AGENDA #1

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

 

SUBJECT:       Public Hearing:  Village Plaza Theater Renovation – Application for Special Use Permit Modification  (File No. 7.46.B.11 & 11B PIN# 9799242361, 9799148584))

 

DATE:             June 21, 2004

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Attached for your consideration is an application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the Village Plaza Theater Renovation.

 

On January 27, 2003, the Town Council approved a Special Use Permit for the Village Plaza Theater Renovation at 141 South Elliott Road. The Special Use Permit approved an expansion of the Plaza Theaters with the approval conditional upon completion of a series of requirements. One of those conditions required the applicant to make improvements to an off-site driveway located on the adjacent Whole Foods Shopping Center property. This Special Use Permit Modification application proposes to amend the January 27, 2003 Special Use Permit and delete a portion of Stipulation #4 referring to the required improvements to this off-site driveway, referred to as Driveway “D.”

 

Another stipulation of the 2003 Special Use Permit required construction of an off-site pedestrian connection to the Booker Creek Greenway. The applicant also proposes, with this modification, to provide a payment in lieu of the construction of the pedestrian connection.

 

The site is located in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district, and Resource Conservation District (RCD), and is identified as Orange County Tax Map 46, Block B, Lots 11 & 11B.  Please refer to Attachment 23 for an Area Map.

 

On January 26, 2004, the Town Council approved expedited processing for review of this Special Use Permit Modification application for the Village Plaza Theater Renovation and indicated intent to focus this Public Hearing on the driveway improvements (Attachment 7).  Specifically the motion:

 

1.                  Authorizes expedited review of said application.

2.                  Schedules a public hearing on the application to be held on March 15, 2004, with consideration of action on March 22, 2004.

3.                  Reduces the normal application fee, in view of the limited issues involved, and limits the fee to cost of notice and production of material.

4.                  Narrows the scope of review to modification of Stipulation #4 only.

 

Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and further to receive evidence which the Council may consider as the Council determines any appropriate conditions to impose upon the proposed development.

 

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

 

·            Cover Memorandum:  Introduces application, describes process for review, summarizes staff and advisory board comments, and offers recommendations for Council action.

·            Attachments:  Includes resolutions of approval and denial, advisory board comments, citizen letters, and the applicant’s materials.

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


PROCESS

 

The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit Modification, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it against Town standards; we have presented a report to the Planning Board, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Greenways Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Community Design Commission, and Transportation Board; and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.

 

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings (description of the findings follows below).  Evidence will be presented tonight.  If, after consideration of the evidence, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit Modification 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.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

 

The Special Use Permit Modification is focused on two stipulations, Stipulation #4 and Stipulation #6 of the approved Resolution A of the January 27, 2003 Special Use Permit. Stipulation #4 requires improvements to Driveways “C” and “D.”  Driveway “D” is not on the applicant’s property but off-site on the adjacent Whole Foods property. Inability to reach agreement with the Whole Foods property owner, Ginn & Company, for driveway improvements has stalled the project. This modification application proposes to delete that portion of Stipulation #4 requiring the widening of Driveway “D,” located off-site on the adjacent Whole Foods property. This modification application proposes to retain the portion of Stipulation #4 requiring widening of Driveway “C,” an on-site driveway, to a 30-foot width for 2 exiting turning lanes and one entering lane. Included in the revised Stipulation #4 is the additional authorization to alter the parking layout to accommodate the lengthening of the internal “throat” of Driveway “C.”

 

Secondly, a modification to Stipulation #6 from the Council approved Resolution A of the January 27, 2003 Special Use Permit is proposed. Stipulation #6 requires a pedestrian greenway connection between the Booker Creek Greenway and the back of the movie theater. The modification would authorize a payment-in-lieu in the case that the easement agreement cannot be reached with the owner of that property with the amount to be approved by the Town Manager.  

 

BACKGROUND

 

The original Special Use Permit application for the Plaza Theaters Expansion was submitted on February 5, 2002 and approved a year later on January 27, 2003.  An application for modification of that permit was submitted a year later in February, 2004.  Following is a chronology of events related to these applications to date:

 

 

 

 

·        January 27, 2003:  The original Special Use Permit was approved for Phase I and Phase II theater expansion. Phase I consisted of demolition of the existing theater and Phase II consisted of the construction of a 10-screen theater with 1,600 seats.  See description below summarizing key issues involved in this approval.  A copy of the adopted resolution is attached (Attachment 5).

