MEMORANDUM

TO:

Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

FROM:

J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director

Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator

DATE:

January 8, 2007

SUBJECT:

The Residences at Chapel Hill North – Request for Partial Revocation of the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit and Application for a Phase II Special Use Permit (PIN 9880-36-1885)

INTRODUCTION

Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from October 18, 2006, regarding 1) a request for a partial revocation of the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit and 2) an application for a Phase II Special Use Permit. The proposed multi-family planned development would consist of 10 buildings containing 123 dwelling units and 238 parking spaces, including a clubhouse and garages, on an approximately 13-acre site. The site is located in the northeast portion of the Chapel Hill North Shopping Center, off of Perkins Drive. The site is located in the Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) zoning district. The site is also identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9880-36-1885.

RECOMMENDATION

Prior to approval of the Chapel Hill North Phase II Special Use Permit application, we recommend that the Council approve the request for a Partial Revocation of the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution A. This action and the enactment of the accompanying Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment are required prior to adoption of the application for the Chapel Hill North Phase II Special Use Permit. Please refer to the Key Issues section of the memorandum and the accompanying text amendment application for additional information on this matter.

Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit application. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution B, approving the application.

This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:

Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal, discusses key issues raised at the October 18, 2006 Public Hearing, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and offers recommendations for Council action and includes resolutions of approval and denial.
Attachments: Includes the October 18, 2006 Special Use Permit memorandum.

KEY ISSUES

The following key issues were raised during the October 18, 2006 Public Hearing:

Vehicular Right-Of-Way Connecting Perkins Drive and Old University Station Road: During the October 18, 2006 Public Hearing, Council Members requested that the applicant provide a public right-of-way traversing east/west through the site, connecting Perkins Drive and Old University Station Road.

Comment: The applicant has provided a revised site plan with a proposed 30-foot wide right-of-way, including travel lanes and curb and gutter that connects Perkins Drive with Old University Station Road. The parking along the connecting road has been reconfigured with fewer 45 degree parking spaces. Please see revised plans, Sheet 5 (Attachment 2). We have included a stipulation in Revised Resolution B that will require the public road connection.

Affordable Housing: A Council Member requested information about the proposed affordable housing including specific information about where the affordable units would be located.

Comment: The applicant has made an affordable housing proposal that is attached (Attachment 3). A list of those concerns, as related to the applicant’s proposal include:

We have identified several concerns regarding the applicant’s Affordable Housing Proposal:

That the percentage of affordable units should be no less than 15% (the applicant proposes to round down);
That the income eligibility threshold for renters be less that for property owners. We believe that in order to make rental units affordable the income requirements should be something less than 80% of the median income for the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill MSA (possibly between 65% and 75%);
That condominium fees should be factored into the affordability of units and monthly mortgages if the rental units are sold in the future; and
That provisions are made for the applicant to provide annual reports with data to track the efficacy of the Affordable Housing Program.

We have several areas of concern regarding the applicant’s proposal. We believe that the staff recommendation requiring the applicant to receive Town Manager approval of an Affordable Housing Plan, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, is preferable to the current applicant’s proposal. It permits staff to study an affordable housing proposal with guidance from the Town Attorney, Town staff, and local affordable housing specialists.

If the Council chooses to rely on the Town Attorney and the staff to approve the details of an Affordable Housing Plan prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, we would incorporate the recommended changes identified above.

Transportation Impact: A Council Member requested that the Council begin the conversation about how the cumulative development and transportation impacts on neighborhoods near Chapel Hill North might be managed.

Comment: At their October 17, 2006 meeting, the Planning Board made a recommendation to the Town Council that the Council initiate a traffic study or the like, to determine the combined effects of proposed development in the Northwest Area of Town (Attachment 5).

Town staff is drafting an agenda item, in response to a citizen petition, which will go before the Council on January 22, detailing current planning efforts to address transportation issues, including bike and pedestrian initiatives, in the northwest portion of Chapel Hill. There are several initiatives currently underway in this area. These include the NC 86/Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard pedestrian safety implementation plan and the Active Living By Design Timberlyne neighborhood pedestrian mobility assessment. In addition it is anticipated that the North Carolina Department of Transportation project to provide sidewalks, bike lanes and pedestrian crossing improvements along Weaver Dairy Road will be initiated in 2011.

