HomeMy WebLinkAboutA021 - Council Action Form dated August 11, 1992 ITEM #:
DATE: 08/1 /92
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT:
Resolution Approving an Amended Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan
for Westwood Village, Which is Generally Located West of Marshall Avenue,
North of Lincoln Way, East of McDonald Drive and South of Hickory Drive.
ACTION FORM SUMMARY: This is a request to approve a PUD Plan Amendment
for Westwood village.
The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval of this
request.
The applicant has received approval to construct the PUD. This
amendment is an attempt to improve upon the plan that has already
received approval by the City. The City Council needs to decide
whether this Plan amendment of 1992 is preferable to the Plan that was
approved in 1975 and amended in 1980 and 1986.
BACKGROUND:
The developer is requesting approval of an amended Planned Unit Develop-
ment (PUD) Plan for Westwood Village to allow the construction of 32 new
apartment units and one single-family dwelling as part of a 79 unit PUD.
At the present time, there are 34 dwelling units complete on this site,
which include three (3) apartment buildings and one (1) single-family
residence. Also there are 12 additional dwelling units nearing completion
in the northeast corner of the site. These units are located in two (2)
duplex structures and two (2) four-unit apartment buildings.
The original PUD Plan for Westwood Village was approved in March of
1975. That plan provided for a housing development that included 84
dwelling units. The unit types were a combination of apartments, town-
houses, and single-family detached residences. In addition, a recreation
center was proposed that included a covered pool, sauna, social lounge,
picnic area, wading pool, and tennis courts.
Since 1975, the developer has made several revisions to the original PUD,
although the approval process was not completed for all of the revisions.
The following changes to this original PUD have been approved: In July
and August of 1980, the City Council approved two revisions to the "1975"
Westwood Village PUD Plan to allow the construction of a swimming pool
and solar clubhouse, and in November of 1986, the northwest corner of the
PUD was amended to allow a change in the type and location of eight
units. The PUD Plan that is in effect for this property is the 111975" plan
as amended in 1980 and 1986.
i
2
As part of the 1986 amendment to the PUD, the developer signed a cove-
nant for the removal of buildings, which required that the old apartments
on the site be removed by October 30, 1991. (These apartments have
been removed from the site, although a small part of the building remains
as a mechanical room for the pool.) The developer will be removing the
remainder of this structure by October 1, 1992 as it is no longer needed.
On December 17, 1991, the City Council approved an amendment to the
PUD plan to allow construction of a 15-unit four-story apartment building
with an attached pool; two, six-unit, three-story apartment buildings;
one, four-unit, two-story apartment building and three studio apartments.
This approval was subsequently vetoed on December 30, 1991 and the veto
was upheld on January 28, 1992. Subsequently the developer submitted
another amendment to the PUD which was heard by the Planning and
Zoning Commission on May 20, 1992. That amendment was withdrawn by
the developer on May 29, 1992.
The present request involves the construction of two, three-story
apartment buildings and one two-story apartment building. All of the top
floors of these apartment buildings include loft rooms under a shed roof
which constitutes a half story under zoning. One new studio apartment is
planned for the existing 15-unit apartment building in the southwest
corner of the site, and a single-family dwelling is planned for the west
end of Lot 2.
ANALYSIS:
Land Use Policy Plan. The existing Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) desig-
nates the Westwood Village site as suitable for low-density residential
development, which ranges between 1 to 9 units per acre. This proposal
contains 10.36 units per acre, which is a decrease from 10.7 units per
acre on the proposed PUD Plan. Although the density is higher than what
the LUPP suggests, it is consistent with the current zoning of the site
which is a combination of R-2 (12.4 units per acre) and R1-10 (4.3 units
per acre) .
Zoning History. In 1965, when the zoning designations changed for the
City, this property was zoned a combination of R-2 and R-1. These two
districts were both low-density residential zones. The R-2 district allowed
duplex units and the R-1 district was exclusively a single-family district.
In March of 1975, the original PUD plan was approved by resolution for
this site, and a density of 84 dwelling units was allowed. In 1980, the
R-1 zoning designation of this site was changed to R1-10 in compliance
with the new designation in the code. The rest of the site remained R-2.
In December of 1986, a PUD overlay on the zoning map was approved by
ordinance for this property. The zoning designations then became at that
time R-2 PUD and R1-10 PUD.
3
Utilities.
Water:
Existing
- A 12-inch water main in Marshall Avenue, which extends
north along the east edge of the developer's property.
- A 14-inch water main on the south side of Lincoln Way.
- A 6-inch water main in Hickory Drive.
Proposed
- A 6-inch water main will be looped through the site from
the 12-inch water main in Marshall Avenue to the 6-inch
water main in Hickory Drive. Water service to all the new
structures will come off of the new 6-inch water main,
which will be looped through the site.
This 6-inch main will be a public water main with fire
hydrants located on it, and it will need to be in public
utility easement. The water capacity and pressure in the
area are adequate to meet the needs of the development.
Sanitary Sewer
Existing
- An 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Story Street which turns
north along the east property line of the PUD.
- An 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Hickory Drive.
- An 8-inch sanitary sewer main in the north side of Lincoln
Way.
Proposed
No additional sanitary sewer mains are planned. The
existing mains are adequate to serve the site.
Storm Sewer
Existing
No storm sewer abuts this property except along Hickory
Drive. There is an open ditch along the north side of
Lincoln Way, which drains storm water along the south side
of the property.
Proposed
A detailed storm water management plan, dated November
18, 1991, had been prepared previously for the site by the
developer's engineers, and this plan was approved by the
Municipal Engineer for the completion of this PUD. This
4 ,
previous plan has been reviewed by the developer's engi-
neer in light of the changes to the buildings, drives and
parking areas on the site, and they believe the overall
drainage areas and runoff coefficients have not changed
significantly enough to warrant a revision to the November
18, 1991 plan. The Municipal Engineer has reviewed the
conclusions of the developer's engineer, and he believes the
November 18, 1991 plan will take care of the storm water
from this site.
Recently, a property owner near the Westwood Village
project has registered a complaint that the storm water
management facilities, that are being installed as part of the
construction of a 12 unit townhouse component of the PUD,
is not working.
This is evidenced by siltation and erosion that is occurring
on the downstream receiving property, namely the Edwards
School.
City staff has examined the site and have seen that the
siltation and erosion do exist. The explanation for this
damage can be summarized as follows:
1. The total construction of all the storm water manage-
ment facilities has not been completed.
a) Final excavation of the retention basin is yet to
be completed.
b) The control device on the outlet orifice of the
detention basin has yet to be installed.
In addition, the construction contractor has agreed to
repair any damage that has occurred to the Edwards school
property.
The staff is still convinced that the storm water management
plan is acceptable and meets City standards.
Electric:
There is adequate capacity to serve this site, and the electric
utility has reviewed the methods for serving the site and has
approved this plan.
Streets and Vehicular and Pedestrian Access. The developer has submit-
ted a traffic impact report, which is an update to the previous traffic
impact report, dated December 11, 1991. There are the same number of
driveway accesses on Marshall Avenue as the previous December 1991 plan
and the number of units has decreased by one. Thus the basic conclu-
sions remains the same.
s
5
apartment buildin s in
There are two access points for the proposed new
r r r �
the PUD. A new driveway will be constructed off of Marshall Avenue in
approximately the same location as a driveway shown on the 111975" PUD
Plan. This driveway will provide primary access for Buildings A and B.
Building C can be accessed by either the new driveway on Marshall Ave-
nue or the existing driveway at the end of Marshall Avenue. The drive-
way at the end of Marshall Avenue will also be a means of egress for
Building A, since the drive aisle in front of Building A is one way, and
thus directs traffic in at the south end of Marshall Avenue and out at the
north end of Marshall Avenue. This one-way drive aisle has the added
benefit of forcing some traffic entering the site away from the interaction
of Story and Marshall Avenue.
The difference between this plan amendment and the 111975" plan as amend-
ed in 1986, is that the 111975" plan has three driveways off of Marshal
Avenue. This plan eliminates one driveway on Marshall Avenue at the end
of Story Street. The elimination of this driveway will prevent unsafe
traffic movements by eliminating what appears to be a four way intersec-
tion at the end of Story Street and Marshall Avenue. The existing drive-
way at the end of Marshall Avenue has also been offset so it does not
appear to be the third leg of a T-intersection, which will eliminate confu-
sion on the part of the motorist.
The results of the 1991 traffic evaluation and the updated traffic impact
report for this amendment to the PUD, convincingly shows that this pro-
posed project will not negatively affect traffic operations and safety in the
immediate vicinity and in the surrounding area.
The results of the traffic evaluations conclude that:
1. That the impact on Marshall Avenue is not expected to result in any
adverse impact.
2. The Level of Service at Marshall Avenue and Lincoln Way will continue
to operate at Level of Service B.
3. No adverse impact concerning Edwards School is expected. Peak
traffic for non-student residents does not coincide with school hours,
and student residents use Cy-Ride or use bicycles to approach the
campus from this site. Therefore very little, if any new traffic is
expected to pass-by the school during the time when the major traffic
activity takes place around the school.
4. The proposed driveway on Marshall Avenue will not encourage
through traffic since the traffic volumes on Lincoln Way create a
preferred right turn movement at the Marshall Avenue traffic light.
The possibility of using the Marshall Avenue driveway as a "short
cut" will not be visible to the motorist because of the location of the
Litzel Lumber buildings, the fact that the driveway turns 901, and
the fact that the drive is obscured by a fence and trees and plant
materials.
(See the updated traffic impact report and the original December 11,
1991 report, which are attached.)
6
Parking will be removed from the west side of Marshall Avenue to improve
sight distance from the Marshall Avenue driveway and to facilitate traffic
flow on Marshall Avenue.
The existing driveway on Lincoln Way will provide a second means of
access for the proposed new buildings. This driveway is a right turn in
and right turn out only access since there is a median in Lincoln Way. An
internal driveway connects the access on Lincoln Way with the Marshall
Avenue access. This internal driveway will be used by traffic exiting to
the east from Building "B" and from the existing 15 unit apartment build-
ing in the southwest corner of the site.
