08SN0285STAFF' S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
08SN0285
Emerson-Roper Companies, LLC
Bermuda Magisterial District
Ecoff Elementary, Chester Middle and Thomas Dale High Schools Attendance Zones
North line of Chester Village Drive
RE VEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (C-3) with Conditional
Use to permit multifamily residential use and Conditional Use Planned
Development to permit exceptions to Ordinance requirements.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A multifamily residential development consisting of a maximum of sixty-five (65)
dwelling units, yielding a density of approximately thirteen (13) dwelling units
per acre is planned. The applicant has indicated the development would be an
extension of the adjacent Chester Village Green Apartments.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reason:
while the proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Chester Plan which suggests the
property is appropriate for neighborhood mixed use to include residential uses of varying
densities, the proffered conditions do not mitigate the impact on capital facilities, thereby
insuring adequate service levels are maintained and protecting the health, safety and
welfare of County citizens.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY
PROFFER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE
AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY
A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A
"CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
The Owner-Applicant in this zoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia
(1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for itself and its
successors or assigns, proffers that the development of the property known as Chesterfield
County Tax ID 787-657-6225 from A to C-3 with a CUPD to permit bulk exceptions, and
subject to the conditions and provisions as set forth below; however, in the event the request is
denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the Applicant, these proffers and conditions
shall be immediately null and void and of no further force or effect.
1. Except as stated herein, the Textual Statement dated June 9, 2008 shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. Except for the timbering approved by the Virginia State Department of Forestry
for the purpose of removing dead or diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on
the Property until a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the
Environmental Engineering Department and the approved devices have been
installed. (EE)
3 . Direct vehicular access to Chester Village Drive will be restricted to one (1)
T
entrance exit. ( )
4. There shall be no direct vehicular access from the property to the proposed North-
South Arterial adj acent to the property. (T)
5. Trail Easement and Design. The applicant, subdivider or assignee(s) (the
"Applicant") shall dedicate a trail easement a minimum of thirty (30) feet wide,
parallel to and for the entire length of the western property line, to the County, in
conjunction with site plan approval. The exact location, width and design shall be
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department at the time of Site Plan review.
Said easement shall be permitted to be located within any setback and/or buffer
required by the County. Said easement shall not increase the size of any required
setback and/or buffer.
The Applicant shall construct a ten (10) foot wide trail consisting of a minimum
six (6) inch depth of #21 A stone over a compacted sub base with grading and
seeding of four (4) foot wide shoulders. The exact design and location shall be
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department at the time of Site Plan review.
(P&R)
2 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
6. Cash Proffers.
A. For all dwelling units initially constructed with more than one (1)
bedroom the applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following
to the County of Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a building permit for
infrastructure improvements within the service district for the property:
1. $14,998.00 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1, 2009; or
2. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$14,998.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any increase in
the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2008
and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid
after June 30, 2009. At the time of payment, the $14,998.00 will
be allocated pro-rata among the facility costs as follows: $348 for
library facilities, $8,915 for roads, $5,331.00 for schools, and $404
for fire stations. Payments in excess of $14,998.00 shall be
prorated as set forth above.
B. For all dwelling units initially constructed with one (1) bedroom the
applicant, sub- divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County
of Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a building permit for infrastructure
improvements within the service district for the property:
1. $9,667.00 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1, 2009; or
2. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$9,667.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2008 and
July 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after
June 30, 2009. At the time of payment, the $9,667.00 will be
allocated pro-rata among the facility costs as follows: $348 for
library facilities, $8,915 for roads, and $404 for fire stations.
Payments in excess of $9,667.00 shall be prorated as set forth
above.
C. Building plans submitted for building permits shall designate the number
of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.
D. Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes proffered or as
otherwise permitted by law.
