Rochester Hills Legistar System

Comment by Mr. Moore that he was disappointed in the vote that was taken tonight. He

wanted to remind everyone of the oath taken that as a member of this board, do not act

on emotions, but facts and what we are supposed to abide by.

Mr. Buiteweg stated that he brought up quite some time ago about the light at Brewster

and Walton. He was promised that some contact was going to be taken up on this

matter. There is a left turn there that goes onto Brewster that is used by people after the

light changes red. The arrow is at the beginning of the cycle and people are making the

turn after the cycle. Someone was going to check with the county on this issue. Marc

Matich stated that we have not heard back from the county at this time. Will have this

information for the next meeting. Clarified that it is an all day occurance. Marc Matich

did state that the county did put in new signals throughout the city. The new LED

signals are bigger and brighter. These new signals have been put in there at Brewster

and Walton.

Chairman Colling stated that the maps format is very good and that the only

recommendation he is making is using more colors. He would like to see the maps

continued as it makes understanding easier. Mr. Zendel stated that he also would like

to see which direction the stop sign is coming from. He also felt the map was very

helpful but he couldn't figure out, on the two-ways, where the stop was. Marc Matich

stated that the maps are drawn off of the city's GIS system, so they are the actual

relationship. Chairman Colling stated that if anyone needed any clarification, to feel free

to ask during the meeting.

Paul Shumejko stated that one segment of Dequindre seems to come up quite a bit,

from Auburn Road south. The county had been planning on doing widening work there

for quite some time. Paul sent the e-mail over to the Road Commission to find out when

this will be done. They indicated that this is being pushed out to the year 2014. The

only thing the county is budgeting for, within the next two to three years, is resurfacing.

With the resurfacing, they can probably put a crown in the road. It was originally

intended to be widened to five lanes, but with the cost of right-of-way acquisition, it just

cost too much. Chairman Colling stated that they also have an issue with passing on

the right, both north and south bound. As long as they come up with a means of dealing

with that, especially in front of the dealerships there, that would help. Unfortunately, in

the evening it stacks up just to the south of the Cider Mill, where someone coming out to

the stop sign, from the subdivision, and someone else is passing on the shoulder and

they are actually rolling over their right-of-way, between them and the sign. They are

literally cutting across the entrance to streets, driveways, you name it. Marc Matich

stated that the city can look into using Tri-Party monies with the city and the county.

These things can be generated by the board and move forward to city council by

recommendation. Finding the funding is always the problem. Paul Shumejko stated

that the city's local road funding is exhausted completely, and the city is working to put

together a road millage for the November ballot. A lot of these projects will be

contingent on how the road millage vote turns out. They were also looking into doing a

50/50 cost, that way the residents have a vested interest.

Mr. Joel Mueller talked on behalf of the medical business at 645 Barclay Circle. They

have spent thousands of dollars on trying to find an alternate to parking on the street,

without any success. They are out of options on alternate places to park. The

employees at 645 Barclay Circle have stopped parking at the Hampton Golf Course as

they felt a threat to their safety. They certainly do not want to put anyone in the

association at risk. The only thing they ask is that the decision made is consistent with

policies throughout the City, and that this 1200 or 1250 feet is not an arbitrary distance

that has been designed to basically inhibit them from making it feasible to have people

park on the street. As long as that is the case and it is consistent with the rest of the

City, they don't know of anything they can do about it. They have to, within their own

means, try and solve this parking problem. The agreement they had previously was

with the Golf Course and maybe they will have to see about this agreement with them

again.

Pat Somerville, Mayor for the City of Rochester Hills, stated that she drives this way

every morning and every night. She stated that the business has to have somewhere

for their employees to park and she has yet to see that the way that they park has been

a problem. They are parked solid on the one side of the street. She doesn't see how

we can take away the parking from a business and make them pay for parking or force

them into the subdivisions to park. She has failed to see anyone parked improperly and

she doesn't think we should do this to any business and that these employees should

have the right to park within safe walking distance of their business.

Board discussed that the reason for this change is the proposed resurfacing and

re-striping of Hampton Circle and the creation of continuous turn lanes and the width of

the roadway. The reason the "No Parking" was initially proposed was because of new

striping and the alignment of the new courthouse driveway with Barclay Circle and

across from Hampton Circle to the south.