Proposed Stormwater Pond: A Council Member inquired about the potential for managing stormwater collectively between the Harris Teeter and Crosland sites, rather than having two stormwater ponds adjacent to each other.

Comment: The applicant has provided a response to the Council inquiry regarding stormwater management on the site (Attachment 4). The applicant argues against providing one enlarged basin rather than two adjacent basins. The principal reasons given for their conclusion are that 1) the depth to bedrock in the existing basin may be inadequate to accommodate the additional volume required to properly treat the new stormwater runoff, 2) the design standards for stormwater treatment were different when the original pond was built than that required for the current development, and 3) expanding and reconstructing the existing pond onto the subject site would have significant engineering problems. An additional complicating factor that the applicant failed to note is that the adjacent basin is on a separate property thereby requiring an offsite stormwater management and construction agreement with the neighboring property owner. We agree with the applicant that in this case a single basin solution for managing stormwater would be problematic. Revised Resolution B, the staff recommended resolution, continues to allow the two adjacent basins.

Master Land Use Plan: A Council Member requested information about the Master Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill North. The Council Member inquired about how a Master Land Use Plan is defined in the Land Use Management Ordinance. The Council Member also asked what a “rebuttable presumption” means in relation to the right to develop under an approved Master Land Use Plan and proposed Special Use Permit.

Comment: A Master Land Use Plan is defined as a conceptual plan that illustrates and defines land uses for development tracts of 20 acres or more. General vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns are identified and indicated on Master Land Use Plans. Once a Master Land Use Plan has been approved for a property, no further development approval can be granted unless it is consistent with the Master Plan or the Master Land Use Plan is modified.

With Council approval of a conceptual Master Land Use Plan, if a Special Use Permit application associated with a Master Land Use Plan is found to be consistent with the Master Plan, a “rebuttable presumption[1]” is established that three of the four findings required for approval of a Special Use Permit have already been made (#1, 3 and 4 below). The Council must only make the finding that the proposed development complies with all applicable sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance (#2 below).

That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this Chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;
That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity; and
That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this Chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.

The establishment of rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of evidence, concerning findings 1, 3 and 4 to those opposed to approval of the permit.

The Master Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill North was approved by Council January 23, 1990 (Part of Attachment 14). The proposed Phase II Special Use Permit must be found to be consistent with the Master Land Use Plan in order to be approved.

This application has an accompanying Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment that proposes to expand the mix of uses permitted in the underlying Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) zoning district and therefore does not require a Modification of the Master Land Use Plan.

We believe that the residential proposal is consistent with the conceptual master plan from 1990 with the expanded mix of uses permitted in the zoning district.

Revised Traffic Impact Statement Summary: Council Members requested additional information about the revised Traffic Impact Analysis and its implications for the current development proposal.

Comment: The Traffic Impact Analysis was revised at the request of Town staff, because the original analysis was based on a build date of 2007. The build date in the new analysis is 2009. Please refer to the revised Executive Summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis, a staff overview, as well as North Carolina Department of Transportation recommendations (Attachments 11 and 12).

Related to the revised Traffic Impact Analysis is the issue of traffic stacking on Perkins Drive at the intersection of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. The current configuration at this intersection is three lanes, 1) one inbound lane from Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, 2) one left-turn lane into Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard from Perkins Drive, and 3) one right-turn lane into Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard from Perkins Drive. There is an existing tendency for traffic to stack in the single left-turn lane on Perkins Drive back to the entrance to the Harris Teeter shopping center on the north side of Perkins Drive. The proposed development will exacerbate that problem. We are recommending that the applicant convert the existing right-turn only lane from Perkins Drive into Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard to a right/left turn lane with new turn arrows. We believe this will mitigate the problem somewhat but will probably not prevent the stacking problem entirely.

As regards traffic impacts, the Master Land Use Plan for the Chapel Hill North site had approved office use on the site where the Residences at Chapel Hill North is being proposed. We believe the previously approved office use, rather than the proposed residential use, would be expected to generate more traffic.