Fire lanes have been designated on the PUD plan.
Pedestrian access to the site will not change by the plan amendment. A
system of walkways was defined for the Westwood Village Subdivision, and
no changes are contemplated by this plan amendment.
Parking. The site plan indicates that there will be a total of 191 parking
spaces for 79 dwelling units in the PUD. The on-site parking is a combi-
nation of surface parking, and garage and carport parking. The parking
is distributed throughout the site as follows:
Lot 1 Existing Single-Family Dwelling 2 Garage Spaces
3 Surface Spaces (Not
Counted)
Lot 2 Proposed Single-Family Dwelling None Shown (Minimum of Two
Spaces Required)
Lot 3 8 Existing Apartments 6 Garage Spaces
9 Surface Spaces
Lot 4 25 Existing Apartments 10 Garages
1 Proposed Studio 5 Carport Spaces
34 Surface Spaces
Lot 5 Northeast Corner of PUD 10 Garages
8 Apartments, 4 Duplex Units 12 Surface Spaces
Building A, 12 Apartments 16 Garages
27 Surface Spaces
Building B, 15 Apartments 13 Surface Spaces
28 Surface Spaces
Lot 6 Building C, 4 Apartments 19 Surface Spaces
191 Parking Spaces
The minimum number of parking spaces required, based upon apartment
unit size, is as follows:
7
Unit Type No. of Spaces
Single-Family Dwelling (2) 4
Apartments - 1 Bedroom (14) 21
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms or More (63) 126
151
In analyzing the site, based upon the number of bedrooms in comparison to
parking spaces, the following types of units are listed below:
Total Number
No. of Bedrooms of Parking Spaces
14 one-bedroom or studio 14
17 two-bedroom units 34
46 three-bedroom units 138
186 Bedrooms 191 Parking spaces
The amount of parking provided on the site not only exceeds the amount
required by the ordinance, but it also exceeds the total number of bed-
rooms in the development.
Density. The proposed changes in the Westwood Village PUD will reduce
the total number of dwelling units to 79 units which will result in a 4.8
percent decrease from the approved density on the site and a 6.0 percent
decrease from the original 111975" plan.
Zone Acres Units/Acre Units Proposed
R-2 5.74 Acres = 71.18 D.U. 's 65.5 D.U. 's
R1-10 2.10 Acres = 9.08 D.U. 's 13.5 D.U. 's
80 D.U. 's Allowed 79 Dwelling Units
Under Current
Zoning
n tt
approved PUD plan permitted 84 dwelling units and the
The 1975 pp p p g ,
amended 1986 PUD plan designated a total of 83 dwelling units. (The
means for calculating density in a PUD changed in the ordinance in 1983) .
This proposed amendment to the PUD will result in the density being less
than the maximum allowed on the site under the current zoning.
Landscaping and Screening. This property contains a significant number
of mature oak trees which are located on the site plan. The developer has
attempted to situate the new structures on the site in such a manner that
a minimal number of these mature trees will be disturbed by the construc-
tion. It is anticipated that two trees will be lost by the placement of
three new structures. In order to replace the trees that will be lost, the
developer is proposing to plant 6 Burr Oak trees in areas of the site that
need additional shade and tree cover.
8
The developer is proposing to add a row of 15 eastern arbovitae along the
east side of the Lincoln Way entrance drive, between the lumber yard
property and the PUD to screen the lumber yard building. Flame sumac
has been added north of Building B and in the open area east of the
one-way drive in front of Building A to provide a color and screening
accent and to emphasize native plant materials on the site. Other plant
materials added to this island area are four American Plum trees, two red
twig dogwood shrubs and two Colorado spruce trees. These plant materi-
als will provide screening of the drive aisle, as well as, providing color
and accents to the site.
Screening for adjacent property will be accomplished with a combination of
a six foot alternating board fence along the east property line where it
abuts a private residential property and a row of 16 Colorado spruce along
the chain link fence adjacent to the Edwards School property. Six foot
alternating board fences also will be built along the property lines on the
north end of the PUD along with arborvitae and Colorado spruce plantings
to provide screening and separation between the PUD development and the
rear yards of adjacent low-density residential property.
Arborvitae hedges also have been placed adjacent to parking lot areas to
provide screening and additional landscaping where no plant materials
currently exists.
Architectural Elevations. The architectural elevations and the floor plans
for the three new structures are attached on sheets A-2 through A-6.
Building A is a three story structure with loft space for two apartment
units on the third floor, provided under the shed roof. The height of
Building A is 39'-6-1/4" which is consistent with the maximum height
allowed in the R-2 and R1-10 zoning districts. These districts allow a
maximum height of 40 feet. Building A will contain 12 units, including
five three-bedroom apartments, five two-bedroom units and two one-bed-
room apartments. A 16 car, one story garage is attached to the north
side of the structure. The developers intend to have this building con-
verted to condominium ownership.
Building A is characterized by balconies on four sides and transparent
bubble windows for each unit. The primary siding material will be T1-11,
which will be painted or stained to match the existing color of the units on
the site. The attached garage will be built from concrete block.
Building B is a 15-unit apartment, is also three stories with a loft provid-
ed for over the kitchen in the third floor units. This structure is similar
in style to the existing 15-unit apartment building, located in the south-
west corner of the PUD. This building will be constructed with vertical
4-inch T1-11 siding, and it will be painted or stained the same color as
the existing structures in the PUD. The transparent plexi-glass bubbles
will also be featured for this building. The maximum height of Building B
is 38 feet which is less than the maximum height of 40 feet in the R-2
zoning district.
Building C, located west of the tennis courts, contains four one-bedroom
units in a two-story structure. The style of these units is similar to the
9
apartment building to the south. They will be constructed with vertical
T1-11 siding, 4 inches on center.
The small portion of the former "chicken coops" that remained on the site
to serve as a mechanical room for the pool will be removed by October 1,
1992.
A carport roof will be attached to the south concrete wall which extends
east and west between the south access driveway into the site and the
existing 15 unit apartment building in the southwest corner of the site.
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. As part of the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Westwood Village PUD and
Subdivision, Lot 6 was set aside as a recreation area for the common use
and enjoyment of the residents of the PUD. This area contains 50,210
square feet and includes the tennis courts and an outdoor swimming pool,
as well as, a large amount of open space. As part of this plan, Building
C and a portion of the north parking lot are located on Lot 6. The area
that will be removed from this recreation area by this building and by the
parking lot will be replaced by the developer in three locations. The
following areas are: A 4,445 square foot area to the south of Lot 6 in Lot
5, a 5,859 square foot area to the east end of Lot 2 and a 4,008 square
foot wooded picnic area, north of Building A in Lot 5. A change to the
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to document the
replacement of the recreation area and allow for the construction of the
parking lot and Building C will be needed.
One issue that needs to be resolved is the correction of the location of the
20' driveway easement across the south end of Lot 5 which serves the 15
unit apartment building on Lot 4. Another cross easement is necessary for
the parking, located north of the pool and tennis courts, on Lot 6 which
is accessed across Lot 5.
Intent of the Planned Residential Development. It is the intent of the City
of Ames to encourage planned residential developments, as appropriate
more specifically it is the intent to:
"(a) Promote and permit flexibility that will encourage a more creative and
imaginative approach in development and result in more efficient,
aesthetic, desirable and economic use of land, while maintaining
density and intensity of use consistent with the adopted Land Use
Policy Plan."
- The developer has endeavored to create a development which
provides a variety of housing types in an integrated setting,
which preserves open space and the mature trees on the site to
the extent possible.
rr(b) Provide a minimal effect upon adjacent properties and existing devel-
opment. To this end, the Planning and Zoning Commission may make
the appropriate requirements."
- In an effort to minimize impact on the adjacent neighborhoods to
the east, the buildings have been moved farther to the west
from the approved 111975" plan as amended in 1986 so there is a
10
separation of at least 65 feet from the east property line to the
arrangement
This is an improvement in the arran
nearest structure. p g
of buildings over the previous plan which had one apartment
building 12 to 13 feet from Marshall Avenue.
The height of all new structures is less than the 40 foot maxi-
mum height allowed in the R1-10 and R-2 zoning districts. In
addition to limiting the height, the three story buildings have
been placed away from the adjacent residential areas. Building
B is placed near Lincoln Way and adjacent to a commercially
zoned piece of property, and Building A is moved back 65 feet
from the property line and it is almost 130 feet from the nearest
single family structure. Building A is also screened by 80 foot
mature oak trees from the east and north and to lesser extent
by the new landscaping along Marshall Avenue.
This plan has two driveways onto Marshall Avenue, which is an
improvement over the approved plan which had three driveways
onto Marshall Avenue. Traffic conflicts will be reduced by this
proposal and the location of the two driveways will serve to
funnel traffic to the traffic light at Marshall Avenue at Lincoln
Way (Note: The approved 111975" plan as modified in 1986 had a
driveway going directly north at the intersection of Story Street
and Marshall Avenue, which would have caused traffic conflicts
on Story Street and resulted in the removal of a large oak tree.)
Opaque wooden fencing is proposed along the east property line
where it abuts residential property, as well as, along the north
side of the development where it abuts the rear yards of adja-
cent single family residential uses. In addition to the fencing a
row of Colorado spruce are proposed along the school property
and along the side of the rear yard of a property directly to the
north of this PUD on Hickory Drive.
"(c) Promote development that can be conveniently, efficiently, and eco-
nomically served by existing municipal utilities and services or by
their logical extension."
Adequate water, sanitary sewer facilities are available to serve
the site. There is a 12-inch water main in Marshall Avenue
which extends north to Woodland Street that will serve all of the
proposed new structures. An internal 6-inch water main will be
looped to the water main in Hickory Drive.
An eight-inch sanitary sewer is available in Story Street, which
will serve buildings 'A' and 'C'. That main turns north along
the east property line where it serves the 12 units in the north-
east corner of the site. There is also an eight-inch sanitary
sewer main on the north side of Lincoln Way which will serve
building 'B'.