E. Should Chesterfield County impose impact fees at any time during the life
of the development that are applicable to the property, the amount paid in
cash proffers shall be in lieu of or credited toward, but not in addition to,
any impact fees, in a manner as determined by the County. If Chesterfield
3 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
should adopt a "workforce" or "affordable" housing program which
eliminates or permits a reduced cash proffer, the cash proffer for any
dwelling unit on the Property that is designated as "workforce" or
"affordable" housing, that meets all the requirements of the adopted
"workforce" or "affordable" housing program, and for which a cash
proffer has not yet been paid shall be adjusted to be consistent with the
approved "workforce" or "affordable" housing program. (B&M and BI)
GENERAL INFORMATION
T ,ncati nn
North line of Chester Village Drive, across from Village Creek Drive. Tax ID 787-657-
6225.
Existing Zoning:
A
Size:
5.0 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North and West - A; Single-family residential or public/semi-public (Chester Linear
Park)
South and East - C-3 with Conditional Use Planned Development single and multi-
family residential
T TTTT .TTTF C
Public Water System:
The request site is within the Chester Water Pressure Zone. There is a twelve (12) inch
water line extending along the north side of Chester Village Drive that terminates
adjacent to the eastern boundary of the request site, opposite Village Creek Drive. In
addition, there is an eight (8) inch water line extending along the west side of Womack
Road, approximately 220 feet west of this site. Use of the public water system is required
by County Code.
4 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
To meet the requirement for an additional feed as specified by Utilities Department Design
Specification DS-21, extension of a twelve (12) inch water line along Chester Village Drive
from Village Creek Drive to Womack Road will be required with development of the
request site.
Public Wastewater S,, sue:
The request site is within the Ashton Creek Sewer Service Area. The public wastewater
system currently serves the existing Chester Village Apartments. An eight (8) inch
wastewater collector line terminates adjacent to the eastern boundary of the request site.
Use of the public wastewater system is required by County Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
The subject property drains to the east through Chester Village Apartments and then via
tributaries to Great Branch. There are no existing or anticipated on- or off site drainage
or erosion pro ems.
The property is currently wooded and should not be timbered without obtaining a land
disturbance permit from the Department of Environmental Engineering (Proffered
Condition 2). This will insure that adequate erosion control measures are in place prior to
any land disturbance.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for schools, parks, libraries, fire stations and transportation facilities is identified in the
Public Facilities Plan, Thoroughfare Plan and Capital Improvement Program and further detailed
by specific departments in the applicable sections of this Request Analysis.
Fire ~Prvi~P~
The Public Facilities Plan indicates that fire and emergency medical service (EMS) calls
are expected to increase forty-four (44) to seventy-eight (78) percent by 2022. Six (6)
new fire/rescue stations are recommended for construction by 2022 in the Plan. In
addition to six (6) new stations, the Plan also recommends the expansion of five (5)
existing stations.
The Chester Fire Station, Company Number 1, currently provides fire protection and
emergency medical service. Based on sixty-five (65) dwelling units, this request will
generate approximately eighteen (18) calls for fire and emergency medical service each
year. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the impact of this
development on fire and EMS facilities. (Proffered Condition 5)
5 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
when the property is developed, the number of hydrants, quantity of water needed for
fire protection, and access requirements will be evaluated during the plans review
process. It should be noted, Fire Administration supports County Code requirements of
two (2) public road accesses for developments with greater than fifty (50) dwelling units.
Sch~~ls:
Approximately thirty-two (32) (Elementary: 14, Middle: 7, High: 11) students will be
generated by this request. This site lies in the Ecoff Elementary School attendance zone:
capacity - 782, enrollment - 754; Chester Middle School zone: capacity - 887, enrollment
- 711; and Thomas Dale High School zone: capacity - 1,840, enrollment - 2,432. The
enrollment is based on September 30, 2008 and the capacity is as of 2008-2009.
This request will have an impact at high school level. There are currently four (4) trailers
at Ecoff Elementary, four (4) trailers at Chester Middle and thirteen (13) trailers at
Thomas Dale High.
