12-12-1988 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• A PETITION TO PROTECT BROWN ROAD NORTH We, the undersigned, are Orono residents livino adjacent to and/or using Brown Read North (hereafter referred to as Brawn Road). We have purchased and/or- built our homes in reliance on "rural" 2 acre Zoning and the designation of Brawn Read as a rural "collector" street in Orono's ConrDrehensive Plan. The City Council has recently ammended this Plan: has rezoned 30 acres adjacent to Brawn Road to 1 acre density: and has given preliminary approval to a Planned Residential Development (PRD) that Could significantly alter Brawn Road and the immediate neighborh000d. We oDoose any "upgrading" of Brown Read for the Durpose of accomo- datirio this development. We understand that "upgrading" under MSA standards could r-equire changes in elevation, additional right of way, widening _,f pavement, and/or curb, gutter, and storm sewer. If this is sa, we Would request that Brawn Road be "declassified" as an MSA at reet . We are concerned that the City's awn engineer has indicated that construction traffic for- the proposed development could cause S.,Ubstantial damage to Brown Road. Therefore, we ask the City Council to consider the following before approving this PRD: 1. A SECONDARY ACCESS TO THE SliBDIVISION FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD PLANNED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY lc. This would reduce the subdivision traffic accessing off Brown Road and could be used by construction traffic accessing directly off Hgwy 12. 2. NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ON BROWN ROAD NORTH. The developer has indicated a willingness to work with the city on a construction access off Highway 12. The City should require this in the Developrnent Contract, along with Drovisions to provide immediate cleanup and/or repair of any "unintended" construction damage to Brawn Road. 3. FINAL ENGINEERING AND AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER AND LONG LAKE ON THE LOCATION, THE TIMING, AND THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED FRONTAGE ROAr The specifics of this Frontage Road should be a matter ��f Public Policy, and not left to "private" negotiations with the Developer and Long Lake. How can a City Council aDDrove a rezoning for CE5 homes without agreement on the Frontage Road that was an integral part of the Study justifying the rezoning? We believe resolution of this frontage road is as imoortant to *he neiphb-�rhoc-d as resolution of sewer service is to the LeVe l c user. 4. ACRE LOTS ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PRD AS SPECIFIED IN THE HGWY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMMENDMENT. The concept Of "buffering" existing_ property _owners from increases In density From rezoning was a fundamental principal of the Cc-mo Plan Amendrnent. We do not feel that E one acre lots with a verimeter buffer strip is an aLlDrODriate substitute for 3 two acme lots.