The preferable solution would be for the applicant to obtain right-of-way and an additional left turn lane from Perkins Drive into Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. This solution is not possible as the property south of Perkins Drive does not belong to the applicant. We recommend that any future development to the south of Perkins Drive be required to include right-of-way dedication as part of their proposal.

Pedestrian Connections: A Council Member requested that the network of existing and proposed pedestrian connections between The Residences at Chapel Hill North and the retail portion of adjacent sites be shown, as well as where new traffic signals would be located.

Comment: We have provided a graphic that indicates the existing, proposed, and planned future sidewalks (Attachment 13).

Bike and Pedestrian Sensitive Traffic Signals: A Council Member inquired about getting bike sensitive traffic signals and pedestrian crossing signals at the Perkins Drive/Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard intersection.

Comment: Our revised recommendation includes stipulations that address bike sensitive traffic signals and pedestrian signal crossings, including 1) signal retiming, and 2) crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and bicycle activated signal loops at the Perkins Drive/Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard intersection.

Street Lights: A Council Member requested that the proposed street lights be shown on the plans.

Comment: The applicant has indicated that lighting for the existing development is provided by 1) public street lighting and 2) parking lot and sidewalk lighting on the private commercial lots in Chapel Hill North. Also, all public street lighting is on the west/south side of Perkins Drive. Some of the fixtures are shown on the Area Map (Sheet 3) of revised plans. The applicant has also indicated that the proposed development plan does not currently show either public street lighting or parking lot lighting. The applicant anticipates that public street lighting will be on the south side of the proposed public road crossing the site. The exact location of proposed fixtures will be established during Final Plan review and stipulations in Resolution B require that the Community Design Commission and Duke Energy approve lighting plans.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit. If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.

With Council approval of the 1990 Master Land Use Plan, if the Special Use Permit application is found to be consistent with the Master Plan, the burden regarding three of the four findings then shifts to those opposed to approval of the Permit. A “rebuttable presumption” is established that three of the four findings have already been made (#1, 3 and 4 below). The Council must only make the findings that the proposed development is consistent with the Master Land Use Plan and complies with all applicable sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance (#2 below). Please also refer to the Key Issues Section for additional information.

Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the two findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.

Finding #1: Master Land Use Plan Consistency Finding.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support: We believe that with the accompanying text amendments to Subsections 3.5.1(e)(2) and 3.5.1(e)(3)(A-E) of the Land Use Management Ordinance, expanding the mix of uses and ratios of uses permitted in the Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) zoning district, the proposed Phase II Special Use Permit application is consistent with the Master Land Use Plan, approved January 23, 1990 (Part of Attachment 14).

Evidence in opposition: We have received several letters from neighbors concerned about traffic impacts and pedestrian connections associated with the proposed development. Please see Attachment 10.

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

Finding #2: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6) and with all other applicable regulations.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (Part of Attachment 14).

We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“Article 6, Special Regulations for Particular Uses establishes regulations for Planned Development Housing developments in Section 6.18. These requirements apply to the proposed development. The proposed development meets these standards. Additional information about these requirements are provided in the following materials that deal with findings specifically applicable to PDH developments” [Applicant’s Statement]

Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the application (Part of Attachment 14).

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2.

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

SUMMARY

We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, our conclusion is that the Council could make the finding necessary in order to approve the application. The staff recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Planning Board, Transportation Board, Community Design Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and Greenways Commission all voted to recommend 1) that the Council enact the ordinance amending the text to Subsections 3.5.1(e)(2) and 3.5.1(e)(3)(A-E) of the Land Use Management Ordinance, expanding the mix of uses and ratios of uses permitted in the Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) zoning district, and 2) to adopt Resolution A to the Council, to partially revoke the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit.

Planning Board: On October 17, 2006, the Planning Board voted 4-3 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution C, with conditions, approving the Phase II Special Use Permit. Please see the Planning Board Summaries of Action (Attachment 5).

Community Design Commission: On November 15, 2006, the Community Design Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Resolution E with conditions. Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission Summary of Action (Attachment 7).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: On November 28, 2006, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution F, with conditions. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (Attachment 8).

Greenways Commission: On October 25, 2006, the Greenways Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution G, with conditions. Please see the attached Greenways Commission Summary of Action (Attachment 9).

Transportation Board: On November 30, 2006, the Transportation Board voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Resolution D with conditions. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action (Attachment 6).

