the pain of the residents as he lives off <br /> Variolite where traffic moves at high speeds. He stated that he would not support the sign about <br /> the noise law as he feels that will entice people to move at higher speeds. He stated that in terms <br /> of leverage with the developer, there were notes from the Planning Commission review which <br /> states that the wall would be consistent with the existing noise wall. He noted that the EPB also <br /> suggested a noise study. <br /> City Engineer Westby replied that he is unsure if the study was completed. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff stated that he believes this should be continued to be worked on as it <br /> is a problem worth solving and the developer should be involved. <br /> City Engineer Westby stated that he has not reached out to the former Community Development <br /> Director to see if he has input that could provide assistance. He commented that could be useful <br /> moving forward. He noted that he would also follow up on the study and review various past sets <br /> of minutes. He stated that the noise wall to the north appears to be within the easement,just outside <br /> of the MnDOT right-of-way. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff asked if the same conditions exist in the area being discussed. <br /> Public Works Committee/ October 19, 2021 <br /> Page 6 of 18 <br />