Marc Matich stated that the parking restrictions made now to extend was mainly due

because of restriced sight distance for the driveway of Ashley Circle and also Sandhurst

and the traffic control order does extend back that far in case we do have a problem as

far back as Sandhurst.

Chairman Colling stated that the one reason the proposed "No Parking" is being

extended to the south side is because the road doesn't widen up any further until past

Sandhurst at this point. The current additional restriction leaves a 120 foot section for

parking and protecting the sight distance on Ashley Court coming out to Hampton Circle.

Marc Matich stated that for this kind of roadway and this type of speed the minimum

sight distance for this intersection would be 410 feet. The complaint the City had from

the Barclay Condominium Association was that the parking was encroaching into the

intersection radius' and limiting the sight distances to less than the 410 feet. They are

down around the 200 feet range for sight distance there currently and this is less and

substandard to what the City usually requires for a typical sight distance in an

intersection. Paul Shumejko, Transportation Engineer for the City, reminded everyone

of the continuous left turn or center lane that will be constructed this summer on

Hampton Circle. This paving project will mean that an additional two feet of roadway

widening will occur and will prohibit parking on the street. Chairman Colling stated that

he could understand no parking restrictions from Barclay Circle at least to past Ashley

Court. On the south side of the roadway, he can see the restrictions all the way to

Sandhurst because this is a natural break point. There have been no complaints on

Club Drive, just Ashley. Chairman Colling stated that the problem is from Barclay to

Sandhurst and we already know about the problem from Barclay to Ashley from the last

meeting. The roadway will not be wide enough once the center lane is constructed all

the way through Hampton Circle this August. Chairman Colling stated he wanted to

modify the parking order so that it includes from Barclay to Sandhurst and have the sight

distance maintained at Ashley Court (so leave the 120 foot section there), and suggest

they allow parking from the corner of Ashley Court to just before Club Drive maintaining

sight distances. Chairman Colling told Mr. Mueller that they basically have until August

to come up with a permanent solution to this parking problem.

Mr. Hunter asked that new traffic counts be done on Hampton Circle now that the new

courthouse is there and operational. Would like the counts done from now until August

of 2004. Chairman Colling also wants to bring this issue back before the board before

August to see where they are at.

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

Referred to the City Council. No Parking along the south side of Hampton Circle

from Barclay Circle to just east of Sandhurst, as amended, allowing parking from

Ashley Court to Club Drive outside of the safe sight distance area.

Whereas, Traffic Control Order No. PK-78 has been issued 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:

TCO No. PK-78.1 No Parking within the right-of-way of south side of Hampton

Circle from Barclay Circle (at their south intersection) to a point Nine Hundred

Fifty (950) feet easterly thereof.

TCO No. PK-78.2 No Parking within the right-of-way of north side of Hampton

Circle from Barclay Circle (at their south intersection) to a point Two Hundred

Sixty (260) feet easterly thereof.

TCO No. PK-78.3 No Parking within the right-of-way of north side of Hampton

Circle (at their south intersection) from a point Three Hundred Eighty (380) feet to

a point Twelve Hundred Fifty (1,250) feet easterly thereof.

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;

Marc Matich told everyone that the video being viewed was of the intersection of

Grandview and Ridgefield Court. Mr. Matich went over the facts sheet that was included

with the agenda packet on this issue. The facts sheet was prepared by the Traffic

Improvement Association (TIA) of Oakland County, a non-profit organization. He stated

that the decisions should be carefully made on whether to install a stop sign or not

because of the long range impacts. Answers to the following questions should be

considered: Does it meet established warrants? What is the likelyhood of

noncompliance? What is the potential for increase in traffic crashes and liability? What

will be the impact on traffic flow? Who would be opposed to this type of change? The

two most important questions according to the TIA are; Will this help maximize both the

safety and efficiency of pedestrians and vehicular traffic? And will it help and ensure

that all citizens will maintain a healthy respect for the community's total traffic control

system?

