Rochester Hills Legistar System

Mr. Shumejko referenced the letter in the packet from Armando Ybarra whose

home is adjacent to the traffic circle at Falcon Drive and Coachwood Lane. He said

around 18 months ago Mr. Ybarra went to City Council, requesting the circle be

removed completely. At that time Council requested Staff to investigate any history

of crashes that indicate a safety problem. Attached are the crash data reports from

the Traffic Improvement Association (TIA), indicating their database showed no

crash history at this location. Staff was also requested by Council to put together a

cost estimate to upgrade the traffic circle and re-configure it in a more modern

design. This amount was around $150,000, which was submitted as a Capital

Improvement Project to the CIP Policy Team. He thought it rated dead last among

the projects submitted, and therefore was not included in the 2006 Capital

Improvement Program.

The Engineering Department recently received a letter from Mr. Ybarra asking to

be put on an Advisory Board agenda to discuss his concerns with the traffic circle

island. Chairperson Colling asked if Staff had a recommendation on the matter.

Mr. Shumejko said it had been discussed with DPS maintenance crews. One

suggestion was to pave a truck apron. They also discussed a higher-backed curb on

the outside of the lane on the eastern side. Because there is not a safety issue

involved it was a low priority with the DPS Maintenance Garage as well.

Chairperson Colling stated another point that needed to be made was this particular

roadway was constructed as part of a consent decree. He then opened the meeting

for Public Comment.

Ron Lilek

3802 Cherrrywood Lane

Rochester Hills, MI 48309-1017

Mr. Lilek said he appreciated there was no crash data, but he wanted to share a

personal experience. On this past Monday, his daughter was waiting for the school

bus at the corner of Cherrywood Lane and Falcon Drive. The bus was stopped with

its signals flashing, and she started crossing the street. A car coming from the north

off of the traffic circle did not stop for the bus, and almost hit her. In his mind, had

there not been a traffic circle the car would have been approaching at a faster rate of

speed and would have hit her.

Mr. Lilek said anyone who lives in the area knows that it is a collector street.

People use it to go from Tienken to Walton, and drive faster than the 25 mph speed

limit. He thought it was a public safety issue, and hoped they would take that into

consideration.

Chairperson Colling asked for clarification on what action Mr. Lilek would like to

see take place, who responded that he would like the traffic circle to stay. If it were

not up to today's standards, he would like the City to make improvements.

Bob Adams

3688 Cedar Shake Drive

Rochester Hills, MI 48309-1013

Mr. Adams said he also supported the retention of the traffic circle. He had written

a letter to the Mayor (dated 10-31-04) when he was president of the homeowner's

association. In the letter he said that despite rumors to the contrary, the majority of

homeowners in the association were in favor of retaining the traffic circle. The

principal reason was that from the southernmost traffic circle on Rain Tree Drive to

Tienken it is a virtual speedway for rush hour traffic. Without the circle there he

felt there would be more accidents. The sidewalks are not complete in the

subdivision, so there is no place to walk except on the roadway. The traffic circle

performs the function for which it was intended, and the only time drivers run up on

the curb is when they drive faster than the 25 mph speed limit.

Hank Donald

3806 Rosewood Lane

Rochester Hill, MI 48309-1079

Mr. Donald was also in favor of keeping the traffic circle as is, and he felt it

definitely fulfilled its function. He moved into the subdivision in 2000, and

watched as F & M Construction Company was building houses. He found out that

in 2003 they wanted the traffic circle taken out, and the Engineering Department

told him they had been calling for couple of years, long before the house was even

built.

The area has a big speeding problem. Everyone is trying to get to Walton. He said

we see a lot of speeding, and the traffic circle helps cut it down. He had read some

letters from 2003-04 saying the curb was deteriorated, but the F & M Construction

crew building the house used it as an entrance and exit for two years. He watched

them beat the curbs up pretty badly over that time, with some pretty heavy

equipment.

Mr. Donald said he sees the garbage trucks make it around the circle. If anything

he thought they needed another speed control on the south end to slow cars, as there

is too much of a straight shot between the southern Rain Tree Circle and this one.

He thought the traffic circle definitely needed to stay there.

Dave Lomasney

3850 Cherrywood

Rochester Hills, MI 48309-1017

Mr. Lomasney is the president of the homeowner's association. There are 63

occupied homes in the subdivision, and he said he was here to say that they were

unanimous in wanting the traffic circle to stay in place as is. One of the primary

reasons is that the many neighborhood children, including his three, stand out on

Falcon Drive waiting for the school bus every day. There are three bus stops on

Falcon Drive, and the traffic circle is the only thing that slows the cars coming off

of Tienken through the subdivision. There is heavy traffic in the morning and

evening rush hours.

Mr. Lomasney added that the traffic circle was built in 1991, while Mr. Ybarra's

house was built in 2003. He thought it was self-serving that the owner of the house

put this issue on the agenda when there are 63 homeowners whose children are out

on Falcon Drive every day.

