Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO COUNCIL PIEETTNG �iELD APRIL 12 , _a76 Page 15 <br /> � In other wordS, we anticipate that the increased NORTH FERNDALE ROAD <br /> �traffic load effects will occur soar.sr and Elwell Deve].opment <br /> therefore may call for solution to the related (Continued) <br /> prok�lems at a fairly early datea <br /> � 2o t���e suggest that developer commitment to your <br /> Recommended Roadway Improvement (Figure 4) be <br /> obtained prior to final approval o� the plat <br /> (appropriate bonding for this �urF ���� appears to <br /> be one solution) . <br /> 3v Your Figu�e 4 recommendation for a right turn <br /> i lane and by-pass at ea�h en�rance c�i11 require <br /> either public investment by Plymouth, private <br /> investment by the developer, or a combination of <br /> both. In any case, such a design wi11 require <br /> approval by Orono for that portion ��ithin Orono, <br /> , I� is unlikely that public money c�n �e dedicated <br /> by Orono to so].ve development problen:s in Plymouth. <br /> � Therefore, it is recommended that t'r?� developer <br /> and Plymouth arrive at a cours� oi arytion dealing <br /> : with the design, approval, fundinc; a:�d construction <br /> � of the rigr.t turn lanes and by-�asses before a <br /> public safety proulem is encoun�cer�d. <br /> r 4o We believe that traffic �on.g�r-�:.�on and public <br /> safety problem can be foreseen r�gnt now with the <br /> �tage 1 activity generated by lot s�].es, construction <br /> 0 and finally resident traffic, Or_ce again, basic <br /> public safety appears to call fo�= r.^s�lution of the <br /> access clesign problems prior to the ^tart of Stage 1 <br /> development> <br /> � 5o Your roadway analysis paragraph cites I�ZHD Road <br /> nesign T�•lanual standards. These nl�nimums are <br /> valuable in judging average stoepir�g sight distances <br /> under reasonable road surface conditions. Experience <br /> indicates that under poor road sur_f�ce conditions <br /> (ice or snow) these standards a�=e n�t adequate to <br /> protect public safety in the subj�ct section of <br /> T3orth Ferndale Road. <br /> + t�Ie are sure that you will want to be advised that <br /> any recommendation by you for a busy development <br /> entrance to Ferndale Avenue Ner-�h in chis critical <br /> area, or any actual construction of such an entrance <br /> involving a sizeable number of �crips per day, carries <br /> with it a heavy responsibility for future accident <br /> and personal injury poten�iale <br /> G7e feel that your alternative ��cc�:���ndation <br /> (Paragraph 3 of Phase 2 , 1980-1985) is the more <br /> esponsible public policy deci�ionP i,ee to <br /> eliminate the proposed Eighth Aver�ue North access <br /> to North _T.'erndale. Balancing feasis•:..'.."_ity of site <br /> plan changes against public safety appears to Iead <br /> to a conclusion :hat the public ° s safety comes <br /> out somewhat ahead of develoPer car..-.�enience. " <br />