Rochester Hills Legistar System

A motion was made by Buiteweg, seconded by Brown, that this matter be

Referred to the City Council Paul Shumejko stated that on January 14, 2004, per

West Middle School's request, a meeting was held between representatives of

Rochester Community Schools and the City of Rochester Hills to discuss traffic

circulation and safety concerns for the pedestrian and vehicular ingress and

egress at West Middle School. On April 20, 2004, after an on-site review, a TCO

was issued for the installation of "No Stopping, Standing or Parking" signs on

Ansal from Old Perch to Wimpole. An on-site traffic analysis was performed

between City staff and a representative from our Traffic Consultant (Orchard,

Hiltz & McCliment). An additional cursory review was performed by AAA. Aside

from the improvements that the school is responsible for, it was observed that

the flow of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic is being impeded along the north

side of Ansal Drive, from Old Perch to Wimpole, due to standing vehicles picking

up and dropping off students.

In order to alleviate the traffic congestion along the north side of Ansal Drive, "No

Stopping, Standing, Parking" signs are recommended on the north side of Ansal

Drive. Additionally, to increase school visibility, the City of Rochester Hills,

Rochester Community Schools, and the Road Commission for Oakland County

have entered into an agreement to upgrade the existing school flashers. The new

flashers will provide greater visibility and traffic safety to the school. The City

has also entered into an agreement with the school to have Detroit Edison install

a streetlight at the intersection of Old Perch and Belle Vernon increasing

visibility.

Based on the site evaluation, the "No Stopping, Standing or Parking" signs are

warranted to improve the flow of pedestrian and vehicular flow along Ansal Drive

and reduce the congestion at the intersection of Old Perch and Ansal Drive.

Paul Shumejko reviewed the letter from AAA and stated that they had

recommended the same change and that the only thing the City was not in

agreement on was the florescent yellow/green crosswalk markings as those are

not the City's standards. Marc Matich stated that they were also not accepted

nationally. He stated that you have to write to the Federal Highway Association

for approval to use them.

Mr. Moore stated that he was concerned about the hours of 6 am to 5 pm. His

concern was for lawn services and deliveries and wondered if the board should

modify the hours to make it for only the hours that the congestion occurred (one

hour before school started and one hour after).

Chairman Colling stated that this would be a tough decision as it only effected six

(6) homes on the street. He was leaning toward 6 am to 5 pm for the following

reasons. Number one is that the Rochester Schools system has a number of half

day sessions and there is still a significant number of parents picking up

students on these half days. Number two is that this is a middle school with a

significant number of after school events that start in the time frame of 3-5

o'clock. He would actually like to make the time from 6 am to 6 pm because that

would cover all of these late school events.

Terry T. Brown stated that he didn't think it was an issue, because in practical

terms, he didn't feel anyone would give a ticket to the UPS driver nor the lawn

service for parking there for 45 minutes.

Chairman Colling stated that to his knowledge, none of these commercial

vehicles or anyone performing legitimate services have received a ticket nor have

we received any complaints while in a residential area.

Terry T. Brown also stated that he liked Chairman Collings idea of from 6 am to 6

pm. He said he thought that extra hour would be useful because of the after

school events.

Mr. Zendel asked if anyone knew the starting and ending times for a normal

school day at the Middle School. Paul Shumejko stated that he believed the

normal start time was 7:25 am and as far as when it lets out, he wasn't exactly

sure. Everyone stated that they thought it was around 2:30 pm.

Chairman Colling stated that either way, he was pretty sure the middle school had

a latchkey program for dropping off students earlier in the morning and for after

school hours too. He stated that, in all fairness, having the hours of 6 am to 6 pm

was probably the only way to do it. He is quite certain that these neighbors are

having a lot of problem just getting in and out of their driveways.

Marc Matich stated that when they were observing the problem, it was a dense

peak hour, for 45 minutes in the morning and then for 45 minutes in the afternoon

and once it was clear, it was clear.