Paul Shumejko, Transportation Engineer for the City, reviewed the background on this

issue. On September 12, 2003, several residents along Grandview submitted a request

for multi-way stop signs to be installed as speed control measures along Grandview

Drive at it's intersections with Sandy Ridge Drive, Ridgefield Court and at Sandy Ridge

Drive at it's intersection with Fairmont Drive. At the Traffic Board's September 22, 2003

meeting, City staff did not recommend the installation of these multi-way stop signs at

these locations as a means to control speed. On September 23, 2003, a traffic control

order (TCO) was issued for the installation of these multi-way stop signs. A revised

TCO was later issued to extend the expiration date to April 9, 2004. Prior to approving

or rejecting the TCO, City Council had requested that City staff perform a formal traffic

study at these locations and present the findings to the Advisory Traffic and Safety

Board. The traffic data was collected during the period of February 2, 2004 to February

5, 2004. The results were reviewed based upon the requirements set forth by the

Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In addition to investigating whether

warrants were met for corner sight distance clearance, crash history and traffic volume

counts, the analysis also included driver stopping compliance rates at these

intersections. Based on the traffic data collected, the stop signs at these locations, do

not meet the necessary warrants for installation and it is recommended that they be

removed. Based on field surveys, there was only one intersection (Grandview and

Ridgefield Court) that had a sight obstruction of shrubbery. The property owner has

been notified to remove this obstruction and if the homeowner does not properly trim the

shrubbery, the City's Forestry Department will take action. This also does not warrant

the installation of the multi-way stop signs. The next step was to review whether or not

the crash history warrants were met for multi-way stop signs that were installed at these

locations. The manual requires that there has been a minimum of five (5) crashes that

have occurred at an intersection within a twelve (12) month period. The traffic crash

data was obtained during the period of January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002.

The first intersection (Grandview and Ridgefield Court) there was found to be only one

(1) fixed object collision and at the second intersection (Grandview and Sandyridge)

there was one collision identified as other (vehicle hit a snow bank). The third

intersection (Sandyridge and Fairmont Court) there was one parked vehicle collision.

Based on this information, the crash history warrants do not justify the warrants for the

stop signs that were installed. The final step in performing the traffic study was to

review the traffic volume counts to see if they met the warrants for multi-way stop sign

installations. It is required that there is a minimum of five hundred vehicles per hour, for

an eight hour period of the day, from all approaches. The second requirement is that

there is a combined vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the minor street must average

at least two hundred units per hour for the same eight hour period. The third

requirement is that when the 85th percentile approach speed of the major street of traffic

exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant can be reduced to

70% of the above requirement. Based on the volume data that was obtained from 12:00

p.m., wednesday, February 4, 2004 through 8:00 a.m. on friday, February 6, 2004, the

first intersection of Grandview and Ridgefield Court, the greatest one hour bi-directional

volume along Grandview Drive was 216 vehicles per hour. The traffic volume along

Ridgefield Court was not collected due to it being a cul-de-sac and that it does not

generate a significant amount of traffic to impact the volume. The 85th percentile

approach speed just north of this intersection was measured at 31 miles per hour, which

is below the 40 mile per hour justification for reducing the warrants to 70% . The second

intersection (Grandview and Sandyridge Drive), had 139 vehicles per hour as the

greatest one hour bi-directional traffic volume from all approaches. The greatest one

hour bi-directional traffic volume for Sandyridge Drive was 17 vehicles per hour. The

85th percentile approach speed just north of this intersection was measured at 33 miles

per hour, therefore, it did not meet the 70% reduction. The third intersection of

Sandyridge and Fairmont had the largest one hour bi-directional traffic volume along

Sandyridge was 17 vehicles per hour as previously stated. Fairmont Drive is considered

the less traveled road at this intersection and would not meet the 200 vehicle per hour

warrant for 8 hours of the day and therefore, no data was collected on that portion. The

city does not collect speed data along Sandyridge. Based upon the requirements and

the data that was collected, the traffic volume count warrants are not met and do not

justify the multi-way stop signs along Grandview Drive and Sandyridge Drive remaining

in place. City staff's recommendation again is to look into the possibility of installing

traffic calming devices, such as speed humps, to control speed.

