AGENDA #9

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: University Mall Redevelopment – Application for Special Use Permit Modification

DATE: February 28, 2000

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from January 19, 2000 regarding the Special Use Permit Modification application for redevelopment of the University Mall. Adoption of Resolutions A, B, C, D or E would approve a Special Use Permit application. Adoption of Resolution F would deny the request.

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 and the Town’s review process, and offers recommendations for Council action.

¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, comments on issues raised during the January 19 Public Hearing, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments.

BACKGROUND

On January 19, 2000, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of an application for Special Use Permit Modification to authorize redevelopment of the University Mall site. The proposal includes the construction of three new commercial buildings on the site, two small additions to the existing mall building, relocation of the community recycling facilities on the site, addition of 45 landscaped islands within the existing parking lot, and incorporation of seven bioretention facilities within the landscape islands.

Questions regarding the application were raised during the Public Hearing, and the Hearing is being reopened tonight to receive staff responses to these questions. We note that, on January 19, the Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties within 1,500 feet of this site.

process

This is an application for a Special Use Permit Modification. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an analysis of this Special Use Permit Modification application, 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; and on January 19 we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings. The Council must make all four of these findings in order to approve a Special Use Permit application:

1) 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;

2) That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;

3) 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

4) 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 January 19 Public Hearing memorandum discussed the four findings as related to this application, including both supporting and opposing evidence for each finding. We have provided the Public Hearing materials as an attachment to this memorandum.

If, after consideration of the evidence presented at the January 19 Public Hearing and additional evidence submitted this evening, the Council decides that it can make the required four findings, the Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit Modification shall then be approved. If the Council decides that sufficient evidence has not been provided to make these findings, then the application must be accordingly denied.

Although the primary purpose of tonight’s meeting is to receive staff and applicant responses to the questions raised during the Public Hearing, we note that further evidence may be submitted this evening.

REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS

Because the University Mall is an existing development and does not comply with a number of the Town’s current zoning regulations, the applicant is requesting that the Council modify the regulations for this development application. Modifications to the following Development Ordinance regulations are requested:

¨ Floor area – to allow a larger amount of floor area on the site than the Ordinance permits.

¨ Outdoor space – to allow a smaller amount of outdoor space than the Ordinance requires.

¨ Livability space – to allow a smaller amount of livability space than the Ordinance requires.

¨ Parking lot shading – to allow a reduced amount of parking lot shading than the 35% Ordinance requirement.

¨ Landscape bufferyards – to allow the existing perimeter landscape bufferyards to satisfy the Ordinance’s buffer regulations.

¨ Construction within the Resource Conservation District – to allow the existing construction within the RCD, and to allow 3,160 square feet of new construction to occur within the RCD.

Subsection 18.7.1 of the Development Ordinance states:

"Where actions, designs, or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accord with applicable special use regulations, general regulations, or other regulations in this Ordinance, but the Council makes a finding in the particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, the Council may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case for Modification of Special Use Permit applications, or in approving a new Special Use Permit for existing development that requires a Special Use Permit."

We believe that in this case the University Mall Redevelopment application may be considered under the provisions of Section 18.7.1 as a Special Use Permit Modification. If the Council believes it is appropriate to apply Section 18.7.1 in this situation, the Council may find that the modifications to the regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree. The Council may alternatively decide that the proposed modifications would not satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree.

We believe that the redevelopment of the University Mall site involves trade-offs. Because the mall was developed prior to the adoption of our current Development Ordinance standards, a number of the site characteristics are not in compliance with today’s standards. Typically, when we receive an application for redevelopment of a site, we would require that the new development bring all of the site characteristics into compliance with our current standards. In this case, the applicant proposes to improve many of the non-complying site characteristics, but does not propose to meet our current standards.

We believe it is desirable for improvements to occur at the University Mall. We believe that the improvements proposed will help maintain the economic viability of the mall, and that the aesthetics of the mall site will be improved.

We believe that public purposes would be satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, by promoting the ongoing economic viability of one of Chapel Hill’s key commercial centers, by the reduction of impervious surfaces on the site, and by the improvement to the stormwater management system. Therefore, we believe that each of these modifications are justified in this case.

KEY ISSUES

We believe that the key issues brought forth during the January 19 Public Hearing were related to bicycle and pedestrian amenities, the parking lot, bioretention facilities, and the recycling center. We have provided a list of individual questions/issues raised during the Hearing, followed by responses from the Town staff, as an attachment to this memorandum.