A storm water management plan has been prepared to verify that
there is adequate detention area on the site so that other
11
property will not be affected by the additional rate of run-off
from the development.
"(d) Promote flexibility in design, placement of buildings, and use of open
space, pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities, and off-street
parking areas in a manner that will best utilize the potential of sites
characterized by special features of geography, geology, topography,
size or shape."
- The developer has located the buildings, recreation areas,
parking areas, and drive aisles in order to preserve the existing
trees on the site and to recognize the unique shape and size of
the property. There are no unique geologic features and no
extraordinary topographic features on the site.
This plan is an improvement over the approved plan because the
placement of buildings and to some extent the parking lots and
drive aisles are farther away from adjacent residential areas to
the east.
"(e) Provide, where it is shown to be in the public interest, for the
preservation of historic features and such natural features as
streams, drainage ways, floodplains, ponds/lakes, topography, rock
outcroppings, unique areas of vegetation, stands of trees and other
similar natural assets."
- The unique feature on this site is the stands of mature oak
trees. The developer has attempted to save as many of these
mature trees as possible by locating the buildings away from the
base of these trees, and placing drive aisles between the trees
where possible to prevent tree destruction. This plan antici-
pates a loss of two mature oak trees, while the approved "1975"
plan would result in the loss of at least four trees. Three trees
would be lost because of extremely close proximity to the west
wall of the apartment building adjacent to Marshall Avenue and
another tree would be lost because of the third driveway.
Walkways on the approved plan would also have to be adjusted to
avoid the loss of two more trees.
"(f) Provide for more adequate recreational facilities and other public and
common facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional
land development."
- This development provides many recreational amenities and
common facilities not usually found in conventional land develop-
ment. They include a tennis court and a swimming pool for the
common use of residents. In addition, open space is provided
on the site for picnicking, passive and active recreation and
walking.
"(g) Provide for the enhancement of the natural setting through careful
and sensitive placement of man-made facilities and plant materials."
12
- The developer has been sensitive to the natural setting by
placing the buildings, driveways, and parking areas away from
the existing mature trees on the site wherever possible. In
addition, the developer is adding 107 new plants to the site,
including six (6) new burr oak trees; 26 Colorado spruce, which
will provide winter color; 56 arborvitae; 12 flame sumac; four
(4) American plum; and two (2) redtwig dogwood. The plant
materials have been naturalized wherever possible. However,
rows of plant materials have been used to provide screening for
the residents of the site from unsightly views and to provide
separation and screening for adjacent property owners.
Design Standards: Even though PUD's promote and permit flexibility of
design, certain standards must be applied to assure compatibility of the
project with the intent of the zoning ordinance. The following standards
are applicable:
(a) Permitted Uses. The normal permitted uses in a PUD are uses of a
residential character, including single-family (detached or attached),
two family and/or multiple family dwellings, as well as, the usual
accessory structures, such as garages, storage space and buildings
for recreation purposes. The types of uses the developer is provid-
ing are consistent with the permitted uses allowed in a planned resi-
dential development. A variety of housing types are being provided
including: single-family detached, duplex type units, multiple-family
dwellings, garages, a carport, and a pool.
(b) Density. The permitted maximum dwelling unit density per gross acre
shall not exceed the following:
Westwood Village PUD
District Units Allowed Westwood Village PUD Units Proposed_
R1-10 4.3 D.U./Acre 2.10 Acre - 9.04 D.U. 13.5
R-2 12.4 D.U./Acre 5.74 Acre = 71.18 D.U. 65.5
Total D.U. Permitted: 80 D.U. 79 D.U.
The density proposed by the developer is consistent with the maximum
density allowed under current zoning regulations and Section 29.45 (5)(b)
of the Planned Residential section of the Zoning Ordinance and the density
is a decrease from the 83 units allowed by the "1975" plan as amended in
1986.
(c) Tract Size. The minimum size tract for a PUD is 2.0 acres. This
PUD exceeds the minimum tract size. There are 7.84 acres of land in
this development.
(d) Parking. The parking provided on the site must meet the require-
ments of Section 29.41 "Rules for Computing Off-Street Parking".
The proposed plan meets the requirements in this section for the
number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit. The parking
spaces and drive aisles also meet the dimensional requirements of the
ordinance as set out in Section 29.41.
13
The parking lot design must also meet the following standards:
"(i) Parking areas shall be treated as an integral part of the devel-
opment in scale, location, and character."
- The parking areas have been located and designed to serve
adjacent buildings. Building A, a 12 unit apartment build-
ing has 16 garage spaces attached to this structure for the
convenience of the residents. An additional eight spaces
are located immediately to the north of the garage. Build-
ing B has 40 parking spaces adjacent to it that will be
reserved for that building. All new buildings have a
carport, garage or surface parking in close proximity.
"(1i) Parking areas shall be so arranged to discourage through traf-
fic."
- The PUD design discourages through traffic. Although
there is a connection between the south driveway on Mar-
shall Avenue and the driveway onto Lincoln Way, the con-
figuration of the drive with a 901 turn, the location of
commercial buildings which block the view of the outlet on
Lincoln Way from Marshall Avenue and the fact that Lincoln
Way driveway is limited to a right turn in and right turn
out all serve to discourage these through movements. The
use of the traffic light at Marshall Avenue and Lincoln Way
provides an advantage to the motorist because the preferen-
tial right turn movement.
"(iii)As appropriate, parking areas shall be screened from adjacent
structures and streets with hedges, plantings, fences, earth
berms, changes in grade and/or similar examples."
- All new parking areas will be screened from adjacent
properties and streets which was not the case for the
111975" plan, as amended in 1986. Fences, as well as,
landscaping will be used to provide screening. A six
foot fence will be used along the east property line to
screen parking areas, as well as, the headlights from
exiting vehicles from the 16 car attached garage.
"(iv)Parking areas shall be so designed to allow for drainage of
surface water without erosion, flooding, or other inconve-
nience."
- A storm water management plan has been prepared
which addresses the drainage of the new parking lots
on the site, as well as, the drainage for the construc-
tion of the new buildings on the property. Two major
detention areas are planned to address the surface
drainage for this new construction.
14
(e) Height. The Planned Residential Section of the ordinance does not
mandate a maximum height requirement. However, heights shall be
regulated to the extent that it relates to the proposed development
and to the general area within which the development is proposed to
be located.
- Both Building A and Building B, which are 39 feet and 38 feet
in height respectively, are lower than the maximum height of 40
feet permitted in the R-2 and R1-10 zones. Building A has been
set back 65 feet from Marshall Avenue to minimize its height from
the neighborhood from the east, and its height is obscured by
the existence of 80 foot tall mature oak trees. (Note: The
minimum setback from the property line under conventional
development in the R-2 district would be 25 feet, while Building
A is set back 65 feet. ) Building B is located near Lincoln Way,
which is away from the adjacent residential area, and its height
is comparable to the commercial building to the east. The pro-
posed heights of buildings, because of their placement on the
site, relate well to the existing development on the site, as well
as, to the surrounding area.
(f) Open Space. A major portion of any PUD is its open space. The
desirability of the PUD is closely tied to the integration of the open
space with the total development.
The major objective of the design of the site plan for this site is
to preserve open space and the mature trees on the site. The
"1975" approved plan and the amended 1986 plan do not take into
consideration the preservation of trees as extensively as this
plan does. Several very large oak trees would have had to be
removed on the east side of the property if the 111975" plan as
amended in 1986 were implemented to permit the construction of a
six-unit apartment building and a third driveway.
The open space on this site is accessible to all people living in
the PUD. A system of walkways has been developed so that
residents can easily walk though the site and enjoy the open
space. In addition, a specific area has been designated for
recreation and open space to guarantee its accessibility and
preservation. The recreational area and open space lost by the
construction of Building C and the west end of the north park-
ing lot will be replaced by an equal amount of land in Lot 2 and
Lot 5.
(g) Other Considerations. A number of major factors should undergo
evaluation as part of the design standards: These include:
(i) Natural drainage areas shall be retained as appropriate and, if
necessary, improved.
- A storm water management plan has been prepared that
takes into consideration the natural drainage on the site.
There are no streams or creeks on the property or other
15
intermittent drainage ways that need preservation or im-
provement.
(ii) Due consideration shall be given to preserving natural site
amenities and minimizing the disturbance to the natural envi-
ronment.
- The major objective of the developer has been to preserve
the natural site amenities on the site which are the mature
oak trees and to minimize disturbance to the natural envi-
ronment. Placement of buildings and parking areas have
taken into consideration the location of the existing trees on
the site.
(iii) Existing trees shall be preserved wherever possible. The loca-
tion of trees is to be considered in designing building locations,
underground services, and paved areas.
- All of the trees have been accurately located by a land
surveyor so that the developer could prepare a site plan
that minimizes the impact on the existing trees from pro-
posed building locations, underground services and paved
driveways and parking areas. The effort to preserve as
many trees as possible has been successful with regard to
this plan since only two trees will have to be removed.
The "1975" plan, as amended in 1986, would result in the
removal of a greater number of trees.
(iv) If the development includes flood plain areas, they shall be
preserved as permanent open space.
- There is no flood plain on the property.
(v) Due consideration shall be given to the natural topography and
major grade change shall be avoided. If the development in-
cludes hillsides and slopes, special evaluation shall be given to
geological conditions, erosion, and topsoil loss. If unfavorable
development conditions exits, the City Council may restrict
clearing, cutting, filling, or other substantial changes in the
natural conditions of the affected area.
- The developer has taken into consideration the natural
topography of the site, which has only slight grade chang-
es. There are no hillsides or slopes that require special
consideration.
STAFF COMMENTS: As evidenced by the discussion above, the staff
believes the proposed changes in the Westwood Village PUD are consistent
with both the standards relating to the intent of the Planned Residential
Development of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Specific Design Standards
for development of PUD's. This PUD amendment is an improvement over
the current approved plan which is the "1975" plan as amended in 1986.
