HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Pflum,
Kiausmeier&Gehrum
mi Consultants
General Partners: 47 South Pennsylvania Street,9th Floor
Indianapolis,IN 46204-3622
John E.Pflum, PE Telephone 317/636-1552
James P.Klausmeier,PE Telefax 317/636-1345
John E.Gehrum
October 4, 1988
Mr. Mark Boyce
C. P. Morgan Co., Inc.
1980 E. 116th Street, Suite 125
Carmel, IN 46032
Re: Lake Forest
Dear Mr. Boyce:
I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed Lake Forest Cluster Housing Project
consisting of 158 single family homes to be located on approximately 70 acres north
of 116th Street and east of Gray Road in Carmel, Indiana. My review has been limited
in both time and scope and has focused on the geometric requirements for the intersection
of the proposed Lake Forest Parkway with existing 116th Street.
In conducting this review I have relied upon:
* Local traffic data in my files
* Trip Generation, 4th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
1987
* A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, published by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation officials, 1984
* Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, published by the Transportation
Research Board, 1985
* Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,
published by the Indiana Department of Highways, 1988.
Existing Traffic
Traffic along 116th Street adjacent to the proposed Lake Forest community was counted
by our firm in January of 1987.
These traffic counts are summarized in the following tabulation:
Two Directional Traffic Counts
116th Street East of Gray Road
January, 1987
Average Weekday Traffic 11,300
AM Peak Hour Traffic 1,040
PM Peak Hour Traffic 1,350
Other Offices:
Cincinnati,OH
Ft.Wright,KY
Louisville,KY
Pfium,
Kiausmeier&Gehrum
Consultants
Since January of 1987, development at nearby Woodcreek has continued and Kingswood
and other projects have begun.
Levels of Service
The Level of Service of a roadway is a qualitative measure which describes operational
conditions within a traffic stream. Three parameters are used to describe service quality
for two lane roadways such as 116th Street:
* average travel speed of vehicles
* percent of time that vehicles travel in platoons because of their inability to pass
because of oncoming traffic
* capacity utilization (volume to capacity ratio).
The Levels of Service (LOS) may be ranked from the best Level A to the worst Level
F:
* LOS A occurs when motorists are able to drive at their desired speed within legal
limits. About 420 passenger cars per hour (PCPH) in `oth directions can be
achieved.
* LOS B characterizes the region of traffic flow wherein speeds of 55 mph may
be maintained and wherein passing demand approximately equals passing capacity.
Drivers are impeded from passing about half the time. A flow rate of about 750
pcph in both directions can be achieved.
* LOS C flow conditions have notable numbers of vehicle platoons. Flow rate is
stable with average speeds in excess of 50 mph. Drivers are impeded from passing
about 60 percent of the time. A flow rate of 1200 pcph, both directions, may
be attained.
* LOS D flow conditions result when the two lanes of travel begin to operate
separately as passing becomes very difficult. Platoon sizes of ten vehicles are
common although speeds of 50 mph may still be maintained under ideal conditions.
Motorists are impeded from passing about 75% of the time. Maximum flow rates
of 1800 pcph, total in both directions can be attained.
* LOS E flow conditions result in average speeds of less than 50 mph with continuous
impedance to passing. Platooning becomes intense when slower vehicles or other
interruptions are encountered. The highest volume attainable under LOS E is
2800 pcph, total in both directions, but this flow rate cannot be expected to be
sustained for long periods of time or distance.
* LOS F represents heavily congested traffic flow when speed reductions result
in corresponding volume reductions.
Traffic counts and field observations indicate that a range of LOS can be observed along
116th Street throughout the day as follows.
- 2 -
.# Pflum,
-PP Klausmeier&Gehrum
4 Consultants
* LOS A may be experienced after 8:00 PM, through the night until about 6:00 AM
in the morning.
* LOS B may be experienced for about an hour beginning near 6:00 AM as traffic
volumes steadily increase.
* LOS C may be experienced for about two hours beginning at 7:00 AM.
* LOS B may be experienced throughout the day from about 9:00 AM until 3:00
PM.
* LOS C may be experienced for about two hours between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM.
* LOS D occurs for about an hour during the peak of evening traffic.
* LOS B may be experienced for about an hour as the peak traffic subsides.
* LOS A is again experienced beginning around 8:00 PM and continues thru the night.