Chairman Colling stated that he assumed that the reason this issue was back

before the board was that even with the signs on the south side of the street, it

still hasn't corrected the problem.

Paul Shumejko stated that for some reason the parents, dropping their students

off, didn't like to circulate within the parking lot and found it easier to drop off and

pick up their kids on Ansal Drive. All the cars are parked right up to the stop sign

so if you have a vehicle that actually want to come out, they have to go into the

travel portion of lane with oncoming traffic that would be turning in off Old Perch

onto Ansal. With this traffic control order, it will force the parents to utilize the

onsite parking for the school.

Marc Matich stated that the ordinance control officers will be the ones to issue

tickets. Chairman Colling stated that he wanted to make the recommendation

that if this traffic control order does pass, that at the beginning of the next school

year, we ask the ordinance control officers to be out there quite often to make

certain this is enforced as that is the only way we are going to train the behavior.

Chairman Colling asked if this issue was sent to all the homeowners effected and

if they were notified that this was coming. It was noted that they were not and

that the signs were not up yet. Chairman Colling then made the recommendation

that this issue be tabled or postponed until such time that we notify the residents

in the area of what they are intending to do.

Mr. Moore asked if the problem is that they are parking right there and are we just

overreacting? He asked if we should just say there will be no parking back 100

feet. Would that solve the problem?

Marc Matich stated that there is a large group of kids that disperse down the

roadway at dismissal time and they occupy part of the roadway and the buses are

also occupying part of the roadway and the traffic coming opposing have no

room in a 22 foot roadway to continue. Chairman Colling stated that with putting

the signage on one side of the street, the parents have just switched and park on

the other side of the street. So now a two lane roadway is reduced to one lane for

both directions.

Chairman Colling stated that he would like to suggest looking at the TCO as is,

modifying it to either 5 or 6 o'clock, whatever the boards pleasure is, however, if it

becomes an issue, revisit it again in the fall when school opens.

Motion made with the modification to extend the TCO to 6 pm by Mr. Buiteweg,

supported by Mr. Brown. DISCUSSION: Mr. Zendel asked if that meant they were

going to modify the signs on the south side as well to reflect the 6 am to 6 pm

A motion was made by Moore, seconded by Hunter, that this matter be Referred

to the City Council Marc Matich stated that the City has recently received several

inquiries about the existing posted speed limits on Nawakwa, east of Rochester

Road. The current speed limits on this segment of roadway are posted as 45 mph

from Rochester Road to 180' west of Joshua and 35 mph from 180' west of

Joshua to Nawakwa terminus. Nawakwa speed limits were adopted under TCO

SL-9 on January 9, 2001.

Currently, there are two new site developments under construction that will have

direct access to Nawakwa Road. A single-family development (Country Club

Villas) will have 256 new home sites at the end of Nawakwa Road and Senior

Congregate Housing Center located approximately 850' east of Rochester Road.

The majority of Nawakwa road frontage will still remain non-residential and

therefore, not meet the criteria for prima facie 25 mph speed limit.

After reviewing SEMCOG six (6) year traffic crashes, 1997 - 2003, they found only

one reported traffic incident. Speed studies provided to the board were

conducted with machine counts and were distributed for two different time

periods (March 29, 2004 and May 3, 2004). The 85th percentil speeds are at 44

mph, at the first location counted on March 29th and the second location was 39

mph and the third location was 33 mph. On May 3rd, the first location had the

85th percentile speed of 47 mph, the second location was 45 mph. Based on past

traffic studies that were done, they are recommending one continuous speed limit

for Nawakw and recommend that the Traffic and Safety Board support having

TCO SL-13 issued for a 35 mph limit for all of Nawakwa Road from Rochester

Road easterly to road terminus, and rescind and supersede TCO SL-09.

