|
•
<br /> •
<br /> 0 ••4 •
<br /> _ _ •
<br /> � •
<br /> riall
<br /> 11 :
<br /> Cal
<br /> FO t2 ME.N T • 7 g •
<br /> Y 4 w•-.z.NWI'
<br /> ill I.
<br /> TER • • _ y �S.
<br /> / t
<br /> Z2YiGE P,pAO • Q�> Tirrt�,cax�t r.Tl/f
<br /> j --
<br /> '•_� , •' '4 0 fara0 ' • E fill P�Am�+r Oils
<br /> . ..• Mill ' • • - •
<br /> r
<br /> As an alternative to the proliferation of numerous driveway openings along busy arterial streets, Rensselaer County, New
<br /> York, recommends that individual driveways(above)be replaced by parallel service drives(below)once a sufficient number
<br /> of parcels are developed. In order for this approach to work, however,setbacks for parking areas and other site
<br /> improvements must be adequate to allow future construction of the service road.
<br /> • - 1 ..'.j,•
<br /> *'
<br /> _ :
<br /> •
<br /> ..i _. 44 i Y ::i%:',..•:.., • ••� '.
<br /> uFls t•II 0�y0�/�Vt�1����
<br /> 4�310ys,.t.r,/.
<br /> •
<br /> 40 ,"". ,.
<br /> TEMPO lc.a•ft y
<br /> Rensselaer County,N.Y., Bureau of Planning DiZ IYE WO,�(
<br /> GLOsED
<br /> that traverse a municipality. Moreover, when planners go Clarksville, Tennessee, on the other hand, has estab-
<br /> to traffic engineers and other experts in search of useful lished a limit of one driveway or street intersection for
<br /> access standards to be used as guidelines or ordinance every 660 linear feet of road frontage along the commu-
<br /> requirements, they are confronted with a wide range of nity's major through-traffic route. The ordinance also
<br /> opinions and conflicting data. requires the submission and approval of a site-specific
<br /> A number of variables, including roadway design access plan for each new driveway connection along the
<br /> speeds, sight distances, grades, service levels, and the oper- roadway.
<br /> ational and traffic-generating characteristics of adjacent Often, the biggest impediment to implementing ade-
<br /> land uses, come into play when evaluating appropriate quate driveway spacing requirements is the presence of
<br /> access control and design issues. As a result, many com- a large number of narrow lots adjacent to the roadway.
<br /> munities develop access controls and driveway design While some ordinances do impose larger minimum lot
<br /> criteria in conjunction with a traffic impact analysis. Even widths within corridor zones, enforcing such standards
<br /> those ordinances with specific standards typically leave after an area has already been subdivided is fraught with
<br /> the door open for negotiated trade-offs based on the indi- numerous practical and political problems. In an attempt "
<br /> vidual nature of the proposed development site. to reconcile the access demands of small-lot developers
<br /> In Wilson County, North Carolina, the Major High- with the safety and efficiency concerns of planners, some
<br /> way Zoning District, for example, limits each corridor lot corridor protection strategies require or at least strongly
<br /> to a maximum of one two-way or two one-way driveways encourage the use of shared driveways by adjacent parcels.
<br /> unless additional drives are "necessary to improve traffic The Austin, Texas, Principal Roadway Area zoning con-
<br /> movements, increase sight distances, or similar reasons." trols, for example, normally prohibit individual private
<br /> The special highway district does, however, establish a access to lots with less than 200 feet of frontage along
<br /> minimum 150-foot spacing requirement between private designated arterial routes. For lots with less than the
<br /> rives and major highway intersections, and a 100-foot
<br /> t required minimum frontage, joint access agreements or
<br /> cing standard between private drives. alternative access plans may be required. Similarly, the
<br /> 18
<br />
|