Please refer to the summary chart of the differences among resolutions.

Additional Recommendations Incorporated into the Staff Recommendation, Revised Resolution B:

Following the October 18 Public Hearing, the following recommendations have been incorporated into Resolution B, the Staff Revised Recommendation:

That the applicant shall provide bicycle activated traffic signal loops on Perkins Drive.

Comment: This new recommendation is based on information in the revised Traffic Impact Analysis. See Key Issues Section for additional detail.

That the applicant shall construct a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail traversing the northern portion of the site.

Comment: The Greenways Commission has recommended that the applicant provide a pedestrian trail across the northern portion of the site. We concur.

That the applicant shall deed a 30-foot wide public access easement to the Town, to accommodate the recommended greenway trails, that traverse the northern and southern portions of the site and provide public access to build and maintain trails, as needed, and that the following users be entitled to use the public recreation areas: pedestrians, users of non-motorized vehicles, and motorized wheelchairs. That the property owner shall provide regular trail maintenance.

Comment: This recommendation provides specific language for access and maintenance of the northern and southern pedestrian trails.

That the applicant shall provide a median on Weaver Dairy Road to restrict traffic movements to right-in/right-out access to Perkins Drive.

Comment: This recommendation is based on comments from the revised Traffic Impact Assessment and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. We concur that the recommended median on Weaver Dairy Road would be more effective than our preliminary recommendation for a pork chop at this intersection to limit traffic movements to right-in/right-out.

That the applicant shall provide a striped pedestrian crossing across Perkins Drive, at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road.

Comment: The intent of this recommendation is to provide improved pedestrian connections to the Timberlyne Shopping Center.

That the applicant shall provide a striped pedestrian crossing across Weaver Dairy Road, immediately east of the intersection of Perkins Drive.

Comment: The intent of this recommendation is to provide improved pedestrian connections to the Timberlyne Shopping Center.

That the applicant shall provide a short sidewalk segment around the corner of the northeast quadrant of the intersection of the Perkins Drive/Weaver Dairy Road intersection.

Comment: The intent of this recommendation is to provide improved pedestrian connections to the Timberlyne Shopping Center. We recommend the above sidewalk segment include a pedestrian refuge between the two pedestrian cross walks that will connect the north and south sides of Weaver Dairy Road to provide a pedestrian connection to the Timberlyne Shopping Center, based on the revised Traffic Impact Analysis.

That the applicant shall repaint the right-lane turn arrows on Perkins Drive at the intersection of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard to provide a dual-motion right/left turn lane.

Comment: This recommendation is based on the revised Traffic Impact Assessment. See Key Issues Section.

That if adequate right-of-way is available, the applicant shall provide a 5-foot wide sidewalk, along the eastern side of Perkins Drive, from the entranceway to the site to the southern boundary of the site.

Comment: This recommendation is based on new information.

That the applicant shall provide pavement markings, including arrows and pedestrian crossings, composed of thermoplastic material.

Comment: This recommendation is based on new information and will provide for more durable pavement markings.

The Following Stipulations Were Deleted From Resolution B:

• Vehicular Stub out to East: That the applicant shall provide a vehicular stub-out for a future connection to the property to the east. The stub-out shall be constructed to Town standard with a 27-foot wide cross-section, back of curb to back of curb, and a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the southern side of the driveway. The location and design shall be subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Comment: This recommendation is no longer necessary because the applicant has agreed to provide vehicular right-of-way across the southern portion of the site between Perkins Drive and Old University Station Road.

• ~~Old University Station Road~~ Public Right-Of-Way Dedication: That the applicant shall dedicate a 60-foot wide public right-of-way to the Town on the portion of Old University Drive that crosses the southeast corner of the applicant’s property, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Comment: This recommendation is not necessary as we have learned that public right-of-way already exists on this portion of the applicant’s site.

• Old University Station Road and Sidewalk Extension: That the applicant shall construct a 27-foot wide street cross-section with 30-inch curb and gutter, extending to the existing street, and a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of the street, extending to the existing sidewalk, built to Town Standard, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Comment: This recommendation is no longer necessary because the Old University Station Road public right-of-way would not be connected until future development is proposed in this area.