 

 

 

 

·        February 9, 2004:  An application for a Special Use Permit Modification was submitted which proposed deleting improvements to Driveway “D” in Stipulation #4 of the original Special Use Permit (Attachment 1).

 

 

 

 

 

      Stipulation #6 required an off-site pedestrian connection to Booker Creek Greenway from the rear of the theater. Agreement from the property owner has not been granted. We understand that a draft of the easement agreement has been submitted to Little and Cloniger Partnership, property owner. The connection consists of a thirty foot wide easement (see Attachment 22). The applicant is proposing a payment-in-lieu for the anticipated construction cost for the connection. 

 

Three key issues were identified during discussion of this application at the original 2002-3 Public Hearings.  The issues and summary of comments follow:

 

1.      Concern about adequacy of parking

 

Issue:  The application proposed fewer parking spaces than would be required by the Land Use Management Ordinance.  The applicant requested that the Council modify regulations for this site to approve a lower number of spaces.  Neighboring merchants objected, citing concerns about adequate parking.

 

      Comment:  Our recommendation in 2003 was that transit and pedestrian improvements proposed by the applicant and the sharing of the parking by retail businesses by day and theater by night provided a reasonable parking program. The Manager recommended that the application be approved with 490 parking spaces.  The Council concluded that the proposed parking would be adequate and approved this proposal, modifying parking regulations for this site. 

 

2.      Location of the box office

 

Issue:  Neighboring merchants asked that the box office be moved away from the Whole Foods site and that the driving lane be designed to route drop-off traffic back towards the Village Plaza parking lot.

 

Comment:  The Council included a requirement in the 2003 approval that the box office be shifted and the driving lane re-aligned, and the applicant agreed.

 

3.      Cross-access easements

 

Issue:  The original application described a series of cooperative arrangements with adjacent property owners, which would result in coordinated access and circulation among several properties.  A recommended stipulation had been that cross-access easements be recorded between the Eastern Federal property and the adjacent Ginn property.  As the Public Hearing process was nearing completion, the applicant reported that discussions between the property owners had broken down and asked that the cross-access requirement be deleted.  The Council agreed to delete the requirement, and approved the Special Use Permit without the requirement.

 

Comment:  Approximately nine months after the application was approved, the applicant approached Town staff to report that an additional stipulation could not be met because of lack of agreement with the adjoining property owner, Mr. Ginn.  This was Stipulation #4, which required the widening of Driveway “D” on the Ginn property.  This was the reason for the filing of the application, seeking a modification to remove the widening requirement.  As Advisory Board review of the modification application began, the applicant reported that another stipulation related to easements had also become problematic.  This was Stipulation #6, which required the construction of a 30-foot connection to a greenway, across another adjacent property owned by Cloninger and Little.   Accordingly, the applicant modified the application to add a request to adjust Stipulation #6 as well. 

 

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

 

We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance.

 

Based on our evaluation, our preliminary recommendation is that the application as submitted, complies with the regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual with the conditions in Resolution A. We believe the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Tonight the Council receives our evaluation, and also receives information submitted by the applicant, adjacent property owners, and other citizens.  The applicant’s materials are included as attachments to this memorandum. All information that is submitted at the hearing will be placed into the record.

 

Based on the evidence that is submitted, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit Modification. The four findings are:

 

Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.  If, after consideration of the evidence, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit Modification 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.

 

KEY ISSUES

 

Based on the review of this development application by Town advisory boards and the Town staff, and the Council limiting the scope of the hearing, we believe that three key issues have been identified. Two issues relate to required off-site improvements and one issue relates to an on-site condition that currently receives criticism. The first issue involves Stipulation #4 in the January 2003 Special Use Permit, Resolution A, requiring the widening of Driveways “C” and “D.” The second issue involves the pedestrian connection to the Booker Creek Linear Park Greenway. The third issue concerns parking.

 

Driveway “D”:  The applicant, Eastern Federal Corp., is requesting that the portion of Stipulation #4 pertaining to Driveway “D”, an off-site driveway, be deleted. Only Driveways “A,” “B,” and “C” are on the Eastern Federal property. Driveways “D,” “E,” and “F” are on the adjacent Whole Foods property.

 

The Town commissioned preparation of a Transportation Impact Study by the firm HNTB. Their analysis reveals that neither Driveway “C” nor Driveway “D” have a Level of Service that fails (Level of Service E and below) if there are no improvements to Driveway “D” and that no roadway improvements are necessary after the theater expansion occurs.    