However, as a condition of approval, the following stipulations are
16
necessary to address specific concerns addressed in the review and analy-
sis of the project.
1. That parking be removed from the west side of Marshall Avenue at
the time that the Marshall Avenue driveway is installed.
2. That signs be placed at the driveway entrances on Marshall, indicat-
ing "Private Driveway".
3. That the driveway easement in Lot 5 be moved to coincide with the
actual driveway location, and that cross easements between Lots 5 and
6 for the north parking lot be described and recorded prior to issu-
ance of building permits.
4. That easements be recorded for the 6-inch water main and hydrants
proposed within the PUD prior to issuance of building permits.
5. That the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions be
changed to reflect the change in the location of the recreation areas
and to allow the construction of Building C and the north parking
lot.
6. That the mechanical room for the pool be removed by October 1,
1992.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request at their meeting
of August 5, 1992 and recommended that it be approved.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve of the amended PUD for Westwood
Village with the six stipulations listed above.
2. The City Council can deny approval of the amended PUD for Westwood
Village.
3. The City Council can approve of this request with modifications to the
PUD plan for Westwood Village.
4. The City Council can table this request for additional information from
the developer or City staff.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1. This will approve of the amended PUD for Westwood
Village. The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff has reviewed the
standards for approval of an amended PUD for Westwood Village, and
believe the developer has met these standards and this amendment is an
improvement over the existing approved plan. Approval of this amended
PUD with the stipulations will permit the developer to proceed with comple-
tion of the Westwood Village PUD development.
Attachment
h\bpo\caf\westwood.805
PROPOSED AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLANS
WESTWOOD APARTMENT COMPLEX, AMES, IOWA
TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED
UNDER MY DIRECT PERSONAL SUPERVISION AND THAT
I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
UNDER THE LAWS OF'TAE STATE OF IOWA.
EDWARD C: BIGELOW (IOWA REG. NUMBS 4142
PRESENTED TO THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA
DECEMBER 1991
December 11, 1991
Prof. Karol J. Kocimski
310 Hickory Drive
Ames, Iowa 50010
Dear Prof. Kocimski:
Enclosed please find a draft copy of the report on traffic evaluation of the proposed Amendment of
Westwood Village in Ames, Iowa. The study did not find a significant adverse impact on the traffic
operations in the Marshall Avenue area. Please note that percent distributions of traffic in and out of the
proposed private drive way were mostly assigned to reflect a worst case scenario.
Impacts on the surrounding commercial area were analysed by studying the traffic signals at Lincoln Way
and Marshall Avenue. The impact on Marshall Avenue at the proposed driveway was also studied.
The number of trip ends generated by the development plan (approved in 1975) was estimated to be 109
trips. The new plan has 18 fewer estimated trip end generations. (Also, in 1975, there were no regular
CY-Ride bus services. Students who lived off campus were allowed commuter parking spaces within the
I.S.U. Campus. There were also numerous parldng meter stalls available. Because campus students
would have had to drive to school, the impact on traffic in 1975 would have been greater than it would
be today.)
As it is discussed in the report the traffic that would use Story Street to reach the I.S.U. campus is most
likely to do so during non-school (Edward's) hours. Total existing traffic from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
was 66 vehicles. The low number of existing traffic and the low number of generated additional traffic
is not expected to have a significant adverse affect on the school crossings.
School crossing safety depends on many factors such as speed limit, sight distance, number of children
crossing street at the same time, width of street, etc. To properly address an issue of school crossing
under existing conditions a "gap analysis" should be conducted. This study determines whether there is
adequate "gap" in the traffic for children-to safely cross a street, The "future" gaps can be estimated is
by use of a computer simulation and aninalogous intersection. This can be a costly study and is normally
conducted for high speed, high volume; wide streets locations.
If there are any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely
Mohammad Elahi
Traffic Analyst
110 N. 3rd Avenue
Huxley, Iowa 50124
(515).597-2733 office
(515) 579-2628 home
. - 1
Site Impact Report
The following is a site impact report for the proposed development at the Westwood Village
apartment complex site located on Marshall Avenue in Ames, Iowa. A traffic study was
undertaken which showed no significant impact on the traffic operations on Marshall Avenue
due to the proposed development. (estimated trip end generated by the apartments under
construction was added to the counts that were collected manually. This new total was used
as the existing traffic).
The following matters were examined:
1) Impact on the capacity and level of service at the intersection of Marshall and
Lincoln Way.
2) Traffic operations (level of service) of the proposed driveway located at west
side of Marshall Avenue.
3) Considering the traffic effects on the neighborhood streets.
The number of trip ends that would be generated by the proposed developments was
estimated by using the 1988 Edition of Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation
Manual . The results for afternoon peak hour are listed below:
P.M. PEAK TRIP ENDS
APARTMENT ENTER EXIT TOTAL
CLASS (AS SHOWN
ON PLANS)
E & B 19 11 30
A 21 12 33
C & D 18 11 29
TOTAL 48 34 91
1. Impact on Lincoln Way & Marshall Intersection:
2
/ . A worst case scenario assuming that all the generated traffic will use this intersection.
1.1 Operational analysis
A computer program called Highway Capacity Software was used here. Level
of service(LOS)analysis indicated that level of service is "B" at present time
and will remain at"B"after the proposed development is implemented. (level
of service is a measure of delay experienced at the intersection. (LOS varies
from A to F; with "A" being the ideal situation). Appendix 2 contains the
computer print out of this analysis.
1.2 Planning analysis
A computer. program called Siteimpact Software was utilized here. This
intersection will operate below the saturation levels after the new development
is in place (see Appendix 2).
2. Traffic operations and LOS of the proposed driveway:
2.1 The driveway was analysed as a T intersection. Several computer runs were
made. Each run assumed a different split in the direction of the generated trip
ends' at the T intersection (toward Lincoln way / toward Story Street
directional ratios of: 50150, 33/67, and 20/80). All of the computer runs
indicated a LOS of"A". ( See Appendix 3).
Please see the summary of the results in the next table.
SUMMARY
LOS LOS
- L-WAY & AT PROPOSED DRIVE
MARSHALL WAY (ON MARSHALL)
EXISTING CONDITIONS B --
AFTER DEVELOPMENT B A
3
2.2 Addressing concerns about traffic using the proposed drive way as a short-cut
to Lincoln Way:
Vehicles that make a right onto Lincoln Way from south bound Marshall
avenue traffic were observed for their point of origination. Most were coming
out of McDonald's drive way onto Marshall Avenue and then malting a right
at Lincoln Way. The next table shows the results of this traffic survey:
I-EME (12-9-1991) RIGHT TURNING RIGHT TURNING
(P.M.) TRAFFIC ORIGINATED TRAFFIC ORIGINATED
FROM MARSHALL AVE- FROM MCDONALD'S
11:45 - 12:00 1 13
12:00 - 12:15 3 18
12:15 - 12:30 5 8
12:30 - 12:45 9 2
12.45 - 1:00 0 4
1:00 - 1:15 0 8
TIME (12-10-1991) RIGHT TURNS RIGHT TURNS
(P.M.) ORIGINATED ORIGINATED FROM
FROM MARSHALL MCDONALD'S
3:30 - 4:30 11 11
4:30 - 4:45 16 -- 7
4:45 - 5:00 18 9
5:00 - 5:15 23 11
5:15 - 5:30 24 11
4
To discourage the use of the driveway as a short-cut the use of a "PRIVATE DRIVE"
or similar sign is recommended. While turning movement data was being collected it was
observed that during the peak hour the west bound traffic is heavy enough that it would
encourage use of the traffic signals for turning onto Lincoln Way.
3. Impact on the neighborhood residential streets.
The results of the recent survey indicate a large percent of the occupants are Iowa
State University (I.S.U.) students. Students normally ride on CY-Ride. Students are not '
normally allowed to park on campus. However a small percent of the residents are I.S.U.
employees. The latter are more likely to drive to work. Their destination is the I.S.U.
campus and they are likely to take Story Street towards campus to avoid the traffic signals
on Lincoln Way. This is especially true if they work on the west side of the campus. For
the following reasons it is expected that the impact of this group of traffic on the
neighborhood residential and school streets would be minimal:
a) Low number of ISU employees (about 12%)
b) Traffic peak hour does not coincide with school in and out times. Regular
work start times are around 7:30 to 8:00. Schools start times are 8:45.
Regular end of work-day times are around 4:30 to 5:00. School children are
let out at about 3:15.
c) Shopping trips during off peak hours, such as homemakers' trips to grocery
stores, etc., will most probably be toward the shopping mall located on
Lincoln Way and away from the residential areas.
d) Lets assume that if the trip generation figures would apply here and would not
be lower due to the existence of the CY-Ride services. Let us also assume
that all the generated traffic would use Story Street and that none would use
Lincoln way to and from the proposed development. This would add an
estimated total of 91 vehicles to the existing peak hour volume of 72, for an
estimated total of 163 vehicles. This number is too low to create a significant
adverse impact on the surrounding streets. This is also the worst case
scenario.
w
July 26, 1992
TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
(WESTWOOD VILLAGE APARTMENT COMPLEX
This report is an update to the traffic impact report d&r.A, ►Jecewbes 11, 1991.
A copy of the original traffic report is enclosed.
As has been mentioned in the earlier report, the proposed Amendment at the
Westwood Village is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the traffic
operations in the vicinity of the proposed development.
Amended plan generates LESS traffic (compared to approved plans)
There is already approval to build new apartment units in this area. The
proposed amended plan was compared to the already approved plan. The amended
plan has LESS dwelling units than thb approved plan. If the proposed amendments are
approved, the traffic generated will, therefore, be LESS. This means the amended
plans will have a positive effect on the traffic operations of the neighborhood.
fmpact on capacity of surrounding streets is NOT significant
As indicated in the earlier report, the impact on Marshall Avenue was studied at
the Lincoln Way traffic signals, and at the proposed driveway, utilizing the Highway
Capacity Manual'. This was done by 1) counting cars manually at the corner 'of
Marshall Avenue and Story street, 2) counting vehicles at the intersection of Marshall
and Lincoln Way, 3) tracing the origin of the vehicles that turn right onto Lincoln
Way, and 4) running traffic engineering computer programs to compare capacity, and
level of service with and without the development. The analysis showed that w
adverse impact is expected.