Site Generated Traffic
The amount of traffic expected to be generated by the site has been estimated by
Attachment # 1 and is summarized as follows:
In Out Total
Daily Traffic 785 785 1570
AM Peak Hour Traffic 35 90 125
PM Peak Hour Traffic 107 60 167
It is expected that the homes in Lake Forest will be typical single family dwellings.
Therefore, no adjustments have been made for family size, vehicle ownership, or density.
Distribution of Site Generated Traffic
Turning movement counts conducted at the entrance/exit of nearby Woodcreek subdivision
were conducted in January of 1987 when only a single access was available at 116th
Street. About 70% of the traffic was to and from the west; and about 30% of the traffic
was to and from the east. It is assumed that this 70%/30% distribution will prevail
for the proposed Lake Forest.
Impact of Site Generated Traffic
The impact that the site generated traffic will have on 116th Street is illustrated by
Attachment 2 for the morning and evening peak hours.
- 3 -
$ Pfium,
Kiausmeier&Gehrum
4 Consultants
The top diagrams of Attachment 2 illustrate the existing traffic volumes along 116th
Street at the proposed site entrance. Based upon previous discussions, the traffic flows
at Level of Service (LOS) C during the morning peak hour, and LOS D during the evening
peak hour. During the rest of the day the LOS is the same or better than during the
peak hours.
The middle diagrams of Attachment 2 illustrate the traffic volumes along 116th Street
at the proposed site entrance five years hence assuming a 2% annual increase. Both
morning and evening peak hours will operate at the same levels under these conditions.
During the rest of the day the LOS is the same or better than during peak hours.
The bottom diagrams of Attachment 2 illustrate the addition of site generated traffic
to the future 116th Street traffic. The site is expected to add about 9% more traffic
to the westbound direction in the morning peak hour; and bout 8% more traffic during
the evening peak hour. Traffic will continue to operate at LOS D during the peak periods,
and at a better LOS during the rest of the day.
Recommended Off-Site Improvements
Improvements along 116th Street at the proposed Lake Forest Parkway are necessary
to preserve the capacity and safety of operations along this arterial roadway.
The single entry/exit for the proposed site confines the turning traffic to a place where
it can be safely accommodated with little disruption to the through traffic.
The safe accommodation to this turning traffic requires some improvements to 116th
Street as shown by Attachment 3.
Eastbound traffic turning left into the proposed Lake Forest Parkway is of particular
concern because it may be delayed in crossing westbound traffic. During the evening
peak hour it is expected that about 75 vehicles will turn left into the site, crossing 600
vehicles which are westbound. It is therefore recommended that a left turn lane 150
feet in length be constructed. The length is based upon random arrivals of 75 turning
vehicles per hour and a 5% probability of storage overflow.
It is recommended that 116th Street be widened on each side by six feet to accommodate
the left turn lane. Tapers 240 feet in length are required for vehicles to make this
lateral transition at 40 mph: (L = Speed x offset = 40 x 6 = 240). This widening can
be accomplished within the existing right-of-way.
An exclusive westbound right turn deceleration lane for traffic turning right into the
proposed Lake Forest Parkway is not required because of the low traffic volumes (32
vehicles per hour) expected for this movement. Such lanes should be provided when
right turn volumes exceed 300 vehicles per hour.
Traffic Signal Warrants
Traffic control signals should not be installed unless one or more of the primary warrants
in the Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices are met. Supplemental
warrants should be considered as an advisory condition, and do not mandate the
installation of a traffic signal. The supplemental guidelines are additional considerations
in the determination for the need to install traffic signals.
- 4 -
I Pfium,
Kiausmeier& Gehrum
Consultants
Primary Warrants
Warrant 1 - Minimum vehicular volume.
Warrant 2 - Interruption of continuous traffic.
Warrant 3 - Minimum pedestrian volume.
Supplemental Warrants
Warrant 4 - School crossings.
Warrant 5 - Progressive movement.
Warrant 6 - Accident experience.
Warrant 7 - Systems.
Warrant 9 - Combination of warrants.
Warrant 9 - New facilities.
Warrant 10- Special Access.
Warrant 11- Four hour volumes.
Supplemental Guidelines
Guideline 12 - Peak hour delay.
Guideline 13 - Peak hour volume.
Each of the traffic signal warrants was examined with respect to the traffic projected
for the intersection of Lake Forest Roadway and 116th Street. None of the warrants
will be satisfied and a traffic signal is not recommended.
Long Range
The proposed project discussed herein, other development underway nearby, and continued
growth along the entire length of the 116th Street corridor will eventually require the
reconstruction of the roadway to urban arterial standards. In this regard, the C. P.