Armando Ybarra

3725 Rosewood

Rochester Hills, MI 48309-1079

Mr. Ybarra brought a laptop computer and showed a portion of the PowerPoint

presentation he had given to City Council and the Mayor. He stated that part of the

reason this was on the agenda, and for the record he also had three children, was

that he was concerned about their safety as well. When the traffic circle was

designed he thought that it needed to meet certain design criteria in order for it to be

built properly in this environment. In his estimation, it did not abide by certain

criteria that it should have. A slide that was shown earlier shows that the back of

curb on the west side of the traffic circle is within seven feet of his property line.

You can see that numerous vehicle have run into trees on his property. His biggest

concern was with the safety of the design for the traffic circle. People walking

along Falcon Drive have had to run up on his property because of cars squealing

their tires all the way around the traffic circle. After school lets out he has

witnessed cars racing around the circle, both northbound and southbound. He

wanted to know what criteria was used and benchmarked to build this traffic circle,

as it was one of the first to be built in the City. Why was it placed at a

T-intersection instead of a four-way intersection? You can see that the traffic circle

was pushed to the east side of the main road, not centered equally between the lots

on Falcon Drive. He wanted to understand what the criteria was and what was used

to benchmark this design for diameter, for turn radius, for trucks to navigate, and

for fire trucks to navigate around this traffic circle.

Chairperson Colling said he was a Board member when the traffic circle design was

considered. There were issues related to the approval of the development. As

settlement of a lawsuit, the consent decree of the Circuit Court included a

requirement that this traffic circle be constructed. As far as he knew, from a legal

perspective the consent agreement would need to be amended for anything to be

done to the intersection, other than minor revisions. It is there and will stay there.

MCS Engineering fit it in as best as they could within the geometry of the site and

the land ownership and usage at that time. Since then, landowners have come in

after the fact.

Obviously there is a problem with speed. The circle was designed for 25 m.p.h.,

and is a device intended to slow traffic down. It does its job very effectively. You

cannot legislate nor control human behavior, and if people are going to rip around it

at 40 m.p.h. and run off the road, that is because they are not heeding basic speed

laws. It has nothing to do with the design of the circle.

If there are trucks running up on the side of the shoulder, your own construction

company has contributed to the deterioration of the curbs there. Mr. Ybarra said he

did not agree, and that his trucks did not gain access to the site through the traffic

circle. Mr. Matich said the City had to put up temporary "No Parking" signs to

prevent F & M trucks from parking along the roadway.

Mr. Ybarra said he was still looking for an answer to his question, what was the

criteria used to place the traffic circle in that location? He wanted to see the data

showing the back of curb requirements to the lot line. Chairperson Colling stated

there is not a minimum separation requirement. The location was picked as a court

consent decree. Mr. Ybarra said that had nothing to do with the design of the traffic

circle. He wanted to know the criteria used for back of curb and from center of

road to the lot line that should have been adhered to, and he did not believe that was

done. When they make a mistake as builders in the City, they have to fix it at their

cost. He felt someone had made a mistake here, but no one was willing to admit it.

He thought it should be fixed at the City's cost.

Mr. Shumejko said as far as the criteria, some of the design was based on the

turning movements of trucks to meet the minimum radius, but as far as distances off

of property lines, he didn't see anything in the files about that.

Mr. Ybarra asked if the City of Rochester Hills Fire Department had agreed to the

turning templates used in the building of the traffic circle, and was told they had.

He asked if it was on record, and Chairperson Colling said he thought it was in the

Advisory Traffic and Safety Board minutes. Mr. Duistermars asked for clarification

that if between the road and the property line it was all City right-of-way. He said

he did not recall any City ordinance or design standards that require the curbing to

be a certain distance from the property line. Mr. Matich explained that a roadway is

normally built symmetrically. You have sidewalks and underground utilities on

both sides. In this case there is one sidewalk on the west side, and that is the reason

it is shifted further to the east.

Mr. Duistermars asked if at the time the traffic circle was built Mr. Ybarra's lot was

vacant, and was told that was correct. He clarified that the property owner made

the decision to site his home on the lot as he wished. Mr. Matich confirmed that the

traffic circle had been built first.

Mr. Duistermars asked if it would be warranted to install guardrail all the way

around the outside of the traffic circle. Chairperson Colling thought that it would

pose a safety hazard. He felt the issue was why people did not drive it at the

appropriate speed. From what he was hearing, the traffic circle is doing the job it

was put in to do. No one seemed to have a problem with the circle at the time it

was built, and they have not received complaints since.

Mr. Duistermars speculated that there will always be the "jerks" that cut across the

center of the circle, but that can't be prevented unless the police are there 24 hours a

day, seven days a week. Mr. Ybarra said that didn't seem to be an issue down on

Firewood Lane. That circle had no tire tracks from people cutting across, and

looking at the aerial photograph you can see it was designed so that each quadrant

was identical, side to side. By contrast if you look at the traffic circle at Falcon

Drive there are tire tracks, and if you split it down the center the two sides are

different. Mr. Duistermars said from his understanding the traffic circle was pushed

a little to one side for a better good, to protect the pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Mr. Zendel asked Chairperson Colling if he could suggest that Staff pull the original

documentation from 1991, as well as the Consent Decree. Mr. Shumejko stated

that he had told Mr. Ybarra he could submit a FOIA request, but had not heard back

from him on that.

