7/12/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

` r bo s, fnf 8 We consider this to be a decision or action by you as Community Development Director, either in the sense that Jim Davis is acting as your "designee" or on the basis that his opinion is adopted in your report and therefore becomes your opinion or decision. Our grounds for appeal are as follows: (1) The wording of the applicable ordinance is strongly mandatory to wit: it (9) Median openings. To assure traffic safety, capacity and control, median openings located within a traffic -way corridor shall be spaced the maximum distance apart that will allow safe and adequate circulation . . . (b) No median openings shall be spaced at a distance less than 660 feet from any signalized intersection or median opening, except the median openings may be spaced at a lesser distance based upon a traffic study and impact analysis; but in no case shall median openings be spaced at less than 330 feet . . ." (emphasis added). (2) The term "median" is defined in Ordinance Section 901.03 as "the physical pertion of a highway separating the traveled ways for traffic in opposite directions." (3) There is no definition of "Traffic -Way Corridor" anywhere in the LDRs and consequently, the only reasonable definition that can be given to it is a broad one such as a highway, road or street. The exemption created for the benefit of this developer is based, erroneously, on distinctions that are not expressed in nor justified by the LDRs. More specifically, there is no LDR that would create a distinction between the requirement for median separations on local as opposed to collector or arterial roads. Furthermore, there is no exemption or waiver from the median separation requirement for medians which serve an aesthetic function, nor is there any definitions that would provide guidance as to when a median is considered functional and when it is considered nonfunctional or aesthetic. If the purpose of a median and the purpose of a median cut minimum distances is to "assure traffic safety, capacity and control . . . ", then the ordinance should be interpreted in a manner which promotes safety, not in a manner which potentially creates hazardous conditions. Even if such distinctions existed in the ordinance, it is clear that this median strip will indeed serve a traffic control function, particularly when Mooringline Drive is loaded with increased traffic flows. The first time we. were aware of your interpretation of Section 952.12 (9) was when the staff report was issued. It is unclear as to when this interpretation was rendered, but we maintain that it was not made public until the distribution date of the report. Consequently, our appeal is timely under the provisions of Section 902.07 (3) (b) . 69 July 12, 1994