Morgan Company should dedicate sufficient right-of-way adjacent to its project to
enable more extensive improvements to be implemented along 116th Street.
Very truly yours,
PFLUM, KLAUSMEIER & GEHRUM Consultants
James P. Klausmeier, P.E.
Partner
JPK/jh
Attachments
- 5 -
ATTACHMENT # 1
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF TRIPS
GENERATED BY LAKE FOREST
The amount of daily traffic expected to be generated by the site is estimated as follows:
Ln (T) = 0.94 Ln (X) + 2.6
where: T = Average Daily Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Ln (T) = 0.94 Ln (158) + 2.6
T = 1570
T in = .50 T = 785
T out = .50 T = 785
The amount of morning peak hour traffic expected to be generated by the site is estimated
as follows:
T = 0.71 X + 13.0
T = 0.71 (158) + 13.0
T = 125
T in = 0.28 T = 35
T out = 0.72 T = 90
The amount of evening peak hour traffic expected to be generated by the site is estimated
as follows:
Ln (T) = 0.92 Ln (X) + 0.46
Ln (T) = 0.92 (158) + 0.46
T = 167
T in = 0.64 T = 107
T out = 0.36 T = 60
ATTACHMENT 2
IMPACT OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
LAKE FOREST
�i�
A.M. Peak Hour I� P.M. Peak Hour
< 620 ( . 540
LOS C 116th St. EXISTING TRAFFIC 116th St. LOS 0
420 ) 810
4 685 595
FUTURE TRAFFIC
LOS C II6th St. WITHOUT LAKE FOREST 116th St. LOS D
(2% ANNUAL INCREASE
FOR FIVE YEARS)
30.
465 895 f
I-- I--
co Cl)
ww
0 0
w w
Onif Y O w
a M CD Q O
FUTURE TRAFFIC -'
.j2a WITH LAKE FOREST �'
10 d-1 ^ y 2
745 ...t895X537 627
�
LOS D 25 ) 116th St. 685
75 � 116th St. 595 LOS
�— D
49049� 970 913
465�. $95)
I
I I
I I
1 ( N Q
I I ~
I I
I I
I I
I
R-50' I I
c I I
I I
LAKE FOREST + ' I
PARKWAY
I I
I I
R..50' I I
LI 3f Q
I II
/- I I
I
NORTH I 1
0 50' 100' I I
I I
N
- EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT I 1
PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT I
N
r I r
m
0
I N
ATTACHMENT 3
SCHEMATIC
INTERSECTION DESIGN
OCT 03 '88 15:12 f P.2
4.1 De
United States Soil
g610meinwtof Conservation
Aericuthme Service
925 Division Street
Noblesville IN 46060 •
October 3, 1988.
C.P. Morgan Co. Ino,
1980 East 116th Street
Carmel IN 46032
Dear Sir: •
Mark Boyce called in relation to soils in a proposed eubdivision
namely Lake Forest, In particular, he was concerned about the Westland
soils and the internal conditions as it related to soil strength and
basement construction.
According to the Soil Survey of Hamilton County this soil has a
severe limitation for soil strength and severe liMitations for
basements. The reason this is so is because this soil has a high water
table but more importantly it is gravely sand full of water. We have
done extensive investigations in this soil in Clay Township and find
that this soil runs true to form. In addition, to iescell a large
building with much weight, special precautions would have to be takee to
properly support a large structure. Because of the high water table and
low strength of the soil we recommend. that the building should be built
without a basement and even deep crawl spaces. Remember we are talking
about a very unique soil that needs special precautions . Marty soils
have a high water table but this is the only soil that is gravely and
full of water. Many people call it quick sand after they dig a couple
(eet into the soil but it is not quick sand but rather watevebearing
sand and gravel .
What can be done? In my opinion it would be better to elevate the
proposed home site and build it on a slab. Then too you could build
housing that is more spread out or connected together that helpspreads
the weight over a larger area. Looking at the soils map of the enter
site there are othersoils that do not have these special precautioae.
It seems to me that to properly threat the entire site, different types
of housing could be constructed on the site that could overcome someof
these severe soil conditions.
Respectfully,
le.1;-eee
Tom Schellenberger • -7ec-e.)
District Conservationist
TLS/jmo
cc: file
The solicsfissrssisan sssvics
is on agency al V*
Ddrellament QI AgrIciettee
. ,
-4.- .,,,•.,:... ....-`_ .- `'�-`�� SRV EY OR'S pFI, %.57,74: ! �' F!
)�� g ICS
ti 'lac. @VA ,7 r ,\--2,----..\ �, ,.nim ,,� �� _• -, ;� ����) ‘ ---()....._
� fid,' �I , ii t , A . _ i- ' .1): Z' VT _�( ' ( ii ii l� �� Q)/ �---
._ ,• - a , , 1 it 1 ,
it i Itik=i , i i C .1111-110 -/
...i . .
fib•' 'l 11 i 1� �, 7 �_ ''.I I /��y�_ �� i'�S
4 J It,; '�imEi -- ( `-
-„,,, • � 4 ice i,, C Cate
,i + �. Sutueyo4
w n. .
776-9626
Toblesville, All 46o6o September 12, 1988
TO: Schneider Engineering
P.O. Box 26068
Indianapolis, In 46226
RE: Lake Forest-Revised Primary
I have reviewed the above plans and have the following comments:
1. Need a twenty (2') feet drainage easement along the rear yards of Lots 80-85 and 110-11
2. Need to keep all lakes out of Right of Way. Should have at least fifteen (15')
feet between lake and Right of Way;
3. If existing swale is used for the offsite drainage, recommend a subsurface drain
(SSD) be installed from outlet to Cool Creek. Does swale need regraded to allow
for positive drainage;
4. Recommend offsite swale be protected with easement;
5. Is site to be annexed to City of Carmel?
If you have any questions, please contact me at 776-9626.
Sincer-y,
I.- h. 1.V
Je y lte L'ston
JLL/no En> , e- ing Technician
cc: Bucher
Powell
Hufford
SCS
CityofCarmel
Charles E. Kiphart
PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Dorothy J.Hancock
MAYOR
August 26, 1988
Mr. Mark Boyce
C.P. Morgan
1980 E. 116th St.
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Lakewood
Second Review of Plans
Dear Mr. Boyce:
The following items will need to be resolved prior to October 10, 1988 or
this item will show as tabled on the agenda for the Technical Advisory
Committee meeting of October 20, 1988. A Docket Number was released per
all requirements of the Carmel/Clay Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
being resolved prior to releasing a Plan Commission agenda for the Carmel
Plan Commission meeting.
Street name problems - Purcel Ct. , Fay Ct. , Edwards. Call
el Dave Cunningham, Dept. of Community Development
We agreed that Lots 155, 154, 153 did not have to extend into
lake per earthwork (min. filling).
7- Some of the signs presented in the sign package are not allowed
by the Carmel Sign Ordinance, and a variance will be needed;
approval by the Plan Commission of this subdivision will not
automatically approve the signs as proposed, only the Board of
Zoning Appeals can grant variances.
- Need approval (in writing) from Kent Ward and Carmel City
Engineer on drainage (revised plans).
- Need response from Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
Please highlight all changes to submitted plans. If you have questions,
feel free to call at 844-6433.
Sincerely,
4°/-4 $14—
Charles E. Kiphart
CEK/ck
40 EAST MAIN STREET CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 317/844-6433
City
of CCarmel
Charles E. Kiphart
PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Dorothy J.Hancock
MAYOR
August 26, 1988
Mr. Mark Boyce
C.P. Morgan
1980 E. 116th St.
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Lakewood
Second Review of Plans
Dear Mr. Boyce:
The following items will need to be resolved prior to October 10, 1988 or
this item will show as tabled on the agenda for the Technical Advisory
Committee meeting of October 20, 1988. A Docket Number was released per
all requirements of the Carmel/Clay Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
being resolved prior to releasing a Plan Commission agenda for the Carmel
Plan Commission meeting.
- Street name problems - Purcel Ct. , Fay Ct. , Edwards. Call
Dave Cunningham, Dept. of Community Development
- We agreed that Lots 155, 154, 153 did not have to extend into
lake per earthwork (min. filling).
- Some of the signs presented in the sign package are not allowed
by the Carmel Sign Ordinance, and a variance will be needed;
approval by the Plan Commission of this subdivision will not
automatically approve the signs as proposed, only the Board of
Zoning Appeals can grant variances.
- Need approval (in writing) from Kent Ward and Carmel City
Engineer on drainage (revised plans).
- Need response from Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
Please highlight all changes to submitted plans. If you have questions,
feel free to call at 844-6433.
Sincerely,
4i94114
Charles E. Kiphart
CEK/ck .