School
As discussed in the report, the Marshall Avenue and Story Street peak traffic is
most likely to happen between 4:30 -5:30 p.m. School is out before 4:00 p.m., which
is before the peak hour. Very little, if any, new traffic is expected to pass-by the
school. This is due to the fact that the school is located in a residential area. Narrow
streets, stop signs, tight turning radii, and slow speed limits discourage through traffic.
Most of the generated traffic will therefore use Lincoln Way. When school is
dismissed, the activities around it make driving through difficult and uncomfortable.
Our observation has indicated that the major traffic activity is related to the school
itself. These are trips that are generated or ended at the school. Hence, no adverse
impact concerning the school is expected.
'National Research Council,Highway Capacity Manual. Special report 2(39; D
1
JUL 2 7 1992
CITY OF AMES,rowa
DEPT.OF PLANNING WA
Trip generation: realistic is much less that the worst case
The number of generated vehicular activities in the earlier study was based on
the worst-case scenario. This scenario assumed that each apartment building will act as
an independent apartment complex. The fact that only a small number or the residents
use their vehicles to get to the I.S.U. campus was also ignored2. The following table
contains a comparison of a realistic traffic generation, with the worst case scenario:
Realistic and Worst Case Scenario Table
REALISTIC CASE WORST CASE
Assumption: All buildings are part Each Building acts as a
of one apartment separate apartment complex
complex
Number of vehicular
trips generated during 43 trip ends 91 trip ends
the peak hour3:
The realistic number of generated trips is quite small. However a survey of current
residents4 revealed that eighty five percent of the residents use CY-Ride. This translates
into even lower number of vehicular trips.
Kocimski Way
One concern about Kocimski Way is that it may appear as the third leg of a t-
intersection and create confusion. The design of this driveway that runs north of the
intersection of Story Avenue and Marshall Street is very efficient (please see map on
the next page). It does not appear to be the third leg of a t-intersection. The width of
the Kocimski Way driveway is considerably less than the street widths, which makes it
stand out as a driveway. There is also another driveway which runs parallel to
Marshall Avenue. This is a one-way drive. It will force some of the entering, traffic
away from the intersection of Story Avenue and Marshall Street. This will benefit the
traffic operations of this location.
Unlike the driveway of the property immediately east of this location, which
directly faces the traffic, the apartment's driveway is off-set to the West. It indicates to
the driver who is facing it, that it is.not part of the street. (Please see Exhibit 1.) In
addition to the factors mentioned above, and since: 1) there is adequate sight distance at
2 Based on the data obtained from the residents who currently occupy the existing apartments.
3 Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation. Washington D.C. 1987
4 Telephone survey of Westwood Village. December 1991.
the corner of Story Street, 2) there will be a "Private Drive," and a "Stop" sign
posted at the drive way, and 3) the traffic volume is very low, the drive way will have
no significant adverse impacts on the traffic operations of Marshall or Story Streets.
The Driveway Onto Marshall Avenue
This driveway will enable some of the residents to access the apartment
buildings through the traffic signals at the intersection of Marshall and Lincoln Way.
Using the traffic signals provides the benefit of safe and orderly traffic operation.
Benefits of additional parking space
The required number of parking spaces is 150, but the plans provide for 193.
There are an additional 43 parking stalls available. This has the benefit of keeping
excess parking demand away from the streets, and onto the parking lot. It can also
provide for long term parking for the residents. The 31 space parking lot is located
north of building "A." It is located between the duplexes and the three story building.
The duplexes have their own close-by parking spaces. The three story building has its
own garages. Therefor it is relatively inconvenient for the majority of tenants that
might be using it. This lot, therefore, is more likely to be used as long term and/or
excess demand parking with infrequent parking activities.
•mNssumom66666a.■o.tstsee!■monsoon
.
�- •■■■.........-..t■.a
azam"OessN■tNrt •■■• ntnn.�tf
r N.t.ta.aa.os.eai�■Nt.s..ett..■n UM
t.•ttte.■■■.a■.tat/■■tt11■■an .■a■.....■..■t
a■seatostN■■NNte■Ntllt\■aNn...N■.e■\■
/ lttNNa■eeaat.t.t/■tat!.eta■■a■...t.■■.a�
�Ot■NNNNNNt ■ta.11■t■■t\tttt.ta■ee.11
/ oltta..eton■na.nt■.san.st.na.n.satensassol
samenwassol
mosammemossomemo■et■■■e■tntnta■n.e.san■a t.aanate.■..tea..■11
NNNNNNN■N■NN��N■NN■NSN■N■t!
c NNNN■NNNN■NN uNNNNN■N NNE
-
I mom
lmmm.■■■.oeo Daemon ons■■■ --- i■■■an.t•■..■■soon.
♦ ♦ `, ♦ f� Islamessessa■■asltsnsse1�a.tsteon.■o■.■ose=
.monsoon ...M.t tttt.■N.N.n.\t.n■■t■t
e■NN...la■ttteessoar.t.rstrltlta.tsrratt
4' itttt■.■...aea...aalat.tsa.raatotste■ L�•I�I•..
` fi4►*�.� i�'•trt.r..ttts.ttttto ool ttlttttttttt!■ �R one
. ■■Mtslsotsstlotlltttttoot.tttrtsltltlr■s%!see
,,p�dj� ■.•t■■■.no.ls■ost000t.nt■s.■ostst■.s.solsstrrt•
■.HNN■N.NINNN.■NNNNN.NNNNNON 1•
y. ■ N.w000a.on■Nn.■sooN.N■ .•
�� I � �`• _ i ■Ab sa N.spusoeluN■N.NN.NO■N.see WOUIPWON:
�• w �1 sw •
at
• N . J• •i N.uoNNNu■oN■sNtsoa.os.■1��«�•• ■�.Nu■NNsoouNnsNo\so.Naaa. .■•.C.•
■ ■nae•■.a■!■■!l..o..ttto.es■!!..sate►Nwa..
usage
Gabon
•I 1 1 Ilf J' •��NssN.soN■uN.NsoseosNo.a■.soN.N.n. q�'•
■.�tonNN■No.s■auo■Nnaauoouuuoan/ R
� toN■NNN000auNooNe■a.sN■.. NNNe■■
_ ■s■ao■ooN..■NNNN0000N.■■eNNNo/ �• •
'
�, ■NN■■..■u■Nu■NNNNNNas■eN.■oeN i I �� � � NuuusueN.NNNa■ls.nssaouNNueuoves■S
• NONNsuu.sN.Nnnnos.as■aooN.oNN. � l
■uoouuesN.NNns■sss■■soN■NeoneMin
NNsoN ■No■ou.NN.N■N\NN.NNNNun
• y� w'�. ,� n■ouooI.uuss■noo.snssaoNNNo■euNs
/ � Not000u.NNNN.■■..u.00uusueuN
lNNNN■NNNso.t.■N.NNNUNsouN.N
�• NNNNN000eos.■a!s■.NNNeNouNNN
Nos r.•.uuu■■N■eoNs.■.NNo■NuoN
r n.■..h N: ...................................... T
�\ t .yaNn •.N.NNo■NNaN■N■NsoouNs
• �.eNN■N.rtl.►.*Cs■a s to 0 as a b/.....t a seNN■
�etloNNN N.:.1.NgNt fUN.H NN■N.
t
.
................Umn..-.■.....w.,�..........
.gas
1
------
Sea
RO
S: ♦♦♦�
f •�♦t�l�in
• 1 •
� nf•.v ra
• � Y
n
d '0Q4 • ••
�'� .'�'-• �`' o:. - �' »ear '�.•1�►:;" '•
' � S7~ '�r tr!•�.�••YT.i y. ..T�• .l..�?M"'C+.iV`.w�e.•+...:i:a..•. !Yip..
- ��• ' AN �+n .:•.may:. •" ...'
�� ,•�• •fie i� ..� l:r.:�°t1.' �y �r ii
or—
Is
P. 773
30
mew
�!'' �.�I +1 0 1. •�. _ ..
('yam-� • ..tt;;i•`..a.�'. ..� _ _ Y►°~?."s�r"'q�'_ .,a'� 1,.
JUL-L4-�L tK1 tS�3J JIYTUCK lk HJJUVIHICJ r11A 11U. O10U041ZJJ0 r. UL
• 301 North Ankeny Bird. awil•Municipal
Ankeny,to—50021 Water&Wastewater Treatment
515-964.2020 Drainage•Streets
>wroEIt AAssocIATa SwMtnFAX 515-9"-7938 CONSULTING ENGINEERS 9•Airports
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
DATE: JULY Z41 !91Z
TO: E O&N M• SGNM17"T. PLANNING i lgoV5jW&
FROM: 0XV410 Z.. WJI LIAA4S
SUBJECT: WL brvV0z5b ViL L.A-66 R u.D.
SroP,m w,47wp—MwA4<MmyT- PC And
This transmission contains 3_ pages including the cover sheet.
If you do not receive the total number of pages, please contact
this office.
COMMENTS:
RECEIVED
JUL r ,a_ T-99-
CITY OF AMES,IOWA
DEPT.OF PLANNING&HOUSING
301 NORTH ANO-W SM. • AN1ZNY,K>WA-%321 • 515-96e-2020
P.0.BOX 209 • EAST H*tWAY 6 • ARANnC,10WA 5=2 • 712-243.6505
DMI MAX
JUL=24-02 M1 b:JU :)NTUtK N noauuinicO
orth Ankeny BW- Cwil•Mvnie.p.1
Ankeny,low 50021 Water&Washrwater Treatment
5-964-2020 Drainage•Streets
ELFAX515.9U-7938 5--ying•Airports
GJNSULTING ENGINEERS
` • `
July 24, 1992
Eden M. Schmitt
City of Ames
Planning and Housing Department
515 Clark Avenue
Ames, Iowa 50010
RE: WESTWOOD VILLAGE P.U.D.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Dear Eden!