Marc Matich reviewed the results of the study of vehicles stopping at the stop signs that

are currently there. There were four groups that were categorized with the study, full

stop, almost stop, forced (stopped by traffic) and no stop. Grandview at Ridgeview

Court , observed 346 vehicles, of that 4% voluntary full stop, 12% stopped by traffic,

65% almost stopped and 19% non-stopping. At Grandview and Sandyridge, observed

207 vehicles, 16% voluntary full stop, 7% stopped by traffic, 62% almost stopped and 15

% non-stopping. At Sandyridge and Fairmont, observed 34 vehicles in a 3 hour period,

which is not a good sample size, 15% voluntary full stop, 3% stopped by traffic, 59%

almost stopped and 23% non-stopping.

Chairman Colling noted for the record the receiving of two additional letters on this

subject and they are entered into the record. One from David Hunter, dated March 9th

and the other dated March 8th from a Thomas Lydick. Both these letters were against

the devices and they wanted them removed.

Public Comments:

Dick Olson, president of the Homeowner's Association. Speed humps versus stop signs

were discussed at previous meetings. The conclusion was that they would request

additional implementation of the speed limit. Hoping for speeding tickets to take care of

the problem that way. Grandview is a through street and shortcut for most. Several

people are going way above the speed limit and that is what concerns them. The

warrants are useful tools and guidelines, which means there can be exceptions and they

think there are exceptions for Grandview. Went over data given in the studies. At least

the stop signs make people slow down. Is for keeping the stop signs installed. Does not

like the suggestion of speed humps and listed reasons why. The stop signs are in fact,

for this particular, unique situation, a direct answer to it and therefore, apply for an

exemption to the guidelines.

Tom Davenport, 1194 Grandview Drive: Asked for previous data and Chairman Colling

stated that the data hasn't changed in quite a few years. The signs have significantly

reduced the speeding. Noted that Grandview is a major school bus route. Stated that

normally people will get one ticket, but rarely two for the same thing and in the same

area. Thought that since the video was taped in February, with snow and ice, of course

people would be traveling slower.

Mr. Lydick, 1115 Grandview Drive: There are existing guidelines and they were written

by professionals in the State of Michigan and the fact of the matter is Grandview Drive

does not meet any of these requirements. He does not see where it is appropriate to

challenge the validity of the guidelines. The City's own professional engineers do not

support these stop signs either. He thinks that the guidelines should be followed and

that the only exception to the guidelines in place is for an increase in safety. The data

simply doesn't support this in this instance. People may feel safer because of these

signs and the data proves it is not safer, people may be taking some chances and have

a false sense of security and that could lead to other negative things. If police wrote

tickets on Grandview all the time, it would be a misuse of the police force and would look

bad for the neighborhood. We can't police it 24 hours a day and therefore we aren't

going to change it, so he hopes there are alternative means to reducing speed other

than stop signs.

Pat Blucher, 1258 Grandview: Clarified that if speeds were in excess of 40 miles per

hour you could then reduce the vehicular volumes to 70%. Paul Shumejko stated that

even at that point, the maximum we had for one hour was 249 vehicles. She lives in

Grandview and she has a hard time backing out of her driveway. With the stop signs it

has been safer and she doesn't have to wait as long, so it has been a plus. She doesn't

want the speed humps because of the cost of them, plus the roads are getting beat up

with the construction in the area and she has noticed a number of police officers over

the last two or three weeks. Enforcement would help, but you are not going to get it

every day. Shouldn't take the signs down no matter what the guidelines say. It is a

safety issue. She thinks the signs have helped tremendously.

Ken Wilson, 1210 Grandview: Stated that Grandview should never have been designed

as such a straight cut-through street so that people could build up speed. He doesn't

know what needs to be done to stop this kind of traffic.

Cheryl Davenport, 1194 Grandview Drive: If someone had been ticketing the people

that are speeding through her subdivision and who now ignore the stop signs, you would

have sufficient funds to pay for the speed humps. People have sure picked up speed

when they get to her address and beyond and she just wanted to bring up this point.

Janis Ferry, 1943 Brookfield Court: Grandview is definitely a collector street. She has

no choice but to drive on Grandview and nobody asked her if she would like to have

stop signs on Grandview. This is an entire square mile issue, not just a Grandview

issue. It was a bad design, but throwing up stop signs arbitrarily and not asking anyone

else that has to drive on that road, is just plain wrong.