This case combined with other tentative residential developments and zoning cases in the
area, would continue to push these schools to capacity. This case could necessitate some
form of relief in the future. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the
impact of this development on schools facilities. (Proffered Condition 5)
T,ihrarie~~
Consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policy, the impact of development on library
services is assessed countywide. Based on projected population growth, the Public
Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library space throughout the County.
The development noted in this case would most likely affect the Chester Library. The
Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library space in the Chester service
area. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the impact of this
development on library facilities. (Proffered Condition 5)
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for three (3) regional, seven (7) community
and twenty-nine (29) neighborhood parks by 2020. In addition, there is a shortage of
community and neighborhood park acreage in the county. The Public Facilities Plan
identifies a need for 3 54 acres of regional park space, 252 acres of community park space
and 199 acres of neighborhood park space by 2020. The Plan also identifies the need for
linear parks and resource based-special purpose parks (historical, cultural and
environmental) and makes suggestions for their locations. It also addresses the need for
addition of recreational facilities to include sports fields, trails, playgrounds, court games,
senior centers and picnicking area/shelters at existing parks to complete build -out and
identifies the need for water access and trails along the James and Appomattox Rivers
6 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
and their major tributaries, Swift and Falling Creeks. Co-location with middle and
elementary schools is desired.
The applicant has offered to dedicate an easement and construct a trail along the western
property line in lieu of cash proffers to address the impact of this development on parks
and recreation facilities (Proffered Condition 5). With this provision, the applicant has
offered measures to assist in addressing the impact of the proposed development on parks
and recreation facilities. Current calculations indicate the value of the trail does not fully
mitigate the impact on park facilities.
Transportation:
The subject property, five (5) acres, is located on the north side of Chester Village Drive
adjacent to a proposed north/south arterial (the "North/South Parkway") as identified on
the Thoroughfare Plan. The applicant is requesting to rezone from Agricultural (A) to
Community Business (C-3) with a Conditional Use to permit multifamily use. The
Transportation Department cannot support this request because the applicant has not
addressed the traffic impact of the development per the Board of Supervisors' Cash
Proffer Policy.
Based on the proposed maximum density outlined in the Textual Statement and trip
generation rates for apartments, development of the property could generate
approximately 450 average daily trips (ADT). These vehicles will be distributed through
the Chester Village development to West Hundred Road (Route 10), which had a 2006
traffic count of 31,058 vehicles per day between Chester Road and Harrowgate Road.
Based on the volume of traffic during peak hours, Route 10 accommodates (Level of
Service D) the volume of traffic it currently carries.
In September 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning request (Case
06SN0244, Branner Station) consisting of approximately 1,615 acres for a mixed use
project. With that zoning approval, the Board accepted proffered conditions relative to
transportation that, among other things, require the Branner Station developer to
construct a four (4) lane divided road, the North/South Parkway, which is located along
the western boundary of the subject property.
Access to major arterials, such as the proposed North/South Parkway, should be
controlled to minimize conflict points and help maintain acceptable levels of service.
The applicant has proffered that no direct vehicular access will be provided from the
property to the North/South Parkway. (Proffered Condition 4)
Area roads need to be improved to address safety and accommodate the increase in traffic
generated by this proposed residential development. The applicant has proffered to
contribute some money towards mitigating the traffic impact of the proposed residential
development; however, the amount is not consistent with the Board of Supervisors' Cash
Proffer Policy (Proffered Condition 6). As development continues in this part of the
county, traffic volumes on area roads will substantially increase. Cash proffers alone will
7 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
not cover the costs of the improvements needed to accommodate the traffic increases.
There are no projects in this area currently included in the Six-Year Improvement
Pro ram.
VDOT's "Chapter 527" regulations, dealing with development Traffic Impact Study
requirements, have been enacted. Staff has been meeting with VDOT to attempt to
understand the impact of the regulations. At this time, it is uncertain what impact
VDOT's regulations will have on the development process or upon zonings approved by
the county. The applicant has indicated that this request does not warrant a Chapter 527
Traffic Impact Analysis.