Mr. Brown said this was an emotional issue, but it would be more constructive to

explore ways to mitigate the situation as the traffic circle was here to stay. In his

personal opinion this would accomplish more. Mr. Ybarra agreed, and explained

that he previously sent proposals to the City, but had never heard back from them

on what could be done. He said he would like to look at options to change the

shape of the traffic circle. Mr. Brown said although he was not an engineer, he

would be happy to attend another meeting with Mr. Ybarra and the engineering

staff.

Chairperson Colling said it should be understood that no modification could be

allowed to undermine the purpose of the traffic circle. The suggestion of turning it

into an oval would promote higher speeds.

Mr. Ybarra said he had talked to Mr. Shumejko about another subdivision on the

east side that has a traffic circle of a different shape. He asked if that shape could

be used at this location. Mr. Shumejko said that one was designed for a local street,

and projected it on the screen for the Board members. He reiterated that

modifications to the traffic circle had been submitted as a CIP project, and ranked

last out of approximately 60 projects. If there were to be a modification, it most

likely would not happen until the road was due for reconstruction because of age

and deterioration. Chairperson Colling added that the costs would be in excess of

$150,000, making it a project the City would not take on lightly.

Mr. Ybarra said from a safety point of view, the cost of fixing this now far

outweighed the liability if someone were to get hurt. Mr. Shumejko replied that

Mr. Ybarra was the only one who had ever contacted the City with safety concerns.

There had been no calls from the schools, the fire department, the police, or other

neighbors. They checked the crash data and there were no crashes. Chairperson

Colling added that he could not justify the expense when the crash data didn't

support altering the circle.

Mr. Match said some of the pictures Mr. Ybarra had shown documented driver's

abuse of the island of the traffic circle. This circle has never been landscaped or

improved. It is a part of Falcon Estates Subdivision, and their homeowners'

association has come to the City looking at ways to improve the traffic circle with

landscaping. They had discussed putting a ribbon of paving around the inside of the

circle. It would also serve the purpose of trucks that overrun the circle. Mr.

Randazzo owns the property to the southwest, and has sodded that area. Since

those improvements have been made he did not know of further abuse or of cars

overrunning the curb.

Mr. Ybarra said they had placed reflective markers (delineators), and cars drive

right over them. He said you can see where cars have driven this area down to

Rosewood Lane, and he wanted to know who fixes it, and at whose cost?

Mr. Adams said he knew how that had occurred. During a period of two weeks, the

entire subdivision was "trashed." It was not a question of safety or cars sliding off

the road, it was a question of teenagers joyriding over the sub. He felt that putting

landscaping into the island would discourage that from happening. Chairperson

Colling asked if he had identified the individual who caused the damage, and Mr.

Adams confirmed he had. He called the Sheriff's Department who went out that

night and issued a citation to the driver. Mr. Duistermars asked if the damage

stopped after the driver was cited, and Mr. Adams said that it had. He added that if

you look at the tire tracks on the island you can see they were not caused by

someone losing control, but by someone purposely driving across it.

Mr. Lomasney spoke up, saying because the subdivision had just begun

maintenance of the traffic circle island, some of the tire tracks had been there for

quite some time. He felt that with the subdivision doing regular maintenance the

damage marks would go away. Mr. Ybarra said he disagreed, as he had sodded his

property in the easement last summer, and the sod wasn't down for more than a

week before it was totally trashed. He said the sod that Mr. Randazzo had put in

was wrecked within a few days. Mr. Ybarra maintained that people pulling trailers

are having trouble navigating the circle and school buses were constantly damaging

the area inside the curb. He said he was frequently adding topsoil and grass seed,

but felt it was futile because as soon as it was fixed, someone came along and

trashed it again.

Chairperson Colling said that was why they were suggesting adding a truck apron.

He felt the damage was done because trucks were taking the outside of the circle

rather than the inside of the circle as they should. He explained truck aprons are

used at many intersections in the City. He felt the truck apron would be the most

cost-effective solution. He told Mr. Ybarra that the City was willing to work with

him, but he could not remove the circle. Mr. Ybarra said he understood that, and

was just looking for an affable solution for everyone involved.

Lorenzo Randazzo

235 Grosse Pines Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Mr. Randazzo was familiar with the history of the situation, and thought the

solution with the truck apron would work. He mentioned another issue to consider

regarding the landscaping of the circle is that they would not be allowed to obstruct

the view. He had proposed to put in trees, but the City would not allow them.

Rick Urbis

506 Orchardale Drive

Rochester Hills, MI 48309-2248

Mr. Urbis said he appreciated all the time the Board had given to this issue, and that

he had a couple of questions. Starting with the assumption that a municipal street

must have a sufficient easement area on each side, is it measured from the center of

the street? Chairperson Colling responded that it depended on the individual

situation, and not all streets require an easement.

Mr. Urbis asked if there had been a taking of property from the landowner when the

traffic circle was put in, and whether the present easement encroached upon that

personal property. Chairperson Colling replied that the lot that is owned by Mr.

Ybarra was not encroached upon. He explained that Mr. Randazzo had given all of

the property the traffic circle is on. Mr. Shumejko said he thought the back of curb

was six or seven feet from the property line.