Chairman Colling opened up the issue for discussion. Mr. Moore made the

motion to approve TCO SL-13.1. It was seconded by Mr. Hunter. Marc Matich did

note that all residents, from Joshua to the end of the road, were sent notification

of this meeting agenda. The actual speeds as they are today and where they

change, were explained and pointed out on the map included with the agenda

packet. Marc Matich stated that the speeds have gone up dramatically from the

March 29, 2004 study to the May 3, 2004 study. He thought that some of that

could be contributed to construction traffic. They have gotten a lot of complaints

that contractors are speeding and violating the current 35 mph speed limit. The

sheriff department has been out there recently.

Mr. Zendel wanted to know what the rationale was for changing this portion of the

road's speed limit.

Paul Shumejko stated that it was mainly to create a uniform speed on that

segment of roadway and also for the new development coming in and the

additional homes there. Also there is the new Senior Congregate Housing being

built there along that stretch, that is currently 45 mph, and it is for the

ingress/egress for that site too.

Marc Matich stated that the City has gotten a lot of complaints about the 45 mph

speed limit and the fact that there is two separate speed limits for that short of a

distance of roadway.

Terry T. Brown stated that the 45 mph speed limit is on the curve and that is

where you would want the speed limit to be reduced anyway. He also stated that

having two separate speed limits within that short distance didn't make sense.

Chairman Colling stated that original study supported the speed of 45 mph for the

whole roadway with the geometry. He doesn't have a problem with dropping the

speed limit down to 35 mph and the new seniors facility is being built towards the

Rochester Road termimus of this. It only makes sense because there is going to

be a lot of left hand turning into the facility. With driving seniors coming out and

1.) Chairman Colling stated that he was in Brighton and he ran across a traffic

discontinuity that he hadn't seen before that looked very interesting and really cheap

and will probably work. Basically, it was designed to keep traffic out of a subdivision.

He showed what he was talking about on the chalkboard. It artificially forced the traffic

to one lane with yield signs at both ends. Cheap and effective, like a little island. The

interesting thing about it is the curbing is such that a large vehicle could run it if they had

to, and this is also wide and long enough at an angle that fire and emergency vehicles

can make it through. He also guesses that the total cost of it isn't $3,000.00.

Linda Raschke stated that she thought all vehicles could go over the curb. Chairman

Collings stated that a car couldn't. Ms. Raschke stated that this same thing was done at

the shopping center up at GFS. People were having a hard time going in there and

turning right without hitting that curb and so they cut away, but it is still there.

Chairman Collings stated that he saw two or three of these in Brighton and there may be

more. He thought it was a unique setup as it forces one way traffic and you have to

yield, you don' t have any choice. It eliminates cut through traffic because people don't

want the pain of going through it. It certainly is going to slow your speed down and it is

not going to impede any residential deliveries or emergency services.

Marc Matich stated in the new subdivisions, we are pretty pro-aggressive as they have

mini circles and center islands that are put in by the developer without traffic complaints.

The older subdivision we are looking at ways to retrofit something to stop the

complaints.

Chairman Collings stated that he sees this as something that could be put in at the

homeowner's expense that would be cheap and effective. It's not a traffic control, you

have to use common sense to yield because two vehicles are not going to pass through

at the same time. And it is certainly going to slow traffic down.

Paul Shumejko enquired as to whether a traffic signal was needed. Marc Matich stated

that advanced warning would be warranted before the yield signs. You have to sign

right-of-way for liability.

Chairman Collings stated that the other thing that Brighton did was they took yellow

paint striping, that narrowed the road, to let them know what was coming. Marc Matich

said they would check into this and see if it was public roads or private roads and get

comments from people that live in the area. Paul Shumejko stated that, depending on

how the road millage goes, we could set up some sort of cost sharing program to give

them more incentive. Maybe the City pays half, and it meets the criteria based on

speed, then it would be justified for the shared cost. Chairman Collings stated that since

there was very little engineering costs associated with the City and all there is is signage

and painting, if the city just picked up the cost of the engineering and the painting and

the signage and the pure construction costs went to the subdivisions, he thought it

would still be cheaper as all you were talking about is basically curbing. You could

almost do it by staking concrete parking blocks to the pavement.

Paul Shumejko asked if they left a gap in the curbing for the drainage. Chairman

Collings stated that he did not believe so, he didn't see that. There may have been a

little culvert or something, but he didn't see that. He didn't stop and take a real good

look at it. Marc Matich stated that we should get information from the County and the

City to see who takes ownership of it and the design standards and how they came to

do this and get more information for the board for the next meeting.

Marc Matich stated that speed humps were installed with the development at Arcadia

Park Subdivision and now the city is getting calls from residents that are moving in now

about speeding down Bedlington. We thought the speed hump would curtail the

speeding, but that isn't the case after opening up the adjacent subdivision.

Chairman Collings stated that he is really sold on this idea from Brighton. Marc Matich

stated that liability was his only concern. Chairman Collings stated that if you sign it

enough in advance, have reflective paint on the roadway and some sort of warning sign

in the roadway, like a 500' up or single lane traffic ahead, it should solve this.

2.) Linda Raschke stated that at Tienken and Rochester the traffic is backed up all the

way to the roundabout and everyone is stopped at the circle as there is no place to go.

Marc Matich stated that there is a possibility of 4 million dollars being appropriated to

widen Tienken Road and improvements, per the mayor. Paul Shumejko stated that the

bridge was going in next year and other improvements with the developments out there.

Hopefully, this money will come in and help fill in the gap to tie them all together. Paul

Shumejko also mentioned that there is talk about the barricades coming down at

Tienken and Squirrel Roads. Marc Matich stated that the cost to open up the road again

will be about $300,000.00. Auburn Hills took the road out physically. We thought they

put the berm on top of the road. Paul Shumejko stated that the road improvements will

be made through the County. The road will be given to the County. Our mile segment

and Auburn Hills' will be all County jurisdiction and the County will be the one to perform

the improvements. Linda Raschke stated that it never should have been allowed to go

up in the first place and now we have to go through all of this to have it put back the way

it was.

Ken Zendel asked if there were City, State or Federal ordinances that regulated lane

width? Paul Shumejko stated that with local streets with open ditch the actual

pavement is 22 feet and with actual curbing it's 2 1/2 ' on each side. Chairman Collings

stated that in some of the older areas of the City it is less than that, maybe around 20' or

so. Paul Shumejko stated that when the roads are reconstructed, they are widened at

that time, if possible. Mr. Zendel asked what the lane width would be then and Paul

stated that the actual travel lane would be 11 feet. Mr. Zendel then asked what the 2 1/2

feet was for and Paul told him it was the curbing and gutter for the enclosed drain.

3.) Mr. Buiteweg made a comment about the comment that was made at the last

meeting about the oath that was taken by the members and the disappointment of some

members on the vote that was made and how members made that decision. His

reading of the comment was that we have to act without emotion and we have to act

according to the oath. The oath that he took talks about the constitution and the laws

and it also makes reference to "the best of your ability" and it doesn't talk about

emotions. He would just like to have the freedom to make a decision and not have the

oath waved in his face. That is his personal opinion. If he makes a decision, he makes

it on the best of his ability. Chairman Collings stated that we also have an obligation that

when they signed up for this board that they would uphold the Michigan and Federal

Traffic Manual. He was not saying, if there is good reason, that they can't contravene

them, to a degree. We also can not, deliberately, go out and contravene them for

whatever reasons. They are sitting on an Engineering Board here essentially. Whether

decisions are made emotionally or intellectually here, we are dealing with facts and

figures and engineering here and we can not go out and vote to just make people happy

whether the signage doesn't make warrants or not and it is not going to do the job it was

intended to, then it is not a tool at their disposal. Mr. Buiteweg stated that he didn't think

that was the issue.