40 EAST MAIN STREET CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 317/844-6433
CityofCarmel
Charles E. Kiphart
PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Dorothy J.Hancock
MAYOR
August 26, 1988
Mr. Mark Boyce
C.P. Morgan
1980 E. 116th St.
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Lakewood
Second Review of Plans
Dear Mr. Boyce:
The following items will need to be resolved prior to October 10, 1988 or
this item will show as tabled on the agenda for the Technical Advisory
Committee meeting of October 20, 1988. A Docket Number was released per
all requirements of the Carmel/Clay Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
being resolved prior to releasing a Plan Commission agenda for the Carmel
Plan Commission meeting.
- Street name problems - Purcel Ct. , Fay Ct. , Edwards. Call
Dave Cunningham, Dept. of Community Development
- We agreed that Lots 155, 154, 153 did not have to extend into
lake per earthwork (min. filling).
- Some of the signs presented in the sign package are not allowed
by the Carmel Sign Ordinance, and a variance will be needed;
approval by the Plan Commission of this subdivision will not
automatically approve the signs as proposed, only the Board of
Zoning Appeals can grant variances.
- Need approval (in writing) from Kent Ward and Carmel City
Engineer on drainage (revised plans).
- Need response from Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
Please highlight all changes to submitted plans. If you have questions,
feel free to call at 844-6433.
Sincerely,
41-44$1&-
Charles E. Kiphart
CEK/ck
40 EAST MAIN STREET CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 317/844-6433
CityofCarniel
Charles E. Kiphart
PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Dorothy J. Hancock
MAYOR
August 10, 1988
Mr. Mark Boyce
C.P. Morgan Co, Inc.
1980 E. 116th St.
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Lakewood
Dear Mark:
After a review of materials submitted on the above referenced project, I
find the following items need to be addressed:
• Show sidewalk along 116th St.
Recommend brick wall along rear yards of Lots 103 through 109 and
heavy landscaping and low earth berms between road and rear yards
of lots 1 through 5.
0V Need a complete sign package showing all real estate,
landscaping, amenities, identification signs, etc. If.P
sf' Lots 3, 4, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 74, 153, and 154, etc. no kCcfo 1
encroachment into lake area.
o (Note) Not my idea of true cluster project. The project should
be allowed with a residential P.U.D. with a rezone.
o Sign off from City Engineer and City moire Chief (street names,
entrance design, hyrant location).
4/ Lake common area needs to have drainage and utility easement.
Rose Court 26' street width, not 25' .
o Covenant no fences within 20' for water area high water make an
easement.
4/7/ Indicate on plat and application a" Cluster Housing Project".
Y/ Amend plans per County Surveyor letter of July 27, 1988 r"740 ..1, /07
o Entrance cross section BB does not agree with dimensions on plat,
I hope Section BB is correct.
• Show all road improvements for 116th; existing and proposed
right-of-way and pavement width for entire length along property
boundary, not just at entrance.
All utilities and lakes need to be in drainage easements.
• Tree preservation. . .areas will need to be fenced during
construction, note that on plat.
Show drainage flow on watershed map.
Put scales on all maps.
—e- Respond to 5.3.2 page 22 Carmel Subdivision Regulations, comply.
No response to 5.3.3 page 23, Carmel Subdivision Regulations (do
have letter from County Surveyor.
40 EAST MAIN STREET CARMEL,INDIANA 46032 317/R44-6433
Page 2
8/10/88
o Need utility summary report. 5.3.4, page 23 Carmel Subdivision
Regulations.
d`` Two copies of covenants.
a/ Soil erosion control plan and statement approved by the S.C.S.
Section 5.3.9, page 24.
CV Need more landscaping especially around lakes.
L Details on landscaping and tree preservation on west property
� line.
e�1Information of types of homes, elevations, size, etc.
Parking summary.
ems• " Information meeting requirements for Section 7.1.3, page 4 of
Cluster Ordinance 33.0.
A Docket Number will be issued when all requirements of the Subdivision
regulation and Cluster Housing Ordinance have been met and reviewed by the
Carmel Department of community Development. Last submission date for Sep-
tember meeting is August 12, 1988.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Kiphart
CEK/ck
LAKE FOREST PROPOSED PRODUCT TYPES
FAMILY ORIENTED PRODUCT: 1800 - 2500 square feet.
3 and 4 bedroom homes.
Exhibit A typical elevation.
EMPTY-NESTER PRODUCT: 1300 - 1800 square feet.
3 bedroom homes.
Exhibit B typical elevation.
EXHIBIT A
.. ..,=... looN.,, ....... .......
.............. iti 1111,1111 I r
dikt ihi �.. .
�"�� 104'41 iir= '"-'IA, �+.
IIIIIjO!! � .. d111i e:_I =='3'1. ��r�
r1.uo... ..�• IIN II
uw % �'11r r� ,4u" '=.i
•
EXHIBIT B
•
•
•
�{�y r
0-
• . --�_'
k.:-.-..---::::_„:': 0- v!/ _qtr .01
'
ie-
7____
;� {',fir!�� �f� '.�` � �,�••�sl}•SiUlc�'' � _ Ny�„' .,wi°j...���.�%�� ';.:e11N3\'i''• O
,p� '@ tiff" %•o z:^:. t,-- .�_�:}.-"`^s» :` v.s ..: s✓ nuiii_ •. Ai. ,..0
y
•� ...,.•.,,:—. , � t���ii per. \i,, ►P ��
1irali 6(���' UI,y, Illllgp •.w..«n a.„„ wN .1r,..,,,,,..„..._,,,„,izztagis / �� ',' k.Y
f _��� I' `� '''a " ' ' 1iII111111UIIII111111111U111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIItIIC�� lir '
i1� j 1t■Rjf I IM1 ��! .1 f,,.$••pxfais I. i! ^1/- I!_ � hrr'/ >i.:•-. �`/ Pyr
me •.441 t ■ Iya, ,.l� •11=4j ➢➢ !1 �0__�I js-1 I��I r` /I
,174:-.1,- 2•.• ;i, ••r lit nil; �.b r1 Ir i� it ....
:r �,�,c ;_: -— --,.�.� .. .—.7- _=--- ➢ ➢➢_917 i L f�1 _ ar�
y� /.�� vt —ii
-rte _ -Y :1 �I Ii' ®�1®_I*° ,��/ ',.
J ---
-�
Elevation A
res _ 1 .57 /� - '-_ -
•
- ---
��e
// �ViS.2.- J w...'..—..ti.:.«�"'. �• *� � .. , it �•- .. d
.. '. ;''�/ ni .Y......... ��� 1 •, . . tea:; w-==� ___ ;a � .
2 111P OA A ��� _ :mo w........ "• _` , � ...v.«.�•••••=ra i�.i...�.r7 • v.�..
I�,r!,.....- ` � Li� F....0..44.4 iii•...ri ve/.y= /
��e' Arcs.' 1ii�l.f I i I ait.••) . . . .X ,)1,..;y;-vim y_ l���rx• �VlmmlwmmuulP 1 - .;4, _ =lcI' — - s, > .v.. yiii, ���uumm�nuum -i c
���� �...■1• --" i�1•iiiQ �1 f I 111 /w�il�i{ .42t,,,•-,:';':•-:'',.......--,_;,- �.� :. //� / «
:.s s ������ ter;
.7.1410e. I` •�Ip;Wirt BAR $Sid to:,..itwl!.I _me. _�: I a . `'Finn =11, • " f
111 _ .,....._ R r I .: ,
r -�... -a - `•' ,etas--.�_ - -
ea __ _— mss— - - --- --- --�_
•
Elevation B
lioore_
-0.0,.:A,:S'" 1 ,.. ..4:3___i
'� ..�,'+� a �' �....-•^/.. ;----:- 1<:.,•
• e� �`
...„•••• •-...., ........- :::':moi�'z:
i. ,._ -•
•
11j �x/ ,..„..„670.
,7•mow•:-�iwt`�.4a.ew•�w...*.i....�......... "..r..' r r�r�.••,.�.....,,„.... ., •°�' � CD
V ' /I,� ,Mi.,:v wq .1 mw�+wN «w� �i.,:• � M>.M.�..u.',•
4„6,4,-
�( •t��' iw.."'.'.. ,,,,v1-......,?..7-4-4;—.1- .. TNr. swa. '•R' vw....1 - ••
.. MW/
.................,,.•
L, �.� .. P..;.b.fi. } .C't'..1:.1.,.t•G...,: :.1..1 .,� 1 •..•:• wf.•�mlMvo.....f:M'
Ie My i��� ■ !:..� x.: •a +nrWr:4'v.r. •. , . . .. . .R. •.�
' I _ �N� .�ay t ; lull fll lutoi.1
■1la�t 1 z
•,t.��1^.,.._4,.........�� �� i�j{�I I ie: Ills.._. /��� a >� tl I 1 11�1l1 sv�•r
74.
t � _ ! f w= ��,I CCI
1;\
Elevation C
For illustration purposes only,
actual construction may vary. Chadwick