Mr. Urbis said he thought the distance to the property line from the edge of the road

in all other areas is much greater than where the traffic circle abuts. He wanted to

know if any type of condemnation proceeding had occurred in order to take that

part of the property, or whether the easement now encroaches on personal property.

Mr. Shumejko said the right-of-way was only the property given by Mr. Randazzo.

Mr. Matich added there is an encroachment upon the public right-of-way, a

retaining wall placed by Mr. Ybarra is on the City's property. The City was

considering putting in a guardrail to protect the roadway users, but made an

agreement with Mr. Ybarra to move his retaining wall away from the roadway.

Mr. Urbis said perhaps they were not communicating clearly, because they said the

property was given by Mr. Randazzo, but today the landowner who resides there

pays taxes on the property all the way to where it nearly meets the street.

Chairperson Colling explained that homeowners do not pay taxes on the County

and City right-of-ways. Mr. Urbis asked if that were the case with all the other

homeowners along the same street, and was told it was. He asked what the required

right-of-way was, and was told there was no required distance from the edge of the

street. As part of the consent decree Mr. Randazzo had give the amount of land

necessary to build the traffic circle.

Mr. Matich said there are some parcels with metes and bounds where people own to

the center of the roadway, and in that case there is an easement for roadway

purposes. Mr. Duistermars said the City can't always police every square inch of

right-of-way, but if someone starts landscaping in the right-of-way as long as it does

not create a hazard we generally leave it alone. But at any time reconstruction is

needed, the landscaping will be cleared out. Mr. Shumejko stated that the pine

trees by Mr. Ybarra's lot were actually in the City's right-of-way.

Mr. Urbis asked if the curb of the road could meet the property line, and

Chairperson Colling said that it could.

Mr. Zendel observed that Mr. Urbis and Mr. Ybarra had a lot of questions about

criteria and other issues. He thought they should take Staff's recommendation to

submit a FOIA. If there were still issues that needed to be discussed, the matter

could be brought back before the Board.

Chairperson Colling thought that the homeowners of the entire area needed to be

taken into account. He said he was hearing from the representatives of the

homeowners' association that they want the traffic circle to stay. The traffic circle

has achieved its purpose; it has slowed down traffic and made it a safer place for

people. His recommendation to Staff is that they consider modifying the traffic

circle for the truck apron at the earliest possible convenience for the budget.

Mr. Duistermars asked if there were any examples of truck aprons in place in the

City. Mr. Shumejko said the roundabout at Tienken and Sheldon had extra paving

at the back of curb at the entrance and exit points. Chairperson Colling said to take

a look on Mound Road or Woodward where the Michigan lefts are. You'll notice

on the inside curb it is more like a driveway curb cut so you can climb it, and there

is a lot of concrete behind it. Mr. Zendel said be believed on Livernois from Avon

going north there were examples.

Mr. Ybarra asked if they would also consider making the outside curb a

non-mountable curb. Mr. Shumejko said they had discussed installing B2 rolled

curb with the DPS Garage Staff . This type of work is more labor intensive than

paving the truck apron. Mr. Ybarra suggested they come out to the site before a

decision was made on where to place the curbing. Chairperson Colling said he

could not say whether a change to the outside curbing was required or advisable,

but the inside truck apron made a lot of sense. Mr. Duistermars asked if Falcon

Drive was considered a collector road, therefore it would be funded as a major road

rather than a local road, and was told that was correct.

Mr. Ybarra said he still had an issue with cars running up on his lot, trespassing on

his property with their vehicles. Chairperson Colling stated that even a

non-mountable curb would not stop the kids that drive the pick up trucks that do

"lawn jobs." There is always a risk there will be vandalism.

Mr. Ybarra asked if the paving didn't fix the problem, what is the next Band-Aid to

try? Chairperson Colling and Mr. Ybarra discussed barrier types and the road

geometry. Mr. Buiteweg opined that they would not be able to resolve this issue

tonight, and asked when they would discuss what action to take. Chairperson

Colling said they were doing that now, and have made the point they would like to

put the truck apron in. Mr. Ybarra is asking for further curbing,and he was open for

opinions from the Board, but his view was not at the present time. He wanted to

wait and see the effect of the truck apron, and do a study to find out what will

happen if they change it to a non-mountable curb from an accident perspective.

Stephen Dearing, P.E., P.T.O.E.

Former Rochester Hills City Traffic Engineer

Mr. Dearing said he was the City traffic engineer when the traffic circle was put in.

To do it all over again, it would look a little bit different, but only a little. There are

some things that can be done right now to make it better, and the rest would have to

wait until it is time to reconstruct the street. He recommended that what the City

should look at doing right now is adding a truck apron on the inside of the center

island. He explained it will not really improve things for a car, but it will help

school buses, trucks, garbage haulers, and van lines moving furniture to get through

more easily. The other thing that can and should be done is to add a chevron array

in the center island, based on the now current standards. In this way the City will

be upgrading the signing so it conforms to standards, and at a convenient time the

truck apron can be put in. He felt these were reasonable things to do that would

have a positive benefit. He said the geometry of the circle was not fundamentally

flawed, but it would look a little different if the current guidance for roundabouts

were available when this was put in a dozen years ago.