We note that an adjacent property owner, Binkley Memorial Baptist Church, has requested a one month delay of this Hearing to enable Church representatives to continue working with the applicant (letter attached).

Recommendations

Advisory Board recommendations are summarized below.

Transportation Board’s Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on January 4, 2000 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with adoption of Resolution B.

Planning Board’s Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on January 4, 2000 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with adoption of Resolution C.

Community Design Commission’s Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on December 15, 1999 and voted 10-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with adoption of Resolution D.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on January 11, 2000, amended the Board’s recommendation on February 22, 2000 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with adoption of Resolution E. Resolution E includes stipulations requiring:

1. That secured, covered, illuminated bicycle parking areas distributed around the site be provided to accommodate approximately 180 bicycles (i.e. 10% of parking provided for autos) using Wave-type racks.

2. That signage be placed at all pedestrian crosswalks.

3. That a sidewalk be placed along the northernmost entrance driveway along Willow Drive in order to accommodate pedestrians.

4. That pedestrian walkways be added to each entrance to the site connecting to either the main mall structure or to other walkways in the parking lot areas.

5. That a sidewalk be constructed among the 15-501 frontage, either on University Mall property, or that a payment-in-lieu for construction at a future date be made.

6. That additional pedestrian walkways be added to connect the mall with the new K&W out-building and the Bank out-buildings.

7. That a payment-in-lieu be made to improve the existing crosswalk on Willow Drive with flashing lights.

We note that we have added stipulations to Resolution A requiring pedestrian crossing signs on the mall property, and one bicycle rack (accommodating eight bicycles) at each of the six entrances to the mall building.

Please refer to the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.

Manager’s Revised Recommendation: Based on the information in the record to date, we believe the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit Modification.

We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions. Resolution A includes the following stipulations, which have been added since the January 19 Public Hearing:

¨ A 50% cost-sharing arrangement with the Town for sidewalk construction along the south side of Estes Drive, between the Community Center and Fordham Boulevard to be based on current costs with funds held in an escrow account until such time as the balance of funds is available and construction can begin;

¨ One bicycle rack (accommodating eight bicycles) at each of the six main entrances to the mall;

¨ Pedestrian crossing signs at each mall entrance; and

¨ Authorization to construct pervious pavement if approved by the Town Manager.

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

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

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

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

Adoption of Resolution F would deny the application.

DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS

ISSUE	Res. A Manager’s Revised Recomm.	Res. B Transp. Board Recomm.	Res. C Planning Board Recomm.	Res. D CDC Recomm.	Res. E Bike/Ped. Advisory Bd. Recomm.
Heavy-duty paving along all drive aisles used by transit vehicles	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Relocation of storm drainage pipe, or waiver of Town’s liability for damage	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Relocation of recycling center	No	*	*	Yes	*
Reorientation of Building A	No	*	*	Yes	*
Additional landscaping between Building B and Willow Drive	existing vegetation	*	*	Yes	*
All four sides of new buildings to have enhanced facade	CDC to review elevations	*	*	Yes	*
Non-visible HVAC equipment at new buildings	CDC to review elevations	*	*	Yes	*
Secured, covered, illuminated bicycle parking facilities for 180 bicycles	No (one bike rack at each entrance)	*	*	*	Yes
Pedestrian crossing signs on mall site	Yes	*	*	*	Yes
50% cost-sharing arrangement for sidewalk construction along south side of Estes Drive to be held in an escrow account	Yes	*	*	*	*
Authorization for pervious pavement construction	Yes	*	*	*	*

* Not discussed during this advisory board’s review of the application and, therefore, not included in this resolution.

Attachments

A. List of Issues Raised during the January 19, 2000 Public Hearing (p. 8)

B. Resolution A - Approving the Application (p. 14)

C. Resolution B - Approving the Application (p. 19)

D. Resolution C – Approving the Application (p. 24)

E. Resolution D – Approving the Application (p. 29)

F. Resolution E – Approving the Application (p. 34)

G. Resolution F – Denying the Application (p. 40)

H. Correspondence from Binkley Baptist Church and the applicant (p. 41)

I. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (p. 55)

J. December 3, 1999 Letter from the Willow Terrace Unit Owners Association (p. 56)

K. January 19, 2000 E-mail Letter from Libby Thomas (p. 58)

L. Interim Report on Pedestrian Crossing Improvements on Willow Drive (p. 59)

M. Cahill Associates Report on Porous Bituminous Pavement (begin new page 1)

N. January 19, 2000 Public Hearing Memorandum and related attachments (begin new page 1).

UNIVERSITY MALL

Questions/Issues Raised at the January 19, 2000 Public Hearing

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ISSUES

1. Council members expressed interest in providing a sidewalk and/or greenway facility along the University Mall’s strip of land on the south side of Estes Drive. The strip of land is located between the Community Center and Fordham Boulevard.