Based on the revised preliminary site plan A 1 dated July 21, 1992, it appears that the
overall drainage areas and runoff coefficients may not have changed significantly enough
to warrant a revision to the storm water management report previously prepared on
November 18, 1991.
Followiang is a comparison of the overall drainage areas and runoff coefficients between
the previous site plan dated 11/10/91 and the current site plan dated 7/21/t92.
DRAINAGE
DESIGNATED TOTAL.AREA COEFFICIENT
AREA A�F�SI 'IC
11/10/91 7 L 11/10191 7 2
A 0.82 0.82 0.60 0.59
B 0.46 0.46 0.53 0.53
C 0.25 0.25 0.84 0.84
D 0.32 0.32 0.71 0.71
E 0.76 0.76 0.55 0.55
F 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
G 3.34 3.34 0.48 0.49
301 NORTH ANnW KvD. • ANKENY,IOWA S0021 • S15-964-2020
P.O.BOX 209 • EAST HIGHWAY 6 • AT1AN K,K7WA 50022 • 712-243-6SOS
NM\LTR70192152LTR
Eden Schmitt
July 24, 1992
Page 2
This data appears to point out that the changes made to the Westwood Village P.U.D.
site plan were not significant enough to necessitate any changes in the storm
management report.
Please do not hesitate to call me concerning any questions or comments you may have.
Sincerely,
SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, INC,
David G. Williams, P.E.
DGW:bw
WP\LTR%\9215ZLTR
FV
333 Westwood Drive
Ames, IA 50010
August 4, 1992
to: Planning and Zoning Commission, Ames, IA
Brian Espeland, Chair
Shirley Clarke
Julie Pike
Stephen Moehlman
Robert Swanson
Ted Tedesco
Riad Mahayni
from: John C. Kleitsch
subject: Unfinished Westwood Village P.U. D. Issues
The original Westwood Village P.U. D. does not include
stormwater detention basins. Considering that an Ames City
Ordinance addresses the issue of floodwater drainage from
newly developed property onto neighboring property, storm
run-off from the N.E. area of the original Westwood Village
P.U.D. parking and street surfaces was expected to be either
as surface drainage to Marshall Avenue or as underground
storm sewer drainage to Marshall Avenue or Story Street
storm sewers. However, a recent Westwood Village stormwater
drainage plan includes detention basins for the P.U.D. area
currently under construction without new underground sewer
connections that are necessary to properly protect
neighborung property from damage by relatively high velocity
detention basin outflows. Thus, a drainage problem has been
.created that did not exist . on the original P.U. D. .
I reviewed the Westwood Village Floodwater Plan for the N. E.
area of the P. U. D. currently under construction. I
calculated that near'l-y 0. 5 acre of roof, parking, sidewalk,
and street area is dr_.ained into the "east" detention basin,
which indicates that. the basin being constructed is only
about two-thirds large enough according to the plan filed
with the city of Ames. In addition, the "east" detention
basin outlet structure carries water from a storm drain
inlet that has been constructed but is not shown in the
floodwater plan and has no flow restricting plate at the
inlet. Thus, the drainage problem is worse than planned.
And, the current request to further modify the Westwood
Village P. U. D. seems to add to the problem of draining
floodwater onto Edwards School property through the "east"
detention basin.
The following pages/attachments expand on the information
given in the preceding paragraphs and refer to a set of
photographs that show floodwater damages already inflicted
upon the Edwards School property.
Further development of the Westwood Village P.U.D. and
approval of the N. E. area for occupancy should be denied
until the developer satisfactorily resolves the floodwater
drainage problems discussed herein.
S-i-rAcereA.y you s,
�� v
nC. K1eits
Attachments: (photographs are available only upon request)
cc: Larry Curtis, Mayor, City of Ames
Ames City Council Members
Joyce Hertz
Judie Hoffman
Sharon Wirth
John Parks
Ann Campbell
Pat Brown
Planning and Zoning Department, City of Ames
.Carolyn Jons, President, School Board , Ames Community
School District (ACSD)
Dr. Ronald Rice, Superintendent, ACSD
William D. Sanford, Director, Bldg. & Gnds. Dept. , ACSD
Pion Neals, Principal , Edwards School
Mr. and Mrs . Normand Hamilton
240 Hickory Drive
Ames, IA 50010
August 4, 1992
to:
City Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
Ames, IA
Dear Council:
My property is right next to the west edge of Westwood
Village. I have been a neighbor to the Kocimski's for 25
years and have watched the development of the area carefully
over that time. I would like to share with the Council the
following comments:
1) My wife and I have not been bothered by the tenants at
302 Hickory, although our house is only a few feet from their
parking lot .
2) The tenants are quiet and friendly. The Kocimski's
careful selection of tenants and strong rules and regulations
ensure proper respect for the neighborhood.
3) We have never had a problem with excessive traffic or
parked cars on Hickory.
4) The Westwood Village property is kept clean and the
landscaping is very beautiful. Maintenance people regularly
attend to the grounds.
5) The new plan is considerably better than the 1975 plan.
6) We would object to any more traffic directed to Hickory
Drive. The existing traffic here is the same as 1975, as
far as number is concerned.
7) We realize that the property cannot remain open and would
prefer that Mrs. Kocimski develop it over the unknowns of
another developer.
8) We would like to see this development completed.
To conclude, I would like to say that my wife and I very
strongly support the amendment proposed to Westwood Village
PUD . We urge you to support it also.
Very truly yours, 1
Mr. and Mrs . Normand Hamilton
Ames Community Schools
Department of Buildings & Grounds
July 20, 1991
To: City of Ames
Engineering Department
City Hall
Ames, Iowa 50010
Attn: Jerry Byg
RE: Westwood Village
Dear Mr. Byg,
Mr. James R. Bradshaw of Snyder & Associates from Ankeny, has
submitted a proposal For Karol Kocinski of 310 Hickory Drive in
Ames. The property is located adjacent to Edwards School.
The proposal is to construct Multi family dwellings. The plans show
revisions being made to the terrain which in turn will effect the
surface water drainage.
Included in their plan are retention areas with headwalls, restrictor
plates and an outlet structures. It appears these systems should be
effective for the disbursement of surface water-and is acceptable to
the Ames School District.
William D. Sanford
Dir. Buildings & Grounds
Ames Community Schools
1621 Wilson
Ames, Iowa 50010
cc James R.- Bradshaw
Snyder & Associates
�j 1621 Wilson Avenue • Ames, Iowa 50010 • Phone 515/232-1565
`/"\ -d An Equal Opportunity Employer
V P.iwiiii n« inirlail mw
PRCP-7R'TY 0':r?1-:;'35:?IP LIST SIE-12D PETI'TIOi, c0llectea
STCRY 't. si`.led+ Anri l 90 llav 92 JU1Vo -
2 J s.Provoa
3642 Xildre . orrisse +
3 43 Uatherine '=ewton
3648 Richard Allfree -
3649 mel+Pat Po elks
j6�Elizabeth •cDorman
3655 Doug+Ruth Provow + +
hickory Dr.
225 ?a Don+Bev Jones -}-
2 0 110RM+HERRI3T H '- T :•.
230 chuck +Ruth Benn
30-3 D011 RANDAL+C.SLATER
309 ULARK+JOhIP.'Y PASLr'1'
310 . KAROL+L.KOCIIfLSKI
314 JO SCOTT+M.JOHNSC?d
318 BILL+DIAN�' SHOP7ROCK
`{-
321 Labh+Tahira Hira .{-
322 Javid+Janet Stephensen
26 Loren+Dona Knox 4 4-
336 Cwen+Judith Osborne
McDonald Dr.
117 MARY BECKMAN -withdraw
120 EVIE WEBB withdraw
122 J .+RUTH KIPrD_RMA,:N
Lincoln WAY ,
2330 ` I1C DONALD RESTAURANT
3705 LITZEL LUMBER
4003 CORA HATFIELD withdraw
Woodland Ave.
700 Roger+OonnieUnderwood + 1
3714 xodney+Jane Weiss *+ +
Others -
4ESTBROOK :.IMITED PQRTl RSHIP.:
U-.ITED FEDERAL SA.+LCA.:
AMr,S SCHOOL DISTRICT I �
TOTAL OWNERS: 30
_ THE
RICKSOOUGLAS
451H A 50310
_ DES MOtNES, IOW 50310
PHONE (5151 279-9775
ORPORATION FAX NO. (5151 270-6158
July 29, 1992
Ms. Lila A. Furman-Kocimski
310 Hickory Drive
Ames, IA 50010
Re: Phase III Westwood Village, Ames, Iowa
Dear Lila:
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding storm water management
during the construction currently underway on the above-referenced
project.
As I understand the current situation, the recent rains that would
have normally been retained on site have overflowed the leaching
pits along the common property line between your project and
Edwards Elementary School carrying a small amount of silt onto the
school property.
Construction is a process and must be accomplished in a sequential
manner. Therefore, although the storm water pipes and leaching
pits have been installed, the retention ponds have not yet been
installed. At the time of this writing the retention indentations
are being shaped, after which time the appropriate restrictive
device will be placed in the lines channeling water into the
leaching pits thus, `contributing water to adjacent property no
faster than before we started construction on your property.
You have my personal commitment, that you may pass along to any
other interested party in and around the area, that our
construction find will see to it that any silt that has washed onto
the school property will be removed, and such property will be
restored to its previous condition.
our firm has constructed over a thousand rental units in the Ames
area, and we are have always maintained a good relationship with
not only our clients, but with the City officials addressing these
types of problems together with surrounding property owners, which
in this case seems only to be the referenced school.
