Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 69 PAGE 21ft <br />1) The FDOT "Manual of Uniform Minim n Standards for Design, <br />Construction, and Maintenance for Streets and Highways" provides for a <br />minimum passenger car design length of 191. The distance between the <br />northbound and southbound lanes is only 161. Therefore, there is not <br />an adequate storage space for vehicles to be stored between the lanes <br />when awaiting a break in the northbound traffic. <br />2) Other language in the manual discourages left turn egress movements <br />near intersection. Whereas U-turns are also discouraged, a southbound <br />left turn phase has been added to the SR60 signal to provide for <br />safer U-turns. <br />The alternatives are as follows <br />Alternative No. 1 <br />Deny the left -turn egress movement from the north driveway and allow <br />"right turn out" only. There may be more U-turns at the SR60/Kings <br />Highway intersection, but the left turn phase of the signal would <br />facilitate this movement. No modifications to the median would be <br />required. <br />red. <br />Alternative No. 2 <br />Permit the left -turn egress movement. If this is allowed, the median <br />cut would have to be modified at the o pense of the property owner. <br />The County Attorney's Office has written a legal opinion regarding the <br />granting of the appeal, a copy of which is attached. <br />AND FUNDING <br />Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the left -turn egress movement be <br />denied. <br />TO: James W. Davis, P.E. <br />Public Works Director <br />FROM: Sharon P. Brennan, Asst. County Attorney <br />DATE: August 24, 1987 <br />RE: FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK - APPEAL FOR FULL <br />INGRESS/EGRESS MEDIAN CUT ALONG KINGS <br />HIGHWAY, NORTH OF STATE ROAD 60 <br />Although the County would not normally incur liability for a <br />planning level decision such as a road or intersection <br />design, where the County has knowledge that a dangerous <br />condition will be created by the implementation of the <br />design and the design is subsequently built, the County <br />would be liable to the extent that it failed to warn <br />motorists of the known dangerous condition. This is because <br />the building of the road is an operational function for <br />which sovereign immunity does not attach <br />My recommendation is that if the Board decides to allow the <br />median cut, it should also require the applicant to purchase <br />liability insurance for the County and to pay for warning <br />signs which must be posted. <br />34 <br />