Noise Walls Proposed Along Highway 169 In Edina See Separate Outcomes | Edina

A proposed noise wall along Highway 169 intended to block sound from the busy corridor garnered approval for construction by the Edina City Council last week.

A similar proposed wall, which would have been located further north along the highway, was denied, following strong opposition by an apartment complex and lack of zeal for the project by nearby homeowners.

The noise wall improvements, identified as part of the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Metro District Standalone Noise Barrier Program, were brought forward for city consideration last week. As part of the program, MnDOT would pay for 90% of the construction costs while the city would be responsible for the rest. As a standard for such projects, Edina would assess the properties that would benefit from the lessened noise.

In 2018, the City Council approved a resolution supporting MnDOT’s continued analysis of the noise walls at these sites. The walls would be 20 feet tall and be made of wood.

Following a public hearing last month and input collected during that time, the council on Feb. 2 approved the south wall, located between Valley View Road and Apache Road, and denied the north wall, between Waterford Court and 5995 Lincoln Drive.

“We know there’s limited support based on the comments and then that legal concern that I will not be recommending that (north) wall here tonight,” Chad Millner, the city’s engineering director, told the council. “The south wall (is a) much different case. We got a lot of positive comments and support for that one.”

For the south wall, which will cost the city an estimated $345,500, benefiting properties will be assessed between $2,100 and $5,900 per residential equivalent unit, or REU. The range in assessments coincides with the amount of reduced decibels of noise that each property would receive, as modeled by MnDOT, according to a staff presentation.

Based on the calculations, benefiting properties would either see a noise reduction of over 8 decibels, 5-8 decibels, or less than 5 decibels.

The south wall largely received support by benefiting properties at a public hearing held Jan. 19 and through other forms of input identified in city documents. Property owners in support of the project said the wall would benefit the community not only due to a reduction in sound, but in increased safety, privacy and property values. Nearly 100 properties will be assessed for the wall.

The south wall was approved 4-0 by the council Feb. 2 with Councilmember Kevin Staunton abstaining from the vote.

But the wall’s counterpart to the north prompted a more lengthy discussion regarding its future, leading to the north wall’s denial as councilmembers weighed possible costly litigation against property benefit.

For the north wall, which would have cost the city $164,500, properties would have been assessed $650 to $1,150 per REU. The properties included the apartment complex called The Loden as well as smaller adjacent properties to the south.

Unlike the south wall, the north wall garnered limited input that was mostly benefiting properties’ disapproval of the construction. The most notable source of discontent came in the form of an objection letter by a law firm representing The Loden.

In the letter, The Loden’s attorney said the south noise wall would be a “burden … not a benefit,” citing cost, loss of open space and a reduction in apartment visibility from the highway for marketing purposes. The letter noted that the apartment complex, which would be assessed for 130 of its units, had not received complaints from residents regarding noise.

The letter also said that The Loden “vehemently objects to the allocation of the assessment” as it would incur 72% of the assessed costs for the project. It reminded the city that it must meet the special benefit test – that is, that the assessment must not exceed the subsequent benefit to a property.

Some of the homeowners who would be affected by the south wall also displayed disapproval, pointing to cost concerns.

Despite hearing from the city’s attorney and appraiser that the assessments could be justified, Millner said, “It could be a tough legal fight, so is it worth the lift to get this project approved when there isn’t really any public support for it?”

“There may be some cost and risk involved,” City Attorney David Kendall added.

Though he called the potential for litigation “tangible,” Councilmember Ron Anderson said he was hesitant to deny the project.

“We’re really rejecting a significant benefit,” he said, citing MnDOT’s anticipated investment in the project of over $900,000. “It’s troubling to me.”

With a “somewhat uncertain” outcome of the special benefit test and a lack of desire for the wall by property owners, Edina Mayor Jim Hovland said he was leaning toward denying the wall. “I’m torn,” he said. “It’s a potential great benefit that they don’t want.”

“It’s tough like, I think we should be trying to figure out a way to make it happen,” Councilmember James Pierce said. “But I can’t argue against, it seems like they don’t want the benefit.”

With Staunton abstaining, the council vote ended up being unanimous to deny the north wall.

Construction on the approved south wall is expected to begin this fall, Millner told the council. A final assessment hearing on what residents will pay will be held after construction is completed, likely in 2023, according to notification letters sent to residents by the city.

– Follow Caitlin Anderson on Twitter @EdinaSunCurrent

Copyright ©2020 at Sun Newspapers/ APG Media of East Central Minnesota. Digital dissemination of this content without prior written consent is a violation of federal law and may be subject to legal action.

Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

Your comment has been submitted.

There was a problem reporting this.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.