 

Concurrent with the HNTB study, the adjacent property owner, Ginn & Company, contracted with the firm PBS&J to conduct a Traffic Impact Study for the same driveways along Elliott Road and similar peak hours as conducted by HNTB. A copy of the PBS&J study is attached (Attachment 12).

 

Staff Comment:  Driveways “C” and “D” now have been studied by several traffic engineering firms.  The assumptions made by the two consultants in the preparation of their traffic impact analyses varied with respect to trip distribution to Driveway “D.”  The intersection of Driveway “D” with Elliott Road is an unsignalized intersection, and Level of Service calculation mainly depends on the number of left-turning vehicles from the driveway onto Elliott Road.  Based on the existing conditions of the driveway (such as width and the surrounding parking conditions), HNTB assumed that most of the traffic using this driveway would be making right-turns to Elliott Road, approaching Franklin Street.  It was also assumed that the left-turning vehicles going toward Fordham Boulevard would use the other driveways such as A, B, and C.  Also, the majority of the traffic coming to the theaters is expected to come from Fordham Boulevard.

 

By contrast, the PBS&J analysis assumed that approximately 20 percent of the trips from the theaters would be distributed to Driveway “D,” and assumed that the majority of the trips at this driveway would be making left-turns to Elliott Road.  We do not believe that this assumption reflects the actual traffic and driveway conditions.

 

We believe that assumptions made by the Town Consultant, HNTB, are reasonable and that they accurately reflect driveway conditions, traffic conditions, and driver behavior. 

 

We have prepared an attached Engineering Staff Report that discusses Driveways “C” and “D,” and the three traffic studies (beginning on page 11, immediately following this memorandum).   We conclude that the additional trips generated by the Plaza Theaters’ expansion would not result in the lowering of Level of Service for the Elliott Road driveways serving the Theaters below Level of Service D, and therefore that no driveway improvements are necessary in order to maintain Level of Service D or better.

 

Booker Creek Greenway and the Connection to the Greenway:  The 2003 Special Use Permit approval included a condition (Stipulation #6) requiring that a connection to a nearby greenway be constructed.  The attached maps, Attachments 20, 21, and 22, identify the Booker Creek Greenway and the off-site pedestrian connection.

 

With this Special Use Permit Modification application, the applicant has proposed alternative language for stipulation #6 from the 2003.  Stipulation #6 from the 2003 Special Use Permit required construction of a connection to an existing segment of the Booker Creek Greenway from the back of the movie theater.  This connection would need to be constructed on the Little and Cloniger property which is not a party to this Special Use Permit.  The existing language for Stipulation #6, from the approved Special Use Permit, follows:

 

6.   Pedestrian Connection to Booker Creek Greenway: That the applicant construct a pedestrian connection between the Booker Creek Greenway and the back of the movie theater.  The location and design of this pedestrian connection shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

The condition requires the applicant to construct a pedestrian connection, approximately 30 feet long, between the back of the new movie theater and the existing segment of the Booker Creek Greenway. The applicant has expressed concern because construction of the greenway connection will require an easement conveyance from the adjoining property owner.  We understand that an easement draft has been submitted to the property owner but that an agreement has not been reached. In the case that the easement agreement cannot be reached, the applicant is offering a payment-in-lieu for the greenway connection construction. As proposed, the proposed payment-in-lieu could be used in the general area of the Booker Creek Linear Park and associated greenway and would not necessarily have to be used for construction of the 30-foot connection.  

 

Staff Comment:   When the Special Use Permit was originally submitted in 2002, the applicant stated that cooperation with adjoining property owners was ongoing, and that easements on adjacent properties could be achieved.  It was with this understanding that stipulation #6 was drafted and included as a condition of approval.  It is our understanding now that obtaining easement from an adjacent property owner may not be possible.  In that context, we do not believe that construction of the 30-foot connection across someone else’s property should be required.  Accordingly, Resolution A, the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation, includes  payment-in-lieu as an option.

 

Parking:  At the time of the 2003 approval, existing parking on this site was less than the regulations would require for that existing amount of development, and the application approved by the Council in January, 2003 specifically acknowledged that fact and authorized additional development and additional parking (with the result at build-out still being a number of parking spaces less than the Ordinance would otherwise require).  The parking situation that is proposed at Village Plaza involves sharing parking spaces “between shifts.”   Most existing tenants conduct business during the day. The theater will conduct most of their business during evenings and during the weekend afternoons. Businesses will have customers at different times of day.  The applicant proposes that the primary use of parking during the day will be by retail businesses and at night by the theater. 