Staff’s Revised Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our revised conclusion is that, with the stipulations in Revised Resolution B, the Special Use Permit application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the request for a Partial Revocation of the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit with conditions.

We recommend that the Council then adopt Revised Resolution B, approving the Phase II Special Use Permit application with conditions.

Resolution C would approve the application as recommended by the Planning Board.

Resolution D would approve the application as recommended by the Transportation Board.

Resolution E would approve the application as recommended by the Community Design Commission.

Resolution F would approve the application as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

Resolution G would approve the application as recommended by the Greenways Commission.

Resolution H would deny the application.

The Residences at Chapel Hill North - Special Use Permit

Differences Among Resolutions

Issues	Resolution B (Approval) Staff Revised Rec.	Resolution C (Approval) Planning Board Rec.	Resolution D (Approval) Transportation Board Rec.	Resolution E (Approval) Community Design Commission Rec.	Resolution F (Approval) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Rec.	Resolution G (Approval) Greenways Commission Rec.
Provide Bus Service Along Perkins Drive to Serve Development	To Be Determined By Chapel Hill Transit	*	Yes	*	*	*
Provide Right-In/Right Out Drive at Perkins/WD Rd.	Yes	Yes	*	Yes	*	*
Provide Public ROW btwn Perkins & Old University Station Rd.	30-Foot Width	Yes	Yes	45-Foot Width	Yes	Yes
Fencing Around Play Area	Yes	*	*	*	*	Yes
Northern Greenway Trail Connection to Westernmost Access Drive	Yes	*	*	*	*	Yes
Greenway Trail Maintenance	Owner of Chapel Hill North Site & Permitting Periodic Town Maint.	*	*	*	*	Owner of Chapel Hill North Site & Permitting Periodic Town Maint

*Issue not discussed at this particular meeting and is therefore not included in this Resolution. 12/21/06

PROJECT FACT SHEET REQUIREMENTS

Check List of Regulations and Standards

Special Use Permit Application

Residences at Chapel Hill North Shopping Center	Compliance	Non-Compliance
Use Permitted	✓ (With approval of the corresponding Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment)
Min. Gross Land Area	✓
Min. Lot Size	✓
Min. Lot Width	✓
Max. Floor Area	✓ (With approval of the corresponding Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment)
Impervious Surface Limits	✓ High Density Option
Treatment of Stormwater Quality, Volume, and Rate	✓
Min. Recreation Area/Space	✓
Min. # Vehicular Parking Spaces	✓
Min. # Bicycle Parking Spaces	✓ (With conditions)
Max. # Dwelling Units	✓
Min. Street Setback	✓
Min. Interior Setback	✓
Min. Solar Setback	✓
Max. Height Limit	✓
Min. Landscape Buffers	✓ (If alternate buffers approved on southern and western boundaries)
Steep Slopes	✓
Resource Conservation District	NA
100-Year Floodplain and Floodway	NA
Watershed Protection District	NA
Adequate Public Schools Facilities	✓
Section 6.18 (Planned Developments)	✓

NA = Not Applicable Prepared: September 27, 2006

ATTACHMENTS

Revised Project Fact Sheet, Dated December 13, 2006 (p. 49).
Revised Plans, Dated December 20, 2006 (p. 51).

Applicant’s Affordable Housing Proposal, Dated January 3, 2007 (p. 60).
Applicant’s Discussion of Stormwater Ponds, Dated January 3, 2007 (p. 62).
Summaries of Action for October 17, 2006 Planning Board Meeting (p. 63).
Summary of Action for November 30, 2006 Transportation Board Meeting (p. 66).
Summary of Action for November 15, 2006 Community Design Commission Meeting (p. 67).
Summary of Action for November 28, 2006 Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board Meeting (p. 68).
Summary of Action for October 25, 2006 Greenways Commission Meeting (p. 69).
Correspondence from Neighbors (p. 70).
Overview and Executive Summary of Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (p. 79).
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation Recommendations, Dated December 27, 2007 (p. 91).
Pedestrian Facilities, Existing and Proposed, Dated December 2006 (p. 94).
October 18, 2006 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments, (begin new page 1).

[1] The definition of a “rebuttable presumption” is an assumption that is made that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise.