Citizens Traffic Committee

Agenda Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee Meeting Tuesday, September 23, 2025, 6:30 p.m. City Hall Commission Chambers Room 121 203 South Troy Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 Anyone planning to attend the meeting who has need of special assistance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is asked to contact the city clerk’s office at 248-246-3050 at least two (2) business days prior to the meeting. Pages 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Preamble 2 3. Approval of Minutes 3 4. Public Comment for Items not on the Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business a. Request to Install Child With Autism Sign on E. Kenilworth Avenue 6 b. Request to Install No Parking Signs Near Connecticut/Red Run 9 Intersection c. Request to Change Parking on Albert Avenue 12 d. Commission Directive to Study Traffic Berms Around Lawson Park 15 7. Information Only Items a. Results of Previous Traffic Committee Recommendations 23 8. Adjournment  Engineering Division 203 South Troy Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 www.romi.gov Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee Preamble "The Traffic Committee consists of Royal Oak property owners appointed by the City Commission. We are volunteers and are not paid or elected. What we decide tonight is merely a recommendation to the City Commission. If you do not agree with the findings or decisions of this committee, you may go before the City Commission and petition and/or discuss your issue with them. At this meeting you will be given an opportunity to speak during your item on the agenda. However, at the City Commission meeting, you must be recognized during "public comment" on their agenda, not when the Traffic Committee resolutions are being voted upon. Otherwise, you will not be able to voice your concerns. It is important to understand that professionals make preliminary recommendations to the Traffic Committee. They consist of civil and traffic engineers, outside consultants and public safety officials. You may have been informed that these professionals have denied your request or petition. This denial does not mean that this committee will vote that way; however, we are committed to discussing the issues at hand in a pragmatic and sensible manner. Our ultimate recommendation to the City Commission will be one that benefits our citizens and community as a whole." Page 2 of 23  Minutes Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee Meeting July 22, 2025, 6:30 p.m. City Hall Commission Chambers Room 121 203 South Troy Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 Present: Carl Laubach Dan Godek Joe Labataille Sean Dunlop Michael Tash Absent: Clyde Esbri Thomas Allen Staff Present: Holly Donoghue Amy Kelly _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Preamble 3. Approval of Minutes Moved by: Sean Dunlop Seconded by: Carl Laubach Motion to approve previous minutes. Ayes (5): Carl Laubach, Dan Godek, Joe Labataille, Sean Dunlop, and Michael Tash Motion Adopted (5 to 0) 4. Public Comment for Items not on the Agenda Chairperson Godek opened public comment for items not on the current agenda. No one spoke. 5. Unfinished Business 1 Page 3 of 23 6. New Business 6.a Request to Install Speed Humps on Linwood Avenue Chairperson Godek opened this item for public comment. Susan Solomon of 1422 Linwood spoke in favor of the speed humps but asked why installation will be a year from now Moved by: Carl Laubach Seconded by: Joe Labataille Motion to accept staff recommendation to install two speed humps and speed hump signage and striping on Linwood Avenue between Woodward Avenue and 12 Mile Road as shown in the submitted petition. Ayes (5): Carl Laubach, Dan Godek, Joe Labataille, Sean Dunlop, and Michael Tash Motion Adopted (5 to 0) 6.b Request to review N. Main Street Crosswalks at E. University Avenue and Pingree Boulevard Chairperson Dan Godek opened this item for public comment. Caitlin Rayburn of 221 N Main spoke in favor of the safety measures and said she appreciates the quick response by city staff. Moved by: Michael Tash Seconded by: Sean Dunlop Motion to accept staff recommendations to install pedestrian-activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) at the crosswalks across N. Main Street on the south side of Pingree Boulevard and the south side of University Avenue; to remove the crosswalk across N. Main Street on the north side of University Avenue; and to eliminate one parking stall south of Pingree Boulevard on the east side of N. Main Street. Ayes (5): Carl Laubach, Dan Godek, Joe Labataille, Sean Dunlop, and Michael Tash Motion Adopted (5 to 0) 7. Information Only Items 7.a Results of Previous Traffic Committee Recommendations The city engineer updated the committee on the city commission resolutions from the previous meeting. 