The approved Special Use Permit authorizes additional development that would increase the differences between typical parking requirements and parking that would be provided on this site. Parking standards for this development would require 688 parking spaces. The Special Use Permit approved by the Council in 2003 requires 490 parking spaces.

 

Staff Comment: In 2003, the Council concluded that the shared parking arrangements and parking management proposed by Plaza Theaters were acceptable. The applicant’s plans, included in the approved 2003 Special Use Permit, include improvements for pedestrians, bicyclist, bus riders, and car-poolers, along with provisions for counter-cyclical use of parking spaces.  In response to these proposals, the Council agreed to modify parking regulations for this site, to authorize the theater expansion with a total of 490 parking spaces.

 

Given these considerations, we believe that the number of parking spaces proposed by the applicant, and approved by the Council in 2003, is reasonable.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Recommendations are summarized below. Please see summaries of board actions and recommendations in the attachments.

 

Planning Board Recommendation:  On May 18, 2004, the Planning Board voted 6-1 to recommend that the Council approve this application, with the adoption of Resolution A.  Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.

 

Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application June 16, 2004. We will provide the recommendation as soon as it is available.

 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation:  The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on May 25, 2004 and voted 7-0 to approve this application with the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.

 

Greenways Commission Recommendation:  The Greenways Commission met on May 26, 2004 and voted 5-0 to recommend a proposed payment-in-lieu for a trail connection through the Little property with the additional requirement that “The amount of the payment-in-lieu shall be approved by the Town Manager.” This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A.

 

Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation:  The Parks and Recreation Commission met on May 19, 2004 and voted 10-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action.

 

Transportation Board Recommendation:  The Transportation Board met on June 15, 2004, and voted 4-2 to recommend adoption of Resolution A.  Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.

 

Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation:  Based on our evaluation of the application, our preliminary conclusion is that, with the stipulations in Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

 

Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.  If the Council makes the required findings for approval of a Special Use Permit, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A.

 

Resolution B would deny the application.

 

 

 

ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT

 

 

SUBJECT:       Village Plaza Traffic Impact Statements

DATE:             June 21, 2004

 

 

Discussion has been ongoing regarding a proposal by Plaza Theaters to expand from five screens to ten screens.  An initial Special Use Permit was submitted and approved in 2002-3, and an application for Modification of that Special Use Permit is currently under consideration. 

 

A key point of discussion has been projected traffic impacts and the operation of driveway intersections that are located along Elliott Road.  Particular attention has been focused on two driveway intersections, identified as Driveway “C” (most immediately in front of the theaters) and Driveway “D” (adjacent to the existing Red Hot & Blue Restaurant). 

 

The Town initially commissioned preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis as part of the original Special Use Permit application.  That analysis was prepared by the consulting firm RS&H.  As the application for a modification of that Special Use Permit was being prepared, the Town commissioned a second, updated Traffic Impact Analysis.  This study was prepared by the consulting firm HNTB.  Simultaneously, as the HNTB study was being prepared, owners of the adjacent property commissioned a third study, prepared by the firm PBS&J. 

 

The results from the most recent Town-commissioned study, by HNTB, conclude that with deletion of improvements to Driveway “D,” neither Driveway “C” nor Driveway “D” have a Level of Service that fails (Level of Service E and below) and that no roadway improvements are necessary after the theater expansion occurs.    Please refer to Attachments 3 and 4.

 

Concurrent with the HNTB study, the adjacent property owner, Ginn & Company, contracted with the firm PBS&J to conduct a Traffic Impact Study for the same driveways along Elliott Road and similar peak hours as conducted by HNTB. A copy of the PBS&J study is attached (Attachment 12).

 

The assumptions made by the two consultants in the preparation of their traffic impact analyses varied with respect to trip distribution to Driveway D.  The intersection of Driveway D with Elliott Road is an unsignalized intersection, and Level of Service calculation mainly depends on the number of left-turning vehicles from the driveway onto Elliott Road.  Based on the existing conditions of the driveway (such as width and the surrounding parking conditions), HNTB assumed that most of the traffic using this driveway would be making right-turns to Elliott Road, approaching Franklin Street.  It was also assumed that the left-turning vehicles going toward Fordham Boulevard would use the other driveways such as A, B, and C.  Also, the majority of the traffic coming to the theaters is expected to come from Fordham Boulevard.

