Driveway

[silentC]

Just running through a few idea for the driveway. The set back is 30 metres and the frontage is 62. The council wants us to have two entrances, but nothing says both have to be concrete, so I might have one concrete and one just a gravel track off to one side (probably the right side in the attached). The drive leads to a 2 car garage, the opening is 4.8m. I'm going for a 2.8m wide track.

Thoughts?

I like the circular version because the courtesy bus wont have to turn around when he drops us off from the club! Another consideration is visitor parking - they always seem to want to park in front of the garage.

[joe greiner]

Could you clarify "two entrances?" From what?/To what? #2 & #4 don't seem to satisfy, I think.

Joe

[silentC]

They want each property to have two entrances from the road, which adjoins the boundary at the top of the sketches.

Numbers 2 & 4 don't satisfy that requirement alone, but that's why I said I would just have a secondary entrance on the right hand side. This would just be a gravel drive, whereas the main drive will be concrete.

It would save me a lot of money to only concrete the part that will be used most. I'm toying with the idea of concreting as per number 2 and just having a gravel drive for the remainder of the semi circle back up to the road.

As an indication:

Pic 1: $12k
Pic 2: $8k
Pic 3: $11k
Pic 4: $10k

[namtrak]

For driveways, I always think the less reversing the better - minimise room for accidents. Any sort of drivethru option alleviates that.

Maybe a drivethru, with a second lane to pull into.

[silentC]

Yeah, I agree. WIth number 1 or 3, visitors can park in the right hand side of the loop and we can still get out. I've also planned to have a gravel parking area on the left immediately in front of the house, which incorporates the gravel track access to the back of the property down the left hand side of the house.

You'll notice the lobes on the last three. Number 2 pretty much follows the path that everyone is taking at the moment - they reverse out about 6 metres, then swing to the right (left when you're sitting in the car), then dirve off to the left in an arc towards the road. If I pour that one, muscle memory should do most of the work for them

[silentC]

As a side note, last night the folks had visitors for tea. SWMBO and I had decided to get take away, so she needs to get out. The visitors next door had pulled up parallel to the garage door, completely blocking it. We had to go and ask them to move and they were all sitting at dinner. I just don't understand why people do it but it happens all the time. I guess they either assume that we're not likely to be going out after dark, or maybe they just don't even think of it, it's a matter of "there's the front door, I'll just park as close to it as I can so we don't have to walk".

I'm thinking of putting up a sign...

[Sturdee]

I think no 3 is better than No 1. Seems more pleasing to the eye with the centre bit in the turn to the house which allows for some nice feature planting.


Peter.

[Bleedin Thumb]

It depends on what you are going to do with the surrounds plant or turf.

If you were planting I'd say No.1 as you would get a greater planting depth and more privacy if it was mainly lawn N0. 3 would probably suffice.

personally I think No.1 looks the most pleasing. No 3 has created a drive off a drive.
I think that it looks a bit cluttered...KISS principle is always best. also you want people to arrive at the house not some ways away.

Is there any reasons that you couldn't modify No.1 so that the axis of the drive is in line with the entrance to the house?

[silentC]

The front will be mainly turf with some sort of planted border along the drive. This is the only flat spot on the block and the rest will be either planted out or left as bush.

It's going to need a lot of turf though - it's about 1200 sq. metres...

I like the centre bit in number 3 too. I thought some low shrubs and a bird bath or something a bit formal.

Thanks for the input so far. Seems to be confirming my feelings on it, although I'm tempted by number 2 because it will save a lot of dough.

No-one seems to like the landing strip. I was a bit worried about that - it's roughly the same orientation as the runway at the airport and they have to fly over us to land!

[munruben]

I kinda like pic 3. option. Strange ideas councils get eh? Why do they want you to have 2 entrances to the property.

[silentC]

I think it may be because we are a dual-occupancy. There are currently six other houses in the street - of which only two others have 2 entrances.

[ian]

Silent
If the requirement relates to the dual occupancy, I don't thnk any of your options are satisfactory.
Pic 4 looks a lot like an aircraft carrier's flight deck, it would be great for the kids to race their RC cars up and down but ...

I quite like the curve in Pic 1, but I'd add a standing place outside "the folks" so their visitors park there, away from your garage.

as to width, a caravan / boat trailer / truck is up to 2.5m wide, so 2.8m might be enough



ian

[echnidna]

I'm reading between the Council's lines and making a logical conclusion.

Perhaps at some stage in the future councl may allow subdivision of the land in the area. By encouraging each home to have independant driveways, current developments will fit into Councils strategic planning strategy.

So I'd do the 2 driveways, 1 to service each house. One could be gravel, or even dirt.
It would still be a driveway even if left unused.

Theres no reason why you can't interconnect the 2 driveways so that you use one more than the other at this point in time.

[silentC]

All it says in the DA approval is "provide two entrances", no other specifics. They've approved a shared two car garage for parking, so having entrances that don't both lead to it would be counter intuitive I feel.

I actually don't think it's something they would enforce anyway. I know the inspector and he is not a pedantic type. I think he will be happy if we have a sealed drive and the potential for two entrances to the property, even if one is not sealed.

Unfortunately, because they only have two categories of housing: single dwelling and multiple dwelling, their by-laws regarding dual occupancies like ours are a bit over the top as they are targeted at people building units. We've actually been told that we can't subdivide or strata-title the two 'units' so any attempt at creating a segregated pair of properties would be pointless. The main factors considered in our case were suitable free space for each unit and a fire-rated party wall between them. There is no other border drawn up on the plan between the two. Although I suppose down the track it could happen as the area grows and land becomes scarcer.

My original 'vision' for it was a cross between 1 & 3. However, it was getting a bit pricey, so the others are attempts at reducing the area. The aircraft landing strip I thought would be the cheapest but there's actually more concrete in it than option 2. An alternative would be to reduce the track leading in to the two reversing lobes to 2.8, which would make it the cheapest. But at a pinch I think a double width drive leading to a shared garage would satisfy the two entrances requirement. Or maybe not...

There will be standing places outside both units but they will be gravel. There is also parking around the back. No shortage of parking. There's a 1800 sq. metres of it out the front now but they still want to park right in front of the garage.

[silentC]

This is why I'm thinking option 2 with the remainder in gravel. Then if it ever is subdivided, I would put in a new drive on the right and direct it out the back to a carport behind the first unit (the one on the right). Then the second unit, which is the bigger of the two, would have a two car garage. I'd remove the door that gives unit one access to it.