LAND DEVELOPMENT 0 RESIDENTIAL 6.COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 0 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
Ms. Lila Z. Furman-Kocimski
Page - 2
July 29, 1992
If you should have any further questions or comments, or need
further explanation on any of the above points, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very ruly yours,
THE ICKSON CORPORA ION
D ald M. Beal
resident
DMB:lf
DONALD MCKEOWN FORM ARCHITECT
3721 Woodland • Ames. Iowa 292-3326
May 20, 1992
':0 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Re: KOCIMSKI REVISION OF WESTWOOD VILLAGE PUD
Dear Sirs:
I have just finished studying the Amendment To Westwood Village. PUD, received
on May 12, 1992 by the Ames Dept. of Planning & Housing. I have also just
studied the Neighborhood Representative Major Issues. In the latter document,
a copy of my letters dated Nov. 27, 1991 and January 9, 1989 have been attached.
In reviewing the latest Amendment to the Westwood Village PUd, I find that the
Owner of the PUD, the late mr Karol Kocimski, has made considerable changes
to his project since I wrote those two letters. as follows:
1. He has gone from a proposed 8 or 9 story Apartment Complet "A" to an
Apartment of 2k stories. He has increased the setback from Marshall
Avenue to 59 feet, which will fit into the neighborhood much better.
This is 34 feet greater than required in an R-2 zoning district.
2. Mr. Kocimski has also introduced another access from Marshall Avenue.
This will provide secondary access to Building "B" which will be loc-
ated at the South end of the PUD. Further, it appears a minimum of
trees will be sacrificed according to the latest Amendment.
3. The inclusion of a 6 foot fence along the east boundary North of
Marshall, as per the neighbors request should help. This would cut
down the decibel level about 5k points to the east of this wall. If
an original sound level (along an Interstate =60dB), the ensuing level
of sound outside the nearest house would be about 52 dB. Deduct about
40 dB for house wall & partitions and one arrives at a reasonable level
of sound for sleeping,.:
4. In view of the action .xaken by the City of Ames, as per the COMMISSION
ACTION FORM dated 05/-20/92, and in view of the multiple changes Mr.
Kocimski has made from an 8 story to a 2' story apartment complex near
the residences; I believe each party in this long contentious conflict
should be about ready to compromise--except for a few minor problems/
very truly yours,
DONALD I. MCKEOWN, ARCHITE
Professor Emeritus of Architecture, ISU
July 24, 1992
Brian Espeland, Chair
Planning and Zoning Commission
3324 Opal Drive ,
Ames, Iowa 50010
Dear Brian:
Mrs. Kocimski has proposed a revision to the Westwood Village PUD. As
you know, she is proposing a 3-story building west of Story Street and
east of the swimming pool.
As we see it, what she has proposed as far as the building is concerned
is fine. The only thing that we are opposed to is the exits of the
parking onto Marshall Avenue. She would like to make an exit onto
Lincoln Way but the City is blocking that part of the proposal. We
think the City should make a curb cut west of Marshall on Lincoln Way
as was done east of Marshall when the Union Story ? Bank occupied the
building that Movies to Go occupies now. This would lighten the traffic
load down Marshall Avenue and around Edwards School.
Please pass her proposal as is if the City won't make another exit onto
Lincoln Way. The proposal she has now is much better than the 1975 plan
that has already been approved, which she will otherwise have to go with.
Sincerely,
Bev and Dick Allfree
3648 Story Street --
cc: Shirley Clarke
Julie Pike
Stephen Moehlmann
Robert Swanson
Ted Tedesco
Riad Mahayni
August 2, 199-7
Some Observations About the Westwood Village Area "A"
Stormwater .Plan and Related Problems
1 ) A storm flow that is concentrated by means of a
detention basin and emitted through a single 8-inch diameter
pipe can be expected to cause erosion effects that are much
worse than those caused by the same storm run-off spread
across a property boundary that is several hundred feet wide
and nearly flat along the boundary line. Therefore, the use
of point drainage from Westwood Village area "A" should not
be accepted as being equivalent to the undeveloped site
drainaae.
Point outlets from detention basins typically produce a
relatively high velocity outflow of water. Therefore, to
prevent erosion problems, Westwood Village area "A"
detention basins should direct the outflow to a new storm
sewer line that could be located under Kocimski Way and c
connected to a new underground storm sewer that could be
located along Marshall and connected to the existing storm
sewer on Marshall at Lincoln Way.
The need for the new storm sewer described above is
illustrated by a set of photographs of erosion damage to
Edwards School property caused by Westwood Village area "A"
storm run-off. See Attachment 1 for a list of the
photographs and comments about what is shown. See
Attachment 2, an envelope containing the photographs, for
your personal review of the detention basin outflow
Structures and erosion damage caused by storm runoff.
Photographs of Kocimsk.i Way and Marshall are included. A
zoom, telephoto/wide angle lens was used.
The existing storm $ewer on Westwood Drive has been shown,
historically, to be utilized to capacity prior to
development of site "A" of Westwood Village. Therefore,
routing site "A" run-off toward Lincoln Way would be a
prudent action for Westwood Drive drainage as well as for
avoiding problems at Edwards School .
2.) The capacity of the east detention basin as indicated by
the subject stormwater plan is based upon drainage from a
hard surface area of ..0. 33 acres plus other area drainage.
An examination of the site as it has been constructed
indicates that the actual hard surface area that drains into
the east detention basin is about 0. 5 acres. This data, if
correct , indicates the need for a 50 larger capacity east
detention basin.
Examination of a site plan provided by the City of Ames
Planning and Housing Department on Friday, August 31 shows a
stormwater drain inlet just west of building "A". This
drain inlet is not included in the subject stormwater plan.
Therefore, the outflow from the east detention basin outflow
structure could be greater than the plan indicates,
especially considering that this "new" flow is not
restricted.
�3 The site stormwater plan contains data, equations,--and a
nomograph for determining restrictor plate placement height
for each detention basin. These outflow metering devices
should have been installed no later than the time at which
the parking area was covered with asphalt. However, these
devices have not yet been installed.
4> The site stormwater plan does not have provisions for
additional storm runoff from future development of the
Westwood Village area. Any approval of future development
proposals for the Westwood Village area should be reviewed
carefully for impact upon the area "A" stormwater solution.
RECEIVED
AUG 0 4 1992
CITY OF AMES,IOWA
pEPT.OF PLANNING&HOUSING
Attachment 1 : A Set of Photographs Related- to the Westwood
Village Stormwater elan; Erosion Damage to Edwards School
grounds, Damage Causes, and Related Information
A. Edwards School grounds as viewed from the Westwood Drive
side; an introduction to the stormwater run-off problem.
Stormwater from Westwood Village washes mud and debris into
playground equipment areas at the west edge of the school
ground and across the asphalt-covered play area. The water
has eroded supporting soil away from the base of the
basketball goal and is digging a ditch in the grassy area on
the route it takes to concrete along the south edge of the
parking lot. Some of the run-off flows across the ball
diamond. A lot of water flows to Westwood' Drive.
F. The ditch being eroded between the asphalt covered area
and the parking area.
C1. The N.E. detention basin outlet structure and an eroded
area north of it.
C2. The eroded area north of the N.E. detention basin
outlet structure.
C3. The eroded area of C2 after another rain storm.
C4. A close-up view of the N.E. detention basin outlet
structure showing accumulated silt; silt covers the well .
D1. An equipment area with mud and debris damage from the
N.E. detention basin outflow.
D2. The outflow path from the equipment area of D1.
D;;5. Debris on the asphalt covered area; debris from the
equipment area of D1.
D4. Mr. William D. Sanford, Director of the Buildings and
Grounds Department of`-:.the Ames Community School District
while inspecting storm-.run-off damage; the pot was washed
from the fence to the .rotation shown.
E1. The east detention basin outlet structure after erosion _
damage.
E3. Erosion damage to another playground equipment area.
E4. The erosion damaged area of E3 after another rain
storm.
ES. A distant shot of the equipment area shown in E4;
perimeter timbers have been undermined and moved.
F1. Marshall Street with Westwood Village in the
background; the street slopes toward the storm sewer inlet
near Lincoln Way.
F-2. Kocimski Way, where a storm sewer could be installed to
drain the detention basins currently being constructed.
F'. Near the high point of K:ocimski Way.
r y Yir •� r •7► 'tj.
U � �
103
wl z
rp M 1 1Ml1 t1M11 Utt Y V •c+C �� 'fir � .
0 Y. 0 W Z 1 "Y•J lJ 1,''1 ; .+ ,.;' h wr
a iV iF•• ' fr �'�
W fliddi
d p ;•t VDUI QV
..._ ,ram �,. •� o �
.... d CL '
,
' • «
. o
` coQaoo -- •
1 • V • V W
dl a CL
>0
x • • •
fs
\_ • • • ' I
Y' • • • I I
� -
p r
EL
sIL
..
{1 y'/R � M,1T ww" `P•4'•'t••w•1••1• •Ia'w• ' IJJ�I4+''
.• .�►1::ti►'t+'t.Z.�tr..r'�w:s'L7S.11+11�.iL«:x+,.a�ih....�•w�u�+�»�iNiJL>f.>r
�C
� Wm
,� •�j.o tl ar.w vN .1 �+ g' 8 r A �V$l�f f
1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 V • WV
to
Y M
�I o rn o i
11L1 "too:1 �
•••..•.••off+ �v` V ,
oVdx P �b P� N u
.
- Z o
uj
W
ui
CL
ca
V7 •
Q '
• r
•
. y �
• U
� •.`..• 1� � •.•w••_wsw•w•.•_..w u.••www_•�.}�_...w.w..w�• ww
•
f u �L► N it yy/
� ill/� • 1 NM•_ ...�.►• .•.. •
cn
• \`✓✓� W
�U LU
" a• M
Q
i•AltttcJ'{hitl¢ISirLL�.:L w•w v• w• ..aw
go
h .
d r
141� ��. •
wN.