Pat Somerville, Mayor of Rochester Hills: The police have spent more time out on

Grandview than any other road in the city. The police report in to her about every other

day and it is definitely a cut through from other subdivisions. They have clocked and

given tickets to people going as high as 60 miles per hour because it is a straight

through shot. A lot of teenage drivers have been given tickets and have been clocked at

over 60 miles per hour, as adults have too. The speed there is definitely not what you

would want where you live. She hears the arguements about stop signs, and the

subdivision she lives in, every other street has a stop sign. They all manage to survive

and stop at these stop signs.

Paul Davis, City Engineer for the City of Rochester Hills: He feels it is his duty to make

some comments on this issue. To try and give a perspective, but he doesn't perceive

changing many opinions, but he does want to repeat some things that have previously

been said. When the Engineering staff gets a request to do an engineering study, we

look for the motoring public as a whole and it is a very difficult job. He would not like to

be in the mayor's position at all, dealing with people making these types of requests.

They are emotional and he knows the mayor wants to help solve people's problems.

Especially when they are difficult things that have gone year after year and there still

seems to be a problem there. Basically, the city uses engineering standards that have

been developed through previous studies, MMUTCD has been quoted tonight. That is

one of the standards. Another one is the Traffic Improvement Association. There have

been a lot of studies on these types of issues. And what the city looks for is to try and

have some organization in consistency, not only on Grandview, but really in any location

in the City and any other community in the State, where these types of issues are set,

so when we talk about stop sign warrants, we are trying to be consistent so that people

know what to expect when they are traveling down a road. Someone said tonight that

someone was driving 65 miles per hour down Grandview. He doesn't doubt that. That

is why there is an 85th percentile that is used to assign speed on roadways. There is

always going to be a maniac driver. And unfortunately, you have to try and catch that

maniac driver by enforcement and hopefully, they don't hurt themselves in the process

of speeding down a road like that. Stop signs are not going to stop this. You can see

on the video that there are several people that are driving less than 65 miles per hour

that ignore the stop sign. He doesn't expect that the person driving 65 miles per hour is

all of sudden going to stop because there is a stop sign there. TIA and the City share a

common goal, and that basically is to improve traffic safety. He has bought into some of

the studies that they have done and some of the recommendations that they have made

for us to consider and this board to consider when they make decisions on whether stop

signs should be put in place and that is why we go through these engineering studies for

the warrants. If they are not met, then our recommendations are not going to be to put

in stop signs there. TIA has basically made numerous studies and shown that stop

signs are not an effective means of controlling speed. You may argue that someone

stops right at that intersection or they are slowing down. I heard, "Now I am finally

seeing people slow down there.", well they didn't have a reason to slow down there

before when the stop sign wasn't there. I don't doubt that they are starting to slow down

there now. The fact is, that studies have shown, throughout the rest of Grandview, that

the speeds are still up there. The stop signs are not the effective way to control it, the

enforcement is. Speed humps or traffic calming measures, are another way to do it.

We talked about disrespect of traffic control devices, and we try not to set precedent by

encouraging a breed of discontent for traffic control devices to be out there. When we

put a stop sign there, we want them to stop. We don't want them to say, "Well I'll stop at

this one but I'm not going to stop at this other one." Disrespect is something the city is

very concerned about. Putting in stop signs in unwarranted cases doesn't help this

issue. You may, in other areas of the state, get a ticket by going through a speed trap.

That is not fair. It is probably not any more fair than having stop signs that are

unwarranted. There are speed limits on some roads that are unwarranted. They are

political speed limits and sometimes communities feel that they need to try and slow

down traffic this way. What it does is, it just becomes a place to write tickets. It doesn't

matter if you drive through a stop sign at 20 miles per hour or go through it at 1 mile per

hour, a slow roll. You are still going to get a 3 point write up on a traffic ticket for rolling

that stop sign. This will just breed that traffic discontent for traffic control devices. That

is enforcement. You do not need a stop sign to write a traffic ticket. If someone is

speeding, you can write a traffic ticket when you catch them speeding. There may be

times when emotional decisions are necessary and maybe even better than an

engineering study that is kind of black and white the way we look at it on this issue. He

doesn't believe Grandview is one of those cases in point.