8. Adjournment 2 Page 4 of 23 The meeting was adjourned at 6:54 pm. Moved by: Michael Tash Seconded by: Carl Laubach Motion to adjourn. Ayes (5): Carl Laubach, Dan Godek, Joe Labataille, Sean Dunlop, and Michael Tash Motion Adopted (5 to 0) 3 Page 5 of 23  Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee AGENDA ITEM Title Request to install Child with Autism sign on E. Kenilworth Avenue SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PRESENTER Holly Donoghue, P.E. MEETING DATE September 23, 2025 Requestor Concern: A request was received from Carlie Monnier of 416 E. Kenilworth Avenue to install a warning sign at the intersection of E. Kenilworth Avenue and Delaware Avenue to notify drivers that there is a child with special needs in the neighborhood. Staff Analysis: The Staff Traffic Committee has reviewed this request and determined that: 1. E. Kenilworth Avenue is a 27-foot wide local road consisting of composite pavement with concrete curbing. Parking is allowed on both sides the street, and there are sidewalks along both sides of the street. 2. The requestor has provided documentation indicating a child diagnosed with Bosch- Boonstra-Schaaf optic atrophy syndrome as well as Autism Spectrum Disorder, age 12, lives at the address above. 3. If approved, a “Child with Autism” sign should be removed when the child is 18 years old (2031). Staff recommends adding a sticker on the back of sign that the sign is valid until 2031. 4. Royal Oak has installed these types of signs in the past, most recently in 2023. Many communities and traffic experts discourage their use due to a false sense of security and little impact on driver behavior. For this reason, staff does not recommend installing the sign, but understands that the committee may wish to continue with the set precedent. 5. If implemented, one sign reading “Child with Autism” could be installed at the location shown below. The corner property at 302 E. Kenilworth who will potentially have a new sign in front of the home will be notified of this Traffic Committee item. Page 6 of 23  CHILD WITH AUTISM CHILD WITH AUTISM Suggested Staff Recommendation: To deny the request for an autism warning sign on E. Kenilworth Avenue. Estimated cost: $0 Page 7 of 23 Page 8 of 23  Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee AGENDA ITEM Title Request to Install No Parking signs near Connecticut/Red Run intersection SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PRESENTER Holly Donoghue, P.E. MEETING DATE September 23, 2025 Requestor Concern: Christopher Yarbrough of 2032 Connecticut Avenue is requesting installation of no parking signs on Connecticut north of the Red Run intersection due to sight distance issues Staff Analysis: 1. Connecticut Avenue is a 27-foot wide major road consisting of asphalt pavement with curb and gutter and Red Run Drive is a 27-foot wide major road consisting of concrete pavement with integral curbs. 2. A three year (2022-2024) crash history showed no accidents at the intersection. 3. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the street on Red Run Drive and Connecticut Avenue north of the intersection. There are no parking signs on both sides of the street on Connecticut Avenue south of the intersection. See aerial on the following page for existing signage locations at the intersection. Page 9 of 23  Connecticut Avenue Existing stop sign Existing no parking sign 4. Per the Michigan Vehicle Code, Section 257.674, a vehicle must not be parked within an intersection or within 20 feet of a marked crosswalk, or if there is not a marked crosswalk, then within 15 feet of the intersection of property lines at an intersection of roads. 5. A sight distance analysis was performed and when cars are parked on the northeast corner of the intersection, a vehicle driving west on Red Run is unable to see the stop sign for southbound traffic on Connecticut and likely has difficulty seeing a vehicle stopped at or approaching the stop sign. 6. Additionally, the stop sign for southbound traffic appears to be unnecessarily far away from the intersection. There was previously a tree in the area, which is likely the reason for the current sign location. Since that tree has been removed, the stop sign can be relocated approximately 20 feet closer to the intersection to help improve visibility for all drivers. 7. Staff recommends relocating the stop sign for southbound traffic and also installing two no parking signs on Connecticut north of the intersection to prevent vehicles from parking within 20 feet of the intersection. See aerial on the following page for sign placement. Page 10 of 23  Install “no parking beyond this sign” on existing post #1906 #1907 Install “no parking this side of sign” sign Relocate stop sign to be 20’ further south Suggested Staff Recommendation: At the intersection of N. Connecticut Avenue and Red Run Drive: to install one “no parking beyond sign” sign north of the driveway of 1907 N. Connecticut Avenue, install one “no parking this side of sign” sign 20 feet south of the driveway of 1906 N. Connecticut, and to relocate the existing stop sign at the northwest corner to be 20 feet further south. Estimated cost: $500 Page 11 of 23  Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee AGENDA ITEM Title Request to Change Parking on Albert Avenue SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PRESENTER Holly Donoghue, P.E. MEETING DATE September 23, 2025 Requestor Concern: Linda Palmer of 3166 Merrill Avenue is requesting that the “no parking” zones on Albert Avenue be moved from the south side to the north side so that cars can park on the south side of the road. It is currently difficult to access parked cars on the north side of the road due to the hilly greenbelt, can be difficult to open passenger doors, and requires crossing the icy road in the winter. Staff Analysis: 1. Albert Avenue is a 25-foot wide local road consisting of concrete pavement with integral curbs. Due to the narrow 30-foot right of way on this road, public sidewalk only exists along the south side of the road. 2. A three-year (2022-2024) crash history showed no accidents on the roadway. 