Mr. Moore made a comment that changing the signs on the south side of Ansal that they

just voted on, he wanted to know how much that was going to cost the City. To change

the signs from 5 pm to 6 pm, he wanted to know how much this was going to cost. Marc

stated that the signs will also have to be changed on the south end of Ansal because of

the new traffic control order times, but it is a supplemental plaque to the sign, with just

the time change. Marc said he thought the signs had already been made up and

installed, but apparently they have not done either. Either way, the charge was minimal.

Mr. Moore asked if anyone had really looked into what it would really cost to install one

of those speed humps, from deciding where it should be placed, etc., and what it would

actually cost for the City to bear that cost. He stated that if the City stated that it would

take 30 speed humps to solve the problems, what would that actually cost. Paul

Shumejko stated that we haven't actually evaluated that. Chairman Collings stated that

we did evaluate that for an individual speed hump, the cost was about $3,500.00, but

not for city wide. Mr. Moore stated that if there were more of them, the cost would come

down because you would get a contractor and instead of doing four, if he did 15, the

cost would come down. Marc Matich stated that on Grandview, they didn't have the pull

of 100% of the association behind them to get speed humps approved and to pay for it,

as we were asking them to get a majority rule from their subdivision. They couldn't

obtain that because there were people that didn't live on Grandview and drive out the

other way, so they couldn' t get their vote for the speed humps and they wouldn't pay for

them. Paul Shumejko stated he thought there should be some homeowner cost, so they

have a vested interest, otherwise they say to put them in and then later ask to take them

out. Where do you stop that from occurring? Chairman Collings stated that he thought

it was more of a regional issue rather than a one street issue. He agrees with what they

are saying, but he thinks it has to go further than that. He doesn't want to have to go to

a single homeowner's association on the off chance that because they might want it and

that might be 50 homes, but you might have 3,000 homes back in the interior that don't

want it.

Marc Matich stated that when Farmington put the speed humps in on one road, they just

moved the traffic over to the next street. Paul Shumejko stated that you have to view

the problem on a square mile basis.

4.) Mr. Zendel asked if there was something from last meeting that we were supposed

to bring to the board this meeting. Mr. Buiteweg stated that he thought it was Brewster

Road from University to Walton for the left turn. Marc Matich stated that as far as he

knows the County was looking into providing an all way clear or all way longer red for

each direction to give that offset. Mr. Buiteweg stated that he still sees one side of the

traffic stopped longer than the other. Mr. Buiteweg stated that irregardless of what the

County does, people will make the left turn, after it turns red, anyway. Marc Matich

stated that Michigan is one of the few states that has the flashing red light and we are

going to go to a flashing yellow arrow or a flashing green arrow or a flashing red arrow.

Mr. Collings said he would rather have a solid red light instead of a flashing red arrow,

as people would say the arrow was pointing that way, so they thought they could go. He

would rather just have the solid red light instead. It was asked on whether you could

tell if a left turn light was going to be before the through traffic or after it. Paul Shumejko

stated that it had a lot to do with SCATS. Terry T. Brown stated that at first people

really complained about them, saying they had to wait one minute and twenty seconds

twice, but he thought when you take the overall trip time, you may stop longer at one

light, but your overall trip is reduced. Marc Matich stated that the SCATS system is

pretty much the same as when it was installed. It is automated for knowing what a stop

bar, but it is not synchronized with linked signals. Mr. Brown stated that it should be

making the decisions based on the traffic loads that are there. Chairman Colling stated

that we have to understand that the SCATS system is not linked throughout Oakland

County. They are not linked signal to signal so we were the first test they put in Oakland

County, and it hasn't been updated since it has been put in. His uptake on this is that

the funding disappeared. Mr. Brown stated that if you have one that is not working, you

also have a big problem. Marc Matich stated that if new signals are put up on Rochester

Road, they will have to re-synchronize the whole corridor, or it will have all the traffic

congested.