Rochester Hills Legistar System

Mr. Shumejko explained the matter was due to a request from a homeowner at 22

Texas. This homeowner called the City and requested that the "No Parking" signs along

Texas just north of Walton be removed. The property owner said that based upon

discussions with the previous property owner, the reason the road was posted "No

Parking" was because the house had previously been used as a group home and

caused parking problems with the adjacent property. Cars were being parked too close

to the intersection, limiting visibility and creating confusion. Mr. Shumejko stated the

Engineering Department had verified with the Building Department that the house had a

new owner and was no longer being used as a group home. The "No Parking" signs

became an issue when the new owner had guests over, and the two cars that were

parked in front of their house were ticketed. The homeowner requested that the City

rescind the original Traffic Control Order (TCO) since conditions have changed.

Mr. Colling asked if there was documentation that the original reason the "No Parking"

signs were installed was because of the group home use. Mr. Shumejko referred to the

minutes included in the packet from the November 11, 1997 Advisory Traffic and Safety

Board Meeting, specifically the section titled "Parking Prohibition, Texas, Hitchman's

Haven Estates, Section 8."

Mr. Colling opined that the condition for the signs no longer existed, and that the

substantial rights of the homeowner took precedence. He suggested that the TCO be

rescinded.

Mr. Zendel referred to the minutes in which it stated parking on the street caused

problems for emergency vehicles, and wanted to know if that condition had changed.

Mr. Colling said with a different use there would not be the same volume of cars. There

would be no more problem than in any other subdivision with the occasional party that

caused a large number of vehicles to be parked on the street. Mr. Shumejko offered

that it would be no different than any other intersection in the area.

Mr. Zendel said he was a little confused on process, and questioned whether the Board

was to approve the removal of the signs or just to confirm their removal was allowed.

Mr. Colling said this was a request to rescind PK-57.1, and Mr. Shumejko added it was

to approve their removal. Mr. Zendel said he had driven by the house before the

meeting and found that the signs were no longer there. Mr. Shumejko said he would

verify that with the City's Sign Shop. Mr. Colling explained the City Traffic Engineer

could remove or install signs within the City at any time, however without the approval of

the Board and confirmation by City Council, within 90 days a sign so installed must be

removed. If the sign had been removed, without approval it would have to be replaced

within the 90-day period.

Mr. Moore referenced page four, paragraph four of the May 11, 2004 Advisory Traffic

and Safety Board minutes included in the packet which stated "Whereas, said Traffic

Control Order shall not be effective after the expiration of ninety (90) days from the day

of issuance, except upon approval by this Council."

Mr. Colling asked if there were any more comments or questions. Hearing none, he

asked if someone would like to propose a motion.

MOTION by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Blackstone, to remove ""No Parking" Sign -

PK-57.1.

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

Recommended for Approval to the City Council.

Whereas, Traffic Control Order No. PK-57.1 has been rescinded by the City

Transportation Engineer under the provisions of Chapter 98 of the Rochester Hills

Code of Ordinances, Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq.; and

Whereas, said Traffic Control Order covers:

PK-57.1 Removal of "No Parking" signs along Texas, just north of Walton as they

no longer serve their original intent.

Whereas, said Traffic Control Order shall not be effective after the expiration of

ninety (90) days from the date of issuance, except upon approval by this Council;

and

Whereas, the Advisory Traffic and Safety Board has considered the issues

pertaining to the Traffic Control Order and recommends that the Order be

approved;

Resolved, that the Advisory Traffice and Safety Board approves the issuance of

Traffic Control Order No. PK-57.1 to be in effect until rescinded or superseded by

subsequent order; and

The motion carried by the following vote:

success, whether there were not enough signatures obtained or perhaps due to the

costs involved. When a subdivision has a homeowners' association the policy is more

clear-cut, as far as getting petitions signed by all property owners within the subdivision.

However recently residents from individual streets without an association involved have

approached the City, and he wanted to see if the Board members had recommendations

to revise the current requirements.

Mr. Colling thought the Policy on Speed Humps and the section dealing with their

removal should be made very clear to the neighborhoods, although he hoped the

Resident Surveys required before the installation of a speed hump would take care of

that problem. He explained that time and time again residents had come before the

Board in regard to a No Parking restriction or a signage change going into a

neighborhood. 25 or 30 people would be in the audience, representing 25 % of the

subdivision. The Board acquiesces to their wishes, and at the next meeting 75 people

are in the audience, representing 51 % of the subdivision requesting they take out what

they've done. He said he liked that the policy required 100 % of the signatures of the

owners of adjacent properties, but said there needed to be a definition of adjacent

properties included. And where the policy stated signatures were required from 51% of

the residents on the rest of the affected street or streets, he thought something should

be added stating or 51% of the homeowners' association, depending upon the district

established.

Mr. Colling said his interpretation was that if it were a homeowners' association making

the request adjacent streets would be every street within the homeowners' association

because generally they share the costs. As far as adjacent properties, depending upon

the length of the street and the number of homes, it would probably be almost every

house on the street. When you create an assessment district it is not done on a block

basis, but on a street basis, more globally than just a few homes. If it is a matter of a

single street it will be a different case, especially if there is no homeowners' association,

or if the street is going against the homeowners' association's wishes. In that case, the

only way he would agree to put in a speed hump would be if 100 % of the residents on

the street requested it.