3. There are currently no parking zones as shown on the upper panel of the figure below. In general, parking is allowed on the north side of the road along the multi-family properties. Parking is prohibited on the south side of the road and on both sides of the road near Coolidge and Woodward. 4. Staff was unable to find the date for the original installation of the no parking signs on Albert Avenue. Based on historical aerial imagery, it appears the parking stipulations have been in place since at least the 1960s. 5. Under the current configuration, there is enough space for approximately 20 vehicles on the north side of the road. If parking is allowed on the south side of the road instead, there would be space for approximately 23 vehicles. 6. The greenbelt on the north side of the road is relatively steep in some areas, so accessing the passenger door of vehicles can be challenging with regard to mobility and also the ability to open the vehicle door. 7. If parking is allowed on the south side of the road, passengers will have easier access to the vehicles, though passenger doors would open out over the sidewalk – this may be the reason parking was pushed to the opposite side of the road. Considering the pedestrian usage of this street, staff does not expect this to be a significant issue. Page 12 of 23  8. Staff did not prepare a petition for this request as is typically required. Due to the multi- family properties along the entire block, it would be very difficult for a petitioner to gather the requisite signatures. Instead, staff analyzed this issue and will notify all residents on Albert so that they can provide feedback if desired. 9. The Fire Department requested that there be no parking within 20 feet of the driveways for the multi-family development on the south side of Albert at the far west end. Suggested Staff Recommendation: To adjust the signs on Albert Avenue between Coolidge Highway and Woodward Avenue to prohibit parking on the north side of the road and to allow for parking on the south side of the road; to maintain no parking on both sides of the road within the vicinity of Coolidge Highway and Woodward Avenue. Estimated cost: $1,500 Page 13 of 23  Albert Avenue - On Street Parking Existing Conditions No parking zone Proposed Parking allowed Remove "No Parking Beyond" Remove "No sign and replace Parking This with "No Parking" Side" sign sign New "No Parking Beyond" sign in grass New "No New "No Remove "No Parking Here Remove "No Parking This Parking" to Driveway" Parking" Side" sign sign Page 14 of 23 sign sign  Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee AGENDA ITEM Title Commission Directive to Study Traffic Berms around Lawson Park SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PRESENTER Holly Donoghue, P.E. MEETING DATE September 23, 2025 Requestor Concern: The City Commission has directed staff to perform a study to see if three berms located around the recently improved Lawson Park should be removed to promote traffic flow. Staff Analysis: The Staff Traffic Committee has reviewed this request and determined that: 1. There are currently six berms within the neighborhood east of S. Main Street and south of E. Lincoln Avenue. The berms are sometimes referred to as diverters or barriers in previous studies and reports. The three berms in question are located at the north and south ends of the park as shown on page three. These are numbered 1, 2 and 3 for reference purposes. 2. The commission requested that staff evaluate if removing the berms could help with traffic flow around the neighborhood and also provide more opportunities for parking. Staff has received occasional complaints about parking congestion over the past few years, but has not received complaints about traffic movements/access. 3. Some pertinent information about the history of these berms: • The berms were initially installed in the 1980s due to complaints about truck traffic in the neighborhoods related to nearby industrial sites and concerns about cut-thru traffic from I-696 (constructed in 1980s). This created a truck route along Irving Avenue and forced traffic northwest towards Main Street rather than the neighborhood to the east. • Many of these industrial sites have since been converted into condos and apartments, so the neighborhood dynamic has changed in the last couple decades. • In 2015, the truck route along Irving Avenue was decommissioned, Mohawk Avenue was partially closed, and a new truck route was created, directing truck traffic to Main Street and circling from E. Hudson to Knowles to E. Harrison back to S. Main Street. • In 2018, a traffic study was performed to determine if the six berms should be removed. o The