Staff Comment: Several issues arose regarding the possible construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Estes Drive. First, a Council member noted the need for a sidewalk beginning at the Estes-Willow intersection, and heading northwest to connect to the Community Center driveway. This area is not part of the University Mall site, but is a corridor of heavy pedestrian activity, including many pedestrians walking to and from University Mall. The Council member suggested that perhaps a partnership could be created between the Town and this developer to install that portion of sidewalk.

A second issue was the need for a sidewalk on the south side of Estes, immediately across the street from the Mall (from the Estes-Willow intersection to Fordham Boulevard). This is an area that is currently included as part of the University Mall Special Use Permit. This area is not as heavily traveled as the portion between Willow Drive and the Community Center. We note that the Town’s adopted Greenways Plan shows a greenway segment along the south side of Estes Drive.

We believe that pedestrian traffic along the south side of Estes Drive makes construction of a sidewalk here reasonable. We believe that some, but not all, of this pedestrian traffic has the Mall as its destination or origin. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to require, as a condition of this expansion of the Mall, a 50% participation by this developer in the cost of a sidewalk along the south side of Estes Drive, from the Community Center east to the edge of the existing University Mall Special Use Permit which terminates at Fordham Boulevard. The Town would contribute the remaining half of the cost of construction as part of its ongoing sidewalk construction program.

We recommend, and have included in Resolution A, the following condition of approval:

“That the University Mall developer shall provide 50% of the cost of construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Estes Drive, between the Chapel Hill Community Center and Fordham Boulevard. The amount of this payment shall be determined by the Town Manager during the Final Plans stage of the development and shall be based on costs at this time, and the payment shall be provided to the Town and placed in an escrow account prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.”

Please refer to the applicant’s materials for further response to this issue.

2. A Council member asked the staff to respond to the recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board regarding this application. The Board recommended that secured, covered, illuminated bicycle parking areas be provided to accommodate 180 bicycles on the site, and that signage be placed at all pedestrian crosswalks.

Staff Comment: Regarding the bicycle parking facilities, we do not believe that it is reasonable to require covered, lighted bike racks for storage of 180 bicycles on this site. We note that the Town Council has not approved a standard for bicycle parking. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board is working on a draft set of standards, and those will be presented to the Council for consideration and possible adoption at a subsequent time. Absent a Council-adopted standard, we are reviewing each development site on a case-by-case basis. In this case, we believe it is reasonable to require that a bike rack (normally holding 8 bicycles) be installed near each of the 6 main entrances to the Mall (excluding the end entrances).

We recommend, and have included in Resolution A, the following condition of approval:

“That one bicycle rack (accommodating eight bicycles) shall be installed near each of the six main entrances to the Mall building.”

Regarding signage at all pedestrian crosswalks within the site, we believe that “Pedestrian Crossing” signage should be installed at each of the entrance doors to the mall, marking the path taken by pedestrians between the parking lot and the Mall’s doors.

We recommend, and have included in Resolution A, the following condition of approval:

“That signage indicating a pedestrian crossing shall be installed at each of the mall entrances, marking the path taken by pedestrians between the parking lot and the Mall’s entrance doors.”

3. Citizens from the neighboring Willow Terrace Condominiums requested an improvement to the safety of pedestrians crossing Willow Drive to reach the mall property. The Council accepted this request as a petition for Town response.

Staff Comment: We submitted an Interim Report on Pedestrian Crossing Improvements on Willow Drive to the Council on February 14, 2000. The interim report suggested that new pedestrian crossing signs be installed (of a high-intensity yellow-green color) at the current crosswalk location, as well as the addition of 12-inch wide longitudinal pavement markings to the crosswalk for added visibility.

Additionally, we intend to schedule a pedestrian study of the Willow Drive area in the spring, when there is more pedestrian activity. This study would include determining whether or not a signalized pedestrian crossing is warranted at the existing mid-block pedestrian crossing.

We have provided the February 14 interim report as an attachment to this memorandum.