As stated earlier, without the applicant fully addressing the traffic impact of the
residential development, the Transportation Department cannot support this request.
Financial Impact on Cabital Facilities:
Per Dwelling Unit
Potential Number of New Dwelling
Units 65.00 1.00
Population Increase 174.85 2.69
Number of New Students
Elementary 14.3 0 0.22
Middle 7.15 0.11
High 10.40 0.16
TOTAL 31.85 0.49
Net Cost for Schools $529,620 $8,148
Net Cost for Parks 73,450 1,130
Net Cost for Libraries 16,510 254
Net Cost for Fire Stations 36,140 556
Average Net Cost for Roads 901,615 13,871
TOTAL NET COST $1,557,335 $23,959
~ Based on a proposed maximum of sixty-five (65) (Textual Statement, F). The actual number of
dwellings and corresponding impact may vary.
As noted, this proposed development would have an impact on capital facilities. At the time this
rezoning application was submitted, the calculated fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on
schools, roads, parks, libraries, and fire stations was $15,648 per unit. Effective July 1, 2008 the
maximum per-dwelling-unit cash proffer was increased to $18,080. The applicant has been
advised that a maximum cash proffer of $18,080 per unit would defray the cost of the capital
facilities necessitated by this proposed development.
8 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
The applicant has offered cash in the amount of $14,998 per unit for units initially constructed
with more than one (1) bedroom to address the development's impact on schools, roads,
libraries, and fire stations. The applicant has further proffered $9,667 for each unit initially
constructed with one (1) bedroom to address the impact of those units on roads, libraries, and fire
stations (Proffered Condition 6). The applicant has also proffered to dedicate an easement and
construct a trail to address the development's impact on park facilities (Proffered Condition 5).
The cash and improvements proffered in this case do not adequately address the impact of this
development on any of the capital facilities categories. Consequently, the county's ability to
provide adequate facilities for its citizens will be adversely affected.
Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been reviewed
and it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maximum cash proffer in this case.
Staff recommends the applicant fully address the impact of this development on capital facilities.
The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, through their consideration of this
request, may determine that there are unique circumstances relative to this request that may
justify acceptance of proffers as offered for this case.
Police Department:
The applicant is proposing to build ahigh-density residential project. With the support of
the County Administration, the Police Department seeks to have developers of new high-
density residential projects implement its recommendations for Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (OPTED) which are planning and designing principles
that constitute proactive crime prevention tools. Through OPTED principles, proper
design and effective use of the environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and
incidence of crime. At time of site plan review, the Police Department will work with the
developer to implement OPTED principles.
T , ANn T IMF.
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Chester Plan which suggests the property is appropriate
for neighborhood mixed use uses. The Plan notes higher densities are not precluded,
provided development is designed to add to the village feel and appearance.
Area Development Trends:
Adj acent properties to the north and west are zoned, Agricultural (A) and are occupied by
single-family residential uses and public/semi-public use (Chester Linear Park).
Adjacent property to the south and east was zoned and is being developed as part of the
Chester Village Green Mixed Use Development. The subject property is to be
incorporated into this development. The Plan anticipates development of a mixed use
center in this area.
9 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
Development Standards:
Currently, the request property lies within the Chester Village Core area and is subject to
Village District standards. The Village District development standards are intended to
recognize unique villages within the County and to maintain and reinforce the character,
identity and pedestrian scale by continuing and enhancing existing patterns of
development. Where not addressed in the Textual Statement and proffered conditions,
development of the site must conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which
address, among other standards, access, landscaping, architectural treatment, setbacks,
parking, signs, buffers and utilities.
Dew:
With this proposal, Textual Statement, Item F limits development to a maximum of sixty-
five (65) dwelling units. This would yield a density of thirteen (13) units per acre.