 

By contrast, the PBS&J analysis assumed that approximately 20 percent of the trips from the theaters would be distributed to Driveway “D,” and assumed that the majority of the trips at this driveway would be making left-turns to Elliott Road.  We do not believe that this assumption reflects the actual traffic and driveway conditions.

 

We believe that assumptions made by the Town Consultant, HNTB, are reasonable and that they accurately reflect driveway conditions, traffic conditions, and driver behavior.

 

The PBS&J analysis for Driveway “D” indicates Level of Service D for the build conditions.   This Level of Service is acceptable for an unsignalized intersection in Chapel Hill.

 

Accordingly, we conclude that the additional trips generated by the Plaza Theaters’ expansion would not result in the lowering of Level of Service for the Elliott Road driveways serving the Theaters below Level of Service D, and therefore that no driveway improvements are necessary in order to maintain Level of Service D or better.

 

 

                                                                                        

RESOLUTION A

(Approving the Application)

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE VILLAGE PLAZA THEATER RENOVATION

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Eastern Federal and Triangle V II L.P., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 46, Block B, Lot 11 and 11B (PIN 9799-24-2361 and 9799-14-8584), if developed according to the conditions listed below, would:

 

1.         Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

 

2.         Comply with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;

 

3.         Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and

 

4.         Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit Modification for the Village Plaza property in accordance with the condition listed below:

 

  1. That the Special Use Permit approved by the Town Council on January 27, 2003 be modified to amend stipulation #4 to read as follows:

 

 

      The applicant is authorized to adjust the internal parking lot layout at      Driveway “C” to lengthen the internal driveway “throat.”  If parking          lot layout changes are proposed, the Town Manager shall review and approve the layout prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance            Permit.

 

  1. That the Special Use Permit approved by the Town Council on January 27, 2003 be modified to amend stipulation #6 to read as follows:

 

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the Village Plaza Theater Renovation property in accordance with the condition listed above. 

This the              day of                                    , 2004.

 

 

 

RESOLUTION B

(Denying the Application)

 

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE VILLAGE PLAZA THEATER RENOVATION

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Eastern Federal Corporation and Triangle V II L.P. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 46, Block B, Lot 11 and 11B (PIN 9799-24-2361 and 9799-14-8584), if developed according to the conditions listed below, would not:

 

1.         Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

 

2.         Comply with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;

 

3.         Be 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

 

4.         Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds:

 

 

(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)

 

 

BE IT FURTHR RESOLVED that the Council hereby denies the application for a Special Use Permit for Village Plaza Theater Renovations.

 

This the           day of                          , 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.      Special Use Permit Modification Application and Statement of Justification (p. 17).

2.      Revised Statement of Justification (p. 22).

3.      HNTB Traffic Impact Amendment – Executive Summary (May) (p. 24).

4.      HNTB Traffic Impact Study Amendment (May) (p. 33).

5.      Copy of the January 27, 2003 Adopted Resolution (p. 135).

6.      Staff Report from original Special Use Permit application (p. 145).

7.      Resolution granting expedited processing for the Special Use Permit Modification (January 26, 2004) (p. 163).

8.      Petition from Michael Ortiz opposing expedited processing (p. 164).

9.      February 20, 2004 letter from Michael Ortiz (p. 165).

10.  May 14, 2004 Letter from Michael Ortiz – TIA Response (p. 170).

11.  May 24, 2004 Letter from Craig Scheffler, PE – TIA Response (p. 172).

12.  PBS&J Reassesment of Traffic, Parking, and Circulation Impacts of Proposed Village Plaza Theater Redevelopment (p. 175). Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

13.  Summary of Action – Planning Board (p. 491).

14.  Summary of Action Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission (p. 492).

15.  Summary of Action – Greenways commission (p. 493).

16.  Summary of Action – Bicycle and Pedestrian Board (p. 494).

17.  Summary of Action – Transportation Board (p. 495).

18.  Summary of Town Council Concept Plan Review (p. 496).

19.  Summary of Community Design Commission Concept Plan Proposal (p. 503).

20.  Proposed Sidewalk and Greenway Improvements in the Vicinity of Village Plaza (p. 504).

21.  Proposed Greenway Extension Exhibit (p. 505).

22.  Pedestrian Connection to Greenway Location Map (p. 506).

23.  Area Map and Site Map (p. 507).