study found that trucks were not driving through the neighborhood and were adhering to the signage directing them to Main Street. Revised 9/16/25 Page 15 of 23  o From a traffic perspective, the study concluded that all berms could be removed in the neighborhood as each intersection would function without additional delays (Level of service C or better with or without berms) or an increase in cut-through traffic. o In 2018 residents of the neighborhood were opposed to the removal of the berms, and the City Commission chose to keep the berms in place. • Since the 2018 study, additional multi-family housing has been constructed in this neighborhood. • Also, in 2022, federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were utilized for improvements to Lawson Park. Staff performed public outreach prior to construction, and residents were generally opposed to any off-street parking improvements, berm removal, or paving of gravel roads. The upgrades at Lawson Park have made this a very popular park in the area. • The gravel section of E. Parent Avenue along the north edge of Lawson Park is currently being paved by special assessment. As it stands today, the final paving project will result in two ADA parking stalls parallel with E. Parent, and two regular parking spaces on the south side of the road. o The commission directed staff to proceed with paving this project, and to design it in a way that removal of the berm at the west end of this block (#2) could be done in the future without needing to replace any of the new pavement. o The commission also directed that the road be designed such that off-street parking on the south side of E. Parent (10 pull-in stalls) could be added at a future date if funding is available. Currently the city has $70,000 for FY29/30 in the capital improvement plan for construction of this parking area. Revised 9/16/25 Page 16 of 23  2025 special assessment paving project Parking allowed Gravel road Study Location Map (berms, available parking, roadwork) 4. Considering the results of the 2018 traffic study that overwhelmingly demonstrated removal of berms would not cause a traffic congestion issue, staff did not feel it was a good use of city funds to order another traffic study. Also I-696 is currently under construction and allows for westbound traffic only. Even if a traffic study were to be performed here, it should wait until I-696 construction is completed (end of 2026). Revised 9/16/25 Page 17 of 23  5. Currently visitors to Lawson Park can park on the residential streets around the park as shown in green on the previous figure. The on-street parking is heavily used by park goers. If visitors are unable to find a parking stall, it can be difficult to circulate around to another side street without driving a couple blocks out of the way. 6. The figure on the next page gives an example pathway for those visiting Lawson Park, and demonstrates that drivers cannot fully circulate around the park in a direct manner. 7. To improve direct circulation of traffic, removal of Berm #2 seems to be the simplest solution from the staff point of view. a. This would allow traffic to circulate from Irving to Longfellow to E. Parent and then back to Irving. b. This would create four additional on-street parking spaces on E. Parent Avenue along the south side of the road. c. If Berm #2 is removed, the city should pave the remainder of E. Parent Avenue to avoid dust issues caused by circulating traffic. In accordance with city policy, this would be done via special assessment to the adjacent property owners (city and one property). Staff did not perform a detailed estimate for this option, but using the contractor bid for the current project on E. Parent, it is expected to cost approximately $160,000 to remove the berm and pave from the dead end of E. Parent Avenue west through the intersection at Irving. d. This would also require removal of the new trees, plantings and guardrail installed in 2022: Recent upgrades at Berm #2 Revised 9/16/25 Page 18 of 23  Example Driver Pathway around Lawson Park 8. Knowing that removal of the berms was controversial when they were last studied in 2018, staff prepared a simple survey asking residents and visitors if any of these three berms should be removed. Letters were mailed to residents with properties south of E. Harrison Avenue from Batavia to Mohawk, including the multi-family properties. Staff also posted signs around Lawson Park inviting park visitors to take the survey. Revised 9/16/25 Page 19 of 23  9. Survey Results: Staff mailed letters for 248 properties and received 86 responses from the local neighborhood mailing (35% response rate). An additional 63 responses were received from visitors to the park, for a total of 149 people taking the survey. 142 respondents lived in Royal Oak and 7 respondents were non-residents. For the residents in the neighborhood target area, a summary of the number of responses per block is provided below. Note that not everyone provided a specific address, so this map does not represent every respondent in the neighborhood. Number of Survey Responses per Block in Target Area The survey responses for each of the locations were consistent as shown below: Revised 9/16/25 Page 20 of 23  Location #1 Location #2 Dondero east of Irving Parent east of Irving Remove Remove 32% 28% Keep Keep 68% 72% Location #3 Irving north of Parent Remove 28% Keep 72% Respondents were given the opportunity to provide written feedback as well. There was not a major difference in opinion between resident and visitor responses regarding the traffic berms. The majority of respondents expressed a desire for the berms to remain in place. The primary reasons cited by both residents and visitors for keeping the berms are centered on safety and traffic control, though parking and neighborhood character were mentioned as well. Safety and Traffic Control: Both Residents and Visitors believe that removing the berms would increase cut-through traffic and make the neighborhood and park areas more dangerous, especially for children. They cite instances of high-speed driving and disregard for stop signs. Residents frequently mention the neighborhood's proximity to I-696 that could send traffic into their streets, emphasizing that the berms historically kept out freeway and commercial traffic, and are still needed to manage traffic from hundreds of new housing units. Some noted that berms help confine east-west traffic to main roads like Lincoln and noted that they specifically chose the neighborhood for its quiet, walkable nature and separation from the park afforded by the berms. Park Access and Parking: Residents and visitors generally state that the park is already accessible, as evidenced by its popularity, and that removing berms is not necessary to improve access. Revised 9/16/25 Page 21 of 23  Many noted that existing street parking on Irving, Parent, and Longfellow adequately serve park visitors. Some suggested alternative parking solutions like angled parking off E. Parent. A smaller group of respondents believe that opening certain berms could alleviate congestion or provide easier access to parking. Some residents also state that more parking for Lawson Park is needed, or that current parking can be chaotic. Neighborhood Character: Residents are particularly concerned that removing berms will negatively impact their quality of life, with concerns about losing neighborhood's quiet environment and decreasing home values. They see the park as a "special place" for their neighborhood, not a major attraction. Visitors also appreciate the protected and safer feel of the area with less vehicle traffic. Other Concerns: Some respondents called for increased police enforcement of speeding and stop sign violations. A minority of residents also raise concerns about emergency vehicle access being difficult with the berms in place. Some suggested specific traffic calming measures like speed humps or one-way streets if berms are removed. Some also note that the berms were recently planted with trees and removing them would destroy a natural area. 10. Staff Recommendations: Staff acknowledges there may be some benefits to removing the berms, but understands that the neighborhood has demonstrated a strong preference to keep them in place. Staff is recommending that the berms remain in place at this time for the following reasons: a. The neighborhood did not demonstrate a preference for berm removal. b. While berm removal would improve traffic circulation, this is not a common complaint received by city staff for this area. c. Removal of just one berm would be expensive, and would remove recent improvements to the area. d. Parking availability appears to be the largest concern for park visitors, and it would be more cost-effective to install off-street parking on E. Parent Avenue rather than removing Berm #2. Opening Berm #2 would cost $160,000 for the addition of four parking spaces and improved circulation. Keeping the berm closed and installing the pull-off parking on the south side of E. Parent Avenue would cost $70,000 for the addition of 10 parking spaces. Suggested Staff Recommendation: To take no action on the three roadway berms/barriers around Lawson Park at Irving/Parent, Parent/Irving and Dondero/Irving in place and to keep the off-street parking on Parent Avenue in the capital improvement plan. Estimated cost: $70,000 (for off-street parking). Revised 9/16/25 Page 22 of 23  Royal Oak Citizens Traffic Committee CITY COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING RECOMMENDATIONS Traffic Committee Recommendations City Commission Resolutions July 25, 2025 August 11, 2025 6.a. To install two speed humps and speed hump signage and striping on Linwood Avenue between Woodward Avenue Approved as recommended. and 12 Mile Road as shown in the submitted petition. 6.b. For crosswalks on N. Main Street at N. University and Pingree: • Install pedestrian-activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) at the crosswalks Approved as recommended. across N. Main Street on the south side of Pingree Boulevard and the Requested that staff consider installing bike south side of E. University Avenue racks in the eliminated parking stall on east side of N. Main Street south of Pingree and • Remove the crosswalk across N. south of E. University Main Street on the north side of E. University Avenue • Eliminate one parking stall south of Pingree Boulevard on the east side of N. Main Street Page 23 of 23