Chester Village Green Apartments was approved at a density of fourteen (14) units per
acre .
Setbacks:
The Zoning Ordinance requires specific setbacks for structures from roads, and property
lines for buildings, drives and parking areas. The applicant is proposing no setbacks for
building along internal roads, interior private driveways, parking areas and streets
(Textual Statement, D). This is consistent with the requirements for the existing Chester
Village Green Apartments.
The proposed "North/South Parkway" adjacent to the western property line is designated
as a maj or arterial. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum ten (l o) foot setback for
buildings, drives and parking from this arterial.
Parking and Driveways:
The Ordinance requires the provision of two (2) off street parking spaces for each
dwelling unit. An exception is requested to allow any on-street parking to be counted
towards the required number of parking spaces (Textual Statement, A). It should be
noted, the Zoning Ordinance allows designated parking spaces in a public right-of way to
be counted towards the required number of parking spaces when more than one-half of
each space adjoins the site. In addition, the required number of parking spaces may be
reduces by ten percent (10%) if the development contains a sidewalk or other pedestrian
walkway system that connects to or may be connected to existing or future walkways. In
view of this, the requested exception may not be necessary.
10 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
Landscapes:
In an effort to create an extension of Chester Village Green Apartments, the applicants
have proffered landscaping consistent with this adjacent apartment complex. (Textual
Statement, B)
Buildin~ghts and Architecture:
Within the Multifamily Residential (R-MF) District, the Ordinance limits the heights of
buildings to three (3) stories or forty (40) feet, whichever is less, and accessory buildings
or structures to half the height of the principal building or twenty-five (25) feet,
whichever is greater. The applicant is proposing dwellings a maximum of four (4) stories
and accessory buildings or structures half the height of the principal building. (Textual
Statement, C)
Also in Textual Statement, Item C, the applicant proposes an architectural style the same
as that of the adjacent Chester Village Green Apartments.
CONCLUSIONS
While the proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Chester Plan which suggests the
property is appropriate for neighborhood mixed use uses, the proffered conditions do not
adequately address the impacts of this development on necessary capital facilities, as outlined in
the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the needs for roads, schools,
parks, libraries and fire stations is identified in the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan
and the Capital Improvement Program, and the impact of this development is discussed herein.
The proffered conditions do not mitigate the impact on capital facilities, thereby insuring
adequate service levels are maintained and protecting the health, safety and welfare of County
citizens.
Given this consideration, denial of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (8/19/08):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to September 16, 2008.
Staff (8/20/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later that August 25, 2008, for consideration at the Commission's
September 16, 2008, public hearing.
11 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
Staff (8/27/08):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (9/16/08):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Hassen noted the application fails to address the impact on capital facilities and the
security concerns expressed by the Police Department.
Dr. Brown also expressed concerns about the lack of the security proffer and proffers that
fully address the impact on capital facilities.
Mr. Waller noted the cash proffer policy needs to be examined with respect to the number
of bedrooms and that the Comprehensive Plan could address this issue.
On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended
enia .
AYES: Messrs. Bass, Brown, Hassen and Waller.
ABSENT: Mr. Gulley.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (10/22/08):
On their own motion, the Board remanded this case to the Planning Commission.
Staff (10/23/08):
The applicant was advised in writing the case would be rescheduled for public hearing
before the Planning Commission once it has been amended or at a time as requested by
the applicant.
Applicant (4/13/09):
The applicant advised there would be no amendments to the case and requested the case
be scheduled for Planning Commission public hearing.
12 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
Planning Commission Meeting (6/22/09):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Hassen expressed concern that the impact on capital facilities had not been fully
addressed.
On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended
enia .
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Brown, Bass, Hassen and Waller.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (7/22/09):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
There was discussion among the Board relative to a deferral of sufficient time to consider
changes to the cash proffer policy; to evaluate in-kind improvements; and to work with
Staff to assess where agreement might be reached.
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their August 26, 2009 public
Baring.
Staff (7/23/09):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than July 27, 2009 for consideration at the Boards August
26, 2009 public hearing.
Staff (7/29/09):
To date, no new information has been received.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
13 08SN0285-AUG26-BOS-RPT
EMERSON-ROPER COMPANIES, LLC
TEXTUAL STATEMENT
June 9, 2008
This is a request for a rezoning from A to C-3 with a Conditional Use to permit RMF and a
Conditional Use Planned Development (CUPD) to permit bulk exceptions to ordinance
standards.
General Requirements and Exceptions.
(A) Parkin.
1. If on-street parking is permitted, those spaces shall be counted towards the
required number of parking spaces for all uses.
2. The Applicant shall provide parking for residential uses based on 2 spaces per
dwelling unit.
(B) Landsca e. Landscaping shall be consistent with the adjacent Chester Village
Apartments property.
(C) Architectural Standards.
1. The maximum height for all buildings shall be four (4) stories. The maximum
height of accessory buildings and structures within all Tracts shall be one-half
(1/2) the height of the principal building.
2. The development shall have the same architectural style as the adjacent
Chester Village Green Apartments.
(D) Setbacks.
All buildings (including accessory structures) along internal roads, interior private
driveways, parking areas and streets shall have zero (0) foot setback requirement
for front, side, corner side, rear, and through lots.
(E) Minimum parcel size. There shall be no minimum parcel size or maximum
density per acre for RMF uses.
(F) Number of dwelling units. The maximum number of dwelling units shall be 65.
(G) Permitted Uses. Permitted uses shall be limited to:
(1) Uses permitted by right or with restriction in the Residential Multi-family
(RMF) District.
(2)Storage units/Garages shall be permitted so long as they are similar to those
storage units/garages located on the adjacent property commonly known as
Chester Village Green Apartments.
1
Y ~"
~~~
^
I
~ ~~ ~
~~ w ~
= c~
~ Q
h J
Q ~ 0
0 ~
` W
Q ~
' ~ 0
v~ ~ ~" ~
~ ~
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y
~ ~ ~ aw
~ ~ jJ
i ~ r ~~ Pl~j~ a ~ z'
• ~ ~ ~ ~S~j~ W vP ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ z ~
~ ~ • U " W ~
~' , N w
1 ~' ~
/ ~ W = W ~ ~
~ V N Q
_ ~ ~~,~, ,
.... M ~
~ ~~
N U S lb~~b1
~0
N - .
J ~ ~~ ~WY
.~
°~ h Q
^
~ 1 ~~
` } i 1e
.~~ ~ ~
Ir_
~ f
~ ~ ~\
[ / ~ ~. _
` ~ ~ r / ~a ~
f / ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ Z \
_` ~
-- ~ i ° ~
Qe ~ ,
1 ~
U
~ ~ ~ / U N
_ ' '
1
J
~ r ~
~ ~
y ~
~~~ ~
~ ~~`~`~G
~~ , ~
o ~
~ r /
0~
~~
o y~,
~~ W
w N.
W
a ~ -
~~
~ ~
w
z cn
a~
a ~'
^ ~ ~ W
O m
^ ~ J
W
M W
o~
V
O
N ~ ~ r,
O N
Z ~
~ o
N
00 ::
O ~~
W
z
r-.~
. ~..i
. ~..i
W
c~
a~
0
0
H
\ a,
Oa,
~'~Q'~ ,
Grp ~ ~\ \
~a\~toa
i~ `~' a
.,
/ ],
L
~)
^L
I..L
U
N
-~
~ ~~
,,
r~r , ~ '''
~ i,~~
~~i~~'~~d ~ pap~^~p a -_- __
u~nos~4~ao U~~~~~
N aan~n
`~,~
o.
0
.,,~~~a//o ~
.c '''•~,,,,'••~a,h~h~
Q
0
U
W ~~ ~
08SN0285-1