Mr. Zendel moved that they table the issue until Staff can check with the City's

attorney to make sure putting in the truck apron or other actions would not

violate the consent decree that is in place. Chairperson Colling opined that

would not be required, and that they could make any improvement or

engineering change deemed appropriate to this as a result of the decree, as long

as the circle stayed in place.

Mr. Matich addressed the homeowners' association for Falcon Estates, saying we

met with you last year to talk about landscaping the island. At that time they

talked about adding a decorative type of paved ribbon on the inside, and Staff

was holding off because they didn't want to be in conflict with anything the

HOA wanted to do.

A member of the homeowners' association told him the HOA approved an

infrastructure project for Falcon Estates last fall. It is for all the common areas,

including the traffic circle. He felt the type of shrubbery in the traffic circle

island on Rain Tree wouldn't impact a car, but would discourage someone from

driving across. They had turned a landscape plan into the City today for

approval. They anticipate beginning construction this spring and doing the work

in phases. They hoped the landscaping would discourage drivers from leaving

the roadway. They also agreed that the City doing the inside traffic ribbon

would help the situation, and would be in the same line of thinking as the

homeowners' association plan.

Chairperson Colling asked if they would be able to modify their landscape plan

to accommodate a truck apron. A member of the homeowners' association said

he thought the apron would be beneficial as it was one of the things they had

discussed with staff and in the plans. Mr. Matich asked if their revised plans

showed the ribbon around the circle. The resident said they did, and explained

they expected to do the landscaping on the traffic circle in the last of the three

phases, with construction anticipated in 2007.

Chairperson Colling advised Mr. Ybarra that upon completion of the apron,

providing that City Council approves the funding, he would like to have Staff go

back at three months, six months, and one year to monitor the effect. He wanted

a visual inspection for tire tracks, and standard intersection monitoring. This

would include monitoring traffic speeds to see how the change has affected the

area.

Mr. Ybarra said he was still not comfortable with the fact they were not taking

into account that this intersection design is not the best solution for this traffic

flow. It is not done to today's standards, and does not meet the criteria if you

were to start over with a clean sheet of paper. Chairperson Colling stated that

many roads and intersections that were built 20 or 30 years ago do not meet

today's design criteria, but are fine as long as they are serviceable.

Mr. Duistermars added that if there were a design problem with the traffic circle

there would be crash data or pedestrian accidents, but we do not have these. Mr.

Ybarra opined that it would only take one accident for them to have all the data

they needed. Chairperson Colling said there are few intersections or roadways

within the City that have had no accidents. Based upon the observations by

Steve Dearing, P.E., if it were being built with today's criteria there would only

be slight modifications. Chairperson Colling did not believe there would be any

monetary or safety value to be gained by doing a slight modification. He felt

that the truck apron, the landscaping done by his neighbors in the homeowners'

association, and possibly the curbing on the back side if it came down to that,

would help Mr. Ybarra's situation.

Mr. Dearing reiterated that if they had it all to over again it would look a little bit

different, but not substantially. At the time there were no American standards

for roundabout design. There are standards today published by the Federal

Highway Administration. There is a publication called "Roundabouts, an

Information Guide," and it basically sets forward a range of values. There is a

range of values for the size of the center island, what's called the inscribed circle,

the intersecting angles, etc. As it turns out, without benefit of that guide, this

roundabout still falls within the acceptable ranges for the design and

construction of roundabouts. Again, we would probably do it a little bit

different, but not substantially. It is in substantial compliance with the range of

values that form the basis of the Federal Highway Administration's

recommendation on how you do roundabouts in the United States.

Mr. Hunter made a motion that the City add a truck apron to the roundabout at

Coachwood and Firewood, with the stipulation that they come back in one year

to monitor traffic to see how the upgrade has affected the intersection. Mr.

Blackstone seconded the motion.

Chairperson Colling asked if there was any further discussion. It was questioned

whether the monitoring would be done at three months, six months, and one

year, and Chairperson Colling said that had been his recommendation. Mr.

Hunter amended the motion to include monitoring at three months, six months,

and one year, and Mr. Blackstone accepted the modification.

Mr. Zendel reiterated his concern that this alteration to the traffic circle be

checked with the City's legal staff. Chairperson Colling said his concern was

noted, but he believed that within the consent decree the City was allowed to

make any engineering changes they felt were necessary. The consent decree

only stipulated that the traffic calming device, in this case a traffic circle, be put

into place.

Mr. Duistermars asked what parties the consent judgment was between, and was

told the City and Mr. Randazzo. He felt if both parties were in agreement, it

would be allowed. Mr. Randazzo said the same apron should be done by the

other two corner lots, because the truck traffic affected the corners there also.

He suggested an area of asphalt or cement coming out two or three feet. There

was discussion and the affected area was pointed out.

Chairperson Colling said there was a motion pending a vote, and he suggested

the motion be amended again to ask Staff to do further study on the rest of the

circle in regard to the truck aprons.

Mr. Randazzo interjected that the curb was broken on the left side. He had put it

back in place so it would look better, but it needed service.

Mr. Buiteweg asked the Chair if he had closed the public hearing. Chairperson

Colling said it was closed at this point, and there was a vote before the Board.

