AGENDA DOCUMENTS
AGENDA DOCUMENTS
fiB1
CITRUS GLEN
MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
On Tuesday March 20, 1990, the City Commission accepted the
recommendation from the Technical Review Board that the request
to increase the lot sizes along Citrus Avenue does not constitute
a substantial change. The Commission did not accept the
recommendation of the Technical Review Board that the request to
reduce front and rear setbacks in other areas of the Citrus Trail
Plat is a substantial change. Therefore, the Commission is
forwarding the entire application to the Planning and Zoning
Board for final consideration. Copies of staff comments are
enclosed. If it is the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
to approve this request, it is recommended that this request be
approved subject to staff comments, with the exception of those
comments that are in conflict with the approval.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO NO. 90-056
(Agenda Memorandum)
(for March 20, 1989 City Commission Meeting)
TO: J. Scott Miller, City Manager
THRU: Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Director Tc,
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden, Assistant City Planner
DATE: March 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Citrus Glen P.U.D. (Citrus Trail plat)
Master Plan Modification (setbacks and lot size)
File No. 432
Delfin Menendez, agent for Citrus Glen Limited Partnership, has
requested a modification to the previously approved master plan
for the Citrus Glen P.U.D., as outlined in the attached
correspondence in Exhibit "A". Exhibit "B" outlines a revised
request that supersedes Exhibit "A". The modification requested
is desired to allow more marketable, larger, zero lot line homes
to be built on 70 of the 103 lots within the Citrus Trail plat
(those lots shaded on the master plan in Exhibit "C"). Larger
homes cannot be accommodated on the 55 foot by 102.5 foot platted
lots which have approved setbacks of 20 feet in the front, 15
feet in the rear and 15 feet on the non-zero lot line side.
The 70 lots where larger homes are desired have frontage on
either a 60 foot right-of-way (Citrus Avenue) or a 34 foot
right-of-way (Citrus Trail, Orange Drive or Temple Avenue).
Eight of the 70 lots have frontage on a 60 foot right-of-way
(Citrus Avenue) and 62 of the 70 lots have frontage on a 34 foot
right-of-way. The applicant is requesting approval of the
following changes for the two "frontage types": (Illustrations
of the applicant's request are provided in Exhibit "D".)
1) For the 62 lots with frontage on a 34 foot right-of-way
(Citrus Trail, Orange Drive, Temple Avenue)-
Reduce the rear setback from 15 feet to 12 feet and reduce
the front setback from 20 feet to 18 feet. The previously
approved sidewalks within the right-of-way would remain and
would run along the front property line of these lots. (See
diagram 1.b. in Exhibit "D".)
2) For the 8 lots with frontage on Citrus Avenue (a 60 foot
right-of-way)-
Replat citrus Avenue reducing it from a 60 foot right-of-way
to a 50 foot right-of-way. The 10 feet gained would be
added to the lots on each side of the right-of-way to in-
crease their depth by 5 feet. The previously approved side-
walk and bike path would remain, but move 5 feet within the
reduced right-of-way. (See diagram loc. in Exhibit "D".)
The procedure for approving master plan modifications in planned
unit developments is twofold. First, the City Commission must
make a determination as to whether or not the changes requested
are substantial in nature. A determination of substantial change
on the part of the City Commission, which has sole discretion in
this matter, would require a new application for PUD. On the
other hand, a determination of no substantial change allows the
forwarding of the request to the Planning and Zoning Board. This
procedure appears in Appendix B, Section 12 of the Code of
Ordinances.
TO: J. Scott Miller
Planning Dept. Memorandum No. 90-056,. Page 2
Mar. 12, 1990
With respect to the change requested by Mr. Menendez, the
Technical Review Board (TRB) met on March 6, 1990, to review the
plans and documents submitted and they are recommending that the
City Commission make a finding of substantial change for the
request to modify the front and rear setbacks for those lots with
frontage on a 34 foot right-of-way and that the applicant be
required to submit a new application for PUD. However, with
respect to the request to reduce the right-of-way width of Citrus
Avenue in order to increase the lot depth of those lots which
front on Citrus Avenue, the Technical Review Board recommends
that the City Commission make a finding of no substantial change.
It was the consensus of the Technical Review Board that the
request to modify front and rear setbacks substantially alters
the nature of the original master plan approval and creates the
following problems:
1. The setbacks approved at the time of master plan
approval of this project, 20 feet in the front, 15 feet
in the rear and 15 feet on the non-zero lot line side
is the minimum standard for building setbacks (excludes
screened enclosures, porches and pools) for zero lot
line homes for PUDs in the City. A reduction in
building setbacks for this PUD would be a deviation
from City standards and would set a precedent for
future PUD master plans.
2. The Zoning Code requires 2 parking spaces for every
single family unit. Garages have been credited toward
providing 1 of the parking spaces; driveways provide
the other parking space as long as they meet the
minimum dimension requirements for parking spaces, 9
feet by 18 feet. With a front setback of only 18 feet,
a vehicle parked in a driveway more than likely would
overhang into the sidewalk that runs along the front
property line unless the vehicle pulls up as close as
possible to the building. This is usually not
practical since room is desired to move around the
vehicle. Sidewalks on one side of the local streets,
the side of the street as the affected lots, were
previously approved, and provide the only pedestrian
system for lots on the local streets. Therefore,
eliminating the sidewalk is not a solution to the
potential overhang problem since they are required
pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations (unless other
adequate pedestrian paths are provided).
3. Reducing the rear building setback to 12 feet would
result in a 24 foot building separation between units
that back up to one another in the rear. Distance
between buildings is always a concern to City fire-
fighters since small building separations encourage
spread of fire and prohibit access by certain fire
apparatuses, thereby reducing response time and
increasing property damage.
4. For those lots which back up to the collector road, the
main road through the PUD, approval of the reduced rear
building setback would allow units to be constructed 12
feet from the collector road right-of-way.
5. Several units are under construction having the
previously approved building setbacks. Although
tastefully staggered, building setbacks add interest to
the layout and design of a project, haphazard stagger-
ing does not. A change in the front building setback
J. Scott Miller
Planning Dept. Memorandum No. 90-056, Page 2
Mar. 12, 1990
at this point could potentially lend disorder to the
layout of units yet to be constructed.
6. There is a 12 foot drainage and utility easement not
shown on the master plan that exists within the front
12 feet of the affected lots. As discussed in detail
in the Utility Department memorandum in Exhibit "D", a
reduced front setback may result in having to relocate
water meters and could make servicing utility lines
with large equipment within this 12 foot easement
precarious.
7. There are additional staff comments in Exhibit "E",
which relate to the substantial nature of this request.
If the City Commission forwards and the Planning and Zoning Board
approves this request, in whole or in part, approval should be
subject to the attached staff comments from the Building
Department in Exhibit "E".
'.--" , l ~
~ C~u\A- j. ~ .
TAMBRI J. HEYDEN.' ~
TJH:frb
Encs
A:PM90-056
~'
EXHIBIT "A"
...........
...........
..........
DESIGN GROUP
ARCHITECTS · ENGINEERS · PLANNERS
630 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-5835 4071659-5701
February 26, 1990
Mr. Timothy Cannon
Acting Planning Director
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
Re: CITRUS GLEN P.U.D.
PROPOSED MASTER MODIFICATION TO CITRUS TRAIL SECTION
Dear Mr. Cannon:
At the request of Felix Granados Jr., Citrus Glen Limited Partnership,
we are submitting for the consideration of the City of Boynton Beach,
a modification to the Citrus Trail Plat Master Plan. (P.U.D. South Side).
The objective of this request is to be able to build larger units on the
102.5 feet depth lots of Citrus Trail. The market demand for these larger
units has been bigger than expected and for such reason we are offering
different alternates to handle the situation.
As records show, the original Citrus Glen P.U.D. was approved with
24 feet roadways and without sidewalks. At the request of the Developers
we asked a Master Plan Modification (January 15, 1988) and later approved
an increase in the roadways width and build sidewalks in one side. Lots
were increased from 1001 to 102.51 or 107.51.
In order to accommodate these deeper units in the 102.51 lots (shaded
in the Master Plan) we are offering two alternates for those abutting
the 34' roadways and another two for those abutting Citrus Avenue (601 R/W),
as follows:
341 Roadways: Citrus Trail, Orange Drive and Temple Avenue.
ALTERNATE 1.- Reduce to 15 feet the front setback. This will
reduce the distance from the front wall to the edge of the road from
30 feet to 25 feet. Although the Developers are willing to build the
sidewalk this creates a conflict with pedestrian circulation if cars
are parked in the driveway.
ALTERNATE 2.- Increase the lots size to 107.51 feet depth, through a
replatting process, keeping the front setback in 20 feet, reducing roadway
easement to 29 feet and eliminating the sidewalk.
Alternate 1 is preferred to avoid the replatting process.
~VA
~
0'
A Subsidiary of L. ROBERT KIMBALL & ASSOCIATES
. 60 I Road:
Citrus Avenue
ALTERNATE 1.- Reduce to 15 feet the front setback and keep the sidewalk
and bikepath where planned or move both 5 feet inside the right-of-way or
move only the sidewalk and eliminate the bikepath. It shall be noticed
that this road does no longer need such right-of-way because it dead ends
at the boundary with Citrus Park.
ALTERNATE 2.- Increase the lots size to 107.5 feet depth, througb a
replatting process, keeping the front setbacks to 20 feet, reducing the
right-of-way to 50 feet, moving the sidewalk and bikepath within the reduced
right-of-way.
As in the 34 feet roadways we prefer any of the solutions of Alternate 1,
to avoid the replatting process.
If you have any questions or you need further clarification about this
Submission, please contact us to respond.
Sincerely,
M.S.M. DESIGN GROUP
()
Delf n F. Menendez
Senlor Architect
cc: Felix Granados Jr.
DFM/bd
t:,.VJ
~
o
A Subsidiary of L. ROBERT KIMBALL & ASSOCIATES
EXHIBIT "B"
...........
...........
..........
DESIGN GROUP
ARCHITECTS · ENGINEERS · PLANNERS
630 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-5835 407/659-5701
March 6, 1990
Mr. Timothy Cannon
Acting Planning Director
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
Re: CITRUS GLEN P.U.D.
PROPOSED MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION TO CITRUS TRAIL SECTION
Dear Mr. Cannon:
At the Technical Review Board Meeting of March 6, 1990, about the
proposed master plan modification for the project of reference,
described in our letter for Submission, dated February 26, 1990, it
was agreed by the Developer's Representative and us as the most
acceptable solutions for the objective of this request, the following
alternates:
For the 34 feet roadways, a modified Alternate 1, as shown in the
enclosed drawing. In it we reduced the front setback to 18 feet min.
and the rear setback to 12 feet min.. This alternate was accepted as
the most viable after a general consensus among the TRB Members, the
Developers Representative and us, was reached. This alternate does
not interfere with the sidewalk and drainage system, and minimize
the impact in the existing approved setbacks, for the rest of the
development.
For Citrus Avenue (60 feet R/W), Alternate 2 was agreed on.
Therefore, we respectfully request to include this letter in your
package to the City Commission for their review and resolution of
this petition.
Sincerely,
M.~DESIGN ~UP
D~ndez
Senior Architect
cc: Felix Granados Jr.
DFM/bd
~VA
~
0'
A Subsidiary of L. ROBERT KIMBALL & ASSOCIATES
EXHIBIT "e"
Ii i....i.....II.fI.'" "'IIIU"'I"II.ffllll",,,,.I ,"nl..,...,n'I'" If" ,...1 f """'11"""'1' IIIf II.n...IIII.'II.....tI......,tI'......,..........".....I.., .1I1...........tI............N..........U....,...................".....1
I il !I ~CJI;i I
I '~I ~!.'iI'
~. J; ;I!'!; ~
I J II III!I.. ;
I'a ',1ft n
i II;~' I
! =-1I:r.
I ~ i:sU
I I !IJ~~
i i ~~
I ! 1.1.'
, il,. ~I
I ~ B~~.I',
,.
~.
-..=-
"10. .
.J.
([)i
P' ~
.. I"
.. I I is:
~ I I
I I ~~
. . I
0 ~CJ)
..... i~ o -t .
"0.
~h; I ;~= ~m
. ;: .. ::0 '
.~= ..... p ..
! ..0.. .
. . ...... .. ~ ~c
.. .. .... -..
.2 CI!! 5~
is C;~W: 0
2 ..0 I"
.. .c:2 .. =m .
~i~ .. 0
0 .-z" .. "r
"'~n !
~.=! :; i~~ ~O 0
" i 0
'"a .. .20 :"'0
is ".2 ; .s:
' I z ==-
I: . =m ..
!II ..00 !'- ;~ g
....c ~
-~! 00..
..... I
00"
I ==1 .
~. 0 f "'0
.. ~
0 :
..
..
Ii"i Ie ! z ..
~ IlmD 1
'"Il
- t
J~! ,~
i i i 5 e
il !! ili! III! ~J .ii:
t= .~ lil= I~I~ 5! !!l!
, 1- 1- II ....
I ! '!i Iii I! !!!i
I I iIi 'ii ,I~!
I I ..il ~-! i;!!!i
I Ii; ill iii=
I I I S 'i~ :;;
! i a I
! ! -
I .- W_.
I i! iii ;
. i U~ !I
ill
~
i
:II~! 111':111 i~;I;q !
:"1: If I~inlj: ::;.:11
i.. I !!-' ~ilS I 5
~i i= izi :i~i -
~i ,I ii~ Ili-
I ;o~ BI
. ! ,I
I ; -.....~._:-... ,..e;
J ! hil.;,i~i;,il .ii.
I!! !I!I~~~~!I !I~~.
~ --- I
J~~ ~
'-'- ~mE
u !I!l!l~"
!. II!!!'
i! m. i i
h ,....~,.I
. ~nl
i !I!l!l!l
1..=__1:1 ."I!
:ziti:ziicil 1I;r I
,
.
i
~fI1t 1111;-1
CD .--.. ii c=: I
..., ~" ...'
o ~I! ...~
.... I......
____~: . .mH' '2-%4./' ___ _ll:!~!~~...
~
J~./;~
. ,,_Ii. :~.
- ':."
.r
~:
~
--
I
r
"'"
;';'Y
I~i Ii Ii i
hi ;1 c~ I
!. 'Iii i
.r -I!!
- ,.
J · II
i I I
5
I
l
III
I" ~_.--:-~_._--.. :;-.:r..;;..,.:: ':--t.
prcJect't."";, nu~~~,. ..."!i,.. -j ''''';;'-''':..r' .
'.I- . IY'OIf _a-. ~ ~"'.-. .'
~~.~'..~ ~"jtr'",,~.:~. ~. . .~~~~.~~..~~~~::.
. .~ .~~:~.. .T(.'....~'>.::.,~.. '!:'.~~.~: ..}-d.7......!)~-~c.~.:""-....
. '~"';~,..,." .,~I . -.._.1.... . -'W -- .....' !If_I ".r:--." ~
EXHIBIT liD"
PROPOSED NEW UNIT IN TYPICAL LOT
11'-0' 11'.0.
1 1 I
l ~
.. -
i :- :-
I
i
.. ,
;"
..
o
11'-0'
o M.1t
IS'-O'
IIIN
.....AO.
....~__ n.......c--.,..,
....-
~-#l""~c.....,.,
~
tr,l;".i -
, I'
I' I
i ~l
: I
I I
I .
jt~t'
I
it
;.
.1
,i
0'
..
I
I ZI
I "I
--- - .~!__..___.L.. r
o . i
.. . ~
Lr---- . --
J . I
?
;.
---------------_!~~~~~~~~~
PROPOSED LOT LINE
~:
i
010
'C
;'0
l
~
..
.
.
?
;.
..
I
1--
I
I
010
.. c
"0
....
I
l
I
I
-l- ---- ..
* CITRUS TRAIL, ORANGE DRIVE, AND TEMPLE AVE. LOTS (34' ROADWAYS)
ALTERNATE 1
IIEIlUC( FlOIT $Eruct. tEA"1I& UI
lll"llUlll. TIlE SIDOIlU.
.,
,i
AL TERNA TE 2
IlEPLAT. 11C1lU5111& lOT sin AIIJ
El'"IIUlTl. TIt: SIDUN.t.
~!!'QPO_S_ED~!- TE~~~ JES l.Q!N.9Rq~ELUNII. SIZE _ _. .. _
(5u~~D sy DIA0~AM lib])
SCALE: 1/'. : t'-O.
Ilttl
......
ti.
"Ii
..'
.....
-~: - . ~-.~
I : i ~
.-_1
: ........~.. .....1.
"'-- ~,
..
;.
oi
:
J
iI
r
1......
...
(
-
.",~-'................,
"
. "2
.-
..r
,
..
j ~--_\
i
'It
is
~
,
L--
-* crrRUS TRAIL ORANGE DRIVE AND
,JEMA.E AVEt LOTS (34' ROADWAYS)
* RECOMMENDED. ALTERNATE
(6u..Pce.s~ DIAGl2.AN @)
l1.b..J
s..........
............
.........P-
DESIGN GROUP
_,,~!III:.1"'. --.; "'... -.....~1:[.U.:I~...:.1 ~.. - '".::2~U_
l108iJUIHc-"IHl'1.oMA' ...,'\I..A.I..,..'....'IOlt'llAUIt'JI.Il~ ..,/. '1,;fJl
PROPOSED NEW UNIT IN TYPICAL LOT
....0.
"'-0.
o
, .
:-i
~.
..-
~.
'1' "~. :..:....'J".,.....,: "': 11'
. COV,"Pb ~H I
....". ",""0011, " I _ i
, '.1 :-J_l".... 't-;'~':"::. ~ I
'\" . . I
;I~ ~~~;F~Lii',r ; ~.......,~"'.,,'-'TIt'
:1 :.~:.~ I '," ('VI"" ODD; .
'.. It 'Jl ~ ~
. ~, :11,11i 1'1 /. .
:. ' jl<i'(ii . "
!"'\:"'liI/"::' ~ .
'. ' . ,I' ,. [ ,. ,
" ,j I I,! .-..oll!.'""'''''
,....tj.'"i' -.' \ ....~f-;
~ ~~: f}~F(; ~ '~;..."t ~ ,.' .
I: ,+-1 1. Il.-..::-*-,,:l" V
1 -I..;.J.j~ ~ iJy"'l
:, ~i~~n:in":~I'll ,
J l l 1 r.)' I! .
1f - . , I IIfllAOOO1!'
" IJ .1 " .' '. _ ,
. ,
to --.-1' L~~.~ ~Lr"
~S :!;:~t;..
M" ,.("" ,
',.,,11"',..........-<1:"]1.1 I
'1 . ., .' " .,.' i
,.1 ,I I eov''''D_1
. ......n:. .'I:lIIOO.. ,
I .......,..... ..
:~I::l!~{{~Jr~~:...1'l:.. . .
\ "1!~ti:lIli";J. ,I: I
! Ii 1~'~ml11r;.. ~' ,.,. 1~~"1 ~~ " ,
~.~.I'.~).i.:!ljl~'I...~.~~d.;"........ ~J11. fr' t tr
~~ I_oil' ~-., \! -".f> : tlft1 ' . r
,'~jiIJt; ,," i. ~;:~_~ "';~:' i . ~
:,' .]l~";J ~ l::=Jl:~,,' , :1" .1
r.1~ ITIlf., 'm7 I "V': ~~ I
: l[ll;lInf~~! '-0' ,f-II
,- - · I' , - I I
'~~'ll~,_~~~ ' ..- .~' II. . ~.'
., I J~.l'";' ft
. Li,;;. ,t..I;... -
t5'-0-
II,N
'I :
; , .S' I
OAUD' I, I I
~..", .=',~~!' I : I
J I ,
=~~~--~\i~j~y,
0..,-
....",..... cn.-l...."
,. L,
o
" ,
.
,
io
1S'-0.
II'N
~1
;"
.
------t--
Y I
io
_ _ _ _ _ _ !R,!_,!,!! .!:.O! !;"!!_
'f
;.,
-_._-~.;...~----
PROPono LOT LIIlE
I.
, , .E. _IOE.ALII:
LO.CATIO.!.3__
~
io
I
Z ~\
. ~
I
. . ------,
I
o
"
~l
00
.1....
.0
or
I
l
___.L
00
.' c
.0
""
,
o
.
,
o
.
I
-f-
i
I
.,
0,
~t
Zt
~
io
4ciTRUS AVE. lOTS -C8cr R/vI) - - -
,~
;
~;
· .r. .1It! PAT.
LOCA TIO.
-r
J
~4
.,11 r PAT.
Al TErmATE ,
:t"'t~,~:m ~'~",:W,tl~:'~~ :~~(mr.r.N~I'I'" m,
f*' ALnRNAn t
- , m, S'.WIlI - ........ IUCf ".,..-.., .. . m'
'1IllI1CII lII'lAn,.
/l.eJ
II'
tJl'" 111-""171 """ rir'fWVtng
'" t.hn pr'bPfOl't.v 01 the
..rohlt.,nt.:t ,,"" mAW' Mal
h" u,.fIIld or 8't.fJred ft'I
whol.. Of" In P"f"t. w,t.h.
out tht"'" e_"l'Tlntll ~rt.
t.." f)or"".fIIIlun
drf'lYlln by
ct,ecll:ed by'
rPv,QtonA
Z
Q<e:
.1-0
C <(-
.U~
::) _0
. u.....
D. cu.
ZO:i
w~o
..J....<e:
,"::;;: I&J
""'~ID
(I) I- Z
::)enO
a:~1-
....~~
--0
O~ID
P
U
OJ
5'
L
Q
II.
i:
III
a:
LU
z
,.. c
a: 0
c ii:
II. 0
fila:~
,..111 .
illl%
:ig~
zCw
wZ lD
a:o
IIICI~
is'
!::wo
UlLD.
L
o
~
...........
....,......
.,......,..
DESIGN GROUP
.f"'ehl,,-==~. . .'Vt'-.....
pi....,.......
Q...,
I ~
-q-~
~
\,;
I;
,- ~I
1 2
...
87014.8
EXHIBIT "E"
STAFF COMMENTS
CITRUS GLEN
MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
Building Department:
Engineering Department:
Utilities Department:
Planning Department:
See attached memo
See attached memo
See attached memo
See attached memo
LC'CATION MAr
CITRUS GLEN & CITRUS PARK
PALM BEACH COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL up.
, ,
;,
LA WRENCE LAKE
.;~~~i1rJ;->~ LA WRENCE ' I' ' u r:'Ks~3J1l,1
% t>.!J~~1 ~ ~ GROVE 01, ;_.;~J
_ ~ :'''I( -. ~ \I/....l,.., c"C" "'".. , "c'. i
~/.~~ ~ . (' ] ~ ~~iL~~'~
~/1'9/B~ ~. ~~~~.~-~~ d~
~ ~ { "~ ~ l,-( ~\y ~ ..f:.[V ~~ \B E:!
I ~ ........ ),.~,;).) ~ ~ ~~ ~ >-VI rl Imtl
v I) I. ..n -_ w ~ I
J I' . ....Yj"" '"", T 1 : = ( " \ 1 ~ 1
DATE','-.J! J J d ~:'~~~, ~:;:;{I I~"l, ''1J~
..... 'W.AI-ftL~- - J~l~-.A; . ~. ..-.. ~ - -. .. - .-
k~.~~!6 i~_? " -~ \~, ~
I lr'~ ~
5 7/85 PI:(l!'~i N '~I
if /7 J. 8 5 _ LJ.J I ~ ' ~; !~~
',' , ~ ~I ,Y"I
6/1 8/85 i: ~ ~ ~) 'F 12 ~ "M.'. -~~ ' .T'
.! ! .~ ~ ~ " 'r~ ~ " ~~ ~ "..: ~,
. ., 'l~ _
1 / 2 1/86 : !: :1I":::::1!IMEiNttn~R~ '
: 1::... ::: .a~~lHH:.~Jl:!l
.... .. 1:I~~."".Irn~".
() J_.'.) I Q ~ ~ : H:::::::;:::::lm:;::!::;::::;;;mm::m111111 &
:~l;!!:~::~"~____~. - , ..~......_ L:__~W_-__I- __
J: ....' __ ____ ____
,$/3/86 ' ' ~\,t~~
t~~~:::'~-"'(RIGHTS-OF-WAY ! I~ DI;~~
....." ~.... A..... --'1_- I 1 )~ \
... · ~ L.JI L ,'"'..,. 1"'111:.- _ L .1:1". M~ ..,_
rA~/n
iI -, '... ft T._ ""
Illlnlno
t; r5A n ::-d,. .,
I. " , · "" ~ - - "
,__I 1'-17"'"
t --
~, ~ ~
III I I
.,
. _1-
..-J L ~
! SI ~ 0
I,r -,
1/8
I
1/4
'daJQcIAII.
..:.-~"AK. S'.
-
~1
~~
~L~
.
MILES ~
. P~l
I: 2 f:j~/ 1 $/ f 6 '-
, ,- - '. --.4 ~r - I I - T I
rJ ' rl-1Ii 7. t!9B T "
D I ~ T~ -."" ~~'--II !J;
j ..,.~ 'A'? r-:-----tJ I I' I 0
· ,:"..J"" . ~ T I !', I
~ T I II
. . - --60YNn~---. -.--n__._.T. ----J-----
--- -.. - - -.. - CANA6<t__..
I I r ::,LLJ r I, .- i'*' '- '\ ill /./ '
W~Tfi~ CLt~~,~= ~~ ...-
---
.1: .., ;'.. - -..
.It 1111 I I III
'0 400. 800
1600 FE~T -
al ,.... :.... .DED'1'.IO/S-
I I I T I I I I 1 I..
.. ..
.-