4. A Council member asked the staff to identify the pedestrian facilities between Fordham Boulevard and the mall property.

Staff Comment: From Fordham Boulevard, a sidewalk exists on the north side of Estes Drive along the mall property. A sidewalk is also located on the east side of Willow Drive along the mall property.

5. A Council member asked if a pedestrian easement could be established along the mall property’s Fordham Boulevard frontage.

Staff Comment: The NCDOT right-of-way along Fordham Boulevard begins directly behind to the back of the existing parking lot curb on the mall property. A pedestrian easement is, therefore, not feasible along Fordham Boulevard.

6. A Council member asked for the safest existing pedestrian route from Willow Drive into mall site.

Staff Comment: We believe that the safest existing route would be to cross Willow Drive (either at the crosswalk or at one of the two traffic signals), walk along the sidewalk on east side of Willow Drive, then walk down the steps near the Chapel Hill Tire Center.

7. A Council member commented that the pedestrian access from Willow Drive into the mall site should be handicapped accessible.

Staff Comment: Please refer to the applicant’s materials for a response to this issue.

PARKING LOT ISSUES

8. A Council member commented that the parking lot needs more landscaping than is currently proposed. The Council member also asked what type of plantings are proposed along the pedestrian walkways on the mall site.

Staff Comment: Please refer to the applicant’s materials for a response to these issues.

9. A Council member commented that 56 parking spaces should be eliminated from the plans in order to match the Development Ordinance’s parking requirement.

Staff Comment: We note that the Development Ordinance prescribes the minimum number of parking spaces that a development must provide on site. It does not regulate the maximum number of spaces that can be provided. Please refer to the applicant’s materials for a further response to this issue.

10. A Council member commented that he was aware of a technology for porous asphalt, in which the pavement is pervious. He provided a copy of a report on “pervious bituminous pavement” by the environmental consultants, Cahill Associates. The Council member asked the applicant and staff to consider this technology and whether it would be feasible for the University Mall redevelopment.

Staff Comment: We believe that pervious (or “porous”) asphalt or concrete paving could be successfully installed under certain conditions in Chapel Hill and we would encourage developers to submit pervious pavement proposals for staff evaluation.

We note that under most local subsurface soil conditions, only limited groundwater recharge or infiltration benefits can be expected. Due to the low permeability of most of our in situ soils, pervious pavement treatments would require extensive and carefully designed gravel beds and piping systems to collect and transport water from beneath the pervious pavement to discharge locations. Because we would expect only limited infiltration into the natural soils beneath the gravel beds, the associated water quality benefits would be limited unless additional treatment was incorporated at discharge points.

The need for extensive subsurface water collection/transport systems and specialized materials and construction could make pervious paving installations significantly more expensive than standard paving jobs. In addition, specialized maintenance procedures would be necessary to maximize the permeability of the pervious pavements.

We believe that pervious pavement could be used locally, but the cost/benefit ratio may make such installations impractical in many cases.

For action on this development proposal, we recommend that the following language be added to any resolution of approval selected by the Town Council:

“That some or all of the drive aisles, parking spaces, and/or sidewalks may be constructed of pervious pavement if the material, construction, and design are approved by the Town Manager.”

Please also refer to the applicant’s materials for further response to this issue.

BIORETENTION ISSUES

11. A Council member asked how bioretention basins work, and how much stormwater volume they accommodate.

Staff Comment: Please refer to the applicant’s materials for a response to this question.

12. A Council member asked that the Council and interested citizens be shown the Microsoft PowerPoint presentation on bioretention facilities.

Staff Comment: The PowerPoint presentation on bioretention facilities was developed by Prince George County, Marylandand a copy provided to the Town. We have scheduled a presentation for the Town Council on March 6, 2000.

RECYCLING CENTER ISSUES

During the Hearing, citizens from the Ridgefield neighborhood (across Fordham Boulevard from the mall site) raised concerns about the noise generated by the vehicles servicing the community recycling facilities on the mall site. The Council asked the staff to consider the following issues with regard to the recycling facilities.

13. What are the current collection days and times?

Staff Comment: The Town collects old corrugated cardboard (OCC) Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 7am or later; blue rolloffs for cans and bottles on Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 6am or later; and, mixed paper rolloffs on Wednesday at 6am or later.

Newspapers and magazines are hauled at least twice per month by Paper Stock Dealers, Durham, after 8am.

14. Could we consider later collection times?

Staff Comment: Routes begin early to maximize safety and minimize traffic delays and potential conflicts with pedestrians. We estimate the schedule change instituted last year causes the route to take about an hour longer than previously. (The later the hour, the more pedestrian and vehicular traffic is encountered both between sites and around each site.) The potential conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians could be minimized by hiring a second person to ride with the driver and get out as necessary to direct traffic. Each of these measures would increase the public cost of recycling services, but they could be done.

15. What is the amount of noise generated by the service vehicles, and how does this relate to the Town’s noise ordinance?

Staff Comment: The noise caused by local government providing recycling services is not prohibited by the noise ordinance, which is currently under review.

16. Please address the feasibility of providing an engineered sound barrier around the facility.

Staff Comment: Because the activities in question produce noise in more than a single location, and because the area of University Mall includes significant open space and buildings off which sound can bounce, we cannot provide an answer without a detailed study by a noise expert.

17. Is there an alternate location for the recycling facility on the mall site that would cause less disturbance to the surrounding neighbors?

Staff Comment: We do not believe that there is a site on the mall property which would cause less disturbance to the surrounding neighbors.

18. Should we consider relocating the facility away from mall property?

Staff Comment: The Council could stipulate that no recycling site be included on University Mall property. We believe that a recycling center on the University Mall site has considerable community valance.

19. Have other neighborhoods complained about other recycling facilities in Town?

Staff Comment: There have been occasional complaints about noise from the Cedar Falls Park site on Weaver Dairy Road over the twelve years that the site has been in existence.

OTHER ISSUES

20. The Council asked the applicant to meet with the neighboring Binkley Baptist Church representatives to discuss issues related to access to the two properties, shared parking, and the view from church to mall site.

Staff Comment: The applicant has met with the Binkley Baptist Church representatives to discuss these issues. These issues were not resolved. The Church has requested that the process be held open for one month to enable their discussions to continue. Please refer to the correspondence from Church representatives and the applicant’s materials for information regarding the outcome of this meeting.

21. A Council member asked for responses to each of the questions in the December 3, 1999 letter from the Willow Terrace Owners Association.

Staff Comment: The Willow Terrace letter primarily included questions regarding the operations of the new facilities on the mall site. We have, therefore, asked the applicant to respond to these issues. Please refer to the applicant’s materials for responses to these questions.

The letter also raised issues regarding pedestrian safety along Willow Drive. As mentioned earlier, we provided the Council with an interim report on Willow Drive pedestrian safety on February 14, 2000 (attached). We will also conduct a pedestrian study of this area in the spring, when there is more pedestrian activity.

22. A Council member asked to introduce a copy of an e-mail message from Libby Thomas into the record of the University Mall Public Hearing.

Staff Comment: We have included a copy of this e-mail message as an attachment to this memorandum.

RESOLUTION A

(Manager’s Revised Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE UNIVERSITY MALL REDEVELOPMENT

(2000-02-28/R-10a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by JS Architecture, PLLC, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 47, Block A, Lot 8, if developed according to the site plan dated December 7, 1999 and 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 the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, 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 Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications to the regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

1. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance to allow the proposed amount of floor area on the site.

2. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance to allow the proposed amount of outdoor space on the site.

3. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance to allow the proposed amount of livability space on the site.

4. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 of the Development Ordinance to allow the proposed amount of parking lot shading on the site.

5. Modification of Subsection 14.12.6 of the Development Ordinance to allow the proposed perimeter landscape bufferyards.

6. Modification of Article 5 of the Development Ordinance to allow the existing and proposed construction within the Resource Conservation District.

Said public purpose being to promote the ongoing economic viability of one of Chapel Hill’s key commercial centers.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these findings are conditioned on the following:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begin by February 28, 2002 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by February 28, 2005 (five years from the date of Council approval).

2. Land Use Intensity: That this Special Use Permit Modification authorizes construction of three new commercial buildings (for a total of eight buildings) and two small additions to the mall building, for a total of 420,748 square feet of floor area on the site. The Permit also authorizes relocation of the existing community recycling center, incorporation of landscaped islands into the parking lot design, and 1,791 parking spaces.

Required Improvements

3. Willow Drive Entrance: That the following improvements shall be made to the site entrance off Willow Drive, closest to the Binkley Baptist Church property:

¨ The curb radii shall be increased as much as possible within the restraints of existing conditions,

¨ The broken pavement in this area shall be replaced, and

¨ The cracked sidewalk in this area shall be replaced.