Mr. Blackstone asked if the length of the street would be considered. Mr. Collins said he

had learned that you couldn't write an ordinance or policy that will fit every situation. If it

is a short street and you get signatures from 100 % of the homeowners it would be

great. If it is a long street with no other outlets, which does occur in the City, you still

have to give everyone on that street a voice. If they cannot come to 100 % approval on

the matter, then there is nothing to be done.

Mr. Blackstone thought 100 % seemed a bit high. Mr. Colling said they were talking

about adjacent properties, and the definition of an adjacent property. He said that if

you're talking about one or two blocks within a subdivision, and everyone wants it done,

and 51% of everybody else within that homeowner's Association wants it, it's a done

deal. If you were talking about an individual street that comes to the City and says they

want a speed hump, maybe if it were a short street the requirement would be defined as

100%. Some of the streets in the Brooklyns are almost a mile long, Emmons for

example. In that case you might take a certain range such as two blocks, and say you

have to have signatures from 100% of the property owners within that two-block range,

and 51% of the rest, as there is no homeowners' association. Mr. Blackstone asked

who would decide in that case. Mr. Colling gave an example of paving in the Brooklyns,

where there was no homeowners' association. When they came through and paved,

51% of the entire South Brooklyn Subdivision had to agree to pave. If there were no

homeowners' association it would depend on how the City created the Special

Assessment District (SAD).

Mr. Shumejko said there was another matter to be considered. If Street A requested a

speed hump, the adjacent streets might vote against it because they worried about

traffic shifting. Mr. Colling added that they might also vote against it because they

weren't willing to pay for it. He felt the key, and what he wanted to see in the document,

was the creation of a Special Assessment District. The homeowners' association would

be the responsible party for paying it. He felt the verbiage worked well when there was

a homeowners' association, but not well when one did not exist.

Mr. Zendel asked for clarification that they were saying signatures from 100 % of the

owners of adjacent properties would be required, and would remove the sentence from

the Speed Hump Request Policy stating only 51% of the residents' signatures on the

rest of the affected street are required.

Mr. Colling said it was sort of a Catch 22. When they have a homeowners' association

coming in with the request, they would be setting up a SAD with everyone sharing in the

costs of the speed hump, or humps, that were going in. That is why it was worded

100% of adjacent homeowners, because they are going to be affected. They have to

approve this or it is not going in. Anyone who is not an adjacent homeowner by

definition, 51% of the remaining people in that SAD, which in this case corresponds to a

homeowners' association, have to approve the cost. Every homeowner within the

homeowners' association is assessed for the improvement. He explained the problem is

the City has gotten requests for speed humps from individual streets. People who live

on street A aren't going to pay for the speed hump on street B, so you have to determine

a SAD, and then apply this rule to it. If there is no homeowners' association to define

the SAD, then a district must be defined to apply.

Mr. Shumejko offered that it would follow the typical SAD with majority consent.

Mr. Colling asked if there were any other comments on this topic. Hearing none, he

then made the request that they consider the verbiage that was discussed here tonight

for the Speed Hump Policy, make appropriate changes, and then bring the matter back

to the Board for approval. He suggested that after the document was finalized, copies of

it should be available at meetings to hand out to interested residents.

Mr. Blackstone said he had read about the project in the newspaper, and asked if the

road would be improved from Square Lake Road to M-59. Mr. Shumejko offered that

the job would not include the M-59 overpass. Mr. Blackstone asked for confirmation that

they did plan to include it eventually. Mr. Shumejko replied that they did and that it

would be a boulevard, but as part of the Governor's policy on roads she had pulled that

project out of the budget. The boulevard would be picked up from Square Lake Road,

and go all the way to Hamlin Road, eventually. Mr. Shumejko recognized Steve Dearing

in the audience, and asked if he had any updates on Crooks Road.

Steve Dearing came to the microphone and said he represented Orchard, Hiltz &

McCliment, Inc. He said his company was doing the design for the interchange, and that

the job wasn't so much pulled out of the State budget as it was pushed back in time.

The project is still being designed, but it has been delayed to such an extent that the

Oakland County Road Commission did not want to wait on fixing what part of Crooks

Road they could. They are looking at a several year delay on the interchange itself.

When the interchange is built it will be constructed as a boulevarded interchange to

match the road cross-section of Crooks. What the Road Commission chose to do is

build Crooks Road up from Troy to just short of the interchange as a boulevard, and the

presumption is that when the interchange happens, that project will also construct

Crooks the rest of the way up to Hamlin Road.

Mr. Colling asked if it would be a better boulevard than Livernois Road. Mr. Dearing

responded that the footprint is basically the same, but there will be more crossovers

sized for use by trucks. He said that the biggest problem with Livernois was that there

were only two crossovers that had been widened enough so that a semi-truck can make

a U-turn. There will be quite a few more wide crossovers along the Crooks Road

Boulevard.

Mr. Colling speculated that there are a lot of people with frontage property on Crooks

Road, and Mr. Shumejko offered that there would be quite a bit of property acquisition

involved in the job. Mr. Dearing said there were businesses and homes that were total

takes. Mr. Shumejko stated it had been reduced to two total takes, one home and the

auto park next to it. Mr. Dearing said another major take involved all the businesses at

the northeast corner of Crooks and Auburn. It is the J.B. Davies property, but he retains

ownership of the balance of the property, which will be redeveloped.