My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-10-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
09-10-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2024 1:26:05 PM
Creation date
12/10/2024 1:24:17 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
450
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
DRAFT COPY <br />DESIGN MEMORANDUM <br />TO: eanne Mabusth, Planning and Zoning Administrator <br />FROM: JCO/GRC <br />SUBJECT: Driveway Standards, Sugar Hills <br />DATE; August 1, 1990 <br />OBJECTIVE; <br />Develope driveway standards for Sugar Hills that minimize both <br />intrusion into setback areas and amount of hard surface cover- <br />DESIGN CRITERIA; <br />Driveway width at property line — 16 feet <br />Minimum setback from property line — 50 feet <br />Garage size - 3 Car/3 stall <br />Design vehicle - Passenger car (Group IV-Large Car) <br />DISCUSSION: <br />Passenger <br />'Architectural <br />car design data for this analysis was taken fr*'m the <br />Graphics Standards, 7th Edition" by Ramsey/Sleeper, pages <br />48 through 52- Copies of these pages have been included with this draft <br />for your information and review. Considering the type of development for <br />which these are being developed. Group IV — Large Cars was selected as the <br />design vehicle (see copy of page 48). <br />The width of the driveway at the face of the garage is somewhat <br />dependant on the garage and the type of door opening. There are three <br />options available for garage doors - 1) wide single door for all three <br />stalls; 2) a double door and a single door; and 3) three single doors. <br />The large single door for all three stalls is not considered practical <br />because of the large span for a header over the door and the difficulty of <br />operating such a large door structure. We have chosen to consider options <br />2) and 3). Sketches of the three options for garage doo-^s are enclosed <br />for your consideration. (See copy of page 50 for additional comments on <br />garages). <br />There is very little information available in the transportation <br />manuals regarding turning templates for passenger cars because they <br />generally do not govern the geometries of design for roadway facilities. <br />Therefore, we have developed our own turning templates for a large <br />passenger car (Group VI). This is shown on Fitv -he. <br />Figure No. One represents the minimum tu< trem''nts required for a <br />car parked in front of a garage stall to bac>% turn and drive forward <br />onto the street. The edges of the driveway are one foot wider than the <br />edge of the vehicle's path while making this maneuver. Please note the <br />wide swing of the right—front corner of the vehicle while backing.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.