Chris Hummel, 2006 Edgemont Court: He agrees that we do not need to be a

protagonist with these stop signs. He doesn't believe that going 32 miles per hour, we

should not raise the speed limit to then to whatever people choose. He thinks the speed

has been reduced. He doesn't know if there was a speed study done before the stop

signs were installed. Maybe it is not an effective stopping device, but it is a speed

control. If we decide not to keep the stop signs, and put the speed humps there, are we

going to do the same type of study? If that doesn't work, take yet another measure?

Chairman Colling stated that the only community that has experience with speed humps

is Farmington Hills. This board has gone there and looked at the results from the

Farmington Hills installation and they have been very effective. There has been no

instance recorded of anyone "speed jumping" them and they are put in so that fire and

safety equipment can get through at a reasonable speed and not damage the

equipment. They are long enough and gradual enough so that you can plow over them,

but if you go over them a greater speed, it is a very unpleasant sensation. Basically, the

compliance rate in Farmington Hills has been quite good with them. The funding is not

here for the City to implement them on a City-wide basis. The decision was made by

council, when this first was approached, to make it a special assessment. The board

has no control over this. There has also been other areas of the city; Raintree and

Firewood for one, where traffic circles were put in. They are a very effective way of

slowing down traffic. You have optical discontinuities, where you do things to the

roadway to make it appear narrower at points, even though it is not. The common

thread that the board has heard, time and time again, is speed. The best weapon is

education and cooperation between the communities. You have to treat signage and

roadways as a community, and not as an isolated subdivision. The best advice he can

give here, is to communicate with the neighboring subdivisions and understand that it is

your neighbor that probably isn't paying attention and comes through a little bit fast and

you may be doing it to them. It is a matter of awareness and the best results we have

had is when the subdivision associations, within a square mile block radius that share

the roadways, communicate and have an education program amongst themselves to

help one another. Ninety percent (90% of the violators live within the immediate area.

Chris Hummel, 2006 Edgemont Court: He doesn't want to go through the time and

trouble to put in a speed hump if it will have less effect than the stop signs. If it is not

going to have a physical impedement upon them, he doesn' t think it is going to be any

more effective than a stop sign that has a penalty of three (3) points. There is no

deterent with a speed hump.

Marc Matich, Traffic Technician for Rochester Hills, stated that a speed hump will lower

the speed by at least 5 to 6 miles per hour. It will lower the 85th by that much. A three

to four inch hump, in the roadway, does lower the speed. You just have to place them

within a proximity of each other so that you can maintain the speeds at a reasonable

condition. That is something that doesn't have to be enforced, it is an automatic police

officer in the field. We do recognize that there is a speed problem on Grandview. The

association needs to decide on whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Signage and pavement markings have to go with them. You do have to have more than

just one speed hump, otherwise, they will just pick their speed after the speed hump.

Speed hump locations for this instance are included in the meeting packet.

Paul Shumejko, Transportation Engineer for Rochester Hills, noted that the locations for

the speed humps were determined to catch the driver at the midpoint between the

intersecting streets. You do not want to put them too close to the intersections. We

wanted to have multiple speed humps along the stretch to control the speeds. There

were two proposals submitted. The cost associated with this is about $4,000.00 or so,

per hump. The speed humps are typically over a transition of 12 to 14 feet with a 4 inch

rise.

Board Discussion: Mr. Ken Zendel noted that there are some rumble strips already in

place along this stretch of Grandview and the road slopes significantly downhill from

around Brookfield Court south along Grandview. There are no homes really from North

Fairview and Sandyridge on the west side, which makes it seem like it is not really a

subdivision anymore. When the stop signs were put in, there were stop sign warning

signs installed as you approach the stop signs from both sides. Sandyridge and

Grandview is the correct location for the all-way stop.

Chairman Colling stated that they were aware of the rumble strips and that this issue

has been before the board since numerous times since 1985, when he joined the board.