He stated that the motion had been amended twice, and asked if the amendments

were accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion. Mr. Hunter and Mr.

Blackstone both agreed. A vote was taken.

Ayes: Hunter, Colling, Buiteweg, Brown, Blackstone

Nays: Zendel

MOTION IS CARRIED

Chairperson Colling advised that this was a recommendation to City Council,

and City Council would have to approve the funding for the apron. He hoped

they would take action on it, but there was no guarantee. He suggested that the

subdivision support Mr. Ybarra in requesting it at Council.

2006-134 Cumberland Drive Proposed Parking Restriction

Mr. Matich said these were parking concerns related to Cumberland Drive from

Hamlin Road to Prospect Drive. To give a brief summary and review, on

November of 2005 we received a parking complaint from an area resident living

within the Cumberland Hills Subdivision. The traffic complaint was related to

on-street parking concerns during the school days for Cumberland Drive, south

of Hamlin Road. The complainant cited serveral types of conflicts with

Cumberland Drive ingress and egress traffic with the on-street parked vehicles

waiting to drop off / pick up students for Hamlin Elementary School. The

problem exists when Hamlin Elementary students are present and walking within

the street between parked vehicles on either side of Cumberland Drive for the

boulevard entrance between Hamlin Road and Prospect Drive.

After reviewing the conditions in the field, we confirmed parked vehicles in the

roadway are a chronic problem and impact the safety of Cumberland Drive

during school days. The parking problems occurred during school morning and

afternoon peak hour periods. We have observed several vehicles parking in

designated areas that are currently prohibited under the statute of the Michigan

Motor Vehicle Code. This includes parking too close to the crosswalk,

intersection, and driveways. Also, we observed during snow days, students were

more inclined to walk within the traveled portion of Cumberland Drive rather

than in the grass right-of-way back of the street curb.

On February 17, 2006 we met with the Cumberland Hills Homeowners'

Association (HOA) at their annual meeting to discuss the above parking

concerns for Cumberland Drive. Also, during this meeting we discussed with

the HOA the possibility of constructing a 5' wide sidewalk along the east of

Cumberland Drive from Hamlin Road to Prospect Drive to provide a safe refuge

and separation for the Hamlin Elementary students to commute to school.

We believe there is adequate on-street parking available within Cumberland

Drive, located south of Prospect Drive and away from the Hamlin Road entrance

and median traffic island. Therefore, staff recommends restricting parking on

both sides of Cumberland Drive during school days only between Hamlin Road

and Prospect Drive. By restricting parking this will keep the intersection clear

during school start and dismissal periods, and eliminate traffic conflicts with

parents' drop off and pick-up for Hamlin Elementary School.

Staff requests the Traffic and Safety Board to support having TCO number

PK-88 issued, and that the Board recommends the City Council approve the

TCO until rescinded or superseded.

Mr. Duistermars asked what their reaction was to the sidewalk recommendation.

Mr. Matich said at first they were concerned with losing parking in the roadway.

As the diagram included in the packet shows there is actually 29 feet on the west

side of the road between the driveways where they could legally park, as well as

another 29 feet south of the driveway, and 77 feet on the east side. But once

they realized that there are a large number of kids that walk, they could see the

benefit of the sidewalk to get the kids from Hamlin Road back into the

subdivision. Mr. Shumejko said the HOA was going to approach the individual

property owner and discuss some of the issues that had come up when the

University Hills Subdivision had proposed putting in sidewalks. Number one,

the HOA was going to maintain the sidewalk as far as shoveling and

replacement of the individual flags when required. Staff has not heard back

from the Association if they have indeed contacted that owner, and what his

response was as to putting in the sidewalk.

Chairperson Colling asked if the parking restrictions would be "No Parking,

Stopping or Standing at all times," or just during school hours. Mr. Brown said

on the TCO it specified from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on school days. Mr. Zendel

asked for clarification of the no parking area on the map. Mr. Blackstone asked

if the problem was with people parking, or stopping and waiting to pick up their

children from school. Mr. Shumejko replied they were "standing." Mr. Brown

said he was there today at the dismissal times during midday and after school.

There were definitely vehicles sitting there with drivers behind the wheel, and it

definitely would have an impact on getting in and out of the street, particularly if

you had a larger vehicle.

Chairperson Colling stated that they also encroached into the yellow areas

depicted on the map. Mr. Brown said northbound on Cumberland there were

people standing, waiting to make the turn onto Hamlin Road to pick up their

kids. Chairperson Colling said he had seen cars parked there, seen a child walk

to the car, and the vehicle would actually make a U-turn around the median and

head back down into the sub.

Mr. Hunter asked if this would be a temporary measure until the sidewalk was

constructed. Mr. Shumejko and Mr. Matich responded that it would be

permanent. Mr. Brown asked once those signs go up, do we have a method in

place to notify the Sheriff's patrol that there has been a change in signage so for a

period of time they can police the area more closely? Mr. Matich said that could

be done through the three ordinance officers. Mr. Brown thought that if the

signs go up and there is enforcement there will be a learning curve of a few

weeks, and then people will stop parking, standing, or stopping there.

Mr. Matich added that the people in the homeowners' association admitted they

were also the ones who park there at times, but they understood why the parking

restrictions were proposed. They asked for time to go back and talk to the

residents and let them know what was being proposed, and he understood they

had done that. Mr. Shumejko said the affected property owners had been sent

notification of tonight's meeting, and he had only had one telephone call from a

resident.

Mr. Zendel asked that when Staff had gone out to investigate the site, were the

cars standing in areas currently prohibited by the motor vehicle code, in the

proposed no parking areas, or both. He was told the cars were parking in both

areas.

Approved.

[Whereas, Traffic Control Order PK-88 has been issued by the Transportation

Engineer 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:

PK-88.1 "No Stopping, Standing or Parking" From 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on School

Days Only within the right-of-way on both sides of Cumberland Drive from Hamlin

Road to Prospect Drive.

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 Saftey Board has considered the issues

pertaining to the Traffic Control Order.

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

Control Order PK-88 to be in effect until rescinded or superseded by subsequent

order; and that a certified copy of this Resolution be filed together with the Traffic

Control Order with the City Clerk of Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.]

The motion carried by the following vote:

Rochester Industrial Proposed No Parking Zone

The City had received a telephone call for a resident on this matter, and

Chairperson Colling read his information for the record:

Mr. Dale Ermshler

Crane Technologies

1954 Rochester Industrial

Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Mr. Ermshler could not attend the meeting tonight, but said he was in full

agreement with the parking restrictions proposed for Rochester Industrial. He

agreed with the safety concerns stated in the complaint by Rebecca Hopkins.

Mr. Matich read from staff report. On December 7, 2005 we received a parking

complaint from an employee of CRS Services, Inc., located at 1986 Rochester

Industrial Drive. The complaint was regarding vehicles parking along the west

side of Rochester Industrial Drive, and too close to the CRS Services' driveways.

The parking problems are of the same nature that we have experienced

previously for Rochester Industrial Drive. They involve tenants of various

buildings needing more parking spaces than are available on-site, and then

having overflow-parking spill out into public streets. Currently parking is

prohibited along the east side of Rochester Industrial Drive for its entire length

from Hamlin Road northerly to its road terminus. The street is built to a width

of 36' from curb to curb. Under normal circumstances, occasional on-street

parking would not require that parking be prohibited on both sides of the street.

This width of pavement should allow incidental parking on one side and still

have enough room for two lanes of traffic. However, Rochester Industrial

parking presents conflicts with other businesses' driveways and restricts the

necessary safe sight distance.

During our site visits we observed extensive parking demands on the west side

of Rochester Industrial drive from Hamlin Road to Rochester Industrial Lane.

We agree that the on-street parking demand does impede the necessary safe sight

distance for business driveways along the west side of the street. In addition, we

found that vehicles parked in close proximity to the intersection of Rochester

Industrial Drive and Hamlin Road impeded ingress and truck traffic turning

radius. The traffic volumes are relatively low for Rochester Industrial Drive, but

a high percentage of the traffic is heavy trucks.

After further staff review and evaluation, parking is recommended to be

restricted on the west side of the street of Rochester Industrial Drive, from

Hamlin Road to Rochester Industrial Lane. Therefore we recommend

supporting the Staff-approved TCO PK-87.

Mr. Zendel wanted some clarification. He had driven the area earlier in the day,

and at Rochester Industrial Lane there is currently no parking on either side of

the street for about 25' along Rochester Industrial Drive, and there are already

signs saying "No Parking from here to corner." Mr. Matich said that was done

because there were issues with people parking too close to the intersection. The

Motor Vehicle Code specifies No Parking within 30 feet from an intersection.

The signs were put up without a TCO as a reminder that parking is not allowed

in this section.

Mr. Brown asked if the businesses located there have sufficient onsite parking.

Mr. Matich said the business use on the east side looked like an auto repair or

collision shop, and there were not really dedicated spaces where they are parking

their vehicles. Mr. Shumejko said the employees were parking on the street to

allow the customers to park in the lot.

Mr. Brown said it was a situation like the medical offices on Barclay Circle.

Chairperson Colling said it was similar to Tan Industrial with the buildings

designed for manufacturing, but manufacturing has moved out and soft sciences

have moved in. The employee count is higher, and they probably do lack some

parking spaces. However, it is illegal operation and it is up to them to find

parking spaces. They can't block the roadway.

Mr. Shumejko said when they did field investigation the west side was parked

with a line of cars, and it appeared there were empty spots in lots. It was hard to

determine if they are using all their spaces and the parking on the street was

overflow, or if they are parking there because it is more convenient.

Mr. Brown said he has driven the road at 10:00 in the morning. There seemed to

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

Approved.

[Whereas, Traffic Control Order No. PK-87 has been issued by the Transportation

Engineer 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:

PK-87.1 No Parking on the west side of Rochester Industrial Drive

from Hamlin Road northerly to Rochester Industrial Lane.

Whereas, said Traffic Control Order shall not be effective after the expiration of 90

(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 Orders,

Resolved, that the Rochester HIlls City Council approves issuance of Traffic

Control Order No. PK-87 to be in effect until rescinded or superseded by

subsequent order; and that a certified copy of this resolution be filed together

with the Traffic Control Order, with the City Clerk of Rochester Hills, Oakland

County, Michigan. ]

The motion carried by the following vote:

2006-116 Traffic Controls for Clear Creek Subdivisions No. 3 and 4,

Section No. 2

Mr. Shumejko read the background from the staff report. A traffic study was

recently performed for the newly constructed streets located within Clear Creek

Subdivisions No. 3 and 4. This study was initiated by the City accepting the

streets for maintenance and declaring said streets open for public travel. The

intersections within this development were reviewed to determine the type of

regulatory traffic control warranted as established by the Michigan Manual of

Uniform Traffic Control devices (MMUTCD).

At his time, no permanent sight obstructions exist at any of the intersection

quadrants that would adversely impact the safe approach speeds.

The following is a recommendation for the type of regulatory traffic control

device (stop/yield sign) for the intersections with the available sight distance

measured in the field:

1) Intersection of Glacial at Galena:

The safe sight distance measured 393' westerly (to Docile) and 578'

easterly.

Recommend Glacial to yield for Galena.

2) Intersection of Passive at Galena:

The safe sight distance measured 468' northwesterly and 357' southerly.

Recommend Passive to yield for Galena.

3) Intersection of Galena at Quarry:

The safe sight distance measured 327' westerly and 510' easterly.

Recommend Galena to yield for Quarry.

4) Intersection of Traceky at Quarry:

The safe sight distance measured 544' westerly and 534' easterly.

Recommend Traceky to yield for Quarry.

5) Intersection of Serene at Passive:

The safe sight distance measured 351' easterly and 345' westerly.

Recommend Serene to yield for Passive.

6) Intersection of Passive at Traceky:

The safe distance measured 241' southerly (restricted by horizontal

curvature) and 203' northerly (restricted by horizontal curvature).

Recommend Passive to yield for Traceky.

7) Intersection of Petosky at Traceky:

The safe sight distance measured 431' southerly and 285' northerly.

Recommend Petosky to yield for Traceky.

Chairperson Colling said that the drawing in the packet showed a Stop sign at

Passive and Traceky rather than a Yield sign as was in the report. It was

confirmed that the recommendation for number 6 should be changed to:

Recommend Passive to stop for Traceky.

Motion by Buiteweg

Seconded by Blackstone to approve YS97 and SS-135.

Chairperson Colling asked if there was any more discussion. Mr. Zendel asked

Staff if due to all the traffic leaving the subdivision being funneled to the

intersection of Galena and Passive, should the Yield sign there be changed to a

Stop sign? He confirmed that the traffic signs for the subdivision would be

re-evaluated after more homes were built. Mr. Shumejko said there would also

be a Clear Creek No. 5. Mr. Matich said they were trying to work it out with the

developer to finish paving his portion of Sheldon Road all the way to Mead.

Then the Board will have to look at addressing the speed limit on Sheldon Road

again. Mr. Matich said Staff had proposed the speed limit to be 35 m.p.h., but it

was set at 25 m.p.h.

Mr. Zendel said that before moving on he would like to thank Staff for the new

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

Approved.

[Whereas, Traffic Control Orders No. YS-97 and SS-135 have been issued by the

Transportation Engineer 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 Orders cover:

YS-97.1 Glacial Yield to Galena

YS-97.2 Passive Yield to Galena

YS-97.3 Galena Yield to Quarry

YS-97.4 Traceky Yield to Quarry

YS-97.5 Serene Yield to Passive

YS-97.6 Petosky Yield to Traceky ]

and:

SS-135.1 Passive Stop to Traceky

Whereas, said Traffic Control Orders 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 Orders,

Resolved, that the Rochester Hills City Council approves the issuance of Traffic

Control Orders No. YS-97 and SS-135 to be in effect until rescinded or

superseded by subsequent order; and a certified copy of this Resolution be filed

together with the Traffic Control Order, with the Clerk of Rochester Hills, Oakland

County, Michigan.

The motion carried by the following vote:

2006-0117 Traffic Controls for Avon Lakes Village Subdivision No. 4

Mr. Shumejko read the background from the staff report. A traffic study was

recently performed for the newly constructed streets located within the Avon

Lakes Number 4 Subdivision. This study was initiated by the City accepting the

streets for maintenance and declaring said streets open for public travel. The

intersections within this development were reviewed to determine the type of

regulatory traffic control warranted as established by MMUTCD.

At this time, no permanent sight obstructions exist at any of the intersection

quadrants that would adversely impact the safe approach speeds.

The following is a recommendation for the type of regulatory traffic control

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

Approved.

[Whereas, Traffic Control Order No. YS-98 has been issued by the Tansportation

Engineer 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 Trafic Control Order covers:

YS-98.1. East Shore Drive Yield to Mackwood Road

Whereas, said Traffic Control said Traffic Control Order shall not be effective after

the expiration of ninety (90) days from the date of issuance, except upon

appproval by this Council; and

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

pertaining to the Traffic Control Order,

Resolved, that the Rochester HIlls City Council approves the issuance of Traffic

Control Order YS-98.1 to be in effect until rescinded or superseded by

subsequent order; and that a copy of this Resolution be filed together with the

Traffic Control Order, with the City Clerk of Rochester Hills, Oakland County,

Michigan. ]

The motion carried by the following vote: