6/28/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

traffic issue and potential ordinance conflict arose, leading the Commission to request that the staff review the traffic require- ments of the site plan ordinance. The principal concern was whether all intersections should be considered in the application of minimum level of service (LOS) standards. Several other traffic/LOS issues have also been identified by the staff. The intersection issue arose when it was determined that the proposed site plan was within a half mile of an intersection that already operates at LOS E, but will not be adversely impacted by the project. Although the subject intersection is the junction of a secondary collector and an arterial, the question arose as to whether all intersections, including local road/ thoroughfare plan road intersections, should be considered in the application of LOS requirements. A related question that arose was how unsignalized intersections should be addressed in a traffic impact analysis and a LOS determination. At its April 26, 1988 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to authorize the staff to research, draft, and advertise for public hearings to consider changes to the transportation system requirements of the site plan section of the Zoning Code. Based upon this authorization, staff analyzed the referenced section of the zoning -code, identified code sections needing refinement, and developed revised language where appropriate. On May 26, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance amendments. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: In its analysis of the transportation requirements section of the site plan ordinance (Section 23 of the zoning code), the staff identified several requirements which need modification. Besides the issues of intersection consideration and intersection analy- sis, these issues included LOS applicability to projects not requiring submittal of a traffic impact analysis; one way traffic lane minimum width; and marginal access requirements. Each of these issues was analyzed, and ordinance revisions were drafted. Intersection. - The two major intersection issues are: (1) which intersections should be considered in the application of LOS standards and (2) how LOS should be measured on unsignalized intersections. Since the intent of the subject .ordinance was to consider only major_ intersections in the application of LOS criteria, staff revised the ordinance to define major intersections and specified that only major intersections would be analyzed with respect to LOS criteria. Regarding unsignalized intersections, staff determined that the critical movement analysis. method used to evaluate signalized intersections is not appropriate to assess unsignalized intersections. Staff determined that the appropriate method to analyze unsignalized intersections is the application of signalization warrant criteria specified in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). These changes are reflected in the proposed ordinance amend- ment. Small projects - Although the existing ordinance states that no project will be approved if unacceptable levels of service exist or if the project would-re.sult in unacceptable service levels, the ordinance does not specify the geographic area considered in the application of LOS criteria for small projects. Larger projects are required to prepare a traffic impact analysis which defines the area in which LOS criteria will be applied. For smaller projects, staff determined that 27 BOOK 73FD GE .L20 JUN 2 19