Terry T. Brown stated that the safety concerns that have been expressed are

emotionally stated and very real. On the other hand, he concludes, from having driven

this route over recent years, that based on the volume counts, this is not a unique

situation in terms of volume and the guidelines are pretty well considered. There are a

lot of professional people that have helped establish the guidelines and he can't think of

any reason to make an exception to these guidelines. His opinion is to follow the

guidelines from our professional staff and remove those stop signs.

Johannes Buiteweg wanted to know what the practical stop means. He also wanted to

have the specs of the speed humps. Does it affect a car that speeds fast over it?

Chairman Colling stated that they are fourteen (14) feet long, over the entire width of the

roadway with a four (4) inch rise. Mr. Buiteweg has seen speed humps in other areas

and has found them to be very, very effective. He also wanted to mention that he

thought the speed on Grandview was a little fast. He has a problem with the way

speed is determined in this City. Wants everyone to pay attention to what is being said

and not to just go only by the safety.

Carl Moore thanked everyone for coming before the board and voicing their concerns

and problems. He wanted to remind everyone that they took an oath to support the

Michigan Manual. He was ready to make the motion to remove the stop signs and

recede the TCO. This was restated as letting the temporary control order number

SS-131 expire. Chairman Colling stated that without support or a recommendation of

the board it would go to City Council and they would have to vote on it to make it a

permanent control order.

Chairman Colling just wanted to restate that the 85th percentile speed was between 31

and 34 miles per hour. This has been the case since he has been on the board. No

amount of traffic control or enforcement is going to stop the odd maniac driver. You

can't legislate common sense. They are just going to break the law. He requested that

a cut-through study be taken. Based on the data and warrants, he can not support this

traffic control order. He then asked for a roll call vote.

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

to the City Council Liaison. For temporary traffic control order number SS-131,

that is due to expire on April 9, 2004, be sent to City Council for their decision and

vote on this issue.

Whereas, Traffic Control Order No. SS-131 has been issued by the Mayor under

the provisions of Chapter VI of Act No. 300, Public Acts of Michigan of 1949, as

amended (Michigan Vehicle Code), and under the provisions of the City of

Rochester Hills Code of Ordinances, Chapter 98 (Rochester Hills Traffic Code), as

amended; and

Whereas, said Traffic Control Order covers:

SS-131.1 All approaching traffic to STOP from both Grandview Dr. and

Ridgefield Ct. at their intersection

SS-131.2 All approaching traffic to STOP from both Grandview Dr. and Sandy

Ridge at their north intersection

SS-131.3 All approaching traffic to STOP from both Sandy Ridge and Fairmont

Drive at their intersection

Resolved that the Rochester Hills City Council rescinds the issuance of Traffic

Control Order No. SS-131 and, thus, orders the removal of the above noted traffic

control devices forthwith.

The motion failed by the following vote:

Marc Matich stated that Council Representative Ms. Linda Raschke brought this up as a

complaint she had received from a resident, that vehicles were running the stop sign on

Grandview through Stonington. Ms. Raschke had asked the engineering staff to

evaluate that intersection. Some traffic counts were taken for the intersection and

engineering staff is looking for direction from the board as far as further studies. One

resident stated that he wanted the stop signs removed. Chairman Colling asked what

Ms. Raschke wanted to do with this issue. Paul Shumejko stated that he thinks she just

wanted us to review it. Chairman Colling asked if the warrants were supported for a four

way stop at this location. Chairman Colling stated that he didn't think they should do

anything at this point, other than note the data. Upon Ms. Raschke's return, bring this

issue back for the next packet so it can be reviewed when she is at the meeting.

Chairman Colling asked that before it comes back to the board, he wants a study at

Stonington and Grandview, reversing them back the way to meet warrants.

Resident Karen Mazurek, of 2007 Edgemont stated that she was concerned because of

more stop signs being changed on Grandview. She is just worried that all of the stop

signs on Grandview are going to be removed in a matter of months. She would like to

see some funding by the City and the residents together and maybe that would be the

correct solution or an option. There is only one hundred homes that make up

Chichester and that is not many to split the cost of speed hump installation.

Chairman Colling wants the history on this stop sign and how it came to be. He also

wants to know what the impact would be of reversal. We will bring it back before the

board at the next Traffic Board meeting. As a note, contact Ms. Raschke before we add

it to the next agenda to make sure she will be at the next meeting.