4. Drive Aisle: That the drive aisle along the east side of the Harris Teeter building shall be removed, and the adjacent landscaped island shall be expanded to enclose this area.

5. Parking Bay Elimination: That the parking bay near the end of the drive aisle which runs behind the Harris Teeter building shall be eliminated, and the adjacent landscaped island shall be expanded to enclose this area.

6. Landscaped Island Adjustment: That the landscaped island on the west side of the new recycling center shall be shortened enough to accommodate the transit vehicles’ turning movements through this area.

7. Estes Drive Sidewalk Construction: That the University Mall developer shall provide 50% of the cost of construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Estes Drive, between the Chapel Hill Community Center and Fordham Boulevard. The amount of this pavement shall be determined by the Town Manager during the Final Plans stage of the development and shall be based on costs at this time, and the payment shall be provided to the Town and placed in an escrow account prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

8. Pervious Pavement: That some or all of the drive aisles, parking spaces, and/or sidewalks may be constructed of pervious pavement if the material, construction and design are approved by the Town Manager.

9. Bicycle Parking: That one bicycle rack (accommodating eight bicycles) shall be installed near each of the six main entrances to the Mall building.

10. Pedestrian Crossing Signage: That signage indicating a pedestrian crossing shall be installed at each of the mall entrances, marking the path taken by pedestrians between the parking lot and the Mall’s entrance doors.

Stipulations Related to Buffers and Landscaping

11. Landscape Plan Approval: That a detailed Landscape Plan, including landscape maintenance schedule, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

12. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

13. Shade Trees: That the majority of new shade trees on the site shall not be willow oak trees.

14. Retaining Wall and Fence: That the low timber retaining wall adjacent to the Binkley Baptist Church property shall be repaired; and that the existing fence between Building A and Fordham Boulevard shall be repaired or replaced.

Stipulations Related to Fire Safety

15. Fire Sprinkler Systems: That fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in Buildings A and B, and that the Fire Department connections to the systems shall be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

16. Fire Hydrant Spacing: That the spacing between fire hydrants on the site shall not exceed 500 feet.

17. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Solid Waste Management

14. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Plan shall include provisions for cardboard recycling, grease recycling, and measures for managing and minimizing construction debris.

15. Cardboard Recycling: That cardboard recycling capacity shall be provided at the waste area to be constructed behind the Harris Teeter building.

16. Food Waste: That facilities for segregated food waste collection shall be provided at Building A and in the waste area to be constructed behind the Harris Teeter building.

17. Recycling Center: That no demolition or construction shall be allowed in the area of the existing recycling center until such time as the new community recycling center is complete and accepted by the Town.

Stipulations Related to Storm Drainage

22. Storm Drainage Facilities: That the Town Manager shall approve Final Plans for the proposed storm drainage and bioretention facilities.

23. Stormwater Runoff in Recycling Center Area: That the Final Plans for the proposed community recycling center shall indicate that stormwater runoff will not pool in the staging and collection area.

24. Storm Drainage Pipe Relocation: That the storm drainage pipe under the new dumpster pad behind the Harris Teeter building shall be relocated. Alternatively, a note shall be added to the plans indicating that the Town will not be held responsible for any damage that may be caused by service vehicles.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

25. Transportation Management Plan: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the Town Manager shall approve a Transportation Management Plan for the development. The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include:

¨ Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;

¨ Provisions for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;

¨ Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;

¨ Ridesharing incentives; and

¨ Public transit incentives.

The property owner shall include details of this stipulation in the sale or division of property on the site. The owner shall also be required to include language in all tenant agreements, detailing the requirement to cooperate in the annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report.

26. Heavy-Duty Pavement: That the drive aisles used by transit vehicles (as indicated on sheet C1.2 of the approved plans) shall be constructed with heavy-duty pavement.

27. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power Company, Public Service Company, BellSouth and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

28. Community Design Commission: That the Community Design Commission shall approve the building elevations and site lighting plan (including lighting for the community recycling center) prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

29. Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, and landscape plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans shall conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and standards of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual.

30. Erosion Control: That, if necessary, a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer, and that a copy of the approval be provided to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

31. Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

32. Construction Sign Required: That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a telephone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

33. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

34. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the University Mall Redevelopment.

This the 28^th day of February, 2000.

RESOLUTION B

(Transportation Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE UNIVERSITY MALL REDEVELOPMENT

(2000-02-28/R-10b)