.w.w
-H j I I I j I H
. •wl••N•�- � I � O
..._..w..._.1r_ . ' ! • 1. Y Y Mii� Iw•
• S
.•. • •,•*... w•n••.-ww.�.•�1••w••••wa•ww•w•w• •--�"•�"�'w•w.•....w••�.�.ww 0
•w.�...•..w..+r'ww._.wr•••w."w�'.'ww.nr_•w.wt�.w••�•1�•.•�•••w._..�r.�•.•....w_�_..��..1.�.•
•.itl�.Af.11w•y{�•yy�WA� '
•
M +
(311S HliM)
I>ISWIaON TIN NTld aOOIA aNnoaJ tlel. 'Ja"s
BOVIIIA GOOM1SSM 1NBWaN3Wd and i
.IN
Xxx
1 � a
O O�
i
II
1
' �► UJ �i w
It �y
uu CQ dZ
I o w I,
4 �
.w �4 %
w gL •i �•
................ X X ........«...« L
' •
46
� p1
w
O It
1 1
1
--------
W Vol_
�
�� V
L Vr O
I
� 1
I •L �1
3 O I
� ��� sl1 `�cJ O �j.i s.• O�
pw
-------------------• ----------------- •1 e
..J
.t•.Ot .0•.►t
O � I
O O •
O
1 0
O ,
1
I
O
d
' �N�fS�►�'R iOaa •ri°R' h N� .ti NO! t•hf► gfhj ♦♦ff�N �f'; i—�
W
N N
hz i = —741,�
00(E)
Y jV No
ct
W o O 1 V • 1 b
} ^ N W Z max W m Z {now
1 ' QI Y.VeWIS
O t• � � O Q
a Z cc`yl a V y a U a �7 4 & 1 �:......-_«.-t� y ; y O N��N1ON�
3 O Q J mmm I" o Z W¢ J OC d M N, \ _
O z go W
¢ F E o o
Q E. < W
t p H W< Cr. VG 4O a(.1N �"" S M Z ` \ < J W
O t7 v< 21 yJ z.J � � < � 1 O <
Ot 0 a W -,Oon- w~ J t� ` W > W O
6
ZZ -j CC Z o.?F-O WO W Q: 1 ul _ ¢ U O
�N <r MTt H M i N ��W -COW—Q Q O
U6 (
= <a<y
JTW t Ma W OX�O
QJ< Q Q < W
CC cc z
W F
F-OU F- F- O z•+ 3 Q -¢�O¢F
lL 1 � H J NW d¢O
Wrt7•• U • <Z�07W
cc
O. W<WUm¢
ii 1 YS
•• U 1 1 1 • N~ ! R
0.
�i O or v
to
ul
_ 1
/ 3 1S EI ftl0J 03AFJ3S3E1 IOl • • % ' • 'l �� f
,� p tovvo t p j
O 2
I .vJ�O�G t' • ' , I I W N w
cc C� • 1 � W V Y
CC
T ` } ly N I p Jcr W WO 92
1 I 1'Iil H /) 1j : .. .. .. ► Y• s .. • ' LU 9;W{7<NN
crJ • f
� •�. _ t av a � •I
a y - i. "S.� • Y W
Of
1 a ��7StAyy t • / 1 d.
AN 0
°ir{ilr H
lij
1 � ; y n�" <• � I ww � �
saQvIld vo 0
r 1
o
+ W
R _ 1 Z
yy
# a
s W F-
e LLIS
H c i gill 112, - , �v 0 N -
fleg
T • '8 `WE
a y•M \ O Q
00,
- c or• o Tt 1 Q 1\ J fA
1 I . •� $t - � 1 a � m V
oc ' ' y /� _ _ it ► Q Z Z Y
1
a
-J
1 y W CC
11 � ~ O cn
(n �(
1CP
„ ALIt
1,
• = _:d al}_' s n � N Z
I-MIT41 I
• is; ` �. Lip •••� c
� • • i« �3 T' �jD �f„ 11 S
r AYM NI05NI-1
, •
AMC
�•..•.7•j7 .� �y • prypry
PO 40
Eu
rim
�,a•N'Z � dr � Y .. � x M'�vd' .r � • all
a, r
¢ ,• li �.' .�J p.g:S� ..M Sr� ws 3.Syv1'.JwRww �� .a Fg ; 3 •^ MitLiiN i
Q •� g33
GGN '� • • •.. 0
u� �ia� ��$•wi.iii��•7•+ i,��ai �3�1E'�iM��li .�:Y'�•1�°i���'��� 1 • Lido 3 :
Y
gh
' •• .h � ,' .. �w3M t •Isw � • '� V
a Q
LY=. t • <
'ostONES
K t
all nog I �° . ■
/ •
�' � ••' . �i. • �t•1/w .. .� j C r..I e � a i
�11�yid �'of t r j o
13
.�'•1n .� •sue _N Q vQ= :�II ' fo•o0
•� w• • Mlii•1f w . EL 0
_-
' f1�ti.. •10.11
i++iwr.vi 110'Iit --. �t'Cf t
• iNll iVOlQ •�-tl � ' a
., W� o • K
3t O 1'9 am m � of o • l'er�
op
L i as
w
09)
� .. T' � + at• w �TiB 0.18 �7 �31 S
Id O J.S
10•Iit ■•fi.1 �It• ( � •
i 0 3 w pt w o
0 has '
;l�r Mlli•11•+ 'oy 't p M
■ of 11. � o
v ;' b • 3 too .� w
Q
log
w n
• W
Q � e
ti.l I
L 4
•Z • w o e w • b
,o
CI 0 •
sFo.ss s ,f•fft � �
• VIAPIr , tl ZII
lug
Ifo'oli ■�Y► •/t• Ii ltt • a W a
Caaa-iai•alY wol Y•iuy I�i1Y•••y•� y I J• w•.•Q/J•Y..O
Snld ONIU33NION3 'C n'd 0601UA Poo#Ai00N► . 8u n '
•io•iluar •d1•Iyu•� lAU 8 isoNWi�ON
�J•L•UAa PY•� uol}eoJlddV UI31d 911S
••J•YYII�
N1•YI/Y� o NV"ld .LnciAdoi V 'IDNIOVED
p
000
.41
it �c v4
st kit g
.t
a�
i •
• 14y
44
. .�"'!L!" y •isii AV s
i
y ti
••
(Nil/Im 0 4 WAA)VUAG A1H1CIAMI 4Y N016,70 3MV$:74-ON
INSIMOON T,N SNOIIVA313 V `NO1103S `Ndld .Al.,*00-18
BOV111A a00M1S3M - LN3WaNBWV and
W c ,
> C .�
- . C
0 0 0
is
0
W
� r
O�
r Z.-
r
N�
•
1•
E
oZ` Z
• a = a
_ w
J
Wq 8 W4
3� a�
Y w�
i
.F s •r•.o, •o•7
i
! X 4
I
4 x
k
� L b
I. I
' b
ui
1
Z
� X N
ti �
(UVW US$W A ldW 4*MG AISMAUJ tY YWf70 INV$:710Y
INswlooN TIN .
SNOIIdA3l3 V 'NO1103S 'Ndld t1Ott'Jale
3JdllIA QOOMIS3M - 1N3WaN3Wd and
UJ
� a
® 4
`' 9a
W = W
CL
Wq
W t J
® N Y N Y
W at
�+ W
ui
W
W q
o
' o� ze
4
w
N
------------- ..._-_..._
L W
O't VK W 1••
i
r
• 1
w L1 .... ... ....... ' 1
1
`< z
Yh •q Y z
t • 1
u. p
t i ! . . W �
N �
•
{
•NSWI00>I '(''>I
SNV ld UOOIJ t1Y11 'JaIS
3JdllIA QOOMIS3M - lNSWQN3WV (Ind
W
w a
1~i 3
10 Me
O
Li s ievooa{ ; o �.. •
C toroou s o
tOrY01t
1 R -,T M
• i {orooatis i
4 3
is
r
! r ---------- cr
Q
Y = faagpw w �W N
1"
1
T
1 � a
a
f
L•,
J c
FW -
. 1►; 4 b 1 w
It
�kl � �r Y •
•,f. ssLL w:
f� .�i o♦♦y 1 0�
2 ,
r �
9
soroou r •
e
� Y
1 � J
IOrYOtt W
s O
t {011YOit ft1
li
CL
r 8
L
.{ w
g
1 = Y
w
------ o
kl t ! 4 O
U.
O r
W
a
7
I>ISWIOONSNO1103S V SNO V
IIAB-13
SOV-1-11A coomisam - IN3WCINBWV and
m I m m
. CC - 14
MEN,
MINE
MI MI
ill A,
rn
C d
Lil
>
.Now
UJ
Ct
' =.'�'SO��� �� •t�,i, iy ��AZy}I'•,t�y: �.. o� y �wy• � � t o
1�.3 ��^,� •��jx�t1S2Y3��'SRq• ts�� A;:�tiR� •� � • •
P. i8� 'S {f `�.y. "•� y _ z���"i w • = ryy tt�o`t' ~ 0 0
�•�~�-i.•»O�„�r � A� Y1w � •• �Y S � ��3 • � J In C N ° •
b Yf��i4`• S: M`T7'y_ Syll•�st�.� w .�� i Y•_��'r j 7r��'Q �d��. � �`o [) i+ •..
E• t :a&3y3 �j Pr; R_� �r�>:Y31� � aoe14
" "/
ocv ?V3 �8 a �ttv2 :r �»y���xGas
��� la `eiiit�r�va»: i.",7� Z`d♦I 7Y 8i �� t- �y ` -� C "' j 0
.J a
IL
y
— 3
a
•' W
I
• I 1.�,
�ae) 11
°0t L7'cr��I(— 'J Q1H3tl1S LL
,o•rtt •�c,i� ,rr• -, JI Jl u 0 L 8 O
1 t
1
I
I- q •
� •tl It• _
/ UPC[
j
_ ,1L f MAIL,r1» �•
a �• ,t'tL1 ' w tC
❑ I; Q W
■ ^ jj m
I � 0
Iq y
,t►'rtt •err .ti. tr n� �.os - N W J j
go
m
0 U
M to
JIVM N'700N 1 1 t
i